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 4 of 25.
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, my speech will be an attempt to answer one question: what kind of meritocracy do we want in Singapore? In it, I will also address some of the measures in Budget 2023 that deal with wage levelling, early intervention for children in poor families and raising productivity. Madam, a few months ago, I posted on social media about a book I read entitled "The Tyranny of Merit" by Harvard political philosopher Prof Michael Sandel. While I do not necessarily agree with all the arguments Sandel makes in this book, I would heartily recommend it to all Members here. In essence, Sandel says that meritocracy in the US today has become a tool to justify inequality and condescension towards those without university degrees. It is also an unfair game because from the pursuit of these academic credentials that are often said to define merits, some have advantages of genetic endowments, social capital, parental guidance and resources that others lack. He calls for a re-focusing of attention on vocational and trades jobs which, in the past, would yield more stability and respect to balance up the advantages now conferred by a university degree. Madam, to be sure, no one would argue for devaluing degrees or that professionals can do without professional training and credentials. At the same time, I am sure we all recognise that more can be done to promote equality of opportunity and social mobility but beyond that, I want to put across another idea here today – that ensuring a more level playing field alone does not justify vast and ever-increasing gaps in income, economic security and social respect between those who do well in the academic and job arenas and those who do not.”
“I thank the Minister of State for that comprehensive reply. Just a small clarification. You mentioned the World Competitiveness report of the IMD. My focus on this PQ is really on managerial skills. So, I am just wondering if the Minister of State has data either as a subset of the IMD or from other surveys that speaks to this question of Singaporean managers' managerial skills vis-à-vis those of other countries?”
“I thank the Minister of State for that reply. Just one supplementary question. The WMS survey has its limitations, like all surveys. Singapore does not perform abysmally even on that survey, but it is behind a lot of other leading countries, like the US, Japan, Canada, Australia and so on. Would the Ministry consider using this survey as well as other surveys to try to understand whether the ecosystem of training available in these other countries, which do better than Singapore on the WMS, could be made available here, be they from third-party providers or in-house training to understand where that gap lies? The reason I ask this is because I have been reflecting on total factor productivity, where Singapore has a gap between other comparable countries. I am wondering whether managerial skills could explain our poor performance on total factor productivity.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just one supplementary question. Before that, I will declare my interest as the chairman of a consultancy that does work in the biomedical space, among other verticals. I am wondering if MOH is also, in addition to what the Senior Minister of State shared, positioning Singapore as a hub for clinical trials for mRNA cancer treatment and cancer vaccines to the global biopharmaceutical industry, as that may yield some benefits to Singaporean cancer patients.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. And I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I just have one supplementary question. Before that, I declare my interest as a board director of a Singapore company. Would the Government consider adopting a more prescriptive approach given the fact that there is research that demonstrates that the more board directorships one holds, the less time one can devote to discharging one's responsibilities as a director effectively and also given international precedence? In the United Kingdom (UK), I believe, they do adopt a more prescriptive approach. The UK Corporate Governance Code 2018 which is a promulgated by the Financial Reporting Council, sets certain concrete limits. For example, you are full-time executive director, you cannot hold more than one non-executive directorship of the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 company. In the United States (US), while there are no regulations, asset managers and institutional investors also do have a threshold number for the maximum number of directorships that a board director should have before it is considered "overboarding".”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I would just like to ask one supplementary question. What would be the triggers or key factors in determining a change in policy on this, given the developments in the EU and India that the Minister of State referred to? Reports state that the measure, when it comes into effect in the EU, will cut down e-waste by 11,000 tonnes a year and save consumers 250 million euros a year. So, in light of that, what would be the factors that would be the triggers that will bring about a change in policy on this point? Before I finish, let me declare my interest as the chairman of a research and consulting company that does work in consumer tech, among other verticals.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her speech and her replies. I initially did not want any clarification, but since the Senior Minister of State brought up VERS, I thought I would just ask one point of clarification. I think the Senior Minister of State has affirmed the important role that VERS is playing within this whole ecosystem of housing policies, as she alluded to, if I understand her correctly, to sort of backstop the resale prices from plunging too catastrophically when they get past year 60. So, can I clarify with the Senior Minister of State if the Government going to offer VERS to all blocks of HDB flats in Singapore? That is just one simple question.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I just want one point of clarification to the hon Member Lim Biow Chuan on the speech he just gave. I may have misheard him but what I heard was that the hon Member Lim said that the very fact that people are buying BTOs proves that it is affordable. If it is not affordable, they would not be buying it. I would like to ask the Member whether he feels that the very fact of purchase is proof that it is affordable. Would the Member agree that there are certain people who have to find a home because living with their parents is not necessarily an option, for various reasons? Would the Member also acknowledge that the concept of housing affordability is a concept in economics that is debated among economists on the understanding that there can be certain levels of house price that are too high in the sense that they crowd out other expenditures that one needs to make in life that are necessary for, for example, education and other things, and that —”
“So, if we build an ecosystem of policies where monetising your flat – because the price is high and appreciating – monetising your flat is going to be one of the key planks of retirement adequacy. Those people who want to keep the flat for their children, those people who do not want to tap on LBS, do not want to rent out their flat, will not be able to benefit from that plank of retirement adequacy. So, that was the point of my speech.”
“I thank Mr Pillai for his clarifications. This was referenced in the Workers' Party "HDB Reforms" paper. We had a section of it where we talked about what is the available evidence at the time the paper was written – which was November 2022. So, what is the available academic evidence out there were the reasons why the take-up rate for the LBS has been so low. My understanding of that is that there is some qualitative research that suggest that the bequest motive, parents wanting to leave the flat to their children, is a very, very important reason. I am not aware of any statistical survey that has been done – to be fair to Mr Pillai's question – but I believe that there is some qualitative evidence on the table. Certainly, from my conversations with constituents, with Singaporeans who are in that older category who would qualify for the LBS, I have found from those conversations that many of them are very worried about an environment of ever-increasing property prices that their children will have to face in later years. And therefore, they want to keep that flat, pass on to their children, in view of their lack of confidence that houses will continue to be affordable for their children. That is my sense of it. The second question that Mr Pillai asked was — there was only one question? Okay. So, I think in my speech, and to address Mr Pillai more holistically, other than wanting to leave your flat to your children, there is also the fact that not everyone wants to rent out their flat or is able to rent out their flat. In other words, not everyone is able to monetise their flats.”
