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 4 of 15.
“Crucially, this Bill does not protect workers against indirect discrimination, which refers to a policy or practice that while being neutral in appearance, results in a disadvantage for persons who may fit a certain criterion, unless it is justified by a legitimate aim and the "means to achieve that aim are necessary and appropriate". Examples of indirect discrimination may include working hours that unnecessarily disadvantage employees with children, or perhaps an attire policy that unreasonably discriminates against employees from a particular racial or religious group. According to a Parliamentary reply by Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, he noted that including indirect discrimination as part of the Bill would "impose very wide legal obligations on employers", which results in "uncertainty for both employees and employers alike". Instances of indirect discrimination could be reported to TAFEP instead. However, having two separate frameworks, one enshrined in law and the other based on guidelines for handling discrimination, may also cause confusion to both employers and employees alike. Instead of omitting it from the Bill entirely, I suggest that as an intermediary step, guidance be provided to educate employers and their staff on indirect discrimination, its seriousness and the importance of addressing it appropriately. This would only be beneficial for employers. If we look at UK case law, it establishes a precedent regarding what constitutes indirect discrimination and how such cases are to be handled.”
“Rather, it issues prohibition orders to specific individuals who have committed serious offences or misconduct in the financial industry and an ex-offender who has not been issued any prohibition order or an individual whose prohibition order has expired may be employed by a financial institution, if he or she has been assessed to be fit and proper for the role. Yet, the assessment of whether a person is fit and proper can be a subjective one and at present, MAS does not track the number of ex-offenders hired by financial institutions or require financial institutions to inform MAS of the rejection of candidates. Given that it has been more than 20 years since the Yellow Ribbon project was launched in June 2004, would the Government also consider prohibiting discrimination on the basis of one's criminal record? This would certainly open more doors for them to start afresh and rebuild their lives. Beyond the issue of protected characteristics, one of the other glaring omissions in the Bill is that on indirect discrimination. Aside from being difficult to detect, workplace discrimination comes in all shapes and forms. While this Bill covers direct discrimination, which refers to an instance where someone is treated less favourably than someone else in a comparable situation on the basis of a protected characteristic, my Sengkang colleague He Ting Ru observed that the proposed Bill does not cover discrimination by association, which is when someone is treated less favourably as they are acquainted with someone who possesses a protected characteristic. Furthermore, discrimination by perception, which is when someone is treated unfairly as they are falsely believed to possess a protected characteristic, is also beyond the remit of this Bill.”
“Yet, despite this, he believes that he was being terminated more than once by different employers because of his condition and especially, when one of them only required him to perform guest services-related duties in an indoor location. The draft Health Information Bill, which was opened for public consultation in 2023, prohibits the use of National Electronic Health Record data for non-patient purposes. It would also explicitly disallow data to be used to assess one's suitability for employment. Therefore, would this Bill also prohibit employers from discrimination based on one's medical condition or medical history if unjustified? Second, everyone deserves a second chance. Being an open and inclusive country, Singapore must also grant second chances to those who are keen on joining the workforce after a stint in prison. Although such members of our society are willing and motivated to contribute productively, a CNA article highlights that many of them face discrimination when job-hunting despite being qualified for the role. Therefore, it is only right that those with a past criminal record are also protected against workplace discrimination under this new law. In certain instances, it could be arguable that restrictions are put in place, given the risks involved. For example, under section 26 of the Child Care Centres Regulations, staff who have been convicted of offences, such as child abuse and neglect, are not allowed to be hired as staff of a childcare centre. In the financial industry, in response to my PQ in August 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong shared that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not restrict the hiring of ex-offenders in the financial industry in all instances.”
“However, if we are deliberately looking at discrimination in the narrow sense through careful scoping of the Bill, how confident are we in saying that this new legislation will be effective in addressing the concerns and discriminatory barriers of minorities? How can we confidently say that workplace discrimination of any form should not be tolerated, but yet, some forms of discrimination are illegal while others are not? Let me elaborate on each of the subpoints under the broader exclusion category. Based on clause 8 of the Bill, employers are prohibited from discrimination on the basis of 11 protected characteristics, which form 95% of the workplace discrimination complaints received by MOM and TAFEP. There are, however, several other classes of people who may face discrimination, but yet will not be covered by this Bill. Are we not then discriminating against this 5% in not according them adequate legal protection? The first is on physical medical conditions, as I note that mental health conditions are a protected characteristic. I have met residents who have been through a period of medical illness, which has resulted in them being unable to work for an extended period of time, causing them to rack up a significant medical bill. What could be more distressing, however, is that they may face a major hurdle as employers may view their medical history as a liability. For instance, a resident of mine is on follow-up with a cardiologist for a cardiac condition. However, he was specifically certified by the doctor that from a cardiac perspective, he was fit-to-work based on the nature of his job scope.”
“Mr Speaker, the journey towards equality is a long and arduous one. The Bill that this House is debating today is much-needed and a long-overdue one, if we pride ourselves on being an open and inclusive society. The passage of a Workplace Fairness Bill in Singapore is not just a legislative necessity. It is a moral imperative that addresses the long-standing issue of workplace discrimination that has affected many workers across various sectors. For too long, employees have faced barriers based on age, race and other personal characteristics without adequate legal protections, which not only undermine their dignity but also hampers our nation's commitment to meritocracy and equality. In WP's 2020 manifesto, we called for the institution of anti-discrimination legislation on the basis of gender, race and age. Importantly, the manifesto also notes how the Government's strategy of issuing advisories and guidelines does not penalise employers sufficiently for adopting discriminatory practices. The contents of this Bill largely reflect the Government's approach towards the issue of fair employment practices and the focus on harmonious workplace relations in Singapore. I will be touching on a few areas in which I believe there could be areas of improvement to consider, especially as we look to introduce a second Bill on this matter later in 2025. The first broad point I wish to highlight is the issue of exclusions in this Workplace Fairness Bill. Granted, workplace fairness and the issue of discrimination are complex ones and the Government may want to take an incremental and cautious approach towards legislation in this area.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question. I asked about the review of the domestic postal licence and all that, but at the same time, given the incident that has happened, and I also note that the dismissed executives have disputed the claim, in such a regard, would the Government then consider conducting its own review, not just specifically for the domestic postal services obligations, but also as to the firm as a whole, in terms of giving the Government some assurance that whatever representations that the firm has made, in regard to its domestic obligations and other operations, that there is actually a proper process in place and that the firm is, as a whole, manage adequately?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first supplementary question is in relation to the point that he mentioned. I am not sure whether I heard correctly about there being a temporary bar from public sector projects should there be certain violations. In the context of workplace fatalities, for example, we all agree that it is one too many. So, would workplace deaths, for example, automatically trigger such a certain period of disqualification and how would these be assessed? The second supplementary question is in relation to the SnapSAFE reports. I note in a news article that there was an increase in the number of such workplace safety violation reports. In terms of the level of resources that MOM has, is it adequately staffed, to ensure that these are properly investigated and, not just the investigation, but also the subsequent follow-up to make sure that the rectifications are done to prevent any incidents?”
