Chua Kheng Wee Louis
Singapore
“It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving w…”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just one clarification for Ministers on the EV chargers. I think the MOT has previously said that we are looking at three to 12 charging points per HDB carpark by 2025, but my question is not so much on the deadline, but more in terms of the number of chargers that can be supported, because in most of the multi-storey…”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that? Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026.”
“Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model.”
The complete record
Every one of 716 lines we hold for Chua Kheng Wee Louis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 15.
“In the Budget Statement last year, the Government shared that betting taxes are estimated to increase by a significant 30.4% to $2.4 billion in FY2021. Yet, at the same time, revenues from betting taxes have been relatively range-bound over the past decade, with contributions from betting taxes not too different in FY2010 at about $2.3 billion. In fact, I observe that the relative share of betting taxes to the Government's operating revenues has broadly been declining over the last 20 years, from close to 6% of revenues in FY2002 to 3% of revenues in FY2021. Given the social objective of avoiding excessive consumption of areas, such as betting, tobacco and liquor, I strongly believe that there is room for betting taxes to be raised. I recognise, of course, that part of the consequential amendments to this Bill is the raising of casino taxes, a point which I will revisit shortly in my speech. I note that the last time betting duty rates on lotteries were raised was more than seven years ago in July 2014, from 25% to 30% of gross bets. Would the Government consider raising betting duty rates and other associated gambling duty rates in the near-term in this regard? I will next touch on amendments to the Casino Control Act, the most notable of which, in my view, is the raising of casino tax rates, which are slated to take effect from 1 March 2022. I am supportive of the raising of casino tax rates and my first question is: what are the Government's expectations of the additional revenues from higher casino taxes, not just in the next financial year, but over the next decade? I ask this because, back when the two IRs were awarded, the Government had committed not to raise the casino tax for at least 15 years.”
“I recognise that casino entry levies have been raised in 2019, and this has resulted in visits made by Singapore Citizens and PRs falling to 2.7% of the adult population in FY2019 from 4% in FY2018. As a result of COVID-19, however, I wonder if and how much did visitorship increase as a result of border restrictions. Further, to those at higher risk of problem gambling, the higher entry levy could instead spur them to raise their bets to cover the additional cost of entry. So, I do hope that the Government will continue to tighten the safeguards not just against casino visitorship for locals, but to other forms of gambling as well, particularly online gambling. I have been receiving weekly SMSes and WhatsApp messages inviting me to online casinos, for example, and I am sure a number of Members would have as well. And just last month, the news about three brothers operating an illegal gambling syndicate that collected a weekly revenue of at least $1 million suggests that urgent action needs to be taken to address the shadow gambling scene in Singapore as well. Moving on to the legalised aspects of things, gambling or betting taxes, alongside tobacco and liquor excise duties, play a not insignificant role in the Government's operating revenues over the years. In absolute terms, I note that betting taxes for FY2019, which is prior to the onset of COVID-19, account for $2.6 billion in Government revenues. Even with the onset of COVID-19, with suspension of betting activity during the circuit breaker period and the sharp fall in tourist arrivals affecting visitorship, the estimated FY2020 betting tax revenue was at $1.8 billion. This is larger than the contribution from tobacco excise duties of $1.2 billion in FY2019 and $1.4 billion in FY2020.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Gambling Duties Act will be a new Act in our legislation although, as I understand from the Bill and from the Minister, that much of the content is not new per se and seeks to largely consolidate the law on levy and collection of duties on lawful betting and lotteries, make related amendments to the Casino Control Act and casino licences through the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act and make consequential amendments to certain other Acts. My speech today will focus largely on the related amendments to the Casino Control Act, which I believe to be the most significant change within this Bill. But I will, first, speak broadly about the issue of problem gambling as well as gambling duties in Singapore. Speak of gambling and some of the images that appear in my mind are the advertisements run by the National Council on problem gambling featuring the 2012 TV commercial where a man was asking his daughter for her piggy bank and saying, "One more try and I will give it all back". Or the other advertisement featuring Andy, whose father bet all his savings on Germany. All these advertisements were the subject of numerous light-hearted parodies and spoofs, especially after Germany won the World Cup in 2014. The issue of problem gambling and the social ills associated with it are a serious one that deserves our utmost priority whenever the topic of gambling is discussed. To this end, while there may be visible economic benefits from the investment and expansion of the two new Integrated Resorts (IRs), we should always bear in mind the less visible social costs and risks of negative externalities associated with an expanded gambling scene in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one supplementary question which is, essentially, the PQ that I asked. Given what we know about COVID-19 today over the last one, two years of experience, may I ask if the Government would consider publishing the key quantitative and qualitative matrix and thresholds before decisions are made to change the safe management measures? I do understand the need to be nimble. But, basically, having that decision-making framework and matrix published would actually help businesses and consumers to have greater confidence and clarity and, certainly, better than the situation where some people feel a certain sense of nervousness whenever the Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF) holds a press conference, especially those in F&B businesses which are most affected by the dine-in rules.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, let us have the courage and ingenuity to go beyond the concept of home ownership and to evolve Singapore's approach to public housing to cater to the demands of the new economy, to build a more resilient and adaptable nation and to meet the housing aspirations of all Singaporeans.”
“The Workers' Party has, in our 2019 HDB Working Paper, proposed the creation of a viable and expanded public rental scheme, which, in our view, is a realistic proposal to expand the universe of options for rental for those Singaporeans who want this option for a certain number of years. Let us also remember that the concept of leasing is not new to HDB. The concept of owning a HDB flat is a misnomer where Singaporeans have signed with HDB a lease agreement and not exactly a sale and purchase agreement, albeit one which is for 99 years, lease payments are paid upfront and you are able to take out a loan to pay for it. Further, the concept of having shorter leases is also not new. Today, elderly residents aged 55 and above already have the flexibility of choosing the length of lease on their 2-room flexi flats, ranging from between 15 and 45 years in five-year increments, as long as it covers them and their spouse up to the age of at least 95 years. It really is simply just a difference in mode of payment, where the lease payment is paid upfront, as compared to regular monthly payments in the case of conventional open market short-term leases. What we need today is not just a ramp-up in new BTO supply, which, as I understand, is going to be more than 17,000 units in 2022, but one, a significant increase in the stock of rental flats today which only increased by a grand total of 438 in the last financial year; and two, the creation of an expanded public rental scheme by the HDB, whose mission is to provide affordable, quality housing and a great living environment which, dare I say, should not be constrained to simply building flats for sale.”
“In addition, if home ownership is still an ideal the Government would like to champion, renters may be able to own their flats, albeit in a different manner. As it is, we have observed that the yields and yield spreads of residential REITs listed overseas are among the lowest among real estate sub-sectors, a reflection of the attractiveness of residentials to the financial markets and providers of capital. The REIT market in Singapore today is the largest in Asia, ex-Japan, with a combined market capitalisation of about S$110 billion as at September. Just as how REITs allow for the fractional ownership of commercial property assets, the stock of HDB rental units can similarly be held in a REIT structure, be it a public or private REIT. This would also have the additional benefit of supporting the financing of the construction of new rental flats and is self-sustaining, reducing the cash costs on the part of the Government. For Singaporeans, rather than take a 90% LTV loan for more than half our working lives, those who wish to can put up an amount of capital we are comfortable with into ownership of this REIT, with redemptions controlled to minimise speculation, just as how there are Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) restrictions for BTO flats today. Singaporeans can enjoy the benefits of renting, while also truly say that they own a HDB flat, or a part of Singapore's entire stock of HDB flats. To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the idea of an expanded public rental scheme by HDB is not new.”
