Leong Mun Wai
Singapore
“Okay, yes, Mr Chairman. So, first question, can I confirm that MOM still does not track the change in work pass holders that turned to PRs in the resident PME statistics?”
“Yes. Third question, the increase in part-time workers and contract work are also examples of underemployment. Can the Minister explain why we do not need to be concerned that the proportion of part-time workers out of all employed residents has increased from 8.4% in 2009 to 10.1% in 2023, and can the Minister quote the corresponding inc…”
“Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have four clarifications for the Minister. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for his energetic response to my arguments. I have always respected him for that. However, because I think our views are still very different, I have —”
“For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career. Mr Chairman, let me conclude.”
“And I have three more. To many Singaporeans, including myself, the new policy does not make sense in certain areas. I agree with the Government that NRIC numbers, full or masked, should not be used as authentication, and that must be impressed on Singaporeans. Next question, why is there a need to do away with the masked NRIC policy?”
“In paragraph 40 of the report, it was stated that this July 2024 CM was also emailed to senior Public Service Leaders, including those with key responsibilities in IT and data matters within their agencies. Can I ask the Senior Minister whether any of these senior leaders have voiced concerns over the CM?”
The complete record
Every one of 978 lines we hold for Leong Mun Wai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 20.
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Two questions. One, so the Minister agrees, or is of the view that by allowing SPH to take away $3.9 billion and leaving behind a burden of $900 million for Singapore taxpayers, is agreeable by the Government? The Government accepts that? Secondly, I have offered a lot of information, in her words, "an edifice of information". The way she put it is that this information is totally useless, it does not help the explanation of the situation. But what I can say is that – the second question – if the Government did not bother to answer the questions I raised, can the Government allege that the information is not useful and so all my allegations are without basis?”
“Together, they cost taxpayers $2.4 billion. This may be small relative to the national reserves and the $130 billion annual revenues at the disposal of the Government. But $2.4 billion can go a long way in helping Singaporeans who are struggling financially. For example, it is enough to exempt average Singaporeans from two years of additional 2% GST or to fund 10 years of ComCare cash payouts for the poor Singaporeans. We could also apply the $2.4 billion to help young Singaporeans experiencing great difficulties to buy an HDB flat now or reducing inflation pressure on all Singaporeans earlier. From a professional point of view, I conclude, I believe the Government should have spent far less than $2.4 billion on these two projects. The Government owes Singaporeans a more detailed explanation and should be proactive in exploring ways of reducing the cost to the taxpayer. This House can do a lot more to tighten oversight of public expenditures. We must not turn a blind eye to these two expenditures. I urge the Ministers to address my concerns in clarifications to this House. I also hope that this House will refer these two expenditures to the Public Accounts Committee for follow-ups after this Adjournment Motion.”
“In that case, SHPL should have accumulated reserves of about $36 million per year, which is derived from subtracting the debt servicing and operating costs from the annual fee. Thus, the total accumulated reserves after nine years accumulated by SHPL should be about $320 million. The new holding company set up by Sport Singapore to own and manage the Sports Hub should take over this $320 million from SHPL. To sum up, I have estimated an outstanding loan of $920 million and total accumulated reserves of $320 million. Hence, the Government should only be paying the difference between the two amounts, which is $600 million, as outstanding financial liabilities to SHPL. This $600 million figure is definitely much lower than the $1.2 billion agreed by the Government to pay SHPL. Hence, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister to justify the $1.5 billion termination cost to be paid to SHPL. (a) What actually is the detailed debt repayment schedule since 2014 of SHPL? (b) What is the loan's interest rate and the outstanding loan amount as of today? (c) Has SHPL accumulated reserves from the annual fee payments that should be taken over by the new Sports Hub holding company? (d) What is the justification for paying SHPL a market value of $300 million for the Sports Hub? Finally, if the Government needs to pay more than what the financial analysis allows because it is contractually committed to honour such a generous financial deal for SHPL, would Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister who signed the original contract, come forward and explain why this was necessary? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am worried that the Government's behaviour in commercial deals can potentially lead to a waste of taxpayers' money. SPH Media Trust and Sports Hub are good examples of this.”
