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 13 of 15.
“Statistics aside, few would disagree that much of today's unpaid care work is still done by women as it is largely considered a female responsibility. While there is an increased awareness of shared responsibility within and between households today, there is much work that remains invisible and unpaid. This needs to be urgently addressed if we are to advance women's development in Singapore because such work, if it remains unpaid and unnoticed, has effects on the female labour force participation. Recognising unpaid labour, whether carried out by men or women, must, therefore, be the first step in addressing the disadvantages faced by those that take on the bulk of unpaid labour for a household. There should be annual measures of the amount of unpaid work undertaken by Singaporeans and this should be published as a supplement to national GDP data, as shared by my colleague, Ms He Ting Ru. An International Labour Organization report published in 2018 estimated that women in APEC countries do four times more unpaid care work than men. In the local context, the study by Ipsos and UWS I referred to earlier highlighted that women are doing more unpaid domestic work than men think they are. The study notes that while gender-defined roles still exist in the Singaporean household and are held by both men and women, the younger generation holds these views less. Entrenched patriarchal views can and are shifting. Society is moving towards acceptance and being supportive of equal caring responsibilities and this is encouraging. But we can do more as we create our roadmap towards gender equality.”
“They struggled, to say the least, and while it was amusing to watch, truth be told, I have doubts in my mind whether I can survive being at home on a one-to-one basis with my two-year-old toddler and for three nights straight. Based on a study by market research firm Ipos and United Women Singapore (UWS), close to nine in 10 agree that household chores can be equally shared by husband and wife. However, fewer women, or about 54%, than men, or about 75%, say that they are happy about their household and caring responsibilities, with wider gap between mothers and fathers at 47% and 78% respectively. We need not look further than Singapore's official manpower statistics to see such effects play out. Based on MOM's Labour Force in Singapore 2020 report, women represented 63% of residents outside the labour force as of June 2020 or 689,400 out of the total of 1.1 million residents. Of the men reported to be outside the labour force, a mere 0.2% cited housework as the main reason for not working, which is the least common reason among men. This is in stark contrast for women where housework was the most common reason for not working, coming in at 21.5% of women outside the labour force. Meanwhile, only 2.5% of men were outside the labour force due to care responsibilities for their own children and family members, which is, again, significantly different from that of women at 15.9%. This echoes an MSF survey on social attitudes of Singaporeans, where 96% of married working women indicated that they were equally or primarily responsible for caregiving responsibilities, compared to 53% of married working men. While this survey was from 2013, this reinforces the societal standards that have been placed on women to take on the larger responsibility in their households.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, gender inequality manifests itself in a number of forms here in Singapore: unequal pay for equal work, unpaid care work and lower-wage work choices available to women, to name a few. My speech today will touch on the unequal distribution of care responsibilities and how this is linked to discriminatory social institutions and stereotypes about gender roles. The changes in working patterns due to the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the spotlight on gender inequality that exists at home and, in particular, the difficulties women face in being both caregivers and breadwinners. Strong societal recognition of shared responsibilities helps reduce the disadvantages women face in the workplace, including the "motherhood penalty", "mom guilt" and stigma that they face when they want to return to the workforce. Women would have more time for themselves to rest, to pursue their aspirations freely and to contribute even more to the community at large. Similarly, men too will be able to put aside their fears of being discriminated against at the workplace, facing backlash for their lack of perceived work commitment, in trying to take on greater responsibility for caregiving roles at home. Sad to say, we are not quite there yet and the idea of equal, shared responsibilities remains an ideal. Earlier this year, I recall watching a documentary series produced by CNA, "Give Mum A Break!", which documents three Singaporean households and what happens at home when moms are shipped off to a four-day, three-night staycation, leaving dads to hold the fort at home.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers in terms of the statistics for the nursing homes situation. The Parliamentary Question really originated based on the concern that one of my residents had already been waiting for about a year for a nursing home bed and was told to be mentally prepared to wait up to three years for a space. Given that the number of nursing homes has increased by just about one a year since 2006, I was just wondering, firstly, what plans does the Ministry have in terms of accelerating the build-up of nursing home beds? Secondly, what would the projected number of beds be in, say, five years' time or 10 years' time, if this is something that is inside the Ministry's projections, given the ageing population that we are having?”
“Thank you. In terms of the exact wording, based on what is in the BT article, it was quoted that a URA spokesperson said, "URA does not regulate the commission rates paid by developers to their appointed sales agent. As part of our monitoring of the property market, we engage developers regularly to obtain information and provide feedback."”
“I thank the Second Minister for her response to the Parliamentary Question. Just one supplementary question. I see from a February report in The Business Times (BT) where the journalist mentioned that the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is looking into property agents' commissions and engages developers regularly to obtain information and provide feedback. So, I was just wondering if this is something that is going to be of a regular occurrence in terms of collecting commission-related information from developers and whether or not there are plans to then look into the regulation on this? Or is it mainly a private contractual agreement, as the Minister mentioned?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Just a quick clarification, in terms of the things that are being done to ensure compliance and to enforce that there is no moonlighting involved, I am just wondering how has the approach that the Ministry has taken evolved over the last five years, in terms of improving its processes to ensure that these cases are being picked up. A lot of them would be part-time in nature without necessarily any documentation involved. A very recent example would be the KTV cluster where a number of them would have committed offences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank Minister Lawrence Wong for sharing some clarifications on the numbers. And I was just wondering if the Minister will be able to share with us the breakdown in terms of the chargeable income, as broken down between SMEs and non-SMEs. I think that will also give us a better understanding. As the Minister has shared, there is a difference between statutory income, assessible income as well as chargeable income. Having this additional information, which I also note that the Minister shared in my other Parliamentary Question (PQ) yesterday, I think that will help us to understand the numbers better. I think the other clarification is, I was just wondering if it is incorrect to say that SMEs bear a higher proportion of the tax burden, given that just based on the numbers I am looking at, I am looking at $4.8 billion of corporate income tax paid by SMEs as a proportion of the $16 billion of corporate income tax paid by all companies. So, that is roughly about 29% versus SMEs being about 99% in terms of enterprise count.”
