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 21 of 51.
“And the kind of expenditure that is required is billions. The other suggestion that the Workers' Party has put forward is on land sales and to treat land sales as revenue. Actually, I have explained this before. But in a nutshell, what they are really saying is, if you have land, if you have property, today, it is in the physical form; when you sell it, you are converting it to cash, to another form – and the suggestion is to treat that as revenue. We do not treat it as revenue because you have not become richer by selling it. You have just converted it from a physical form to a cash form. It is just not prudent in terms of the way one should run a fiscal system. So, I would just simply urge the Workers' Party to consider this: our fiscal constraints, the need to spend more and that the money must come from somewhere. I had also, yesterday, outlined why the Singapore system – the taxation system and the fiscal system – is progressive and fair. It is built on principles that everybody contributes something, but those who have more contribute more. In fact, in some cases, a lot more. And what we do is we redistribute it to those who have less. In terms of GST, as I mentioned yesterday, over 60% of the net GST from households and individuals is estimated to be from the higher-income and from the foreigners who live and work in Singapore and from tourists. Tourism is down now, but when you look at the mid- and longer-term projections, that 60% still remains the same. So, our GST system is a good example of how we do this redistribution and never forget that this Government will do what is necessary to support our people. When you consider the pandemic, we had five Budgets. Every time the MTF had to put in place measures that affect businesses, we put in place support.”
“In terms of our revenue, taxes and fees are only 80% of our total revenue. We are already relying on the NIRC for 20%. That is one-fifth. Our revenue is not coming from taxes alone. And the budgetary surpluses of the entire last two decades have been called upon because of COVID-19. And because of COVID-19, because of the pandemic, we have had to dig into our reserves – not just NIRC, but the actual reserves. And the draw on our past reserves amounted to about $53 billion. That is our revenue situation – we are digging into the savings. On the other hand, our expenditure, if you just look at the horizon – and I outlined this in my speech yesterday on the Adjournment Motion – we have very large expenditure items looming on the horizon. Firstly, ageing population and all the healthcare that comes with that; secondly, climate change and the need to have a sustainable future for Singaporeans; and, thirdly, renewing our social compact, bridging inequality, doing more for the vulnerable, helping those who are in need. So, what do we have? We have a situation where our fiscal situation is already tight, because we are digging into our savings and our reserves. We have got impending challenges which require us to spend more and you also have the Workers' Party, on top of that, asking us to spend even more than that. The money must come from somewhere. The Workers' Party has attempted to put forward some suggestions. So, they have suggested tax increases; they support the tax change today. But you must remember that the kind of money that is raised from the GST change in today's Bill is in the millions. But if there is a GST increase of two percentage points, the amount of revenue raised per year is about $3 billion. You are comparing millions with billions.”
“To support lower-income Singaporeans, we already have other permanent schemes, such as Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), Silver Support and ComCare. As part of our annual Budget, we have also provided additional support, such as Service and Conservancy Charge (S&CC) rebates and top-ups to Child Development and Edusave accounts. The Government remains committed to supporting Singaporeans, with more help given to the lower-income. Let me now address the queries raised by Mr Louis Chua. He had asked for the GST collection from our existing OVR and RC regimes. And the answer to that is that it is about $250 million a year. He had also asked about the number of cases of non-compliant overseas vendors under the existing OVR regime detected by IRAS so far. IRAS has not detected any cases so far and the overseas vendors are generally compliant. He had asked how much does the Government expect to collect from each of the new measures. The measures would yield about $130 million a year. And his final question was whether there will be any changes to GST import relief for those coming back from overseas. That will not change. I think Mr Louis Chua then concluded by a call to review whether or not it is necessary to raise the GST rate. Let me say this. First of all, today is not really the time to have a debate on whether or not we should raise GST as a whole, because today's Bill is focused on a very specific aspect, which is low-value goods. However, I want to just make a few general remarks, given that Mr Louis Chua has also made a call or some remarks on raising of the GST rate, which is really this. You have to consider our revenue and you have to consider our expenditure situation. And I think Members of the House know this already.”
