Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 25.
“Many women outlive their husbands – life expectancies being what they are – and many have insufficient funds in their CPF, or an insufficient inheritance from their late husbands or support from their children. Older women have 12% to 25% less in their CPF compared to older men, depending on the age bracket. The Government currently encourages husbands to voluntarily transfer funds to their wife’s CPF. Fifteen thousand persons topped up their spouses’ CPF in 2020, up from 11,000 in 2018. But this is still a drop in the ocean and does not fully address the problem, if you consider the numbers of women who find themselves in this position. Can quantifying the economic contribution that a homemaker makes help us design policy solutions? An ILO study from 2018 of 60 countries found that men spend 83 minutes a day on unpaid household work whereas women spend three times that, at 265 minutes. Academic studies have been conducted to attempt to quantify the commercial value of the work a homemaker does in other countries, yielding various dollar figures. It is not fair that women who sacrifice to build a home and support their children should have to struggle later in life because of an inequitable sharing of family earnings. As a start, I would suggest that research be undertaken on the commercial value of a homemaker’s contribution and that this be used as a reference point in determining if there is a need to raise the Government quantum or ceiling for dollar-for-dollar matching of husband’s CPF transfers to their wives or the tax reliefs to the husbands for the same; or other policy interventions. Next, many women who become homemakers would like to have the choice of going into part-time, flexible work or job sharing.”
“Because every woman freely realising her full potential will mean that every woman can give of her best in the workplace and in the home, assured of an environment where she is given opportunities and support that are not less than any man. It means that every woman can strive for new heights in her professional field and contribute fully to leadership. This would mean a better, stronger society, which benefits men too. The obstacles outlined above underscore the need for us to review the challenges facing the diversity of roles women take on in society. For this speech, Madam, I will take reference from the three most important women in my life: my wife, my mother and my daughter. It is with that reference that I shall touch on three segments of women today: the homemaker, the career women and the young woman who is our hope for tomorrow. Firstly, Madam, the homemaker. In today’s world and with Singapore’s high cost of living, the decision to be a homemaker is not made lightly by either wife or husband. My wife was an executive in the fields of public service, communications and academic administration before becoming a full-time homemaker, transitioning via a period of flexible working. Her day is packed as she makes many decisions, while providing a great deal of parenting attention to our teenage children. In my wife’s case, she sacrificed a dynamic professional career in the media industry for the sake of focusing on our two young children. Many women make this choice knowing that they would have enjoyed more lucrative outcomes if they had stayed on in their careers. Some women who make this choice find themselves struggling economically in later life, as Ms He Ting Ru referred to.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is my honour to rise in support of this Motion. Madam, this Motion calls for a whole-of-society effort to further gender equality. The choice of words in today's Motion, led by my Parliamentary colleague Ms He Ting Ru, is significant and deliberate. The Motion refers to each woman freely realising her full potential and participation in society. The word "freely" refers to how different women may choose different pathways at different stages in their lives, without facing significant disadvantages for the decisions they make. Why does our Motion speak of the need to strive for gender equality? Because obstacles bar the way to that today. These obstacles lie in our ecosystem of laws and regulations, which present challenges in terms of discrimination in the workplace and insurance premiums, for example. My Parliamentary colleagues and I from the Workers' Party will cite more examples and offer proposals to address these. These obstacles also lie in cultural norms, the unspoken assumption that a woman should bear more of the burden of housework even if she has a career like her husband; or the assumption that the mother has to be the one responsible for the child’s academic progress in school and liaising with teachers more than the father. The obstacles to gender equality also lie in our minds; in the mind of the woman who hesitates to speak up at company meetings such that her male colleagues hog the air-time; or in the mind of the man who believes he can sexually harass a female co-worker with impunity. In debating this important Motion, let us address ourselves to these three types of impediments to full gender equality: the structural, the cultural and the psychological. All of society will gain if we succeed in that.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the answer. Just one supplementary question. I think in previous discussions of this issue of school start times, one consideration that was brought to bear was the possibility of traffic congestion. So, if children are going to school either by school bus, public bus or car at 8.30 am or thereabouts, that might create a lot of congestion because office workers are going to work as well. But will the Government also consider that with the trend towards working from home, flexible work and so on, which may persist beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, that is an issue that may be much less of a concern and that could be a factor for encouraging an across-the-board later start time?”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation. Just one supplementary question. Given that we have a strong petrochemical cluster and given that some study has already been done on sustainable aviation fuels, is the Government also looking at the possibility of Singapore becoming production or export hub for sustainable aviation fuels, particularly as demand for such fuels may increase over time as prices tend to drop due to commercial scale being achieved in the future?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one point of clarification. When MOM classifies educational institutions by risks, what is the basis for that classification? Is it that certain educational institutions are deemed to be sort of less reputable or less well-accredited and, therefore, they are deemed to be higher-risk and, therefore, third-party verification will be required by the employer? If so, then what is the assurance that lower-risk institutions may not also be subject to fake educational credentials? For example, someone may fake a degree from a well-known or reputable university. So, what is the assurance in those cases? My supplementary question is, really, what is the basis for this risk tiering?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one clarification about what he said. I just wanted to understand if, in fact, SEPs who are unable to make the MediSave shortfall, whether there will be consideration given on a case-by-case basis to defer the time at which they can pay the MediSave or start an instalment plan, but they may still be able to get the Workfare payment before that happens. I believe the Senior Minister of State did refer to that, but I just wanted to clarify. The reason I ask this is because I think many SEPs are at the lower end of the income scale and very badly hit by COVID-19. A report by DBS Bank, from December last year, said that those of their customers who are earning less than $3,000 a month, had about one-month of emergency funds left. This was in December last year, the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just wondering what is the extent of flexibility the Government will show to SEPs in that position?”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and also the assurance that the SEPs who could not meet MediSave requirements constitute 1% of those who are rejected. Just one clarification. The Minister mentioned that the Government will consider cases where SEPs still have MediSave arrears, if they will commit to an instalment plan or a GIRO plan, going forward. Bearing in mind that some of the SEPs at the lower end of income may still be very affected by the COVID-19 situation, would such consideration include allowing a time interval before the GIRO plan kicks in? Because some of the SEPs work in certain industries, like MICE and tourism-related, for example, may still face very low income for quite some time, and they may be able to commit to instalment payments of MediSave, but perhaps not so quickly or immediately.”
