Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 51.
“Mr Speaker, I wish to move a Business Motion. May I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order Nos 48(8) and (3) to remove the time limits in respect of the speeches of Minister Masagos and Minister Shanmugam, and to enable Minister Shanmugam to speak more than once? Mr Speaker, the Minister for Social and Family Development will be moving the Second Reading of the Constitution (Amendment No 3) Bill. The Minister for Home Affairs will also be moving the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill after the Constitution (Amendment No 3) Bill. However, the intent is to hold a joint debate on both Bills. As such, it is envisaged that there will be queries and clarifications on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill or related issues which necessitate a response by the Minister for Home Affairs. As such, I am moving to enable the Minister for Home Affairs to speak more than once during the debate to allow matters raised by Members to be answered fully. I seek your consent, Sir.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Celebrating SG Families: Embracing Parenthood through Live, Work and Play 4.47 pm”
“The Committee's work is well under way and recommendations will likely be issued for public consultation sometime next year. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments in this Bill seek to effect the merger of ACRA, SAC and ASC into a strengthened accountancy function under one entity to harness greater synergies across complementary functions. Just like how things are evolving around the world, the Government will continue to respond with agility and transform ourselves to better serve the industry. The merged entity will build on the good work done by ACRA, SAC and ASC and continue to work closely with industry players to grow the accountancy profession and sector. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. 4.43 pm”
“I agree with Mr Don Wee that a more comprehensive and holistic review of SCAQ from time to time is useful. In this regard, work is currently underway to review the SCAQ programme to ensure that the qualification and syllabus stay future-ready and industry-relevant. This is one of the areas that AWRC will look into. ISCA has also, separately, convened an SCAQ advisory panel to assess and provide recommendations to the Government on possible enhancements to SCAQ. I look forward to the recommendations of the panel. Next, I will touch on sustainability, a trend that both Mr Louis Ng and Mr Don Wee highlighted in their speeches. Mr Don Wee suggested that the Government partner professional bodies to help accountancy professionals build capabilities in sustainability-related areas, such as sustainability reporting and assurance requirements. On this front, SAC will be providing funding support to ISCA to develop sustainability reporting and assurance certifications targeted to be launched in the next two years. We will continue to monitor these trends and see how the Government can do more to enable the green agenda. Beyond building capabilities, there have been calls for more consistent sustainability reporting standards to facilitate comparison. Mr Ng asked if the Accounting Standards Committee would be developing a position on the future sustainability-related standards set by the International Sustainability Standards Board, or ISSB. Currently, ACRA and the Singapore Exchange RegCo have set up the Sustainability Reporting Advisory Committee, comprising relevant industry stakeholders, to develop a sustainability reporting implementation roadmap. Part of the committee's work is to study various reporting standards, bearing in mind the need for international convergence.”
“Under the Singapore exchange listing rules, listed companies must comply with the Code of Corporate Governance or provide justifications for non-compliance in the Annual Report. On the suggestion to require all financial statements of listed companies to be signed off by a preparer who is a CA, we will have to study the proposal further as it would require careful consideration on areas, such as impact on business costs and the talent pool. Today, we hold directors responsible for the preparation of financial statements, given their fiduciary duties to shareholders over the company's finances. Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Ng raised concerns on the talent shortage in the accountancy sector and highlighted the need to do more to expand the talent pool. Ensuring a healthy pipeline of talent is, indeed, important. MOF and SAC have convened an Accountancy Workforce Review Committee, or AWRC, to recommend strategies to better attract, develop and retain talent. This Committee comprises key industry players, including our national professional body for accountancy, the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ISCA) and academia. We will share more details about the recommendations in due time. Mr Don Wee asked for a review of SCAQ, in particular, areas, such as entry pathways and curriculum coverage, as well as to include emerging areas, such as forensics, valuation and sustainability, in the SCAQ curriculum. I would like to assure Mr Don Wee that SAC has a professional education council and two learning and assessment committees, one each at foundational and professional programme level, that review the SCAQ curriculum, and ensure its continued relevance as the industry evolves. The council and committees draw representatives from the industry and academia, some are also ISCA members.”
“The Member should rest assured that the final decision will only be made after allowing the CA an opportunity to be heard. Lastly, Mr Louis Ng asked for the factors that ACRA will take into account in deciding whether a DE should be deleted from the Act. When we appointed a DE, which is ISCA today, it is because we see a role for DE in ensuring professional competence, standards and ethics of CAs. As part of the appointment, the roles and responsibilities of DE are specified and agreed between DE and SA currently, or, in future, ACRA. The arrangement enables the Government to work with partners to build and nurture a strong accountancy sector. In assessing whether to continue with or delete a DE from the third schedule of the Act, ACRA would take into account the effectiveness of the arrangement with the DE, in ensuring that the desired outcomes for the sector are met, as well as the ability of the DE to fulfil the roles and responsibilities. Next, I move on to Mr Don Wee's suggestion to regulate those who prepare financial statements. Specifically, Mr Don Wee suggested to mandate the chairpersons of Audit Committees of publicly-listed companies to be a CA and all financial statements of publicly-listed companies to be signed off by a preparer who is a CA. Today, the code of corporate governance already requires at least two members, including the Chairperson of the Audit Committee, to have recent and relevant accounting or financial management expertise and/or experience. This takes into account the need for the Audit Committee members to have diverse finance and accounting skillsets, and experience in business contexts beyond a professional designation.”
