Chee Hong Tat
Singapore
“The National Parks Board (NParks) resumed crow shooting operations in March 2026 across nine districts, including Yishun. These sites were prioritised based on several factors, including the volume and severity of public feedback on crow-related issues, as well as the technical feasibility of conducting shooting operations safely at each…”
“To drive sustainable construction and reduce reliance on conventional diesel generators, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has required the use of battery energy storage systems (BESS) or synchronised generator set systems at Build-to-Order construction worksites for all building tenders called since February 2025.”
“The Housing and Development Board (HDB) tracks resident feedback on maintenance-related issues, including spalling concrete and structural cracks within HDB flats. Such issues are much less common in younger flats, compared to older flats above 30 years old.”
“The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) provides resources on its website to guide building owners and Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) on lift modernisation.”
“Private retail developments sold through the Government Land Sales Programme are intended to complement the commercial offerings in public developments undertaken by agencies, such as the Housing and Development Board.”
“The National Parks Board (NParks) is reviewing both the Animals and Birds Act and the Code of Animal Welfare (COAW). The former will include pet sector businesses and the latter will include and start with pet groomers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,840 lines we hold for Chee Hong Tat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 37.
“Mr Speaker, the public transport fares are set by the Public Transport Council. In October, I shared the fare formula and that was also previously announced, and the different components that made up this fare formula. So, it is a very transparent process. There are some indicators that we look at – what is the national benchmark for wage increases, what is the CPI, what is the energy cost. And, of course, as I mentioned earlier, there is that productivity component to incentivise the operators to want to improve productivity over time. Sir, the second point that Ms Poa raised, I think it goes back to the earlier reply that I gave. You cannot run away from some judgement call if you go down a points system because who would be more deserving? It is really going to be very, very difficult to differentiate. If you use the number of children, for example, I have four children, but I think Ms Poa will agree I should not get additional subsidies or priority just because I have four children. So, there are many, many situations that you look at; it is very difficult to then say how many children as the only yardstick or as the only criterion. So, the way that we think about it is this: how do we help the families through different avenues – not just COE alone, because COE is really more for allocation of a scarce resource – but how do we help different families who may need the car not all the time, but at certain times of the day or certain times of the week. So, one way is to use point-to-point service, and we are doing a review on that; a point-to-point review. I mentioned this yesterday as well. How do we enhance the services for commuters to meet evolving commuter needs?”
“Mr Speaker, I am not sure why Ms Sylvia Lim felt that U-Save rebates are not encouraging people to conserve electricity and water. If we look at it from the recipient's point of view, this is a fixed amount, means-tested. But what they receive is a fixed amount. If they consume a lot, actually, the amount of subsidies they receive is still the same. If they consume less, then actually, the amount of subsidies can help them to sometimes even fully offset the electricity bill or to reduce it substantially. So, the incentive to want to save is still there because it is a fixed amount. It is not embedded in the price, unlike a price subsidy, whereby if I consume more, actually, I do end up getting a higher quantum of subsidies because it is embedded in the price. In our case, we reflect fully the price so as we incentivise the right behaviour to conserve electricity and water, a point that we both agree. That is important. But the way in which we then provide the help is through the U-Save rebates. It does not distort the behaviour. It does not change the incentive to want to conserve, but it provides the help in a means-tested manner to our lower- and middle-income families.”
“So, what we have injected, 35% for Cat A and Cat B, it is actually more than the bidding, the bids that were won by the car-leasing companies for the past few quarters. Of course, I did qualify that I cannot predict how prices will move because that depends on demand, and demand is not within the Government's control. But in terms of planning and injecting, we are doing our best to try and inject as much as we can without affecting the future supply volatility and without affecting short-term congestion on the roads. Sir, I think the point about having a separate category, I also explained this yesterday and also earlier. Allow me to just quickly recap. It is not that it is undoable. But whether you treat it like taxis or you put it as a separate category, that means, different from taxis, the reality is that you still need supply to come from somewhere, right? You cannot just suddenly have new supply magically appear. It has to come from somewhere. And where would that be? It will be Cat A and Cat B. So, if you create a new category, whether you put it together with taxis or you put it separately, you have to move some of the existing supply from Cat A and Cat B to this new category. It is not that it is undoable or unthinkable but it introduces complexities because we run the risk of either over re-allocating or under re-allocating and that would have unintended consequences.”
“Mr Speaker, I did explain earlier in my response that, to do cut-and-fill, we have to also be mindful of the trade-offs because we are effectively borrowing from the future. So, I did hear the suggestion from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Same concept but the Member wants us to do more. And I clarified that it is not that we do not want to do more but there are trade-offs and we need to be careful because, if you borrow too much, you actually may introduce more volatility. Please do not forget that the cars that are being deregistered in future, some of them may want to buy another car. And we are also borrowing from the future. So, you are effectively shifting some of the supply to now before the cars are deregistered. So, you are adding to the short-term congestion. So, yes, we accept those trade-offs and we are willing to do some, but to what extent? There is a balance. But the more important point is that we do not disagree on the method. We both agree that cut-and-fill to reduce the peak and trough is the more effective way. If I may add, Sir, on PHCs, because that is the second question from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. The injection that we have done, 35% increase for Cat A, 35% increase for Cat B, compared to third quarter, which is injected some already. So, this is in addition to that, we are injecting 35%, compared to third quarter. That number is actually more than for the previous few quarters the percentage of car-leasing companies that were bidding. So, if you look at the companies that are bidding PHCs, I shared yesterday that, for Cat A, it is about 21% or thereabouts, it dropped to 16% in the last quarter. Cat B, I shared also that it is about 23% or thereabouts.”
“So, if you nationalise, you take away this competition element, you may not actually achieve the same outcomes as what you are able to achieve now. It is an assumption that nationalising, taking away the profit element, means better outcomes for commuters. Need not be.”