“SMEs which feel that this may have been done to them would mostly not be inclined to complain or take legal action, due to the costs involved as well as the fear of antagonising the Government. I would like to ask if all Government agencies are given strict guidelines to not treat ideas contained in proposals in this manner? In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity for us to leverage the burst of start-up formations that we have seen by creating an eco-system that enables these start-ups to thrive and scale-up as far as their ambitions can take them, driving job creation and creating a third engine of value creation that may be more rooted in Singapore than perhaps all MNCs are. Other successful economies around the world have thriving SME sectors, showing that these can co-exist with open economies and large global MNC sectors. Our very own equivalent of the German “Mittelstand”, or middle-sized companies sector, can form one of our pathways to the post-COVID-19 future.”
“For example, according to the UOB SME Outlook 2021 survey, smaller SMEs with a turnover of less than S$10 million stressed a greater need for financial support to ease short-term cash flow issues and that they desired easier access to funding and grants. Larger SMEs with a turnover of between S$10 million and S$100 million wanted easier access to funding and grants; and collateral-free loans for business transformation. While existing financing schemes have certainly helped some of our SMEs, it would be worth considering if the creation of an EXIM bank for SMEs could help us to reach greater outcomes in SME growth and development. Having an institution that has the sole mandate to lend to and boost our SMEs, rather than relying on schemes driven by commercial banks who will, understandably, pursue primarily commercial priorities, can help us better address SMEs' financing needs. Hence, I believe the establishment of an EXIM bank for SMEs is an idea worth revisiting. Next, protecting the intellectual property of SMEs is critical to fostering innovation in the SME sector. However, anecdotally, there is still a perception in some quarters of the business community that for very IP-dependent kinds of work, such as creative and consulting work, for example, large Government agencies may take ideas contained in the proposals submitted to them by companies and either adopt those ideas internally or pass those ideas on to cheaper vendors to execute, without the permission or knowledge of the company submitting the proposal that contained those ideas. It is sad to think that some companies have this perception of their own Government agencies but I have come across this perception in conversations with SME owners.”
“While such facilities are available commercially in most global cities, having Singapore SMEs use the same facility and having that co-located with the office of Enterprise Singapore and other Singapore Government agencies in-country would facilitate networking with Government and collaborations among Singapore firms in that overseas market. Subsidised rental rates could also be provided to ease market entry. Access to such facilities should, of course, be limited to SMEs and not extended to large firms. Next, Madam, I would like to talk about financing the growth of SMEs. Back in 2010, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) mooted the option of establishing an EXIM bank but the Government concluded that gaps in trade financing could be addressed by expanding the suite of trade and internationalisation finance schemes under what was then International Enterprise (IE) Singapore, without the setting up of an EXIM bank. Since then, Enterprise Singapore has launched various internationalisation finance schemes where the Government co-shares risks with participating financial institutions to support our SMEs. However, I am not sure if all our SMEs feel that it is easy to secure financing, especially for overseas expansion. It should be noted that even with the Government sharing a high proportion of the risk, commercial banks may prefer other options to deploy their capital than lending to SMEs, as that still may be seen to carry some risks. Surveys still show that many SMEs believe that there are gaps in our financing ecosystem.”
“The other group of people who would lose out from this would be the long-time employees of such firms which close down. Would the Government look into providing low-cost services to SMEs that cannot engage M&A advisory firms to help match them to potential acquirers? A basic form of matchmaking could be set up via an online portal which allows potential buyers and sellers of small firms to express their interest, for example. I would also note in passing that, in some countries with a vibrant SME landscape, institutions other than the state play the role of providing general strategic advice to SME owners on matters that include business succession planning. Such institutions include regional banks in Germany, Switzerland and Japan and the giant chaebols in Korea, some of whom take an interest in the SME suppliers within their ecosystem. But in Singapore, such traditions are, by and large, absent which explains the context for the suggestions I am making. Next, another point relates to SMEs starting up overseas. Can Enterprise SG provide small hot-desking facilities and business centres in its key overseas centres to support SMEs going abroad for the first time? Some foreign countries’ embassies and High Commissions provide such facilities for SMEs from their home countries in key global cities. Such facilities would enable SMEs to rent a desk or a small office for a limited time, as they explore an overseas market or start their presence.”
“If we have a good pool of such shared service players, SMEs can outsource much of this back-office work to these companies at reasonable costs, thus enabling entrepreneurs to focus more on their core business and core competences. Our economic agencies should treat the development of the low-cost shared service industry as an industry development priority. Technology can be leveraged to provide low-cost services. Next, Madam, I will speak on what more can be done for business succession planning, including exits via entrepreneurs selling their business. I asked a Parliamentary Question about what the Government was doing on this front in 2017. Madam, many small and micro-business owners may toil away for years to build a business with a significant product, customer base, employee base and brand. Yet, many struggle with business succession planning. Nowadays, it is common to hear that the children of family business owners do not want to take over the business. And it is hard for family business owners to be able to find acquirers. Many such business owners may not have the skills to identify acquirers and pitch their business to those acquirers. At the same time, many would be unable to avail themselves of the services of M&A advisory firms or investment banks, as these usually handle deals above a certain size threshold and the SME’s valuation may fall below that threshold. All of this means that many SME owners may be unable to ensure the continuity of their business nor be able to monetise the value that they have created. Instead, they may end up simply winding up the business – and we have seen quite a few examples of this happening during this long COVID-19 pandemic.”
“Also, as times have changed, more young people are realising that SMEs and start-ups can offer exciting employment opportunities and this is something that can be built on. There have been hit drama series produced in Korea, America and elsewhere about the fast-paced world of start-ups. There may be fresh opportunities these days to market SME scholarships to youth, if we are bold and ingenious in designing this kind of marketing. Next, on the talent deficit that many SMEs face. Again, I would like to talk about the role of shared service providers. Many SMEs struggle to hire people to fill vacancies, especially in fields like finance, human resources, administration and accounting, as the pool of locals qualified for such work is limited and there is competition from MNCs, GLCs and big professional service firms for such talent. SMEs can outsource this work, but outsourced service providers often charge high fees. Some SMEs form relationships with individual freelancers to do such work on a part-time or flexible basis, but not all SMEs have access to such freelancers. I would like to suggest that the Government look into nurturing players that provide shared services, such as finance, human resources, accounting and administration, at low cost to SMEs. Such a shared service industry would potentially be a strategic industry for our SME development and having such firms providing such services at low prices on an ongoing basis would perhaps be more helpful to SMEs than many of our existing schemes which prioritise the partial funding of one-off consulting work.”