“They proposed a new approach in which "fiscal discretion is retained but exercised after making the budget adjust more automatically and rapidly in areas where there is broad consensus that doing so is consistent with achieving broader societal goals." Using an example in the local context, direct assistance to companies, such as JSS, could arguably provide indirect support to employment. Yet, many have still lost their jobs, even as the companies they work for receive JSS subsidies. Rather than providing blanket wage subsidies across companies, it is perhaps the workers themselves who are most in need of direct support and financial buffers in the event of unemployment. The Workers’ Party has been calling for an unemployment insurance scheme for years and I am glad that others in this House, such as the hon Mr Patrick Tay, who also recognised earlier this year that it is timely for us to consider introducing some form of unemployment insurance. I look forward to hearing more about progress in that area. To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am heartened by Finance Minister Lawrence Wong’s assurance that the Government will not hesitate to use the full measure of our fiscal firepower to protect the lives and livelihoods of Singaporeans. I hope the Government will follow through on its assurance and give due consideration to the pointers I have brought up today, to support our workers, our companies and our future.”
“I also recognise that some sectors have been more affected by COVID-19, hence, the differentiated JSS support. However, as I have said in my speech in the debate on the Ministerial Statement in October last year, it would be more effective to direct a higher proportion of JSS payouts from the scheme towards SMEs, which make up a bigger proportion of jobs saved in comparison to large MNCs, which tend to have more resources on hand to tide them through the crisis. A global fast food chain with more than $20 billion of revenues, for example, could certainly weather the crisis much better than our neighbourhood coffeeshop uncle selling wanton mee. Further, based on data from SingStat, we observed that employment of SMEs declined from $2.52 million in 2019, to $2.36 million in 2020, or a decline of about 160,000 in the number of workers. This is a staggering eight times more than the 20,000 year-on-year decline in employment numbers for non-SMEs. If the role of JSS is to allow companies to better retain their local employees, then the results do leave much to be desired on this front. This brings me to my third point about supporting our future economy. While the current relief measures are no doubt useful and could be funded via a reallocation of resources, ultimately, we may need to think of implementing automatic stabilisers instead of discretionary ad hoc schemes, as I have mentioned in my maiden speech. In a policy brief published in January 2021 by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Peter Orszag, Robert Rubin and Joseph Stiglitz called for the idea of a semi-autonomous discretionary fiscal architecture based on automatic stabilisers.”
“For SMEs, however, and this includes companies with a turnover of up to S$100 million, their total profits before tax were S$44 billion for YA2019, with the total corporate income tax paid of S$4.8 billion. In other words, while SMEs accounted for a mere 9% of total profits before tax in YA2019, they contributed to 29% of corporate income tax paid. Put in another way, for every $100 of profit, SMEs paid $11 to the Government in taxes versus non-SMEs who only paid $2.50 in corporate taxes. Could we not shift the incidence of taxation away from our local SMEs, which need all the support we can give, towards larger MNCs, which are better positioned financially and are currently paying a disproportionately lower share of corporate income taxes? Rather than view global tax reforms as a threat, I see a clear opportunity for Singapore, given our global competitiveness and solid non-tax factors that make Singapore attractive to global MNCs. The key here is that global MNCs are not worse off if Singapore exercises our rights to taxation vis-a-vis the global minimum tax rates, but instead, given where effective tax rates in Singapore are today, Singaporeans will be able to benefit tremendously from the sizeable additional revenue headroom that could be generated from corporate income tax revenues should these reforms be enacted globally come 2023. Perhaps by then, it would be timely for us to revisit the issue of raising GST from 7% to 9%! Another point on the support for SMEs relate to the Job Support Scheme, or JSS. I recognise that the extension of JSS support that MOF has provided will go some way in providing affected sectors some cost relief. After all, every dollar counts in this tight business environment.”
“To institute a shorter work week, firstly, it is essential for us, as a society, to recognise the benefits in the form of not only the elusive productivity gain we have been searching for but, more importantly, focus on allowing people to become "fuller" people outside of their jobs. As what Microsoft had done, they have encouraged their employees to use the free time for "self-development and learning... for personal life and family care, social participation and community contribution". If we adopt a shorter work week with the right mindset, the benefits of better mental health, productivity and agency felt on the individual level will translate into society-wide benefits as well. Secondly, on supporting our SMEs. The close to 280,000 SMEs represent 99% of enterprises in Singapore and, critically, employ more than 70% of our workers and contributed to 43% of our GDP in 2020 and are critical to the health of our economy. I have asked a series of questions on Singapore's corporate income tax rates and the impact from global tax reforms endorsed by the G7, G20 and more than 130 countries globally, including Singapore. First of all, I am comforted to hear from Minister Lawrence Wong that Singapore will preserve our sovereign tax rights and our rights to taxation. However, while Minister Lawrence Wong shared in this response that our effective corporate tax rate is low, not just for MNCs, but for all companies, especially for SMEs in Singapore, I note from the data provided for the latest year of assessment (YA) 2019, that our effective corporate income tax rates are at a mere 3%, compared to statutory tax rates of 17%. For non-SMEs, their total profits before tax were S$459 billion for YA2019, with the total corporate income tax paid of S$11.5 billion.”
“This brings me to my point of what it means to "work". Over the past year, the idea of a shorter work week has resurfaced. This is not a new concept. Prime Minister Lee had previously shared during the 2004 National Day Rally on the need for a better work-life balance. Why is this so important? I quote, "I am not sure why, but hours have become longer, the pace is more intense. Maybe it's the Internet, maybe it's email, maybe it's globalisation, but whatever it is, you wake up at six o'clock in the morning, you check your email. Eleven o'clock at night, before you go to sleep, you check it again and next morning, you come back, somebody replied at 2.00 am. How to have children?" While not the only reason for our low birth rates, the five-day work week has gone beyond its intended definition and consumed our daily lives. Echoing the Prime Minister's speech, the four-day work week is a pragmatic policy consideration that has been tried and tested by some companies and countries worldwide. Most of us would have heard the case of Microsoft Japan, which had experienced a 40% increase in productivity and an overall 94% employee satisfaction rate. Iceland's four-day work week trials were also deemed "an overwhelming success", with trials in Spain also underway. That being said, I am conscious of the fact that not every employee has the privilege to complete their tasks in a four-day work week. Those who deal with external parties, especially, are subject to the whims and fancies of their clients' schedule at times.”