“We have set aside $24 billion over the next three years, as announced in Budget 2021, to enable firms and workers to transform and emerge stronger from the pandemic, of which a key focus is to support SMEs in their digitial adoption. There are schemes already in place, such as SMEs Go Digital, Heartlands Go Digital and SME centres, to help small retailers through ground support and consultancy services with their digital transformation. Ms Yeo Wan Ling called for more support for microbusinesses and wider changes to support our retail ecosystem. We have implemented several schemes throughout 2020 and 2021 to help SMEs in the retail sector. We are also refreshing the Retail Industry Transformation map, or ITM, which lays out a longer-term vision for the industry as part of a broader refresh of the 23 ITMs, given disruptions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how this measure would impact overall inflation and living costs in Singapore, particularly for the lower- and middle-income. The bulk of individual consumption, such as food, utilities, transport, education and health care, will not be affected by the change. These goods and services are, typically, bought from local suppliers rather than from overseas suppliers and thus are not affected by the extension of GST to low-value goods imported via air or post and B2C imported non-digital services. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether additional assistance will be provided on top of the Assurance Package and GST Voucher scheme. We have said that the Government will continue to absorb GST on publicly subsidised healthcare and education.”
“As a general rule, the supplier should consider the party other than the contractual client stated in the contract that he is required to provide a service to and to whom he is accountable for his service deliverables. For example, if the media sales supplier's contract is with an overseas headquarters, but the contract requires the media sales to be, first, provided to a subsidiary in Singapore, or second, the media sales supplier is accountable to the subsidiary in Singapore for his service deliverables, then the subsidiary in Singapore is the direct beneficiary of the service. In both instances, the supplier will have contact with the subsidiary in Singapore, the actual recipient of his service. Therefore, regardless of the presence of multiple layers of contracts, the supplier will know the direct beneficiary of his supply of service. IRAS will include more examples in its e-Tax guide to illustrate the situation where both of these conditions are not satisfied. With the extension of GST to low-value goods imported via air or post and to imported B2C non-digital services from 1 January 2023 as announced in Budget 2021, this means that GST will apply to goods and services imported into Singapore. This, in turn, levels the playing field for our local businesses, as overseas suppliers of goods and services will be subject to the same GST treatment as local suppliers. This change also helps to defend our GST revenue base from being eroded as the digital economy grows and more people shop online. Mr Sharael Taha asked whether the tax revenue from this measure could be used to provide more support to small retailers and help with their digital transformation. The revenue collected will form part of our total fiscal resources.”
“I will now proceed to address questions regarding the updated GST treatment for suppliers of media sales. To recap, the GST treatment for a supplier of media sales will be revised from 1 January 2022, to be based on where the person who contracts for the service, for example, a local or overseas headquarters, and the person who directly benefits from the service, for example, a subsidiary in Singapore, belong. Currently, the GST treatment depends on where the advertisement was circulated. With the advent of the digital economy, including online advertisements, our GST treatment needs to be updated. IRAS has provided guidance in its e-Tax guide to state that the person who contracts for the service, or the contractual client, will, generally, be regarded as the only person who directly benefits from the service, where two conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the service agreement does not require the services to be provided to another person. The second condition is that the supplier of the service liaises only with the contractual client and is accountable only to the contractual client. Mr Louis Ng asked whether both of these conditions must be satisfied, in order for the contractual client to be deemed the sole direct beneficiary and how to determine the GST treatment of the supply of media sales in the event that both conditions are not satisfied. To clarify, both conditions must be satisfied for the contractual client to be regarded as the sole direct beneficiary. IRAS has provided examples in its e-Tax guide to illustrate this. Where the two conditions are not satisfied, the determination of the direct beneficiary would be dependent on the facts of the case.”
“The rules of our OVR regime are consistent with those of other jurisdictions. This makes it easy for overseas vendors to comply and also provides certainty for the industry. Many of these overseas vendors are familiar with similar GST or VAT obligations in other jurisdictions. We are not the first jurisdiction to implement GST on low-value goods imported via air or post, or on imported services. For instance, Australia, the European Union, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have extended their GST or VAT regimes to cover low-value goods. Our experience with OVR thus far since 1 January 2020 and the experience of other jurisdictions with OVR show that these multinational businesses do comply with GST or VAT obligations of the jurisdictions they make supplies to. IRAS will make use of various information sources to identify and engage overseas vendors that should be GST-registered and verify their GST reporting after GST-registration. In the event of non-compliance, the existing penalty and enforcement regime under the GST Act will apply. IRAS is empowered to raise additional tax assessments, apply penalties and recover the outstanding tax payable directly or through the appointment of agents. Provisions in bilateral tax agreements will also allow IRAS to obtain information on overseas vendors from other tax jurisdictions. IRAS has been actively engaging the industry, including overseas vendors, on the implementation details for the OVR and RC regimes. These include consultation on IRAS' draft e-Tax Guides and the proposed legislation. IRAS is also conducting outreach activities for potential GST registrants, including participating in workshops in various international fora and holding webinars, to educate overseas vendors on the new GST rules.”