“For MRT, I need to highlight that what we are talking about here again — I am sorry, Sir, just to reiterate one more point on the bus is that the fares do not go to the bus operators directly. I mentioned this a few times. The fares come to LTA. LTA then pays the operators. So, if we collect less than what we have to pay them, that is actually Government subsidy. The trains, I mentioned that the train operators do collect the fares and that is part of their revenue. But if we look at the train operations for both SBST and SMRT trains, the numbers, as I shared earlier, SBST making losses of several millions; SMRT trains making a profit of 1% return, $6 million. So, I think we have to look at it in the right perspective rather than look at the macro numbers, which may not be relevant to the discussion that we are currently having with public transport fares. On the second point about KPIs, Sir, I did not say that KPIs are not relevant at all. I did not say that. What I said was that KPIs should not be a substitute, because if you only rely on KPIs and nothing else, then you will have a problem. But I do not think that is what Mr Gerald Giam is saying as well. So, we may not differ that much. I think we can both agree that KPIs can form part of the overall performance management tracking, but they should not be the only way of improving performance. And in the case of the public transport operations, if we look at buses, for example, one of the reasons why we are able to have better outcomes, partly, I want to give credit to our LTA colleagues. It is because, over time, we do learn how to do the contracting better. But it is also because there is more competition.”
“Mr Speaker, first, let me thank Mr Gerald Giam for his clarification and showing appreciation to our workers; 4 November is Public Transport Workers' Appreciation Day. So, thank you to Mr Gerald Giam for acknowledging their hard work. Sir, the profit numbers that Mr Gerald Giam cited represent the profit numbers for the group as a whole. So, if we look at SBST, for example, they have both local and overseas operations. Locally, they have bus, they have MRT. They also have taxis. They also have other operations. I am sorry, SMRT. I was referring to SMRT, not SBST. SBST does not have taxis. SBST has MRT, bus and also overseas operations. So, if we take a look at the total package of the scope of what they do overall, I think those numbers would have to be looked at more specifically when it concerns the component that has to do with fares, because we are talking about fares here. Right? So, there is no point we have an argument about how much money they make with their advertising or their overseas investments. Those are separate. It is part of the numbers that you see as a group. But for the purposes of our debate here, we should be looking at the numbers that are linked to fares. And as I explained earlier, Sir, for buses, yes, the profit numbers today that you see reflect some of the older contracts that we did previously. But if we look at the newer contracts, we have, with experience, actually tightened the terms and conditions. And there is now also more competition. We now have four bus operators. So, as a process, achieving savings for commuters and for taxpayers, that will take time to achieve, but we are making steps in the right direction. We are seeing a reduction in the returns for the newer contracts.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. I understand where he is coming from. I think we are all on the same page when we want to look at how we mitigate the impact on lower-income families. We share the same objective. The way that we are doing it now, all three components – the tariff, the water conservation tax and the water-borne fee – all three components actually add together to reflect the true cost of producing water, the next drop of water. And because of that, we feel that it is better to let this true cost be reflected from the first drop. But then, we help the lower-income with means-tested U-Save rebates. So, I think our objectives are similar. But it is just the way in which we achieve it, we may differ somewhat. But I think, with Mr Pritam Singh's clarification, the gap has narrowed.”
“Some changes have already been announced, for example, the Majulah Package for young seniors and the new housing model. Existing schemes such as Workfare are being enhanced and new initiatives such as re-employment support have been proposed. We welcome further inputs into these policy reviews as we chart our way forward, but not all ideas will be feasible or will achieve our shared goals of a fairer and fiscally sustainable system. To Members of this House and to all Singaporeans, I want to assure you that this Government will be responsive to the concerns of our people. We will continue to do our best to mitigate cost pressures for businesses and families. Importantly, we will do this in a way that is responsible and right for Singaporeans, today and tomorrow. [Applause.]”
“Community and corporations do their part alongside the Government in a whole-of-society effort to support the vulnerable. This is our Singapore way – not just enabling ourselves and our family to do well, but also helping to support others in society so that we can progress together and leave no one behind. Mr Speaker, the reality is that global inflation will remain elevated for some time to come. We cannot fully insulate ourselves from these global forces. Prices of goods and services will rise to reflect higher costs. If we do what is politically convenient and prevent prices from rising, I am afraid we will create more problems. Giving more price subsidies will benefit certain groups at the expense of others. In particular, we end up helping the rich more than the poor. We will lose fiscal discipline and erode self-responsibility. The fiscal deficit that gets created cannot be wished away and the burden will fall on future generations of Singaporeans. In the long run, it will hurt Singapore and Singaporeans. Overall, the Government has moderated considerably the impact of inflation on Singaporeans, especially for lower- and middle-income segments, and we have done so on a sustainable basis, spending within our means and helping as many people as possible. We will continue to monitor the need for more targeted support if inflation or economic outlook worsens. We will do so while maintaining discipline in ensuring that our interventions are fair, sustainable and effective. Sir, we welcome the Leader of the Opposition's call for a review to make sure that our policies are fit for purpose in a new era of higher prices. The Government has been reviewing our policies, including as part of Forward Singapore.”
“Even in years when inflation is high, we still have to raise some charges and taxes because it is necessary to do so. It is not prudent or sustainable for the Government to avoid or subsidise every cost increase. Doing so will entail either a high burden on current and future generations of taxpayers or a deterioration of service standards. It is not the responsible thing to keep kicking the can down the road or to avoid introducing painful but necessary increases. We may make some people happy by pursuing such policies but when the financing gap starts to accumulate over time, we will make everyone worse off because it will be even more painful to fix the problem later. Importantly, the Government's policies should be seen together and not in isolation or piecemeal. The different policies and measures work together as a whole to collectively help ease the cost pressures on Singaporeans without undermining our fiscal sustainability. This is why I support the proposed amendment from Mr Liang Eng Hwa because he is right that the Government should continue pursuing policies that together lower cost of living pressures on Singaporeans and their families. Our policies need to be sustainable because we care for Singaporeans now and also for our children and grandchildren. I also applaud and encourage the community and kind-hearted sponsors to continue stepping forward with philanthropic donations to help support vulnerable groups in society. There are many ground-up initiatives, including from the NTUC and community groups, which provide local-level assistance to vulnerable residents, on top of Government subsidies. You heard from some of our MPs earlier. The CDC Mayors and many of our grassroots advisers do this regularly with community partners and donors.”
