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 7 of 15.
“I am cognisant that the HDB website has recently been updated to remove references to any income figure and that HDB takes a needs-based approach and reviews all requests for public rental holistically. The ability to afford other housing options, such as renting from the open market or purchasing a flat remains debatable, in my view. This is especially if households are currently renting in the open market, and cannot afford the high resale prices today. Even if some can eventually secure a BTO flat, they would need a place to call home in the interim. Just last month, there were two separate residents who lamented to me that their landlord is raising their rent to beyond their gross household income. In one case, his rent is going up from $1,500 to $2,500 a month, beyond his gross income of $2,200 a month; while in another case, his rent is going up from $3,200 to $4,200 a month and he cannot simply downgrade to a smaller flat due to his household size of eight. I have in January and March 2023, called for support measures for households in need and these cases are just a small subset of many Singaporeans who face similar predicaments. Having described the challenges we are facing in the public housing market, I recognise that the Government agrees that there are issues relating to availability and affordability today. Where I believe our views differ however, is on the sufficiency of the current measures that have been taken. On housing availability, the Government has reiterated its position that it has significantly increased the supply of BTO flats and will launch up to 100,000 new flats in total from 2021 to 2025. Similarly, I have over the course of a number of speeches, shared that this may not be sufficient.”
“" Looking at the residential rental market, Minister Desmond Lee is hopeful that in the coming quarters, rental pressures are expected to further ease, as a significant number of residential units are completed, as shared in response to a PQ in September where Member Mr Henry Kwek asked, what more can the Ministry do to moderate or reverse escalating rental cost to help tenants manage their cost of living. I agree with the Member's call and have, in March this year, also called on the Government to support Singaporeans intending to rent a house in the open market and to consider mechanisms to moderate rents in the housing market. But while rental growth rates have moderated, compared to a year ago, private residential rents are up by 19%, well above overall inflation rates and up by close to 59% over the last three years. While the HDB does not publish a rental index, a comparison of median rentals across HDB towns paints a similar uncomfortable picture. Over the last three years, median rents for a 4-room HDB flat have risen by roughly 35% to 78%. Median rentals for a 4-room HDB flat in Sengkang, for example, is now at $3,200 a month compared to less than $2,000 three years ago. While we may say that as a country with close to 90% home ownership rate, those who need to rent form a minority. Soaring rents impact young Singaporeans who have not been able to purchase a flat but need their own space and households who may be particularly vulnerable given their tight financial circumstances and yet do not qualify for a public rental flat as they may be earning a household income of more than $1,500 a month, for example.”
“And that is, is deferring the GST hike in 2024, even for one year, when we have already achieved the revenue increase which the GST hike was meant to bring, going to store up more problems for the future? Returning to the subject of my speech today, which is on housing costs. Based on the latest third quarter 2023 data, HDB resale prices continued its ascent, up about 1.3% from the last quarter, with the increase higher than the 1.2% quarter-on-quarter increase initially estimated for the quarter. This is despite additional cooling measures introduced more than a year ago in September 2022 involving tighter housing loan criteria and a new wait-out period of 15 months for current and former owners of private residential property to buy a non-subsidised HDB resale flat. Compared to a year ago, public housing prices are now 6% higher versus private housing prices at about 4% higher. In each year since 2020, public housing price increases have outpaced that of the private residential market. And cumulatively, we have seen resale HDB prices up by 36%, compared to private residential at 28% since the start of 2020. Moreover, it is not like what a Business Times columnist puts it, where he calls on Singaporeans to simply "stay cool and do not go overboard chasing after million-dollar HDB flats". While one may argue that the HDB resale market does not reflect the affordability of new BTO flats, ultimately, this will feed directly into the formula for pricing new BTO flats, as Minister Desmond Lee shared that, and I quote, "When pricing new flats, HDB first establishes their market value by considering the prices of comparable resale flats nearby as well as the individual attributes of the flats, and prevailing market conditions.”
“Layering on a higher GST rate on top of the inflationary environment we see today with the rising prices of many essential goods and services, is only going to make it even more difficult for Singaporeans to cope with the mounting cost of living pressures. Should we not be insulating our people instead of hitting them with more? Even the MAS Chief Mr Ravi Menon has acknowledged the 1% dish point increase in GST, has an immediate impact on inflation. This is especially the case where I shared in my speech in Parliament just last month: the Government's fiscal position is shaping out to be much better than projected, with operating revenues now $8.2 billion higher in the first half of the financial year. To reiterate, in Budget 2022, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared that the GST hike will bring in about 0.7% of GDP in revenues annually, or about $3.5 billion when the full hike is in place in 2024. Even with a one-percentage point increase in the GST thus far, the Government expects GST revenues in FY2023 to be $2.9 billion higher than FY2022. In response to my speech, Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat repeated the same response as that shared by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in the Budget 2023 round-up speech, where according to them both, “Deferring the GST increase will only store up more problems for the future, leaving us with less resources to take care of our growing fiscal needs and we cannot count on short-term upsides to fund structural needs.” Again, I listen very carefully to what Senior Minister of State Chee has said earlier, but the question here remains relevant.”
“” While I accept that the MAS Core Inflation measure is used for monetary policy decisions, a person without knowledge of the technicalities will nonetheless find reports of a return to price stability as being different compared to their lived experience. After all, the CPI is meant to be a fixed basket of goods and services commonly consumed by resident households. And looking at the relative weight of accommodation cost as part of Singapore's CPI basket, it comes in at 21.97% – the highest single component. Moreover, to say that accommodation costs have no direct impact on the monthly cash expenditure of most households in Singapore as they already own their homes, does not take away the fact that especially in a country like ours, which prioritises home ownership. The cost of purchasing a home is a big concern, as it is going to be the single largest expenditure item for the vast majority of households. It is not just any expenditure item, but one that relates to our basic need of providing for shelter and our livelihoods. As such, my speech today will primarily touch on housing, and as rightly pointed out by the MAS, is significantly influenced by supply-side administrative policies. Hence, we need to take a closer look at our supply-side policies to ensure prices are well managed. Before I touch on housing, back to the October Monetary Policy Statement. The MAS took pains to reiterate that excluding the impact of the increase in GST rates both in 2023 and 2024, inflation rates would be lower. The question then is, why add fuel to fire?”