“Singapore Customs already collects GST for all goods imported via land and sea into Singapore. GST-registered entities that are subject to RC will usually know from its contract with a supplier whether the low-value goods it buys is located outside Singapore at the point of sale and whether the goods will be imported via air or post. However, there may be occasions in which the GST-registered entity only knows this information upon receipt of the goods. Allowing GST-registered entities that are subject to RC to use the best available information to determine whether the RC applies is, therefore, meant to ease compliance by such entities. Apart from information available at the time of purchase of the goods, the entities can use information at the point of goods receipt or other information collected by their business systems and processes to determine the location of goods and mode of shipment into Singapore. One example of such available information is the import and shipping documents that accompany the goods. As it would be difficult to envisage all the types of available information that may be used, we will not provide a prescriptive list of information that GST-registered entities subject to RC can rely on. Instead, IRAS will provide examples on the type of documents or information in its e-Tax Guide. Entities subject to RC can approach IRAS for clarification if they wish to use other available information. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Don Wee, asked how we will engage overseas vendors and ensure that they comply with the new GST regime. First, since 1 January 2020, the regime is already in place for overseas vendors that sell B2C digital services to local consumers. This has helped IRAS gain experience in administering and enforcing the regime.”
“Businesses with annual turnover of less than $1 million and not importing services exceeding $1 million are not required to register for GST and are not required to apply RC on their imported services. This is similar to how we do not require local businesses with less than $1 million annual turnover to register for GST. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how, under OVR, consumers will know if their payment at the point of purchase already includes GST and how Singapore Customs will know if GST has already been paid on a package. When consumers check out their purchases, GST-registered overseas vendors will charge and collect GST on the low-value goods at the point of purchase when the order is confirmed. This is similar to how, since 1 January 2020, GST is collected on imported B2C digital services. Where GST has been charged and collected by the overseas vendor on the low-value goods, the overseas vendor will include the relevant information on the GST collected in the commercial document which is passed through the logistics chain. Import GST will not be payable at the border when this information is furnished to Singapore Customs. For example, for goods delivered via air couriers, the GST registration number of the overseas vendor is included in the summary list of parcels to be imported or in the permit declared to Singapore Customs. Mr Louis Ng asked how GST-registered entities that are subject to RC can use best available information to determine if a purchase is subject to RC. As I have explained earlier, only a small minority of GST-registered entities here are subject to RC. When these entities buy low-value goods, RC will apply only if the goods are imported by air or post into Singapore.”
“This approach ensures a level playing field in terms of GST treatment, whether we buy such services or goods from local suppliers or overseas vendors Mr Don Wee asked whether a simplified registration and compliance regime will be available for overseas vendors. Our current regime is not onerous. Overseas vendors can already choose to register under a simplified pay-only mechanism. The simplified pay-only mechanism allows overseas vendors to enjoy simplified GST reporting and documentation requirements. Under the RC regime, which is only applicable to B2B transactions, local GST-registered entities will account for GST to IRAS when they import low-value goods via air or post or buy B2B services from overseas suppliers. Our RC regime does not affect most GST-registered entities in Singapore. This is how we keep the tax compliance burden low. This is because they are fully taxable persons entitled to a full refund on the GST incurred on their purchases and even their account for GST on the low-value goods imported by air or post or on imported services, they will still get a refund of this same amount. Only a small minority of GST-registered entities here are subject to RC – these make non-taxable supplies, such as exempt supplies or non-business supplies, and cannot get a full refund of GST incurred on their purchases. This minority of GST-registered entities that are subject to RC include financial institutions and residential property developers. For this minority of GST-registered entities that are subject to RC, they are required to account for GST on the imported services, including services procured from overseas gig workers, regardless of the value of the services.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members of Parliament who have spoken for their support of the Bill. The questions raised by the Members fall broadly into four categories. First, how IRAS will implement GST on low-value goods imported via air or post and business-to-consumer, or B2C, imported non-digital services. Second, how IRAS will enforce collection and ensure compliance. Third, specific queries on the updated GST treatment for a supply of media sales. Fourth, feedback concerning cost of living and the GST Voucher Scheme. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee and Mr Louis Ng asked how GST on low-value goods imported via air or post and B2C imported non-digital services will be implemented. GST on low-value goods imported via air or post and B2C imported non-digital services will be implemented by widening the scope of our existing Overseas Vendor Registration, or OVR, and Reverse Charge, or RC regimes. These regimes are not new and have been successfully implemented from 1 January 2020 to tax business-to-business, or B2B, imported services and B2C imported digital services. Under the OVR regime, overseas vendors, such as overseas suppliers, electronic marketplace operators and re-deliverers that make significant B2C supplies of imported services and/or low-value goods imported by air or post to non-GST registered customers in Singapore will register with IRAS if they are not already registered. They will collect GST from their customers on such supplies and then hand the collected GST over to IRAS. Non-GST registered customers in Singapore include individuals like many of us here.”
