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 31 of 51.
“Today, nearly 70% of licensed moneylenders have already registered as companies. Clause 17 of the Bill will also impose a new requirement on every moneylender to submit annual audited accounts to the Registrar. Audit requirements are not unusual and are presently imposed on many regulated entities across various sectors. Given the nature of the moneylending business, there is greater imperative for independent audit supervision. Sir, over the last few years, the Government’s regulatory reforms have helped raise minimum standards and weed out bad business practices. Complaints against licensed moneylenders have dropped from 271 in 2012 to 104 in 2017, a reduction of more than 60%. Going forward, MinLaw will complement these regulatory reforms with business-led initiatives to further professionalise the moneylending industry. We seek to encourage good business practices and better business models that can benefit borrowers. These include more effective methods of credit assessment to reduce default rates, more compassionate and responsive debt assistance schemes and more affordable terms of credit. To encourage new business models, promulgate better business practices and spur improvements, MinLaw will explore lifting the current moratorium in a limited and controlled fashion, to allow a few new players with established track records in related financial areas to pilot new business models in the moneylending industry. We will release more details when ready. Sir, in summary, the amendments to the legislative framework introduced in the Bill are important steps in helping us to better protect individual borrowers while allowing them to have reasonable access to credit. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“This will ensure that moneylenders holding licences today but who are not actively operating a moneylending business do not retain these licences. Thirdly, the Bill will also strengthen the regulation of moneylenders by tightening the mandatory requirements on loan terms and contracts. Presently, it is an offence for a moneylender to make any loan contract that does not truly state the principal or interest rate of the loan. Clause 12 expands the scope of this offence to include loan contracts that do not truly state the late interest rate or any permitted fees payable as well. Under the current regime, borrowers are protected from onerous loan terms by existing caps on fees, interest and late interest. If a loan transaction is found by the Court to have breached these caps, the Court can reopen the transaction and the borrower may be relieved from excessive payments. However, it is currently not an offence if a moneylender breaches these caps. This is changed by clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. Under the Bill, it will be an offence for a moneylender to enter into a loan contract that breaches the caps on interest or late interest, which will be punishable by a fine of up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months. The Bill also makes such a loan contract unenforceable, and any guarantee or money paid out by the moneylender under the contract will not be recoverable in any Court of law. The third area which the Bill touches on is the professionalisation of the moneylending industry. Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a new section 6A, which requires that all licensed moneylenders be companies with a minimum paid-up capital of not less than the prescribed amount. Following the recommendation of ACML, this amount will be prescribed at $100,000.”
“Specifically, sections 7(d) to (g) permit the Registrar to do so where he is not satisfied as to the qualification, experience or character of an individual applicant. This is also applicable to a director, partner or substantial shareholder of a corporate applicant, or a person responsible for the management of the moneylending business. Clause 7 of the Bill expands the scope of this power to include persons who are presently employed or engaged, or whom a moneylender proposes to employ or engage, to assist in the business of moneylending. Clause 10 also introduces a new section 11A, which provides that a moneylender must obtain the Registrar’s written approval before employing or engaging any assistant in its business of moneylending. Presently, the Act requires that a moneylender obtain the Registrar’s approval as soon as practicable after someone has become a substantial shareholder or changes his substantial shareholding. Clause 11 of the Bill will require moneylenders to obtain this approval before the person becomes a substantial shareholder, or before any shareholder increases his substantial shareholding. Existing approvals to engage in moneylending may be revoked if the Registrar discovers that any employee, director or substantial shareholder of the moneylender is not a fit and proper person or a person of good character. Failure to comply will also lead to enforcement and licensing action. Secondly, to prevent moneylenders from circumventing present regulations by holding "spare licences" – which they can use if their original licences are revoked or suspended – clause 8 enables the Registrar to revoke or suspend a licence if the moneylender fails to commence its new business within six months of the issue of the licence.”
“The Bill introduces a new section 30N, which requires moneylenders to obtain a borrower’s credit report from MLCB before granting any loan. Moneylenders will also be required to submit accurate borrower information to MLCB and provide timely updates to MLCB when borrowers repay their loans. Likewise, the Bill requires MLCB to facilitate moneylenders’ requests for credit reports. The Bill also requires MLCB to protect the integrity, security and confidentiality of any borrower information and credit reports in its possession, in addition to existing protections under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) 2012. The Bill introduces new provisions to allow the Registrar of Moneylenders (the Registrar) to exercise greater oversight on MLCB. For example, the proposed section 30F will enable the Registrar to replace the MLCB operator under specific conditions, such as if the operator fails to satisfy its obligations under the Moneylenders Act, and the proposed section 30I gives the Registrar various powers to ensure the smooth and continued operation of MLCB, especially in the event of a handover to another operator. Together, these amendments provide a stronger regulatory framework to provide individual borrowers with safer access to personal credit. Next, the Bill also seeks to strengthen the regulation of the moneylending industry in three ways. Firstly, the Bill will expand the powers of the Registrar of Moneylenders to exclude undesirable persons from the industry. Presently, Part II of the Moneylenders Act empowers the Registrar to revoke, suspend, refuse to issue, or refuse to renew a moneylenders’ licence on a number of grounds.”