“Mr Speaker, I second the Motion as filed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh. The discussion on the cost of living crisis which we are facing today, is not complete without a review on the state of inflation in the country. In its October Monetary Policy Statement, the MAS shared its expectations for Consumer Price Index (CPI)-All Items inflation to average around 5% in 2023, down from 6.1% the year before, and for the inflation rate to average between 3.0% to 4.0% in 2024. In recent months, we have seen inflation rates gradually slowing down over the course of the year. The decline in overall inflation rates is perhaps cold comfort for many Singaporeans, as prices are ultimately continuing to rise even amid the high prices we are seeing today. And that this is still significantly higher than what we have been used to in Singapore, double that of the 1% to 2% average inflation rates in the last four decades. Even if inflation rates return to lower levels, prices are now permanently higher. With crude prices rising meaningfully since the third quarter, potentially even hitting $150 as the World Bank has warned, food commodities prices threatening to climb even higher if we witness a strong El Niño, and the second order effects on inflation potentially coming through, inflationary pressures could well pick up. Interestingly, the MAS expects core inflation to be lower than headline inflation at 2.5% to 3.5% for the year as a whole. Unlike many countries where core inflation is defined as that excluding food and energy costs, Singapore excludes accommodation and private road transport costs, which according to the MAS, and I quote, “are excluded as they tend to be significantly influenced by supply-side administrative policies and are volatile.”
“If the Government, legislators, employers and employees share the same vision of making our society and economy more resilient and our workforce more nimble, we must face FWAs squarely and make an informed decision to legalise FWAs. (In English): Mr Speaker, let us take bold and decisive steps to enshrine FWAs in law and send a strong signal to the world that our economy, workplace and workforce are ready for the future economy.”
“Even if, ultimately, the employer decides in a fair and transparent manner that this is simply not possible for various reasons, such circumstances can be addressed through the necessary legislative protections for both employers and, especially, employees. If it truly is the case where all of us – the Government, legislators, employers and employees – are on the same page, in terms of wanting to enhance the agility of our workforce and strengthen our social and economic resilience as a nation, then let us not shy away from making the right decision on legislating for FWAs for all workers. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, let me say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): Through this Adjournment Motion, I would like to call on the Government to enact legislation to provide for FWAs for all employees and to go beyond the use of general guidelines, announcements and moral admonitions in the implementation process. During COVID-19, we have had the opportunity to experience FWAs. But I am afraid we are returning to the unhealthy work norm before COVID-19. In 2021, the proportion of companies offering at least one FWA fell from 90.5% to 71.4% in 2022. Over the next 12 months, as COVID-19 passes, I believe the proportion of companies offering FWAs will continue to decline. If we need a reason to legalise FWAs, our fertility rate is the best testimony. In 2022, our birth rate fell to a new low of 1.04. Moreover, as our population ages, we also need to make it easier for Singaporeans to take care of both their work and families. FWAs will benefit all employees and employers, especially parents of young children and employees with caregiving responsibilities and PWDs.”
“Back to the case of my resident which I shared briefly at the start of my speech, she shared that while she was looking for another job that would allow her the flexibility to care for her children, many of the job vacancies she saw required her to be in the office five days a week and she felt that even those that were flexible, expressed concern that she was leaving her prior employer because of family commitments. "I was surprised we were going back to pre-COVID days", she said. While we should educate and encourage employers to fairly and properly consider employee requests for FWAs, it is incumbent on us, as legislators, to protect our fellow citizens against errant employers, through legislation. We have adopted moral suasion before. The Tripartite Advisory on Flexible Work Arrangements was published some nine years ago back in 2014, and I quote, "The Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy seeks to promote flexible work arrangements (FWAs) as a progressive employment practice in Singapore". Yet, whether it is called a tripartite advisory or the upcoming tripartite guideline, it was not until COVID-19 did we really see FWAs take off. There have been many jurisdictions that have since passed legislation governing the right to request for FWAs or provide for a legal framework to support the rights of employees under FWAs. This includes the UK with its Flexible Working Act; Australia with its "Secure Jobs, Better Pay" Act; and, closer to home, the Philippines with its Telecommuting Act and Thailand with its "Work from Home Bill", among others.”
“However, according to the Disabled People's Association, individuals with disabilities have also commented that they fear accessibilities that have been mainstreamed during the pandemic, such as work-from-home accommodations and other hybrid accommodations, such as online meetings, will fade as Singapore recovers from the pandemic. While I note that there are schemes, such as the ODP Job Redesign Grant which helps employers to redesign their workplaces to make it accessible, the right to request for FWAs would help to elevate the careers of many of our workers with disabilities, whilst empowering more of the 65.7% of PWDs who are outside of the labour force to kickstart their own careers. Despite the sheer demand for FWAs among employees and the multitude of benefits that it brings to all workers and, in particular, certain groups of workers, such as parents, caregivers and PWDs, there is no legal imperative for employers to offer them, as compliance with the tripartite standard on FWAs is completely voluntary. Nevertheless, I understand that work has since started on crafting the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements, whereby employers must "fairly and properly" consider employee requests for FWAs when it is launched in 2024. While such a move is certainly welcomed, are there any ramifications for employers if they do not adhere to the guidelines?”
“While the labour force participation rate for women has increased over the years to 47% in 2022, this is still in contrast to that for males at 77% in 2022. FWAs would certainly help to facilitate a paradigm shift in how gender roles are defined by enabling more women to join the workforce or to restart their careers. Moreover, with the increased ability to manage both work and family responsibilities and, hopefully, prevalence of more men taking on greater caregiving responsibilities, this could, in turn, further reduce the stigma of men as caregivers and normalise societal attitudes towards entrenched gender roles. However, clear action must be taken to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their caregiving and family duties and for workers' performance to be assessed fairly, regardless of whether they take up FWAs or not. This would play a big role in helping to address fears of workers, particularly women at this point in time, on the downside they may face in taking up FWAs to take up caregiving responsibilities. Although such deeply entrenched gender roles certainly require a reformation of our collective mindset, enhancing Government policies, such as safeguarding the right to request for FWA, would help to give us a leg-up in our journey towards gender equality. Besides parents and caregivers, persons with disabilities (PWDs) do stand to benefit from FWAs, especially telecommuting. For example, while efforts have been made to improve the accessibility of our physical infrastructure, it is significantly more convenient for our mobility-impaired workers to work from home, as they might require more time and effort in commuting to the workplace.”