“According to the UOB SME Outlook 2021 survey, small SMEs wanted more assistance to apply for existing grants in schemes and placed this wish as one of their top three wishes for Budget 2021. Next, Madam, I would like to speak on the need to nurture entrepreneurship and small businesses for the long run and this starts with the very lifeblood of SMEs – people. Partly because of stubborn mindsets and partly because of competition from MNCs and the public sector, SMEs are often not sufficiently attracting, retaining, developing and investing in their talent. This is a vicious cycle that reduces their ability to offer quality goods and services as well as survive into the future. SMEs without talent do not do well and not doing well means they are discouraged from investing in their talent. There are Government scholarships that allow scholars to take on roles in SMEs rather than in GLCs or other major companies. For example, some IMDA scholarships allow for this. Is this something the Government is putting effort into developing and expanding? Co-marketing these scholarships with boutique SMEs that are leaders in their own right could be a way to push students to explore the breadth and depth of our SME ecosystem. It could well be that SME scholarships are not as attractive to many young Singaporeans as other types of scholarships, such as PSC or GLC scholarships. To widen the potential talent pool for such SME scholarships, can we give the option to PSC scholars to transfer the latter part of their bond to an SME? This may attract some PSC Scholars who realise they would rather develop their career in the private sector.”
“Workers' Party Members of Parliament have filed many Parliamentary Questions over the years, keeping track of the outcomes of these schemes. Madam, when our economic agencies disclose data on schemes, these are usually effort indicators, such as how many companies were helped, the median quantum of support and so on. But what would be more meaningful is to analyse the outcomes of these schemes, what marginal impact the schemes made to business success. I know that this is not easy to measure; there is a problem of differentiating between correlation and causation, for example. But solutions to measurement problems can be found. Publishing such outcome measures should be done from time to time. The case in point is the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme which was discontinued earlier. Did it really help to increase productivity? Next, we should improve the user experience for our grant applications for SMEs. In a previous speech in this House, I called for a one-stop portal for all citizens and companies to transact with the Government on assistance schemes. One such portal for SMEs now exists, businessgrants.gov.sg. However, it appears that not all the SME schemes across the whole all Government can be accessed on this portal. I recall a number of letters, also to The Straits Times Forum page, explaining issues which users faced on this portal. One such letter, dated 30 June this year, referred to an endless cycle of questions and answers because replies by email or phone call were not entertained. Before leaving the subject, I should note that many SMEs still feel that the process for applying for grants and support is too administratively time-consuming and difficult.”
“However, he was told that because it was not his primary business activity, no JSS would be paid. I would argue that some degree of JSS support should be paid, pro-rated perhaps, in cases where the company has a line of business that warrants JSS but it is not the primary line of business, provided the company can prove that they are still doing some amount of that secondary business. We should also bear in mind that the revenue split between primary and secondary business can be fairly dynamic. I hope we can take a balanced approach in administering this and other schemes. Next, we should also review the rental support given to SME tenants who rent a mixed-use property, that is, a shophouse for both retail and residential use. Due to COVID-19, there are SME tenants who have to resort to renting a mixed-use property to keep their business afloat. However, doing so would seem to prevent them from obtaining the cash disbursements automatically. Some SME owners who are renting mixed-use properties find the process complicated to manage, sometimes due to language differences or unfamiliarity with Government applications. They have also raised their concerns about how costly it would be for them to get hired help just to assist them to submit their claims with supporting documents. I hope we could look into providing an automatic service for the SME tenants renting mixed-use properties, especially during this crisis, to reduce their financial burden. Next, I would like to speak on the need to keep track of our SME schemes and this really speaks to more of our medium- and longer-term considerations about our SME ecosystem. Madam, a significant amount of public money goes into SME schemes.”
“Most SMEs do not have the manpower and capacity to digest and enforce complicated regulations. Many SMEs operate on thin margins and a cash loss can have an outsized effect on their sustainability. There have clearly been gaps here. For example, when the Jurong Fishery Port cluster erupted, many fishmongers were tested and not told that they are to cease operations. So, they went ahead and bought their seafood at the wholesale market and, a few hours later, they were told to stop selling, meaning that the seafood they had bought could not be sold. Another example is from the initially complex rules issued for dining-in earlier in July. How eateries were going to enforce those rules was something they grappled with. Some food service chains simply said it would limit dining-in to two persons to avoid the risks and costs of enforcement. Let us strive towards fewer of such examples going forward. Before I begin, I declare my interest as the CEO of a company, a research consultancy. Firstly, a few narrowly scoped points on the COVID-19 support packages. Madam, one group of businesses that seems left out are wholesalers, distributors and importers who support restaurants and F&B outlets. It does not appear that such distributors qualify for JSS and I hope we can support them in some way. Some such firms I am aware of have already dutifully paid their suppliers for goods they have ordered in the expectation that dining-in would be allowed and are now paying an even higher cost to keep kegs and food produce in cold storage. Next, one of my constituents also shared that his business did not qualify for JSS. The line of business, listed as a secondary business activity, would by right, entitle him to JSS.”