“Because of that, introducing something like the ABSD may sound good, may make us feel "shiok" for short while, but it is not really going to solve the problem if our concern is about cost of living and high COE prices. It is not going to solve the problem. What Assoc Prof Lim mentioned earlier and what we are doing, the cut-and-fill, that is a more direct way of solving the problem. Sir, I just want to end off on one final point on COE before I move on to my next topic, which is what Mr Leong Mun Wai mentioned. I think he may have misunderstood my data. Yesterday, I shared that the percentage of households that own cars has fallen gradually over time, from 40% to about one third now. Maybe just allow me to clarify, Sir, that this trend has been happening not just in recent times when COE prices are high but even during the time when we have plentiful supply and COE prices were much lower. So, even then, we see the shift. It could be a generational shift. Maybe more people now may not feel that driving is necessary. Or like what I mentioned earlier, they may not need to own a car, they can just use the services of car from time to time when they need it. It could be that maybe they find that the public transport system has been improving over time and they would prefer to use public transport, which is also more sustainable for the environment. Whichever the case may be, Sir, this trend has actually been consistent, whether COE prices are high or low. So, I thought I just clarify that point that Mr Leong mentioned. Mr Speaker, we have been able to keep our public services and finances sound through this combination of not delaying necessary adjustments while providing needed support to households.”
“Instead, our approach is to make mass public transport affordable, accessible and convenient, and also to complement this with shared point-to-point transport services, including taxis, private hire vehicles and car sharing and through this multi-pronged approach, be able to better meet the needs of our Singaporean families, who may not need to own a car all the time and use it all the time but they may need it during certain times of the week to bring the family out for an outing or to send their parents for medical appointments. If we can create more options for them to be able to use the car without necessarily having to own the car, I think that is one way in which we can help more families. For certain categories of families and individuals, for example, persons with disabilities who need a car for their livelihood, we do have a Government scheme called the Disabled Persons Scheme where we waive the ARF, we waive the COE. This is something which we do on a very targeted basis to help these individuals. Sir, on the point about foreigners or families who own multiple cars, I have addressed it yesterday, but since Ms Poa brought it up, allow me to explain this point again. I shared yesterday that foreigners win about 1% of the bids for Cat A, 4% of the bids for Cat B. If you combine this with what I said earlier about the bidding system, they are not going to be the ones who are going to influence the bid price. Likewise, families who own multiple cars – they make up 5% of the total number of resident households. So, again, the numbers are not so significant. We do not think that these two categories of buyers – foreigners and families that own multiple cars – will be the ones who actually end up driving the COE prices.”
“It is similar to how PHCs are being used – because it can be dual use. People do use it for their personal use and also to do business, unlike, say, Cat C, where it is predominantly used for business needs. But I do acknowledge the concerns that Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Hazel Poa have raised – which is that the buyers of motorcycles tend to come from more lower-income households compared to car buyers. I had mentioned this in my reply yesterday. That is why we have lower ERP charges, we have lower ARF for motorcycles. We will look at whether there are other ways to address this concern, to reflect the intent of what Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Hazel Poa would like to achieve. But I do not think we should go down the path of having a growth rate because they are quite different from Cat C in that regard. Ms Poa also asked about the point-based system. By this, I think what she meant is whether we can do the allocation by giving certain weightage to certain categories of families and buyers. Sir, I understand where Ms Poa is coming from, but I think if you think about it in practice, if you are going to implement this idea, it is not so simple in practice. There are many Singapore families who would have a dependent, whether a young child or elderly parent. It would be very challenging to determine who is more deserving of a car. How would the person sitting at LTA be able to decide who is more deserving when all families would have different circumstances and needs?”
“Sir, we already have Cat A and Cat B to sort of proxy measure the kind of cars that people are buying. It is not a perfect correlation, of course, but many of the cars in Cat A do have a lower OMV compared to the cars in Cat B, so I think to some extent, this already achieves that purpose of being progressive. But more importantly, Sir, we have the Additional Registration Fee (ARF). So, car ownership is progressive, the COE system has some elements of progressivity, but beyond that, if you look at the car ownership policy as a whole, the ARF is the other tool and perhaps the more effective and more direct way of having a progressive car ownership policy. We, only very recently in Budget 2023, raised the ARF for luxury cars. And yesterday, I answered a question that after doing that, the number of luxury cars responding to the policy signals have actually come down. I go back to my earlier point that Assoc Prof Lim mentioned as well, that he recognises that all these fanciful ideas are just going to have a small dent – in fact, I would say a very small dent – and this is not going to solve the fundamental issues. He agrees with us that the more fundamental approach, the better approach, is to look at how we can do more smoothening of the supply using the cut-and-fill method – which we are already doing. Sir, let me now turn to some of the points that Ms Hazel Poa raised. Unfortunately, she is not in the Chamber right now. Ms Poa asked whether we can have a 0.25% growth rate for Cat D. I think this is similar to the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday and Mr Murali Pillai also raised in November last year. As I had explained yesterday in the House, we have to look at the usage of motorcycles.”
“If you allocate too much, you shift too much, it will actually affect the supply of COEs in Cat A and Cat B, and that will cause prices to spike even further. I think Assoc Prof Lim understands this point. But if you do not allocate enough, you do not shift enough, then there could be a problem for the PHCs, and which will, in turn, affect the drivers and commuters. So, this is something that, I think, we have to be quite careful. But, Sir, I did mention in my reply yesterday that we are studying whether there are other ways to address this concern, maybe not through the COE system, but whether there are other ways, taking into account the reality that PHCs do travel more on the roads, a point that Assoc Prof Lim also mentioned. But they also serve a useful role in society, for commuters to meet their point-to-point journeys. Sir, Assoc Prof Lim also mentioned about pay-as-you-bid. Sir, this is not going to give a different outcome from the current system. Let me explain. Our current system is open bidding. This is not a closed bidding, where I do not know what people are bidding and I just go into the bid without knowing what other people are bidding. The COE system is online, you go in, you can see very clearly what other people are bidding, and you decide then how much you want to bid, based on your willingness to pay and you look at where that bid price is right now, and whether you are willing to pay more than that, to be able to secure the COE. So, whether we do pay-as-you-bid, or we do the current system, I think that the outcome will be the same. The second point that Assoc Prof Lim mentioned is, can we use open market value (OMV) instead of other criteria to determine the COE bidding?”
