Lim Biow Chuan
Singapore
“Sir, just two short supplementary questions. First, currently, the United Nations define seniors as 65 years whereas we have set ours at 67 years. So, would the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) consider reducing to 65 years for the age eligibility criterion for getting the concessionary rate for the MDW?”
“In light of this, the existing practice of the Ministry, which disallows the repeated renewal of shorter term COEs, should also be eliminated to preserve the maximum flexibility for EV drivers to extend the use of an environmentally friendly car.”
“Sir, in June last year, the Thomson-East Coast Line (TEL) was launched. Sir, let me express my gratefulness to LTA for the TEL line, as there are three TEL MRT stations within the Mountbatten constituency. The TEL line has facilitated travel for many residents in my constituency.”
“Sir, I receive many queries from Polytechnic and GCE "A" level students wanting to know about their enlistment dates, asking about their Physical Employment Standard (PES) status prior to enlistment for. Sir, I also receive queries about NSmen hoping to study overseas.”
“MFA has said on several occasions that Singapore supports the right of Palestinian people to a homeland of their own. Singapore delivered not one, or two, but a total of six to seven tranches of humanitarian aid for Gaza in January 2025.”
“Even in Parliament, Sir, our Clerks and other staff work such long hours because MPs debate long hours, spend time debating Bills until late in the evening and sometimes until late at night. Sir, I have on many occasions, received emails from Ministers late in the middle of the night.”
The complete record
Every one of 802 lines we hold for Lim Biow Chuan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 17.
“" So, I urge the Government to do away with the distribution of Budget benefits based on home type, but instead base it on income. If a citizen is a retiree with no income but staying in a private property, why should he get less GST Vouchers than someone who earns a lot more but stays in a 3- or 4-room HDB flat? Why should someone without any income not enjoy the benefits of the Bicentennial Bonus simply because his home has an annual value of more than $21,000? This is unfair to the Singaporeans who had contributed to Singapore but had pursued their dreams of staying in a better home when they were younger. I also call on the Government to consider a change in its policies to allow elderly singles to rent a flat alone. During my MPS, I regularly receive requests from elderly seniors who, for some reason, cannot get along with their family members or their children. They quarrel frequently and want to shift out so that they can preserve their dignity and not stay in an unhappy home. However, they have nowhere to move to. Much as we wish to encourage the families to look after their seniors, the reality is that relationship issues are not easily resolved. I am of the view that we should not compel an elderly person to stay with the family when he or she is clearly estranged from the family. Can the Government consider better support for our seniors by allowing them to rent a 1-room flat on a case-by-case basis? This would allow some of them to live in dignity in their retirement years instead of living in a hostile environment. Finally, I urge the Government to consider changes in the policy on seller's stamp duties.”
“Are we prepared for much higher taxes? And will all these extras be sustainable in the long term? Will Singapore end up like some other countries which are struggling to balance their budget or are on the brink of bankruptcy? What should be the core business of the Government? To me, it must be to provide all Singaporeans a safe living environment; to ensure that healthcare remains affordable, that every Singaporean has access to good quality education, that we continue to grow the economy and create good jobs for Singaporeans; that our public transport system allows our citizens to travel within the country in a convenient and reliable manner and that public housing is accessible and affordable; that every Singaporean, regardless of our starting point, should have equal opportunities to do well in life. Although there are areas where we can improve upon, I support the efforts of this Government to ensure that the basic needs of all citizens are met. This includes the need to spend more on defence and security as we need to be able to stand up to unfriendly forces. In fact, a strong defence force will be the main deterrent to any hostile activities. I also support the increase in spending to deal with different security threats. The state-sponsored cyberattack on the SingHealth IT system is a strong reminder to all of us on the need to strengthen our IT security measures against those who wish Singapore to fail. Even countries like Germany and Australia were recently subject to attacks on their IT network system. I have three points for the Government's consideration. In my previous speeches, I advocated that the "Government should have policies which would help those in need and at the same time, be fair to citizens who have contributed to build Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, I have a large proportion of senior residents staying in public housing within Mountbatten. Over the years that I serve as their Member of Parliament, I see more and more of them using wheelchairs and relying on walking sticks to aid their mobility. As they age, they also require more medical care. The PGP introduced in 2014 provided great financial relief for many of these senior citizens as it helped reduce their healthcare costs. Over these past years, I have met Singaporeans who have expressed appreciation for the healthcare-related subsidies which they received due to their PG status. Some of them may not realise it when they receive the PG card. However, when they are hospitalised, the benefits of being a PG is much clearer. For that reason, I strongly support the MGP announced in this Budget. I acknowledge that it is not on the same scale as the PGP. But it does cost $6.1 billion and is financed from the past savings of this Government and does not impose a burden on the future Government. It will certainly help the next generation of seniors cope with healthcare costs. I am also glad to note that the benefits of the MGP is extended to all citizens born within the 1950s regardless of their home type. Healthcare costs will always be a concern for our citizens regardless of home types, and the MGP would provide greater assurance to our citizens. It also shows the appreciation of this Government for the generation of Singaporeans who have helped build Singapore up. As with every Budget, we would never be able to please everyone. There will always be economists, academics and other well-meaning Singaporeans who will call for the Government to spend more on other things. The challenge is who will pay for all these extras?”