“Second, Mr Ng asked about two aspects of ACRA's powers with respect to DEs and CAs: one, whether ACRA has the power to conduct a review, if DE did not take any action against the CA in respect of an alleged contravention by a CA, or if DE has revoked the CA's registration; two, whether ACRA has the power to impose lighter sanctions than what DE meted out or to overrule the DE's decision upon review. I will take these questions together. Generally, ACRA has the right to conduct a review of the actions taken by DE against the CA, under section 35G of the Act, upon being informed by DE of its investigation undertaken. ACRA's review power is limited to revocation, suspension or extending a suspension on a CA. Such review power is intended to deal with cases where more punishment than what DE has meted out may be warranted. If such a CA is aggrieved by the decision of DE, including the DE's revocation or suspension, of his or her registration, and feels that his or her case is deserving of a lighter punishment, there is a separate channel for the CA to appeal to ACRA, under section 35 of the Act. In an appeal, ACRA has the power to then take various actions as necessary, including quashing the revocation or suspension of the CA. Third, Mr Louis Ng asked why the opportunity for the CA and DE to submit reasons arises only after ACRA has reached an initial view on whether the CA's registration should be revoked or suspended, or the DE's designation deleted respectively. In practice, ACRA will review the relevant materials in the proceedings that the DE has previously undertaken, which will, typically, include the explanation given by the CA before arriving at the preliminary view of an intended revocation or suspension.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was so hopeful there for a moment, but always happy to have Mr Louis Ng's speeches and to respond to them. [Laughter.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Ng, for their support of the Bill and for their comments and suggestions. Members raised questions around three themes: one, the processes to revoke or suspend Chartered Accountants and delete designated entities (DEs); two, regulating those who prepare financial statements; and three, talent-related challenges and emerging trends in the accountancy sector. I will address them in turn. Mr Louis Ng sought a few clarifications on the process of revocation or suspension of a CA's registration and deletion of DEs from the Act. I would like to, first, highlight that the processes to revoke or suspend CAs and to delete DEs are currently provided for in the Singapore Accountancy Commission Act. There are no changes to these provisions arising from the merger. Today, ISCA is the only designated entity, appointed by SAC, to confer the Chartered Accountants' designation. I will now address Mr Louis Ng's questions, in turn. First, Mr Louis Ng asked whether DE's will be required to provide, in their membership rules, a right for CAs to be heard before they revoke or suspend a CA's registration. This is not provided for under the Act because the rules of natural justice would apply to accord affected CAs with the right to be heard before any adverse action can be taken against the CA.”
“I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarification. Thank you.”
“Sorry, Mr Chairman, just a very quick response and not to belabour the matter. I understand that the Member may have put in the amendments earlier. All I am saying is that it would be helpful, even though the Standing Orders have a specific procedural requirement of time, that you can, of your own volition, also notify the Government ahead of time so that it would actually give us a little bit more time. So, that is all I am saying, in terms of just a matter of adequate time and preparation. In this case, we had taken a decision and looked at it, and decided not to put forward the recommendation. But I would just like to remind Members that one does not go to the President with less than 48 hours and say, "Here it is, please make a decision." If something was put forward, the President would have to consider it and it would take some time. But in this case, as the Government, having taken the decision, had made the decision not to put it forward for the reasons stated.”
“It is a long-established feature of Westminster parliaments that the government of the day has the sole right and responsibility to initiate financial legislation. The Government may, therefore, also take the decision not to put forward amendments with financial implications for the recommendation.”