“To Mr Xie, I would reply that I have stated what that criteria of affordability is several times in my speech and several times in my exchange with you. It is a HPI of three for a BTO in a non-mature estate. I would like to clarify Mr Xie Yao Quan's position. You are saying that the current HPI for BTOs – you feel that this is affordable, basically. You did not answer my other question, which is if we have an ever appreciating cycle of property prices that lead to higher BTO prices because the land valuation goes up and we still want to keep BTOs affordable, that needs bigger and bigger subsidies from the Budget. I think $1.5 billion, it has gone up to close to $4 billion and it is going to go up even more. So, where does Mr Xie think the money is going to come from?”
“As I clarified several times, I am not sure why there seems to be a disconnect here. That formulation in the Workers' Party's 2020 manifesto was a maximum cap for 5-room flats. It is a cap that comes about by way of capping the debt service ratio at 25%. Then, you work out a price based on that. There are other elements in that formulation as well. The prices of other types of flats would follow correspondingly from that maximum cap which would probably apply for a 5-room BTO. To address his question on funding, if you listen to the proposals that we are making in this debate in totality, we have spoken to that question. We have spoken, for example, about the approach to land valuation that can be taken. So, I think we have got proposals that addressed how these things are going to be funded. And I would remind Mr Xie again that our position is aiming to three or close to three HPI for BTO in a non-mature estate. I would like to ask Mr Xie again because he has not replied to me – what does Mr Xie feel is the boundary line between affordable and unaffordable? What is the HPI? I would like to know what the Government's view is but I would also like to know what Mr Xie's view is. I have another question for Mr Xie as well. Does Mr Xie Yao Quan acknowledge that if we have a mental model of ever appreciating house prices and then we have a model of valuing land based on comparables and historicals, the tail is wagging the dog? We will get an escalation of prices going on for a long, long time. That will mean that if we want to keep BTO prices stable, we have to increase subsidies more and more and more. I would like to ask Mr Xie where the money for those subsidies is going to come from in this model, if he believes in that model.”
“As I mentioned to Mr Xie, that formulation was a maximum cap, not the expression of where the average should be targeted at. So, I am not sure I fully understand his question. But he is referring to the 2020 manifesto's formulation that we gave and I would remind him that it includes various elements which he did not allude to – a 20-year tenure, a 10% downpayment and additional subsidies for 2- and 3-room flats. We have said that we believe that three or close to three is the right HPI target for BTO in a non-mature estate. So, I would like to ask Mr Xie what is the point that he is trying to make and also, I would like to ask Mr Xie what is his view on affordability? Where would you draw the line? At what level of HPI between what is affordable and what is not affordable?”
“The 25% debt service ratio formula expressed in our manifesto in 2020 is a maximum cap. It is a maximum cap. It is not an expression of a target for the average. It is a maximum cap. Our formulation also has other elements in it, which differ from typical transactions right now – a 20-year loan tenure, 10% downpayment and additional subsidies for 2- and 3-room flats to lower the eventual BTO selling price even more. So, yes, it applies to all flats – that position in the manifesto, but it is a maximum cap.”
“My question is: are the HPIs in these cities based on all home transactions, including landed homes in those cities? Would the Minister have the HPI in those cities for apartments with the same average square footage as HDB flats in Singapore? I think that would be a more useful apples-to-apples comparison and I hope the Minister or the Government can share this information, if possible, during the course of today's debate. Secondly, would the Minister also acknowledge that people living in London, Los Angeles and Sydney who cannot keep up with high house prices can move to cheaper suburbs or move to a smaller city or another state where house prices are substantially lower whereas in Singapore, people can only do that if they migrate? With that, I end my speech.”
“The cost of maintaining those empty flats would be a loss to the state. However, if such flats remain unsold, the selling price could be reduced until we reach a market clearing level where someone will buy – which is how markets operate. The risk of flats remaining permanently unsold is small once you consider this. Moreover, HDB would obviously conduct market research before deciding to build certain flat types in certain locations, which would lower that risk even more. Unsold flats could also be repurposed for the expanded public rental stock as proposed by my colleague and Member of Parliament for Sengkang Jamus Lim. I am not calling for all flats to be built this way – only some. Sir, one of the mantras of our industrial development, one reason EDB was able to attract investment in the 1960s and subsequently, was our willingness to build industrial facilities, factories, industrial parks and so on ahead of demand so that investors could start up their factories quickly. If we can build industrial facilities ahead of demand, can we not also build residential homes ahead of demand to reduce the wait time for new couples to encourage faster new household formation and perhaps childbearing to lift our globally abysmal total fertility rate (TFR)? I should note that I am suggesting building this new class of built-in-advance flats after we have cleared the we have cleared the current BTO backlog so as not to divert resources away from that task, though planning for that should start early. Before I end my speech, I have some clarifications for Minister Desmond Lee and his Annex 9, which compares the house price index (HPI) in Singapore to several cities with very high house prices such as London, Los Angeles and Sydney.”