“In fact, when I reached 55, I made a conscious decision to leave my monies with CPF Board, simply because the interest paid on the CPF savings is much better and as the Government has re-assured us repeatedly, it is risk-free. So, thank you, Minister.”
“I thank the Minister for clarifying that the Payout Eligibility Age (PEA) has not shifted from age 65 to 70. I think this is very important and very re-assuring for CPF members. But I am concerned that about 60% of CPF members do not come forward to withdraw their CPF when they reach 65 years old. The Minister said that about half of CPF members do not come forward to withdraw their CPF even when they have reached 70 years of age. This is an area of concern because this is not a small number of people. Could it be that a large number of these CPF members may not do anything about it because they do not know the procedure? Or could it be that they have forgotten about the need to apply to withdraw their CPF savings? It is a big number. If we are saying just a small percentage, then I can understand that, well, perhaps they do not read their mail or that they forgot about it. But it is quite a large number, and I am concerned. The Minister had said that the CPF Board starts their payout automatically for a member when the member reaches 70 years of age. If CPF Board can do so at age 70, why not make the payout automatic at the age of 65? Just credit to their account automatically, unless the member opts out and chooses to fill in an application to say that they do not want to do so. I think the point is that we need to assure every member that CPF Board will be able to honour any request to withdraw their CPF savings when these are due for payment. And really, this is about preserving the good faith and trust in CPF Board. So, I urge the Minister to try to dispel any doubts that the CPF Board is deliberately withholding members' CPF monies, even though they have reached the PEA. I just wanted to add that I appreciate the benefit of higher interest rates.”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister, when these flats are given up by the purchaser after they have signed the agreement, are these flats subsequently put up for sale under the Sale of Balance Flats (SBF)? Does HDB suffer losses when the flats are resold? The third question is: instead of forfeiting 5% of the purchase flat price, would HDB consider charging an appropriate administration fee, considering that HDB is not a commercial entity and, really, if there are no losses suffered by HDB, would there be a lighter penalty imposed? Otherwise, the flat buyers do suffer quite a heavy loss for losing 5% of the flat price and considering that he also has a one-year time bar imposed on him.”
“I would like to ask the Minister. The Minister said that when the buyer buys the flat, do they get a discount, especially if they buy from HDB? Because my understanding is that they do not get a discount if they buy straight from HDB, but because of this EIP, it has squeezed demand for flats, and because of the squeeze on demand, the prices are affected. And prices come down, so why should the sellers be prejudiced because they are affected by the EIP in having to sell at a lower price, unless they are correspondingly given a discount when they first buy the flat, which is why I asked whether would HDB then step in to treat them as if this is a Lease Buyback Scheme.”
“— that you do not want the consumer to go to CASE because price has gone up. The reality, as Minister Chan has mentioned, is that every business has different price pressures. So, their rental may be more expensive because they are in a better locality, they may have to pay more for their staff. So, CASE finds it very difficult really to be able to decide which business is profiteering because it sets higher prices. CASE would be happy to work with MTI to try to provide better transparency so that consumers would be able to know which businesses provide the best value to consumers. So, thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to raise that clarification on behalf of CASE.”
“Mr Speaker, this is a point of privilege because CASE was mentioned. I was hoping Minister Chan would also say something about CASE, but he only defended NTUC FairPrice! [Laughter] So, if I may just clarify for the hon Member for Yishun, to provide feedback, you do not need to be a member of CASE. You only need to be a member of CASE if you want CASE to represent the consumer to liaise with the business. On the point made by the Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that complaining to CASE has no effect because price — Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: I did not say that!”