“It was not, I should add, notified to us by the Workers' Party, who had prepared the amendments, that it would have fiscal implications – which one would actually expect you to do, knowing that the President's recommendation is to be signified. So, we had to check that through and that took some time. Then, Mr Leon Perera's next question really is whether the President's recommendation was sought, and if so, when and so on. I must say I do find that when you give the Government less than 48 hours' notice, and not to mention the fact that there was no follow-up on the part of the Workers' Party even to find out whether anything would be done in this respect, I have to say that I find that it was somewhat — let us put it this way: you gave less than 48 hours and somebody had to do the running for you. But in any event, the President's recommendation is not given for the Member's amendments. This is because the Government has assessed that the amendments in question – that is amendments (1) to (3) and (8) to (12) – could not be supported on the merits. We determined that they could not be supported for the reasons explained earlier by my colleagues, in the Second Reading debate. And as the amendments could not be supported, they were not put forward to the President for the President's recommendation. This is perfectly in order as the Constitutional requirement, for the President's recommendation to be sought for amendments with financial implications, is a procedure that safeguards the Government's financial initiative. The President would act in accordance with the Government's advice in giving, or not giving, the required recommendation. It is not unique to us.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the specific amendments in question that Mr Leon Perera has asked me about, are the amendments in his Notice of Amendments, for clause 13, amendments (1) to (3) and amendments (8) to (12), in the Order Paper Supplement. Article 59(2) of the Constitution provides that the recommendation of the President is required for a Bill or an amendment that makes provision, whether directly or indirectly, for one of the stated financial matters. Those financial matters would include, for example, increasing or reducing taxes. When a Bill has such fiscal implications, or when an amendment to a Bill has such fiscal implications, the President's recommendation is required. That is provided for under Standing Order 67(1), which provides that it is the duty of the Minister for Finance to inform the Speaker before moving amendments to a Bill, whether the recommendation of the President is required by law. This has been done. It was done by way of notification to Parliament, which was circulated by way of Notice Paper No 1522 to all Members. So, Members would have received that. Which means that all Members, including Mr Leon Perera and the Workers' Party would be aware that the President's recommendation is necessary. Just in terms of timing, though, I need to remind Members that the Notice of Amendments actually came in two clear days before the Sitting, which means on Wednesday. So, it came in on Wednesday evening. And that means, on Thursday and Friday, the Government had to look at the amendments and assess to see whether or not such amendments had any fiscal implications.”
“The 2021 Marriage and Parenthood survey shows that while the majority, or 80%, of young singles still intend to marry, this has declined, compared to 83% in 2016 and 86% in 2012. Among those who did not intend to marry, the common reasons cited were the preference for individual freedom and comfort, the preference to concentrate on their studies or career, and not feeling that marriage would improve their lives. The survey also showed that many singles were not proactive about dating, commonly due to a limited social circle, lack of opportunities to meet potential partners and a preference to leave dating to chance. The Government recognises that decisions to date and marry are deeply personal. We are, nevertheless, committed to creating a conducive environment where marriage and parenthood are achievable, fulfilling and celebrated. For example, to help Singaporeans better balance their career and family aspirations, we are fostering supportive workplaces through a stronger push for the adoption of flexible work arrangements. We have also extended support to those who are interested in dating and marrying, such as by helping singles expand their social network. The Social Development Network collaborates with commercial and community partners to facilitate events and programmes for singles to meet and interact, such as through offering lifestyle activities at subsidised costs. Supporting marriage and parenthood remains our priority. The efforts of the whole community, including family members, friends and employers, will also be critical in making Singapore a great place for families.”
“Singapore’s population size is influenced by several factors. Our resident population, comprising Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, is affected by marriage and fertility rates, mortality trends and migration levels. The non-resident population is dependent on economic cycles and manpower requirements of our businesses, as well as the needs of Singaporean households for domestic help and caregiving. The global economic outlook over the next three years remains uncertain and the effects of COVID-19 on population trends may persist for some time. While our population trajectory in the near term may experience some fluctuations, the pace of population growth in this decade is likely to remain slower than that in the previous decade, in line with trends before the pandemic hit. We expect our total population to remain significantly below 6.9 million by 2030. We will continue to monitor our population trends closely to ensure that our policies and plans meet Singaporeans’ needs.”
“We do not have data on the impact of the BTO delays due to COVID-19 on couples’ parenthood decisions. There are no plans to conduct a study specifically to quantify the effect on housing on parenthood aspirations as, even without such a study, our engagements with young couples reflect that access to housing is an important factor in couples’ decisions to have children, and we are already acting on this feedback. With regard to BTOs, the Government has been providing extensive assistance to help contractors complete ongoing BTO projects as soon as possible without compromising on safety and quality. The number of BTO projects delayed by six months or more has come down to less than 50% of all projects in October 2022, from 80% of all projects in April 2021. We are on track to launch 23,000 new flats per year in 2022 and 2023, with a total of up to 100,000 new flats from 2021 to 2025 if needed. Where possible, subject to site and infrastructure readiness, we will also launch more BTO projects with a shorter waiting time. While waiting for the completion of their new flats, eligible households may sign up for the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, which provides them with a temporary housing option. The Government will ensure that Singaporeans continue to have access to affordable public housing, in particular, those seeking to own their first home.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Building a Winning Global Talent Strategy 6.53 pm”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister for Finance's speech.”
“Again, Sir, I would ask Mr Singh to file a Parliamentary Question formally. The answer is likely to be technical, it has to do with how we treat the land in our books and I really want to make sure that both the Accountant-General and the Auditor-General are satisfied that what I say is not inaccurate.”
“I do have the question and I thank Mr Singh for it. Can I ask Mr Singh to file a separate Parliamentary Question on this? The reason is this. I have an answer formulated, but I also want to be sure it is accurate, and because, as you know, it affects property prices and the way people approach it. So, I think that it would be safer if it is filed and I give you an accurate answer.”