“The core idea in this proposal is actually mooted in this House by my hon friend and Member of Parliament for Sengkang Louis Chua at MND's Committee of Supply last year. Sir, young couples and families waiting for BTO flats can sometimes wait for four or five years or more. Is this a reasonable expectation for our society to have of newlyweds and new households starting up? During those years of waiting, the couple will have to find other living arrangements. Many choose to stay with parents but that does not come without challenges, for obvious reasons – challenges that can strain young families. Some would certainly postpone childbearing for this reason. Is this healthy? Building more flats ahead of demand would create some buffer stock – some redundancy in the system – to allow couples to buy a BTO flat faster without the current wait times. Sir, I am aware that HDB currently does sometimes build flats without waiting for 70% of the units to be sold. In comments HDB made to CNA in November last year said that it is already building ahead of demand or actual bookings where possible. Since May 2011, it has called for and awarded construction tenders for the majority of BTO projects ahead of the outcome of the flat selection. Minister Desmond Lee also yesterday said that the proportion of Shorter Wait Time BTOs will rise. My suggestion here is to build more of such advance build BTOs more frequently and to create a special class of flats built ahead of demand as another complementary plank in our HDB ecosystem once market conditions have become normalised from what they are today. These would be flats where there is no requirement to sell before construction starts. One objection to this proposal is what if the flats remain unsold for a long time?”
“Such flats may also will better suit the life plans of many buyers. For example, someone aged 50 may buy such a 70-year-lease flat at year 20 because they want a shorter lease and they do not expect to live beyond 100, or those who may want to stay in the same flat for life may also find this attractive. This would be another addition to the HDB ecosystem that widens choice to Singaporeans who may want very different things at different stages in their lives. In this proposal, payment for the optional additional 29-year period is made only upon the exercising the option, but the option payment is locked in from the day of the initial purchase. This option should be exercised not later than five years before expiry of the initial lease period. This would allow a five-year planning window for HDB to decide how best to deal with the site. Certainly, tiered BTOs like this would be sold at a significantly cheaper price due to the shorter lease duration. That cheaper price may make possible a shorter loan duration, which many would welcome as being less risky, given the vicissitudes of life. The CPF funds saved thereby would get compounded in the buyer's CPF accounts and boost retirement adequacy. There is no loss to the state. The state can take back the flat upon lease expiry and it can be put to various uses such as public rental housing or Sale of Balance Flats. The assumptions and principles behind this new 70+29 BTO flat have some parallels with those behind the Lease Buyback Scheme, which allows leases to be shortened, with some monetary benefit gained for the lessee. Sir, my second proposal is to build a new class of flats which are built ahead of demand and not Built-To-Order.”
“It is often said that economic factors like house price are not the only factor affecting the willingness of couples to have children. Talking to many of my constituents in Serangoon ward and Aljunied GRC and fellow Singaporeans over the years, I am of the view that while not being the only factor, it is a very important factor indeed. I recently spoke to a constituent in Serangoon. She had married recently. Both the husband and wife are university graduates. Surveying their housing options, she felt that the burden of debt to acquire a decent home was so high that they were unsure as to whether to bring children into the world if they did not have the economic means to give their children all the support they would need to thrive in Singapore. Hence, I would like to ask the Government if it takes seriously the possible linkage between TFR and housing access and affordability. Has it studied the effect of rising and high house prices on our TFR? A PhD student at NUS Kidjie Saguin in a paper she authored for the Asian Development Bank Institute in March 2021 found a statistically significant link between higher resale prices and lower TFR in Singapore. Surely, this is a question that can be addressed through economic modelling, regression analysis and so on. Has the Government studied this and shared data on this? If it has not studied, would it do so? This brings me to the third and last part of my speech where I will share two concrete suggestions to improve accessibility and affordability for HDB housing. First of all, Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government consider building some BTO flats sold at 70-year leases with the option to top up to another 29 years. This will allow BTO flats to be sold at a lower price.”
“Sir, I repeat my question on what the Government defines as unaffordability going by HPI. Does it view, for example, anything under an HPI level of six as affordable, or HPI level of five as affordable? To be sure, I am not saying that the Government should accept the Demographia classification, but the Government should clarify what its stance on the HPI is. My third question is on planning sufficient supply of HDB flats for new household startups. Member of Parliament Louis talked about this. Clearly, the rate of formation of new households as a result of marriages, or even other kinds of events like divorces, is not something that changes drastically from year to year. It is demographic data that does not see sudden or radical changes in general. The Government controls most of the land in Singapore and hence, does not face impediments in terms of being able to acquire land to build HDB flats, unlike in many countries. Why then do we get into situations where the supply of HDB BTO flats cannot keep up with demand. Where there is excess demand such that BTO projects are oversubscribed at increasing ratios as my hon friend, Louis Chua, has expanded on in detail and much demand that would go to BTOs ends up going instead into the resale market leading to resale price spikes? Why does demand and supply get mismatched? It is not just due to COVID-19 delays. This happened in the pre-COVID-19 past, too, at times. It would be useful if the Government can share its perspective on this and also share what it does to research and plan ahead to match supply with demand. My fourth and last question to the Government is on the link between housing and our total fertility rate, or TFR.”
“My Parliamentary colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua, filed a Parliamentary Question to obtain data as regards HPI for first timers who bought resale HDB flats. HPI in 2022 ranged from 5.7 to 4.2. For those who bought BTO flats ranged from 4.8 to 2.9. The average for BTO flats was four and the average for resale flats was 5.1. At this point, Sir, I note that the hon Member Xie Yao Quan referred to our 2020 manifesto formula which called for a maximum debt-service ratio selling price for HDB BTO flats in non-mature estates. This cap to the debt-service ratio applies to all flat types, including 5-room BTO flats. There are other elements in the formulation, such as a cap to loan tenure and further discounts for 2- to 3-roomed flats in that manifesto formulation. Mr Xie's example compares median 4-room BTO flats in non-mature estates to our maximum cap. That is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Our position now of three, or close to three HPI for BTO in non-mature estates that my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim explained is developed based on new information derived that my hon friend, Sengkang Member of Parliament Mr Louis Chua, from his Parliamentary Question, that first-time applicants collecting keys for BTO flats had a median household income of $7,700 per month. We believe that it is useful to refocus the conversation on first-timer median income, not national household median income. Hence, the Workers' Party view that we should aim for HPI of three or close to three for non-mature BTOs as a function of first-timer household income. Annex 2, which Minister Desmond Lee circulated, puts the HPI for BTO flats in non-mature estates now at around 4.5 for 3-room flats and 5.5 for 5-room flats.”