“The Moneylenders Rules presently cap the amount of unsecured credit an individual may borrow from any single moneylender. However, there are borrowers who approach multiple moneylenders for loans and, consequently, may still become over-indebted despite the current restrictions. The proposed aggregate loan cap in the Bill addresses this issue. It sets an overall limit on the amount an individual can borrow from all licensed moneylenders, combined. We intend to set an aggregate cap of $3,000 for individuals with an annual income below $20,000, and a cap of six times' the monthly income for all other individuals, as recommended by ACML. The aggregate loan cap is intended as a measure to prevent over-borrowing. The proportion which currently over-borrows is small. Between March 2016 and March 2017, less than 2% of Singaporean borrowers who took out loans have an outstanding balance exceeding the cap. Even though only a small number of Singaporeans over-borrow today, they still need help with managing their debt. We also want to ensure that the numbers do not grow. MinLaw will work with VWOs and the moneylending industry to help such borrowers improve their situation. The Moneylenders Association of Singapore (MLAS) is also developing a more formalised framework, the Moneylenders Debt Restructuring Scheme, to complement existing debt assistance schemes run by VWOs. Details of this industry-led initiative will be announced by MLAS later this year. Let me now take the House through the key amendments in the Bill. First, better protection for borrowers. To facilitate the implementation of the aggregate loan cap, clause 18 of the Bill introduces a new Part IIIA, which sets out the regulatory framework for MLCB, and imposes new obligations on moneylenders.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Licensed moneylenders are tightly regulated under the Moneylenders Act as the industry caters to borrowers who tend to be more vulnerable. These borrowers often need short-term credit urgently, but cannot obtain it from financial institutions, possibly due to their level of income or credit history. In regulating licensed moneylenders, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) seeks to maintain a balance in allowing individual borrowers reasonable access to credit from licensed sources, while ensuring that borrowers, particularly lower-income borrowers, are adequately protected. The Advisory Committee on Moneylending (ACML) was convened in June 2014 to comprehensively review the regulatory regime for moneylending with these objectives in mind. The Committee issued its Final Report in May 2015 with 15 recommendations to MinLaw. MinLaw accepted 12 of the Committee's 15 recommendations and has worked with the industry and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to implement them progressively. In 2015, we introduced stricter caps on borrowing costs. In March 2016, we launched the Moneylenders Credit Bureau (MLCB), which facilitates better tracking and monitoring of unsecured loans. MLCB provides up-to-date details of a borrower's creditworthiness and indebtedness, to enable moneylenders to make a more informed and responsible lending decision. The Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill is the latest step in these efforts. Its key objectives are to: (a) provide better protection for borrowers; (b) strengthen the regulation of moneylenders; and (c) professionalise the moneylending industry. One key change introduced by clause 19 in this Bill is the aggregate loan cap.”
“As I have said, US$422 million is going to be paid out by the company. That is by the company. Insofar as the individuals are concerned, I have already pointed to the fact that in the DPA, it has been disclosed that the company has gone against the individuals. So, basically, as far as any monies that should not have been obtained, were obtained, they have actually, effectively, been disgorged.”
“All these are matters which are subject to investigation. I do not have this information and it certainly would not be appropriate for me to enquire on this point. This is something which the Public Prosecutor and CPIB are looking into. Let them deal with it. Let proper process, due process take place and, in time, they will have to make the appropriate decision.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member said that I had mentioned that whether or not there is action taken will depend on whether the individuals had benefited. Let me just go back to my original answer, which I hope will be clear. I said how the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors; so not just one factor but several. It includes the culpability of each individual, the available evidence, what is appropriate in the circumstances, the knowledge of each individual, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefits he obtained, the circumstances under which relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered. So, it is not a single factor; it is a whole array of factors which the Public Prosecutor will have to take into account. The second question was – could the Member just repeat the second question, that the corruption was done outside Singapore and therefore—?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the monies will have to be paid by KOM. It would not come out of the Government budget. There will be no impact on the Government's fiscal position. Temasek's 20% stake in KOM is just one part of its portfolio. The Government's spending limit in relation to its Reserves held by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation and Temasek depends on the long-term expected returns on those assets. It is not based on actual cash contributions of the entities to the Government.”
“That is actually not so much a question for the Government. As to what is known and not known within the Keppel group, that is, really, a Keppel matter. The only thing that I can do here which would be useful is to point Mr Pritam Singh to one of Keppel's media releases, where Keppel said that the current boards of directors of Keppel Corporation and its unit KOM were not aware of the illegal payments made to secure projects in Brazil. That is Keppel's position. As far as the Government is concerned, as I have explained, the Government is a shareholder in Temasek, Temasek has a just over 20% shareholding in Keppel Corporation and the operations of Keppel are run by Keppel itself. Mr Pritam Singh also had a question on the name of the subsidiary company. I do not have that information with me. And he asked about the circumstances in which Mr Choo Chiau Beng may have stepped down as ambassador, I do not have that information. What I can say is that he has stepped down and he is not involved in an ambassadorial role at the present time.”
“Shareholders appoint the boards. The boards then, depending on whether the members are executive or non-executive, it is their business to make sure that the policies and so on for the company are proper, that governance is proper, and then the day-to-day operations are done by the executive team or the executive management. As I had mentioned earlier, in this particular instance, the Government and Temasek do not interfere in the day-to-day running or management of the Temasek portfolio companies. What I can say and what I can point Mr Pritam Singh to, is what is already in the public domain which is in the DPA, paragraph 4(d) – which I am sure Mr Singh is familiar with – the company has engaged in extensive remedial measures, including taking disciplinary action against 17 former or current employees in relation to the misconduct described in the statement of facts. They have caused seven employees who participated in the conduct described in the statement of facts to separate from the company. They have issued demotions and/or written warnings to seven employees who failed to detect the misconduct and failed to take appropriate steps to mitigate corruption and compliance risks. They have imposed approximately US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process and have conducted individualised anti-corruption and compliance training for six employees. Anything further than that is a matter for the Keppel group, or for the company in this case, to determine, not for the Government. Going back to a couple of other questions asked by Mr Pritam Singh, on the P-61 contract, he asked whether—I am sorry, could the Member clarify his question on the P-61 contract?”
“Let me just deal with the last question first, in which I think the Member wanted to know how does the Government deal with the fact that the names are out there. The Government's position is very simple. The Government deals with the Government's actions. So, the Government's actions are that when investigations are ongoing, we do not disclose the identities of people being investigated. What other people may say outside, what other information may be floating outside, what other comments may go on in social media, that is separate. But as the Government, as an investigation authority, the Government does not disclose names of individuals who are being investigated. And we are not alone in that. All civilised jurisdictions which observe the rule of law uphold that principle simply because, as I have mentioned earlier, we do not want to prejudice either the investigations or the persons being investigated, depending on how the investigation might turn out. With respect to the first question, I think Mr Singh asked can the Government, as a shareholder, call a meeting and ask for a resolution to be passed to commence civil action. I think that was the thrust of the question. Let me just correct a few factual inaccuracies here. First, the Government owns 100% of Temasek. The Government is not a direct shareholder of Keppel. That is number one. Temasek owns just over 20% of Keppel Corporation, which is not the entity in question here, which means that there is 80% of other shareholders. Keppel Corporation then owns 100% of KOM, which is the entity in question here. So, the general principle of corporate governance, with which Mr Singh is familiar as a lawyer, is that the shareholders deal with their companies in which they have shares at the shareholder level.”