“In respect to Prime Location Housing, it actually does not really change my answer. Because at the end of the day, the question is – what is affordable to the person who is buying? And we have made no secret of the fact that, for Prime Location Housing, you would have to have a greater subsidy. That is the key thing. It comes back to the same question, which is: why would you have to disclose or put out the development cost of every single project? It is just not meaningful. The key thing is, to the buyer, is this affordable and that is what HDB does. And, I think, for the second question, if Mr Singh could just pinpoint the gravamen of what he is asking, so that I can be sure I address it.”
“In any particular area, you ask any valuer, and they will be able to give you a general value. And you look at the selling price and the grants. Every Singaporean who buys a BTO knows that actually the price that they are paying is less than what you would have to pay if you were paying at pure market price. That is why BTOs are so popular. Otherwise, you would buy a resale flat. And then, what happens is, at the end of the day, for almost all cases, we have a net loss. So, different places will have different prices and different subsidies. Mr Singh's question was, he said, would we provide a breakdown of the cost of all new flats henceforth. It is not meaningful, because you would just be comparing this one with this one and prices in one area may not be the same as the other. So, that is the answer. My straightforward answer is that it would not be helpful or meaningful to do so.”
“The selling price is the market value of the land after it has been built, we apply a market subsidy, we derive the selling price, we put in various grants and we arrive at the effective selling price. [Please refer to “Clarification by the Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development”, Official Report, 7 November 2022, Vol 73, Issue No 95, Clarification section.] The effective selling price – what we sell to Singaporeans – less the total development cost, will give you, in virtually all cases, a net loss – obviously, because we are subsidising and selling below market value. If we were to sell at market value, all purchasers of HDB BTOs will be paying a lot more. And that is just evident, as I had explained in my earlier answer, from the resale prices after the MOP expires when they sell. So, I just wanted to establish that the POFMA Clarification talked about the net loss for a particular project. That is a subset of the information which is already in HDB's financial statements, which is the total aggregate net loss. And it is a separate issue from total development costs, which is a separate thing. So, when Mr Pritam Singh asked in view of the POFMA Correction Directions, is HDB going to give the breakdown of total development costs, there is not a real correlation there, as they are two separate things. Should we give the total development costs? The answer is that we do not think that anything would be achieved by doing so. And the reason is this: what is the real important thing to Singaporeans? The real important thing is, are you able to afford the flat? And what the Government considers is the market value, which people will know.”
“Okay, of GIC, can be POFMA-ed. I do not think there is any rule in the law books, which says that economists and ex-economists of GIC cannot be POFMA-ed. What the law says is that if you say something which is factually incorrect, then you are required to post a Notice, pointing out to it. And you can challenge that if you wish to – which he has not. Point number two is, Mr Singh still has not really answered what the correlation is, but now I will just cut to the chase, unless Mr Singh wishes to provide a further clarification. The chase is this: the POFMA-ed post alleged that there was a "disingenuous and misleading analysis" of the $270 million loss made by HDB. That is what the POFMA-ed post said. It also said that it was "an accounting sleight of hand being the omission that the government acquired most of the land at minimal or much lower cost by compulsory acquisition" and that the "true cost price should be the original book value". Those were the key things. And in response, the POFMA Clarification pointed out that actually there is a real loss. The fact that when we build HDB flats under the housing programme, the fact that the Government incurs losses, that is known and was always known, even before Mr Yeoh posted it. But coming back to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has asked, the reason why I say there is no correlation is this: it is because what Minister Desmond Lee gave in the POFMA Clarification was the net loss. Let me just explain. Total development cost is land costs plus construction costs and that gives you total development cost. Then, you have the selling price.”
“Again, I will answer the question, but I want to deal with the first part. If Mr Singh says how come somebody who was an ex-economist of — did you name the organisation?”
“I am not sure I understand the correlation. I think everybody knows that HDB applies subsidies, significant subsidies. So, I think there are two things. If Mr Singh was just asking, "Can you provide the breakdown?" – that I understand. But he is saying in view of the POFMA Correction Directions, whether HDB will provide the breakdown. So, I will answer Mr Singh's question on whether we will provide breakdown. I am just trying to understand how it is correlated. Because the fact that we provided subsidies has always been known, long before the POFMA Correction Directions. So, I just want to know the connection.”
“Can I just check before I respond to that? Because the question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition in his Parliamentary Question (PQ) was in view of the POFMA Correction Directions issued, whether HDB will provide a breakdown. So, I am just seeking to understand, so that I can give an appropriate answer. What is the correlation between the POFMA Correction Directions and your request?”
“They show that the total amount that HDB collects from the sale of flats is less than the cost of its building programme and the housing grants it disburses each year. As a result, HDB incurs a net deficit in the development and sale of new flats. For the Financial Year (FY) 2021/2022, HDB recorded a deficit of $3.85 billion in its Homeownership Programme. The average deficit incurred by HDB in the last three years, FY2019/2020 to FY2021/2022, was about $2.68 billion a year.”