“My apologies, Speaker, for prolonging this, but just a few clarifications. First, in terms of the point on hiring of foreign workers, I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's point of not ruling it out. But I mean, as mentioned in my speech, if we look at, for example, just any other food court that we have, I think foreigners already run stalls. So, as an intermediate step, would the Government consider allowing Malaysian work pass holders to work in our hawker centres, because I mean, as HDB policy suggests, Malaysians are already quite culturally similar, so they are exempt from SPR quotas and all of that. Secondly, in terms of the price tender system, again, I mentioned the PQM model, which Senior Minister of State Sim Ann has acknowledged and I think Member Mr Liang has also talked about. So, given that this is already being practised by a lot of Government agencies like HDB, Town Council and so on, would it consider a pilot for hawker centres which are particularly notorious for high rents, whether it is Marine Parade or Newton? In a similar vein, given concerns about the highest price bidder actually winning the tender, could the Government also consider a pilot whereby it could consider second price tenders instead, whereby the winner will still be the highest bidder, but they will pay the second bid? And this will help to mitigate some of the concerns that Senior Minister of State has raised. I think my colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has also talked about this in the context of HDB coffee shops.”
“However, I wonder how effective this would be, given that the LTVP is not intended for long-term employment purposes at all and we are looking at, potentially, a limited pool of workers. Has the MSE quantified the impact of this move? As stated on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) website, the LTVP is for common-law spouses, step-children or handicapped children of an eligible Employment Pass or S Pass holders and parents of those earning over $12,000. The move to allow the hiring of work pass holders would benefit hawkers who find it difficult to open their stall every day at full hours, and these are also likely the hawkers who have been toiling in the most challenging of conditions day and night for decades and many are likely to be one of our most loved hawker stalls with recipes that have withstood the test of time in a challenging F&B industry. After all, many restaurants, coffee shops and food courts offering Singaporean cuisine rely partly on foreign labour to meet manpower needs. To conclude, Mr Speaker, I hope the Government can take proactive and concrete steps to address the business costs for hawkers, address the cost of living for Singaporeans and lastly, to revitalise the industry we Singaporeans love the most – our hawkers. While we had intended to support the Motion, as filed by the Member Mr Leong Mun Wai. Based on my very quick perusal of the amended Motion by Member Mr Edward Chia, I believe that is something that we can support as well, given the points covered in my speech, namely the impact on the hawker themselves and consumers, and on revitalising the industry. [Applause.]”
“In 2020, UNESCO decided to inscribe our hawker culture on its list of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In our sub mission, it was highlighted several times that efforts are being made to pass on culinary practices to family members or apprentices, for instance through apprenticeship programmes. One suggestion, I hope the Government will seriously consider, is for its programmes to be consolidated under a single, independent hawker academy. This was a suggestion mentioned in a related Adjournment Motion by my former colleague, Mr Leon Perera, in 2021. Such a focal point for the hawker trade could provide more tailored support for hawkers, as well as streamline the role of the Government in its support for the hawker ecosystem. After all, the culinary and entrepreneurial skills of a hawker are not learnt the way one would learn a more academic subject. Lastly, I would like to make a specific call for the rule allowing only citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) to work in hawker centres to be reviewed. This is a long-standing challenge faced by hawkers I talked to and represents a policy inconsistency. In Sengkang Grand Mall, for example, Buangkok Hawker Centre is, as the name suggests, a hawker centre but for any other CapitaLand mall, this would be a food court and subject to a different set of rules. "What's in a name?", one might ask. Perhaps a middle-ground approach, allowing hawkers above the age of 60 to employ one foreign work pass holder, at most per stall, should be studied. I recognise that the Government has stated in its reply to a PQ that it will "allow hawkers to hire LTVP or LTVP+ holders with Letters of Consent (LOC) or Pre-approved LOCs to work as their stall assistants. This policy will be effective from 1 Jan 2025".”
“The Government has not, to my understanding, published any updated data on this since, but I do not think the number has changed significantly. This means that half of Singapore's hawkers are at most three years away from the current age of retirement. This retirement of a whole generation of hawkers is also evident in the disappearance of certain Singaporean dishes. Kueh tutu, appam, satay bee hoon and Fujian oyster cakes are increasingly rare and almost unheard of in new hawker centres. Food historian Khir Johari, in his book "The Food of Singapore Malays", talks about dishes that have already disappeared, such as mee maidin and rujak su'un. Just as critically, he notes how corners are cut and old recipes are disregarded in Singaporean food culture. We need to recognise that the Hawkers' Development Programme and Hawkers Succession Scheme do not work. I do not know of any other way to describe this, but we need to go back to the drawing board and examine the reasons for this and re-model the existing schemes which are no longer fit for purpose. In response to my PQs, since the launch of the Hawkers' Development Programme to much fanfare, 566 aspiring hawkers have enrolled, 120 completed their apprenticeship and an even smaller number of 29 have started their business and a mere 16 of them remain in operation. Of the Hawkers Succession Scheme, since its launch on 1 January 2022, a grand total of seven veteran hawkers have signed up and of these only two have completed the transfer of their stalls to their successors. While the role of hawker food in our economy may not change so quickly because the demand for low-cost food is always there, its role in our culture is undisputed. We must make sure we protect it for our future generations.”
“Instead of adopting a heavy-handed approach to managing hawkers and the prices they charge, perhaps the food delivery platforms, who are in a financially stronger position, could be the ones subject to greater oversight by the Government instead, especially with regard to the platform fees, which are hefty relative to food value. Fee transparency is a key measure to ensure that competition can truly yield a fair platform fee for all hawkers and F&B operators and level the playing field between sole-proprietor hawkers and large restaurant chains in dealing with these delivery platforms. Such a measure also helps customers understand the true costs of delivery and protect hawkers from hidden fees and charges. While I appreciate the CCCS had issued interim measures directions during the possible acquisition by Grab of Delivery Hero's business in Singapore, which did not ultimately materialise eventually, would the Government consider such measures to help ameliorate the cost borne by merchants for their presence on such platforms? Certainly, with greater oversight of the food delivery business, food establishments, especially our hawkers, could be provided with another means to grow their business and thrive, while providing consumers with another affordable dining option. Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to make the point that the Government must make revitalisation of the hawker industry a policy goal. When I say "revitalisation", I mean it literally in that there is a decline that needs to be reversed. Too many indicators suggest that the industry is in trouble, not just financially as I have mentioned earlier, but also culturally. For instance, the median age of hawkers was said to be 60 years old in 2019.”