“The third supplementary question, I think, was with respect to tenders. Government tenders explicitly state that tenderers can be debarred if, for instance, they are convicted of corruption by our Courts. Debarred entities will not be eligible to participate in any tender by Government agencies for a period of time. The directors of a disbarred company will also be debarred, and any new companies or businesses they set up during the debarment period will also not be considered for award of tenders. Beyond disbarment, the track record of a supplier is typically an evaluation criterion in Government tenders. Any known facts that reflect on the commercial integrity of the supplier will be taken into account in evaluating the supplier's track record.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. I certainly agree that it does hurt our reputation and, for that reason, we do not condone this. We are extremely disappointed as well in what has occurred. With respect to the first question that the Member asked about what measures Temasek can take to send a clear signal to Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as I have said − and I repeat − the Government expects Singapore companies and Singaporeans to do business honestly and lawfully even in complex environments. For Temasek, their position is that they foster an ethos of integrity and good governance and sustainability, and they, too, do not condone improper conduct and malfeasance. So, Temasek expects companies in its portfolio to abide by sound corporate governance and robust codes of conduct and ethics. Temasek holds the respective boards and managements responsible and accountable for the day-to-day decisions and actions of these portfolio companies, but Temasek does not direct the day-to-day business decisions or operations of the Temasek portfolio companies. But what Temasek can and does do is to conduct regular roundtables, forums, educational programmes, all essentially directed at encouraging not just its portfolio companies but all other companies to keep and maintain clean systems and avoid corrupt practices. The second question the Member asked was about whether we have a view on whether KOM should claw back bonuses paid out to ex-employees and so on. The Government does not intervene in internal corporate disciplinary actions. This is a matter for KOM and its board. But, as stated in the US DPA, KOM has imposed about US$8.9 million in financial sanctions on 12 former or current employees as part of the disciplinary process.”
“Government officials and politicians have been investigated in the past by CPIB and charged. These include the Minister of State Wee Toon Boon, sitting and former Members of Parliament Phey Yew Kok and Choo Wee Khiang, the Singapore Civil Defence Force Commissioner Peter Lim, National Kidney Foundation Chief Executive Officer (CEO) TT Durai, and the Deputy Chief Executive of the Public Utilities Board Choy Hon Tim. There was a Cabinet Minister, Teh Cheang Wan, who took his own life after CPIB started to investigate him. So, there is no doubt about CPIB's record and there is no doubt that we will take action if there is cause to do so.”
“They paid something to the tune of ─ in the DPA, it says US$55 million worth of bribes. They have been slapped with a penalty of US$422 million. That is something like eight times whatever they would have paid out. They have been subject to an enhanced compliance regime. As I have pointed out, we have actually achieved more than what we would have been able to do if they were prosecuted solely under PCA and the company itself has obviously taken remedial actions. So, as far as the company is concerned, make no mistake. There has been a heavy price to pay and deservedly so. With respect to the individuals, as I have explained in my earlier reply, investigations are still ongoing. That outcome has not been determined. Nobody has got off or not got off, as the case may be. That is something that the Public Prosecutor has to decide, and I have explained some of the challenges that the Public Prosecutor is facing in terms of getting the evidence. But that is something we have to let the Public Prosecutor deal with independently. But let me just say one other thing on this, which is that it is not a matter of letting individuals off lightly. We have, in the past, taken actions against people irrespective of their status. In the ST Marine case that I mentioned, all seven individuals were senior management, including former Presidents of ST Marine. There was Patrick Lee, the former Group Financial Controller of ST Marine; there was Ong Teck Liang, former Group Financial Controller; Han Yew Kwang, former Chief Operating Officer; Mok Kim Whang, former Senior Vice President; Tan Mong Seng, former President (Commercial Business), ST Marine; Chang Cheow Teck, former President, ST Marine; See Leong Teck, former President, ST Marine.”
“I thank the Member for her clarification. In this particular case, since Keppel has actually come forward and cooperated, it has, in effect, as a company, admitted its part in this. So, the next question that arises is: do you prosecute or do you give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution? And in this particular case, it was decided to give a conditional warning in lieu of prosecution because of the factors which I had outlined earlier. But the point I was making, when I talked about being able to achieve more than we otherwise would have been able to do if we had proceeded solely ourselves, is for a number of reasons. First, the maximum fine under PCA is $100,000 per charge. So, this would not get us anywhere near the penalty under the global resolution or even Singapore's share of the current penalty. And with respect to disgorgement, there will be issues of which country gets what. So, under the global resolution, what it means, essentially, is that we are able to achieve all the things that we would have been able to do with prosecution, but even more. And, in addition, under the US DPA, there are requirements for an enhanced compliance programme. So, all of these are things which we have obtained, which is more than what we would have been able to obtain if you had proceeded solely under DPA. That is what I meant by that. Let me proceed now to the last question where Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that people may be getting off lightly because it is a conditional warning. For this, I think it is important to understand that there are actually two different things. First, there is a company; second, there is the individual. Insofar as the company is concerned, it is not a light thing at all. They have not got off lightly.”
“It is not our practice to disclose terms of conditional warnings, not just for Keppel, but for all cases. In other words, conditional warnings are things which had been given in the past by the agencies but, as a general practice, we do not disclose their exact terms. What I can say is what I have said, which is, that it is closely aligned with what has been done in the US. The third question was whether, when I said that we have achieved more than if we were acting on our own, and acting in lieu of prosecution, if I could just clarify with Ms Sylvia Lim her third question, what was the purport of that?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions and the opportunity to clarify certain things. Her first question was whether I had, in my reply, suggested that the actions taken by the AGC were not done in consultation or coordination with the other authorities. I did not say that at all. Let me just read what I actually said. I said that there was no "three-nation plea bargain agreement". What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the two other jurisdictions. What I was trying to explain is the legal basis or the legal concept behind it. Because when you say "three-nation plea bargain agreement", it suggests that there is either some kind of agreement or treaty to which all three countries are a party to and we are acting under the same instrument. That is not the case. What I was seeking to establish was that each country is acting in accordance with its own laws. But even whilst acting in accordance with its own laws, they reached a coordinated global resolution. So, that is what I said in the main reply and the intent of it was to explain the underlying basis, which is, that each country is actually acting in accordance with its own domestic laws. That is why in the US, they are acting under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and they are using the DPA mechanism. In Singapore, we use the conditional warning and PCA. And, of course, in Brazil, they had the Leniency Agreement. So, that was all that was being said in relation to that. The second question was in reference to the main answer where I said that the terms of the conditional warning were closely aligned. Ms Sylvia Lim wanted to know whether it was coterminous and, essentially, asking what are the terms of the conditions.”