“The answer to Mr Leong's second question, therefore, is that: (a) The Government does not profit from the sale of state land developed into public housing. (b) There is no triple payment by Singaporeans for state land used for public housing. (c) Singaporeans buy BTO flats at a discount from their fair market value and in addition, eligible first-timer flat buyers can enjoy the Enhanced CPF Housing Grant (EHG) of up to $80,000. (d) This can be seen from the fact that a private property of similar size and in a similar location would cost significantly more and also the fact that after the Minimum Occupation Period, HDB flat owners are typically able to sell their flats at comparable or higher prices than they paid when they purchased their flats from HDB. Mr Pritam Singh asked whether, in view of the POFMA Correction Direction issued on 14 October 2022, HDB will provide a breakdown of the total development cost of BTO flats and the value of the subsidies applied to them. The POFMA Clarification states that "HDB does not price new flats to recover the cost of land and construction. Instead, it prices flats significantly below market value using generous subsidies to ensure they are affordable to Singaporeans." This is indisputable, for the reasons I have just explained. It is also confirmed by the fact that the vast majority of first-timer families are able to buy new BTO flats in non-mature estates and service their monthly mortgage instalments using their CPF, with zero or minimal cash outlay. Finally, it is evident from HDB's audited financial statements which are publicly available. The financial statements contain information on the costs incurred in its Homeownership Programme.”
“This compensation may be funded from past reserves or Government revenues. Land acquisition through SERS, for instance, is funded by past reserves. Second, HDB will purchase the land from Government. HDB pays fair market value for it, just like any other buyer of state land. Why do we do this? Why do we not simply transfer the land to HDB at zero cost since it is a transaction between Government and a Government agency? The reason is because, the transfer to HDB for developing public housing results in the land being taken out of the past reserves. If fair market value is not paid in exchange for the land, the past reserves would be depleted. There would be no corresponding financial asset to replace the physical asset and no land sale proceeds to invest and generate returns for use in the form of the NIRC. Requiring HDB to pay fair market value for the land cost thus preserves the value of our past reserves for the benefit of all Singaporeans, both present and future. The third transaction is when HDB sells flats to Singaporeans. HDB does so at a discount from fair market value to keep flat prices affordable. The difference between the fair market value and HDB's posted price is the market subsidy. In addition, the Government provides generous grants to eligible applicants, to purchase flats below HDB's posted price. Because of these grants and subsidies, HDB's effective selling price is typically much lower than the total cost of development, which results in a revenue shortfall. This shortfall is covered by a Government grant to HDB which is funded by NIRC and taxes, which are paid not only by Singaporeans but also by PRs, foreigners working and living in Singapore, tourists and companies and other tax-paying entities.”
“In other words, the financial proceeds that we had earlier received was to make up for the state's loss of use of the land for 99 years, and not for the state giving the land away forever. If the Government then carves out another lease of the same land and sells this land on a fresh lease, the same process as before will apply. Again, it would be a conversion of a physical asset to a financial asset to make up for the state's loss of use of the land for the period of that carving out. Thus, the answer to Mr Leong's first question is: (a) There is no net increase in the reserves when state land is first sold and the sales proceeds are transferred to the financial assets. It is just a conversion of one asset form to another. (b) There is no net increase in the reserves when land returns to the state after the lease expires, as the value of the lease did not include the value of the reversionary interest. (c) There is again, no increase in the reserves when the land which was returned to the Government is sold again. As before, that is merely a conversion of one form of asset to another. (d) There is an increase in reserves when the Government invests and grows the financial assets. This is the outcome of careful and prudent management of our reserves by this Government and should not be taken for granted. I move on to Mr Leong's second query. There is no "triple payment" by Singaporeans for the land used to develop HDB flats. From time to time, the Government may need to compulsorily acquire land for public housing. In that event, the following steps occur. First, the Government will acquire the land and compensate the landowner for its value. Since 2007, the compensation is based on fair market value.”
“When we sell state land, we convert the physical asset into a financial asset. For example, if we sell a parcel of state land at its fair market value of, say, $1 million, we no longer have the land for the term of the lease sold, but we have $1 million. After this transaction, there is no net increase in the reserves. We have merely changed the physical land in our reserves into an equivalent amount of financial reserves. There is no new value created and hence, no addition to the reserves. Let us see what happens to the cash and to the land. The $1 million cash now forms part of our financial reserves, which the Government invests, for example, through GIC, to grow for the benefit of Singaporeans. We use up to 50% of the long-term expected real returns on the investment every year in our annual Budget. This amount is known as the Net Investment Returns Contribution or NIRC. The rest of the actual returns – that is, 100% of the actual returns minus 50% of the long-term expected real returns – is re-invested. This rule strikes a balance between the needs of current and future generations of Singaporeans. It preserves the real value of our reserves and assures us of a rainy-day fund in the event of future crises. Let us turn to the land that has been sold. As the state holds ultimate title to the land, the land automatically reverts to the state once the 99 years is up. It then becomes state land again and will be protected as past reserves once again. When that happens, there is no net increase in our reserves either. This is because the reversionary interest in that parcel of land had all along formed part of our reserves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before these questions can be addressed, it is necessary to understand the relationship between state land, land sales proceeds and our reserves. It has been explained before, but it bears repeating and some elaboration. Under our land laws, which trace back to English land laws, all title to land in Singapore is derived from the state. It is from this ultimate title to land that is held by the state that interest in land, such as leases, can be carved out and granted by the state to other persons. The leases confer ownership and possession of those lands to such other persons, but only for the duration of the lease. The state retains the interest in the balance of the lands not leased, and for lands which have been leased, in the rest of the period not granted. In the case where the state has granted a portion of its interests – for example, under a 99-year lease – to other persons, the state holds the remainder of those interests, meaning, after the 99th year for perpetuity – which we refer to as the “reversionary interests”. Where the state has not granted any interest in a piece of land, or no one is named as the person owning the lease, that land remains “state land”. Under the Constitution, all state land forms part of our reserves. Land is a physical asset. Mr Speaker, just to help people understand, may I have permission to show some slides?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." Question proposed. Senior Employability: Meaningful Employment and its Value for Businesses and Singapore 6.00 pm”
“We will continue to work closely with tripartite partners and employers to encourage the adoption of progressive workplace practices.”