“Meanwhile, it would help to improve access to those who experience difficulties in obtaining and redeeming their CDC Vouchers. By enhancing governmental support to ensure affordable meals whilst securing the livelihoods of our hawkers, younger players could come in and rejuvenate the hawker scene, whilst bucking the trend of a rising number of veteran hawkers opting to call it quits and retire. Another means for hawkers to broaden their reach is by listing their business on food delivery platforms such as Foodpanda, GrabFood and Deliveroo. Such platforms have also provided many of our residents, tired after a long day at work, easy access to tasty and delectable food right at their doorstep. This is especially prevalent in estates such as Sengkang, where many residents have turned to food delivery platforms due to the lack of coffee shops and hawker centres in the area. However, the hefty platform fees incurred by merchants on food delivery platforms have resulted in them either increasing their menu prices accordingly or opting to absorb it into their menu prices, which results in a decrease in profits. In a PQ filed in 2021, Minister for Trade and Industry Mr Gan Kim Yong outlined that the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) will continue to monitor the food delivery sector for any anti-competitive practices. A 2020 Zaobao article reports that the platform fees charged by the trio of GrabFood, Foodpanda and Deliveroo – with market shares of 56%, 35% and 8% respectively as of 2022 – hover at around 30% of the menu price. I believe this remains the case today.”
“Instead of mandating the menu prices that hawkers should set and having our hawkers shoulder the burden of addressing food costs, the Government ought to do more to ensure the affordability of hawker food, given that it has the capacity and resources to do so. The Government has introduced CDC Vouchers to be used at participating merchants, which would help reduce the out-of-pocket costs when purchasing food or groceries. Nevertheless, several residents have experienced difficulties when obtaining these vouchers, such as those who are living in another house from the one stated on their National Registration Identity Card, those living in shelters and those who face strained familial ties. To ameliorate this, one suggestion would be to expand the pre-existing CHAS card scheme to effectively cover meal discounts to residents. Aside from providing some relief to the cardholder’s medical bills, this scheme is already being used in supermarkets, such as FairPrice, to provide discounts to cardholders. Similarly, cardholders who present their CHAS card at a participating hawker would be able to receive a discount on their food. Whether it is blue, orange or green, the quantum of discount would then correspond to these different levels. Importantly, the cost of these discounts should not be imposed on the hawkers, but on the Government instead. Rather than subsidise high net worth individuals or millionaires who, like low-income households, all receive CDC Vouchers, the subsidy would be better directed to those who need them the most. Such a move would help to minimise the administrative and operational costs in providing affordable meals by tapping on the infrastructure and systems of a pre-existing scheme.”
“Our hawkers are trapped between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they must contend with price hikes in raw ingredients and utilities, coupled with high rentals. On the other hand, seeing how price increases could potentially turn away customers whilst worsening the financial burden experienced by low-income patrons, many stall owners are hesitant about raising their prices. Now, with the requirement to sell their budget meals at a Government-mandated “budget” price at the expense of their already-dwindling incomes, hawkers ultimately bear the biggest brunt of the budget meal scheme. As lamented by a hawker interviewed by The Straits Times in an article dated 1 June 2024: “It is impossible to make a profit from these meals”. In an attempt to maintain their livelihoods, several hawkers have turned to other methods to cover costs from their budget meals, often at the expense of the meal’s quality. For example, there have been instances of budget meals with small portion sizes, while several have also noticed nutritionally imbalanced budget meal offerings with heaps of carbohydrates coupled with little to no proteins. Our hawkers, many of whom are sole proprietors, should not have the Herculean task of shouldering the burden of providing Singaporeans with “cheap” meals to cope with the cost of living crisis. In fact, they should have the freedom of setting their own prices, given that they have an astute understanding of their business costs and the need to sustain their livelihoods, whilst keeping it affordable enough to ensure a steady flow of customers.”
“These include monthly payments for an expensive POS system on a recurring basis compared to them purchasing their own at a lower cost over a period of time, strict terms and conditions, including the imposition of liquidated damages for a long list of terms and conditions, such as business hours and stall closures without written notices, failure to support their loyalty app or even broad-based terms, such as the refusal to cooperate with the landlord. Are consumers and hawkers benefiting from some of these onerous terms? I urge the Government to regularly review the contractual terms and conditions between the SEHC operators and stallholders to better protect the welfare and interests of our hawkers. Next, I move on to addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans. Short of stating the obvious, we all need to eat and it is a matter of sustenance and survival. I believe the public do understand and appreciate that running a hawker stall entails rising overhead costs, along with other intangible factors, such as long preparation hours, the years of honing and refining their recipe and craft, and the hot and sweaty work environment. Nevertheless, the increase in business costs borne by our hawkers has ostensibly trickled down to diners, who are already squeezed by rising costs elsewhere. This is best exemplified by the staggering 6.1% hike in hawker food prices in 2023 which, according to the Singapore Department of Statistics, could be attributed to higher input costs. The Government’s approach to tame the rise in hawker food prices is through the introduction of the Budget Meal Programme, which aims to have all 374 HDB rented eating houses provide at least four meal options priced at $3.50 and below, and two drink items priced at $1.20 and below by 2026.”
“I wish to reiterate a point raised in the Workers’ Party 2020 manifesto, which called on all hawker centres to eventually be brought under NEA control, as that would provide the necessary long-term assurance to hawkers that there are governmental levers of control over rents, not only today, but also tomorrow. The ultimate goal of an SEHC is to make a profit and not provide a public good. Hence, hawkers are often at the behest of their SEHC operators. With operators having access to point of sales (POS) data, these operators are incentivised to maximise the rentals and occupancy costs of their hawkers, which, while in the best financial interest of the SEHC operator, may not be in the interest of the hawkers and ultimately consumers. Such an environment will also not be conducive to creative budding entrepreneurs, but favour established chains with scale, and the lack of diversification of our hawker food mix may even be a consequence. Having all hawker centres under the common management of the NEA also creates consistency in criteria, standards and policies for all hawkers to follow. To be fair, I am not painting all SEHC operators with the same broad brush. But there are certainly some questionable practices of certain operators which require urgent attention today, even if plans for the centralised management of SEHCs are not implemented immediately. Certain SEHC operators impose highly onerous contracts in the pages, which are to the detriment of hawkers rather than being supportive of them.”