“We need to take bold and decisive steps and provide greater financial and non-financial support to Singaporean families, recognising that the stresses on families and the TFR crisis of generations, if not urgently addressed today, would have significant long-term socio-economic costs on Singapore. Besides parents, caregivers face the Herculean task of caring for their loved ones while trying to earn a living. According to a 2023 study of 200 family caregivers by the Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, the average caregiver holds a full-time job and, on top of that, spends another 6.7 hours per day on caregiving! A Duke-NUS study in 2021 also pointed out that the disruptions to one's work due to their caregiving needs correlated with increased stress and depression among caregivers. In addition to seeking employers' understanding of the heavy burden that caregiving carries, the ability for caregivers to better plan and flexibly attend to their work commitments would help to reduce the stress that they face. Furthermore, it would reduce any work disruptions as they attend to their caregiving responsibilities. This is especially important not solely because of our record low TFR, but it is also important because we are facing a rapidly ageing population and we, too, need to be allowed to care for our ageing parents and be there for them, just as how they were there for us when we were children, too. The same 2023 study also suggested that the average caregiver is a married female aged between 45 and 60. In my speech on the White Paper on Singapore's Women Development, I noted that Government policies play a vital role in rethinking and redefining long-held beliefs about gender roles in our society.”
“So, without even having our children fall sick, the existing childcare leave provisions are not even sufficient to deal with the scheduled school closures! And to this point, I am sure many parents with young children will agree with me that they fall sick too often. And as much as parents want to be socially responsible, not everyone has the flexibility at work to look after their children when they fall sick. Looking through my own records, I visited the paediatrician 20 times in just the last nine months! With medical leave durations ranging from three to five days, how can parents cope without additional childcare leave or FWAs? If the Government believes for some reason that giving parents a couple more days of childcare leave per year to look after their children means employers will be facing severe difficulties, to the extent that their manpower costs and operations will be adversely impacted, as described by Minister Sun Xueling last month, then FWAs could be the key enabler to bridge the gap between employers and employees' needs. This could then help to cultivate an environment that enables parents to look after both their career and their children and reduce the tension that parents face today. Single parents, especially, would benefit immensely from having greater flexibility at the workplace. They bear a heavier burden as they must single-handedly juggle between their care and work commitments. Therefore, FWAs, such as flexi-shifts and telecommuting, would certainly help to alleviate the burden that our single parents face, by allowing them to flexibly plan their work schedule, thus allowing them to find time for their children. But regardless, we cannot expect incremental efforts to result in extraordinary results.”
“If COVID-19 is described as the crisis of a generation, then our TFR issue is, to my mind, the crisis of many generations, given the steady and worrying decline in our TFR which could spell an existential crisis for Singapore and Singaporeans. According to a CNA and YouGov poll published this year, 39% of respondents did not want to have a child as it would have an impact on their career and lifestyle. Many of the respondents that CNA spoke to also lamented that the sheer stress and workload from their job inhibit them from childbearing. We may have enhanced the Baby Bonus Scheme by a couple of thousand dollars, raised unpaid infant care leave while increasing the number of voluntary paternity leave by two weeks, while, ironically, reducing the Working Mother's Child Relief and making no changes to maternity leave which was last changed 15 years ago in 2008. But I am not sure these new measures fundamentally address the tension between one's career and one's parental responsibilities. I acknowledge the concerns the Government has around legislating for more leave provisions. But we need to balance not just the short-term implications on the way companies have to redesign work processes, but also the long-term implications on our nation should the issue persist. Take childcare leave, for example, which many Members have also spoken about. It stands at six days a year, regardless of the number of children one has. Yet, based on the Early Childhood Development Agency's guidelines, preschools can have up to six days of annual closure and three-and-a-half-days on the eve of any of the five stipulated public holidays. A Sengkang resident of mine further shared that there are eight full days and one-half day closure for the childcare centre she sends her kids to.”
“3% of firms indicated that they are likely to continue to provide FWAs in the next 12 months, with 33.5% somewhat likely and 16.2% of firms not likely to do so, suggesting that the proportion of firms offering FWAs will, in all likelihood, continue to decline post-COVID-19. To be fair, the trends are not unique to Singapore and can also be seen in certain firms overseas. A 2022 Microsoft survey indicated that 50% of the business leaders surveyed plan to, or have, required employees to return to the office full-time. After all, business leaders have a myriad of reasons, stemming from inertia and a conservative mindset, for dragging their feet when it comes to the adoption of FWAs in the post-pandemic workforce. Such resistance by some still persists despite several studies showing that FWAs have been effective in driving up workplace productivity and improving employee well-being and motivation. MOM's press release on 22 April 2022 presents such a dilemma, where even though the Ministry hopes for FWAs to be a permanent feature of the workplace, its own recommendations in paragraph 4(c) stated that and I quote, "FWAs are not an entitlement and the requirements of the job take precedence". I can only imagine many employers saying what my National Service Encik would say when it comes to so-called "welfare" requests, "this is a privilege, not an entitlement!". If we need another reason to legislate FWAs, we need to look no further than the other aspect of productivity, where our total fertility rate (TFR) is now at a record low of 1.04 for 2022.”
“In a 2022 white paper by Randstad, 42% of Singaporean respondents would not accept a job that does not provide FWAs, while in a 2023 report by Indeed, 85% of workers in Singapore desire flexibility at work, significantly above the global average of 66%. Additionally, 34% of workers also revealed that they would quit their jobs if the flexibility provided to them is revoked, while another 31% are not sure about it, yet they, too, might end up quitting. It is thus clear that FWAs are a key aspect of talent attraction and retention at the workplace today and FWAs benefit all workers. However, a fair number of employers are now summoning their employees back to the office post-pandemic. According to another Randstad survey in August 2022, 60% of respondents reported that their employers allowed them to work flexible hours, while 52% of them are allowed to work remotely. This is despite an overwhelming 94% of respondents who valued work-life balance. A CNA commentary published in February 2023 suggested as much, with the title being, “After all this talk about flexible work, why are employers insisting on returning to the office full-time?” Based on statistics from MOM’s Conditions of Employment 2022 report published in May 2023, it appears that the lifting of safe management measures meant the lifting of FWAs for a not insignificant proportion of firms, where the proportion of firms offering at least one scheduled FWA fell from 90.5% in 2021 to 71.4% in 2022, while the number of firms that did not offer any FWAs at all jumped from 9.5% in 2021 to 28.6% in 2022. While MOM is hopeful that "the provision of FWAs is likely to continue to remain high, above pre-COVID-19 levels", only 50.”