“More specifically, does the Government designate HDB flats as a retirement asset which necessitates their appreciation of the time even though the inherent nature of the finite lease requires that they must eventually depreciate and expire zero? Is this asset appreciation assumption still the centre of gravity of our housing policy? There are various statements from the Government on this, and some seem, on the face of it, to be contradictory. There have been statements that prices may keep on rising even after year 70, for example from former Ministry of National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan in September 2018. And there was Deputy Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong's statement in 2017 that resale prices will eventually come down to zero as the lease decays. I will not quote the various statements that could be quoted, due to time limitations. That is my first question. Secondly, what is the Government's view on the affordability of HDB flats? What in Government policy-making is the boundary line that divides affordability from unaffordability on a metric of housing affordability? One widely used housing portability metric is the median multiple or house-price-to-income ratio. This indicator was a primary indicator of the 1991 World Bank UNCHS housing indicator system and was used as a measure of how affordability by the UN Commission for Sustainable Development. Its use has been publicised by an organisation called Demographia which studies housing affordability. Demographia views a multiple 5.1 as severely unaffordable, 4.1 to 5 is seriously unaffordable, 3.14 is moderately unaffordable and under 3 is affordable.”
“Sir, there are and will be many people who will not benefit from an ecosystem of policies centred on people monetising their HDB flat for retirement. Secondly, if Singaporeans accept that HDB flat prices will keep rising and rising at a rate that will give them a significant capital gain, that may blunt the drive to do other economically meaningful things – to retrain, to set up a business, to innovate at work, to increase productivity. Markets reward such economically useful behaviours normally. But when greater rewards can be gotten from gaming the property market and flipping properties, the urge to do those other things lessens. The expectation of ever-rising property prices can become the opiate of the masses, depleting our entrepreneurial and innovative impulses. Rising property prices can also suck away household capital from other uses like financing a spell away from the workforce to retrain or pursue a further degree, for example – something that is very relevant in this age of disruption. So, rather than focus on rising HDB flat prices to uplift the generations, I believe we should rewire our thinking to once again view HDB flats as, first and foremost, an affordable home to live in. And Singaporeans will get a better and more sustainable uplift if all our minds are focused instead on nurturing an economy that creates better-paying future-proof jobs with a decent career path, including vocational ones and combine that with some degree of national redistribution to offset advantages of birth. Sir, I come now to the second part of my speech where I pose a few questions to the Government. I have four questions here. Firstly, and most importantly of all, I would like to ask the Government if it still sees HDB flats as an ever-appreciating asset.”
“HDB flats are not like stocks and shares. Framing policies, setting expectations that the price of a flat is going to go up and up and up, and never come down, is not sustainable. Older HDB lessees can see this when their children start to enter the housing market. Sir, I spoke about the need to keep flats affordable for new families. There are two other reasons to reboot our mindset and move away from the mental model of the HDB flat as an ever-appreciating asset that uplifts generations through property price uplift. First, if we frame our policies to prompt rising resale values in the belief that monetising that resale value should be one of the main ways we provide for retirement, where does that leave those who do not want to sell and move out? Many elderly Singaporeans are living in flats worth a considerable sum, but they do not want to downgrade. Some want to stay put in the communities where they have sunk roots, where their friends and relatives are, where they have social capital, where they are familiar with the neighbourhood and its hawkers. Others may look around at the market for buying a smaller home and find that after deducting brokers' commission, renovation and moving costs, and after factoring in the need to repay CPF accrued interest which more and more sellers are finding that they cannot do, the prospect of downgrading does not release enough cash for the upside to outweigh the downside. Plus, most are unwilling to take up the Lease Buyback Scheme, as most probably they want to leave their flat to their children, who they think will face even higher property prices in the future, which probably explains the scheme's low take-up. Many are unwilling or unable to rent out their flats for reasons of privacy or not having alternative dwellings.”
“The generation that grew up during the heyday of the asset appreciation approach to policy have grown up with the expectation that HDB prices will keep on rising and that this is very, very good. But one simple truth is dawning on more and more Singaporeans. If HDB flat prices rise and rise, that inevitably tends to affect our house prices for the young. That is because land sale values from the state to HDB seem to be influenced by historical sale transactions and that in turn affects BTO prices. The fiscal capacity of the state to provide subsidies out of the Budget is not unlimited. Hence, the HDB flat lessee may realise some capital gain, but his or her children may be struggling in the housing market. The passing of the years in generational change has made more and more Singaporeans grasp this fundamental reality. There is another fundamental reality that has not been fully grasped and that is that the resale prices of flats will inevitably hit a point when it starts to decline. Many of us are not so focused on this lease decay issue right now. With the HDB resale market buoyant, it can seem like it is not relevant to the time that we are living in. But it is something Singapore will have to contend with the medium to longer term. Sir, we are facing the inevitability of lease decay as well as the need to keep housing affordable for the young who are starting families. Facing these two realities, I think the time has come for us to reboot, refresh and reframe mindsets and start thinking of our HDB flats as primarily a home to live in, an affordable home and much less of an asset whose value will rise and rise in the same way that the value of, for example, developed country equities. Stocks and shares have generally risen over the long term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the two Motions before the House today touch on a subject that is near and dear to Singaporeans – housing. The first part of my speech will touch on the overarching principles and values that should guide our housing policy. In the early years of our Independence, HDB flats were built for rental and then later for sale primarily as an affordable home. But today many younger Singaporeans feel that the Singapore dream of a HDB flat is increasingly out of reach, or at least, severely challenging. I spoke to a young Singaporean recently who will be marrying this year. She tried and failed twice to get a Built-To-Order (BTO) flat in a non-mature estate. Given this, as well as the time factor, she is now looking at resale options, but resale prices are high. On top of the price, the cash plus the CPF upfront component that they need to pay to get a bank mortgage loan, or even a HDB loan is substantial. Both of them are young and have little CPF savings, so they have to seek funding from their parents, who have their own difficulties to cope with, or find other solutions. In fact, nearly six in 10 or 60% of people want to rent or buy, so they find property becoming more unaffordable, according to a poll of 790 respondents conducted in July last year by a private company that provides online services for home rentals. Let us unpack this. Why do people feel this way? It is because the most affordable type of HDB flat – the BTO flat – is seeing excess demand, many launches substantially oversubscribed. And that feeling is coupled with another – the high price of resale flat, which keeps getting higher.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. I am wondering if these can also be extended to other areas of high footfall that are not those specified by her, which is tourist attractions and other areas where the Government could have some influence to have those water coolers installed. That is my first supplementary question. And secondly, is there any impediment to expanding this more quickly given that we do face a problem in terms of cultivating healthier habits amongst Singaporeans as an important national issue? I think better hydration would help with that. And this conversation I think has been going on for some time and various Members and others in the public have called for more water coolers. Is there any impediment that is holding it back?”