“The other aspect is that if such a trend continues, this will have knock-on effects on the supposed market rate as determined by an independent professional valuation, leading to higher market rents and an upward spiral for other hawkers if this persists as well. Moving from a price-only tender would reduce a significant amount of financial pressure for both hawkers and consumers, and also reduce the current environment that is favourable to large franchisors or those with deep pockets, as opposed to the enterprising and innovative hawkers starting out on their own. The Price-Quality Method (PQM) is a method which many Town Councils, such as Sengkang Town Council, routinely use to evaluate tender bids in order to more holistically evaluate the merits of the proposals. In fact, HDB is already evaluating the tenders for eating houses under the price-quality method. Why can we not do the same for our hawker centres? If it is implementation challenges that NEA is concerned about, I would suggest that they work with the HDB commercial teams to understand how this is being done for what is essentially the same trade. A hawker whom I spoke to, who is very supportive of the PQM method, also suggested some factors for the NEA’s consideration, such as the pricing of their products, operating hours, whether they are young hawker entrepreneurs and the heritage value of the product, to begin with. At present, there are more than 100 markets and hawker centres managed by NEA with about 13 SEHCs.”
“Moreover, we see that even for the largest listed F&B companies in Singapore, their pre-tax margins hover between a low single digit margin and even losses. So, for our hawkers operating at a much smaller scale, every single percentage point counts. Whether rentals represent 10% or 20% of operating costs, bringing rentals down by even a few percentage points from their total operating costs could mean the difference between shutting down or not. This is where I believe we can easily do more to better support our hawkers. In my speech during the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year, I was comforted to hear that there was a rental cap for this year’s Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar, similar to that in 2019. To quote the Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development Faishal Ibrahim: "We hear you. For Bazaar Raya Geylang Serai 2024, we are taking steps to ensure that it is more affordable for our sellers and consumers". Whether it is the F&B stalls at the bazaar or at our hawker centres, I believe the affordability concerns remain. Could we not adopt the same rental cap idea for our NEA-operated hawker centres? In addition, I would also like to propose again we should phase out the price-only tender system entirely. I am sure many of you would have seen the new record set for hawker rentals at Marine Parade Central Market and Food Centre, where the vacant unit #01-29 set a new record in the July 2024 tender at S$10,158 per month. Whether or not the particular stall passes on the higher costs, which I believe is only logical, is just one aspect of the problem.”
“In recent years, there has been no lack of news about F&B operators closing, even some high-profile hawkers whom many find surprising, given their popularity with patrons. A recent example is Zhong Xing Foochow Fish Balls and Lor Mee in Bukit Merah, where the owners lamented that they had to close their 82-year-old family-run business, due to their old age, an impending doubling in rent and unwillingness to pass on higher prices to their regular customers, many of whom are the elderly. Caught between rising costs and the difficulty or even reluctance in raising prices, many hawkers are simply finding it difficult to sustain a decent livelihood. Addressing the business costs for hawkers is thus a key thrust of my speech today. Our conversations with hawkers suggest that rentals and their associated costs for raw materials and manpower are the key costs for running their businesses. The NEA noted from its survey that raw materials and manpower were the main cost drivers for stallholders in hawker centres, at 56% and 20% of operating costs respectively in 2022. However, it is important to point out that while the cost of ingredients is a key variable cost for our hawkers, rentals represent a key overhead cost that imposes a high hurdle that hawkers have to overcome on a monthly basis, before they can even start to make a profit, leading many to feel as though they are working for the landlord for a long time before working for themselves. And the cycle repeats every month, with many hesitant to take a long break as a result. Importantly, rentals are a key cost component that we can influence and try to control, as opposed to raw material costs which are primarily dependent on global commodity price trends and may not be directly under the Government’s control.”
“Mr Speaker, it is without a doubt that Singaporeans love our hawker food and it is something which we all hold dear and close to our hearts. Our hawker centres are deeply ingrained in our cultural identity and our collective memories, and these familiar communal spaces and their associated sights, smells and tastes are what make Singapore feel like home for many of us. Just ask anyone who has been abroad for even just a week. We are also passionately protective of our hawker food culture, to the extent that there is always some healthy debate among Singaporeans about which hawker stall serves the best Hokkien mee or, for that matter, some friendly rivalry with our friends across the Causeway about whether the Kuala Lumpur-style Hokkien mee with its thick egg noodles stir fried with black soy sauce is superior or the Singapore-style Hokkien mee with a mixture of yellow wheat noodles and bee hoon braised in prawn stock. However, there could be little left to protect, with our hawker food culture at risk of eroding rapidly, and the sustainability and very existence of our hawkers under threat, if we do not take proactive steps to fix the current issues at hand and remodel the way our hawker trade is managed today. On that note, Mr Speaker, while I had initially wanted to raise a similar matter in an Adjournment Motion, I will still cover the same points in my speech today on three broad areas: addressing the business costs for hawkers, addressing the cost of living for Singaporeans and, lastly, on revitalising the industry. The very existence of our hawkers hinges on whether it is sustainable for the hawkers to ply their trade and operate a financially viable business.”
“But what we can do is to minimise the pains and difficulties faced by parents and parents-to-be, just so that they can better see the joys and wonders of parenthood. And this is where we need to enact the right policies and legislation, putting in place something as simple as an incentive-disincentive framework for employers to make sure that fathers and mothers all take the full share of parental leave, they have sufficient leave to care for their child and that parents are not robbed of the ability to have FWAs just because of business needs. Just so that we can place the sustainability of Singapore as a nation as an utmost priority.”
“Nonetheless, should increasing the statutory childcare leave entitlements by a couple of days be deemed as having a substantial adverse effect on businesses, FWAs that parents can actually have could present itself as a viable solution. Mr Speaker, my journey in Parliament pretty much coincides with my own parenthood journey. Given that my first child was born in September 2019 and less than a year later, I was elected together with my Sengkang team mates in July 2020. A year later, in November 2021, my second child was born and his birthday is in a couple of weeks. Like many of my peers with young children, to say that parenthood is like a roller coaster ride is not an understatement. With many ups and downs, unexpected twists and turns, where you could be screaming in terror one moment and crying tears of joy in the other. I have absolutely no regrets being a father, but I also feel deeply the sacrifices and difficulties that a working parent has to go through in the Singapore that we live in today. For some of my peers who have decided not to have children, I do not blame them at all when they question whether or not all the sacrifices that are necessary in being a parent is actually worth their time, money and effort. Why wake up at 3.00 am in the morning for a feed when you could be sleeping in over the weekend and then have brunch? Why fret over paying for diapers, food, childcare, clothing when you could be on a nice ski holiday to Japan? Why scramble to pick up your kids from school when you could be striving to advance your career in the office? As lawmakers, we cannot force Singaporeans to have more children, just as how we cannot force Members of this House to lead by example and meet the replacement TFR of 2.1.”