“Because, to many businesses small or large, local or foreign, F&B or not, the Singapore which was known for business certainty and a stable, predictable regulatory framework is now seen to be supplanted by a capricious regulatory environment when it comes to the management of COVID-19. Outside of the FAQs around the F&B and business sector and more generally, to many Singaporeans who have been tirelessly trying their best to cope with the pandemic over the last one and a half years, that light at the end of the tunnel now seems like the headlights of an incoming train. Troubling as that metaphor may be, it is all the more important for us to think hard about how to better support our fellow Singaporeans at the present moment, while making fundamental changes to better prepare ourselves for the future. My speech today will cover three main areas: supporting our workers, supporting our SMEs and supporting our future economy. Firstly, on supporting our workers. I have earlier asked in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on whether the Government can consider a limited trial of a four-day work week in Singapore. COVID-19 has pushed companies to rapidly adopt new behaviours that would stick and change the trajectory of what it means to "work". For instance, companies which are known to be averse to Flexible Work Arrangements (FWA) are now open to the idea of their employees working remotely. A report by McKinsey has shown that 20% to 25% of the workforce in advanced economies could work from home between three and five days a week. This represents four to five times more remote work than before the pandemic. While this study was conducted on a global level, it is evident that there has been a seismic shift in the workplace culture.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, it is unfortunate that while Finance Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about making plans for living with endemic COVID-19 and seeing light at the end of the tunnel, we are still grappling with lockdown measures and triple digit daily cases, with the explosion of cases first at the KTV cluster and then the Jurong Fishery Port cluster. F&B is at the heart of Singaporeans’ lives and the number one feedback I have been receiving is that relating to the F&B sector. I am concerned that frequent venue closures for faults not of their own doing and changes in rules pertaining to dining-in have led to disproportionate hardship for small operators who may already be facing substantial financial pressures. From the multiple permutations of what dine-in arrangements are allowed, which has spawned numerous memes and suggested PSLE questions, to a total ban on dining-in, F&B operators and consumers alike are frustrated by the capricious climate we have today. Even as the Multi-Ministry Task Force shared an optimistic roadmap to reopening, we are still told that we must be prepared that the new variants can lead to more severe outbreaks and may well force us to introduce restrictions again from time to time. Furthermore, all businesses need a level of visibility in order to plan ahead, including adequate lead time to purchase fresh supplies and secure any additional staffing. My colleague and Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru has shared more about the importance of consistency in our restrictions.”
“That being the case, it is extremely important to have a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) in advance to appoint someone whom we trust as our donee. When the amendment Bill is passed, Singaporeans will be able to apply for LPA online through the Office of the Public Guardian's online service and handle relevant transactions such as submitting online deputy’s report and making e-payments. Once LPA is digitised, the time to register an LPA will be shortened from three weeks to an average of eight working days. This is a good thing. However, for the elderly who are illiterate and do not know how to use computers, it will be more difficult for them to apply online. The digitisation of LPA may also lead to concerns about electronic forms and public trust. I understand from the MSF's announcement in May that Singaporeans who are not tech-savvy can go to Citizen Connect Centres located at CCs and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Our Tampines Hub for assistance. However, it is nonetheless an online application form. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister if we can keep the paper form LPA , just like when we do CPF nominations, we can either do it online or go to the CPF Service Centre to fill up the physical form. From 2014 to 2019, nearly 80% of donors are aged 50 and above and 55% are 60 years old and above, hence having a paper form LPA and multilingual support is all the more important. Finally, according to my study, adult residents now make up 3.2 million of the population, only 3.1% have successfully applied for an LPA. I hope the Government can make more efforts to encourage more Singaporeans to have an LPA so that they are protected. 6.19 pm”
“I recognise that the Ministry will be assisting those less comfortable with digital services, by leveraging on community touchpoints such as the Citizen Connect Centres (CCCs) and the Integrated Public Service Centre (IPSC) at Our Tampines Hub. Yet even at the CCCs, my understanding is that staff will be assisting residents with performing Government transactions online. As it is an important document to make, elderly residents who may not be comfortable with digital forms, especially one in English and may not wish to complete the LPA form all at one go. As friendly as the CCC staff may be, elderly residents may also wish to consult their children or other relatives whom they trust to get a second opinion on the LPA and a physical form would better facilitate this whole process. Further, while I strongly believe that an LPA is important for adults of all ages, close to 80% of LPA donors from 2014 to 2019 are aged 50 and above, while 55% of LPA donors are aged 60 and above. The importance of having hard copies and multilingual support is thus even more important, given the demographic of LPA donors today. Another interesting statistic which I observed is that from 2014 to 2019, female LPA donors have consistently outnumbered male LPA donors by a ratio of about 1.4 is to one. I wonder, if the Ministry has conducted any study into why this is the case and whether efforts can also be made to encourage more men to make an LPA? Mr Deputy Speaker, let me end my speech in Mandarin please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I believe that if one day we lose mental capacity due to ageing or other factors, we would hope that someone whom we trust, someone who is reliable and capable can handle our personal welfare and financial matters on our behalf.”
“I consider myself a digital native and appreciate the digitalisation of paper-based processes, especially one which would involve the use of snail mail, to a purely electronic one. But for consequential documents, such as the Election Department (ELD)'s nomination papers or residential sale and purchase agreements, for example, there is a certain degree of comfort and confidence from the tactile experience of touching and signing a physical document. The digital divide is thus real and cannot be ignored, as can be seen from recent experiences of residents choosing a physical TraceTogether Token instead of downloading the TraceTogether App, or the SingapoRediscovers Vouchers, on which many residents have shared with me feedback on the convoluted digital process of redeeming some of these vouchers. As such, I would like to ask if the Ministry would consider retaining the option for donors to draft their LPA on a hard copy version of Form 1, if it is preferred, rather than only for exceptional circumstances? I note that for CPF nominations, while this can be done online, there remains an option for members to complete a hard copy form to be submitted at the CPF Service Centres as well. Further, it would also be preferable if multilingual support can be provided on the LPA Form itself, while also providing a guide in all four official languages to walk donors through the process of registering an LPA. Looking through the guides provided by the OPG in its current website, I note that the LPA brochure, guides for caregivers, donees and deputies are all available in Chinese, Malay and Tamil as well. But arguably the most important guide of all, the guide to the LPA is only available in English on the website.”