“Even in China, where home ownership is one of the highest in the world, just like Singapore, the government has been encouraging the development of more rental-only projects through policy changes since 2018. I acknowledge Minister Desmond Lee's comments at the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year that there is a rental market out there for people to rent smaller units, both in the private market, as well as in HDB flats. But the aim here is really to look at the aspirations of Singaporeans and see how we can provide the support for those aspirations through providing rental options from the HDB. We do not simply accept that Singaporeans can all purchase private property or resale HDB flats and stop launching new BTO projects, do we? Rentals of the HDB flats could then be priced at levels in between current HDB public rentals and HDB open market rentals. Based on data provided by the HDB, median rental for a 3-room HDB flat ranges from $1,650 to $2,230 a month, with a rental yield of between 5.4% and 7.9%, based on median resale prices. HDB open market yields are also significantly higher than those in the private residential market which are, typically, in the 3% range. It is thus practical and important for HDB to provide rental options for the broader population, priced between that for public rental flats and open market rentals, as many of our residents find HDB open market rentals too expensive. This would also be no different from how PPHS flats are already being priced in principle and is simply just a shift from a home ownership subsidy to a home renting subsidy instead. This could also be restricted to Singaporeans, just like our current BTO and rental schemes today.”
“About half of social housing units are owned directly by the municipal government and the rest by state-subsidised, not-for-profit co-operatives. Private developers who build affordable housing projects must allow the city to rent half of the new apartments to lower-income residents, while the developer leases out the remaining units. As rents are regulated by the city government, affordability and access are maintained, with social integration a natural outcome of such housing arrangements. As shared by Mr Kurt Puchinger, former Director of Planning in the City of Vienna, "We don’t want to have a situation where you can identify the social status of a person by their home address". With the appropriate framework of rights and responsibilities in place, both the public and private sectors can work together to achieve our social policy goals. Given the relative resilience of the residential sub-sector as compared to retail and commercial during the COVID-19 pandemic, I am confident that there will be no lack of interest by private developers to partner HDB in coming up with innovative Build-to-Rent housing solutions if the Government is willing to take this bold step in public-private partnership. Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Cheng Hsing Yao, in his speech earlier this year, also suggested a Build-to-Rent model for Singapore, calling for the Government to encourage active and responsible participation by the private sector in this regard. Looking at international case studies in Australia, the Queensland government is partnering the construction industry to deliver affordable rental housing through new Build-to-Rent developments – one of which is being developed by one of the Singapore-listed firms as well.”
“Certainly, with a whole life policy, there will be a cash value attached to the policy should it be cancelled or sold after a certain period of time. This is non-existent for a term life insurance policy. Yet, a common saying in the insurance industry is, “buy term, invest the rest”, where one separates the protection element in an insurance policy from the investment motive. I believe the same can be applied to housing and the saying that “tenants pay subsidised rents but own nothing” is only a half-truth. It is comforting to know that I am not alone in my views on this. On 18 October, BT ran an interesting article, “Renting can be a viable alternative to owning a private home in Singapore”. As the title suggests, the author ran a simulation and derived an outcome where, financially, the difference between renting and buying is negligible. But the math, however, need not be true only for high-end private residential property. Singapore today has a high home ownership rate close to 90%, similar to China. This is significantly above that of the OECD average of 68%. Importantly, I highlight that within the OECD countries, Switzerland and Germany have the lowest home ownership rates of 38% and 44% respectively, while, at the same time, having one of the highest GDP per capita and Human Development Index (HDI) scores globally. The correlation between home ownership and the level of prosperity of a country may not be as clear-cut. Home ownership is thus more of a preference than a superior option per se. Quality rental housing need not be an oxymoron and, globally, it is already well demonstrated that rental housing can be affordable, desirable and effective as a means to house a population. Take Vienna, for example.”
“While it is important for freelancers to exercise financial prudence when calculating what they "can afford", it is not easy to determine with pinpoint accuracy their level of earnings even on a day-to-day basis, much less over the next few years; and signing up for a 25-year mortgage may not be the most prudent decision. Fifthly, and, critically, we need to promote true inclusivity and get rid of the stigma of HDB rental housing. In her book "This is What Inequality Looks Like", Assoc Prof Teo You Yenn described the poor design of rental flats and frequent observations of cramped, distinctively damp and pungent smell of poorly ventilated corridors. The design of new-build rental flats may have improved, but there still remains a stigma associated with HDB public rental flats, which does not necessarily go away even if the Government has integrated such flats within BTO estates or, potentially, in prime location public housing estates. This is evident even in a number of replies to my appeals to HDB for a rental flat for my residents, where the HDB officer describes HDB rental flats as being, and I quote “heavily subsidised to meet the housing needs of poor and needy citizen families who are unable to afford home ownership flats, have no other housing options and no family support”. Renting an HDB flat need not and should not be seen as a sign that you are poor and needy and our position on rentals need to reflect that. Above all, I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that home ownership is superior to home renting and that money spent on renting is money down the drain. To use an analogy from the insurance world: is a whole life insurance policy necessarily superior to that of term insurance?”
“We need to recognise that everyone’s circumstances change all the time and we should cater to Singaporeans’ housing needs across life stages, as people may decide it is most appropriate to rent or buy at different stages of their lives. Besides, by providing young couples with an alternative to save up larger amounts of capital which would have otherwise been locked up in their housing asset, this might encourage them to start families at a younger age and be open to having more children. Thirdly, on workforce flexibility. The need for a dynamic and flexible workforce today would mean that individuals may need to take greater calculated risks or seek alternative pathways to advance their careers. What we have not adequately considered is that individuals require the financial freedom to pursue these tough choices. Would you still take up that overseas posting or pursue further graduate studies if you are tied to a significant mortgage or if it means your MOP would have to be extended? Capital is an essential source of economic growth and, more so than before, largely dependent on productivity. Allowing rental housing to play a bigger role compared to home ownership could free up capital for individuals and, arguably, result in less of a rentier economy in Singapore and encourage more to have an entrepreneurial mindset. This brings me to my fourth point on having to adapt well to a major trend today: the rise of the gig economy. According to MOM, there has been an increase in freelancers from around 200,000 in 2016 to 228,000 in 2020, a 14% increase over the past four years. Many of these freelancers do not have a regular source of income, thereby suffering from income insecurity during times of economic crises.”