“While I recognise that such bosses could be a minority and it may be line manager-specific and may not be representative of the firm’s approach to FWAs, I find such attitudes and the whole "if you are not in the office, how do I know that you are working” mindset very troubling. Through this Adjournment Motion, I wish to reiterate my call for the Government to legislate the right to FWAs for all workers and go beyond guidelines, advisories and moral suasion. To begin with, the desire for work-life balance is a key consideration that weighs heavily on the minds of our workers, with over 50% of Singaporeans preferring work-life balance over a higher salary or job role, according to polls done by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in October 2022. In line with global trends, a LinkedIn report released in 2023 also noted that organisational support to balance work and personal life is one of the key priorities for employees in Singapore. So, how do we balance things out? A potential game-changer shone through the COVID-19 storm cloud as a silver lining, with companies adopting FWAs as part of their business continuity plans to tide them through the pandemic. By now, FWAs need no introduction and could take a myriad of forms, including the ability to work from home on a regular or hybrid basis, compressed work schedules, flexi-time, such as agreed start and finish times within agreed limits, and even informal flexibility on an as-needed basis. These may then be implemented according to the varying needs of the different employees and employers. Post-pandemic, FWAs continue to be desired by our workers as they can better manage their professional and personal lives.”
“Mr Speaker, like many of our fellow Singaporeans, including Parliamentarians and political appointment holders alike, we have all witnessed first-hand in the last few years, how transformational flexible work arrangements (FWAs) can be for the better of both employers and employees. That is the reason why it has been one of the key proposals which I have been championing since I entered Parliament more than three years ago. At the debate on the President’s Address during the Opening of Parliament, I spoke about how a key area of reform to build a stronger and more resilient Singapore society is in relation to support for families. While I recognised then that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will support employers to offer FWAs, I called on the Government to give employees the legislative right to FWAs, rather than non-legally binding advisories, and for the Government to lead by example. More recently, during the 2023 MOM Committee of Supply (COS) debates, I shared in my speech that we had an opportunity to experience what it could look like to have FWAs, but I hope that my worst fears of a return to pre-COVID-19 workplace norms in Singapore will not come true. I thus had a bit of a rude shock when in August this year, one of our Sengkang residents shared with me her own troubling experience with requesting for FWAs. The gist of it is that she is a mother of two, with one of her children requiring special attention. When she asked if she could retain her current FWA to better care for her children, her boss quipped that her kids are not even dying. If they were, then the company can consider giving more flexibility.”
“Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to declare my interest as somebody working in a financial institution. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. I understand the Minister of State's point about it being a commercial decision for private companies to choose where they want to list. But I was just wondering: what is the Government's position, as to a ruling, such as that in Indonesia, whereby I believe the local companies can seek a dual listing, but they must also list on the local exchange? The second supplementary question is: on top of listings, there is also the broader issue of delisting in the local market. And it is something which has been a challenge for the last couple of years, where the number of delistings has been more than the listings. As a result, there are concerns as to whether or not this issue of perceived weaker valuations and lower liquidity could continue to result in a bit of downward spiral. So, just wondering in terms of the delisting part, what is the Government's approach towards addressing some of these issues?”
“The Government can say that, look, the change to the WMCR should not be seen in isolation and IRAS can claim that considering both the WMCR change and the one-off $2,000 increase in the Child Development Account First Step Grant in the child's first year of birth, about 97% of mothers would be better off or at least no worse off in that one particular year. But what about the next 15 years' of tax assessments for the working mother? Would she be better off or worse off with the WMCR change? Perhaps a reversion of WMCR to what it previously was could be considered as part of the "A Singapore Made for Families 2025" plan, which is supposed to affirm our whole-of-society effort to create a family-friendly Singapore. Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Deputy Speaker. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although I am aware that the Government announced a one-off assistance package last month, with prices of many daily necessities soaring recently and the second-order effect on inflation from global energy and food prices not yet fully reflected in local prices, the cost-of-living pressures faced by Singaporeans may continue for some time, if not, increase. Considering the welfare of Singaporeans, especially given that the Government's fiscal position is better than expected, collections of corporate income tax, personal income tax and GST are set to hit new record high, and revenue increase has achieved the full year's expected growth in just five months, I hope that the Government will defer its decision to raise GST to 9% in 2024. I also hope that the Government will reconsider changes to the WMCR to create a family-friendly Singapore.”
“With Government revenues already better than initially projected at the five-month mark, is it that difficult to delay the second step of the GST increase and will this delay result in us storing up more problems for the future and leave us with less resources to take care of our growing number of seniors, as shared by Deputy Prime Minister Wong in the Budget 2023 round-up speech? I leave Singaporeans to draw their own conclusions. Finally, while I note that changes to the WMCR is set to go ahead as per clause 53 of the Bill, I wish to again reiterate my desire for the Government to reconsider this move. As I shared in my Budget debate speech earlier this year, while there could be a group of lower-income working mothers who would benefit marginally from this change, the majority of would-be working mothers will be worse off with the change in methodology. Based on my estimates of working mothers' income within married couples in resident households, roughly 20% of mothers will benefit from the WMCR changes while the remaining 80% of mothers will either be unaffected or worse off. I wonder if WMCR truly seeks to reward families with children and encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children, or does it have the unintended opposite effect? If the aim is to benefit lower- to middle-income working mothers, why not just give a motherhood tax rebate to working mothers earning below a certain income? To further support lower-income working mothers, if the tax rebates granted exceed the tax payable, tax credits can be paid out in cash to ensure the reliefs are not lost. Moreover, unwed single mothers are ineligible for this relief.”