“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 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech?”
“Economic disruptions during the pandemic have also accelerated Government and industry efforts to strengthen our local workforce. The pandemic has resulted in a manpower crunch felt keenly by our businesses, bringing to light the risks of relying on lower-skilled foreign workers. In addition to helping workers and businesses to tide over the difficult times, the Government has enhanced and extended grants focused on upskilling our local workforce and helping our companies to transform. Many businesses are also accelerating their efforts to transform business models, go digital and improve productivity. The full impact of COVID-19 on our longer-term population trends remains to be seen. The Government will continue to monitor this closely. Meanwhile, we will continue to review our initiatives and strategies to ensure that they remain relevant to our needs.”
“The COVID-19 pandemic affected our 2020 and 2021 population figures, but its long-term effect remains to be seen. Our Singapore Citizen (SC) and Permanent Resident (PR) populations decreased by 0.7% and 6.2% respectively between June 2020 and June 2021. This was mainly because more SCs and PRs remained overseas continuously for more than a year due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. The numbers may recover as travel restrictions ease. Similarly, while the Non-Resident (NR) population decreased by 10.7% over the same period, this was largely because of a decrease in foreign employment in Singapore, which is expected given uncertain economic conditions and widespread border restrictions. However, it remains to be seen if there has been a long-term impact on marriage and parenthood trends. There were 12.3% fewer citizen marriages in 2020 than 2019, largely attributable to the pandemic. There were also 3.1% fewer citizen births over the same period. As most of the births in 2020 would have been conceived prior to the pandemic, we will have to further assess its impact on parenthood decisions. While our fundamental population approach remains sound, the pandemic has brought about added impetus to push ahead with our key strategies. For example, supporting marriage and parenthood is a longstanding priority. To reassure couples and encourage them to proceed with their marriage and parenthood plans, the Government introduced the one-off $3,000 Baby Support Grant in 2020. COVID-19 also showed that flexible work arrangements are feasible. We are working with employers and stakeholders to lock in the gains in the shifts in mindsets and implementation of good work-life practices, which help parents better fulfil their aspirations both at home and in the workplace.”
“Mr Speaker, as I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges and as I am the complainant in this case, I would wish to recuse myself from the Committee of Privileges. Also, on behalf of Minister K Shanmugam, who has sought leave of Parliament to be absent today as he is outstation, because his Ministry is involved, he would seek to be recused from the Committee of Privileges as well.”
“But as Leader of the House, I also have a responsibility and that is: to ensure that, in this Chamber, all Members of Parliament discharge their duties faithfully and accountably and responsibly; and also that, if there are any breaches of privilege, that that has to be dealt with. I have to ensure the integrity of our Parliament because Parliament is a platform that other people look at. Singaporeans look at what we discuss here. They believe what we say. When there is untruth, it undermines the trust. Other people, the international forum and other countries look at what is discussed in this platform. What we say and what we do must be based on truth and integrity, because, again, if we do not do that, it undermines the reputation of our Parliament, our institutions and the faith that our people have in us. Therefore, given what we have heard today, I really have no choice but to raise a complaint, under section 100(7)(b) of the Standing Orders, for breach of privilege suddenly arising based on: firstly, the disclosure by the Member that she has not been truthful or has lied to Parliament, not once, not twice, but three times; and also because she has been unable to substantiate an allegation that has been made. These are matters which, prima facie, affect the privileges of Parliament and I, therefore, reluctantly, have to ask the matter, Mr Speaker, to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.”
“So, when relating their stories – and that is based on a lie and an inability or unwillingness to substantiate the story – it makes it that much more difficult for these women to come forward and to tell their stories. Because it is like ink in water; it spreads throughout and it casts doubt and suspicion on the stories. And it makes it that much harder for women to be believed. It undermines what we are trying to do and, especially in this year, of trying to advance women's development. As I have said before, as Members of Parliament, we are granted privileges. One of those privileges is to be able to speak in Parliament with immunity. Unlike other people, we can do so without fear of prosecution because of the underlying public policy interest, which is, to be able to raise things. And it is very, very important when we do so, that we must be able to speak truth in this House and when we assert or make allegations, to be able to back them up. I wish to say to the Member that I do hope that, given her past experience and what she has described and shared, she will heal. I hope that she will have time to recover from her issues on a personal level and repair relationships which, she has acknowledged, have been strained. But the Member is also a Member of Parliament and, therefore, subject to duties and responsibilities which everyone in this House is also subject to. One of these, of course, is that when you have parliamentary privilege, you must neither breach that privilege nor abuse it. I have great reluctance because I have sympathy for the Member's personal circumstances.”