“So, therefore, yes, we are looking at ways to do more "cut and fill" and we have announced increases in the quota for this coming quarter – 35% more than the last quarter for Cat A, 35% more for Cat B, 65% more for Cat C. We are doing that, but we also need to be mindful of the impact if we overdo it. But I do thank Assoc Prof Lim for actually agreeing with us, that this is the most effective way to be able to deal with these concerns that we see in the COE market. Sir, Assoc Prof Lim also spoke about whether we could, if I heard him correctly, ban PHCs from COE bidding, and I think what he meant was then to have a separate category, because you cannot simply just ban them. I mean, there is genuine demand for these cars, so you cannot just ban them. I think what he meant was to have a separate category that they do not have to participate in the COE bidding with the Cat A and B. There is a separate category for PHCs. Sir, I explained this yesterday that, of course, conceptually it is not unthinkable to do something like this, but the trade-off is this: when you create a new category for PHCs, the supply for the COE does not magically appear. We still have to look for where to re-allocate the supply of COEs to put into this new category. We are not talking about a magical solution, where I suddenly have new supply coming in. So, if we accept that point, Sir, then we are looking at a re-allocation from Cat A and B when we create this new category. And when we do that, as I explained yesterday, it is difficult to ascertain at what level of the supply should you shift into this new category, because the PHC market is still evolving and there are fluctuations from quarter to quarter, as we can see from the data.”
“I do not know whether they heard my reply yesterday, because some of the points that they raised seem to have reflected that they heard me. But again, some of the points that they raised, they may have missed out or maybe they have forgotten what I have said. So, it is okay. Let me please have this chance to address some of the points that they raised. Sir, I will start by actually thanking Assoc Prof Lim for acknowledging that — well, he raised many different ideas. They are all the different fancy ideas for improving the COE system, that in the end, actually only make a small difference, or in his words "small dent". And what he feels, if I had heard him correctly, is that the more effective way is to do the smoothening of the supply of the COE. Sir, that is exactly what I said yesterday in my reply. We are going to use the "cut and fill" method, not "cut and paste". "Cut and paste" is what you do on Microsoft Word. We are going to do the "cut and fill" method, where we "cut" the supply from the peak years, and then we fill the troughs, the short-term trough years. So, by doing this, we are able to reduce the peak-to-trough ratio and achieve the outcome that I believe Assoc Prof Lim is also advocating for. But I also, in response to Mr Saktiandi, gave a qualifier that we cannot overdo this, because you are effectively borrowing supply from the future. These cars that we are now borrowing the COEs from, are still on the roads. They have not yet been de-registered. So, if you overdo the "cut and fill", it means that in the short term, in the short run, you do have many more cars and it could lead to congestion.”
“I understand, and I think I did explain this to him previously, that when we do some of the changes with the bus services, some of the commuters will be affected, and I do recognise that – my residents, too, have been affected by such changes. But the reason why we make these changes is because we have limited resources available to serve different needs, different groups of commuters. In different towns including, I am sure, Mr Giam's constituency, there will be new developments, new BTO flats, and the residents there will need new bus services to connect them to the bus interchange or to the MRT stations. So, where do we get the resources to serve these new demands? We have to look at how can we re-allocate some of the existing services. It is not a simple exercise. We do not do it in a very drastic way because we do recognise the impact. We do it in a very calibrated manner, we look at which are the bus routes that run parallel to MRT lines, and where there is an option for people to take the bus, go to MRT station and then complete the longer part of their journey, the trunk service on the MRT. So, the bus then can provide better connectivity within the town as a feeder service. But having said that, I have mentioned this to Mr Giam before and I still make the offer to him today, if there are some specific areas of concern faced by his residents, please do let me know, please do let LTA colleagues know. And we will discuss with you to see what we can do to improve the situation on the ground. Sir, allow me to now turn to COE. I want to start by saying that we just had a session on this yesterday. I answered a collection of PQs. I think we took quite some time. And I think Ms Hazel Poa and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim were both present in the Chamber.”
“But overall, compared to many other cities, I think, to be fair to our public transport operators and to our public transport workers, who have been working very hard to achieve this outcomes, they have, overall, done a good job. So, what Mr Giam mentioned about nationalising, and I think he calls it the NTC, is actually not a silver bullet. I hope Mr Giam can agree with me that nationalising is not an assurance or guarantee that outcomes would be better. Yes, you can take away the profit element if you nationalise and turn it into a Government department, but just because a nationalised entity does not make profits, does not make money, does not necessarily mean commuters will get better outcomes. I think we have to be quite clear about that. What we want, at the end, is to have better outcomes for commuters, to have a better transport system for Singapore. Mr Giam also spoke about setting KPIs. Sir, we have seen from the experiences in other countries, how this approach sometimes may not work. I mean, if you look at history. The then-Soviet Union, under the previous central planning system, uses KPIs to try and track performance, and I think that I do not have the elaborate further. I think Mr Giam will agree with me that it is not a good outcome. So, KPI is not a substitute for the profit motive that we need and the competition that we need, to spur the players to continuously improve. And we are adding additional pressure on them to improve their productivity. The new fare formula has a productivity component. We will exert pressure on them through this fare formula productivity component, to look at ways to continuously improve their productivity. Sir, Mr Giam also mentioned about the coverage of service.”