“The reality is that most consumers do not read the fine terms and conditions of a thick set of contractual terms when they buy something of low value. For the Government to expect consumers to knowingly agree to arbitration for contracts of small value is unrealistic because the cost of arbitration is very high. If the Government is intent on protecting consumers from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous businesses, surely, we can specify that businesses cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for claims that are clearly within the jurisdiction or the prescribed limit of the Act. I urge the Government to rethink this point and not simply assert that "consumers are free to contract". The Unfair Contracts Terms Act would also have no meaning as businesses which impose unfair contractual terms can assert that "businesses are free to enter into consumer contracts, as long as it is mutually agreed to by the contracting parties". Hence, I urge the Minister to consider inserting a new clause to amend the Act, which should not allow businesses to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by referring disputes within the specified limit for arbitration. With this, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The research by CASE shows that there are several companies which provide for an arbitration clause in their online standard terms and conditions. This means that consumers who buy online would have to agree to the arbitration when transacting with these online companies. The consumers have no negotiating power to ask for the arbitration clause to be removed. Thus, for example, if an online business makes a consumer sign up as a customer and imposes a monthly charge without the consumer’s consent, this may be an unfair practice under the CPFTA. But if the business is unreasonable, the only way for the consumer to seek legal recourse may be to go for arbitration even if the business is clearly engaging in unfair practices. So, you cannot go to the Tribunal to seek redress. Because of the arbitration clause, the consumer has no choice but to refer the matter for arbitration. In a recent case, when CASE wrote on behalf of a consumer to a company regarding a defective furniture worth $1,134, the company declined to go for mediation. And what did the company do? The company asked the consumer to seek legal redress by going to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for the settlement of the dispute, a dispute of $1,134. So, in reply to my speech last year at the Committee of Supply debate, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon said that "in line with the principle of the freedom of contract, businesses are free to enter into consumer contracts, as long as it is mutually agreed to by the contracting parties". With greatest respect to Senior Minister of State Koh, this misses the point of why the Tribunal was set up in the first place, which is to protect consumers and to ensure that consumers have a speedy and inexpensive way to resolve disputes.”
“There has been feedback from consumers that when they bring their cases to the Tribunals, decisions made by the Referee were not explained clearly to the consumer. The end result is that the consumers have no idea as to the reasons why their claims were dismissed. Sometimes, they feel aggrieved at the perceived injustice. It also affects their decision whether to appeal to the High Court if they are still dissatisfied with the decision. Could I urge the Presiding Judge of the State Courts to ensure that all Tribunal Magistrates appointed to hear disputes at the Tribunals are not only legally qualified personnel but also experienced officers who are trained to deal with members of the public who are not conversant with legal principles? As the Tribunals will deal with large numbers of the public, this will allow the public or the businesses to better understand the reason why their case was not successful. The next issue concerns the jurisdiction of the Tribunals which was previously defined under section 5 of the SCT Act. Recently, when o-Bike announced that they were ceasing to operate in Singapore, many consumers wanted to submit their claims to the Tribunals to ask for the refund of the rental deposits. However, section 5 of the SCT Act does not provide for claims for refund of rental deposits. Nor will it be considered provision of service as low skill or labour is involved in the supply of such rental bicycles. May I urge the Ministry to consider reviewing all common consumer claims and to expand the jurisdiction of the Tribunals to cover more common consumer disputes? Finally, Sir, last year, during the Committee of Supply debate on consumer protection, I spoke on the need to ensure that consumers are protected when making purchase transactions online.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as the President of the Consumers Association of Singapore, or CASE for short. In the second reading of the Small Claims Tribunals Bill in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said that "the primary purpose of this Bill is to provide for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers.” After 34 years, this rationale still holds true today. Every year, CASE receives many requests for assistance from consumers whenever they have disputes with businesses. Wherever possible, we strive to mediate a settlement between the parties. However, in some cases, a mediated settlement is simply not possible because of the different expectations between parties. In such cases, where the disputes concern a lower quantum, below $10,000, referring consumers to the Tribunals allows them to have their dispute adjudicated in a speedy and inexpensive manner. And that is the thrust of what a Tribunal is about. Hence, CASE supports the extension of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to $20,000 and the prescribed extended limit is increased to $30,000. CASE is also supportive of the increase in the limitation period from one year to two years. These amendments will widen the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and enable more consumers to have access to the Tribunals to seek a fair decision in their disputes. The alternative is for consumers to engage their own lawyers to argue their case in Court and this would invariably result in higher legal costs. Sir, allow me to raise three issues for consideration.”