“It is often noted that this long COVID-19 pandemic has had a very uneven impact on individuals and on countries. Individuals who are better able to work from home have fared better, for example, as have countries with better access to vaccines. What is less often noted is that COVID-19 has also worsened the inequality among companies. Those who are better able to adapt to the digital economy and to e-commerce have fared better. Those in certain industries like biomedical, infocomm technology, food production and fast-moving consumer goods have fared, on the whole, very well during the pandemic, some seeing record profits. Others in sectors dependent on tourism and travel, as well as retail and food services, have struggled with whole swathes of these industries being setback or wiped out. Yet, interestingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has also seen a burst of new start-up formations in many countries around the world, including Singapore: 63,418 new enterprises were set up in 2020 amidst the worst recession in our country's history versus 61,573 in 2019, the highest such figures since 2016. We should ensure that we create the right eco-system to enable these new start-ups and SMEs in general to flourish and both safeguard jobs in a competitive environment as well as contribute to job and GDP growth alongside MNCs and state-linked enterprises. In the rest of my speech, I shall outline some suggestions for nurturing our SMEs and, as I do so, I would also like to make a general observation first, as have many of my Parliamentary colleagues. It is crucial for our Government agencies to take the realities of running a business, especially an SME business, into account when formulating policies.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, we entered a new phase of fairly severe restrictions about a week ago. These and earlier events have taken their toll financially as well as mentally on our communities. At this point, I would like to express my deepest sympathies for the family and all those affected by the tragic incident at River Valley High School. We cannot imagine the grief that they are facing and I would like for us to keep them in our thoughts. We need to take care of one another at this challenging time. Mdm Deputy Speaker, for the rest of my speech, I would like to address the Supplementary Budget and the current phase of this COVID-19 pandemic, mainly in the context of SMEs. By SMEs, here I mean micro-businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises. Many who run or work in SMEs have been severely hurt economically after the last few rounds of restrictions, especially after coming out of a very challenging 2020. Madam, our SMEs employ roughly two-thirds of our workforce. Many of those who run micro-businesses, in particular, work extremely hard. Running a company or business can be very challenging, especially in the initial stages when most start-ups fail, but also when world-shaking events like COVID-19 happen. Even in the best of times, entrepreneurs have to deal with curveballs on a regular, sometimes daily basis, as they grapple with issues related to winning and keeping difficult customers, retaining employees and ensuring cash flow. As the founder of a company, I know this first hand. The dot-com bubble burst around the time my company was founded, affecting many of our clients. And about a year later, 9/11 happened, again, dealing a big blow to the economy.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one clarification for the Minister for Health. There will be some individuals who have both doses and who still have very low resistance to the virus due to them being immuno-compromised for genetic reasons or to reasons due to having certain risk factors. Is the Government actively looking at – and this can relate to the Parliamentary Question that I have filed – is the Government actively looking at giving a third jab to such individuals if the science actually supports that that will help them to raise their resistance to the vaccine? And I understand that the US Centres for Disease Control is actively looking at this question right now.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her reply. Just one supplementary question, specifically on ransomware. That is an increasing threat around the world and while prevention is better than a cure, many companies do end up paying these ransoms in cryptocurrency. In the Colonial Pipeline case, I think the US government actually worked with the company that was victimised to help them to recover the cryptocurrency that was paid, using law enforcement methods. I am just wondering whether this is something that the Government can assist companies with, companies who have had to pay ransomware. I am sure that such support in the systems is something that many companies would also be prepared to pay for, to bear a share of that cost in order to recover the cryptocurrency that is paid.”
“Based from feedback from the funeral service industry, funeral directors often come to possess the NRIC of the deceased person. Some funeral service providers may accumulate many such NRICs over time. This creates the potential for criminal use to be made of these cards if they fall into the wrong hands. In view of this, will the Government consider requiring all funeral service providers and any unrelated persons in possession of physical NRICs of deceased persons to destroy those cards? 6.57 pm”
“There is a 24-hour time restriction for medical practitioners to report a death but when making funeral arrangements, a matter of hours can cause inconvenience and emotional distress. I would like to ask the Ministry how this issue would be managed. On a separate but not unrelated note, I would like to ask if funeral service providers were consulted in the course of formulating this Bill. Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify how relatives, who are not digitally-savvy, would be able to receive the death certificate once it has issued. Relatives need this death certificate in order to commence funeral preparations and in their state of grief, they may be anxious to obtain it as soon as possible. I understand that the new system allows for the process to be performed online and a digital notification will be sent to the relative to download the digital death certificate from the Government's online portal when it is ready. However, there may be cases – admittedly, perhaps, not too many – when none of the relatives of the deceased who are planning the funeral are IT literate. Would provisions be made in such cases to enable the relatives to collect a physical copy of the death certificate at a location that is nearby? Alternatively, will the relatives be able to enlist the help of a funeral director, for example, to access the digital death certificate on their behalf if they give their consent? In conclusion, under this Bill, I also note that there is no longer a need to surrender the deceased person's identification card for invalidation. However, the Bill highlights that the family should destroy the identification card to prevent abuse.”
“Next, ICA states in their website that it currently includes the option for parents to include ethnic characters of the child's name in Chinese, Jawi or Tamil. Given the increasing ethnic diversity in our demographic make-up, will the ICA also be open to requests for other ethnic characters as well? Moreover, if the child is of mixed ethnicity, will they also be given the option to have their name spelled out in two sets of ethnic characters? Mdm Deputy Speaker, from the subject of births, I shall now move to the subject of deaths, as, in reality, we all eventually do in life. I understand that obtaining the death certificate is essential for identification and authentication purposes before some funeral services can be provided for the deceased. At present, the next-of-kin would have to express the preferred mode of disposal, cremation or burial when they register the death. The next-of-kin would then receive a permit to bury or cremate contained in the death certificate. Based on that, a funeral director would then be able to proceed to book slots for cremation or burial. A death certificate may also be required to engage your funeral director in order for services, such as the embalming of bodies and the use of funeral parlour compounds, to be performed. Would the Bill possibly inadvertently bring about delays in the funeral arrangements in some cases, especially if the death occurs at home and the medical practitioner would need to return to his or her office to register the death electronically – and he or she could possibly be delayed in performing that action by the need to attend to other medical cases, for example?”
“By this new option, if one parent is Chinese and the other is Indian, the child's race may be recorded as Chinese, or Indian, or Chinese-Indian, or Indian-Chinese, for example. In this respect, I wonder if the Registry of Births and Deaths is able to provide some indication of trends, in similar fashion to what is reported on marriages, on the proportion of births to parents of different ethnicities. Amongst them, what is the proportion of children who have been assigned double-barrelled race by their parents? I note that in the first two months of 2011, the parents of one in five newborn babies of mixed parentage chose the double-barrelled race option based on data that the Government released back then. I also wonder if the Ministry would consider streamlining the process by which parents of mixed ethnicity can apply to change the racial classification on their child's NRIC to a double-barrelled racial classification in cases where the child was registered at birth as bearing solely one ethnicity as they would have had to be prior to 2011. Anecdotally, it would appear that both parents need to visit ICA for a physical interview in order to effect this change. Could the parents be enabled to provide their consent digitally or via a virtual meeting, for example? Furthermore, the Chinese-Indian example given by ICA in their website falls within the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO) framework. Is it also possible to assign double-barrelled race classifications to a child in Singapore that is outside the CMIO framework, for example, Chinese-Burmese or Korean-Vietnamese? Like surnames, there appear to be no explicit rules in respect of designation of race of the child in the Bill.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, the new Registration of Births and Deaths Bill is an improved framework that overhauls and streamlines the registration of the two events that bookend every human life as it were: births and deaths. It provides clear rules on who holds the responsibility to report to the Government in the event of birth or death under a wide range of foreseeable scenarios. While I support the Bill, I have a few clarifications to seek. Firstly, in respect of birth registrations, I would like to confirm that double-barrelled surnames are allowed and provided for under the Bill and its processes. In the current Registration of Births and Deaths Act, section 10 provides guidance on how a child's surname is given although there is no explicit reference to double-barrelled surnames. Currently, parents are able to register their child with a double-barrelled surname if they choose to do so. However, under the Bill, there is no longer any reference to surname. Could the Minister give us some guidance to the kinds of surnames that would be permissible for the child? Secondly, I would like to speak on double-barrelled race designations. With inter-ethnic marriages going up from 18.4% of all marriages in 2009 to 22.9% in 2019, it is important for children of such unions to have the opportunity to grow up with an appreciation of their mixed parentage, if their parents choose to signify that by choosing double-barrelled race classifications for their children. As a parent of children of mixed ethnicity myself, I am particularly conscious of this. In 2011, ICA implemented the registration of double-barrelled race options for Singaporean children born to parents of different ethnic groups.”