“For example, from 2014 to 2017, seven former Singapore Technologies (ST) Marine officers were investigated and subsequently charged and convicted for giving corrupt payments to secure business and for other offences under the Penal Code. Finally, Mr Pritam Singh asked about the role of Government and Temasek Holdings in relation to GLCs. The Government's relationship with Temasek Holdings is that of a shareholder. Temasek is a shareholder of Keppel Corporation, with a minority stake of about 20%. The Government does not interfere in, nor influence the business decisions or operations of Temasek and its portfolio companies. Likewise, Temasek does not interfere in the business decisions or operations of its portfolio companies. These are the responsibilities of the respective companies' boards and management. Temasek holds the boards of its portfolio companies responsible for running the companies honestly and competently. If the boards do not perform, Temasek can, collectively with the other shareholders, change the board. To reiterate, the Government expects all Singapore companies, their officers and their employees to comply fully with the laws of Singapore and the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. They have to find ways to keep their own systems clean even when doing business in complex and challenging environments. Above all, they must not import corrupt practices into Singapore.”
“This request will be reviewed and administered by the courts of the foreign country. How quickly and to what extent these requests and applications will be processed is a matter for the jurisdiction to which the request is made. Likewise, any incoming requests from foreign jurisdictions would also have to be considered and acted upon. Obviously, the intention is to move as expeditiously as possible. However, as I have explained, not all aspects of the investigation are within our control. Only after the investigations are completed can the AGC properly assess the case and decide on the appropriate response. This is something for the Public Prosecutor to decide, independently. How the Public Prosecutor decides will depend on several factors, including the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances. For example, it will be important to determine, for each individual, what he knew, the extent of his involvement, his motivations, any personal benefit he obtained, the circumstances under which the relevant acts took place and any cooperation rendered. Mr Pritam Singh asked for statistics on concluded or ongoing investigations into corrupt practices by Government-linked companies (GLCs) by overseas and local authorities. I cannot speak for what foreign jurisdictions may be doing. Insofar as Singapore is concerned, past investigations which have resulted in prosecutions are a matter of public record. We do not comment on ongoing investigations, if any, for good reason: so as not to jeopardise the investigations or prejudice individuals or companies if it turns out that no offence is disclosed. Suffice to say, if there is good reason to investigate, the authorities will do so, whether or not the company is a GLC.”
“The Singapore investigations are conducted on the same timeframe as the US and Brazilian investigations and go back to 2001, when the corrupt acts first took place. There is no agreement, whether in the DPA or otherwise, which prevents the disclosure of the individuals under investigation. However, for criminal investigations, it is standard practice in Singapore, and in many other jurisdictions, not to identify individuals under investigation. This is for the simple reason that investigations can lead to the conclusion that no offence is made out, or that prosecution is unwarranted, in which case disclosure would have been prejudicial to the individuals concerned. Individuals will be identified if and when charges are preferred in Court. As for the investigation's timetable, this is not a case where CPIB and AGC are acting alone in a domestic case. This is an international case where many different investigating agencies are involved. The case involves many projects in Brazil and goes back many years to 2001. Most of the evidence, including documents and witnesses, are located in different jurisdictions, including Brazil and the US. Legal proceedings have also taken place in these jurisdictions. AGC needs evidence from these jurisdictions, and it has sought assistance, and it is continuing to work with foreign authorities. AGC has asked for certain information from them and some of its requests are still pending. AGC anticipates that further requests will have to be made as the investigations develop. AGC is also working on a request for Mutual Legal Assistance. This is a procedure whereby one country formally seeks assistance from another to obtain or secure evidence for use in its own investigations and proceedings.”
“And that the key elements of this case, in particular, the recipients of the bribes and the projects connected with the bribes, occurred outside Singapore, and the jurisdictions concerned are also acting against KOM, in coordination with Singapore. A conditional warning allows Singapore to impose on KOM conditions that are closely aligned with the terms of the US DPA. If any of the conditions are breached, KOM can be prosecuted. The aligned approach results in a robust resolution to KOM's case. The trilateral resolution requires KOM to pay a total of US$422 million. If KOM fails to pay the penalty, there will be consequences under the US, Singapore and Brazilian law. Of the US$422 million, KOM must pay US$52 million to the Singapore Government within 90 days. Another sum of up to US$52 million must be paid to the Singapore Government within three years from the date of the conditional warning, after taking into account any further sums to be paid by KOM to Brazilian authorities. Any penalty or claim that KOM might be subject to under Singapore law would be far less than what KOM is now liable for under the coordinated resolution. Furthermore, KOM is also required under the US DPA to strengthen its internal controls and compliance and anti-corruption programmes. The current resolution, therefore, achieves more than what we would have been able to do if we had proceeded against the company solely under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the action to be taken against the individuals concerned. As AGC has stated, investigations into the individuals concerned are ongoing.”
“In handling the Keppel Offshore and Marine (KOM) case, the authorities in the United States (US), Singapore and Brazil worked with one another and reached an agreed approach. There was no "three-nation plea bargain agreement", as Ms Sylvia Lim puts it. What happened was that each jurisdiction acted under its own domestic laws, but in coordination with the other two jurisdictions. In the US, the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with KOM. This is an agreement under US law, between KOM and DOJ. Under the DPA, KOM has to pay a penalty of US$422 million. The amount was determined in accordance with US sentencing guidelines. DPA, which has been published, sets out how the amount was arrived at. Among other things, KOM was given maximum credit for its full cooperation with investigations. Out of the US$422 million, 50% would be paid to Brazil, 25% to the US, and 12.5% to Singapore. The last 12.5% is payable to Singapore, but subject to any further penalties the Brazilian authorities may impose. In Brazil, the Federal Public Ministry entered into a leniency agreement on similar terms to the US DPA. In Singapore, the Public Prosecutor directed CPIB to administer a conditional warning on KOM. In reaching this decision, the Public Prosecutor considered the following factors. First, that KOM had voluntarily reported its internal findings to CPIB and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) in September 2016 and had cooperated with all three jurisdictions in the investigation and resolution process, that KOM also indicated that it will voluntarily agree to the US DPA and the Brazilian leniency agreement.”