“I thank the Member for that. That was not quite the way it was framed, but that is all right. The way that it was framed was that it was vital to frame conversations in an accountable manner. But I thank the Member for her clarifications. These are all the clarifications I have, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Member. But in light of what has been disclosed, it is not possible for me to leave the matter as it is and I have to raise a point of order. I wish to raise a point of order under Standing Order 100(7)(b). The point of order is this: the Member has, by her own admission, lied to the House three times: in her original speech, in the clarifications arising from that speech, and two months later, in her response to the Minister for Home Affairs. The Member has also confirmed that when she made the statement, she did not really have any details. That means that she was, at the time of making the statement, not able to substantiate her allegation and in fact had very little basis for doing so. What this means is that, as a result of that, there is a cloud hanging over the Police. The Police had to go and do investigations and a lot of time and resources were spent on that. It is unfair to the Police and I think the Member has acknowledged that. But most of all – and this really is the most distressing part – what has happened does a great disservice to the survivors of sexual assault and rape victims. The reason is this: because it is hard enough for such women, who are victims, to tell their stories and they have great difficulty in getting people to believe them sometimes.”
“I understand. There is a distinction, though. The Member is apologising for not having kept the promise. My question was this: that means that the promise was not kept, is that not correct?”
“Just one last couple of clarifications. I think the Member ended by saying that she promised the residents of Sengkang that she would work even harder for them. About a year ago, the Member made this promise also to the residents of Sengkang. I think this was what was reported in The Straits Times, dated 17 September 2020. The Member had said, "From these interactions, I have also learnt that as a leader, I have the power to start difficult conversations and that it is vital to frame these conversations in a considerate and accountable manner. As an MP, I hope to use the appropriate platforms to speak out on matters concerning my constituents". That was the promise made last year to the residents of Sengkang. The Member, in the Motion on Women's Empowerment, had the platform to speak here about women's issues. The Member had the power to use her position as an MP (Member of Parliament) to advocate. Can I ask the Member that having regard to the fact that the Member has not been truthful to Parliament and not able to substantiate the allegations because the Member had no details, will the Member regard that promise last year to the residents of Sengkang to have been kept?”
“So, when the Member was asked for details in Parliament, she said that she did not want to disclose because of confidentiality. But based on what the Member has just said, actually, by that time, because the story had already been recounted, it means the Member had already breached the confidentiality to the survivor. Is that not correct?”
“Thank you. On the confidentiality point, if I heard the Member, say, let me just check my notes for when the Member was speaking. Yes, the Member said, on confidentiality, that she should not have shared the survivor's story without her consent. Can I ask the Member why she said that? Is it because the story was shared in confidence, that is, on the understanding that it would be kept confidential?”
“Thank you. I have to check another matter. Although the Member has retracted and apologised and, indeed, that is the correct thing to do given the circumstances that she has explained, the Member has also said that she was relating another survivor's story. This means that there still is an allegation against the Police – not the Member accompanying somebody and going down, but there is a survivor there with an allegation against the Police, which has been related to this House. That means there is still an issue of the need to substantiate the allegations. A withdrawal and an apology do not purge or wipe out a previous failure to substantiate the allegations. What I am trying to understand and this is very important, I need to understand what the Member knew at the time the allegation was made. Is this a case where, based on what the survivor said, the Member — or let me backtrack a bit. Because when the Member was asked about it, she said, "With regard to confidentiality, I would not like to reveal any of the information." So, is this a case where, based on what the survivor said, the Member actually knows the details but did not want to disclose them because of confidentiality? Or is this a case where the Member actually does not know any of the details?”
“Right. Then, the other thing I am a bit puzzled about is this: I can understand the mistake on the spur of the moment. But the only thing is that on 3 August, I had specifically stood up in this House to remind Members of the need to substantiate allegations made. And I had said this: "I just wanted to remind Members of the House that when assertions and allegations are made, Members must be prepared to substantiate them. This is just a reminder to Members so that in future, they will understand." So, I said that on 3 August. Two months later, when the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs about this incident, which is two months' time to reflect, why did the Member then repeat the untruth?”
“I understand that. So, I do completely empathise with the reason why the Member felt it was necessary to speak up. All I am asking is this and I am not sure that I had a response. But my question was simply this: it would have been possible to tell the story without the untruths and without referring to the survivors' group. Would the Member agree?”