“Going for a BTO flat has been the avenue to provide couples an affordable home for their future families. However, even if one beats the odds of securing a BTO flat, application rates of between three and 25 times were seen in the recent August sale exercise. Also, the average waiting time for BTO projects has increased, from an average of three to four years in the past to four to five years for ongoing BTO projects. And as I have shared, the odds of securing a PPHS flat is equally low. Meanwhile, resale HDB prices are now 12.5% higher than what they were a year ago. Singaporeans who are more financially well to do have access to open market HDB or private residential rentals or even accessing serviced residences and co-living apartments. The desire by millennials to have a space of their own is well reported, with a Business Times (BT) article dated 18 June highlighting that more Singaporeans are moving out of family homes into formerly expat-dominated co-living properties and serviced residences. On 11 September, Today published a similar article, titled “Affluent and craving space to grow, more single millennials leave the nest for greater freedom”. Should we not cater to the changing housing needs and aspirations of all our millennials today regardless of their income? Secondly, adequately satisfying the housing needs of young couples could arguably be supportive of our fertility rate, which has been steadily declining and is now at a record low of 1.1. Undoubtedly, a good number of couples have been affected by construction delays in existing BTO projects; and with low odds of securing a new BTO project, given high application rates, without a place of their own, are left with no choice but to rethink their family planning decisions.”
“Again, in response to my PQ in May, there were 110 2-room, 570 3-room and 60 4-room flats for the PPHS, or a total of 740 flats. As the Minister noted, the supply of PPHS flats is limited and depends on the availability of vacant flats, such as those in vacated blocks not immediately needed for redevelopment. I acknowledge that in HDB’s press release in August, the number of existing PPHS flats is now 840, with another 800 more flats to be set aside over the next two years. It is commendable that HDB is doubling the number of PPHS flats. In absolute numbers, however, we are dealing with a very low base today, given that the demand for such flats has far exceeded the limited supply. The HDB also introduced a household income ceiling of $7,000 and switched to conducting PPHS exercises every two months instead of monthly to, and I quote, “provide PPHS applicants with a larger pool of flats to choose from. This will improve the applicants’ chance of securing a flat”. However, the number of flats available still appears to be very limited at 60 in October and with a very high application rate of more than nine times, given 544 applications received, indicating excess latent demand that cannot be met with the existing supply. Other than addressing the current demand and supply imbalance, just simply, why rental housing though? Here, I would like to share five aspects on why creating a subsidised and expanded public rental scheme for the wider population would be beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans. Firstly, creating a diversity of living options would better support the diverse needs of our fellow Singaporeans, especially millennials who are faced with limited living options.”
“In response to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) in May earlier this year, Minister Desmond Lee noted, and I quote, that: “There are currently about 31,000 1-room and 31,000 2-room flats. We have sufficient supply for households who need these flats”. However, I understand from another PQ filed by Member Ms Nadia Samdin that the average waiting time for a rental flat has lengthened to about five months. I understand from a fellow Workers' Party Member of Parliament that HDB shared in a reply in late May that HDB is facing an island-wide shortage of 1-room flats and that all four zones are having an estimated waiting time of about six months from date of registration. I recognise that part of this is also related to COVID-19-related constraints, such as taking up a longer time to spruce up flats that have been returned to the HDB before they are let out to new tenants. I am sure Members of this House would have received many requests by your residents to assist them with an appeal for a rental flat from the HDB, just as I have. Again, in response to my PQ in April this year, Minister Desmond Lee shared that, from 2016 to 2020, HDB received an average of 7,500 requests regarding rental flats and only about 35% or an average of 2,600 such requests were successful each year. So, while we may say that a wait time of two months pre-COVID-19 is “okay”, the eligibility conditions around public rental flats are highly restrictive. In fact, the total household income cap of $1,500 a month is even lower than the Average Monthly Household Income from Work of the lowest 10% of resident employed households! Just how many truly needy citizen families have we excluded as a result of the tight eligibility conditions? A similar situation can be said for the PPHS.”
“HDB rentals today take on three different forms, the Public Rental Scheme (PRS), Interim Rental Housing (IRH) and Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS). The vast majority of flats, however, relate to the Public Rental Scheme. Flats under the PRS in its current form are supposed to be heavily subsidised to cater to Singaporean households who, in the HDB’s words, have no other housing options. Another eligibility criterion is the low total household gross income threshold of not exceeding $1,500 per month, with monthly rents for a 1-room flat ranging from $26 a month to $205 a month and a 2-room flat from $44 a month to $275 a month. Interim Rental Housing is similar to the PRS in that it is for low-income households with no family support and no other housing options, where the HDB will consider offering IRH on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, the PPHS was part of the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package and helps to temporarily house families as they await the completion of their new flats. Rents are between $400 and $500 for 2-room flats, $600 to $900 for 3-room flats, and $1,500 for 4-room flats, depending on their location. Fundamentally, I believe that there needs to be a greater diversity of housing options but, more urgently, the key problem, in my view, is that there is a severe shortage of HDB rental flats in its various forms today and supply is simply insufficient to meet current demands. As I have noted earlier, there were 63,773 rental flats as of March this year, the vast majority of which would comprise 1-room and 2-room flats under the PRS. Worryingly, there are only about 1,600 rental flats under construction, which will be completed progressively by around 2025.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to first declare my interest as an equity research analyst in a financial institution covering the real estate industry. Mdm Deputy Speaker, home ownership has been the hallmark of our public housing system. These were the words of former Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan in a 2010 commentary and were similarly echoed by Mr Bobby Chin, Chairman of the HDB in the HDB’s FY18 annual report. Fast forward to 2021, as we grapple with the age of disruption, the complexities of the future economy and transitioning to a post-COVID-19 world, it is imperative that we take stock of our housing situation and approach to housing, such that they continue to meet the housing needs and aspirations of Singaporeans. On that note, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I just have one ask from this Adjournment Motion: that the Government significantly increase the stock of rental flats across flat sizes, thereby creating a viable and expanded public rental scheme, with an emphasis on ensuring that our lower- to middle-income households’ housing needs are well looked after. Let us first take stock of the existing housing model in Singapore today, particularly as it relates to rental housing. When HDB first started building flats, it built rental flats. From 1960 to 1965, there were 42,408 rental flats versus only 2,967 home ownership flats, given the Government’s home ownership scheme really only started in 1964. After decades of pushing for home ownership, when HDB resumed the rental building programme in 2007, only 1-room and 2-room flats were built. As at the HDB’s latest annual report, there were about 63,773 rental flats as of March 2021, compared to 1.02 million sold flats, out of which a dominant 97% of the flats are 1-room and 2-room flats.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, while I support this GST amendment Bill, I cannot support a GST hike which will be an unnecessary burden on our fellow Singaporeans, especially at this point in time when inflation is a serious concern and a full recovery of the employment market remains uncertain. We must have the courage to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to uphold a culture of fiscal responsibility, even if it means walking back on a prior decision made under very different circumstances. It is not too late to change course and I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of a GST hike. 6.25 pm”
“What I do know, however, is that MAS is concerned enough about inflation to surprise the market with a tightening of monetary policy in October, that is, last month, given that external and domestic cost pressures are accumulating. For Singaporeans already grappling with inflation and higher household expenditures, that additional two percentage points may be too much to bear. Yes, there will be the GST Assurance Package that delays and does not deny the impact of higher GST rates. Yes, I acknowledge that there will be an enhancement to the permanent GST Voucher scheme, which, at the moment, only applies to those earning less than $2,300 a month, amongst other conditions. These may be progressive elements involved but does the raising of GST make our tax system as a whole more progressive or more regressive? I believe the answer is clear. Do we really want higher GST to be the straw that breaks the camel's back? As I shared in my speech last year, we need to explore other forms of revenue sources before looking to an eventual GST hike to raise tax revenues. The Significant Infrastructure Government Loan (SINGA) Bill was passed earlier this year. We are now casting our GST net further overseas. We are raising carbon tax rates. We are considering wealth taxes. We are in the midst of the OECD global tax reforms which could, as Finance Minister Lawrence Wong pointed out, give Singapore some additional revenue. And as I have shared during the Budget debates earlier this year, not all Government revenues are included in the official Budget.”