“Mr Speaker, the media reports do say that oBike says that they have about a million users and, if indeed most of them had paid deposits to oBike, then there is quite a large sum of money with oBike. If these funds are with oBike, then I suppose the consumers will get back their funds. But many consumers have expressed concern that after liquidation, they will not be able to receive their refunds. In the event that the consumers are unable to receive refunds from oBike, would LTA consider making a Police report against the directors of oBike to ensure a proper accounting of the funds that should be with the company but are no longer available for refund to the consumers?”
“However, I wish to sound a word of caution that Singapore should not be seen as a company where everything is simply transactional. We are a nation and a home that all Singaporeans can be proud of. So, I urge the Government to develop policies which will strengthen our nation's core values; to inculcate in our citizens the importance of values like meritocracy, self-reliance, incorruptibility, diligence, honesty, humility and loyalty to the nation as we all continue writing the Singapore story. I support the Motion. 4.38 pm”
“I am not suggesting simply giving handouts for them. It is about better appreciating those who had contributed to Singapore during their working years, those who had paid income taxes, but served the nation in different capacities. The Pioneer Generation Package was appreciated by many Singaporeans because the Pioneer Generation felt appreciated by the Government. So, I urge the Government to adopt policies which signal to our citizens that they are appreciated for their contributions to nation building. This will give them a sense that they are Singaporeans, too, whenever the Budget is announced, instead of it being a non-event. To better help our less fortunate, I hope that this Government will also review its policy of tagging the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) benefits to the household income of the individual. I have come across residents who lost their blue CHAS card status because they had worked harder and were given a small pay raise. Thus, for a $100 extra monthly income, they lose the medical benefits tagged to the blue CHAS card. They then end up paying more for medical care. It does not make sense why the CHAS system penalises someone for working harder and earning more. A graduated system may be fairer to those who really need the CHAS benefits. There are many other policies which can be improved upon. But it does not mean that the policies are wrong. However, with minor adjustments, we can make the policies better and create a more positive impact on our citizens. My appeal to the Government leaders is to be always open to suggestions for improvements; for our civil servants to adopt a framework of asking, "How can I do this better?" Mr Speaker, I am confident that our current leaders have the ability to plan for the future of Singapore.”
“Although I understand the explanation, the rationale given why water must be priced correctly, why parking charges must be adjusted, understand the rationale why the Goods and Services Tax (GST) must be increased in a few years' time to provide for better healthcare, but, yet, when you add together all the increase in cost, this increase in cost of living will cast a financial burden on our citizens. Singaporeans hope for a better life for the future. An increase in cost of living will reduce their disposable income and affect their aspirations for a better life. The Government must keep a close tab on the increases in living expenses. Whether it is for water, transport fares, medical costs or food costs, we must be mindful that whatever the reason for these increases, when taken together, they will adversely affect the livelihood of our citizens, especially those of the lower income. Next, to strengthen our sense of nationhood among our citizens, I hope that this Government will review the policy of tagging budgetary benefits to household type. In my constituency, I have many residents who either live in private homes or bigger HDB flats which were purchased when they were younger, working and economically better off. However, today, many are retired with no income and some are unable to find similar paying jobs due to their age. Some are also middle income. And their frustration is that they always get left behind whenever benefits are announced in the annual Budget. It is essentially a non-event for them because the SG Bonus, GST vouchers or S&CC or utilities rebates are usually not for them. They feel that the Government has little appreciation for residents living in better homes despite their past years of contribution to nation building when they were working.”