“If we set the cost-of-living crisis, which is threatening the living standards of many Singaporeans, against what will likely be a better-than-expected fiscal position for the Government in yet another year of record high collections of corporate income tax, personal income tax and even GST, I find it difficult not to feel a strong sense of injustice and imbalance here. This leads me to my next point about the hike in GST rate from 8% to 9%, which is all set to go ahead from 1 January 2024 despite the circumstances I have described. At the conclusion of the Budget Debate, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared that, "We have to proceed with the second step of the increase in GST in 2024 as planned. Deferring this will only store up more problems for the future and will leave us with less resources to take care of our growing number of seniors." Even if I am personally resigned to the fact that no matter what my objections to the GST rate increase are and that the Government is adamant that the alternatives that the Workers' Party has put forth will not be accepted, could we not, at the very least, defer the planned increase in GST in 2024? In Budget 2022, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared that the GST hike will bring in about 0.7% of gross domestic product (GDP) in revenues annually or about $3.5 billion when the full hike is in place in 2024. Even with a one percentage point increase in the GST thus far, the Government expects GST revenues in FY2023 to be $2.9 billion higher than FY2022 – close to what the full GST hike was supposed to bring in. If we compare FY2023 GST revenues against that in FY2021, then GST revenues would be $4.7 billion higher.”
“Moreover, the second order effects on inflation from increases in basic utilities, transportation and fresh shocks to global energy and food commodity prices have yet to be fully seen on consumer prices, which could result in persistent price pressures in 2024. Moving from the individual Singaporean's point of view to that of the Government's position, now that we are close to the halfway mark in terms of the financial year, it is also timely to reevaluate the Government's current fiscal position against what was initially projected as per Budget 2023. As a quick recap, I shared in my Budget debate speech that the Government's fiscal position turned out to be better than expected in the last two financial years. Based on the latest revenue and expenditure data released on SingStat, it appears that there could be a further close to $3 billion of primary surpluses in FY2022 than what was initially expected. What about the current financial year? In Budget 2023, the Government expects operating revenues to increase by $6.4 billion to a record high of $96.7 billion. This is set to be led by corporate income tax, personal income tax and Goods and Services (GST) revenues, which are all set to reach new record highs. But based on just the first five months of the year, operating revenues are already higher by $6.9 billion compared to a year ago. In other words, the increase in revenues that was expected for the whole of FY2023 was already surpassed at the five-month mark. Meanwhile, expenditures in the first quarter of FY2023 have been stable.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the number one issue which many of our Sengkang residents share during our house visits and one which many residents across Singapore are grappling with is, undisputedly, the relentless rise in the cost of living. Indeed, the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2023 ranked the cost-of-living crisis as the top ranked global risk by severity over the next two years, given stubborn inflationary pressures, food supply and energy supply concerns. Domestically, while one can argue that inflation rates have been trending down in recent months, where the latest data for August 2023 has Consumer Price Index-All Items inflation easing to 4% year-on-year in August from 4.1% in July, it is important to note that this is still significantly higher than what we have been used to in Singapore, when inflation rates have averaged a mere 1% to 2% in the last four decades. While I acknowledge the one-off $1.1 billion Cost-of-Living Support Package introduced on 28 September 2023, the recent slew of price spikes of key necessities which could persist well into the future have caused much consternation – with electricity prices up by an average of 3.7% compared to three months ago, gas prices up by 2.3% compared to three months ago, public transport fares set to go up by 7% next year, with another 15.6 percentage points of future fare increases yet to be inflicted on commuters, unleaded 95-octane petrol now close to $3 a litre and, of course, not forgetting Certificate of Entitlement prices which continue to set new record highs with Category A at $105,000 and Category B at $140,889.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one clarification to Minister Indranee. This is in relation to the purchase of landed properties in Sentosa by foreigners. If I recall correctly, I think the Minister mentioned that there were 88 transactions, of which two were not approved. Just now, the Minister also responded in her response that SLA does not conduct commercial due diligence. In this aspect, I just want to understand what the processes or checks that are in place by SLA when it comes to such approvals and what the circumstances behind the two that were not approved were and, given the context of what has happened in the last two months, whether there are plans to institute additional processes to make sure that there is an additional layer of defence on top of the work that CEA and agents are doing.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two clarifications for the Acting Minister. The first is in relation to the PTC's work, I understand that it is guided by the fare formula. But if you look at the increase that is been granted, 7%, I think that is well above what we are seeing in the overall inflation rates here in Singapore, so far. If you look at the 15.6 percentage-point increase that is going to be deferred to the future, this is going to cause a significant effect, a lasting effect into the increases in public transport fares for Singaporeans, given that this could have a snowballing effect, since there will be the deferred increase and future increases to consider. So, in that sense, would the Minister not consider, even if not expunging, then moderating the level of increase, just as it did in the fare review exercise in 2021, when the PTC did not fully agree with the outputs from the fare formula? So, this is the first clarification. The second is in terms of financial sustainability. In relation to the written answer which Minister has partially responded to, when I look at the public transport operator, should we not look at the public transport system as a whole, and in that sense, would the Minister not agree that if we look at the returns that some of these operators are generating – one of them, for example, is actually generating close to 11% return on equity in the last one year and 13% in the last five years – one would struggle to see how the financial sustainability of the operator, at this point in time, is actually in question?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. The first is: when exactly did ECDA decide to mandate the installation of CCTVs in preschools? Second, does ECDA know which preschools have or do not have CCTVs installed? For context, the reason why I am asking is because, in July, in response to be Parliamentary Question or PQ, it was shared that CCTVs are not mandatory. Yet, in the 31 August 2023 ECDA response and as shared by the Minister of State, this is something which was planned since last year. Secondly, I think the Minister also shared then that ECDA does not track CCTV installations. Yet, in ECDA's release, it was also said that more than 60% of preschools already have them installed.”
“May I ask the Minister if this is in the works and, if not, what are the concerns or considerations in this regard? Finally, there seems to be a sentiment among Singaporeans that our retail scene has gone stale, with comments made about how our shopping malls are essentially cookie cutter malls. A quick scroll through the tenant directories of the numerous malls that populate our island shows that the same chain stores and eateries repeatedly pop up. As someone who frequently patronises McDonald's and Uniqlo, I can understand why these retailers are doing so well and why many malls would want these ubiquitous names as anchor tenants for their malls. Moreover, such brand-name tenants or other international F&B or fashion retailers could potentially also afford higher rents as opposed to the local SMEs, thus enabling landlords to command higher rentals at their malls and thereby uplifting the valuations of their properties. This could, however, potentially have a stifling and crowding out impact on our local SME and retail scene. The passing of this Bill is a step in the right direction, but by enhancing data transparency and information sharing and narrowing the gulf in information between SME tenants and retail landlords, I hope more can also be done to better effectively bridge the power differential between landlords and tenants, thus providing our smaller retailers with a better fighting chance to sustain their businesses. After all, the shopping mall, of which many populate our island, forms a key backdrop to the everyday experiences and lives of Singaporeans. Fostering an environment that encourages our smaller retailers to flourish could bring greater vibrancy and character to these places and Singapore as a whole. I support the Bill.”