“If we cannot legislate for FWAs, can we then at least ensure that parents are able to care for the needs of their child via increasing the number of days of childcare leave, or to have it on a per-child basis? As many parents with young children may know, they will need to take significant time off from work to care for their children as they often tend to fall ill. For instance, I have shared in my Adjournment Motion speech on FWAs in 2023 that I had clocked 20 visits to a paediatrician over a period of nine months. With medical leave durations ranging from three days to about five days, how can parents cope without additional childcare leave or FWAs? Moreover, the reality is that parents will also need to care for their young children whenever their preschool closes, which according to the Early Childhood Development Agency, is now up to eight working days a year and increased from six days a year previously. So, as it is, actually the existing childcare leave days are not even sufficient to cover for school closure days, let alone for when our children actually fall sick. In response to calls by Members of this House to enhance childcare leave provisions, the Government has articulated its concern about the impact that increasing such leave benefits have on the manpower and operational needs of their businesses. However, seeing how we are facing a TFR crisis of our generation, perhaps the Government should channel greater efforts towards granting Singaporeans who wish to start a family the opportunity to achieve that dream. Further, employers could still stand to benefit as it has the effect of boosting staff retention and productivity.”
“If this is not possible, can we consider extending the eligibility period for the parental leave to be taken within 24 months of the child's date of birth, instead of within 12 months from the child's birth? Doing so can also give both employers and parents the flexibility they need to respond to changing circumstances and needs within the households and also at the workplace. This brings me to my point on FWAs, which I have spoken about on numerous occasions in this House. The Tripartite Guidelines for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests, which comes into effect in December, stipulates that employers must consider employees' requests for FWAs properly. Crucially, it stops short of legislating the right to request for FWAs. However, the recent uptick in employers such as Grab and Amazon requiring all employees to return to office for all five days of the week have undone the progress made to normalise FWAs in the workplace. While one can argue that FWAs can take many forms, and indeed there may be jobs where operational demands may mean that work from home may not be possible and that other forms of FWAs may actually be more appropriate, I am concerned that the progress we have made in normalising FWAs is quickly eroding away, with employers less likely to even consider other less disruptive forms of FWAs. Hence, I would like to reiterate my call made in October last year to enshrine into law the right to request for FWAs and this would make it easier for parents to care for their children whilst managing their work commitments. FWAs are also important in the context of our current childcare leave provisions.”
“This was a point which I have also reiterated during the debate on the Empowering Women Motion in August 2021 and the Women's Development White Paper in 2022, as have my other WP colleagues. As my Sengkang team mate Ms He Ting Ru described in her speech in October 2020, the current Government policy back then, which allows fathers to share only up to four weeks of the mother's leave, reinforces the outdated notion that childcare is primarily the mother's responsibility rather than promoting equal parenting roles. That being said, while the default position is that each parent is allocated half of the SPL to encourage shared parental responsibility, I wonder if this is likely to be the case in reality. I acknowledge that we need to give parents the ability to decide what is best for their own families, but part of the requirements of the new SPL is that changes to the leave-sharing arrangements should be made within four weeks after the child's birth. Any changes thereafter will require mutual agreement between parents and their employers. Likewise, I agree that we need to acknowledge the potential impact on business operations as a result of employees' parental leave arrangements. But can we consider putting in place mechanisms to better facilitate or mediate issues faced by parents when making changes to SPL arrangements, especially when the needs of either parent's employers may not be aligned? For example, while parents may have decided on an equal sharing of SPL, the mother's employer may have a new and time-sensitive work project that comes up and the father's employer may not see it in their own business interests to agree to the extension of the parental leave.”
“In my speech on the Budget 2023 debate, I shared that while the move to raise GPPL from two weeks to four weeks is no doubt welcome, I noted that this was purely on the voluntary basis on the part of employers and wondered if the then-Deputy Prime Minister's message that we want paternal involvement to be the norm in our society could in practice turn out as being construed as paternal involvement is voluntary. The move to make the four weeks of paternity leave mandatory is thus a welcome change. That said, given our utilisation of paternity leave today, where only just over half of fathers take paternity leave and the median paternity leave taken by eligible fathers is only just over a week, I wonder if would-be fathers would be in a position to take the full entitlement of the expanded paternity leave and, importantly, feel comfortable doing so. Perhaps it is worth considering having the Government payment of paternity leave to employers to be contingent on the utilisation of at least half of the full four weeks, at two weeks of paternity leave, before gradually increasing these over time. This could further entrench the notion that paternal involvement is important and necessary, while taking into account employers' concerns. Next, on the new SPL provisions. This is certainly a welcome move which I wholeheartedly agree with. As part of the Workers' Party (WP) manifesto in 2020, we proposed 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, with a minimum of 12 weeks to be granted to the mother and four weeks to the father.”
“Mr Speaker, this Bill enshrines into law enhancements to Singapore's statutory parental leave benefits, which were articulated by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during this year's National Day Rally. The initial GPPL structure of two weeks mandatory and two weeks voluntary paternity leave will now become four weeks of mandatory GPPL. The SPL scheme was also introduced on top of the GPPL and GPML enhancements. From 2025, six weeks of SPL will be provided, with that number increasing to 10 weeks from 2026. Moreover, the Bill seeks to protect fathers who take GPPL from being served a notice of dismissal during the period of paternity leave. With Singapore's TFR dropping to a record low of 0.97 in 2023, such measures are certainly a step forward in promoting parenthood amongst couples. In my speech today, I will share my thoughts on several of these measures and other points which I believe, are important to consider including paternity leave, SPL, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and childcare leave provisions. First, on paternity leave. During the debate on the Women's Development White Paper in 2022, I highlighted how policy moves such as increasing one's GPPL entitlement would encourage more fathers to take a more active role in their parenting and household responsibilities, and thus help nurture gender equality within society by shunning traditional gender norms. In Singapore, however, it is deeply concerning that just over half of fathers even took paternity leave to begin with. As someone who had taken my full share of two weeks of paternity leave twice, I find it hard to understand, especially when it is an all-hands-on-deck situation at home immediately following a newborn's birth.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I do recognise that quite a number of the clan associations do conduct such classes to help to promote certain dialects for their respective dialect groups. But at the same time, just over the weekend, I had the pleasure, alongside other Members, of attending a certain dialect group's dinner, where quite a few actually lamented that the younger generation, right now, cannot speak the dialect at all. So, in that spirit, just as how we, perhaps, have certain economic incentives to learn certain foreign languages, could we also not have pilots where it need not be an examinable subject, but it could be one where we can have it as an elective to better promote the understanding of a crucial part of our cultural identity?”