“National Service (NS) is key to Singapore's defence and security. In a survey by the Institute of Policy Studies commissioned by the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) in 2013, 77% of employed National Servicemen (NSmen) said that their employers had adjusted their workload due to their NS commitments. In MINDEF's engagements with employers, employers also shared how they made arrangements for other employees to temporarily cover the work when their NSmen colleagues are called up for In-Camp Training (ICT). This is enabled by MINDEF and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) ensuring that NSmen are informed of their ICT call-ups at least three to six months in advance. Through our focus group discussions with parents as well as feedback from employers, we found that employers address their operational and business needs in similar ways when their employees take parental or childcare leave. For instance, for time-sensitive frontline roles, or if the leave is for an extended period as is the case for maternity leave, employers typically reallocate work to other employees, or hire temporary or part-time workers to fill the gap. For less time-sensitive roles or when the leave duration is relatively short – for instance, a couple of days of childcare leave, employees could have the flexibility to adjust work schedules as long as overall work deliverables and deadlines are met. We encourage parents to discuss their parental or childcare leave plans with their employers early, so that employers can plan for covering work arrangements if needed. Such workplace practices are examples of how employers can maintain operational resilience while supporting their employees in balancing their work and personal responsibilities, whether for NS commitments, or parental or childcare leave.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Helping Singaporeans Navigate a High-interest Rate Environment 7.49 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, "That the debate be now adjourned." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned ." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member just rose to suggest that I had not answered the question. We have recently discussed this. I have actually answered the question but let me just take the Member through it. The learned Member said that there is a general feeling that the younger generation are seriously affected, and whether there any studies done. The questions asked by Ms Hazel Poa was not about the younger generation. The question asked by Ms Hazel Poa was whether there were studies conducted on the impact of public housing prices on marriage and fertility rates. So, not the whole-of the younger generation, but for marriage and fertility rates. Let us just get the question correct first. Then, the second was, he had asked – because he said I had not answered – whether any studies are done. I had earlier said, while we have not conducted studies on the impact of housing prices on marriage and fertility rates, our regular surveys and engagements indicate that many couples continue to aspire to have their own home before they start a family. So, it means we have not conducted studies, but we have done regular surveys and engagements which give us the indications that we need. And the indication is that couples would like to have their own home before they start a family.”
“With respect to the first question, or clarification, the answer is no. I do not agree with what Mr Leong says. What Mr Leong fails to understand is that the support put in by the Government for SPH Media Trust is because there are certain things that we hold dear. One, it is to have a media that can see things through a Singaporean lens and that can report things from a domestic viewpoint. That is very important to us. The second thing is to preserve our vernacular media. That means something. That has value. That is worth supporting. And that is why we are willing to put that money forward to support it – for that purpose and in pursuit of those values. With respect to the second thing, Mr Leong's consistent approach – every time the Government responds and explains a set of figures, he will ask a question; we will set out the explanation and that explanation reflects the reasons why these figures are the way they are and what the figures are. Mr Leong will then say, "Oh, but what about this? How about if we change that? How about let us say we have another Scenario A? How about Scenario B? How about Scenario B and a half? How about Scenario C?" And every time, the Government, is required, according to Mr Leong, to respond to all of these which have no bearing to the figures of the original transaction. That is not something which is a useful use of the Government's time to do.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“There are several schemes to support AEs to do so, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant. On the issue of foreign manpower. I note Mr Wee's request for audit professionals to be included in MOM's COMPASS Shortage Occupation List (SOL). The SOL awards bonus points under the COMPASS for employment, pass for Employment Pass (EP) applications, filling occupations requiring highly specialised skills that are in shortage in our local workforce. The SOL is designed for niche and highly skilled occupations required by the economy where EP holders are required because there are not enough Singaporeans who can do the job, even though wages in the sector are high, particularly in frontier industries. MOM will place occupations on the list judiciously, through a comprehensive review of evidence. At the same time, I also encourage firms in the audit industry to do their part to attract local graduates and mid-career professionals to ensure a sustainable pipeline of manpower in the long term. Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Accountants Act seek to enhance audit quality and standards in the industry and are a move in the right direction. The changes ensure that our PAs and AEs continuously improve their high standards and are necessary to ensure the continued integrity of our financial system. This is key to Singapore maintaining our reputation of being a trusted global business and finance hub. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah].”