“While I understand that there are various retail indices being compiled by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), the overall market index may not accurately reflect the nuances of the different geographical submarkets and, certainly, not the individual shopping malls. Besides enhancing data and information transparency, I believe efforts should also be put into ensuring that tenants are better informed when negotiating their leases and signing the lease agreement. Clause 4E of the Bill states that one of the functions of FTIC is "to conduct outreach and education relating to this Act and the Code of Conduct and matters relating to the leasing of retail premises." I am supportive of this move. Even while the code of conduct has already been introduced on a voluntary basis, smaller retailers today who lack the resources and awareness to vet through contracts could simply sign it without understanding its terms and conditions and any exceptional clauses to be wary of. Therefore, I hope the Minister could provide further information, such as the amount of resources dedicated to outreach and education efforts, especially for our SME retailers. An adjacent point worth considering is whether such a code of conduct can also be extended to non-retail leases, to other commercial leases, such as those for offices or even those for industrial and business park spaces. SME tenants that are the beneficiaries of the retail code of conduct could also benefit from fairer and more balanced lease negotiations between landlords and tenants of workspaces. Given that significant effort had already been put in by various parties to refine the retail code of conduct, it would be worthwhile, in my view, to look into extending this to other commercial and industrial sectors.”
“To take it one step further to truly enable fair and equal access to information for landlords and tenants alike, I hope that the Government would also consider launching a public rental information database, similar to that mooted by the Fair Tenancy Framework Industry Committee back in 2020. Back then, the Committee shared that it recommends two levels of rental data be made available, namely, a public rental info database that is uploaded on a monthly basis, and mall-level productivity and performance data made available by landlords to tenants from whom they require data, such as monthly sales data. Not only would such information benefit tenants, especially SME tenants, who may not have the ability to compare rents and key retail metrics across locations, smaller landlords would also benefit from the ability to better position their mall in a market dominated by key players. To use an example which, arguably, is not related to a shopping mall, if you look at the recent concerns over the Geylang Serai Ramadan Bazaar, for example, while many have expressed concerns over high rental costs, especially for certain food types, in my mind, it is the uncertainty in the ability to make enough revenue to cover rents and other costs that weighs heavily on tenants’ minds throughout the tenure of the bazaar. So, past sales information, footfall and other related metrics provided would then help in this decision-making. Is the Government actively considering such a database and whether or not the Housing and Development Board (HDB), as one of the largest landlords of retail space, would be willing to lead by example and provide such information?”
“In accounting, there is a concept called "decision usefulness" which comes to my mind; without granular data, the information provided by landlords would be neither useful nor relevant for tenants or potential tenants. For example, if one is a small F&B kiosk operator on the highest floor of a shopping mall, of what use is the total F&B sales for the entire mall if the McDonald's outlet on the ground floor is doing brisk business and likely dominates the consolidated sales figures? Will the Minister consider providing for more fine-grained data to be presented and at a higher frequency versus the current bi-annual basis? Additionally, lease agreements may contain confidentiality clauses within contracts, prohibiting tenants from sharing information regarding their lease agreements, including rental rates, with their counterparts. Landlords, however, could have access to comprehensive data from their tenant’s Point-of-Sales (POS) systems, be it across multiple tenants from within the same mall, or the same tenant across different malls, thus enabling them to maximise potential rents and, hence, occupancy costs from the perspective of tenants, without causing them to vacate their space. While the new Bill certainly helps to reduce the power differential between landlords and tenants, enhancing data transparency would certainly help to further reduce this gap. I believe the data transparency guidelines set out in the Code should be mandated under the new legislation, rather than applying only to landlords who collect sales data from tenants as part of the GRO rent structure. May I ask the Minister what are the Government’s concerns should the data transparency principles be applied to all qualifying retail leases?”
“One way that landlords could wield a disproportionate amount of power at the negotiating table is by exploiting the information disparity between them and the tenants. This enables them to command higher rents during lease negotiations. While clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill codify the leasing principles set out in the Code of Conduct for the Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore, the current code and, hence, legislation, does not include data transparency guidelines as a requirement for all qualifying leases. The Code’s data transparency leasing principle only applies to landlords who collect sales data from tenants as part of the GTO Rent formula. The guidelines call for landlords to share sales data metrics according to trade category with existing tenants on a bi-annual basis and on a one-on-one basis before the signing of the lease agreement. However, there is much room for improvement here, especially when I believe the majority of rents today do not incorporate GTO rent arrangements and, hence, this leasing principle may not apply to many leases in practice. Can I confirm with the Minister that this is true, and what is the expected percentage of qualifying leases that would require the data transparency principle to be complied with? Retailers which The Business Times spoke to for an article dated 19 July 2023 further mentioned that data, such as fine-grained footfall and rental data, would be useful for tenants during lease negotiations. Furthermore, they noted that the sales data provided by landlords should be broken down by floor and sub-category as well.”
“Mr Speaker, the relationship between landlord and tenant has always been a symbiotic one where both parties rely on each other to survive and thrive. Yet, it is often also a relationship which is hugely imbalanced, with landlords having a significant advantage over tenants when it comes to lease negotiations. It is this power imbalance which we should strive to address and ensure a more level playing field for tenants, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), who are beholden to landlords, and with rents being a critical overhead cost for retailers. As what some retailers would say, "We are merely working for the landlord”. The power disparity and helplessness of tenants came to the fore in recent years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, where mandatory lockdowns and safe-distancing measures put the retail landscape under significant strain. However, the silver lining, of course, was the formation of self-help groups, such as the Singapore Tenants United for Fairness (SGTUFF), the formation of the Fair Tenancy Pro Tem Committee and, eventually, the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises and the legislation we see today. To this end, I am supportive of the Bill in its efforts to address certain pain points and unfair leasing terms and conditions that used to be prevalent in the retail landscape. At the same time, however, I will speak broadly on areas for improvements, particularly as they relate to data availability and transparency, which, in my view, are the core issues that need to be addressed in enabling a more diverse, inclusive and level playing field for the sustainability of our retail landscape.”