“Just two quick supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, I note that there will be a Future Energy Fund which will be set up by the year-end. I just wanted to ask if there is a specific amount that will be ear-marked for these two new technologies for the infrastructure and grid upgrades that will be necessary, should we decide to go ahead with implementing this on a larger scale. Second, I note the Minister's response that the Government is still monitoring SMR technology. At the same time, I also saw a recent piece of news that the EMA Chief Executive shared that SMR technology is actually a possible solution to power Singapore's data centres. So, on that note, I just wanted to ask if there is a certain timeline on this. Given that the last time we did a feasibility study was about 10 years ago, are there any plans to then conduct a proper study to see whether it is possible to power, not just the data centre industry, but that of our energy requirements?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one question for the Minister. Thank you for the handout. I was just looking at Table 1 where the quota premium has come down by 4% to 21% compared to a year ago. At the same time, if you look at Table 2, the Cat A and Cat B COE bids won by car leasing companies have also come down from about 24% to 26% in 2022 and 2023, to about 10% in 2024 as of October. Would this not then suggest that the car leasing companies do actually have an influence on the quota premiums? If I were to look back at 2012 when LTA made the decision to remove taxi companies from the COE bidding process, they have also stated that the taxi operators' influence on COE prices is actually observed from them taking up a larger proportion, up to 25%, of Cat A COEs back then. So, just wondering if the Minister can elucidate on that.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, on the nutritional values aspect of it, has the Government or Ministry conducted any studies on the percentage of food that actually meets the nutritional guidelines, in adherence to HPB's requirements? Second, in terms of the financial sustainability concerns by individual stallholders, some schools have already entered into a catering model given economies of scale by such operators and it is also easier by the School Management Committee to monitor the nutritional values of the meals. So, in light of this, would the Minister consider reviewing the current decentralised canteen management model? And what are MOE's concerns about further scaling this up to other schools, given that there is already this central kitchen model which Minister mentioned just now?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. In relation to the last part of my Parliamentary Question (PQ), I understand from the Minister of State's response that the dealer will have to do its own monitoring. But on the part of LTA or the Ministry of Transport, does it also conduct its own independent checks, given that these particular models are quite popular in Singapore? And more generally, there has been various cases of such electric vehicle (EV) recalls for different brands for different models. Similarly, are there independent, random checks that are being put in place to ensure that there is a certain reliability assurance?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a few related clarifications on RIC. What is the current fiscal impact of our existing tax incentives and how will this change with the passing of the Bill? Correspondingly, what is the estimated net fiscal impact of the RIC on an annual basis? In other words, is there guidance by MOF to EnterpriseSG or the EDB on the budget for RIC, as this will be directly linked to some of the targets of EDB, such as your fixed asset investment, job creation and so on. The other question is, in terms of the potential companies that could qualify for the RIC. In terms of the guidance to be published, would the criteria on the assessment be also published? And is there any timeline for this, as it was previously mentioned that it was going to be out by the third quarter?”
“Thank you, Speaker, there are two supplementary questions for Minister. The first is, can the Minister share details on SMRT's performance against the new maintenance performance standards set up by LTA as part of the new NRFF, which the Minister also mentioned, what these key performance indicators (KPIs) are and whether SMRT has been able to meet all of them? Because I also noticed that if we look at MKBF statistics, it has been consistently lower than that of SBS Transit. Even so, if we consider that the North-East Line, for example, is older than the Circle Line. The second question is that, can the Minister share the dollar amounts for maintenance-related expenditures for SMRT in the last three years and also as a percentage of its rail fare revenues and how has this trended since the NRFF, especially after comments by its Chairman in June that it does not want both under- and over-maintenance, which Minister also referenced, just so that we can set out the full numbers and context here?”
“It is only fair that MNEs, which benefit from our skilled workforce, advanced infrastructure and stable regulatory environment, pay their proportionate and fair share of taxes and contribute to our nation building. And by supporting BEPS 2.0, we not only promote a more equitable tax system but also signal our commitment to responsible global governance and economic fairness, thereby dissociating ourselves from the terms tax havens or tax-favoured jurisdictions. Let me repeat once again that OECD expects all economies to benefit from extra tax revenues as a result of the Two-Pillar Solution. That is all economies. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to reinvest additional tax revenues, such as through this landmark global tax reform into Singapore's developmental needs. After all, this is the function of Government, to direct our operating revenues, such as from income taxes, into operating and development expenditures across a range of areas, such as healthcare, education and defence. But it is an entirely different thing to roundtrip additional income received from in-scope corporates, back to the same corporates. I hope the additional tax revenues from BEPS 2.0 will not simply be in substance returned to MNEs through other forms but invested in Singaporeans and our collective future instead.”
“STTR allows a developing country to impose additional taxes of up to 9% on certain payments, such as interest and royalties, that an entity makes to related entities in another jurisdiction, if that payment is taxed at less than 9% in the other jurisdiction. In September last month, I note that nine jurisdictions signed a new multilateral treaty that will allow early adopters to swiftly implement the new Pillar Two STTR, with 57 countries attending the first signing ceremony of the Multilateral Convention. The OECD has stated that the STTR is an integral part of the consensus achieved on Pillar Two and is especially important for developing Inclusive Framework members. As such, may I ask the Minister what is the Government's position on STTR, given that this MNE Bill is, as far as I observe, silent on STTR? As the Government often reiterates that Singapore is a developing country, can I confirm with the Minister that Singapore is considered a developing country under STTR and will be able to benefit from this rule? Allow me to conclude, Mr Speaker, by returning to the first principles of BEPS 2.0, which is that these reforms were introduced to stop the race to the bottom when it comes to sovereign tax policies and to facilitate international collaboration to end tax avoidance. Should we decide not to adhere to the principles of BEPS 2.0, we once again return to the vicious race to the bottom where countries compete to offer the lowest tax rates in a bid to attract corporate profits, undermining fair competition, penalising smaller local SMEs that cannot engage in aggressive tax planning and, ultimately, weakens national and international economies by depriving it of the resources necessary for sustainable development.”
“My third question, which is arguably a rhetorical one, is does the Government see Singapore as just another a tax haven? For avoidance of doubt, I strongly believe that we are not a tax haven. A few weeks ago, Singapore was ranked second in the IMD's World Talent Ranking and fourth in the world financial centres ranking. In June this year, Singapore took the top spot in the IMD World Competitiveness Ranking and, in January, Singapore was ranked the most liveable city for Asian expatriates, among others. To quote an International Tax and Transaction Services Leader in one of the Big Four Accounting firms, "overall, for the smaller nations like Singapore, the curtailing of tax competition from the global minimum tax proposal will drive a greater focus on economic fundamentals. Singapore's long-standing merits in its institutions, infrastructure, labor market and financial and legal systems – qualities it has conscientiously nurtured for decades – would arguably be an even greater source of distinctiveness." Should the rollout of the global minimum tax be proceeding as scheduled, I would say, yes, let us not be complacent, but we should take this window of opportunity to adapt and innovate when it comes to considering new economic development models that are more sustainable and less reliant on short-term tax incentives. Let us also be a bit prouder of our non-tax advantages, including our most important asset, Singaporeans themselves, and not fall prey to the thinking that without aggressive tax incentives, we would not be competitive to international MNEs. Lastly, in addition to GloBE rules, Pillar Two also includes a Subject-to-Tax Rule (STTR).”