“But I raise this point because the new law may, to some degree, have unintended consequences for the dynamics of relationships between and amongst the owners, other residents, tenants and workers living and working in flats. I hope the Government and other stakeholders will keep an eye on this to be ready to implement changes to the law or to how the law is enforced to address these and other possible unintended consequences. 2.26 pm”
“" I would like to ask if a possible offender does not have the ability to write in to NEA and hence does not respond to the notice of a fine in time and does not have relatives to assist, how would the case be handled, so as to give that person a fair hearing as regards to possible evidence of innocence that they might be able to share? In the same vein, owners who may not understand written English and may not be able to read any written notices sent by the NEA may be disadvantaged. And lower-income owners may not have the time or resources to submit evidence to prove that they were not responsible for the high-rise littering. So, my question is, will sufficient consideration be given to such factors if such individuals seek to appeal against a fine by providing some evidence against the presumption of guilt but they have missed the deadline, for these reasons? Lastly, Sir, I would like to discuss possible unintended consequences arising from this new presumption of guilt embodied in the new clause 17A. What if owners require tenants to lock windows as a result of fear of fines? Or what if owners use this law as a reason to install CCTV cameras to make sure they have evidence to rebut the presumption of guilt vis-à-vis their tenants or domestic workers, which raises privacy issues? And what if the new law fuels tension between joint tenants or joint owners who may wish to push the blame to the other? To be sure, if these scenarios materialise – I am not saying they necessarily will or to a very great extent – the individuals affected may have other recourse, other means of recourse in law.”
“In Parliament in 2018, the Government said that private estates such as executive condominiums and private strata-titled condominiums are not regarded as such public places in law as access to these places are restricted. However, the management committee of such estates generally have by-laws to deal with high-rise littering and may turn to the courts when dealing with errant residents. My clarification here is that would the Government work with the Management Corporation Strata Title (MSCT), the committees of private apartment developments to make available its learnings in terms of enforcing these laws and regulations in HDB estates, so that those MCSTs who wish to pursue a more rigorous approach to anti-littering enforcement are able to draw on this experience? Next, I would like to ask the Government to elaborate on how care will be taken when deciding whether or not to fine or charge vulnerable groups of possible offenders. In the NEA's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section on the new Bill, it was stated and I quote, "Will the new legislation be applicable to home owners/tenants who are elderly or mentally/physically disabled? NEA will be sensitive and enforce judiciously against offenders from such groups. NEA has in place an existing enforcement framework for the elderly and physically/mentally disabled offenders. The offender or his/her family members/relatives may write to NEA and provide relevant supporting documents. NEA will then fully review and consider the relevant circumstances of each case before taking any appropriate action against the owner(s)/tenant(s), which may include the issuance of a warning.”
“Or the testimony of an eyewitness who is not conflicted, who could place the person somewhere else at that time? Another scenario – if there are joint owners, would the authorities remove liability from one of the owners if he or she demonstrates that he or she was not present in the flat at the time of the offence, leaving the other owner to bear 100% of the fine? One observation I will make here is that if the burden of proof falls on the owner in all cases, this may result in unintended consequences and I will return to that later. I have another clarification here to put to the Government. Section 17A(5) provides that the presumption of guilt is rebuttable by proving any of these: (a) contravention committed by person other than presumed offender; (b) presumed offender not in flat at time of offence; (c) presumed offender reasonably believing someone else is the actual offender and providing the identity of that person. My question is on part (c), what constitutes a reasonable belief? Is it the legal standard meaning that some evidence must be adduced or merely a belief accompanied by a reason? Next, HDB flat owners have a greater likelihood of being caught for high-rise littering vis-à-vis private apartment owners. This is because the new section 17A will only apply to private apartments if the litter lands in "a public place". This is similar to how the existing prohibition against littering under the Environmental Public Health Act applies only to publicly accessible places, rather than private estates like executive condominiums and strata-titled condominiums.”