“Thank you. As a country and as a Government, we do not condone or tolerate corruption. This has always been our position. It will continue to be so. Domestically, corruption cases are investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau (CPIB). CPIB can investigate anyone. Thereafter, cases are assessed by the Public Prosecutor, who acts independently. Incorruptibility is a foundational value for Singapore. We must keep Singapore clean. Internationally, we know that there are many places in the world where corruption is endemic and the business environment is very different from Singapore. We cannot be a global policeman. Singapore companies have to operate in all kinds of environments. But as a matter of principle, we expect that they must do so while keeping their systems clean and complying with the laws of the countries where they operate. They must develop ways of operating which enable them to do this. They cannot lower their own standards of integrity and they must not bring back to Singapore practices alien to the norms which we have established with such great effort here. Let me now address the questions asked. How we handle allegations of corrupt acts overseas by Singaporeans or Singapore companies depends on a number of factors, including (a) whether the case is connected more strongly to Singapore or to other countries; (b) any practical or legal difficulty in investigating the case, bearing in mind that the evidence will mainly be overseas; (c) any actions being taken by third countries and the legal and regulatory tools they are bringing to bear; and (d) any cooperative mechanisms between Singapore and the other countries involved.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take Question Nos 8 to 11 together?”
“We do not have the specific figures of which orders are complied with and which are not because, obviously, for the ones which are complied with, the parties will not come back to the Court. But you will know whether the rates of compliance are steady or going up or falling by the number of applications for enforcement with the Courts. We are able to track those, although I do not have the specific figures with me right now. That said, there are instances where enforcement is difficult and frustrating, particularly when the spouse who has to pay maintenance either hides assets or it is difficult to find. This is something we are studying and looking to see how we can make more seamless.”
“If your client is somebody who has been accused of domestic violence, does that person have something wrong with him or her where he or she feels a need to take out his or her anger and frustration on the spouse? That person possibly needs counselling as well. And the lawyer needs to be able to deal with that. So, it is for this reason that we consider it very important that lawyers have specialist training to deal with family justice. Increasingly, these are not just purely domestic issues. There are more and more marriages which are cross-border these days, so you will then have to deal with issues that will require knowledge of the international conventions that deal with children and cross-border marriages. So, there is also an international aspect. In short, family law is not just a poor cousin to commercial law. Not by any means. It is a very important area of the law and the lawyers who practice it should become specialist lawyers in their own right.”
“The measure for winning and losing in family cases should really be how are you able to disentangle your lives after having been together for a long time, with the least pain possible, and in a way that allows you to move on, emotionally as well as in terms of other arrangements. That should be one measure. The other measure should be how do you do it in a way that least adversely impacts a child? Once these become your measures, you can begin to see how the training and the skillsets for the lawyers have to be very different. Because in commercial litigation, it is about how you can score the legal points and how you can get the extra money. But here, as a lawyer, you have to counsel your client. If your client is determined to get at the other side by withholding access to the child, that is not in the child's best interest. And the lawyer has to be trained to deal with that. When I was in practice, I had a case where whenever the children had telephone access to the father, the mother would not allow the children to take the call from the telephone in the living room. She would banish them to the balcony in the kitchen where all the washing and the drying and the clothes were. In their minds, every time they take a call from their father, they have to go out into the balcony and sit out there, like it is not a normal family activity. The children would feel a bit like it was punishment whenever they took a call from their father. These are things where the lawyer should be able to advise the client and, where necessary, advise them where to go for counselling.”
“If not, they can also approach their Member of Parliament at the Meet-the-People sessions to write to MinLaw, which will then forward the letter to the Court. At the end of the day, the important thing to remember is that Court proceedings are important and people must appear. For those who meet the means test, there is also legal aid representation. They can also go to the Law Society Pro Bono Office and there are the legal clinics which are conducted by the Community Development Councils. There is also the Community Justice Centre at the State Courts. So, there is a variety of options. For those who need legal assistance, I would urge them to seek out these options. On the second question on what role can lawyers play, that is a very good question. That is the reason why we are looking at the Family Law Accreditation Scheme. Family law proceedings are not like other proceedings. It is not like commercial litigation, for example, where what is at stake is really money, by and large. So, even if it is a question of an extra hundred thousand dollars, an extra million dollars, it is still money. But in family proceedings, it is a lot to do with emotions. Very often, it has to do with the impact on the child. In commercial proceedings, how do you measure win and lose? You measure by how much money you get, the amount of damages. But how do you measure win and lose in litigation proceedings for family cases? Who really wins? Who really loses? You often find that for the parties, winning actually means hurting the other side, taking the other side's assets as much as you can, or preventing the other side from having access to the child. That is how winning and losing are very often measured in family cases. That should not be the case.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. It is a very pertinent point – attendance in Court. The Court is an important institution and people must understand that Court hearings are to be respected. The Courts and the justice that they dispense underpin our entire societal system, not least in family law cases. So, I would urge anybody who receives a Court summons, whether it be family law or anything else, to give it due attention, due weight and to respect the Court as an institution. Where the document calls for attendance before the Court, it is very important that that person must turn up. There are sometimes when a person is unable to turn up for various reasons. In this scenario, there are a few options. First, if the person is represented, usually a lawyer will take care of that, and the lawyer can appear on your behalf and you do not have to be there, unless there are certain very specific things, such as your having to give evidence because the trial is ongoing. In that case, clearly, the lawyer cannot be giving evidence on your behalf. You have to be there. But if for some reason you are ill, unwell, have some other really pressing commitment which the Court agrees takes precedence, you can ask the Court for adjournment and the lawyer will do that for you. But there are many parties who are not represented. For those who are not represented, if for some reason they truly cannot turn up to ask for an adjournment or postponement, they can, at the very minimum, write to the Court in advance of the hearing, and the Court will usually take into account whether or not the reasons for the request for the postponement are good reasons, and they will accommodate if the reasons are valid.”
“Similarly, the average time taken for Final Judgment to be granted has also been reduced from 155.3 days in 2012 to 114.6 days in 2016. We intend to work with the Family Justice Courts to conduct a joint survey of Court users to better understand the Court users' experience of the reforms in the family justice system. Despite these improvements, certain cases still require an extended time to resolve and with acute acrimony between the parties. In this regard, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), MSF and the Family Justice Courts have decided to convene a new committee to further enhance the family justice system. Family lawyers play an important and integral role in these reforms, including how they advise and counsel clients, the manner in which they conduct the cases in Court and their knowledge and familiarity with the social support systems that have been set up to assist families. This was recognised by the Committee for Family Justice which proposed a new Family Law Practitioner accreditation scheme for lawyers who have undergone specialist training. Work is underway to design a specialist family law and multidiscipline training for family lawyers and I look forward to the implementation of this recommendation. We will continue to partner and support our family lawyers to facilitate the effective practice of family law today. We will continue to make reforms and improve our family justice system to better support and preserve families going through a dispute, through a less adversarial, more efficient and more child-centric approach to family litigation, as well as a robust network of community support.”