“Mr Speaker, just two supplementary questions on that. Firstly, in terms of the RFI by MyHSR Corp, whether the Ministry of Transport (MOT) or Land Transport Authority (LTA) is actually involved in the preparation of this request, just so that any plans that could involve Singapore potentially, could be factored into that request? Secondly, in relation to that, were there any Singapore companies that were involved in the initial information gathering stage organised by MyHSR Corporation, in its earlier engagements with the private sector?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two clarifications. Firstly, can I confirm that even though the CPIB has functional independence in its operations, which I think Minister Chan said, it is obligated to seek the Prime Minister's concurrence to initiate formal investigations into Ministers? And if this is the case, which are the classes of people or public officers where the Prime Minister's concurrence is required, and under which section of the Prevention of Corruption Act is this specified? And secondly, in relation to that, based on the provisions in the current statutes, should the Prime Minister and President both refuse to give concurrence to the CPIB, does it mean that the CPIB cannot commence formal investigations into certain classes of people?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, beyond the finance staff who actually authorised the transactions and the withdrawal, to what extent was this practice authorised by the management team of the PA or even the grassroots organisations? If we look at the second part of my original Parliamentary Question, it is really in terms of whether there was any form of disciplinary actions that are taken on the staff who were involved in the transfer and even the management team, and whether there was any censure of the board as well.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Given that there may be potential breaches of the Companies Act involved, is the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) looking at its own investigation and enforcement actions when it comes to not just the employees and ex-employees that were mentioned in the report but, potentially, also the directors of then-SPH for potential breach of fiduciary duties? Similarly, given that it was a listed company back then, is SGX also looking at its own regulatory actions in relation to some of these misstatements of circulation and financial figures?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, in relation to the domestic postal obligations, which is the framework which the Senior Minister of State has talked about in terms of the regulatory framework that IMDA has, what recourse does the Government have if SingPost, as the operator, is unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations any further because of the constraints that it is facing and so on? Secondly, related to that, the company has also made an announcement that it is reviewing the commercial sustainability of the domestic postal business and it was also mentioned just now that there have been various discussions between IMDA and the company. Do these discussions involve the direct subsidising or funding of the company in relation to this aspect?”
“We must therefore recognise that holistic support is vital to enable survivors to complete their journey towards full recovery from family violence. Finally, beyond the issue of family violence per se, I wonder, if the heart of the issue is that we are a more violent and abusive society today than before. Road rage cases are increasingly common, the latest high-profile case being that involving a car driving off with a cyclist who laid on the bonnet after a heated argument between the two women involved. Last month, two elderly men were arrested after a fight broke out over cigarette butts in a coffeeshop. And online, we have trolls masquerading behind a pseudonym, spreading hatred, anger, personal attacks and verbal abuse, often in a coordinated and organised manner. Are these behaviours now normalised in society? It may be idealistic for me to say we need to heal the world and make it a better place. But as leaders of this country, I think there is much food for thought here and it is upon us to demonstrate what Singapore society should be. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“Survivors of family violence face a very real dilemma when reporting their abusers, as this could also mean a loss of basic needs, especially if the abuser is the sole breadwinner of the family. How can we provide a level of psychological safety and support to those suffering in silence, such that they are willing to step out of their fears and to bring attention to their situation? We must recognise that there is an acute need for safe accommodation and timely response once the domestic violence report has been reported to the Police or once the PPO has been filed. We need to ensure that survivors will not feel worse off when they finally break their silence and that adequate support are available and ready for them when they do find themselves in a situation needing them. In this regard, there should also be a range of long-term support and resources made accessible for survivors, beyond short-term responses to the family crisis. These include access to financial and non-financial forms of assistance, such as access to housing, when they have no relatives to turn to for help, timely employment assistance and immigration support. Mental health and psychological support in the form of counselling or therapeutic support is also essential during this trying period. Particularly for women and children who are not locals and are on long-term visit passes, for example, their right to feel safe and have a safe place to live in is a precarious one without the support of their local spouse, not knowing when they might have to leave this place they call home. And yet, even as they can continue to reside here, their ability to access affordable housing through the Housing and Development Board (HDB) ownership or rentals is also not a given.”
“I am appreciative of the enhanced powers to take timely interventions to safeguard the health and well-being of victims of family abuse. However, I believe that there needs to be a longer-term game plan to prevent family violence in the first place and provide greater lasting support to victims, especially those with psychological trauma and physical displacement. In 2022, MSF investigated 2,254 new family violence-related cases, while the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Helpline received 10,800 calls for assistance. For every case that is surfaced, there could be many more that are suffering in silence and more who do not know who they can trust or turn to for assistance, particularly when the ones they loved the most turned out to be the ones causing them such intolerable harm. More can be done when it comes to public education in building awareness of what constitutes family violence and abuse and to encourage Singaporeans who witness family violence to reach out for assistance. Schools, in particular, should provide greater training and resources to help teachers and staff better identify signs of domestic violence in children. For victims of family violence, we need to provide for more structural forms of assistance, longer-term assistance especially, as it relates to psychological trauma or physical displacement. Often, family violence survivors choose to endure the abuse, instead of reporting their abusers to the Police in fear of either further abuse or being left homeless and vulnerable. After all, if one considers Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it is only after physiological needs of food, water, shelter, clothing and a place to sleep are met can one begin to consider safety and security in their family.”
“Moreover, children from the age of 13 can even take up employment in a non-industrialised setting and some may have had to juggle schoolwork with part-time employment just to supplement the family income. In cases where someone is under the age of 18, is not married and does not have any other older family member who can file a PPO application on their behalf, to whom can they turn to for assistance? More broadly, how can we ensure that children do not fall through the cracks? Second, in cases involving a domestic exclusion order, a stay away order or a no contact order under the new section 60B, how can we ensure that there is no financial strain or damage caused to survivors? While we are moving towards a cashless society, there could be cases where women and children do not have access to the family's finances or do not have friends and extended family they can feel comfortable turning to, with the perpetrator either being unwilling to provide for financial support or simply unable to given that he may be remanded. Thirdly, while I recognise the need to "break the cycle of violence" through rehabilitative and treatment provisions, could there be more room to consider the needs and wants of survivors, rather than via the Courts instead? This is not to say we do not give offenders a second chance. While there could be many cases where there is a strong desire on both the perpetrators and survivors to heal the relationship, some may not wish to confront the intimidating and traumatic prospects of repairing this broken relationship. At present, the Court may already require the survivor, perpetrator of family violence and/or their children to attend mandatory counselling.”