“The Ministry's press release states and I quote: "The presumption can be rebutted by the owner/tenant by proving that he/she was not present in the flat at the time of the offence, by proving that he/she could not have been the offender, or by providing the identity of a person reasonably believed to be the offender to NEA within 14 days of being required to do so." The effect of the presumption is that unless rebutted, it presumes that the owner or tenant is the offender and thus makes the owner or tenant liable for the acts of the offender, if the owner and offender are different people. In cases where the offence may have been the result of someone else – say a visitor or workers working in the flat – in such cases, the burden of proof will be on the owner or tenant to prove their innocence in the face of a default assumption of their guilt. I have the following clarifications to make. Going forward, when I refer to the owner, I will mean either the owner or tenant depending on what is relevant in each case of an offence. My first clarification is, what is the standard of proof that needs to be met by the owner to rebut the presumption of guilt? Must the owner prove this beyond reasonable doubt or can they prove this based on a balance of probabilities? For example, if there was some other culprit – say a team of workers doing renovation work in the apartment – would the owner need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were not at home at the time of the offence in addition to demonstrating that the works were being done at the time? Also, can the Government share some examples of what such proof would look like? Some information from an IT system that shows the location of one's mobile phone and/or computer at the time, for example?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill seeks to make several changes. One group of changes affects the licensing of cleaning businesses and the roll-out of the Progressive Wage Model for this sector. Another group of changes relates to the dumping of waste from vehicles and yet another, extends the time period for which an offence can be determined. Sir, I support this Bill, as the measures are, taken as a whole, a step in the right direction for evolving the cleaning sector and regulating the penalty regime for littering and dumping. However, I will raise several points of clarification on areas where there are risks associated with the provisions in this Bill, where I hope the Government can provide some assurances and consider appropriate provisions in subsidiary legislation. My clarifications and suggestions centre on clause 5 of this amendment Bill which amends section 17 of the original Bill. To be clear, littering from residential flats is a serious problem. It poses public health challenges and lessens quality of life. High-rise littering cases are on the increase, as is NEA's deployment of cameras and enforcement actions in respect of high-rise littering. In spite of the number of cameras and enforcement actions, the level of deterrence embodied in the law and enforcement mechanisms will need stepping up to address the fact that more flats, which are taller and denser, are being built across the island; and the fact that more people are working from home all or some of the time. In this Bill, the new Clause 17A holds the owner or tenant to be responsible for litter emanating from any flat that lands in a "public place". It then holds every owner or every tenant of the flat equally liable.”
“Given the insufficiency of the evidence to mount charges, what then is the basis for the stern warnings?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, in the 2022 Transparency International report “Exporting Corruption Abroad”, Singapore is actually ranked in lowest category with little or no law enforcement against acts of corruption committed abroad. There are 20 countries in that category; there are 27 countries who are doing a bit better in categories 3, 2 and 1. My question here is what are the plans of the Government to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement so that cases like these in future are less likely to slip through the cracks? So far, in all the replies given by the Minister, I have not heard any concrete plan to improve the extent of law enforcement against acts committed abroad, not domestically. I think, domestically, we are doing well, in terms of the Transparency International reporting. But what are we going to do differently and do better in terms of enforcing the law aboard? My second supplementary question is, we have talked about the insufficiency of evidence to mount charges. What then is the basis on which the stern warnings were issued?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State. Given the fact that around the world, there is a considerable degree of experimentation right now, even by developed countries in Europe and elsewhere to cultivate seaweed in coastal waters because of the benefits in terms of the emissions and also in terms of biodiversity and given that there is some experimentation around using technology to do this efficiently, would the Government be open to considering those kind of proposals in light of those benefits amid new developments and technologies.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just two questions for Minister Ong. The first one is about hospital capacity. I understand that currently, in terms of bed utilisation and the intensive care unit (ICU) utilisation, the capacity levels are very high – for some of the public hospitals is 90% or even, well above 90%. So, notwithstanding the regime of PDT and full vaccination, it will just take a relatively small number of cases coming in to possibly strain the hospital capacity to a very difficult position. So, I am just wondering if the Government has thought through this extreme or worst-case scenario that might happen with the opening up, of capacity being overstrained in a public hospital system. The second question is on the prescription of Paxlovid, which is the COVID-19 anti-viral drug. I understand that there are 36 clinics now that can prescribe it. Is there plan to expand this across the whole primary healthcare system?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The first supplementary question to the hon Minister is, is the Government still planning to cap the ratio of foreign workers at one-third of the overall workforce and does the introduction of M-SEP puts us at risk of breaching that cap? The reason I ask this is because I think this cap of one-third of the workforce – which was alluded to in the Economic Strategies Report of 2010 – is something that has been affirmed at various points for quite some time; most recently, by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in this House last year. Secondly, of the 1,000 companies that are deemed to be eligible for M-SEP, and apologies if I missed this, what is the percentage that are foreign multinational corporation (MNCs) versus local enterprises? And lastly, I think, when introducing M-SEP, the Government has previously taken the view that there will be no "U-turns", and this was made very clear to the business sector. So, does the introduction of M-SEP, which is giving companies extra foreign worker quota, amount to a "U-turn" in the Government's foreign manpower policies? Or how will the Government manage the risk that it will be seen by the business sector as a "U-turn" or as a sign that possibly in the future, the Government will "U-turn" and make some concessions on the foreign manpower policy, and therefore, lessen the drive to increase productivity and strengthen the Singapore Core, which is the acknowledged policy aim of the Government?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I just have one supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister on his reply to my earlier supplementary question. So, it is just one, you can count me on that. Of course, Ministries, Statutory Boards are subject to commercial external auditors and that includes the private companies under them. And GIC is also subject to commercial external auditors, as is Temasek. But Ministries, Statutory Boards, GIC and the private companies under Ministries and Statutory Boards are also subject, on top of that, to the Auditor-General's audits. So, why is it then that Temasek is not subject to the Auditor-General's audits?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Just a few questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. Firstly, if I heard the Deputy Prime Minister correctly in his earlier statement, he said, with respect to the sovereign wealth funds, the Government is not prescriptive, it does not prescribe assets and asset classes. But he also said that the Government monitors the portfolios, if I heard him correctly, for geographic diversification and downside risks. I am just a little curious how those two things are reconciled. What kind of discussion will the Government have, if it monitors those risks and diversification and feels that they are off? Does the Government actually intervene and would that not then be prescriptive if such a situation arose? I was just hoping the Deputy Prime Minister could expand on that. My second supplementary question is on the rotational audits by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO). I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for confirming that GIC is subject to AGO audits, but Temasek is not. I would just like to ask why that is the case, since they are both managing public funds. It could be argued that Temasek has the legal form of a private company but, against that, I would say that right now, AGO does audit Ministries and Statutory Boards that own private companies, for example, MOH Holdings or EDB Investments, and presumably those companies under a Statutory Board are also subject to rotational audits by AGO. So, the fact that Temasek is a private entity should not, in and of itself, mean that it does not need to be subject to rotational audits by AGO. My last supplementary question is really, would the —”
“Therefore, in addition to my earlier proposals, I would like to suggest that more be done to share best practices among IHLs and encourage levelling up, particularly in regard to the domains of feedback handling, accountability and the campus experience of students and staff that I have talked about today. To conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, our IHLs are to some degree a microcosm of our society. The environment we create there will have ramifications for the character development of our students, which in turn will play a huge role in determining the course that our nation takes in the decades ahead. The proposals I have made to strengthen accountability and transparency at IHLs would also set a good example for the tone we want in our wider society. By giving them more scope to make a difference in the IHL through feedback and activities like creating petitions, we would be better equipping and encouraging our IHL students to become better citizens of Singapore in the years ahead.”