“But even so, based on 40,000 LPAs registered a year, this will take the equivalent of about 80 years to get everyone covered; and most of us would not be here by then! Beyond the technical amendments to this Bill, the key question I have for the Ministry is thus, do we have a target to aspire to, in terms of the timeline, the number and percentage of LPA registrations in Singapore? Beyond the digitalisation of the LPAs and the waiver of the application fee for Form 1 since September 2014, what more is being done, and how much resources are being dedicated to ensuring that we raise the awareness of LPAs and, ultimately, the number of LPA registrations in Singapore? Looking into the details of the Bill, my first clarification is on section 31A, which my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim has discussed. While the new section allows for the Public Guardian to interview donors if there is reasonable cause to suspect that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to execute the LPA or to appoint a particular donee, I wonder if a caveat mechanism can be put in place as a preventive measure to protect vulnerable persons and prevent abuse, rather than just a risk-based approach of requiring an interview when risks are identified? This could involve, for example, having a next-of-kin or appointed caregiver submitting a declaration, substantiated with medical opinion that a person already lacks mental capacity or have intellectual disabilities, and that any attempts by the person to register for an LPA would raise an immediate red flag. My main concern, however, is that surrounding the transition to a purely electronic transaction system, the Office of the Public Guardian Online electronic system (OPGO).”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, early last month, I hosted a Zoom webinar organised by the Sengkang Constituency Committee, where we shared with our residents the importance of wills, CPF nominations and the Lasting Power of Attorney or LPA. Each one of these instruments play an important role in estate planning and helps provide peace of mind for our loved ones should something untoward happen in our lives. While we are still fortunate to be in good health and of sound mental capacity today, an LPA arguably also provides us with the serenity of knowing full well, that there will be someone we trust to undertake key decisions for us, should we lose mental capacity one day. I thus believe that having an LPA or will done up to provide assurances in the event of the "ifs" and "what ifs" in life, is no less important than, say, the assurance of having basic health insurance plans in place, such as MediShield, for example, to which I note that with the rollout of MediShield Life in 2015, all Singaporeans are now covered for life, compared to 2.8 million policyholders back in 2006, notwithstanding the general population increase since then. I was thus a little sad and frankly unsurprised, however, that based on the straw poll that was conducted during our Zoom webinar, only 5% of participants have indicated that they have done up an LPA and 6% have done up a Will. Upon conducting further research, I note that up to 2020, there has only been about 100,000 LPAs registered in Singapore. Even if we exclude foreigners and base our calculations off the resident adult population of about 3.2 million people, the number of registered LPAs represent a mere 3.1% of the resident adult population. I recognise that MSF expects more than 40,000 LPAs to be registered by year-end.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarifications. I have got two further clarifications. The first is, basically, in terms of the effective corporate income tax rates here in Singapore, what are they and whether the Government has conducted any scenario analysis to assess the net impact to our income tax revenues as a result of Pillars One and Two. I understand that it is still preliminary days but we already have the key parameters. OECD, for example, has already given some sense of what it expects the global overall tax revenue impact is going to be. The second question is in terms of the foreign MNCs who are currently paying effective tax rates of below 15%, whether the Government would consider raising the effective tax rates to be in line with this minimum of 15%. And if I look at the US IRS data, for example, based on what has been disclosed, I think the effective tax rates for these US companies do appear to be much lower than our statutory income tax rates at just about 4%, and especially given that, as the Minister said, Singapore's attractiveness is not solely based on tax incentives alone.”
“I thank the Minister for the answers. Especially in light of COVID-19, I think there is a lot of concern as to inequality, especially if you look at the household income from work, I think it is the lowest 10% that saw the hardest hit in terms of income. So, in terms of the supplementary questions, I have got two. The first is in relation to the enhanced permanent GST Voucher scheme, in terms of the target amount of offset for the households involved, what is the target in terms of how much of the GST that would have been payable and how much of it do you want to offset? And what is the percentage of Singaporeans that will come under this GST Voucher scheme? The second is also in relation to that. If I look at the cut-off right now, in terms of the assessible income criterion, that is about $28,000, which works out to about $2,300 a month, which is significantly lower than the median monthly income from work of about $4,500. So, I just want to understand, in terms of the scope of this permanent GST Voucher scheme, the amount of help that could be rendered to the middle income households.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I have got two supplementary questions. The first is, under the NIRC, I just wanted to understand if it is both the expected real rate of return that is estimated and is it also that of the net asset base. The second is, in terms of the 2021 numbers, as I understand, there would be the similar 50% that will be taken in 2021 as with 2016 to 2020. In terms of the increase in the absolute NIRC contribution, may I ask the Minister what would that increase be attributable to? Would it be based on the higher rates of return or higher net asset base?”
“Fifth, on the liability of lessees or occupiers, under clause 35, should the taxable person make default in payment of any LBC, the lessee or occupier will be liable for payment, notwithstanding that any such payments constitute a valid discharge from rents or payments due. While this would simplify recovery efforts, is such a clause fair to the tenants and should not efforts be focused on the defaulting party instead? Finally, on the management of monies collected from the Land Betterment Charge. Clause 5 sets out admirable causes for imposing an LBC, including amongst others, ensuring the return to the community of an appropriate proportion of economic benefits from the grant of rights to develop or otherwise use land and to promote or encourage environmentally sustainable development or use of land. Would the Land Betterment Charges collected from the development be earmarked for the specific community in question? And how would SLA enforce the requirement for environmentally sustainable development? To round up, Mr Speaker, I agree with the purpose of the LBC and recognise it is one of the many ways in which land in Singapore can be continuously monetised by the Government to provide for recurring revenue throughout the course of time; although I recognise at this point in time, the Government does not take into its operating Budget the recurring annual land sales revenue of about $14.5 billion on average. With Singapore's Budget not inclusive of land sales revenue, it is worth considering realigning the focus in the sale of state land from one of revenue maximisation in that land is awarded to the highest bidder to one in which the greatest value uplift can be provided and the greatest socioeconomic good generated, similar to that as encouraged by the LBC.”
“Second, with the blurring of lines across use groups and greater creativity in land use optimisation, we are already seeing retail malls of today house co-working offices while it is increasingly common to have lifestyle in hospitality provisions, in Grade A office buildings. How will SLA ensure that its table of rates is a dynamic one and not based on static singular interpretations of land use? Third, on the powers conferred on the Minister. Clause 12 confers powers on the Minister to exempt any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of the Bill either generally or in a particular case and subject to such conditions as the Minister may impose. How is this exercise of legislative powers safeguarded and what would the conditions entail? Have similar exemptions been exercised in the past and what were the circumstances behind it back then? Fourth, clause 13 empowers the land planning Minister to provide for concessionary relief from Land Betterment Charges, assuming certain conditions have been made. In practical terms, who will be the land planning Minister and would not the conditions under subsection 2(a), (b) and (c) be desirable, loosely defined conditions that we will expect out of property development in Singapore regardless? Aside from the Act, these include the desirability of the proposed development or subdivision of any land in achieving economic development or maintaining the cultural, economic, physical and social well-being of the people of Singapore and the community in the area concerned.”