“I hope they can be a more receptive and kinder Government when dealing with people of differing views. At the same time, I hope that Singaporeans, too, will rally behind and support a sincere and honest Government because no matter how good our policies, a divided nation will always fail. As citizens, we can all be part of a solution by working together for a common purpose of making Singapore a better home for all of us. Politics is a contest of ideas. With better explanations, Singaporeans will be able to discern what are good policies; beneficial for our people and for the nation. But we need to work hard to explain our policies to earn the respect of those who may not agree with or understand the policies. Our leaders must also learn to trust that Singaporeans are mature and know what is good for them. I feel that there are several challenges facing Singapore for the future. One of the challenges is to ensure that the economy continues growing and Singaporeans continue to have access to good jobs. The reality is that our competition is the rest of the world. Painful as it may sound, getting a good job is not an entitlement for any of us. Each of us must find a way to provide better value to our potential employer. And when I read of the high unemployment rates in some of the more developed countries, I am glad that Singapore is still able to manage its unemployment figures. But we should never assume that full employment is our entitlement and will stay with us in Singapore. Another challenge is to manage rising costs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Over the past 53 years, Singapore has done well as a nation. We are one of the more successful countries in the world with a high Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. We are known to be non-corrupt, transparent and efficient. Whenever I travel overseas, many foreigners that I speak to, compliment Singapore and they hold us in high regard. Singaporeans are known to be hardworking, dedicated and trustworthy. It is a good reputation to have and something that all Singaporeans should be proud of. But yet, sometimes, when I speak to Singaporeans, I do not sense the same level of pride of being a Singaporean. Some of them are concerned about the future of our nation, being small and without resources. Some worry that the growth opportunities which my generation had may not be available to the future generations. Some are critical of the Government even though they know that Singapore is well-run. The frequent criticism is that the Government is well-intended but unwilling to listen to other views or is too defensive. For those concerned about our future, the 4G leaders must demonstrate that they have the ability to lead the nation. They must provide a vision for Singapore and give assurance that Singaporean's future remains bright. My experience with the 4G leaders that I work with is that they are genuine and sincere about wanting to serve the people. They want to do their best to improve the lives of Singaporeans. However, governing is a complicated process and no government, no matter how well-intended, is perfect. As the 4G leadership team leads Singapore to the future, I hope that they can improve on the way that we engage our citizens. I hope they will be more consultative in the policies and approach.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I, too, have a resident staying in a private estate, not poor by any means, stuck with the same situation where his domestic helper incurred a bill of more than $15,000 for a critical illness. He can afford to pay; it is just very difficult for me to explain to him that he has to pay that large sum of money for a domestic helper who is not related to him. In situations like these, what does MOM advise?”
“We have on-road cycling lanes on Tanah Merah Coast Road. Can the Minister share the results from such infrastructure and will more be built? If not, then in many places, pavements need to be widened and segmented. Is there a plan to do this fast? Another area we should look into quickly and, I stress, quickly, is the eyesore caused by bike-sharing schemes. The bikes are indiscriminately strewn just about anywhere. I feel that a penalty should be imposed on the users and bike companies for such acts. I have been told that a blind resident fell because his white cane got entangled among the pile of bicycles! You can imagine how painful it is! In areas where these bikes cause congestion like near MRT stations, perhaps a mechanised parking system for bikes should be built and paid for by the bike companies. 7.15 pm A word of caution, some bike-sharing companies have already gone bust overseas, leaving their bikes all over the place. Given that most of these companies are headquartered overseas, perhaps LTA should impose a deposit on them, to manage such a scenario without using too much of public funds. These bike companies should be licensed and all these undesirable outcomes should be addressed before licences are issued. I have even heard of people giving up their daily walks because they are scared of bikes and PMDs. For these pedestrians, the dream of a car-lite Singapore has become a nightmare. I hope we get our infrastructure, regulations and mindsets right, so that a car-lite Singapore will be realised, not as a nightmare, but as a beautiful dream. Regulating PMDs and Shared Bicycles”
“Judging by the unhappiness raised by members of the public, I urge LTA to implement the new regulations to curb the illegal and inconsiderate parking of bicycles quickly. This is a time to show that the Government is responsive to feedback on a matter which has adversely affected many residents. Car-lite Singapore Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Sir, we are moving rapidly towards a car-lite Singapore. It appears that in our rush to accommodate bicycles and PMDs, we have somewhat sacrificed the safety of pedestrians. I often hear feedback about cyclists committing hit-and-run. I have said it before and I will say it again – without licensing and plating of bikes and PMDs, we cannot identify the culprits. Glad to hear that the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) has recommended registration for e-scooters. I hope LTA adopts this promptly and considers widening registration to all motorised PMDs, except wheelchairs. Enforcement also needs to be stepped up. Besides the mindset of our bicycle and PMD users, infrastructure plays a role. When I went to Copenhagen, I saw dedicated cycling lanes parallel to the roads. They are often on both sides of the road, so cyclists only move in one direction following the flow of traffic. The Copenhagen way also enables cyclists to go quite fast, making cycling a more attractive option. There are proper stop signs and zebra crossings where the cycling lane intersects with footpaths. And they follow the rules. In Singapore, we seem very resistant to provide such crossings. I have been asking for such a crossing at the exit of Naval Base Primary School where residents have often expressed the concern of their children the moment they step out of the school gate. So far, I have not been successful. I do not know why.”