“I understand. I want to understand from the Member why it was necessary, actually, to say those untruths because the Member could easily have related the anecdote by saying that she heard from someone who had this experience. That was all that would have been necessary to do. The Member would not have had to refer to the support group or even disclose its existence; and there would certainly have been no need to reveal that she was part of the support group. Sir, I would like to ask the Member this: does the Member agree that it would have been possible to tell the story without reference to the support group or telling the untruth?”
“Thank you. I have a few more clarifications. Please bear with me. If I understood the Member correctly earlier, she had said that the reason and the thinking behind what she did was that she did not want to disclose publicly that she was a member of the survivors' group. Is that correct?”
“I understand. I am just trying to establish the facts so that we all know exactly what transpired and then we can think a bit further of what should follow from that. About two months later, I believe, the Member was asked by the Minister for Home Affairs for further clarification in this House. So, that would have been on 4 October 2021. This was the exchange that took place. The Minister for Home Affairs had asked her for details. The Member had said she would like them to remain confidential and the Minister for Home Affairs had said this, "Sir, I do not understand this point about confidentiality. Can I ask through you, Sir, for Ms Khan to confirm in the House that everything she told us is accurate, that she did accompany such a person and such an incident did happen?" And Ms Khan's answer was "Yes". Can I ask the Member to confirm that that statement when she said yes, was untrue?”
“And, because later in that day, the Minister of State Desmond Tan had sought some clarifications from the Member and the Member, in her response, said, "Like I mentioned, it was three years ago and I do not wish to re-traumatise the person that I had accompanied." Can I ask the Member to confirm that that statement: "the person that I had accompanied", was also untrue?”
“Yes, I understand. That means, can I check, because I think the Member had spoken on the Workers' Party's Motion on Empowering Women on 3 August and the Member had made this statement, "Three years ago, I accompanied a 25-year-old survivor to make a Police report against a rape that was committed against her. She came out crying. The Police officer had allegedly made comments about her dressing and the fact that she was drinking." Hence, in the light of what the Member has just told us, that statement, at least the part about her accompanying the survivor to the Police station and what the Member allegedly saw, that part is untrue. Can the Member confirm that?”
“I would like to start by saying to the Member that I am very sorry to hear that she was a victim of sexual assault. I can understand that that must be very difficult and I hope that she will have the courage to be able to come through this and to be stronger as a result. However, as the Member's statements do also disclose some rather startling disclosures – a bit of a bombshell, I might say – I do have to seek some clarifications because I need to know what exactly should follow from this disclosure. So, I hope the Member will understand and bear with me as I seek these clarifications. The Member, as I understand it and see if I have noted what she said correctly: she said that she had shared an anecdote but in fact, she had not gone down to the Police station as she had previously described. Is that correct?”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to seek some clarifications from the Member?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Motorcycle Ownership 7.08 pm”
“We fully empathise with the challenges faced by working parents when schools shift to home-based learning (HBL) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Working parents with children aged seven to 12 years old can each take two days of paid Extended Childcare Leave, in addition to their annual leave entitlements. Primary schools and student care centres also remain open during HBL days, to care for students whose parents are unable to secure alternative care arrangements. The Ministry of Education (MOE) has also developed a set of practical tips as part of the "Parent Kits" accessible on MOE’s website, to help parents in supporting their child’s HBL. It would be difficult to extend childcare leave to cover all HBL days. Currently, HBL for primary schools is implemented to curb the transmission of COVID-19. Given that the number of HBL days required depends largely on the national COVID-19 situation, extending childcare leave to cover all these days would not be feasible. As explained in my earlier replies to Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Louis Ng’s previous parliamentary questions on childcare leave, we need to take a practical approach to calibrating leave provisions, to avoid affecting parents’ employability. At the same time, extending childcare leave by anything less would not address the underlying concern, which is the parents’ ability to be present at home to care for the child during HBL. A more sustainable solution would be to increase the adoption of flexible work arrangements to enable employees to better manage both work and family commitments. The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to shape and promote family-friendly workplace and social norms.”
“We hope that more employers will come on board to implement such practices, and continually enhance them to enable employees to fulfil their aspirations and responsibilities both at home and in the workplace. Parents also rely on their social support network to care for their children. Grandparents are an important source of such support. The Government recognises this and has introduced the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) to help Singaporeans buy a resale flat, with or near their parents or married child, for mutual care and support. This provides couples with a grant of up to $30,000 for their purchase of a resale flat to live with their parents or married child, or up to $20,000 for a resale flat to live close to their parents or married child. What we want is to build a Singapore that is Made for Families. This has to be a whole of society effort, and go beyond what individual parents, their family members, and employers do. Everyone can contribute to creating a safe and supportive environment for families. We will continue to work closely with our partners to achieve this.”