“Specific to the Land Betterment Charge, I note that it is to be collected by SLA and replaces the taxes known as Development Charge (DC) and Temporary Development Levy (TDL) imposed under the Planning Act and the collection of Differential Premium (DP) by SLA. The streamlining of legislation and easing of administrative burden would just be much appreciated by private developers and public officers alike. That said, I do have a number of specific clarifications to raise on the LBC. The first, on the quantification of LBC. Clause 9 sets out the two methods to be used in assessing the amount of LBC – the Table of Rates method and the evaluation by designated valuers method. Today, DC rates are reviewed on a half-yearly basis in consultation with the Chief Valuer. The table of DC rates are broken down into 118 geographical sectors and nine different use groups. Can the Minister clarify how the Table of Rates will be assessed and how will it be different from the current DC regime? How much will DC collections on an annual basis in the past and how would this differ with the switch to an LBC mechanism? Conceptually, almost all developments benefit from existing amenities and infrastructure. So, it is also fair that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of their gain with the community. However, it is also difficult to quantify the land value increment resulting from infrastructure investments. Revaluation being a subjective matter, how would, for example, aggrieved landowners seek recourse for any disagreements in land valuation and LBCs, whether it is assessed under the table of rates method or the valuation method.”
“" The Land Acquisition Act has since been amended given changing circumstances, with the 2007 amendment providing for compensation based on prevailing market value of acquired land. But why are all these important? The effect of legislation has meant that from 1960-2007, land owned by the public sector doubled from 44% to over 85%. Effectively, the Government has become the largest landowner and landlord, with the ability to simultaneously influence both demand and supply through policy levers. Critically, the Government also has the ability to extract monetary value from land throughout the course of time, with land having characteristics of a renewable resource and not a finite one. First, I stand corrected, but it is the policy of this Government that, for leasehold land sold, at the end of the land lease tenure, land will revert to the Government for free and will thus be available for sale once again. Second, stamp duties will provide for taxes to be collected when sale or rental transactions occur. Thirdly, property taxes are collected on an annual basis. The Land Betterment Charge (LBC) will be one additional mechanism, the principles of which I agree with, as it will allow for the collection of a tax on the increase in the value of land resulting from a chargeable consent given in relation to the land. For example, what used to be a low-rise carpark and hawker centre in the heart of the CBD, are set to be transformed into a modern mixed-use commercial complex rising to a height of 280 metres, one of the tallest buildings in Singapore. While the size of the land plot has not changed, the implied land value has soared considerably. The LBC will thus be a logical policy lever to allow for value captured by the state for the public good.”
“Before I begin, Mr Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as a research analyst covering the real estate sector. Mr Speaker, for a relatively small island state like ours, land is often said to be a scarce and non-renewable resource. This is notwithstanding, of course, that Singapore's land area stands at around 276 square kilometres as at 2019, about 140 square kilometres or 24% higher than what it was 50 years ago. After all, there is a hard limit to the amount of land reclamation that can be carried out in our waters. It is thus essential that we focus on optimising Singapore's land use so as to extract the maximum socio-economic benefits for all Singaporeans. Optimising land use has come a long way in Singapore, starting with the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act in 1966, following Singapore's Independence. Back in 1964, then Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew shared two broad principles on land acquisition. The first is that no private landowners should benefit from development which has taken place at public expense; and, second, prices paid on acquisition for public purposes should not be higher than what the land would have been worth had the Government not contemplated development generally in that area. With these principles in mind, the Land Acquisition Act was subsequently amended to strengthen the Government's powers to acquire land and limit compensation. In the debate on the Land Acquisition Bill, Mr EW Barker, then Minister for Law and National Development, concluded that: "There has not been a word of criticism. I have nothing much to add except to say that I am glad that our backbenchers have realised the importance and the necessity for this piece of socialist legislation.”
“The second is that, again, I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng that borrowing for nationally significant infrastructure will spread these lumpy expenditures across the generations who will benefit. If we want to be a progressive society that firmly believes in the principles of fairness, we should also be acutely aware that the converse is also true. Besides Changi Airport Terminals 1 and 2 and the first MRT project, the Government has not borrowed to fund other infrastructure projects since the 1990s. In essence, the generation that came before us has borne a significant cost of infrastructure development upfront for our benefit without having the cost spread equitably across generations. Despite a lifetime of hard work and contributions to our nation, sadly more than half of our seniors do not appear to have sufficient funds to retire comfortably. We should never forget the sacrifices the earlier generations of Singaporeans have made in building this nation and must always keep this in mind. Needless to say, we should never contemplate taking any future decision that could potentially add to their tax burden. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Inflation, notwithstanding, the value that the project has brought to Singaporeans has been immense, especially residents staying in the Northeast, such as that of our Sengkang residents. In 2014, the 800-megawatt state-of-the-art power plant by PacificLight was built at a cost of $1.2 billion. Despite the size and value that these projects bring, they hardly come close to the qualifying amount of $4 billion or more. There is also a question of whether the definition of "nationally significant infrastructure" being defined under Part I as being geographically located "in Singapore" may restrict the spending needs for infrastructure that crosses borders. A nationally significant infrastructure, the Linggiu Reservoir, which Singapore built at a cost of more than $300 million in Malaysia comes to mind. Further, should the Government decide to set a much more ambitious, renewable energy target, the infrastructure costs for the import of electricity, especially solar electricity from overseas, would also not fall within the purview of this SINGA Bill. Mr Speaker, I like to conclude with two parting thoughts. The first is that, I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng that there should be various strict safeguards on the projects that can qualify for borrowing and the amounts that can be borrowed. Similarly, when it comes the use of our reserves via the NIRC, it too has strict safeguards in place. Ultimately, any sound policy decision should have safeguards built in and, hence, if we decide to tap on Singapore's ample fiscal space to fund our investments into our people, we should not fear the slippery slope of there not being any safeguards that can be put in place.”