“The current advantage of the current bicycle sharing scheme is the ability to find a bicycle almost anywhere, as compared to the systems in Europe, Taiwan and other countries where cyclists must walk to a bicycle rental station to rent a bicycle. So, if a rider wishes to pick a bicycle from outside his home and ride to the nearest bus stop or MRT station, how will the BSOs provide adequate parking places? Will it be that they will provide a parking place for the bicycles next to the condo, next to the bus stop or next to the MRT station? If there are insufficient parking places, does this mean that the riders may still dump their bicycles all over the footpath or by the roadside? Just look at the photographs in The Straits Times today showing the bicycles strewn all over the place. Who shall be responsible for the costs of providing the parking places? In my view, the responsibility of providing the parking places or, say, drawing yellow boxes, should lie with the BSOs, as they profit from the letting of bicycles. There is no compelling reason why the Government should be put to expense for providing parking places or for drawing yellow boxes for the parking of rented bicycles. In the event that the bicycles are not parked within the designated parking places or the yellow boxes, BSOs should continue charging the hirer of the bicycle until the bicycle is parked within the designated parking place. This will ensure that the hirer has an incentive to park the bicycle properly. Further, if the hirer of the bicycle dumps the bicycle in an indiscriminate manner, or obstructing others, I would urge LTA to work with the BSOs to identify the hirer and thereafter prosecute the hirer for illegal dumping of bicycles.”
“Sir, shared bicycles serve a useful function in providing the last-mile connection for residents to the nearest transport hub. Thus, a resident who does not live near a bus stop or an MRT station can now pick a bicycle near his home and ride to the nearest bus stop or MRT station and thereafter continue with his journey via public transport. Unfortunately, despite the convenience, the lack of infrastructure planning by the Bicycle Sharing Operators (BSOs) has resulted in much public unhappiness about the bicycle sharing scheme. During my dialogues with residents of the private estates, I received so many complaints about bicycles that are parked in a haphazard manner and which obstruct others. Residents complain about bicycles which are left just outside their homes; bicycles left outside the gate of the condo; bicycles strewn in the middle of the footpath, left at HDB void decks, by the grass verge and so on. When I drive, I can even see bicycles lying by the slip road next to expressways and I wonder where was the cyclist going to in the middle of the expressway. The general unhappiness seems to be the lack of proper parking places for the bicycles and the indiscriminate and inconsiderate dumping of bicycles. So, I am glad that LTA has taken the feedback of many Members of Parliament (MPs) at the last Sitting and introduced the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill yesterday. I understand that the Bill will require BSOs to provide proper parking places for their bicycles. This is akin to bicycle rental stations in other countries where there is a fixed spot to rent a bicycle. Pending the Second Reading of the Bill, may I ask the Minister how LTA intends to ensure that there are adequate parking places for the shared bicycles?”
“Sir, just two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. I just wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State whether she thinks that the state of cleanliness in Singapore, is it better today compared to five years ago? Second clarification: why does NEA feel that issuing a CWO is a more serious offence as compared to imposing a fine? When you impose a fine on a litterbug, he pays the fine, five minutes later, he forgets about it, but he walks away complaining that the Government is trying to make money out of him. But if you impose a CWO on a litterbug, you take one hour away from him, make him pick up litter, he will realise better the effect of the litter that other litterbugs have thrown on the ground, and the lesson will stay with him for a much longer period of time and, hopefully, that will deter him from littering again.”
“May I urge NEA to push for more education in the schools on the need to keep our environment clean? I suggest that every cohort of secondary school students undergo an annual exercise to pick up litter. This will help them understand the difficulties of the cleaner and also instill in them the discipline of keeping the environment clean. Can NEA consider imposing a mandatory Corrective Work Order (CWO) for every litterbug caught instead of imposing a fine? Sometimes, when I get residents who received summonses, they complained that they have low income and, therefore, cannot afford the fine. So, consider sending them for a mandatory CWO instead. For every foreign worker caught for littering, can NEA consider it as an adverse record when deciding whether to renew their work pass? We need to combine our educational efforts with adequate punitive actions. This is to be fair to the rest of Singaporeans who take effort to keep their environment and Singapore clean.”