“This letter writer in April said, and I quote, "much to my dismay, inbound passengers were allowed to roam freely upon landing. One was free to hang around in the terminal between departure gates for as long as one wanted, rather than being sent straight to swab testing. I observe similar unregulated processes at the baggage claim area long before passengers were funnelled to the stations", and so on and so forth. This was in April and so now, of course, we have had that physical segregation. So, I just wanted to ask whether that was the case, what was the thinking behind that and what were the lessons drawn from that? The second supplementary question is, what are the criteria that the Government uses to classify countries into different risk levels and does that take into account the extent of vaccination?”
“I thank the Minister for Transport for his detailed answer, in particular, the clarification that physical segregation was implemented after the detection of the Delta variant. I just have a few supplementary questions. The first is to ask if inter-mingling between passengers arriving from countries with different risk levels associated with them was allowed prior to mid-May 2021? And if so, what was the thinking behind that and what were the lessons drawn from that? Now, of course, there is physical segregation but to what extent was inter-mingling within the airport permitted then? The context for that is really anecdotal feedback that there was such inter-mingling being seen. Whether this is accurate or not, I am not sure, and that is why I am asking the supplementary question. And with your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote very briefly from a Straits Times Forum letter from someone in April that gained some wide circulation?”
“Another example of a supported decision-making model is the Swedish "legal mentor" who acts as the individual's agent, with the individual's consent. Sweden revoked its formal guardianship laws for adults with disabilities in 1989 and replaced it with this supported decision-making model. Supported decision-making recognises that even people who have difficulty making choices, formulating decisions and communicating their preferences can make positive choices. The CRPD Committee has repeatedly called for the replacement of substitutive decision-making systems with supported decision-making systems. For example, in its Concluding Observations on Croatia and also General Comment No 1. I wonder, in conclusion, if the Government would give some thought to developing instruments in the future that would enable us to make supported decision-making a legal option that donors can select alongside the options currently provided for. Moving in this direction may better promote and protect the rights of persons who require support in exercising their legal capacity in line with what they believe to be the mental capacity, the degree of mental capacity that they have.”
“Sir, the concept of supported decision-making is relatively new and it is predicated on the basic principle that most people are autonomous beings who develop and maintain capacity as they engage in the process of their own decision-making, even if at some levels support is needed. In the supported decision-making paradigm, the individual receives support from a trusted individual, a network of individuals or entities to make personal, financial and legal decisions that must be followed by a third party such as financial institutions, business, health professionals and service providers. Depending on the needs of the individual with a disability, depending on their particular condition, the supported person will aid the individual to understand the relevant issues and information and make decisions based on her own preferences. If necessary, the person providing support interprets and communicates the individual's preferences and desires to third parties, so that they can be realised. As described in a paper by researchers Devi, Bickenbach and Stucki, Canada is one of the leading countries in the legal implementation of supported decision-making models, for example, the Vulnerable Persons Living with a Disability Act 1993 from the province of Manitoba. Another example is contained in the province of British Columbia's Representation Agreement Act (RAA), under which an adult can enter into a "representation agreement" with a trusted person or support service who is empowered to either to assist that individual in making and communicating certain decisions with which he or she needs assistance, or to make decisions for him or her.”
“In the words of Assoc Prof Chin Jing Ji in an article in the journal of the College of Family Physicians, and I quote, “section 6 of the MCA defines best interests to include reasonably ascertainable past and present wishes and feelings, beliefs and values of the person, and other factors of significance. Furthermore, the MCA insists that before an act is done, or a decision is made, due consideration must be made to achieve the intended purpose in a way that is less restrictive on the person’s rights and freedom of action.” But, Sir, at best, the MCA is ambiguous as to whether it wants primarily to advocate autonomy or beneficence for the person lacking mental capacity. This ambiguity could allow for some interpretation in favour of supported decision-making at the practical level, but may also make decision-making challenging for the donee, potentially leading them to err on the side of caution, meaning to err on the side of paternalism. It is known within the medical community that the best interests of patients can sometimes come into conflict with substitute decision-making. Clinicians may be left in a difficult position when best interest standards are in conflict with each other. Some argue that the role that the managing physician plays in consensus-building is a potential solution. This problem is further complicated by the presence of paid professionals in the LPA system. Professional donees with little knowledge, no more than the doctor, about the donor’s preferences might be more likely to employ a standardised, paternalistic approach towards decision-making on behalf of the donor.”
“The definition for what constitutes such major decisions could be clearly spelt out in the legislation or subsidiary legislation. Such a requirement would provide the OPG with more information on how powers are being exercised under the Act, which would be useful for subsequent policy reviews. Such a requirement may also make the donees take the exercise of their responsibilities a little more seriously when it comes to making very major decisions on behalf of their donors. I would stress that I am not suggesting that donees be made to file detailed descriptions of every single decision they make on behalf of the donor, or annual reports and so on and so forth, as this is too onerous. Lastly, Sir, for the longer-term evolution of this body of law and regulation, would the Government consider giving some thought to complementing a substitutive decision-making model for LPAs with a supported decision-making model in the future? Currently, the Mental Capacity Act or MCA adopts what can be termed a substituted decision-making model, which differs from the supported decision-making model now encouraged by the committee for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or CRPD. Substituted decision-making enables a proxy to make decisions on behalf of another person who is incapable; therefore, the concerned individual has no right to make a decision for himself or herself unless the substitutive decision-making framework is reversed or mitigated through some form of legal action. One counter-argument to any move towards a supported decision-making model may be that the substitutive decision-making model may not be as paternalistic as it sounds right now.”