“In 2010, then-Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan told Parliament that financing for the Sports Hub was being raised via a funding competition among the banks, so I would expect the construction loan for Sports Hub to carry a very competitive interest rate. However, Minister Edwin Tong shared recently, in response to mine and Ms Hazel Poa's queries, that 65% of the Government's annual fee payments to SHPL goes towards debt servicing. As the annual fee is $193.7 million, the debt repayment works out to about $125 million per year according to the Minister. If we assume that the construction cost of $1.33 billion was fully financed and debt repayment is constant over 22 years from 2014 to 2035, the $125 million debt repayment implies a loan interest rate of more than 8% a year, which is way too high based on the market conditions in 2010. In contrast, a 4% interest is more in line with the market conditions in 2010. At 4%, I estimated that the annual financing payments should only be about $90 million a year from 2014 to 2035. This is much lower than the $125 million quoted by the Minister. After nine years of repayments from 2014 to 2022, the outstanding loan principal should have reduced to about $920 million by end 2022. This is also much lower than the $1.2 billion quoted by the Minister which the Government is prepared to pay SHPL. In addition, if the debt servicing is indeed $90 million a year, then SHPL may have accumulated surpluses or reserves from the annual fee payments in the past nine years of operations. As Minister Edwin Tong has also shared, operating cost is $68 million per year for the Sports Hub.”
“The second significant expense incurred by taxpayers is the $1.5 billion contract termination cost to be paid to Sports Hub Pte Ltd (SHPL), which is said to comprise $300 million for the open market value of the Sports Hub and $1.2 billion for taking over the outstanding loans taken up by SHPL for the construction of the Sports Hub. I support the Government's takeover of the Sports Hub and I am fully aware of the developmental and financial benefits. However, I believe that the Government has been overly generous in estimating the "fair open market value" and the remaining financial liabilities of the Sports Hub. If this is so, it will unfairly benefit SHPL which is a private consortium at the expense of taxpayers. Firstly, I believe that the Government should not be compensating SHPL for the market value of the Sports Hub, if this market value is based on the Sports Hub's name value. The name value has primarily come from the Sports Hub being a national icon, carrying the branding of the "National Stadium" and occupying the site of many of our national memories, like the Kallang Roar. When SHPL constructed the Sports Hub, it did not pay the Government for the value of the "National Stadium" brand. Therefore, there is no need for the Government to compensate SHPL for this name value now. As SHPL has failed to transform the Sports Hub into a leading venue for local and international events, it is also not justifiable to say SHPL has increased the value of the Sports Hub since its completion. Second, I believe that the cost of the $1.2 billion outstanding financial liabilities disclosed by the Government was too high.”