“And I also shared with Mr Giam and the House that over time, as we gain experience in doing bus contracting, we had been able to squeeze out more productivity improvements and reduce the payments and the rate of return for the bus operators. For trains, the operators do collect fares to cover their operating costs, so the fares do affect their overall financials. And I shared, during October's Sitting, that in the latest financial year, after accounting for Government grants, SBS Transit reported a loss of several million dollars for their rail operations, while SMRT Trains reported an operating profit of $6 million dollars, which represents a profit margin of less than 1%. So, just to be very clear, these are the kind of returns for the rail operations. And I also shared what we are doing, an ongoing process to try and improve the way we do bus contracting, to be able to squeeze out more savings for commuters and taxpayers. Sir, Mr Giam had a second point where he mentioned about whether we can nationalise our public transport system. Sir, I think, first, we take a look at where we are today. Do we have a well-functioning public transport system overall? I think so. Public transport fares, if you look at the lower-income households in 2013, public transport expenditure was about 3.1% of their household income, it has fallen to 2.4% in 2022. So, from accessibility, affordability and also network improvements, system improvements, I think over time, our current system has achieved good outcomes for commuters, and this is also reflected in the overall survey results and ratings that commuters have given us. Of course, I am not saying that there are no areas for improvement; there are, and we will continue to look at what we can do to improve.”
“And when we have these surpluses, the Government has made good use of them by flowing back these upsides to support businesses and households. We have done this during Budget and through off-Budget support packages. We also allocated some of these surpluses into Funds for specific needs, such as the ComCare Endowment Fund to provide support to our lower-income families, or the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund to protect ourselves against sea level rises. But we should follow through, to raise the GST to 9% on 1 January 2024. We can be confident that households will be amply cushioned by the Assurance Package, while we will have the higher GST rate in place, and can start to collect additional tax from non-citizens and visitors. Mr Speaker, I will now turn to transport-related issues, and I will start first with public transport and then I will cover some of the points raised regarding COE. Sir, on public transport, we had a session in October, during the Sitting, I think I answered a series of PQs, and I remember having supplementary questions from Mr Gerald Giam as well. Sir, Mr Giam spoke about the profits earned by the public transport operators. I had mentioned this previously when we were discussing this issue, and I explained to Mr Giam and the House that we have to look at the different types of public transport service. For buses, for example, the revenue that is being collected from commuters does not go to the operators. The revenue comes to the Government, and the Government then pays the operators. We pay them a rate that was agreed through the bus contracting tenders.”
“And while the WP has consistently objected to the GST in previous years, we are glad that at the debate on the President's Address in April this year, the WP has acknowledged the need for a 7% GST. And earlier, I heard Mr Leong Mun Wai saying he also agrees with the 7% GST. But the WP and the PSP should be upfront and consistent. It cannot have it both ways, objecting each time the GST rate needs to go up, but wanting to keep and spend the revenues from previous GST increases. The only disagreement, based on my understanding that the Opposition now has, is to ask if we could defer the GST increase, because we have higher-than-expected revenues. Sir, I ask the Opposition to please look at the broader and longer-term fiscal trends. We may have had a good year this FY, but we do not have a structural surplus. Our fiscal expenditures have been rising steadily and will continue to increase and we are almost certain to face a funding gap in the coming years if we do nothing about it. MOF had published an Occasional Paper earlier this year to highlight this trend. We are expecting more social spending, in healthcare for our ageing population and to better support vulnerable groups in Singapore. Without the GST increase and tax measures announced in the last two Budgets, we would not be able to close the projected fiscal gap. We have been fortunate to have higher-than-expected revenues in FY22. The Government did not plan its Budget on the basis that we will have these unexpected upsides in revenue collections. These were either sentiment-based revenues which are volatile from year-to-year, or due to higher-than-expected economic growth.”
“The Opposition has once again asked if we can defer the GST increase, especially given our higher-than-expected revenues. This too has been debated thoroughly in this House. I think it is important to set out once more the Government's philosophy behind the GST system. First, the GST is a critical component of our tax system and we are raising the GST not for immediate funding needs, but for our medium-term needs. This includes rising social spending in areas such as increased healthcare for our ageing population and more support for vulnerable segments of society. Second, we design our GST system to take care of the lower-income. In 2012, we made the GST voucher (GSTV) scheme permanent. The GSTV provides bigger offsets to lower-income households. Coupled with the absorption of GST on publicly subsidised healthcare and education, we achieve an outcome where lower-income Singaporean households face a lower effective GST rate than higher-income ones. As we had shared in this House previously, the bulk of the GST revenues are paid by higher-income groups, as well as foreigners and tourists. Third, we are able to defer the impact of the GST raises because of the comprehensive Assurance Package which benefits all Singaporean households. The Assurance Package will defer the GST increase for the majority of Singaporean households by at least five years. For lower-income households, we will defer the GST increase for them by about 10 years. Since launching the Assurance Package in 2022, we have enhanced it twice to uphold this Government's commitment. Sir, we have gone through these points in this House before many times.”
“The experiences of other countries have shown clearly that broad-based subsidies can lead to wasteful and ineffective outcomes. The Government is unable, after spending on these subsidies, to have sufficient resources left to provide more targeted help to those who really need it. Mr Speaker, the same rationale applies to electricity. We have taken steps over the years to strengthen our energy resilience to ensure supply stability and continuity, and this is an important task that MTI, EMA and the power sector has taken on. The tariff, as Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned, should reflect the cost of producing electricity from the first electron. Just as water, we want to price it correctly from the first drop. And then, what we do, similar to water, is we then provide means tested U-Save rebates to help families, especially lower- and middle-income families, give them more help, give them more support. Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim's idea of time-of-use pricing is something which we do agree with. And that is why MTI and EMA have also announced an initiative as Ms Lim had mentioned in her speech. This is an accurate reflection of the actual cost of producing electricity during different periods of the day. Sir, I would now turn to GST. Overall, we have provided high quality public services to Singaporeans and we have achieved good outcomes for our programmes, and we were able to do so, despite having an annual Budget that is less than 20% of Gross Domestic Product, which is much lower than most advanced economies. Nevertheless, the Government's spending needs are rising steadily, especially healthcare costs as our society ages. There is therefore a need to raise revenues to pay for these higher expenditures. We have explained this in the House and also elsewhere many times.”