“The simplified uncontested divorce track was also implemented to allow parties to apply for the case to be scheduled for an uncontested hearing if there has been agreement on both sides. Cases under the simplified uncontested divorce track are resolved faster. Previously, the median time taken for such cases to obtain Interim Judgment was 53 days. This was shortened to about 20 days under the simplified uncontested divorce track. Third, child representatives are now appointed by the Court if it is in the best interests of the child to do so. This usually occurs in high conflict matters where parties cannot agree on the care arrangements of the child. There are currently 26 trained child representatives, and there have since been 40 cases where child representatives were appointed. These child representatives represent the voice of the child in family disputes and present an objective assessment of the care arrangements which would be in the best interests of the child. Fourth, aside from the Court-based initiatives, the Committee also recognised that families should be provided with better assistance and support to resolve their disputes out-of-Court, wherever possible. In this regard, the Committee proposed the establishment of Divorce Support Specialist Agencies to provide specialised services and programmes for divorcing and divorced families. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has since established four Divorce Support Specialist Agencies to provide the support and care to such families. The Family Justice Courts have been established for three years now. Early indications have been positive. The average time taken for divorce cases to be granted Interim Judgment has been reduced from 68.6 days in 2012 to 53.1 days in 2016.”
“Our family justice system aims to resolve family disputes through mediation as far as possible and with litigation only as the last resort. Many cases that go through the family justice system are divorce proceedings and ancillary issues, such as the division of matrimonial assets and issues relating to the custody, care and control of the children. The Court process in dealing with these issues should be affordable and should not make it more painful for the families involved. In particular, we should see to the interests of the children and protect them during the proceedings to the extent possible. With these aims in mind, the Committee for Family Justice was convened in 2013, which made recommendations to introduce less adversarial and more child-centric approaches in family proceedings and to also improve community support outside of the Court system. The work of the Committee led to the enactment of the Family Justice Act and the establishment of the Family Justice Courts on 1 October 2014. Pursuant to the Committee's recommendations, the following reforms were implemented in the Family Justice Courts. First, a judge-led approach. This was adopted and places the judge in the centre of the Court process and allows the judge to guide and direct the proceedings. This reduces acrimony between parties and is an improvement over the previous purely adversarial approach towards resolving family disputes. Second, case management policies and processes have been enhanced in the Family Justice Courts. The docketing system ensures that a single judge manages the case early in the proceedings to its conclusion. This helps to ensure that the judicial officer adjudicating the dispute is familiar with, and sensitive to, the issues and parties involved.”
“With the increase in the maximum amount of voluntary MediSave contributions that a company can make under the Additional MediSave Contribution scheme and a corresponding increase in tax deduction allowable with effect from 1 January 2018, the Ministry of Manpower and Central Provident Fund Board, together with the tripartite partners, will further reach out to all employers through website, emails, letters, seminars and talks to both raise awareness of the scheme and communicate the change and limits. We thank Mr Thomas Chua for his support for the enhanced treatment for R&D Cost-Sharing Agreements and agree with his suggestions that companies could leverage external resources, such as research institutions and trade associations, to strengthen their research capabilities and embark on innovation and R&D activities. We also note Ms Thanaletchimi's suggestions to enhance the various tax relief schemes for individuals as well as to extend the tax rebates for businesses and individuals. We will take the feedback into consideration in the periodic reviews of our income tax policies. Our income tax reliefs are intended to provide recognition to taxpayers rather than offset the actual expenses incurred by taxpayers. Any revision made to our reliefs will still need to ensure that our income tax regime as a whole remains resilient and progressive. [(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.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“These penalties are higher than the existing penalties under the record keeping requirement and also comparable with the range of penalties imposed by jurisdictions with similar requirements. While we note Mr Louis Ng's suggestion to impose personal liability on employees for failure to meet the TPD requirement, we will monitor businesses' behaviours first after the implementation of this requirement and evaluate the effectiveness of these penalties. If need be, we will strengthen them. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had earlier asked how many employers make voluntary contributions to their employees' MediSave account. In 2016, more than 640 companies made voluntary MediSave contributions, an 11% increase from the 580 companies that did so in 2015. In addition, 28,000 employees benefited from those contributions in 2016, a 6% increase from the 26,500 employees who did so in 2015. Er Dr Lee has also mentioned the need for the Government to engage and encourage employers to voluntarily contribute to employees' MediSave accounts. We would like to assure Er Dr Lee that the tripartite partners have been encouraging more employers to offer voluntary portable medical benefits through making additional contributions to employees' MediSave accounts. This was included in the Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees released in May 2016.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. We note the various queries raised by Mr Louis Ng in respect of the TPD requirement. Singapore subscribes to the international principle that profits should be taxed where the economic activities giving rise to the profits are done. In line with this, we have adopted the international principle of arm's length pricing in our law. The arm's length principle is not new to Singapore. Under the Income Tax Act, businesses are required to transact with related parties at arm's length. The new requirement for businesses to maintain TPD further strengthens the implementation of the arm's length principle by businesses in their tax affairs. The documentation will help them, especially when they venture overseas. IRAS already has guidance on how it determines whether transactions are at arm's length. We will continue to revise the guidance periodically in consultation with the industry. Under the guidance, there are various measures that IRAS has in place to minimise compliance burden for businesses to prepare TPD, such as safe harbour margins. We also note Mr Louis Ng's suggestion for introducing a new safe harbour margin for guarantees. IRAS will take this into account in its periodic review for the transfer pricing guidelines. The arm's length principle ensures that our tax space is duly protected. As a responsible international tax jurisdiction, we firmly subscribe to the arm's length principle for cross-border transactions. Therefore, in introducing this new requirement for TPD, the penalties for failure to comply with such requirements are in line with our clear and strong support of the arm's length principle.”