“But only $110 million of cash and shares were left behind to fund the loss-making media business and taxpayers will be footing the rest of the bill moving forward. It makes no business sense for the Government to have agreed to this proposal. Since the property assets were accumulated over the years with media profits, it is reasonable to expect that more than $110 million should have been left behind to continue funding the loss-making media operations. Even then-Chairman of SPH, Dr Lee Boon Yang, said during SPH's Extraordinary General Meeting in 2021 that it is not unreasonable for SPH shareholders to make a contribution to SPH Media Trust to sustain the media business. It would have been a fairer arrangement if SPH shareholders had left behind $900 million to capitalise SPH Media Trust, instead of the Government footing this bill using taxpayers' money. The shareholders of SPH would still have $3 billion of property assets to distribute after that. When the Government announced the establishment of SPH Media Trust, then-Minister for Communications and Information, Mr Iswaran did not mention the potential cost to the taxpayer. When I questioned the new Minister, Mrs Josephine Teo during the Committee of Supply 2022, she replied that there might be no deal if the Government had insisted that SPH bore the $900 million bill. But as stated in the reply to my Parliamentary Question on 4 April 2022, the Ministry actually holds the power to withhold in-principle regulatory approval for the SPH's restructuring. The Government should not have agreed to SPH's proposal unless more assets were left behind to fund the media business. So, now, the Government should explain why it chose not to do so to this House and Singaporeans.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has repeatedly stressed the need to rein in public expenditures before we increase taxes like the GST. Our Budget has been increasing at a fast pace over the last 20 years and it is not only because of increases in healthcare and social welfare spending. In recent months, two significant outlays of taxpayers' money have reminded us of the urgency of ensuring better oversight of public expenditures. The first one is the $900 million for funding the SPH Media Trust over the next five years and the second is the $1.5 billion to terminate the public-private partnership operating the Sports Hub. This is a total of $2.4 billion of taxpayers' money. Based on my 30 years of experience in business and financial management, I question the financial reasoning behind these expenditures. The Government and this House must ensure that every tax dollar is properly spent. The Government must respond in full to my queries, or Singaporeans can take it that taxpayers' money has been wasted. The first significant outlay of taxpayers' money is the Government's provision of up to $900 million to fund the media operations of SPH Media Trust over the next five years. I believe that the deal to restructure Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH) that the Government has approved, is questionable, because SPH shareholders should have left behind a larger share of SPH's property assets to support the print media business under the SPH Media Trust. In the past, SPH used the monopoly profit of the print media business to accumulate numerous property assets, such as The Paragon and Clementi Mall. These assets were sold for $3.9 billion after the restructuring.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Can I ask the Minister how the EC educators' pay scale compares with that of the teachers now?”
“Yes, I am coming to the question. Does it makes sense that on one hand, we pay the talents to come in to help us in capabilities transfer but, on the other hand, we have a lot of talents that are working in Singapore and they opt to work in Singapore and we did not make it a requirement to renew their visa?”
“I think no one in this House will be against attracting more foreign talents into our country. However, if you imagine, 20 years ago, I do not know who was the Manpower Minister then. He would have stood there and made the same message about attracting foreign talents. But over the last 15 to 20 years, can I ask the Minister whether we have been attracting the right kind of talents since now, 95% of the EPs currently do not meet the ONE Pass requirement. Second question: Sir, we are very concerned and that is why we are asking many questions. But the second point I want to make is that I support and I take the same position as the Leader of the Opposition and Workers' Party on why we cannot include mentoring skills transfer, and one more thing, I had mentioned in many of my speeches, succession planning, when we bring the talent, the foreign talent or the global talent into our market? It does not make sense. I ask the Minister: does it makes sense that on one hand, we pay to get the talents in —”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, for the sake of time and for the sake of the proceedings, I accept that, but I must really say that the debate is not complete again. I have an estimate, but I am waiting for the Minister to give me more numbers. But anyway, I accept that and I will file a Parliamentary Question. 3.15 pm”
“My clarification is: what is the number of new citizens who have not performed NS? The number the Minister has given only forms a subset of the new citizens. It does not form the whole new citizens' number.”
“Yes, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think the Minister opened up the debate. And now, he is running away from the debate. So, I will ask one more question. He told me, through my Parliamentary Question last month and he said again just now, that there were 3,400 new citizens and PRs who enlisted every year, on the average. So, if he says 10% of that is new citizens, that would be 1,700. I got a number here just provided by MHA —”
“Okay, then I ask the Minister: what is the number of new citizens who did not do NS? You still have to give me that number. It does not mean that 10% of our annual enlistment now consists of new citizens, then all the new citizens have performed NS, right?”
“Yes. Who did not perform NS. So, just based on some of the Parliamentary Questions I have filed recently, I make an estimate that over the last 21 years —”
“Okay. In that case, I would like to ask the fundamental question. The fundamental question is, yes, the Minister has provided data on some of the PRs and the new citizens who have contributed to our National Service in recent years. However, I think there are still a significant number of new citizens who did not —”
“Okay, anyway, I accept that. First of all, I thank the Minister for responding today to my recent Parliamentary Questions and also for pointing out some of the views I have expressed. I think this really is good because it makes a robust response and debate in this House. My Parliamentary Questions are actually prompted by the Ukraine war and the passionate speech made by the Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan —”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, first of all, I must register my objection. The Minister has spent the last 15 to 20 minutes talking about what I have written, what I have said, and has pointed some accusations at me. So, I think I am entitled to a full speech.”