“Next, Sir, I would like to suggest that it be made mandatory for donees to notify the Public Guardian of their intention to exercise their authority to make very major decisions on behalf of donors that impact the donor’s living arrangements and have major impact on their finances before doing so, so as to better safeguard persons who lack mental capacity from abuse. Some jurisdictions require proactive regular reports from donees or guardians, particularly those with financial responsibilities. In Victoria state in Australia, for example, administrators must submit financial statements to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on an annual basis and otherwise as directed The New York Mental Hygiene Law requires guardians to report on their activities. The guardian must file an initial report no later than 90 days after being appointed by the Court. In the initial report, the guardian who has been granted powers with respect to property management must document a complete inventory of properties and financial resources of the "incapable" person. For personal needs, the guardian must provide a plan of care. The guardian must also file an annual report and provide accounting yearly as prescribed by the Court. Sir, we do not necessarily have to go as far as what is being done in these jurisdictions at this very early stage in the evolution of our LPA landscape, since we also have to avoid imposing overly onerous burdens that may deter persons from becoming donees. However, a basic requirement to notify the OPG when a donee exercises their powers under the Act as regards to major financial and property-related decisions and major living arrangement-related decisions may be worth considering.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Mental Capacity Act (Amendment) Bill makes changes to bring about the digitalisation of LPA filing, changes in the filing of deputyship reports and the modification of the donor protection framework to help curb abuse, among other things. My party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim has spoken in support of the Bill and has posed important clarifying questions and suggestions, as will my Parliamentary colleague Mr Louis Chua. I shall limit my speech to a few technical suggestions for future consideration. Firstly, Sir, under the Bill, making and submitting an LPA in hard copy may still be permitted but only under exceptional circumstances, such as in the case of physical disabilities or if the Office of the Public Guardian Online (OPGO) website is down, for example. Some donors may not necessarily have physical disabilities but may be uncomfortable with the prospect of transacting purely online over such an important legal act. This phenomenon may have been elevated by the publicity surrounding Internet frauds and personal data being compromised through various data breaches. MSF says it will reach out to users in need through the Citizen Connect Centres at community centres and the Integrated Public Service Centre at Tampines Hub. I would like to ask to what extent will the Government preserve this option, going forward, of human staff to support donors at Citizen Connect Centres who wish to register LPAs but who are uncomfortable with submitting the LPA purely online without any interaction with officials at a physical office.”
“LTA recently said that it was in the midst of an industry consultation regarding private sector participation in public charger deployment. But can it do more public consultations regarding other aspects of the EV roll-out? For instance, it can do more to engage those whose COEs are near expiry. It should also engage members of the public who are about to buy their next car or about to rent a car for private hire driving. Can the Government also commit to publishing more of its consultations unless there are specific business sensitivity reasons not to do so? I note that in the reply to one of my recent Parliamentary Questions, only 39% of 126 consultations published on REACH over the past five years had their findings or summary of responses published in full. In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, at Singapore's first climate rally in 2019, despite the haze and the Formula One race that was going on nearby, nearly 2,000 people turned up – many of whom were young adults, young parents and students – so as to make a statement that this green transition represents our future and that this green transition is people-powered and people-centric. EVs are an important part of what needs to be done, which makes this debate and this Bill important.”
“Next, while we push for our EV transition, it is important to note that better low carbon forms of transport, such as public transport and bike riding, are still far better alternatives in terms of emissions and waste, and it behooves us to not lose sight of this fact in any discussion about promoting EVs. Now is the right time to ask if our current public transport goals are ambitious enough. One of the key goals in the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 announced in 2019 was to increase the peak hour public transport mode share to 75%. We are on track to meet this target as we appear to have crossed 67% very recently. I would like to ask the Government to review this. Next, the Government has a commendable commitment to doubling cycling paths to 800 kilometres by 2023, with a target of 1,320 kilometres target for 2030. We should try to frontload our cycling targets in this way, in light of the recent reports of bicycling accidents. The cycling boom during COVID-19 has created an opportunity to foster a cycling culture for health, recreation and climate benefits. We should strike while the iron is hot. Such an expansion of cycling paths should, of course, take into account nature conservation and there should be safeguards to deter cyclists from going off path into nature areas like the Dairy Farm area, for example. My parliamentary colleague Mr Dennis Tan has been a passionate advocate for responsible cycling in this House over the years and is an avid cyclist himself. I urge Members to review the suggestions he has made and continues to make. My colleague Ms He Ting Ru will also speak on this theme in her speech on the Bill. Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must be humble and transparent in consultation.”
“EVs produce considerable e-waste with the higher battery and semiconductor content and the EPR or Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for e-waste will be in place from 1 July 2021. But EV batteries are considered "non-consumer goods" and all producers of batteries are only required to use a licensed waste disposer or e-waste recycling provider. There does not appear to be any clear mandate to recycle but only rules and responsible handling of end-of-life to prevent illegal dumping and so on. Such EV batteries are goods that can be leased out and returned to the original producer either through car dealerships or private hire fleet or taxi fleet owners. It might be cost-effective for these organisations to reuse and recover materials from batteries rather than dispose of them. We should encourage circularity in our battery production and use. My parliamentary colleague, Ms He Ting Ru, will draw attention to the importance of early forward planning and creating an eco-system for e-waste recycling for EV batteries. This can be married to the support of our locally rooted recycling and material recovery companies in Singapore since Singapore already has businesses that can do this. In fact, promoting e-waste recovery from batteries could be a competence we could nurture in Singapore so that Singapore-based companies can invest in the region to export this know-how. Hence, I would like to ask if there are targets to increase EV battery recycling and material recovery and is the Government looking to legislate the end-of-life management of EV batteries to mandate reuse and material recovery rather than disposal?”
“Given this, EV owners will be made to pay an additional $700 road tax from 2023 with a phase-in period from 2021. This lump sum tax negates some of the savings derived from the reduced ARF but there will probably still be net savings from these measures for EV owners. However, the presence and uncertainty of fuel excise duty rebates makes this cost-benefit calculation for switching to EVs more complicated and less predictable going forward. The Workers' Party has argued for a phasing in of the fuel duty hike – and I shall not repeat the arguments here – to ensure that our incentives are having the desired effect. Would the Government consider setting yearly targets for and publicly keep track of EV charging infrastructure – for instance, chargers per car and chargers per region and the corresponding number of EVs on the road? Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we need more clarity on what the Government's electrification plans are for the Government-owned fleet. In her reply to my Parliamentary Question in March, Minister Grace Foo said that, "All new purchases for Government-owned fleets will be cleaner and greener where feasible with effect from 2023." I would urge the Government to set clear targets for the electrification of Government-owned vehicles to be in line with the target set for the building of charging infrastructure. I would also call on the Government to develop a strategy to nudge motorcycle users towards electric motorcycles as these are also high-use vehicles in many cases as these are heavily used in delivery work. Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the e-waste that EVs will generate.”