“My question for the Deputy Prime Minister, therefore, is how much does this $90 billion represent, relative to Singapore's current account receipts and reserves? Further, Minister Ong Ye Kung has mentioned that we would need to spend more than $60 billion over this decade to expand and renew our rail networks while Prime Minister Lee has mentioned that Singapore is probably going to spend $100 billion, possibly more, to protect our country against rising sea levels. I would thus like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to put into context how is this sum of $90 billion of debt financing determined? And if there are any quantifiable targets such as the total expected infrastructure spending in dollar terms over the next one to two decades? And how much of the funds are already earmarked for specific projects? On the total effective interest paid or payable of $5 billion, that would imply a total yield to maturity of 5.6% on the loan limit of $90 billion. How does this compare to the current and future expected Singapore Government Securities yields that the Ministry is projecting? Singapore's 10-year bond yields stand about 1.5% today while 30-year bond yields are about 1.9%. Based on my checks, historical average bond yields of varying bond durations are only at about 2.5% to 2.8%, notwithstanding a wide range of less than 1% to almost 5%, 6%. But yet this is significantly lower. The average is significantly lower than the implied yield to maturity of 5.6%. Lastly, with regards to the qualifying amount of capital expenditure being at least $4 billion or more, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how this number was derived as well? In 2008, the KPE was built at a cost of $1.8 billion.”
“Further, I believe that the financing of nationally significant infrastructure should be tied to the mandatory completion of rigorous environmental, heritage and social impact assessments done using the best available science at reasonable cost. Such studies should be made fully available to the public for feedback and for the public to take any private mitigation measures if necessary. This would then allow the full buy-in from society at large on the benefits of such infrastructure projects. I recognise that advisory services, such as the associated design, investigative and engineering studies, surveys or, say, research, are already deemed as qualifying capital expenditure. The key caveat here, of course, is that such advisory services have to be reasonable, relative to the total project cost. Even though I am sure there are many considerations and technical challenges to work through, it would be unwise if consultancy fees end up being 90% of the cost of the actual project, for example. So, I wonder if the Government would also include limits on how much should be spent on advisory fees, as compared to the overall construction cost of the project. The fifth point I would like to cover looks at some of the numbers as specified within the SINGA Bill. The first question is on the $90 billion loan limit which has been put in place. Debt levels, in themselves, cannot be seen in isolation and we need to assuage Singaporeans that the level of borrowing is not unsustainable. Credit rating agencies often compare debt levels to net worth or net assets or, in the case of sovereign credit ratings, usable reserves, for example.”
“If climate change were, indeed, a motivating factor for the need for infrastructure changes, it would be far from accurate to assume that any infrastructure planning now will be useful for the next 50 years. Rapid technological changes have shaped the tech infrastructure needed to keep our economy competitive. Over the past 20 years, we have moved from an era of 3G cellular networks in the 2000s, to 4G in 2010s and, finally, the rolling out of 5G networks from 2020. That is roughly a 10-year gap between each generation of cellular networks. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to predict with utmost confidence if the infrastructure we are building for 5G today, for example, will continue to be relevant 10 or even 20 years down the line, let alone 50 years at a minimum. Our MRT systems are yet another example. First constructed more than 30 years ago, the replacement of sleepers, signalling equipment, track upgrading and power supply systems over the last couple of years have meant that it is as good as replacing the entire system with a brand-new set. Even power plants, such as one of the newer CCGT plants in Singapore, only have a useful life of around 25 years. My fourth point covers that of green financing. We aspire to be a green hub and we have laid out grand plans in our current Singapore Green Plan 2030. From my understanding, some of these projects, such as Tuas Nexus, have been identified. In trying to keep in line with these aims, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, out of the $90 billion set aside for SINGA, how much of this would be set aside for green infrastructure? As a Government, we should aspire to lead by example and set a laudable target for how much we plan to spend on green infrastructure itself.”
“I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how was the final list of use categories identified and chosen? My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has built a strong case for human capital as a form of soft infrastructure investment. Indeed, when we look at US President Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan, we see that it includes a planned funding of the care economy, which includes $400 billion towards expanding access to quality, affordable home- or community-based care for the elderly and people with disabilities. It will also cover investments in schools, childcare facilities and workforce development programmes, among others. In a knowledge-based economy, intellectual and human capital are just as important, if not more important than physical hard assets. We should not solely be focusing on conventional property, plants and equipment as possible infrastructure projects to finance with borrowing. As it is, intellectual property and other intangible assets can already be capitalised under a firm’s balance sheet under accounting rules, given the recognition of the economic benefits that they generate. As a Government, we should seriously consider this as an extension of the SINGA Bill, as compared to only that of traditional infrastructure assets. Third, I note that these projects need to have a useful life of at least 50 years. As shared by my colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, many existing infrastructure projects would not have qualified under this rather long timespan. I am concerned about how practical that might be in an era where technological and environmental needs are changing so rapidly.”