“Today, each working parent of a Singaporean child can take up to six days of paid childcare leave if their child is under seven years old. In addition, almost half of all employees in Singapore are entitled to more than 14 days of annual leave. Taken together, these leave provisions are generally sufficient for parents to care for their young children. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic, we appreciate that there may be more instances when parents have to care for their children at home, such as when schools shift to home-based learning, or when a child is issued with a Leave of Absence. A more sustainable solution is for employers to adopt progressive workplace practices, such as Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs), to better support parents. This is because such arrangements are better tailored to the needs and context of each workplace. The Government, together with unions and employers, have introduced various Tripartite Standards to promote progressive workplace practices. These cover FWAs, Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, and Work-Life Harmony. Our employers are generally supportive and FWAs have become more of a norm. The proportion of employers that provided some form of FWAs has increased from 85% in 2019 to 93% in 2020. With the launch of an Alliance for Action on Work-Life Harmony in February 2021, tripartite partners are building a community of stakeholders to promote the importance of work-life harmony, and support the implementation of good work-life practices. This includes providing resources to help companies to implement work-life practices that are suitable for their sector.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Prioritising Mental Health Care and Support for Singaporeans 11.15 pm”
“I am sorry, Sir. I understand that the Minister's speech will exceed 40 minutes. So, 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 Minister K Shanmugam's speeches.”
“Mr Speaker, it would be of great relief to the Members that I now beg to move, that Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. [(proc text) Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech?”
“Mr Speaker, as there are still quite a number of speakers who have not yet spoken, I shall need to move an Exempted Business Motion.”
“The Motions remain as two separate Motions and at the end of the debate, the votes on the two Motions will be taken separately. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“" The Motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance: "Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods: That this House: (a) Acknowledges Singaporeans' anxieties about jobs and competition in a globalised and fast-changing economy; (b) Affirms Singapore's need to stay open and connected to the world in order to grow and prosper; (c) Supports Government actions to manage the population of foreign manpower, ensure fair treatment by employers, and invest in education and upskilling, to create more good jobs for Singaporeans; (d) Calls on the Government to continue to update and improve its policies to secure the well-being and livelihoods of Singaporeans in an uncertain post-pandemic world; and (e) Deplores attempts to spread misinformation about free trade agreements like the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), stir up racism and xenophobia, and cause fear and anxiety amongst Singaporeans." Given the subject matter of the two Motions, I am, in today’s business Motion, moving that the two Motions be considered together and debated concurrently. This is because the two Motions cover common topics and related issues, albeit from different perspectives. A concurrent or simultaneous debate will allow Members to address both Motions in a single speech and enable the issues raised in the two Motions to be considered holistically. It will also allow for more efficient conduct of parliamentary business. Minister Lawrence Wong and Mr Leong Mun Wai as the movers of their respective Motions will each, as is usual, have the right to speak to move their Motions and to reply at the end of the debate to close their Motions. To be clear and for avoidance of doubt, it is only the debate that is to be concurrent.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods and Foreign Talent Policy be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion". Mr Speaker, as Members are aware, the Minister for Finance, Mr Lawrence Wong, and the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Leong Mun Wai, have each filed separate Motions, the titles of which I have just read out. Both Members have given notice of their intention to move their Motions tomorrow, that is to say, on 14 September 2021. For benefit of the Members, let me read out the terms of the Motions as they are not on today's Order Paper, since they will be on tomorrow's Order Paper. The Motion standing in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai: "Foreign Talent Policy: That this Parliament calls upon the Government to take urgent and concrete action to address the widespread anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihood caused by the Foreign Talent Policy and the 'movement of natural persons' provisions in some free trade agreements like CECA.”
“Mr Speaker, there is already a framework in place to address the issue that Mr Yip had raised. Essentially, what happens is that we have the Public Accounts Committee which is a committee of Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee can enquire from the Ministry what the updates are. The Ministry will reply and the reply is effectively to a committee of Parliament, so it is as if it is to Parliament. And the Public Accounts Committee will then issue a public report. So, there is a mechanism in place. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is Ms Foo Mee Har.”
“In the third case, action has been taken against the contractor for non-compliance of contractual requirements. There was no fabrication of records by public officers in any of these three cases. However, two officers are undergoing internal investigations for the lack of due diligence. For the remaining two agencies, MOE and the Housing and Development Board, investigations are ongoing. Appropriate action will be taken depending on the outcome of the investigations. Integrity is a core value of the Public Service. We will continue to uphold strict standards in ensuring accountability in the use of public funds.”