“To discourage excessive use and to send a message to households on water conservation, we set a higher price for water consumption that far exceeds the average household consumption level. And as Mr Pritam Singh pointed out, this threshold is set at 40 cubic metres a month to accommodate most household needs. Over 96% of households consume less than this threshold. Having additional tiers below 40 cubic metres would mean that all households, rich or poor, pay a water price lower than its scarcity value for the first block of consumption. Or, if you have even more tiers, then, across the different tiers, the water that is being consumed at the lower tiers will also include a subsidy to the wealthier families that consume more water. This would distort the households' incentive to conserve water from the very first drop. It also means that the Government will have to subsidise everyone for water, not just the lower- and middle- income, which is more costly and inefficient. Instead, the Government's approach is to price water fully. Then, we provide targeted and tiered support though our U-Save rebates to those who need it most. Lower-income families staying in smaller flats get a larger rebate, as I shared earlier, which effectively translates into a lower price for them. Businesses do not receive U-Save rebates. We do not subsidise their water or electricity consumption. Instead, we work with them, including helping our SMEs to be more energy and water efficient. Sir, we also cannot have our cake and eat it. If the Government provides broad-based subsidies for all households through a multiple-tier water price, we cannot then also give out U-Save rebates for the same purpose.”
“I was listening carefully to Mr Pritam Singh's speech earlier I do not think Mr Singh will disagree with me on this point. Water is priced to recover the cost of its supply and production and to reflect the cost of producing the next drop of water from NEWater and desalination. Even with active cost mitigation measures by Public Utilities Board (PUB), the total cost of supplying and producing water has increased significantly. Singapore cannot compromise on having a high-quality and reliable water supply. It is for our national survival. It is necessary to revise the water price now to catch up with these cost increases. Deferring the price increase now will only result in a widening cost gap, that has to be made up by larger, more significant price increases in future. To cushion the impact of higher water price in 2024 and 2025, the Government will provide eligible Singaporean HDB households an additional $20 per quarter of U-Save from January 2024 to December 2025, or a total of $80 per year for two years. The additional U-Save rebates will, on average, fully offset the increase in utility bills for 1- to 2- room flats and about 80% for 3- to 4- room HDB flats and about 65% for larger flats. On average, this translates to 3- to 4- room HDB flats paying about $2 more per month and 5-room HDB and larger households paying about $4 more per month. Sir, the WP also suggested having additional tiers for water price. As I mentioned earlier, we price water to reflect its scarcity value. This means the same rate is paid by everyone, from the very first drop used by the household, so that all users take into account the scarcity value of water.”
“I am referring to direct price subsidies. Who benefits more? It is inevitably the higher-income groups with bigger homes and bigger cars, swimming pools and jacuzzis. So, the way we design our subsidies is important. Instead of subsidising the services themselves or designing tiered pricing schemes, we price the services fully, but give direct help to households that need financial assistance, in cash or vouchers. This way, we can target more help to lower- and middle-income Singaporeans. It is more cost effective and we can achieve better outcomes for society as a whole. Sir, let me now respond to some of the issues that Members have raised on water prices. I think Mr Pritam Singh would agree with me that water security is a matter of national survival. Today, Singaporeans enjoy an uninterrupted supply of high-quality water. This did not come by accident, but is made possible by long-term planning, innovation and gumption. Our founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew famously said once: "every other policy has to bend at the knee for our water survival". And that is precisely what happened – one of the most remarkable achievements in modern Singapore. We now have a sustainable and robust water supply system based on four National Taps. These are imported water from Johor, local catchments, NEWater and desalination. Each of these taps plays a vital role in ensuring a safe and resilient water supply. But each of these taps also faces rising costs. To safeguard water security, we need to continue making investments to upgrade and maintain the system, while stewarding our limited resources. Otherwise, the miracle that Mr Lee achieved will be short-lived. Therefore, we must first right-price water to reflect its scarcity and to encourage its sustainable and prudent use.”
“It is fair for these cost increases to be borne by the users and beneficiaries of these services – if not in full, at least partially, so that they are prudent in their usage. For example, when the cost of providing electricity or water goes up, we do want users to find ways to improve energy or water efficiency and to reduce their consumption. Even as some of these cost increases are passed on to users, the Government is mindful that we must keep basic services affordable. For essential services like public healthcare, users only bear part of the cost. When costs go up, a large part of it is paid for by the Government through increased subsidies so that the bills facing users remain affordable. When fee increases cannot be avoided, we also provide targeted and direct support for more vulnerable groups in society, such as lower-income and retiree households. Examples would include U-Save rebates and public transport vouchers. Sir, it is always tempting to ask: why not have Government simply subsidise the services themselves? But we need to remember that the cost increases do not magically disappear as a result. They still need to be paid for, whether by taxpayers today, or by our children and grandchildren in the future. We know from the experiences of other countries that subsidising petrol, electricity or water directly causes problems. First, it blunts the price signals and results in over-consumption because there is less incentive to improve efficiency and reduce wastage. Second, households will get the subsidies whether they need them or not. Furthermore, the wealthier segments of society are likely to end up getting the larger share of the subsidies, because they consume more. That is what happens when governments give out more subsidies for water and fuel.”
“The Government provided this assurance at Budget 2023 and we will honour it. Sir, different families have different circumstances and challenges. The broad-based support that we provide will help every family, but we recognise that there may still be gaps for some households. For families who need more help, we have other supporting measures, such as ComCare and the Silver Support Scheme. We will continue to monitor the trends closely. As we have often said, we are prepared to do more to support Singaporeans should it become necessary and we will do so in a manner which is fair, effective and sustainable for both current and future generations. The Government will continue to do our best to operate key services efficiently and keep costs of providing services as low as possible. In the case of water, PUB incorporates successful R&D efforts into its operations to reduce costs. For instance, the upcoming Tuas Water Reclamation Plant (Tuas WRP) will generate 80% of the energy it requires for used water treatment, compared to only 25% for the conventional WRPs. This will reduce energy costs and is made possible through enhanced primary treatment of used water and co-locating with the Integrated Waste Management Facility. Tuas WRP will also adopt membrane bioreactor technology to produce higher-quality effluent, which can be directly discharged to the sea. This avoids the need to construct a long and deep discharge pipe, which could have cost an additional $650 million. But despite our best efforts, the cost of providing key services will be affected by rising inflation, including higher energy and manpower costs. So, the unavoidable question for us is how we want to pay for the cost increases.”