“The Workers' Party has been voicing our concerns on the GST hike since it was announced in 2018 and I take comfort that Member Mr Yip Hon Weng also shared his concern on the impending GST hike, where he pointed out in his speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill last month, that this was originally announced before the pandemic. To which, Minister Lawrence Wong responded that, "The Government has announced that the GST rate increase will take place sometime during 2022 to 2025. This remains unchanged and we will continue to consider all factors, including our fiscal needs as well as the prevailing economic conditions in deciding on the timing of the GST rate increase." While I agree with the need to roll out GST on low-value goods and imported non-digital services, the target implementation from 1 January 2023, coupled with the "sooner rather than later" hike in GST rates, could mean a double whammy for consumers. Yet, Mdm Deputy Speaker, this impending GST hike is weighing on not just consumer confidence but also on businesses, especially the retailers hard-hit by COVID-19-related restrictions. The Singapore Tenants United for Fairness group, for example, in commenting on the latest month-long extension of COVID-19 restrictions, shared that the frontline business community is in deep despair and disrepair, and I quote, "To make matters worse, over the next 12 months, frontline businesses will be further hit by a likely increase of GST to 9%". The other factor that is critical to consider is that of inflation. High inflation would simply mean lower real incomes and, at the moment, the debate globally, which has yet to be settled, is whether or not the current inflationary pressures in the market are seen to be transitory or permanent.”
“And whether the overseas tax authorities will be able to provide as comprehensive an information set that IRAS seeks to retrieve? The third point is in relation to one of tax efficiency and IRAS has been an efficient tax authority, a consistently low cost of tax collection at less than one cent per dollar of tax collected over the past years. I recognise that this new Bill is also about protecting Singapore's revenue base, not just merely about the additional GST receipts from the imposition of GST on these categories of goods and services. But how much does the Government expect to collect in GST receipts from each of the low-value goods and imported non-digital services? And what is the cost of tax collection in this regard and the expected level of resources and costs to ensure a comprehensive compliance and enforcement framework? The fourth point is more of an adjacent one and while Singaporeans may not be able to travel overseas as freely as we would like to right now, we do yearn for the skies one day. As and when we do travel overseas, it is to be expected that one might be doing some shopping and bring home some gifts and souvenirs. Today, travellers are granted GST import relief on new goods that are purchased overseas and brought into Singapore for their personal use, with the relief amount set at $500 with 48 hours spent away from Singapore. Can I ask the Minister if this GST relief is expected to stay intact even when GST on low-value goods is in place from 2023? Before I end, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak about a number of broader but pertinent issues relating to GST. The first is on the spectre of a looming GST hike from 7% to 9% amid current macroeconomic uncertainties.”
“In both of these cases, implementation is by way of extending the Overseas Vendor Registration (OVR) regime, similar to how GST was being extended to digital services. Under certain conditions, a local or overseas operator of electronic marketplaces may also be regarded as the supplier of such low-value goods or imported services. With the likes of Shopee and Lazada being the e-commerce marketplaces with the largest estimated market share here in Singapore and with these companies themselves being headquartered in Singapore, the focus on these popular electronic marketplaces and digital platforms does provide for an effective way to ensure tax compliance and proper GST collection. However, now that we are venturing into the realm of low-value goods, a significantly larger plethora of overseas businesses are now supposed to be GST-registered. But the reality is that not all of them may be aware of this requirement and, even if they do, could simply decide not to go through this hassle to collect GST on the Singapore Government's behalf. A quick search on the IRAS GST Registered Business Search throws up four records for Shopee, five records for Lazada, 20 for Amazon but none for Taobao, by far the most dominant marketplace in China, for example. There could also be many more direct overseas vendors that may or may not be registered as well. How then can IRAS ensure that there is a robust enforcement framework in place, to ensure that all those who fall within the scope of the OVR regime do so? In the absence of financial records of companies incorporated overseas, much less the amount of revenues they derive from Singapore specifically, how does IRAS make the determination as to which companies it seeks to audit or investigate?”
“That being said, I do have a number of clarifications and broader issues to raise. The first is that, since 1 January last year, GST is now payable on digital services provided by the GST-registered overseas service providers. In December 2019, IRAS shared that more than 100 overseas digital service providers have registered for GST under Singapore's Overseas Vendor Registration (OVR) regime and will be charging GST on their sales of digital services to Singapore consumers. In November 2018, it was shared in this House that the Government expects additional revenue of about $90 million per year from this so-called "Netflix tax". Incidentally, Netflix has grown its subscriber base globally by about 1.5 times from 2018 to 2020, adding 37 million subscribers globally in 2020 alone. In Singapore, Disney+ was also launched in February this year, with many other over-the-top (OTT) services, Software as a Service (SaaS) and other forms of digital services witnessing prolific growth, due to the change in consumption patterns brought about by COVID-19. I would like to ask the Minister: what was the assessed contributions from the tax on overseas digital services in the last financial year and how does it compare with initial estimates? More broadly, what has been MOF's initial assessment of the level of industry compliance, effectiveness of the administration of this tax and the number of cases of non-compliance by overseas vendors detected by IRAS so far? Second, I understand that from 1 January 2023, GST will now apply to goods imported by air or post with a value of up to S$400, as well as imported non-digital services.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, it felt like yesterday when I last spoke on the GST (Amendment) Bill which was introduced in Parliament in November 2020. Back then, I shared my concerns about the loss of public revenues through GST leakages and had also asked about the status of introducing GST on imported goods, a point which was first raised in Budget 2018. I shared then that the OECD had, in March 2019, endorsed new rules and frameworks for the collection of taxes on the online sale of goods. Meanwhile, COVID-19 has resulted in dual impacts on the retail sector in Singapore: firstly, an acceleration in the already rapid growth of the e-commerce market; and, secondly, the continued struggle of brick-and-mortar retailers amid an uneven playing field. Fast forward to this year, these points continue to be relevant, with online sales now representing 16.4% of total retail sales, excluding motor vehicles, in August this year and with vacancy rates of retail space remaining elevated at 8% despite declining retail rents since 2015, given the challenges faced by the retail industry and made worse by multiple waves of COVID-19-related restrictions. From the perspective of supporting our local SME retailers and to address a growing source of tax leakage due to overseas online retailers and to correct a key imbalance faced by tax-paying retailers in Singapore, I would like to state upfront that I am supportive of this Bill and the ensuing changes to ensure a level playing field for our local businesses to compete effectively. A year ago, Finance Minister Lawrence Wong shared that he was very happy that I had brought up this point and supported it, because the MOF will certainly look for ways to raise more revenues and I believe the Minister will be equally happy with my discussion today.”
“In the face of rising inequality and the economic and social disparities that are brought to the fore by COVID-19 globally, we have a moral imperative to enhance progressivity in our tax system and ensure that any tax changes we propose bring us closer towards achieving quality growth and an inclusive society.”