“Again, this is another welcome change from an alignment of accounting practices point of view. After all, the long useful lives of infrastructure projects do suggest that they clearly fall under the accounting definition of an asset, as it is a present economic resource that has the potential to produce economic benefits. This change is in contrast to the current practice of charging off development expenditure annually. As an example, a $1 billion project today with a useful life of 50 years is charged to the financial statements at 2% annually, which represents a $20 million annual depreciation charge. This is a fraction of what it would have been had we stuck to the current accounting treatment. In FY2018 and FY2019, actual total development expenditure was $20.3 billion and $16.7 billion respectively, while the revised development expenditure in 2020 was $16.4 billion and the estimated expenditure in 2021 will be $19.9 billion. Mr Speaker, I would like to ask, based on the adoption of capitalising long-term assets as an accounting treatment, how much of our development expenditure in dollar terms would be freed up annually? The second point I would like to talk about is the type of projects which have been identified for the purpose of SINGA. These include infrastructure intended for a list of specific purposes as listed in section 2, such as transport, water treatment, alleviation of floods and so on. The new MRT lines, such as the next phases of the Thomson-East Coast Line, the Jurong Regional Line and Cross Island Line, as well as the extension of current lines, such as the North-East Line, Downtown Line and projects, such as the Deep Tunnel Sewage System as mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Heng, are projects that would fall under the scope of SINGA.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to start by declaring my interest as an employee of a financial institution here in Singapore. Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by extending my support for the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act, or SINGA in short. In October last year, I shared that there is scope to rethink Singapore's position on debt, instead of funding our expenditures solely with higher cost equity funding or funding from our reserves. This is especially if the funds are being used for quality investment projects that will benefit current and future generations of Singaporeans. Today’s Bill represents an important milestone for us as a country and, while it may have been a little later than some had hoped, it is, indeed, better late than never. In finance, we often speak of an optimal capital structure for a firm – the ability to have a proportion of debt and equity that results in the lowest Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) when making the capital management decision. While certain commentators may liken Government finances to a household budget, unlike a household, firms and countries can be assumed to last into perpetuity. Debt is not inherently bad per se and, if it can be employed effectively to increase returns or result in a lower WACC on an overall basis, then it should always be considered as a viable option. Moreover, while we can have a different philosophical view of what the ideal structure should be on the national level, we must be keenly aware that equity funding or funding from our reserves is not free. I would now like to take the time to seek some clarifications on several points in this Bill. The first is on the capitalisation of expenditure on nationally significant infrastructure.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Minister for the elaboration. The first point is that, during my speech, I did set out, in terms of the revenues and expenditures as well as how I arrived at some of these numbers. But I think the question is also about whether or not, looking at this NRIC framework, that is something that we can revisit again. I agree with Minister that, because of COVID-19, this has actually impacted a lot of Singaporeans, a lot of corporates. And all the more, I think a regressive tax such as GST, should be something that we should reconsider. Because while the Assurance Package could offset the impact of the increase of 2% for a number of years, I think this is going to stick with them basically for the rest of their lives. And if you look at, I recall Minister Lawrence Wong mentioning in 2018 that, we should never say never. So, if you look at the past amendments to the Constitution that we have done: in 1991, this was when the reserve protection framework was introduced; in 2001, we had the Net Investment Income framework; in 2008, NIR framework; and in 2015, Temasek Holdings was included the NIR framework as well. So, given the impact of COVID-19 and all on the livelihoods of Singaporeans, the man on the street, could we not look at the NIRC framework again, as perhaps another measure, given where our reserves have been.”
“Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to thank Member Mr Liang for raising this question that we discussed during the Budget and, of course, the Minister for the elaboration. A number of clarifications from me. Firstly, in the Parliamentary Question, it was asked about the fiscal space, and I recall in 2018, when the idea of the GST hike was first raised, if you look at the IMF Article IV report that was published at that point in time, and "looking at these taxes would reduce private income and consumption, especially of low-income households. A GST hike alone could lead to a lower path for GDP and private consumption, and limited external adjustment, relative to using more of the available fiscal space". And, I think, again in 2019, the IMF also said that, "Singapore has tended to overperform with respect to its fiscal rule of a balanced Budget over the political cycle, contributing to a large build-up of net assets suggesting that Singapore has substantial fiscal space." Mr Speaker, if we look at the situation in 2018 versus today, where we have COVID-19 in terms of what is impacting the cost of living, the question that I have is, is raising a regressive tax such as the GST really the best option for us in terms of raising revenues? Could there be other options that could be explored, for example, looking at the NIRC framework again? And this also brings me to the second clarification, which I also raised during the debate earlier in February, in that if you look at our reserves position today, we are looking at having drawn down about 20 years' worth of surpluses – some Members have said that it is about 10 years. Where do our reserve stand today versus, say, last 10 years or five years? That would help us to adequately frame the context of this GST rise as well.”
“Happy International Women's Day in advance. Just a quick one. I think we have the plans to have every household be within 10 minutes walking distance of a park by 2030, so similarly, one of the common feedback that my residents have shared in terms of pre-school is that they are facing difficulties having a pre-school near their place. So, I was just wondering if the Ministry will consider having such a plan whereby every household would be within walking distance of an available pre-school.”
“Chairman, I understand that by around 2025, 80% of pre-schoolers can have a place in a Government supported pre-school, up from about 50% in 2019. 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 with 17,000 0 to four-year-olds and about 17,000 five to nine-year-olds as of June 2019. As such, while there may be vacancies in the system today, this may not be so for particular areas with high concentration of young families. What is the target total number of centres and places that will be offering infant care services and childcare services in 2025 and where will these be located? Childcare for Shift Workers”
“Thank you, Chairman. I have one clarification for Minister Lee. I think the Minister talked about the aspirations of home ownership and meeting them. But at the same time, given the current socio-economic trends, I think rentals in a sharing economy, this is also something which is gaining traction amongst younger Singaporeans. So, again, to quote Westlife, a "world of our own" may mean not just owned flats but also rental flats. Is MND considering expanding the supply of rental flats to meet this demographic trend and also the demands of the public rental scheme? 7.15 pm”
“If divorce is already a source of significant stress, is there room to allow divorcees under 35 to retain their HDB flat, subject to meeting some prevailing eligibility conditions? Availability of Rental Flats Chairman, the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) currently enables couples or single parent families to rent from the Government while waiting for the completion of their BTO HDB flat. However demand often outstrips supply. Chairman, when I last checked on 24 February, PPHS applications have exceeded the number of flats available by 13.5 times. I believe this oversubscription is not unique to February alone with the PPHS for March two times oversubscribed despite being just two days into the month. With COVID-19 delays in HDB flat construction, there will inevitably be higher demands for HDB rental from families affected by the delays. Beyond the PPHS, public rental scheme flats for the low income are also narrowly supplied, with demand outstripping supply despite a $1,500 household income per month cap for applicants. Tightened controls for rental applications may lower the number of applicants, but not the real demand for the rental market. There is a clear need for expanding a supply of rental public homes for those in need as well. On the broader landscape of change how is MND readying itself for a growing millennial preference to rent rather than own a house. We have already seen the sharing economy take root in various areas of everyday life such as in transport, for example. This preference likely stems from both concerns on the affordability of home ownership and a preference for work mobility and flexibility. Is MND considering expanding the supply of rental housing by the HDB to meet this growing demographic trend?”