“We review our support regularly and step in to enhance it when necessary to provide additional support, especially for lower- and middle-income families. The Government enhanced the Assurance Package in Budget 2023. As Members will recall, 2022 saw the fastest rate of increase in prices since 2008, with consumer prices going up by 6.1%, compared to 2021. To help households cope with this increase, the Government enhanced our support from the $6.6 billion announced at Budget 2022 to $9.6 billion. This way, we fulfilled our commitment to offset additional GST expenses for at least five years for the majority of Singaporean households and for about 10 years for the lower-income households. Recently, in September 2023, the Government announced a $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package. This includes a $800 million enhancement to the Assurance Package, bringing it to over $10 billion. Singaporeans will receive the additional support from these packages soon. Every adult Singaporeans will get at least $200 in cash next month. Amongst them, about 2.5 million eligible Singaporeans will get $500 or $800 in cash. And every Singaporean household will receive $500 in CDC vouchers in January 2024. HDB households will also get more help in U-Save and S&CC rebates. Many of my residents, including retirees who are staying in private properties, said they appreciate the additional support provided and look forward to receiving the $800 special payment in December and the $500 CDC vouchers in January next year. Through all of these packages, the Government will fully cover the increase in spending by lower-income households this year due to inflation and the GST and substantially cover the increase in spending by middle-income households.”
“Between 2017 and 2022, real median income grew by 1.8% per year. Real income at the 20th percentile, that is, lower-income households, rose even faster, at 2.9% per year over the same period. Unfortunately, in the first half of this year, median real income declined, even though nominal income rose slightly, as the Senior Minister of State for Manpower updated the House earlier today. This is due to the weaker economic outlook and elevated inflation. It is understandable for median real income to have ups and downs, depending on the overall economic performance. But our experience in Singapore is that so long as our economy grows and remains competitive, real income can continue increasing for a broad segment of our workers. In the long run, the key to sustaining real wage growth is to raise productivity and upgrade the skills of our workforce, to take on better jobs with higher pay. The Government has invested in many initiatives to support businesses and workers in this transformation and we will continue to do so. Third, we ensure that basic needs like education, healthcare, housing and public transport remain accessible and affordable for all. Everyone receives some help in these areas, but those with less receive more support. It is a fair and progressive system. Even as inflation is moderating at the macro level, we recognise that many Singaporeans feel the pressures from higher costs of living. MPs from both sides of the House have raised this topic in Parliament, reflecting the concerns of our residents. To our fellow Singaporeans, the Government hears you and understands your worries. That is why we have been doing more to support Singaporeans, to cushion the impact of rising prices.”
“But wage growth means higher business costs, especially in more manpower-intensive sectors from healthcare to food services. This has contributed to overall inflation. Right now, inflation has peaked and is on a broad moderating path. Core inflation fell from the peak of 5.5% in January this year to 3% in September 2023. It is expected to edge down further to between 2.5% and 3% in December. MAS expects the moderation to continue for 2024, with core inflation forecast at 1.5% to 2.5%. If we include the impact of the GST rate increase in January, core inflation for 2024 is projected at between 2.5% and 3.5%. Fortunately, the impact of the GST increase is one-off. It should not cause an ongoing increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in future years. These are positive signs, but the Government remains cautious because the global situation is uncertain and there are dark clouds on the horizon. Further shocks to global energy and food prices could bring additional inflationary pressures and economic slowdown. There are many uncertainties in our external environment. But what is clear is this: the Government understands the concerns of Singaporeans and we stand ready to support Singaporeans where needed. Sir, the Government has cushioned the impact of global inflation on households by adopting an effective multi-pronged approach. First, MAS moved early to tighten monetary policy significantly, substantially strengthening the Singapore dollar. This has helped to contain imported inflation and preserve our international purchasing power. Had we not done this, core inflation this year in 2023 would have been about 2.5 percentage points higher. Second, we keep our economy competitive to create good jobs and sustain real income growth for Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, cost of living is a major concern around the world. Food and energy prices have risen significantly, caused by disruptions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and extreme weather patterns. Many countries were affected. For instance, Germany saw natural gas prices peak in 2022, at nearly tenfold of the 2021 average. While prices have since moderated, they remain significantly above the pre-war prices. India continues to see prices spike across various food items, including essentials like rice and vegetables. From June to August this year, tomato prices surged by 1,400% at some wholesale markets. We have experienced price increases in Singapore, too. But, thankfully, not at such magnitudes. But we have to acknowledge that inflation has affected all Singaporeans. Families need to spend more when they go to the market to buy groceries or when they have their meals in hawker centres and coffee shops. My residents in Bishan-Toa Payoh are affected, too, including lower-income families, retirees and couples with young children and elderly parents to support. As MPs and Grassroots Advisers, we understand the pain that our residents are going through, and we feel for them and their families. On top of imported inflation, we also face rising domestic cost pressures. We have a tight labour market and low levels of unemployment. Real wages have been rising for workers across the board. We are committed to raising the income and skills of our lower-wage workers – something I trust Members from both sides of the House will support. Through the Progressive Wage Model and other measures, the earnings of our lower-wage workers have increased faster than median wages.”
“Mr Speaker, I think we recognise that when it comes to port operations, this is a global industry and, therefore, the nature of the competition is also global. We cannot prevent others from enhancing their port facilities, their infrastructure, whether it is the land bridge that I addressed in my reply to the questions or some other type of infrastructure enhancements as well as building new capabilities. So, therefore, the key for us is really to focus on how we, the Port of Singapore, can stay competitive and relevant. And there are a few elements here. First, of course, is productivity. So, we are investing heavily in technology to raise the productivity of our port operations, working very closely with the port operators, and also with our unions and workers. Second, is to look at how we can coordinate better with our shipping lines so that they arrive without waiting too long in our ports, and that when they arrive in our ports, they are able to get good services from a whole suite of services that they will require – bunkering, supplies – not just to load and offload cargo. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if we look at port operations, it is a network effect that we have to protect. So, the connectivity of our port is the most crucial. And there is a network effect because the more people call at a particular hub, the more value there is to others in a network. So, therefore, we must always safeguard our competitiveness, connectivity and productivity.”