“Finally, Mr Ng asked if MOF and ACRA will generally consent to the redaction of confidential information, if such an application is made by the AE to the Court and if not, what are the reasons for rejection? This will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as we will need to weigh all the relevant factors such as the nature of information concerned. I will now move on to the last set of questions relating to manpower, training and productivity. Indeed, as Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted, accountants and auditors play a critical role in growing Singapore as a business hub. As our economy grows, so too, will demand for accounting services, both in terms of volume and scope – beyond financial reporting and assurance to also cover sustainability reporting, IT audits, business advisory and more. It is therefore critical that our accounting and audit professionals continually upgrade their knowledge and skills, and stay abreast of emerging areas like sustainability and digital assets, as highlighted by Mr Yip. To encourage our PAs to upskill, we currently require all PAs to maintain at least 120 continuing professional education hours over a rolling three-year period. From 1 January 2023, ACRA will also include Information Technology as a core expertise area that PAs would need to obtain a minimum number of training hours in. This ensures that audit professionals upskill their digital competencies and adopt technology and innovation in their audits. PAs can look to the professional accountancy bodies for training and workshops on new and emerging topics. As Mr Yip highlighted, we are also encouraging our AEs to innovate and harness automation technology to raise productivity.”
“This is particularly so if there is evidence to suggest that the PA's refusal was done with the consent or connivance or was attributable to any neglect on the part of the AE as provided for under the proposed section 38(K)(2)(b). For example, if the evidence clearly establishes that an AE has told an individual to simply ignore the review, there is no reason not to attribute the PA's refusal to the AE. Ultimately, this is a question of fact. The PAOC will carefully consider the full facts of each case, in deciding whether to attribute the acts of refusal by an individual practitioner to the AE Third, Mr Ng asked about the powers of and how the Practice Monitoring Subcommittee (PMSC) and the PAOC can conduct further investigations so that they can make a more informed decision. The PMSC and the PAOC can and do from time to time make inquiries or seek clarifications from the PAs or practice reviewers, if necessary, to help them make an informed decision. Fourth, Mr Ng asked whether the PA can present his or her side of the case before an order is served. PAs are given the opportunity to make written representations to the PMSC and the PAOC before any decision is made. In addition, where the PAOC is of the view that the matter requires an oral hearing such as when complex issues are involved, a hearing before the PAOC would be arranged. Fifth, Mr Ng questioned if the PAOC will as a matter of course provide a written decision on the basis for its orders. Today, as a matter of practice, the PAOC already informs the PAs and AEs in writing on the findings raised. The PAOC may in certain cases, provide a more detailed written explanation, for example, where the matter is complex, or the issues raised therein require clarification and elaboration.”
“To safeguard the objectivity and independence of the PAOC, majority of the PAOC, including the Chairman, will comprise members who are non-audit practitioners. The PAOC members will also recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest. This is to ensure that decisions taken are impartial and can withstand scrutiny. Mr Wee also asked about the minimal qualifying criteria in the appointment of the entity reviewer by the PAOC. Entity reviewers are similarly subject to a robust appointment process. They will need to possess the necessary professional qualifications and relevant work experience, at the very least, at a managerial level, in audits or in handling quality control aspects in an AE. To ensure that the entity reviewers stay updated on the developments of the professional standards and practices, they will also be required to undergo training and continuing professional education regularly. Mr Ng raised several questions about the powers and processes of PAOC and its subcommittee. First, Mr Ng asked, what would constitute a reasonable excuse for refusing to undergo practice monitoring programme or a review. This depends on the facts, applying the perspective of a reasonable person in the PAs' or AEs' shoes at the relevant time. One example of a reasonable excuse is where the PA had been certified to be medically unwell. Second, Mr Ng asked what the PAOC or the Court would consider in determining whether acts of refusal of individuals are attributable to an AE. Our intent is to ensure that all PAs and AEs corporate with the practice and entity reviewers when they are selected for inspection and to allow ACRA to take regulatory actions against the AE.”