“Are there expenditures that do not actually qualify and how would EDB or EnterpriseSG make such a determination as to what activities and expenditure would qualify under RIC and whether objective criteria on the assessment of the quantum of RIC to be awarded will be published in due course? In my view, the effectiveness of the MNE Bill and the amount of net revenues we collect from in-scope MNEs will substantially depend on the extent of the generosity of EDB and EnterpriseSG towards these MNEs. What I am also concerned about is that under subsection 51 of the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, "The Minister may make regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of this section". This gives the Minister a broad mandate to make regulations concerning RICs and there are two particular areas which I hope the Minister can provide further clarifications on. First, even though each RIC award will have a qualifying period of up to 10 years and that the credits are supposed to be offset against Corporate Income Tax payable, subsections 30 to 32 effectively enables the company to choose to receive the RIC in cash ahead of the payout date specified, in lieu of being used to offset taxes. What is the rationale for this, how will this be applied and will the Government end up incurring out-of-pocket expenditure, as though it is a grant being given to the company? Second, under subsection 46, the company can apply for RICs to be given to offset any taxes of one or more of its other related companies under the same group. Would this not go against the principle that RIC is granted to incentivise certain specific economic activities by certain entities and for certain qualifying expenditure only? Again, what is the rationale for this and how will this be applied?”
“Will the Minister now be able to provide an update given that most other countries would have enacted or are in the process of enacting these legislations and MNEs would have to adhere to the same set of rules internationally from 2025? My second question, is the Government's plan to effectively return any additional corporate income tax revenues back to these in-scope MNEs, such that we will not have any additional net revenues going forward? In Budget 2024, RIC was introduced, which is to be awarded on qualifying expenditures incurred by a company in respect of a qualifying project, during the qualifying period. According to IRAS' website, the credits are to be offset against Corporate Income Tax payable. Any unutilised credits will be refunded to the company in cash within four years when the company satisfies the conditions for receiving the credits. This is introduced in the new section 93B under the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. The list of economic activities and qualifying expenditure categories specified by IRAS, however, appear to be notably broad-based in scope and wider than the tax credit schemes in some other jurisdictions, which primarily focus on R&D activities. Qualifying expenditure, for example, covers a whole range of categories including capital expenditure, manpower costs, training costs, professional fees, intangible asset costs, fees for work outsourced in Singapore, materials and consumables and freight and logistics costs. While more information was said to be available on the EDB and EnterpriseSG websites by 3Q 2024, it is now mid-October and, to date, I have not been able to see any substantive information on RICs thus far.”
“But especially with the whole suite of tax incentives on offer, our effective corporate income tax rates are even lower, with some companies under the pioneer tax incentive scheme effectively paying no taxes for a number of years; and companies under various other schemes effectively having tax rates as low as 5%. Mathematically speaking, it is thus not hard to imagine the potential increase in corporate income tax revenues from implementing a minimum tax rate of 15%, especially when many of these tax-incentivised companies are likely to be the ones who fall under the scope of the Pillar Two rules. What then is the Government's assessment of the potential increase in tax revenues when changes in this Act are implemented from 2025? In my Budget 2024 debate speech, I shared that the OECD has published a working paper earlier this year, which finds that the global minimum tax "can raise between US$155 billion and US$192 billion of additional CIT revenues per year, with revenue gains accruing to all jurisdiction groups". Moreover, estimated participating countries categorised as "investment hubs", which includes Singapore, would have the largest expected gains from the reforms, with corporate income tax revenues rising from 14% minimum to up to 34%. Subsequently in his round up speech, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong suggested that based on data points from the OECD, Hong Kong and Switzerland, the range for Singapore could be anywhere from around $2 billion to $11 billion a year and that the Government will provide its own detailed revenue estimates in due course.”
“Broadly speaking, the GloBE rules apply to a multinational enterprises (MNE) group that has a consolidated group revenue of at least €750 million annually in at least two of the four preceding financial years. Just how many of such MNE groups are operating in Singapore as of today, what is their total reported revenues, profits before taxes, corporate income taxes paid to Singapore and their effective tax rates? Moreover, as with the past decades, many MNEs operating here in Singapore are given various tax incentive schemes and these include the pioneer industries and service companies' incentive, development and expansion incentive, investment allowances, concessionary tax rates for global trading companies, finance and treasury centres, maritime sector incentives – just to name a few. How many of these incentive schemes will still be in force by the time this Bill is operationalised, and what would happen to the effective tax rates of the companies who are currently enjoying these preferential schemes? Would the top-up taxes prescribed by Pillar Two supersede these schemes? I am reminded of an article on Bloomberg in 2021, which looked into the data collected by the US Internal Revenue Service on US companies' country-by-country filings on where they book their profits and pay taxes. According to the article, "65% of US firms foreign profits are in low-tax jurisdictions, such as Ireland and Singapore, tax-havens like Bermuda, or in stateless entities." What I find most interesting is the finding that the effective tax rate for US companies in Singapore based on the filings is a mere 4% instead of our statutory tax rate of 17%. It is quite clear to everyone that our statutory corporate income tax rate of 17% in Singapore is low by global standards.”
“Mr Speaker, the time has come for us to debate this long awaited but keenly anticipated Bill, for us to implement the GLoBE Model Rules or Pillar Two of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS. It is a topic which I feel strongly about and have spoken on many occasions, including the last four Budget debates from 2021 to 2024. As Singapore is one of the 147 countries who are members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework, it is important that at the heart of it all, we adhere to the principles of BEPS and why a global tax consensus on this matter is so important. The rules are designed to ensure that large MNEs pay a minimum level of tax on their income in each jurisdiction where they operate, thereby reducing the incentive for profit shifting and placing a floor under tax competition and bringing an end to the race to the bottom on corporate tax rates. This can only be beneficial to all countries, including Singapore. In Singapore, corporate income tax is by far the single largest contributor to the Government's budget, more so than the Net Investment Returns Contribution, personal income taxes or even the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Any changes to our corporate income tax policies are going to have the most significant impact to our country's operating revenues, and by extension, our long-term fiscal position and fiscal strategies; that is, if we allow it to be as such, as I will be elaborating further in my speech. Beyond the technicalities of the tax legislation to be implemented, my first question is on MOF's assessment of the scope and impact of this new legislation.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one clarification for the Minister. Was the Government and MCCY already aware in July that despite assurances given by NTUC and Allianz that there are no existing safeguards which precluded Allianz from optimising the capital base of NTUC Income, which, as I understand correctly from Minister's Statement just now, is one of the key reasons that it now steps in. From what I can see from the announcements back in July, a key rationale that Allianz put forth was that it will undertake a strategic and operational review of the company to operate it in a more capital efficient manner, considering possible business model transformation opportunities and also to target a double digit return from investment.”