“Thank you. Sir, my reply will also address written Question No 14 by Miss Cheryl Chan for today's Sitting. A land bridge in Thailand could shorten the travelling time for some vessels by a few days, compared with sailing through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. The exact time saving will depend on many factors, such as the time needed to unload the cargo from the vessel, then transport it across the land bridge and load onto the vessel at the other end. These would likely incur additional expenses for shipping companies. So, they need to consider the overall costs versus the benefits, compared to sailing through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. Singapore will continue to focus on enhancing our port's connectivity, productivity and competitiveness. This includes the use of technology to make port calls more efficient and working with industry to catalyse the development and availability of cleaner bunkering fuels. The development of Tuas Port will also allow us to accommodate mega container ships, providing shipping companies with the necessary capacity and connectivity to meet their future needs.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 8 and 9 on today's Order Paper?”
“Specifically for Cat E, we have seen that the TCOEs are used to register vehicles, on average, within 14 days, way before the validity period of three months. Since January 2023, only three Cat E TCOEs have expired, and since June 2023, only one Cat E TCOE has expired. This shows that the dealers are not speculating, but are bidding based on actual demand.”
“Specifically for Cat E, we have seen that the TCOEs are used to register vehicles, on average, within 14 days, way before the validity period of three months. Since January 2023, only one Cat E TCOE has expired. This shows that the dealers are not speculating, but are bidding based on actual demand. [Please refer to "Outlook for COE Prices and Proposal for Support for Persons and Firms who Rely On Vehicles to Continue Their Trade", Official Report, 06 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 115, Oral Answers to Questions section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Mr Chee Hong Tat circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 6 November 2023. My statement should read as follows:”
“Under the Electric Vehicles Charging Act (EVCA), which will commence by end 2023, all electric vehicle charging operators (EVCOs) will need to be licensed and subject to a set of licensing conditions. These include data sharing with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and maintaining the service uptimes of their chargers in their network. LTA currently enforces strict network serviceability requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging points under the mass tender for public carparks at Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates. The EVCOs are required to ensure that the chargers are serviceable for over 97% of the time. All EVCOs have currently met their obligations on EV charging point serviceability.”
“Residents from the new Nee Soon Link BTO precincts are currently served by Services 801 and 806 along Yishun Avenue 6 and Yishun Street 42, as well as Services 103, 117/M and 801 along Yishun Avenue 1. These bus services connect residents to amenities and transport nodes at Yishun and Khatib, where they can access other bus services and the MRT. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been making service adjustments to serve the increased demand from the new BTO precincts. Service 801 was introduced in January 2022. Over 2023, LTA has been monitoring the situation and had increased the capacity of Services 801 as well as 103 by adding trips or using more double-deck buses. LTA has plans to further improve Services 801 and 117/M by end-2023. LTA has reviewed the Member’s suggestion to adjust Service 804. The bus stop in front of Yishun MRT Station is heavily utilised, with up to 90 to 95 buses from six bus services in the heaviest peak hour. As site constraints prevent further expansion of the bus stop, increasing the number of buses calling at this stop could result in long tailback of buses, which will impact other commuters. As such, we are unable to adjust Service 804 to call at that bus stop. Instead, we will study other ways to address the concerns that Mr Derrick Goh has raised on behalf of his residents.”
“There are strict safeguards in place to govern the collection, usage and storage of data. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will only use anonymised or aggregated data for traffic management and transport planning purposes. As for vehicle-specific data, LTA will only use it for payments, charges and enforcement, such as against non-payment of Electronic Road Pricing charges.”
“There will be no difference in how motorists are charged under the current Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme. ERP rates will continue to be reviewed based on traffic speeds and congestion levels.”
“In the third quarter of 2023, average daily ridership on public buses and trains was 7.9 million on weekdays and 6.4 million on weekends. This is around 95% of pre-pandemic levels. The average frequency of trains is two to three minutes during weekday peak hours and around five minutes during weekday off-peak hours and on weekends. The average frequency of buses is seven to 10 minutes during weekday peak hours, and nine to 13 minutes during weekday off-peak hours and on weekends. The frequencies are comparable to pre-pandemic levels. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) closely monitors the supply and demand for public transport services. When there are sustained changes to commuter demand, or if there are significant changes to the public transport network, such as after the opening of a new MRT line, LTA will make targeted adjustments to service frequencies. Based on current ridership and capacity, we have no plans to increase bus and rail frequencies across the board on weekends. Doing what the Member suggests will raise operating costs, which is, ultimately, borne by commuters and taxpayers through higher fares and taxes.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) awarded the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 project to the consortium formed by NCS Pte Ltd and MHI Engine System Asia Pte Ltd at a cost of S$556 million in 2016. As the project is still ongoing, the overall project costs will only be finalised upon completion.”
“The on-board units (OBU) under Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 are designed with a high level of security and encryption. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will only use anonymised or aggregated data for traffic management and transport planning purposes. For vehicle-specific data, LTA will only use it for payment, charges and enforcement, such as against non-payment of ERP charges. LTA adheres to Government-wide standards for data security, including strict guidelines on data sharing with other Government agencies. Robust safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorised access. There are also criminal penalties for the unauthorised disclosure and improper use of information.”
“The Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 system will not collect data when vehicles are outside of Singapore.”
“I thank the Member for the question, which has been addressed in the combined reply on COE at the 6 November 2023 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to "Outlook for COE Prices and Proposal for Support for Persons and Firms Who Rely On Vehicles to Continue Their Trade", Official Report, 6 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 115, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“From 2018 to 2022, 65 Category C vehicles were registered using Category E Certificates of Entitlement.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has an inspection regime to regularly check road signs, rectify defective road signs, and plan upgrades for road signs. LTA is also embarking on an islandwide exercise to replace approximately 4,200 road signs across our entire road network progressively commencing from the fourth quarter of 2023. This exercise is expected to be completed in three years.”