“Chairman, for several years, I have organised anti-littering exercises in my estate during the Clean and Green month. The intent was to highlight to our residents the need to be responsible for our environment and to keep the estate clean. But each year, the team of volunteers kept picking up more and more litter. We found cigarette butts, used tissue, plastic bags, empty bottles, food containers, bottle caps and so on. One great source of irritation to many volunteers is dog poo left behind by pet owners who did not bother to pick up the dog poo. Around my constituency, whenever there are any renovation works being carried out, I would also see plastic bottles left on the road by the workers of the contractors, plastic bags of drinks hanging by the trees and so on. To say the least, it is frustrating that the clean and green Singapore which I knew some years ago is no more. Even the volunteers for the anti-littering exercises seem to have gone down in numbers as they felt frustrated at the lack of progress. Last year, NEA reported an increase in the number of summonses and more than 31,000 summonses were issued. With respect to NEA, it is not the number of summonses which we need to look at. The question is whether NEA has been effective in reducing the litter which is thrown on the roads and other public areas. Is NEA effective in keeping Singapore a clean city instead of a city which is being cleaned by our thousands of cleaners? How do we stand as a clean city when we compare ourselves with the habits of the Taiwanese or the Japanese? I would urge NEA to reconsider their entire programme of keeping Singapore clean. If the existing efforts of NEA have not resulted in a cleaner Singapore, then perhaps we should review our efforts.”
“We need to send a strong signal to such companies that if they are not interested in building a Singaporean Core and intend to hire mainly foreigners, then they should face the consequences as there is no purpose in allowing such companies to thrive in our business environment because they exist at the expense of the Singaporean Core. Capability Transfer Programme”
“Last year, during the COS debate, MOM shared that there were 250 companies on the FCF Watchlist. These are companies which have been identified as the Triple Weak companies and which do not adopt fair and progressive employment practices. The companies employ foreign workers at the expense of Singaporean workers and this has created much unhappiness among Singaporeans who have lost their jobs or are employed by companies with a majority of foreigners. Their employment practice has also created much resentment among Singaporeans against foreigners. In October 2017, MOM shared that the number of such companies on the FCF Watchlist has gone up to 300 companies. This is clearly unsatisfactory as it suggests that these companies are not deterred by the punitive action by MOM and are also not bothered about creating more employment for Singaporeans. Last month, during a house visit, my resident told me that her company has discriminatory practices in favour of foreigners because of the Managing Director's preference. Despite my request, she did not wish to reveal the name of the company as she was concerned about her own employment. And mind you, she works in HR. My concern is whether there are even more such Triple Weak companies which have discriminatory employment practices against Singaporeans and employ foreigners at the expense of Singapore Citizens. May I ask MOM what other action can the Government take against companies which have been assessed to be Triple Weak companies and are on the FCF Watchlist? Can we consider revoking these companies' work passes or EPs of the foreigners in their companies?”
“In the Second Reading of the SCT Bill in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said: "The primary purpose of this Bill is to provide for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers." I humbly submit that the rationale for SCT still holds true today and is valid. Since the Minister for Law has said that the SCT Act will be amended, I would urge MTI to work with MinLaw to ensure that this jurisdiction of the SCT cannot be ousted by arbitration clause if the value of the dispute is less than $10,000 or within the jurisdiction of SCT. Otherwise, this will make a mockery of the rationale for the SCT if the jurisdiction of SCT can be easily ousted simply by inserting an arbitration clause. It is also timely for MTI to review the entire framework and to consider more legislation to provide protection for consumers in respect of online transactions. There would have been several media reports which suggest that more and more consumers are buying online. However, in the online transactions, consumers are all disadvantaged because of the lack of bargaining power in negotiating the standard terms and conditions of trade. For example, we understand that it is common for low-cost carriers operating out of Singapore to use pre-ticked boxes when transacting with consumers. A recent case in mind involving a premium carrier is that of Singapore Airlines (SIA) which had a pre-ticked box for auto inclusion of travel insurance. In the EU, companies cannot infer consumer’s consent for additional payments by using such pre-ticked boxes and must obtain the express consent of consumers. So, I urge MTI to consider similar subsidiary legislation to the same effect.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I declare my interest in speaking on this topic as the President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore. 6.00 pm Two years ago, during the COS debate on consumer protection, I spoke on the need to ensure that consumers are protected when making purchase transactions online. Our research shows that there are several companies, like Amazon, Microsoft and Shoppee, which provide for an arbitration clause in their online standard terms and conditions. This means that consumers who buy online would have to agree to the arbitration clause when transacting with these companies. These consumers will have no negotiating power to ask for the arbitration clause to be removed. For many of these consumers, their transaction values are usually of a quantum well within the limit of $10,000. If they have a dispute with the online vendor of the products which cannot be resolved through mediation, their usual recourse is to apply to SCT to adjudicate their dispute. However, when we checked with SCT, we were told that SCT would not hear the claim by consumers because of the arbitration clause, unless both parties agree. Thus, consumers with small claims below $10,000 and who have disputes with the online companies, are unable to seek redress through SCT because of the arbitration clause. For example, if a consumer buys a surface laptop through the Microsoft website and for some reason they have a dispute, they would not be able to seek recourse through SCT because of their arbitration clause. Likewise, if they were to shop at Shoppee and buy a Nintendo set or earpiece or another laptop, they also will not be able to seek redress through SCT because of the arbitration clause.”