“So, similarly, the conclusion can still be made that SMEs collectively paid more tax per dollar of either pre-tax profits or changeable income, as compared to non-SMEs. Ultimately, what companies report in their financial statements to shareholders are accounting profits, which are audited in Singapore based on the Singapore Financial Reporting Standards, which are, of course, modelled after the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The use of accounting profits as a meaningful basis of comparison on tax rates is made all the more relevant, given the fact that Pillar Two of the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 proposal is quite simply using financial accounting income for the determination of the tax base, with a small number of adjustments allowed. This brings me to my third point in that in the fullness of time, I do hope that the Government will continue to safeguard its taxing rights and view the global minimum tax reforms as an opportunity rather than a threat, given Singapore's strong non-tax advantages and attractiveness to MNCs. I recognise that a lot of details on BEPS implementation are still being ironed out. But given the current average effective corporate tax rate is close to 3% as shared by the Minister, technically it would seem that even a small shift towards the proposed global minimum rate of 15% could result in much higher corporate tax receipts for the Government. Tax receipts which can then be used to reinvest in our people and our local companies. To conclude, Mdm Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications on the Bill, I support the amendments. Our tax policy sends a strong signal of the kind of growth we want to pursue and the kind of society we want to build.”
“Yet, it was in the same year in Budget 2018 that the Government announced tighter restrictions around these schemes. For an SME making $300,000 in chargeable income, for example, total corporate income tax paid before any rebates will be close to $34,000 or an effective rate of about 11%, compared to around $25,000 or an effective rate of about 8% based on prior rules. Even as other support for companies to build capabilities is being strengthened, I hope the Government will consider providing greater tax relief to our SMEs, such as by raising tax exemption limits which are geared towards SMEs, given the challenging domestic trading conditions brought about by COVID-19. I recognise that Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong has said that effective tax rates for SMEs are much lower than the effective tax rates for non-SMEs in Singapore. But what is also true is that SMEs paid $4.8 billion in corporate income tax out of profit before tax of $44 billion for YA2019 versus non-SMEs, which paid $11.5 billion in corporate tax out of profit before tax of $459 billion. As I shared in my speech in July this year, SMEs accounted for 9% of total profit before tax in YA2019, yet, they contributed an outsized 29% of corporate income tax paid. Now, I do appreciate that MOF has its way of calculating effective tax rates, which the Finance Minister has clarified is based on a definition of chargeable income that is a bit different from that per section 38 of the Income Tax Act. So, using the data provided to my Parliamentary Question yesterday, for example, based on the subset of profit-making firms in YA2019, SMEs accounted for 20% of accounting profit before tax, 22% of chargeable income but 30% of corporate income tax paid.”
“The imposition of such a tax could generate legitimate concerns, one of which pertains to Singapore's status as a financial centre and wealth management hub. Yet, one also has to bear in mind that Switzerland, as a key financial centre and wealth management hub globally today, is one of the countries that actually has a net wealth tax. Let us also remember that not only does Singapore not have a wealth tax, there is no capital gains tax, no tax on dividends, no inheritance tax, no estate duties, and has one of the lowest effective personal income tax rates globally. Yes, there could be implementation challenges and a wealth tax will take many forms, be it net wealth tax like Switzerland, a property gains tax or an inheritance tax, to name a few. And, yes, having a wealth tax alone will not eliminate widening wealth inequality in Singapore. But do we truly want to have a tax system where our low- to middle-income workers pay more in income tax than a trust fund baby living off his grandparents' inheritance? The second issue is to raise the level of progressivity in our corporate income tax regime to better support our local SMEs. I do recognise that there are features in our current corporate taxes that better benefit SMEs. Corporate income tax rebates being capped at a dollar amount, $15,000 for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2020, for example, would mean large multinational companies (MNCs) would not disproportionately benefit from the corporate income tax rebate of 25% that was given. In 2018, Hong Kong implemented the two-tiered profits tax regime to relieve the tax burden for SMEs, in particular. In Singapore, we do have the tax exemption scheme for new startup companies and partial tax exemption for all companies which have a similar effect.”
“7% in the past five years compared to 19.7% for private home prices. This wealth gap has been exacerbated by the falling percentage of resident households who live in public housing, which has declined to 78.7% in 2020, from 80% in 2015 and 82% in 2010. Put in other words, household wealth from property is increasingly skewed towards the top 10% to 20% of resident households. If left unchecked, this could lead to greater disparity in inter- and intra-generational wealth. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I recognise that Member Ms Foo Mee Har has also been speaking on wealth taxes, although respectfully, I do not think that any new wealth tax should be one-off in nature. While well-intended, the fear of further "one-offs" could negatively impact faith in regulatory certainty in Singapore. Rather, in principle, wealth taxes need to be recurring yet sustainable, reasonably easy to implement and hard for the wealthy to avoid so that the middle class does not end up bearing more of the burden. One possible solution is to raise property-related taxes on the homes valued above a high threshold, say, $5 million, or for owners of multiple properties cumulatively worth $5 million. I have used this value just as a starting point for discussion, so as to not penalise the majority of Singaporeans, especially the aspiring middle class. As home valuations are well documented in Singapore, this will help with policy implementation before we consider wealth taxes on net worth, which more comprehensively captures the wealth of the ultra-wealthy. This also means that for the vast majority of Singaporeans who reside in HDB flats, there will be no wealth tax applied to them.”
“Even as COVID-19 ravages across the world, disrupting livelihoods and causing economic hardship to workers and businesses alike, rising equity markets and government stimulus mean that global wealth and the number of high net worth individuals continue to reach record highs globally. I am sure that Members in this House will agree with me that widening wealth inequalities are undesirable over the longer term insofar that they risk leading to tensions that impact our societal cohesiveness. The idea is not new, of course, and such taxes have been raised by the Workers' Party in this House. During the Budget debates earlier this year, Deputy Prime Minister Heng agreed that there is scope to further review our wealth taxes. I wonder if this is currently being actively studied by MOF and if so, what is the status of the study? At a lecture at the Institute of Policy Studies in July, the Managing Director of MAS, Mr Ravi Menon, noted that to address the risk of growing wealth inequality, it made sense to shift the balance in Singapore's tax structure away from taxing income towards taxing wealth, wherein property would form a major component in the Singapore context. Again, in Singapore, where housing prices have broadly grown in tandem with the economy, high home ownership rates and public housing subsidies have in the past helped to narrow the disparity in household wealth. But these mitigating factors can only go so far. An area that I am particularly concerned with is the divergence in public and private home prices. For example, private home prices rose 10.9% between end-2020 and end-2015, while HDB resale prices only rose by 2.4% over the same period. Even if we take into account the sharp spike in HDB resale prices year-to-date, HDB resale prices rose by 11.”