“Private hire and taxi vehicles have much higher utilisation rates than the casual weekend driver, for example. To some extent, families with young children are another high usage segment that could use stronger incentives to switch. [Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair] The city of Shenzhen in China, for instance, was early to the game in providing direct and indirect subsidies to encourage taxi drivers to go electric. This encourages network effects, where the industry becomes more willing to install charging and maintenance facilities because the city now has a minimum market of 22,000 EVs via taxis. Such additional incentives are not without precedent because we already are giving some support to some groups in Singapore for vehicles on the basis that they need to use their vehicles for work, such as in the case of the Disabled Persons Scheme, for example, where exemptions are provided from paying COE and Additional Registration Fee (ARF), provided the vehicle meets certain conditions. Enhancing incentives for high-use drivers to switch to EVs would get us disproportionate traction in achieving our environmental outcomes while buying more time for the development of new public transport infrastructure to attract transitioning drivers of low-utilisation vehicles to switch to EVs. Next, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we should welcome the reduction in the ARF floor and the revision in the road tax framework, which would come into effect next year for EVs. This is a good first step and will reduce the green premiums EV users have to pay. As per the latest EV incentives announced in Budget 2021, from January 2022 to December 2023, the minimum ARF of $5,000 will be lowered to zero dollars for all EVs – and EVs do not pay fuel excise duties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a few months ago, this House voted to recognise the global climate emergency. The LTA (Amendment) Bill before us today is brief but significant in marking a milestone in our embrace of EVs as a country. Electric mobility brings a host of benefits, including lower carbon emissions, lower air pollution and lower noise pollution. This Bill is thus a step in the right direction. My speech today will raise questions and suggestions relating to our approach towards EVs. The climate emergency rolls on and the Government should move on the EV front with ambition, speed and transparency in setting out regulations and executive actions. Our local conditions are some of the best in the world for an EV roll-out: distances are short, funding is available and we have the capacity in both the Civil Service and private sector to do this. Thanks to market forces, with investment from governments and people across the world, battery prices have been driven down to as low as $130 per kilowatt hour today, with the average at about $180. Battery prices and EVs will only get cheaper with scale and improvements in technology. The question is how our move to embrace EVs can be made as well-planned, ambitious, fair and sustainable as we can get it. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as the CEO of a research consultancy that undertakes work in green technology and other sectors. Sir, first of all, I suggest that our incentives be tweaked to better nudge specific demographic segments that use their vehicles more to switch to EVs. Sir, commercial drivers, be they taxis, private hire cars or commercial vehicles, are mostly part of the gig work community and these are people we must get on board because they play an outsized role in decarbonising transport.”
“I would like to thank both Ministers for their very helpful Statements. Just two points of clarification for the Minister for Health. Firstly, he mentioned that HSA is studying the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for adolescents and children. I understand that the US Food and Drug Administration has just approved the use of the Pfizer vaccine for children aged 12 to 15, and this is just a very recent development. So, I am wondering, assuming that HSA finds that it is safe to do so, can we assume that we will proceed to vaccinate school-going children above the age of 12 with the vaccines that we have? My second clarification is on the vaccination effort. I think the Minister for Health shared very heartening figures about the progress that we have made. The majority of people over 60 years old have been vaccinated. Given how key this vaccination effort is to our fight against COVID-19, I am wondering if MOH is studying the example of a handful of countries which have been very successful and made very rapid progress in vaccination – Israel is one example. I believe roughly 90% of those over 60 years old in Israel have been vaccinated in a very short time. Are we studying those examples to see what lessons we might be able to learn in order to accelerate the speed of this vaccine roll-out in Singapore?”
“I noted that clause 14, the Minister can remit, in whole or in part, any Land Betterment Charge where the Minister is satisfied of certain conditions, including if a natural person liable to pay has suffered a loss or is in such circumstances that the charge would entail serious hardship. It would be helpful if the criteria on which these decisions would be made are spelt out more clearly. To quote from the recent Budget cut speech made by my parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, and I quote, "Some businesses have lamented to me that their TDL far exceeds business revenue, especially during the pandemic. If businesses are unable to pay the TDL, they might have to close down, leading to losses to themselves, their landlords and their employees. The Government will also lose out on tax revenue. Can URA consider giving such businesses rebates or deferments on their TDL?" That concludes my speech.”
“It is not clear at what stage under the proposed regime would the applicant become aware of the different conditions they would be subjected to as the offer is being made and whether or not they would be able to refuse, reject or discontinue the proposed development after being granted provisional permission, planning permission or conservation permission. I would like to seek clarification on this point. Next, will SLA introduce guidelines or a requirement that all changes of use applications include an undertaking that the LBC has been discussed between landlord and tenant? Under the new Bill, the landowner with material interest in the land is by default liable to pay the LBC, providing clarity compared to the previous situation where landlords and tenants sometimes disputed the paying of TDL. While this is a good step, it would be helpful to have guidelines or a requirement that the landlord and tenant discussed this. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in certain cases in the past, the tenant was made to bear the cost of TDL although the landlord also benefited from the change in land use permission by way of charging higher rents to the tenant. This risks an inequitable situation. Lastly, Sir, right now, the Minister is able to decide on a case-by-case basis to defy liability to pay LBC. Can there be more specific criteria that would render a business immediately eligible for such deferment? For example, can we consider deferment due to tenants – namely small businesses – finding it difficult to pay TDL, especially those hard hit by the pandemic?”
“Hence, I would like to seek clarification on this point. Next, under the current regime, the DP is typically only payable on the acceptance of the offer made by the relevant competent authorities with regard to the proposed enhancement of a land parcel. The proposed enhancement is formalised by way of a contractual agreement between the developer and the relevant competent authority, for example, SLA, by way of an offer made by the competent authority in the acceptance of the terms thereof by the developer – for example, Differential Premium payable, deadline for acceptance of the offer and so on. As part of the terms, Differential Premiums are typically required to be paid on acceptance of the offer. Under clause 24(4) of this Bill, however, LBC is payable at the end of one month after a liability order is issued by SLA unless otherwise stated. When a case of proposed enhancement is raised under the LBC, it seems that a liability order will be issued by the SLA after one of the following dates: firstly, the date that a planning permission or conservation permission, as the case may be, is granted in respect of the development of the land; and secondly, the date where the competent authority or land planning Minister notifies SLA that the competent authority or the land planning Minister, as the case may be, intends to grant final permission under clause 17(4) of the Planning Act 1998. This means that the payment of LBC could be at an earlier stage than DP under the current regime since for DP, the offer and acceptance happens months after the grant of planning permission is issued.”