“The amendments to strengthen protections of victims include the ability for protectors to make personal protection orders (PPOs) on behalf of victims for their safety, to issue emergency orders, lowering the eligibility age to apply for a PPO and better-defined rehabilitative provisions to instruct and prohibit perpetrators from having contact with victims. Having a second layer of protection through electronically monitoring arrangements also enable enforcement officers to be in a better position to ensure survivors feel and receive a level of personal safety and security. Moreover, the plans to strengthen rehabilitation of perpetrators through counselling and treatment orders are also commendable in allowing families to find and resolve the root cause of domestic violence and abuse. On the amendments and new provisions introduced by the Bill, I have a number of queries I wish to clarify with the Minister of State. Firstly, what are the considerations behind lowering the age of an individual who can apply for a PPO from 21 to 18 under the new section 60 and whether there needs to be an age limit? Family violence will have far-reaching and traumatic consequences in every aspect of a person's life at any age, whether they are above or below the age of 18. While there is merit in bringing down the age of an individual who can apply for a PPO from 21 to 18, allowing for a larger number of young individuals to seek help, it discounts younger individuals below the age of 18 to take actions to cure a dire situation. Trauma often force children to mature faster and beyond their years. A 17-year-old going through a similar abusive situation as an 18-year-old will have the same need and want to have that autonomy to decide to protect themselves from domestic violence.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, as Members of Parliament, we are in a unique position to be not just the voice of our constituents, but to also provide assistance and advice to our fellow Singaporeans who are in need. I am sure this is something which all of us do on a weekly basis during our Meet-the-People Sessions. In preparing for this speech, I am reminded of a number of victims of family violence and abuse who have sought our assistance and some of the imagery of bruises and injuries sustained from physical violence, the ridiculous verbal and psychological abuses that they have suffered and the trauma and fear that is in our residents' eyes and voice, even as they muster up enough courage to relate some of their experiences to me. I am thankful to the various agencies including MSF who have done what they can to provide timely assistance to our residents who have sought our help. So, in this regard, I am supportive of this Bill to introduce a more comprehensive regime to protect against family violence. To start with, of course, family violence and abuse can take many forms beyond physical hurt and harassment. And this has also evolved with the times and the use of technology, for example. Hence, for starters, I appreciate the updated definition of "family violence" under the new section 58B, to cover physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse. This would be a more comprehensive and practical definition rather than the narrow and prescriptive definition previously. My speech today will be focused on the need for greater assurance and more timely support for families at risk or are in domestic violence situations. I recognise the merits of protecting victims through better protections, while enhancing rehabilitation of perpetrators of family violence.”
“Yes. So, that is really the question – in that in not requiring a tender but rather through direct tenancy agreements, if you compare the process of SLA versus, say, how URA manages the land sales process, for example.”
“Subsequently, in a response to Channel NewsAsia, one of the property agencies' director for research even said that SLA properties are tendered out through a bidding process. So, in this case, for SLA as a whole, when it comes to dealing with direct tenancy agreements rather than requiring a tender, would that then be amounting to something like a raid on the Reserves again? Because if you look at how land sales are being processed by URA, if there were a developer that wanted to —”
“Deputy Speaker, just two clarifications for Second Minister for Law Mr Edwin Tong. The first is regarding the issue of favourable rental rates and whether, as a result of SLA's management of the renewal process as well as of black and white properties, this has arisen. I note that the property at 31 Ridout Road was renewed in October 2022 for three years, with the rent increased to $20,000 from $19,000. This is about a 5% increase or so. But if we consider the market conditions, which the Minister also spoke about in his speech just now, if we look at the URA private residential rents, that has increased by about 42% during the same period. And if we just zoom in on landed properties, it has increased by 35%. So, even if we look at Housing and Development Board (HDB) properties, just looking at the 4-room flats in Sengkang during the same period, the median rents have already increased by more than $1,000 in the same period as well to about $3,000 a month. This also comes in the period where the occupancies of the black and white houses as a whole and as well as Ridout Road, have increased over this period of time, suggesting that, actually, specific to black and whites, demand has also increased. The second clarification is in relation to the direct tenancy process. It is stated on the SLA website that state properties are supposed to be let out through open tender to ensure the process is fair and transparent. In this regard, I know that 31 Ridout Road was, indeed, on the SPIO website, but 26 Ridout Road was not. And I think in the May statement by SLA, it was said that Minister Shanmugam was the only bidder and his bid through an agent was higher than the guide rent.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Minister. In the interest of good stewardship and given that it is Singapore's reputation at stake, how does the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Temasek ensure that there are adequate anti-corruption and bribery controls that are put in place, that these are effectively enforced and that Temasek, as a shareholder, has effective oversight over these risk mitigation strategies and controls?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, in relation to the existing Kranji Turf Club as well as the former site of the Turf Club at Bukit Timah, what is the targeted completion date of the first batch of residential properties to be completed over there? The reason why I am asking is because it has been about 20-odd years since the Turf Club relocated from Bukit Timah to Kranji, and I think, over there, there has not been any residential development as yet, even though the land has been earmarked for residential use since Master Plan 1998. Hence, the second supplementary question is: can there be provisions to extend the closure of the Kranji Turf Club should there be delays in other processes?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his very comprehensive replies. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is in relation to my Parliamentary Question (PQ). I understand the Minister of State's point about the level of granularity provided, but I was just wondering in relation to the 14 April press release by MAS, it did state that the source of overall inflows into Singapore is diversified. So, I was just wondering if there is any further granularity that the Minister of State can provide to assure the public of the level of dispersion or concentration risks of any particular source country? Second, in relation to the PQ which was filed by Mr Leong Mun Wai, I also understand that at this point in time, because they are not at the two-year mark as mentioned by the Minister of State, we do not yet have that data. In terms of the level of local investment requirement, I recognise that this is indeed a good thing, but given that, as the Minister of State mentioned, most of it would presumably be invested in overseas markets, in overseas assets. Is there a push by the Government or MAS to, over time, nudge some of these companies to invest in local companies a little bit more, especially in the last category, when it comes to non-listed Singapore-incorporated companies, since these tend to give a greater multiplier effect —”