“However, as accounting or auditing standards are regularly updated, continuing professional education for accountancy professionals to ensure their relevance is also important. ACRA works with ISCA to ensure this. Mr Yip also asked whether time will be given to PAs and AEs to remediate lapses uncovered during inspections before sanctions are imposed. Further, he asked about the escalation process for non-remediation of lapses found during inspections. I will take them together. When ACRA imposes a remedial order on the PA and AE on lapses found during its inspections, time will be given to the PA and the AE to complete the remediation. The remedial actions may include completion of training programmes and/or subjecting certain audit engagements to further reviews before finalising the audit reports. If areas of non-compliance are not too severe, orders imposed on the PAs and AEs will primarily be remedial in nature. However, for very severe and recurring non-compliances, sanctions may be necessary to protect public interest and send a strong deterrent message in addition to the remedial orders. There are existing processes and an escalation framework for the PAOC to manage non-compliances with its orders. This will continue to be the case. I will now move on to the second set of questions, raised by Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Ng, relating to the PAOC. Mr Wee asked how the PAOC members are appointed. ACRA, with the Minister for Finance's approval, appoints the PAOC members. There is a rigorous appointment process to ensure that the PAOC comprises experienced professionals from the public service, the business community and the audit profession.”
“To Mr Yip Hon Weng's question on how the Government would help AEs manage cost of compliance, ACRA's QC inspections will take a risk-based approach to avoid unnecessary inspection and compliance burden. There will be a greater focus on inspecting AEs that audit higher risk PIE clients. AEs that audit lower-risk non-PIEs will be inspected less frequently. In addition, AEs that performed well in their previous inspections will be subjected to less frequent inspections compared to AEs with more issues identified during inspections. Such a risk-tiered approach is meant to keep the compliance burden manageable. To ensure cost of compliance remains reasonable, ACRA will be setting fee caps for inspections of AEs in the non-PIE segment. The fee caps will be calibrated to ensure that they will be manageable for SMPs. The Government will also help the profession, especially SMPs, with capability building to meet the new regulatory regime. ACRA is already working closely with the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA), which is the national professional accountancy body, on various initiatives to support the profession. ISCA has organised webinars and workshops on how AEs can implement the QC standards effectively. In addition, ISCA has provided tips and examples to guide SMPs on the implementation of the QC standards. Mr Yip also asked if MOF works with MOE and the Institutes of Higher Learning to update the accounting curriculum. The Singapore Accountancy Commission (SAC), works with IHLs to ensure that the curriculum is up to date and aligned with the Skills Framework for Accountancy. This ensures that accountancy graduates are equipped with the right skills based on the prevailing standards.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Don Wee, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng for their support of the Bill and their comments and suggestions. Members have raised questions around the three themes of: one, compliance in terms of cost and support for capability building; two, the appointment and powers accorded to the Public Accountants Oversight Committee (PAOC); and three, manpower-related matters within the accountancy sector. Let me address them in turn. First, compliance. Mr Don Wee and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the Government can help the profession, especially the Small- and Medium-sized audit Practices (SMPs) with the training and implementation of the new regulatory regime. Mr Yip also raised the issue of cost of compliance. To be clear, the Quality Control (QC) standards that the Accounting Entities (AE) need to comply with are not new. All AEs would thus have to maintain a system of QC to ensure compliance with professional standards and the relevant regulatory requirements. As I mentioned, for AEs that audit public interest entities (PIEs) such as listed companies, ACRA has already been conducting QC inspections on them. If AEs have been duly complying with the requirements and putting in place the necessary QC, ACRA's QC inspections should just serve as a check to ensure that the QC and systems put in place by the AEs are indeed adequate. Also, based on the nature and circumstances of the AE and the engagements performed by the AE, some of the requirements set out in our QC standards may not be applicable to certain smaller AEs. For example, larger AEs with international networks would need to look into policies relating to network resources requirements, but SMPs with no international network would not have to meet such requirements.”
“Working mothers who seek caregiving help from grandparents can also now tap on the Grandparent Caregiver Relief scheme to get $3,000 of tax relief, regardless of the child’s age for those with special needs. As part of the Enabling Masterplan 2030, MSF is also looking into enhancing the range of respite care options for caregivers, which parents of children with special needs will be able to tap on. We will continue to study, together with MSF and other relevant agencies, how to better support working parents, including those with children with special needs.”
“Today, childcare leave is provided for working parents of children up till the age of 12. Each working parent of a Singaporean child, including those with special needs, is eligible for six days of paid childcare leave per year when their youngest child is below seven years old and two days of paid extended childcare leave per year when their youngest child is aged seven to 12. We appreciate that children with special needs may require additional care beyond age 12 and that their parents will value additional support. However, any enhancement to leave provisions will need to strike the balance in addressing the caregiving needs of parents and the manpower and operational needs of employers. Beyond legislated leave provisions, we encourage employers to provide a family-friendly work environment to help parents manage their work and caregiving responsibilities, such as through adopting the Tripartite Standards on Flexible Work Arrangements and Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, which were introduced in 2017 and 2018 respectively. To better support parents of children with special needs, employers can, for instance, offer flexible work arrangements so that parents may work from home or adjust their regular work hours to better tend to caregiving needs, or take a few hours off work to bring their child for medical appointments or developmental assessments when needed. The Government has also steadily improved overall support for the childcare needs of parents of children with special needs. In 2020, we enhanced subsidies for the Special Student Care Centre programme, which provides before-and-after school care service and supervision for students in Special Education Schools.”