“I believe the new section provides for greater certainty in the timing and recognition of the tax base in such cases, given that the market value of trading stock on the date of appropriation for capital purposes is treated as income that is subject to income tax at the juncture and, similarly, where the cost of the trading stock is its market value on the date the capital asset becomes trading stock. Again, in the context of COVID-19, companies facing economic challenges and cash flow issues may have no choice but to scale down their operations, and in so doing, dispose of their capital goods such as property, plant and equipment. May I seek confirmation from the Minister that such transactions are not caught under the new section 10P? And how would the distinction be drawn between a manufacturer selling off its factory or production line compared to a residential developer which converts its existing office building, formerly held as an investment property to strata units which are on-sold to investors? Further, I note under section 10(1)(g) of the Income Tax Act, a so-called "catch-all" provision that taxes any gains or profits of an income nature not falling within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) under the preceding paragraphs. How would section 10(1)(g) factor into IRAS' consideration as to the factors used to determine whether or not such gains from the sale of what is now deemed to be trading stock are revenue in nature? Mdm Deputy Speaker, I shall now move on to speak about the number of tax issues which I believe ought to be considered as part of Singapore's periodic review of the income tax system. First of which is the need to consider implementing a wealth tax in Singapore.”
“Yet, over time, IRAS has also been called upon to go beyond tax collection and to support the Government in disbursing various support grants to companies. I do support and believe in the importance of enabling an independent third party audit of how IRAS has been implementing these support schemes to ensure proper accountability. This is especially in the context of COVID-19 where substantial sums of monies are involved and continue to be disbursed in some of these schemes alongside the complex and ever-changing conditions around them. I note in section 6(11)(c) that authorised persons must make and subscribe to a declaration of secrecy in accordance with section 1, "must not disclose or make copies of the records or documents and will be guilty of an offence if otherwise." That being said, my concern is less on the deliberate disclosure of information, but more in the inadvertent leakage of such information through data breaches. Given the sensitivity of tax information, any such breaches would be disastrous even if the negligent party was charged subsequently. In the spirit of being prudent with taxpayers' information, is there a consideration to codify the requirement to retain such records or documents only for a specific period of time required to conduct the audit and for such authorised persons to declare that all copies of tax information in their possession have been destroyed thereafter? Thirdly, I note the creation of a new section 10P which provides the tax treatment for cases where trading stock is appropriated for non-trade or capital purposes, and where non-trade or capital asset becomes trading stock.”
“Looking back at 2020, when the Government gave all adult Singaporeans regardless of income a one-off Solidarity payout of $600, many decided to donate this payout instead. Notwithstanding the giving surge in 2020, the persistency of COVID-19 has presented much challenge to charities this year. For most charities, donations are the primary means of funding the good work that they do and it is important for them to ensure both the sufficiency and regularity of the donations that they receive. To better encourage sustainable giving by Singaporeans and companies here, where the habit of giving is integrated into our lives, should we not make permanent the 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations made to IPCs? This does not preclude short-term enhancements in future such as back in the year of assessment 2016, where the tax deduction granted is three times. However, with the 250% tax deduction already in place since YA 2010, making permanent a baseline level of tax deduction for donations gives charities the assurance of this continuing support while encouraging Singaporeans to continue supporting the causes that matter to them in a sustainable manner. Second, clause 2 amends section 6 to allow any person authorised by the Comptroller of Income Tax access to any IRAS records and all documents containing taxpayer income information protected under section 6 that are necessary for the person to audit IRAS administration of any public scheme specified in the Ninth Schedule. These will include schemes such as the JSS and Wage Credit Scheme, for example. And the role of IRAS is to be the main tax administrator to the Government.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to first declare my interest as a research analyst working in a financial institution, covering the real estate industry and I am also a chartered accountant of Singapore, although not a practising public accountant. Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is said that in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes. What we can also be certain of is that this quote for more than 200 years ago, will often be repeated by politicians, even though taxes most certainly do not affect everyone in the same way. I recognise that Income Tax (Amendment) Bills are introduced to Parliament with sufficient regularity as many of the clauses relate to tax changes made in the Government's annual Budget Statement. In my speech, I would like to first raise some clarifications relating to specific tax measures and tax changes that are raised in the Bill before moving on to share my thoughts on pertinent tax issues, which I believe ought to be seriously considered as part of Singapore's periodic review of the income tax system. First, in relation to the proposed amendments included in the Bill, clause 29 amends section 37, where the 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations made to IPCs and other qualifying recipients will be extended for another two years, that is, for donations made during the period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023. While donations ought to be made on altruistic grounds, I am also supportive of the enhanced deductibility of donations, given that this will continue to encourage Singaporeans to give back to the community and to provide support for the charity sector. Singaporeans have been giving selflessly, of course.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. In relation to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) on booster shots, I note that MOH will now offer booster shots to seniors and immunocompromised individuals, as what Senior Minister of State has said. I was just wondering if the Government has completed its assessment on the need for a booster shot in general and what are the rollout plans for the general population, especially the healthcare workers and transport workers who are amongst the first in this country to be vaccinated? I also note in Minister Dr Tan See Leng's reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) of mine yesterday, for example, that protection conferred by vaccines may wane with time and new COVID-19 variants may emerge that may be resistant to our current vaccines.”
“I would like to ask if the current Bill amendment is a part of the process towards ratifying the Kigali Amendment and if the Minister can provide a timeline for the review as to whether Singapore will decide to join the 124 countries that have thus far already ratified the agreement. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill and its introduction of legislative safeguards and controls over greenhouse gases in Singapore. Yet, this Bill is but one of the many steps that Singapore will have to take in order for us to advance our efforts in addressing climate change. As I shared in my speech on the Climate Motion earlier this year, even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. The science has spoken and there is no alternative except to urgently commit to reversing the trend of rising emissions. We can, should and must do more. My fellow Sengkang colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, again had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government plans to review Singapore's net zero emissions target and set a definitive timeline to achieve net zero emissions. Member Louis Ng too had asked in a Parliamentary Question whether the Government would review and bring forward the plans to reach net zero emissions. I ask that we be that bright green spark and show the world that even in spite of our constraints, we can set a bold, ambitious and specific emissions reductions target that aligns with the global goal of reaching net zero by 2050 and not let it be that because of our constraints, "if"s and "only if"s dominate our vocabulary.”
“I would like to ask the Minister when will the regulation of such businesses commence; and in the future, should a new GHG good be added to the list of regulated GHG goods, what is the lead time for businesses to respond accordingly? Thirdly, under section 40D, there are proposed restrictions on supplies and imports of regulated goods. I would like to ask the Minister how the thresholds of global warming potential are being determined for the regulated goods, and how often would NEA or the Director-General of Environmental Protection plan to review the GWP threshold and its basis for restriction of supply? For example, according to the NEA website, the typical refrigerant used in chillers is R134a, which has a GWP of 1,300. The climate-friendly alternative is R1233zd, which has a GWP of just one. Based on what is disclosed, the NEA will, from the fourth quarter of 2022, restrict the supply of certain air-conditioning equipment with a GWP of more than 750 and certain refrigerators and chillers with GWP of more than 15. How much of a decline in the percentage or volume of GHG emissions is this restriction expected to lead to? Finally, my fellow Sengkang Member of Parliament He Ting Ru asked a Parliamentary Question about whether MSE has initiated a review of Singapore's ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and if so, what is the outcome of this review. To which, Minister Grace Fu shared that a review is ongoing and the decision for Singapore to ratify the Kigali Amendment will be finalised after consultation with key stakeholders.”