“(In English): To conclude, Sir, I support the Bill and propose that the eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid be pegged to a per capita gross monthly household income of $2,200.”
“The Progressive Singapore Party commends the Government for putting forward this Bill to improve access to justice for the underprivileged in Singapore. We are heartened that in the aftermath of the Parti Liyani case, the PAP Government has followed through on its promise during the Singapore’s Justice System Motion to seriously consider and implement a Public Defender’s Office (PDO). We are supportive of the general scope of offences that the PDO is intended to cover. However, I think that the Government can widen the income eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid. Minister Shanmugam has proposed in his Ministerial Statement in April to peg the eligibility for criminal legal aid at a per capita gross monthly household income of $1,500. We are of the view that this amount should be raised to $2,200, which is in line with our recommendation for Singapore to adopt a minimum living wage of $2,200 for Singaporeans. The Government may argue that this would unnecessarily drive up costs. However, we note that this Bill gives the Chief Public Defender the right to require applicants to co-pay for the legal cost. A scaling co-payment model could easily be implemented to ensure that applicants pay their fair share of their defence and yet at the same time, increase access to legal representation for underprivileged people. Increasing access to justice cannot be measured in dollars and cents and every person should have a chance to present his best case in court with legal representation. Hence, while we support the Bill, we also propose that the eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid be pegged to a per capita gross monthly household income of $2,200.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. We commend the Government for putting forward this Bill to improve the access to justice for the underprivileged in Singapore. We are heartened that in the aftermath of the Parti Liyani case, the PAP Government has followed through on its promise during the Singapore's Justice System Motion, to seriously consider and implement a Public Defenders Office (PDO). We are supportive of the general scope of offences that the PDO is intended to cover. However, we think that the Government can do more. Minister Shanmugam has proposed in his Ministerial Statement in April, to peg the eligibility for criminal legal aid at a per capita gross monthly household income of $1,500. We are of the view that this amount should be raised to $2,200, which is in line with our recommendation for Singapore to adopt a minimum living wage of $2,200 for Singaporeans. The Government may argue that this would unnecessarily drive up costs. However, we note that this Bill gives the Chief Public Defender the right to require applicants to co-pay for the legal costs. A scaling co-paying model could easily be implemented to ensure that applicants pay their fair share of the defence and yet at the same time, increase access to legal representation for underprivileged people. This will also increase the potential business for criminal lawyers. Increasing access to justice cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Every person should have a chance to present his best case in court with legal representation. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.”
“She is accusing me that I do not understand the financials behind all the questions I am asking.”
“But now, not only my question has not been suitably answered but the Leader is accusing me of something. She said I —”
“Deputy Speaker, point of order, please. Can I answer the Leader? Because the Leader is accusing me of not understanding certain things.”
“But what is the point of having the debate without getting to the bottom of the thing, having all kinds of questions? We must get to the bottom of the issue.”
“Deputy Speaker, we have not got to the bottom of the thing.”
“Can I ask the Minister what is the debt servicing amount inside the $193.7 million?”
“Thank you. Okay, I will ask a question. Can I ask the Minister why the Government is so generous to pay $193.7 million a year to the private consortium when he just mentioned also that the operating cost, after we take over, will be about $68 million?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. But actually I have to be given the right to ask because the Minister did not answer the question.”
“No, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a continuation. Minister has not answered my question.”
“So, I will let the Minister elaborate first then. Thank you.”
“My second question is, is it fair for us to pay $1.5 billion to SHPL? And I have to elaborate, right?”