“Could the registration windows be extended or made more frequent or perhaps could registrations be accepted on a rolling basis, as is from what I understand, currently the case with SMU, but not the case with some other IHLs? Could IHLs also make available to students a model club constitution so to speak, to make setting up a new group easier? Lastly, for my last proposal, I would like to say that we need to learn from not just mistakes or gaps but also places of strength. For example, when SMU was founded just over two decades ago in 2000 and was facing the challenge of how it should brand itself and create a school culture, it took only three years before they set up Singapore's first formal peer helping programme in a university. This was at a time when mental health for youths was nowhere near receiving the public and institutional attention that it now receives. While the impact on employability and other standardised metrics of peer support, may not be clear, talking to students and studying feedback on this programme, I think it is clear that the student response has generally been supportive of the programme. There are now 1,200 qualified peer helpers, with 200 helpers being trained each year. This is a good example of how IHLs can make positive change quickly and effectively by just listening to the voice of students. To take another example, I believe in the wake of the spate of sexual offences and sexual misconduct incidents in some of the IHLs, some IHLs now have a more robust approach specific to sexual misconduct but some have proposed further reforms. I think some degree of collective experience sharing would help codify how IHLs take in and act on student and staff feedback on issues related to sexual misconduct and other types of issues.”
“Thirdly, I propose mandating IHLs to consider petitions above a set number of signatures. Doing so serves the following two functions. For the university population, it legitimises petitions as a tool for policy change by providing certainty that such petitions will, at the very least, be considered by decision-makers at IHLs. For the IHLs, it serves as a filter mechanism that prevents unnecessary consideration of frivolous petitions. Such a move should prevent a repeat of what happened to students representing Fossil Free Yale-NUS and Students Taking Action for NUS to Divest respectively. In March 2019, these two student groups calling on NUS to divest from fossil fuels were granted a meeting with NUS administrators after making such a request for six months, only to be told that their petition, which had garnered nearly 800 signatures, was not enough to show substantial support for divestment. This raises the question of what number of signatures is enough. Creating a requirement for IHL management to address petitions with a sizeable number of signatures would strengthen accountability and transparency. One happy side effect of such a system is that it may also help students learn about how they can be active and involved citizens in a democracy. Fourthly, I propose simplifying the process for setting up new student interest groups. For many students, campus life is a defining feature of their time in university. Interest groups are one of, if not, the biggest contributor to a vibrant campus life. When students' interests and passions are not served by existing interest groups, they should be empowered and facilitated in setting up their own.”
“In many universities across the world, it is not always or perhaps often that university administrators lead senates which are supposed to provide oversight over executive decisions. Restructuring and opening up senates to more rank-and-file faculty could improve oversight. One area where this may be helpful is on the issue of academic freedom. I filed a Parliamentary Question on this earlier this year, referring to the results of a survey undertaken among academics, which suggested that there may be a significant proportion of academics in our IHLs who feel concerned about the state of academic freedom here. The survey which, by the way, should be looked into and where further research to validate it should be done in the best interests of cultivating a strong academia here. Sir, my second proposal is to grant a student union representative and a representative of rank-and-file faculty a seat on the governing board as a voting member, or at least non-voting observer. This ensures that the voices of students and staff can be directly represented in the decision-making process, which in turn promotes inclusive decision-making that actively considers the views of all stakeholders. Even if student and staff representatives on the board are not given veto power, such a move creates greater transparency. The practice of granting student unions and staff a seat on the governing board is not by any means novel. Already, at least 13 of the top 50 universities in the latest QS World university rankings from Hong Kong, North America, Europe and Australia have adopted this practice. Singapore's IHLs can and should do this too. In some universities, the governing board is required to have student and faculty members who are elected to that role by their peers.”
“So, the more well-informed views about educational quality, the faculty experience and student life quality could be brought to bear on deliberations. I reviewed the lists of the boards of Singapore IHLs and in most cases, I confess that I have some sympathy with this view. I think the weightage of educators and non-educators on these boards is an issue that deserves more study and thought on the part of MOE, perhaps drawing on international reference points. Sir, let me conclude this discussion of some of the perceived issues with a few suggestions to address these issues of perceived accountability and transparency deficits. I hope MOE can review these suggestions and work with our IHLs to encourage them to adopt policies along these lines. Doing so would be in the interest of the IHLs themselves, as it would enable them to enhance their competitiveness and attractiveness to students and faculty. In my first proposal, I would like to talk about empowering rank-and-file faculty in university senates or oversight bodies. Typically, senates or president councils have strong representation from senior university administrators and less representation from the faculty rank-and-file. This could be seen as there being little separation between the president or provost and faculty members who can provide oversight. To illustrate this point with a question, do we know how many times other senate members succeeded in making the president or provost reconsider certain decisions in the various incidents I referred to earlier? What roles did university senates play and what roles were they able to play?”