“Officers involved in IT roles are actively engaged on audit findings as well as learning points and ways to prevent lapses. Agencies have also stepped up the training of these officers to strengthen IT governance and security processes. Mr Singh asked what actions are being taken in respect of the irregularities in the records furnished for audit. The Government takes a serious view of such irregularities. Every case is thoroughly investigated. Public officers found guilty of misconduct face disciplinary actions, depending on the nature, extent and circumstances of the breaches. Five agencies were highlighted by AGO for possible irregularities in records furnished for audit. Public officers from two agencies, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) and PA, were investigated for the fabrication of records. MCCY's internal investigation has concluded. Two MCCY officers admitted to fabricating claims records for services rendered by external parties as the officers could not locate the records when requested by AGO. However, the investigation verified that the claims were valid and the services were in fact rendered. So, while the claims were real, the conduct of the officers in fabricating the claims records was wrong. The officers were issued official warnings and their performance assessments were affected. In the PA case, investigations are ongoing. The officers involved have been suspended from duties pending the outcome of the investigations. The Ministry of Home Affairs had three cases of possible irregularities in records furnished by contractors. In two cases, Police reports were lodged and the investigations have been completed. One contractor was charged in Court and the other was given a 12-month conditional warning.”
“These are the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Education (MOE), MOF, the Ministry of Health and the People’s Association (PA). The lapses arose from gaps in agency processes and human factors. Let me share the actions we are taking to improve our processes and our officers’ capabilities. First, on process improvements. To mitigate the risks associated with IT and our digitalisation efforts, we are deploying more central IT infrastructure and common services, which facilitate regular reviews at the WOG level. SNDGG is implementing central tools to automate agencies’ review of privileged users’ activities and management of user accounts. The former will be implemented for about 800 high priority systems by December 2022 and all applicable systems by December 2023, while the latter will be implemented for all applicable systems by December 2023. Agencies regularly review and strengthen their own processes and systems to mitigate agency-level risks. For example, the Accountant-General's Department has taken steps to enhance IT security and will be adopting the central tools to automate the review of privileged users' activities. Second, we are strengthening our officers' capabilities. For example, MOF has established the Finance and Procurement Academy, in partnership with the Civil Service College, to better equip public officers with relevant competencies. Officers involved in finance, procurement and contract management receive refreshers and updates on policies and practices. We will step up our efforts as the recent audit findings pertain to more complex types of procurement and contract management, particularly in the areas of IT and development projects.”
“Areas selected for audit could include areas with higher value expenditure, higher volume of transactions and key IT systems that deal with financial transactions. For example, as part of AGO’s annual audit of the Government Financial Statements, it examines the controls in place for payments to government suppliers and also audits the key IT systems used to process financial transactions, including those administered by MOF. Given the scale and complexity of Government operations it would be unrealistic to expect zero lapses. With 150,000 officers in the Public Service handling hundreds of thousands of transactions each year and more than 2,000 Government IT systems built over the years by different vendors and using different technologies, human errors and process gaps will occur from time to time. Given this, what is important, therefore, is that we must have the means to pick up such lapses and address them in an upfront and transparent manner. The annual AGO report and other elements of our governance system outlined earlier function as regular “health checks” for the Public Service and allows it to take corrective and preventive actions as may be necessary. Mr Yip asked about the types of recurring lapses. These have typically been in the areas of procurement and contracts management, IT controls and grants management, which share common factors like the scale and complexity of operations, a constantly changing operating environment, high volume of transactions and multiple touchpoints. In the past five years, six agencies have been mentioned in the Auditor-General’s reports for recurring lapses, mainly in the areas of procurement and contract management, and IT controls.”
“Members have asked questions about various lapses and irregularities highlighted in the AGO report. Let me first provide an overview, before I address the specific questions by Mr Singh and Mr Yip. The Government’s approach to governance is one of responsibility, transparency and accountability. To that end, we have put in place governance structures at the whole-of-Government (WOG) and agency levels to ensure proper accountability for the use of public funds. At the WOG level, we have rules and guidelines on financial controls for public agencies carrying out finance functions. Central agencies such as the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group (SNDGG) and Grants Governance Office in the Ministry of Finance (MOF) oversee common functional areas and work with agencies to ensure robust internal controls. MOF has recently set up the Government Procurement Function Office. There are also ongoing efforts to review policies and processes and strengthen capabilities, particularly for more complex areas such as IT and construction. At the agency level, enterprise risk management and system controls are in place. Regular internal audits are conducted. The management of development projects and facility management are specialised areas requiring deeper technical expertise and experience. In addition to raising the capabilities of our officers, agencies are enhancing supervision of contractors and managing agents. The AGO is an important part of our system of checks to uncover weaknesses and shortcomings. AGO adopts a risk-based approach in determining which areas to cover in an audit. AGO takes into consideration factors such as materiality and potential impact.”