“Yes, my first question is, why was the decision made in the first place when it is quite possible that we can run on the procurement model? The second question is, looking at the financial numbers – and bear with me a little while on that ‒ basically, SHPL seems to have failed in its job, failed in the expectations that we have on them. Of course, when we ask international companies to come in, I am in business for many years, I know! When I use the international partners, we expect them to bring in the marquee events. If they did not bring in the marquee events, they have failed in their job. So, why, for example, in the compensation formula, do we pay for the $1.2 billion, which, I presume, is the outstanding bank loan?”
“Okay. There has been a lot of aspirational delivery throughout this session. I must also share my experience, that, first, I support the Government taking back the Sports Hub. We are all very attached to the old National Stadium. Ministers past and present have participated in the opening of the old National Stadium together with me in 1973. So, we are very attached to the old National Stadium. We do not know why the Sports Hub was given to a private consortium. Secondly, throughout the discussion we had today, no one asked the question – is the $1.5 billion compensation or termination cost given to the private consortium fair or not? Of course, then, we have to go into a lot of details of financial calculations and all that, but we still need to debate about that. But so far, no question has been raised. So, let me ask two questions. The fact remains why the decision was made at the beginning —”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Please allow me to have one or two minutes of preamble, before I ask my questions, okay?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance one supplementary question. While MAS had chalked up a $7.4 billion loss in 2022, both the investment companies Temasek Holdings and GIC have chalked up hundreds of billions of dollars of additional profits because of the good markets in 2021 and 2022. Can I ask the Minister, overall, are we expecting a further increase in our foreign reserves in 2023?”
“[(proc text) Petition handed to the Clerk at the Table. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, I present to Parliament a Petition from Ms Chua Shanyu, Mr Lim Cheng Kiang and others of like opinion. Including the two petitioners named above, there are a total of five valid signatures. The petitioners are the affected residents under the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme or SERS, of Blocks 562, 563, 564 and 565 of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. They allege that there is a lack of transparency concerning various aspects of the SERS project and the treatment given to them is unfair. They are also concerned that this project may set a precedent which affects future SERS residents negatively. The petitioners pray, and I quote the following points (a) to (f). (a) Review SERS in its entirety, which includes a transparent and independent evaluation of the reclaimed and replacement sites, options of compensation and Lease Buyback Scheme for senior citizens. (b) Consider in its review the intended use of the reclaimed site be made public so as to assess the actual and potential value of the site. (c) Consider in its review the priority of ensuring residents affected by SERS be relocated within the vicinity of the reclaimed site. (d) Consider in its review the waiver of the Resale Levy and full reimbursement of stamp and legal fees for the affected residents are applicable in all future exercise of SERS. (e) Consider in its review an ex gratia payment to affected residents to help defray renovation costs and for such a sum to be adjusted for inflation and other factors. (f) Consider in its review a moratorium on SERS until such a time that a review on SERS is conducted and the findings and recommendations be made for Parliament to deliberate. I will now hand the Petition to the Clerk.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you. And I thank the Senior Minister of State for replying to my questions. I would like to make two clarifications. One is, my understanding is that, in the past, before 9 May 2022, ABSD is not collected from trusts that do not have identifiable beneficiaries. If that is the case, if my understanding is right, can I have the number of trusts that have taken advantage of this ABSD loophole? If the number is available, I would like to have it. If not, another time will do. Secondly, with regard to my point about Singapore being a place that favours the rich, of course, it can be a matter of opinion. But I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if he has the following characteristics inside the tax system, does he consider it favouring the rich or not. One, no estate duty. Two, low personal income taxes, even at 22% or 24% after the revision this year, after the Budget. The effective income tax is actually lower than that. Of course, if you are very rich, you have an income of $5 million, you may be very close to the 24%. But our sliding income tax structure means that the effective tax rate is actually lower than the highest income tax rate. So, generally, our personal income tax is very low. Third, no capital gains tax. Fourth, no tax on interest, one layer of tax on dividends only, which is quite extraordinary, compared to other countries. So, with all these, can we still say that our system is one that favours the rich?”