“To begin with, I note that the Bill under section 40A provides certain definitions on GHG goods, GHG works and other interpretations of the new Part 10A. The first clarification is about sections 40A and 40B which deal with the power of the Minister, after consultation with NEA, to prescribe any class, description or type of GHG goods to be regulated. To provide greater visibility to businesses and consumers, I would like to ask the Minister if there is currently a set of goods by which the Ministry and NEA plans to prescribe and regulate as GHG goods once the Bill is passed. If there is not such a list yet, would the Minister and agency consider putting a plan for such a list such that, by the time the Act comes into force, the Government may facilitate a swift recognition of such goods? How much of such goods and works that are available in our market today will now be subject to these amendments? In addition, could the Minister provide clarity on whether these GHG goods or works were originally excluded from the Carbon Pricing Act and if so, what is the assessment of the cost to measure and report these GHG goods compared to the amount of carbon tax that potentially could be collected? Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister what is the Ministry’s assessment of any possible impacts this amendment and the classification of the new GHG goods or works will have on our companies, such as the air-condition, chiller and equipment manufacturers as well as industries, such as the semiconductor manufacturing industry, which uses fluorinated gases? Secondly, under section 40C, an importer or manufacturer has to be a registered supplier for these regulated goods.”
“Secondly, bouts of rain could become more intense and frequent with each additional degree of warming. Southeast Asia would likely experience this, resulting in flash floods if the ground is covered with concrete and if drainage systems are overwhelmed, as in Singapore’s case recently. Thirdly, sea level rises in Asia, especially critical to low-lying coastal regions like Singapore, are projected to increase faster than global average, alongside coastal area loss and shoreline retreat. While there has been much focus on CO2, the IPCC also assessed the possibility of actively targeting and removing methane as part of the pathway to limiting warming. While methane is less prevalent than CO2, it is more than 80 times more powerful at trapping heat over the first 10 to 20 years in the atmosphere. I had earlier filed a Parliamentary Question on whether the Government has conducted a study to assess the amount of external methane emissions associated with natural gas imported into and consumed in Singapore, across both piped natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is critical because even though methane emitted directly from Singapore is low, the use of natural gas as a source of energy could indirectly contribute significantly to methane emissions through upstream fugitive emission leakages, if these are not properly controlled. As a responsible consumer of natural gas, be it piped or LNG, it is important that we uphold strict monitoring and verification standards and promote the adoption of emission reduction technologies. Having spoken much about the AR6 findings and their implications for Singapore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do have a number of clarifications I would like to raise about the Bill itself.”
“At this point in time, remaining carbon budgets for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degree celsius and two degree celcius are estimated at 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) and 1,350 GtCO2 respectively. With global emissions currently at a little more than 40 GtCO2 a year and if continued, the budget would be exhausted in a mere 12 years. Singapore is certainly not spared from the effects of a higher global temperature. Even in a 1.5 degree celsius warmer world, there will an increase in the number of unprecedented weather events with disasters to become more frequent and intense. Should emissions not come down to net zero by around 2050, there will be even more punishing heatwaves, severe coastal flooding events and bouts of heavier rain. As it is, Singapore has already seen record rainfalls in January, April and August. The recent memory of flash floods in August this year is a very sombre reminder of how things are no longer the way it used to be. What does this mean for daily life in Singapore? Firstly, in terms of temperature, Singapore has already experienced warming higher than the global average because of the urban heat island effect. Local temperatures are 1.8 degree celsius higher than they were in 1948, as indicated in the MET Service database. In contrast, global temperatures have warmed by about 1.1 degree celsius from pre-industrial times, which ended around 1850. The IPCC has identified Southeast Asia as a region experiencing severe heat waves, which used to occur once every 50 years but have become five times more frequent. Tropical cyclones are also getting stronger, severe droughts are happening 1.7 times as often and fire seasons are increasing in duration and intensity.”
“UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the recently published IPCC report "a code red for humanity", as it confirmed that we are observing unprecedented changes in the Earth’s climate "in every region and across the climate ecosystem". It makes clear that the world faces a frightening future, even if – and that is a big "if" – the global economy is decarbonised rapidly. I would thus like to spend some time sharing more about the key implications of this report and also what we should do in light of these implications, especially since this could have serious repercussions on a coastal island nation that is our home. In 2019, atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations were higher than at any time in at least two million years. Across all scenarios considered by the IPCC, global temperatures will continue to increase until at least the mid-century. In fact, we are now expected to reach this 1.5 degree celsius tipping point earlier than expected. To limit warming to 1.5 degree celsius with no or limited overshoot, net global CO2 emissions need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" by 2050. Unless immediate, rapid and large-scale action is taken to reduce emissions, the average global temperature is likely to reach or cross the 1.5 degree celsius warming threshold within 20 years. Unfortunately, however, some climate changes are already locked in. Hot extremes have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes have become less frequent and less severe. Over the next 2,000 years, the global mean sea level will rise by about two to three metres, even if warming is limited to 1.5 degree celsius, with the effect irreversible for millennia.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA), originally enacted in 1999, is one of a number of key pieces of environmental legislation in Singapore, with a noteworthy recent addition being the Carbon Pricing Act which was introduced in 2018 and came into operation in January 2019. The EPMA is the primary regulation for the environmental control of pollution and waste, including for hazardous substances in Singapore. What I believe to be noteworthy in this amendment Bill is clause 3 of the Bill which inserts a new Part 10A, comprising new sections 40A to 40Y, relating to the control of greenhouse gases. After all, anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with their far-ranging environmental and health effects, are just about the most hazardous substances nations around the world have to grapple with today. The Bill goes into significant technical detail about the regulation, monitoring, prohibition and enforcement against a subset of greenhouse gas goods and related activities. However, I believe it is also crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture in terms of the urgent and bold actions that the Government, as well as all other governments around the world, have to undertake to curb greenhouse gas emissions adequately, in order to deal with the existential threat of climate change. Today's debate is thus timely in the context of the recent August release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC's sixth Assessment Report or AR6 and as nations around the world prepare for COP26 at the 26th UN Climate Change conference coming up in November this year.”
“Post-pandemic, companies should consider making flexible work arrangements a norm at workplaces, as many forward-thinking companies have already done so to boost employee productivity and promote talent retention. As individuals, we should not be afraid to challenge archaic gender stereotypes and to support our own families to the best of our abilities. But, more importantly, as lawmakers today, we have an opportunity to set the right tone on gender equality in Singapore and it is imperative for the Government to demonstrate leadership on this matter by setting right our current care-related policies today.”
“In my MSF COS speech earlier this year, I noted that while the Government has increased the number of infant care and childcare places over the last five years, this is still woefully inadequate in towns such as Sengkang, which has the highest number of young children across Singapore by planning area. There are 16,380 zero- to four-year-olds and 17,600 five- to nine-year-olds as of June 2020. As such, while there may be vacancies in the system as a whole today, this may not be so for particular areas with a higher concentration of young families. Meanwhile, the Workers' Party also called for childcare subsidies to be equalised for all children, regardless of the employment status of their mothers. At present, mothers of Singaporean children working at least 56 hours a month are entitled to additional childcare subsidies. This, however, does not take into account the unpaid care or voluntary work that other mothers take on, or those who are engaged in part-time work due to their care commitments. All these, ultimately, shows the importance of state policies in enabling women, and men, who are key members of our families and society, to be supported in their efforts as a parent, individual and employee. Building strong families and societies must start with supporting parents with young children to achieve their fullest potential, all whilst becoming a more involved parent. Mdm Deputy Speaker, there is arguably still a long road ahead of us before we can proudly say that there is strong societal recognition of equal and shared care responsibilities between men and women.”