“To take one illustration, in 2015, when the Singapore Weightlifting Federation, or SWF, moved into the Jubilee Industrial Building that is slated for industrial use, they had to pay at TDL estimated at $34,000 a year to use the space for sports-related purposes. With annual funding at the time of less than $70,000 from Sport Singapore and annual rental estimated at $72,000 for the Jubilee Industrial Building space, they were unable to pay the TDL. They had appealed URA's decision but did not succeed. However, earlier in 2009, the SWF had successfully applied for a waiver of the TDL when it moved from Mountbatten Community Club to Kallang. But this time, their request was rejected in 2015. At that time, the weightlifting community was worried about the future of their sport in the country, given rising costs and these sorts of impediments. We ought to protect the future of sports in Singapore along with other worthy causes. Next, I would like to raise some points for technical clarification. Firstly, on stamp duty. As the LBC is a tax, as seen in clause 7 of the Bill, will stamp duty be additionally leviable on payment of LBC to the relevant authorities? If leviable, how do we reconcile this with the general position that tax is not levied on payments of tax or, in other words, that there should be no tax on tax? Under the current regime, stamp duty is leviable on DP and paid to the relevant authorities when enhancing or intensifying the use of land. Next, on renewal of state leases and the definition of chargeable consent. Clause 3 of the Bill does not appear to capture the renewal of the leasehold tenure of state leases, for example, a 99-year lease. It is not clear as to whether or not the LBC applies to renewals.”
“Last October, when URA proposed the Golden Mile Complex for conservation to ensure that this move would not inhibit a future collective sale, they offered developers additional planning incentives, including a one-third increase in floor area and a waiver of a part of its development charge. This was a good use of the flexibility of the DC policy tool to incentivise developers to come on board and ensure the conserved building remains economically viable. A conservation expert Prof Yeo Kang Shua has termed these incentives as "unprecedented and signalling that the costs of revitalisation are reduced or subsidised by the state to safeguard the common good of the country's architectural heritage". Does the LBC include such flexibility as well? What the Government consider providing such planning incentives to development proposals for other heritage buildings? Next, clause 22A provides for a deferment to be made if "the taxable person is a charitable institution and the land will be used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes whether of the taxable person or that person in other charitable institutions". This is a positive step and will help offset the costs of running charities so that more of their resources can be channelled towards worthy causes. However, I have a few clarifications to seek. Firstly, can we include organisations with Institutions of Public Character(IPCs), status to be covered by this provision? There may be organisations that have IPC status and work for the public good but are officially not registered as a charity, but as a society, for example. Secondly, more clarity on the criteria for eligibility for this would be beneficial.”
“Next, clause 13 provides for concessionary relief if the development shows "desirability in achieving economic development or maintaining the cultural, economic, physical and social well-being of the people of Singapore and the community in the area concerned." While it is understandable that this is worded in broad terms to cover a spectrum of possible developments that may fall under this, we should be wary of too broad a scope. We want to incentivise only developments that advance the public interest. Could the Government provide concrete examples of the kinds of developments that would be eligible? What are the criteria for determining the eligibility for this relief? What are the guiding principles and what are the factors taken into consideration for determining the quantum of relief? Right now, under clause 13(1), the "Land Planning Minister may, after consulting the Minister, provide by order in the Gazette for concessionary relief" of the Land Betterment Charge. In the case of competing interests, how will decisions be made? For example, in the cases of Mandai Park developments in the Cross Island Line, these developments may result in economic benefits but they carry potential adverse environmental impacts. Also, can the Government give itself concessionary relief? This appears to be the case from current rules. If so, how is the potential for conflict of interest managed? Can agencies and Statutory Boards seek concessionary relief and appeal decisions if concessionary relief is not obtained, and, if so, who hears such appeals? Beyond environmental sustainability, which is mentioned in the Bill, I would like to encourage concessionary relief to be granted on the grounds of other public interest such as the conservation of heritage and art spaces.”
“" This opens up questions around the possibility of bias and quality control. Firstly, if a third party, say, a private sector valuer is now allowed to do the valuation, it is possible that that there may be a perceived or real conflict of interest if this party has developer clients. This may erode trust and support within the industry for the new regime. Secondly, I would like to clarify how this would work if the third party is involved. Will only one valuation by a single third party be allowed? Will there be a second opinion? Will the chief valuer have the final say? In other words, what controls will be introduced to check on the work of third party valuers under this Bill in respect of quality and the possibility of bias? Next, on clause 5A. The foremost purpose of this Bill is to, "ensure the return to the community" of economic benefits reaped from the development of land. However, it appears that the LBC would go into Government revenues and be consolidated with other tax revenues for their general expenditure instead of being earmarked for particular projects that benefit the community. In many countries, similar charges are used to fund new or pay off existing infrastructure projects in the communities where the charges are collected. For example, the construction of Hong Kong's metro railway was funded solely from the sale of development rights around stations. Close to one-third of London's Crossrail is being funded by levies on nearby businesses. How will the funds collected by the new LBC be used to return benefits to the community? Will these funds be earmarked for infrastructural works, for example? My parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Chua, will make a similar point and ask for greater clarity around this as well.”
“While we understand that the exact regulations will only be available at a later date, may I clarify broadly how the Land Betterment Charges will be calculated in relation to the existing regime of calculations of Development Charges, Temporary Development Levy (TDL) and Differential Premium. Will it have elements of the existing regime or will it be a wholly new system? Will there be greater alignment across existing regimes? My colleague, Mr Louis Chua will pose similar questions in his speech. Next, given the scale of charges set forth by this Bill, I was surprised that there was no public consultation – to the best of my knowledge – and no public consultation results made available to the public or press or in the press release by the Ministry on the Bill. Industry stakeholders have expressed similar sentiments. Has there been a public consultation conducted on these changes? If yes, can the Ministry make public the results of the same, and if not, will the Ministry conduct one at some stage? For legislation as nuanced as this, it would be beneficial to seek out a range of stakeholder feedback. We need to surface and address potential issues and pitfalls with stakeholders. In case studies from other countries such as Australia and the UK, policy experts and think tanks have noted the complexity of land value capture taxation. For example, while the UK has had a long history of land value capture, it has been of limited success. This was partially due to local authorities being burdened with the implementation of the policy without the necessary resources. Next, Sir, clause 10(2) of the LBC Bill allows for not just the chief valuer but also "another individual pointed by the authority to ascertain the amount of land betterment charge by the valuation method.”