“And would the Government consider extending the rejuvenation schemes across the island to recognise and encourage greater creativity and flexibility in maximising the best use of our land and buildings? Retention of HDB Flats for Divorcees under 35 Chairman, divorce proceedings are unfortunately more common than we would like them to be in Singapore, and the ownership of HDB flats is likely to come up as an issue in many of them. Individuals from the marriage without children are only allowed to retain the flat if they meet eligibility conditions such as being a Singapore Citizen, are at least 35 years old, and other prevailing conditions for retention of the flat under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme. I recognise therefore for those with care and control of their children, they will be able to retain the flat subject to financial capabilities and other eligibility conditions. Chairman, while I am aware that our housing policies are pro-family and current HDB rules allow for some residents in the middle of a divorce to retain their HDB flat, others have not been able to do so. Individuals who are going through divorce proceedings are already going through a stressful period and mandating a sale of the flat adds on to the stress. Individuals who are forced to sell off their flat may not be able to readily relocate and it may not be the most financially prudent option, adding on to the pressures. Further, some of them do have the wherewithal to continue servicing the housing loan by themselves. While the HDB may be concerned about abuse, I believe couples do not enter the marriage with divorce in mind.”
“Chairman, for our limited land area, Singapore's planning paradigm has been one of maximising the intensity of land use. COVID-19's economic impact may mean a need to re-evaluate our planning policy. The Minister for National Development has likewise noted the same in an earlier statement, that while it remains to be seen if the shift seen in COVID-19 will persist in the new normal, as technology changes and advances, there is a need to take a good hard look at land use needs for the future. For example, the circuit breaker period has also shown the viability of working from home, which reduces the need for traditional single use commercial buildings and areas. Land use is governed largely by the URA Concept Plan and Master Plan, the latter of which is reviewed every five years. However, beyond absolute land use designations and fixed plot ratios, such planning can arguably have more flexibility, considering the blurring of lines between different building use types, the prevalence of mixed use developments and higher frequency of building repurposing. I recognise that the CBD Incentive Scheme and the Strategic Development Incentive Scheme were introduced with the aim of encouraging the rejuvenation of the CBD and other strategic areas in Singapore. The schemes were implemented from 27 March 2019 for a period of five years from the date of gazette for Master Plan 2019. Two years after they were introduced, how many developments have fulfilled the conditions of these schemes? Is the Government re-evaluating the conditions of the scheme to adapt to the post COVID-19 landscape today?”
“Chairman, permission to take three cuts together.”
“Madam, the Green Plan is an important step forward, not just for the environment but also for our overall social and economic health as a nation. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the introduction of new initiatives such as the Enterprise Sustainability Programme, moving up Singapore's EV charging point target from 28,000 to 60,000 by 2030 as well as strengthening sustainability curriculum and programmes in schools. However, apart from some of these, the Green Plan mostly outlines many existing initiatives and targets that were previously already announced. For example, the aim to green 80% of all buildings over the next decade is a target that was set in 2011. It has been a decade since then. Madam, the Government has now declared climate change a global emergency. To demonstrate our seriousness on treating climate change as a global emergency and existential threat that it is today, we need to continue pushing the boundaries and set bold and vicious targets for ourselves. As I mentioned during the Debate on the Climate Change Motion, Singapore's updated NDC targets submitted in 2020 does not genuinely limit emissions growth beyond what was already committed to under our first NDC, which was submitted in 2015. There is room for us to strive for even more. The next NDC's submission is due by 2025. Does the Government intend for Singapore to set more ambitious emissions target for this next submission? In addition, will the Government consider setting a more specific deadline to reach net zero emissions, taking into consideration IPCC's recommendation of net zero by 2050? Sustainability to be in Singapore's DNA”
“Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the Ministry for their kind sharing. I have got two clarifications. I think the first is regarding the LRIS which Minister Teo shared. I recognise that this is something that has been in place, but it has been about close to five years since August 2016 when the plans were first announced. So, I was just wondering if there is any specific timeline that the Ministry could share in terms of when we can expect some of these details to be announced. And in relation to the cut I have filed, has the Ministry considered or is it considering allowing CPF members to invest alongside the Government's investment vehicles since we do not really need to look very far in terms of the options for funds that Members can consider. The second is in relation to parental care leave. Is this something that the Ministry is actively looking at considering to implement in the near term to send a signal that this is no less of a need, as compared to some other leave provisions, such as childcare leave or even annual leave.”
“In the same vein, I do hope that the Government, businesses and society do not view flexible work arrangements as one which has unintended consequences of reduced employability and it is imperative for all of us and the Government to demonstrate leadership on this matter. Supporting Caregivers”
“If we wish to uphold the ideal of family support and enable children to play their role as care-givers to elderly parents and for working parents to look after their young children while balancing other demands on their time, then the baseline level of parental care leave probably ought to be legislated to send the right signal to society on this matter. Flexible Work Arrangements The second cut. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of formal or ad-hoc flexible work arrangement in the workplace. However, flexible work arrangements come in a spectrum and, clearly, the level of flexibility that was in place pre-COVID-19 is dramatically different from what you have seen in 2020 and today, with work from home being the default work arrangement. Amongst many companies in Singapore, I note that UOB has already instituted a two-day work from home policy post-COVID-19 while DBS will give its workforce the option to work remotely up to 40% of the time. Is it now time for the Government to reflect the needs of today's employees and employers and legislate a baseline level of flexible work arrangement? Annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave and childcare leave are but amongst the various leave provisions currently legislated for under the Employment Act, although the right number is a separate topic for debate. It is not lawful for employers to give a notice of dismissal to a mother during her absence and neither is it conscionable for employers to discriminate against hiring women and mothers. Now, legislation is no silver bullet, but it is an all-important first step.”
“Mr Chairman, while eligible working parents of Singapore citizen children are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave a year, this only applies to children below the age of seven. Parents whose youngest child is between seven and 12 are only eligible for two days of extended childcare leave a year, while childcare leave is held constant, regardless of the number of children a couple has. Given that there is a rising trend of dual-income families, I would like to ask if childcare leave can be extended on a per-child basis and up to the age of 12, as our Primary school-going children would see only a degree of care if they fell ill or simply to allow families to spend more time together. With an increasingly ageing society, there is also the duty to take care of our parents. Many companies have started to offer eldercare leave as an employee value proposition and I would like to ask if this could be considered as a statutory form of leave. The workplace has become more pro-family over the years, with more establishments offering various work-life initiatives, such as flexible work arrangements and non-statutory family-friendly paid leave. Flexible work arrangements are important, no doubt, but it is also equally important to give our workers the flexibility to take time off without taking no-pay leave if required to take care of their children or parents. Mr Chairman, while it can be argued that increasing leave provisions could be difficult against the challenging economic climate today, the challenges of our low fertility rate and ageing population are no less critical.”