“This is also an attractive staff benefit that serves as a source of motivation for employees. However, while all this sounds good on paper, I wonder how many employers would make such voluntary contributions. Aside from tax deductions, can we explore other ways to encourage employers to do so? Outreach and awareness could be one way to do so. As it is, Government schemes like MediShield are complex and not fully understood by all. Some employers may not even be aware that there is such an option, or they may be dismissive of it as an additional expense. I hope more can be done to engage employers on this aspect. Perhaps highlight and showcase those employers who support this scheme, just like what has been done for those employers who support National Service. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] It is a good idea to allow employers to top up their employee's MediSave account voluntarily. However, I wonder how many employers would make such voluntary contributions. Aside from tax deductions, can we explore other ways to encourage employers to do so? Perhaps some employers may not even know there is such an option. How can the authorities step up the publicity?”
“The remaining legislative changes are mostly technical in nature or relate to improvements in tax administration. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.48 pm Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, life expectancy in Singapore is relatively high, thanks to good medical standards and access to affordable healthcare for the masses. As our Prime Minister mentioned in his National Day Rally speech, Singaporeans live up to the age of 82 on average. However, some of us may also experience an average of eight years of ill-health in old age. There are a number of reasons that would lead to ill-health. While having poor lifestyle choices is a major reason for poor health in old age, some factors are inevitable, such as hereditary conditions or even accidents. As some of these problems can be unexpected, it is important to have sufficient savings in old age in case there is a need for medical services and treatment. This is where MediSave comes in. This national medical savings scheme has helped to address the basic medical expenses for hospitalisation, surgeries and outpatient expenses for many Singaporeans and their loved ones. I am, therefore, pleased to note that with effect from 1 January 2018, the maximum amount that an employer can contribute to his employee’s MediSave account that is not treated as income of the employee under the Additional MediSave Contribution Scheme will be raised from $1,500 to $2,730 per year, and the tax deduction allowable will also be raised accordingly. Hopefully, this will encourage more employers to increase contributions to their employees’ MediSave accounts. This will certainly go a long way to safeguarding the employees’ futures.”
“Internationally, TPD serves as useful evidence to other tax authorities, which our businesses can use to show that they have complied with the arm’s length principle for cross-border related party transactions. TPD will help our businesses minimise and manage cross-border tax disputes as they go global. To limit the compliance burden for smaller businesses, this requirement will apply to businesses only if they have gross revenue exceeding $10 million and significant related party transactions. We expect this requirement to apply to fewer than 5% of companies, many of which have already been maintaining TPD. Clause 21 of the Bill provides for the change. Second, with effect from 1 January 2018, the Government will raise the maximum amount that an employer can voluntarily contribute to his employee’s MediSave account under the Additional MediSave Contribution Scheme from $1,500 to $2,730 per year. Accordingly, we will increase the maximum amount of tax-exempt voluntary contributions made by employers to employees’ MediSave accounts, and the tax deduction allowable to the employer for these voluntary contributions. Similarly, for eligible companies that make voluntary contributions to the MediSave accounts of the self-employed persons they work with, we will increase the maximum tax deduction allowable to $2,730. Self-employed persons will receive tax exemption on such contributions up to the same limit. These changes for voluntary contributions to the MediSave accounts of employees and self-employed persons are in line with the Government’s efforts to promote portable medical benefits. All other conditions for granting tax benefits in respect of such voluntary contributions remain unchanged. Clauses 4, 6 and 10 of the Bill provide for the changes.”
“Third, to provide relief to individuals who pay income tax, a Personal Income Tax rebate of 20% of tax payable will be granted to all individual tax residents for YA2017, capped at $500 per taxpayer. Clause 46 of the Bill provides for the change. Sir, as mentioned, MOF also regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. I shall now outline two key changes arising from MOF’s periodic review of the tax regime. First, we will require businesses to maintain Transfer Pricing Documentation (TPD). Transfer Pricing refers to the pricing of transactions among related parties, which, in turn, determines the allocation of profits among these parties. TPD are records kept by businesses to show that they have priced their transactions with related parties at the equivalent of what they would have transacted with unrelated parties in similar circumstances. This arm’s length principle is an internationally accepted tax standard. Since 2006, under the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's (IRAS’) guidelines, IRAS has been encouraging businesses to maintain TPD. Many businesses currently do so. With effect from YA2019, businesses will be required to maintain TPD. Jurisdictions, such as Canada, China, Germany, Korea and the United States (US) also have such requirements. Requiring businesses to maintain TPD demonstrates our commitment to uphold international standards and ensures that the profits taxed in Singapore are commensurate with the functions, assets and risks undertaken by businesses in Singapore. When transactions between related parties are appropriately priced, profits are correctly attributed to the jurisdictions involved in the transactions. Domestically, TPD ensures that we are collecting the due taxes which are attributable to Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2017 covers eight income tax changes announced in the 2017 Budget Statement as well as 28 tax changes arising from the periodic review of our income tax regime. Of the 28 non-Budget proposed tax changes, 16 changes are proposed refinements to the income tax regime while the remaining 12 changes are technical amendments to remove obsolete provisions or to provide clarification on the law. We sought views from the public on the draft Bill from 19 June to 10 July 2017. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has evaluated the feedback received and, where relevant, taken the suggestions in. Sir, the Minister for Finance had, in his Budget 2017 Statement, introduced several tax measures to help companies and individuals cope during a period of economic uncertainty. The tax measures have already been debated in this House, but I will highlight the key ones. First, the existing Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rebate for Year of Assessment (YA) 2017 is enhanced by raising the cap from $20,000 to $25,000, while keeping the rebate percentage unchanged at 50%. The CIT rebate will also be extended to YA2018, at 20% of tax payable, capped at $10,000. This will help companies navigate through the economic uncertainty and continue with restructuring. Clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill provide for the change. Second, to ease compliance, taxpayers will be able to claim a tax deduction for the full amount of payments made under Cost Sharing Agreements for qualifying research and development (R&D) projects without the need to provide a cost breakdown from YA2018. Clauses 11 and 14 of the Bill provide for the changes.”