“This is where our existing care-related policies covering Government-paid maternity and paternity leave run the danger of further reinforcing gender roles and stereotypes. When my son was born, as much as I would like to be alongside my wife on our parenthood journey as first-time parents, the mere two weeks of paternity leave was not even sufficient to last throughout my wife's confinement period. The Workers' Party has in our manifesto called for a shared parental leave scheme that entitles parents to 24 weeks of Government-paid leave, to be shared between mothers and fathers as they choose, but with a minimum of 12 weeks to be granted to the mother and four weeks to the father. This scheme would replace the existing 16-week maternity and two-week paternity leave entitlements. So, we are looking at 24 weeks instead of 18 weeks in total, of gender-neutral parental leave. This would encourage closer parental bonds with children while having positive effects on the relationship between the parents. Shared parental leave supports fathers who want to partake in the joys of parenthood and allows them the flexibility to take on greater responsibilities in childcare to support their wives. In addition, the Workers' Party also shared in our manifesto the need to increase the number of infant care centres to better serve the needs of young families and the motivation behind this is manifold. Having adequate infant and childcare places will allow caregivers, both men and women, to free up some of their time in the day and play the necessary roles of a parent, employee and individual, without having to sacrifice their career or retirement adequacy.”
“Gender norms and stereotypes are also damaging for men, and while cultural and mindset shifts are important, institutional changes are also going to be necessary if we are to move towards equal care responsibilities. This brings me to my next point on the role of fathers in a child's development. As a father to a two-year-old toddler, I am thankful to have witnessed his various development milestones over the past two years, and partake in the joys of parenthood, while continuing to stay productive at work. Psychological research across families from different ethnic backgrounds suggests that fathers' affection and increased family involvement help promote children's social and emotional development. However, according to research by Dads for Life, there has been a continued lag in terms of fathers' involvement compared to mothers, in Singapore. Some of these, as discussed earlier, is due to entrenched gender norms. Teachers may call up the child's mothers instead of their fathers, as fathers may be perceived as "too busy working". A Dads for Life Fatherhood Perception Survey in 2010 highlighted that 39% of fathers surveyed said that society's views on how men should behave also posed challenges to them. There must be more attention given to fatherhood and to the diverse range of fathering practices and for further local research to understand and support fathers' involvement as the times change. We should not blame women's education and careers leading to calls for more equal parenting, and instead be channelling more time and effort to understanding and overcoming the challenges men's roles in care-giving, including fatherhood. The last Fatherhood Perception Survey was done more than 10 years ago and is long overdue. What can we do as lawmakers to make this change?”
“Calling on employers to implement good practices and foster more family-friendly work environments may not be enough, particularly when much of caregiving right now is narrowly defined as childcare, care for disabled persons or for the elderly. Even if eldercare leave is available, it is currently not a legislative requirement, some in Singapore may not be eligible for it if they are caring for a spouse and are elderly themselves. Caregiving should be as broad, gender-neutral and norm-free as possible if we are to ensure greater equality for women in Singapore. If we do not address unequal care responsibilities, caring can become a drain on Singapore's workforce. Caring tends to be overlooked in the workplace, leading to some having to choose between gainful employment and their families. In the near future, this could apply not only to women, but to men as well. This is pertinent because with life expectancy increasing and slower population growth, we must begin to make changes so that employers can better support workers that have work and care responsibilities. One way is to ensure that managers are adequately trained to overcome unconscious gender-bias towards employees. This should be a mandatory part of workplace training if workplaces are to become more inclusive. Male-dominated industries should also review their diversity policy and enhance support in the workplace, including recognising men as caregivers. Indeed, men are also sons, fathers, brothers and more. Men may be concerned about being discriminated against professionally, missing out on promotions and pay increases, marginalised, or even laughed at for taking time off.”
“For example, extended families providing care on a regular basis for children of our frontline workers during this pandemic, or grandparents who provide care to the grandchildren, whom the MOH recognises as essential and would not be counted towards the prevailing permissible visitor cap per household, or to the number of social gatherings per day. These caregivers are currently not entitled to caregiving or childcare leave, unlike their peers who have children. The reality is, caregiving responsibilities between parents of children go beyond the couple. It takes a village to raise a child and our policies should provide new recognition to the village and to go beyond merely adopting a so-called "practical approach to calibrating childcare leave provisions". More broadly, despite the release of the Tripartite Standard on Flexible Work Arrangements in 2017, true flexible work arrangements only became commonplace in Singapore due to COVID-19. In 2019, it was said that about 85% of employers offered some form of formal or ad hoc FWAs in the workplace. However, FWAs come in a spectrum and, clearly, the level of flexibility that was in place pre-COVID-19 is dramatically different from what we have seen in 2020, or even today with Work-from-Home being the default work arrangement. As I have shared in my MOM COS speech, it is now time for the Government to reflect the needs of today's employees and employers, and legislate a baseline level of flexible work arrangement, so that we do not have to make the false choice of choosing between work or family.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic over the last one and a half years has also compounded the problem, where a Stay-Home Notice issued to children who are down with respiratory symptoms would effectively wipe out five days of leave for working parents, making it extremely challenging for parents to balance their work commitments. With an increasingly ageing society, we also have a moral duty to take care of our parents. And as of June 2020, the population of children between age zero and four is at 183,000 as compared to 611,000 elderly citizens aged 65 and above, with our population continuing to age. Many companies have started to offer eldercare leave as an Employee Value Proposition and I have asked if this could be considered as statutory leave. The Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO) has advocated to make childcare leave and eldercare leave interchangeable. AWARE too has suggested that the Government could implement the statutory right to request for flexible work arrangements, as well as making paid eldercare leave and family care leave mandatory for sandwiched caregivers. Similarly, the Singapore Alliance for Women in Ageing (SAWA) has called for the conversion of childcare leave to family care leave, which could allow other members of the family to help provide the necessary care for persons who need it. These are worthy suggestions to improve the ecosystem of support for women caregivers in Singapore. Additionally, changing family structures require more flexible guidelines for support, such as expanding the definitions of leave and subsidies, to ensure that all caregivers are supported.”
“It is often suggested that to address the unequal distribution of caring responsibilities, we must begin by addressing internalised gender norms and stereotypes in redistributing responsibilities for care and housework between women and men. In today's context, we need to be mindful that gender norms and stereotypes may be internalised differently for different groups. As suggested by AWARE, a review should be conducted via an intersectional lens to understand the differential impact it has on not just men and women, but those with disabilities, ethnic minority women, migrant women and so on. As a starting point, as lawmakers, it is important for us to do a stock-take on our existing policies, to ensure that our care-related policies do not ironically perpetuate stereotypes and reinforce notions on gender roles. At the same time, we need to provide adequate support to all caregivers in Singapore to enable all caregivers, whether women or men, to freely realise their full potential in society. My fellow Sengkang Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has asked about instituting different tiers of childcare leave such that those with more children will be entitled to comparatively more days of leave. In my MOM Committee of Supply (COS) speech earlier this year, I too called for childcare leave to be extended on a per child basis and up to the age of 12, as our Primary school-going children would still need a degree of care if they fell ill, or simply to allow families to spend more time together.”