“Mr Speaker, just two quick supplementary questions for the Minister. Indeed, as many other Members have shared, I am concerned that the number of reported cases, though steady over the past few years, may not be indicative of the underlying concerns that many parents have. So, two points, if the Minister can help us to understand. These are not just about having more channels. But how has MOE enhanced the detection and reporting of bullying cases over the years? Secondly, in terms of the policy and approach, how has the approach by teachers and schools in addressing bullying changed over the years?”
“When confronted with this issue, one approach is to accept that a mistake was made by the Ministry and enact legislation prospectively, given that it is quite clear in my opinion that there are Singaporeans and PRs who are prejudiced. Yes, S$4.4 million of extra revenue is a meaningful sum, but it is also significant to the Singaporeans or PRs who were overcharged. Whatever one's views are towards those who visit casinos is quite secondary to the principle of the rule of law we are trying to uphold in this country. Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mdm Deputy Speaker. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, although we often say "a little gambling can be fun", the reality is that more often "nine out of ten gamblers lose". Therefore, I believe that while pursuing economic benefits, we should also safeguard social welfare and continuously strengthen our protection of vulnerable groups. In an era where online gambling is rampant, blocking certain sites cannot be completely watertight. Can we utilise technology to stay ahead and effectively control gambling issues? Secondly, while our IRs are reaping substantial profits, I believe the government should carefully consider imposing higher taxes on them. This would not only supplement fiscal revenue but also help curb the social ills brought about by gambling activities. Thirdly, the Prime Minister has said that retrospective legislation should be treated with caution and only used as a last resort. Given that retrospective legislation is the exception rather than the norm, why are we now using retrospective legislation to make up for someone's mistake? Is this approach appropriate? It is worth our pondering.”
“In its press release on 6 August 2024, MHA stated that: "It was always the Government's intent to maintain the higher entry levies beyond the five-year period. However, MHA had overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order". Curiously, section 2 of the 2019 Order itself merely stated that "The entry levies specified in section 116(1) of the Act are replaced, for the period starting on 4 April 2019 and ending on 3 April 2024, as follows...". In the joint press release made on 3 April 2019, it was stated that "The casino entry levies for Singaporeans and PRs will be raised by 50%, from $100 to $150 for the daily levy and from $2,000 to $3,000 for the annual levy, with a five-year moratorium". There is no indication of the Government's intention after the moratorium – if levies are going to be higher, lower or maintained – except that this levy is to be in place for exactly five years. Less than a year ago, my Sengkang colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke eloquently in this House of the importance of not treating retrospective applications of the law lightly and how if we routinely amend laws and apply them after the fact, then, we erode the very stability of the rule of law. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also appeared to agree with this principle and said that and I quote, "Backdating, as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim correctly said, should be done sparingly. It is really the exception rather than the norm and we do it very, very rarely. Why so? Because backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law". MHA stated in its August press release that "we have tightened our processes to avoid a repeat of such an incident". But such an incident involving the backdating of laws to fix a mistake should not be treated lightly.”
“" However, a simple google search of "online gambling" throws up numerous websites, listing down all the different online gambling portals in Singapore, supposedly. The top link even includes a list of "the best Singapore online casino sites", with the self-styled "gambling expert" claiming that "gambling at online casino in Singapore is becoming more and more popular as the years go by. Because of this, it probably comes as no surprise to learn that there are now loads of options for players to choose from". I appreciate that while a key part of our strategy to combat illegal online gambling is our blocking measures for illegal online gambling websites and that, yes, no blocking measures are foolproof, but could we better harness technology to stay ahead of the curve and make it prohibitive to access such online gambling portals in Singapore? Considering that a person convicted of gambling with unlicensed gambling service providers is liable for a fine of up to $10,000 or a jail term of up to six months or both, are there corresponding penalties for operators of unlicensed gambling service providers, regardless of where they are domiciled if they are offering such services to users in Singapore? Finally, I wish to touch on clause 95, which provides for a validation of amounts purportedly collected as entry levy during the period from 4 April 2024 to 7 May 2024, at the rate set out in section 116(1) as amended by the Bill. Essentially, MHA made a mistake and overlooked the expiry of the 2019 Order to increase casino entry levies for a five-year period and is now enacting retrospective legislation to fix the mistake.”
“Under the recent development agreements signed between the Government and the two casino licensees, what are the maximum casino tax rates that are specified and what are the terms and conditions required before these can be raised in future, assuming the expansion plans of both IRs are completed on schedule? Is the Government constrained in its ability to raise casino and gambling duties in the next few years? Second, I understand that the Bill seeks to provide for advances in technology and changes to the way gambling and casino operators are carried out. I note that under clause 3, the definition of a "gaming program" is inserted, which refers to a software application designed to be used with an electronic device other than a gaming machine to play a casino game or participate in any other form of gambling. In its press release, MHA noted that this was in response to manufacturers of gaming machines developing software, which can be deployed on off-the-shelf mobile devices such as tablets. I struggle to see how the GRA can restrict the deployment of such gaming software within the casino premises only, should it be approved. As it is today and as I have highlighted in my speech in March 2022, illegal online gambling remains a key problem regardless of whether official gaming software is being deployed by gaming manufacturers. When I tried to visit one of the popular online gambling websites of yesteryear, I was greeted by a notice by the GRA saying in bold red font, "Access Blocked", followed by "You have attempted to access an illegal gambling site hosted by an unlicensed gambling service provider. Singapore Pools is the only licensed online gambling operator in Singapore.”
“Macau, the largest gaming market globally, imposes a special gaming tax of 35% on GGR, amid other fixed and variable premiums payable, while also requiring operators to contribute a further percentage of GGR to utilities designated by the Macau government. This would bring effective gaming tax rates to higher than 35%. It is especially important to place this call for an increase against the context of the two IRs here reporting very strong profitability in spite of the higher casino tax rates. In their most recent half year results, Genting Singapore saw gaming revenues up 28% to $957.6 million in the first six months of the year, driving adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) 26% higher to $570.8 million and putting the company on track to beat its "robust 2023 performance", as highlighted by the company itself at its recent Annual General Meeting, where it also reported adjusted EBITDA of more than $1 billion in 2023. Similarly, Marina Bay Sands saw net revenues up 23% in the first half of the year to US$2.17 billion, with adjusted property EBITDA up 34% to US$1.1 billion. Further, Las Vegas Sands Corp continues to enjoy the highest EBITDA margins in Singapore at 51%, compared to 33% at its Macau operations, despite the higher casino tax rates and this would also have likely been higher than its Las Vegas properties which have since been divested. Considering that casino licences are renewed with every three years, with the current term expiring in 2025, is there scope for the casino tax rates to be raised in the coming years?”