“We ask the Government to tell us the number and value of properties transferred to living trusts since the introduction of ABSD in 2011. And are there any properties being sold to realise a profit while under a living trust without paying ABSD? Given Singapore already has a tax regime that favours the rich, such tax loopholes are inexcusable and should be dealt with strictly. Thus, we propose two amendments to this new Bill. Firstly, to apply this new Bill retrospectively to all properties transferred to living trusts since the introduction of ABSD in 2011 and ABSD should be collected retrospectively, based on ABSD rates at the time of the purchases. Secondly, ABSD should be charged at the point of transfer from now on, only to be refunded after the settlor has passed away. This will eliminate the trouble of having to determine whether the living trust is genuine or not. Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill and propose that a thorough review of property market policies be conducted by the Government before Singaporeans are further disadvantaged. (In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill and propose that a more thorough review of the property market policies be conducted by the Government before Singaporeans are further disadvantaged.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill. However, the Government should have introduced this Bill at least 10 years ago, perhaps around 2011, when the Additional Buyers' Stamp Duty (ABSD) was introduced. We are disappointed that the Government has allowed loopholes in the ABSD scheme to be left open and exploited by some rich buyers of properties for so long. We ask the Government to tell us the number and value of properties transferred to living trusts since the introduction of ABSD in 2011. And are there any properties being sold to realise a profit while under a living trust without paying the ABSD? Given Singapore already has a tax regime that favours the rich, such tax loopholes are inexcusable and should be dealt with strictly. Thus, we propose two amendments to this new Bill. Firstly, to apply this Bill retrospectively to all properties transferred to living trusts since the introduction of ABSD in 2011 and the ABSD be collected retrospectively, based on the ABSD rates at the time of the purchase. Secondly, the ABSD should be charged at the point of transfer from now on, only to be refunded after the settler has passed away. This will eliminate the trouble of having to determine whether the living trust is genuine or not. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill to levy stamp duty on living trusts. However, the Government should have introduced this Bill at least 10 years ago, around 2011, when the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) was introduced. We are disappointed that the Government has allowed loopholes in ABSD to be left open and exploited by some rich buyers of properties for so long.”
“No, I asked a question and the Minister said that he is not answering the question.”
“Okay, so, let me ask the question again. Is it fair that while we are hindering the development of our talents by not granting them deferment, citizens by registration are also not doing NS?”
“Yes, we have a situation now today, that while we are hindering the development of our sports and arts talents by not granting them enough deferment in some cases, there are also a lot of citizens by registration that are not performing —”
“Yes, please allow me. So, there is also a need for us to give more room for our talents to develop. And the situation we have now today —”
“My second question is: while the Minister has said that personal development should be secondary to National Service, I think as our society becomes more sophisticated, there is also a need —”
“I have asked the first question. So, I will ask my second question.”
“Okay, can I ask the Minister again to confirm that he will look into further relaxation for athletes who want to perform better in their —”
“Deputy Speaker, first of all, I thank the Minister for the clarification. I have two additional questions to ask. One, from what the Minister has said, we have policies in place for deferment for sportsmen and performing arts Singaporeans who can perform at the competitive and world level. But I think based on the reaction and feedback of the athletes recently that we read in the papers, there seems to be still insufficient leeway given. Just now, the Minister did mention a little bit about —”
“With reference to the Order Paper today, I noticed that the issue that has been talked about in our society in recent weeks, which is the Ang Mo Kio Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) case, all the questions – a total of seven of them – has been relegated to the last of the question list. Which means that there would be limited or no airtime on it. There is a difference between oral questions and written questions. So, I would like to ask whether those questions can be moved forward because, indeed, there is a large number of questions being asked. If not, will there be sufficient airtime for us to at least discuss the general principles about the compensation package of this SERS exercise which is quite different from the rest? There are 600 households out there, waiting for clearer answers on the general principles. I know the Government and HDB have been engaging the residents. But many of them would still like to know what are the general principles behind some of the changes in the policies. Thank you.”