“This will make it operationally easier for IRAS officers who might have to carry out a joint investigation involving different tax types. Further, while data may be perceived to be more widely available for property tax assessments as opposed to other tax types, such as income tax or GST, criminal investigations require investigators to gather adequate evidence, including direct and circumstantial evidence. Investigation powers are, therefore, required under the Property Tax Act to equip IRAS investigators to do their job properly. The enhancement and penalties are in line with the penalties for other tax types and will send a clear signal to the taxpayer community on IRAS' stand against hindering and obstructing. Mr Louis Ng asked about the proposed amendment on exemption of machinery from property tax. This was not included in the Bill as we are still studying the feedback and we will, in due course, make a decision on the feedback received. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(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.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“E-filing of corporate tax returns will be made compulsory, again in a phased approach, from the year of assessment 2018 to 2020. All companies, including SMEs and microenterprises, also e-file their annual returns to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. If businesses have been using agents to handle their accounting and tax matters for them, the agent will be able to handle the digital tax notices as well. Er Dr Lee asked where the onus lies if a notice for payment from IRAS lands in the taxpayer's email spam folder. She also asked how taxpayers can be assured that the notifications and digital tax notices are, indeed, from IRAS. As explained earlier, the digital tax notices and the notice for payment will not be sent to the taxpayer's personal email account. Instead, this document will be accessible through IRAS' My Tax Portal. Thus, taxpayers can be assured that the notices are, indeed, from IRAS. We appreciate Members' feedback for the opt-out approach for digital tax notices, and IRAS will continue to provide support for taxpayers who are less digitally ready. With more specialised buildings being developed in Singapore, properties' specific data which is required to effectively assess the property tax may not be widely available. With increased incidents with uncooperative taxpayers, IRAS requires more powers to properly assess property tax due. The amendments will allow IRAS officers to more effectively deal with uncooperative taxpayers and further strengthen the culture of compliance. The amendment will enhance the information gathering powers under the Property Tax Act, align the information gathering powers under the Property Tax Act with existing information gathering powers under the Income Tax Act, GST Act and Stamp Duty Act.”
“In other words, they currently do not transact with IRAS digitally. Individuals who own residential properties and who have not provided their mobile numbers to IRAS will continue to receive hardcopy tax notices. They will thus not be receiving the hardcopy opt out letters in October 2017. Instead, as per previous years, they will receive the hardcopy tax notices from November 2017 for the property tax payable in 2018. In addition, IRAS will exclude one- and two-room Housing and Development Board flats and individual residential property owners who are aged 70 and above this year. This is because they either do not have to pay property tax or are less likely to have their mobile numbers registered with IRAS. IRAS will continue to increase the mobile number database by complementing IRAS current database with the mobile numbers of SingPass two-factor authentication-ready taxpayers to extend the benefits of digital tax notices to other taxpayers in subsequent years. So, in other words, phased approach, we take into account those who are elderly and, as the years move on, we will try to add more and more on to the digital database. In the next phase, IRAS will roll out the digital property tax notices for businesses, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and microenterprises. These businesses can also opt out of digital tax notices. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had expressed concern about the ability of SMEs and microenterprises to cope with digital tax notices. Digitalisation is not new to businesses. For example, GST-registered businesses are already required to e-file the GST returns which are usually filed every quarter through IRAS' My Tax Portal.”
“So, what this means is that we will start with people who are already transacting with IRAS on the digital platform. Such residential properties make up over 55% of residential properties. In October 2017, these taxpayers will receive hardcopy letters notifying them of IRAS' plans to issue digital tax notices for property tax payable from 2018. They would also be aware of this initiative through IRAS' educational efforts to publicise this opt-out approach for digital tax notices. These individual owners of residential properties would be requested to indicate if they wish to opt out of digital tax notices and thus continue receiving hardcopy tax notices. If they do not opt out from receiving digital tax notices, then IRAS will notify them via short message service (SMS) from November 2017 when the digital tax notices of Property Tax are ready for viewing on the IRAS My Tax Portal. The SMS will also indicate the amount of property tax due in 2018 and the payment due date. These individuals can log in to their accounts on the IRAS My Tax Portal to view their digital tax notices. For individuals who have opted out of digital tax notices in October 2017, they will continue to receive hardcopy tax notices from November 2017 for their 2018 property tax. As with previous years, IRAS will be sending SMS reminders around mid-January 2018 to taxpayers if payment has not been received. These SMS reminders apply as well to individual owners of residential properties on digital tax notices. If an individual owner of a residential property on digital tax notice has still not paid by the payment due date, IRAS will issue a hardcopy tax notice then and give the taxpayer sufficient time for payment. I move on now to those who have not provided their mobile numbers to IRAS.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their speeches and for their support for the Bill. It is clear that all four Members support digitalisation but, at the same time, are concerned that people should not be left behind, especially those who are not very IT-savvy or able to deal with digitalisation, and this does the Members credit. Mr Henry Kwek had asked whether there will be a staged rollout for the opt-out approach for digital tax notices. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had also asked whether the elderly group will be targeted by the opt-out approach for digital tax notices, and Ms Thanaletchmi has suggested that options for hardcopy tax notices be available, especially for the less IT-savvy residents. All these are valid concerns and they are concerns which IRAS and MOF looked at as well. In this journey to Smart Nation, we will move forward in ways that make transacting with the Government more convenient for our citizens. But we will also help those who are less digitally ready. As Mr Henry Kwek suggested, what IRAS would do is that it intends to adopt a phased approach to its implementation and start with Property Tax notices for individuals first, then followed by Property Tax notices for businesses. The reason for this is because individuals are familiar with transacting digitally with IRAS. Currently, 97% of individuals who file their income tax returns do so electronically through the IRAS My Tax Portal. So, let me now deal, first, with the individuals and the residential property owners. Specifically, IRAS will start with individuals who own residential properties and who have provided their mobile numbers to IRAS, such as through IRAS' My Tax Portal typically.”
“Taxpayers will thus have the flexibility to manage their preference for hardcopy or electronic (e)-copy at any time. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The amendment will allow the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and their authorised officers to require persons to attend personally before them, to provide information at a time and place specified by them. The change will allow the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and their authorised officers to require any person to be examined orally and provide information for investigation, if the person appears to know of the facts or circumstances concerning the person’s or another person’s properties. The change will also allow the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Chief Assessor and their authorised officers to reduce to writing any statements provided by persons who are required to provide information. Moreover, the change will enhance the penalties for failure to comply with a request for information. Lastly, we will amend the Act to provide a regulatory framework to implement an opt-out approach for digital property tax notices. The current provisions of the Act require taxpayers to provide specific consent before the Comptroller can issue them with digital tax notices instead of hardcopy notices. The widespread use of computers and mobile devices allows taxpayers to receive digital instead of hardcopy tax notices. The use of digital notices gives taxpayers greater convenience, security and timeliness of alerts. This is part of our move to being a Smart Nation. To enable more taxpayers to benefit from digital channels, the Act will be amended so that digital notices can be sent to taxpayers who have either consented to receiving digital notices, or who have not opted out after having been given notice that they will be issued with digital notices. Taxpayers who wish to continue receiving hardcopy notices can opt out.”