“And when consultations are held, these are often non-binding, with the consequent decision-making being somewhat opaque. The same transparency deficit may apply to disciplinary action, say, for sexual offences. The case of Miss Monica Baey is instructive and well known. NUS had initially prescribed what was seen by Miss Baey and many as a relatively light punishment for the perpetrator of a sexual offence, even after Miss Baey had made a Police report. The reasons and the process behind why NUS meted out that punishment were not made wholly transparent to Miss Baey in the first instance. Another individual university student has very recently gone public about a case where she was the victim of a sexual offence and she has publicly suggested reforms such as, for example, the university providing reasons for the disciplinary action taken and to offer the right of appeal to the victim. The dismissal of Dr Jeremy Fernando of NUS' Tembusu College has also been seen in some quarters as not having been handled well. None other than Prof Tomy Koh, then Rector of Tembusu College, commented that the university had "fallen short ", as the process was opaque and there was a "considerable gap" between the time NUS dismissed Dr Fernando and when the rest of Tembusu College was informed. One last insight that comes through when reviewing this feedback and all these incidents is the perception that academics are insufficiently represented on boards of trustees, boards of directors or councils. Or in other words, the governing board. The view here is that the weightage of trustees who come from the education sphere can be increased vis-à-vis that of business leaders and civil servants.”
“The decision-making process was seen by many as opaque and with limitations in the autonomy for working group student representatives. Sir, this was a decision that would affect student education and their on-campus residence, given that both YNC and USP offer programmes that include residential components. Some staff had similar feedback, lamenting that they were given little opportunity to participate in the process. For example, the then-President of Yale-NUS College commented that the decision was only shared with the governing board in advance of the announcement for information. Mr Speaker, Sir, when reflecting on this and other feedback, I think the underlying perceptions by some students and staff can be distilled into two broad baskets. Firstly, some students feel that they are treated as economic digits, with IHL decisions made based on a return on their investment. For example, some feel that the reason why infrastructural issues are sometimes not fully addressed is because there is no incentive to improve it. Students are not going to leave in the short run and will be forced to put up with this if they want to finish their education and receive their degrees. The second broad issue is the perception of top-down decision-making. Many students and faculty perceive insufficient transparency, consultation and co-creation in decision-making. For example, IHL governing boards often have absolute discretion over student union regulations and all decisions made by the IHL. Many students believe that the unions have little ability to seek structural or policy changes, and decisions are often made without consultation. This was shown clearly in the case of the merger of YNC and USP.”
“For example, out of the 30 halal options at NTU, I understand that many are vending machines. There are also only a limited number of canteens out of the many at the residential halls that have halal stalls. A media outlet interviewed students who said that they had highlighted this issue to the administration for some time. Buses at NTU are perceived by some to arrive irregularly. Anecdotally, wait times range from five minutes to 30 minutes. It is my understanding that the NTU Students Union has highlighted bus-related issues to the administration in the past. Another example which speaks of the staff experience during the pandemic, NTU initially made the decision to not allow students and faculty members stuck overseas due to border closures to attend lessons online. Students were asked to miss the semester and faculty members were asked to take no-pay leave should they be unable to make it back to Singapore physically. This affected students' learning, the teaching of faculty members, as many staff members have to cover for those absent. NUS experienced similar issues of a perceived lack of accountability and transparency with the merger of Yale-NUS College (YNC) and the University Scholars Programme (USP). The timeline for the implementation was short, with the announcement made in August last year. There was an early claim that the replacement NUS college would provide a liberal arts education. Then, a later announcement said that liberal arts subjects would likely not be included in the core curriculum, to the surprise of many. The new NUS College has already admitted Its first students as of August this year. There is feedback from some students and staff that there was no transparency in the end game for the merger of YNC and USP at NUS.”
“As all IHLs seek to go beyond rankings and this is a goal that the Minister for Education has said he seeks, they should also build a reputation for being great places for students and this includes being more open, responsive and consultative. And perhaps, most importantly, enhance the accountability culture at IHLs help set the tone for creating such a culture across society. Sir, let me go on to highlight some incidents that suggest where the gaps may lie. I do not think these incidents I am going to talk about are necessarily representative of the institutions they took place in, and it is definitely not my wish to single out any particular IHL for criticism. But these incidents serve of to give us a sense of what students and staff in IHLs feel could be some of the areas where the accountability culture can be improved. To start, there was widespread dismay amongst students at NTU regarding the hall allocation for the 2021/2022 academic year. The release of hall allocation results on the 1 July 2021 left many international students who had been staying on campus throughout due to COVID-19 suddenly homeless and scrambling for alternative lodging before the 15 July deadline. Local students were similarly affected, especially Year One and Year Two students who were supposed to have been guaranteed on-campus housing, according to NTU's guidelines. A petition signed by 5,500 people were set up to urge the management to reconsider their decision. A day later, a statement was put out that more hall spaces were opened up – the space for students on a guaranteed two-year stay guideline as well as international students who were already staying on campus then. Student discontent with infrastructure can be found elsewhere.”
“And unlike employees in a company, students cannot easily change courses or change IHLs, because doing so will have repercussions on their career progression. Secondly, giving students a say in their own education helps them fulfil their purpose for learning, which I believe, for most people, is broader than solely what their future employers want. We must recognise that IHLs are not merely factories to churn out economically useful graduates. The part of their lives that students spend at IHLs is often among the most memorable, precious informative of their lives. These experiences can help ground students and enable them to contribute to their communities in multiple ways later on in life, not all of which can easily be captured in dollars and cents. Ensuring that the environment in the IHLs is conducive to these journeys, in character formation, is vital to help ensure that those who pass through their portals become self-aware, self-actualised and socially engaged citizens. Thirdly, being accountable means students and staff have greater ownership over their institution and have a better student experience. In economic terms, this could mean strong alumni engagement which may translate into better fundraising capacity downstream. To cite one example of a concrete benefit, a good environment in a strong culture of accountability could also translate into the IHLs being more attractive to students and faculty. In other words, it could be part of that IHL's competitive advantage and collectively contribute to our national competitive advantage.”