“Of all the cases dealt with by the Tribunal, does the Ministry track the outcome after the Order is made? How does the Tribunal ensure that quarrelling parties really keep the peace? Legal Aid”
“According to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) website, about 79 cases have been heard by the Tribunal as of July 2016. However, this Tribunal is only able to deal with disputes involving neighbours living within the same building or within 100 metres of each other, and where there has been some form of unreasonable interference by the neighbour. How effective is this Tribunal in dealing with people who have mental issues and who are not rational? In my opinion, residents who have mental issues require professional treatment, and not just a Tribunal Order. They may not have mental capacity as to whether they are behaving unreasonably. Would these people not simply ignore any order made by the Tribunal? I am sympathetic to families who have to deal with relatives with mental disorder. I accept that it is challenging to have such a relative with mental issues. However, I am even more sympathetic to the other residents who have to live daily with a neighbour who has a mental issue and is abusive. What is the recourse available to these residents? Or do they have to live with the antics of a mentally deranged person? May I ask the Minister whether the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal is equipped to deal with people with mental issues? If it is within their jurisdiction, can the Tribunal be empowered to issue mandatory treatment orders against any person found to be mentally unstable? This will ensure that any person in need of medical help would be able to find such help for their mental issue and be given regular medication to manage their symptoms. This will also provide some form of relief to the other citizens who have to live with a neighbour who is irrational.”
“Sir, over the past year, I received a few complaints from residents who face difficulties with their neighbours. The issue is not just a simple dispute between two neighbours or about an unreasonable neighbour. The problem seems to centre on the mental state of a difficult neighbour who behaves irrationally. In one of the complaints which I received, the neighbour asked for help regarding a neighbour who rants and uses vulgar language or abusive language on every other resident on the same floor. In another case, it was about a neighbour who used a broom stick and banged incessantly on the door of yet another person. In a third case, it was a neighbour who hoards rubbish, not just filling up her entire flat, but also in the common corridor. This creates a hazard to other neighbours. The recent case about a neighbour at Block 55 Toa Payoh Lorong 5, reported in the news, who threw corrosive liquid or faeces on the walls is a classic case of one person on that floor terrorising the other neighbours around her. There are other media reports which describe other extreme cases of HDB neighbours who make HDB living a nightmare, for example, in Hougang, the neighbour who flung faeces or dung. In Yishun, a women kept throwing things like toilet paper, sanitary pads, urine outside the door of another neighbour. The question is: what can the authorities do to help the innocent citizens who are adversely affected by the conduct of a mentally unstable person? The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal was set up in March 2015 to hear cases involving intractable disputes between neighbours after all efforts, including community mediation, have been exhausted.”
“I am afraid I cannot understand what Ms Sylvia Lim is asking. When you sell a land for 99 years, then the proceeds of sale for that 99 years will be gone. You are going to wait 99 years for the monies to come back before it goes back into reserves. Then, you are spending funds that would be gone for 99 years. Yes, that is why, in this generation, you are spending money for the future generations.”
“In reply to Ms Sylvia Lim, when a land is sold, whether it is on a 99-year lease or otherwise, it is not sold in perpetuity. The funds, once they go back into the reserves, would be gone for that period. For you to get back the land, you have to wait 99 years for it to come back.”
“In previous years, when GST was increased, a Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) was set up to combat any illegal profiteering due to a GST increase. Would there be a similar committee set up before the GST increase is implemented? Secondly, the Minister had said, the "Government is looking at borrowing by Statutory Boards and Government-owned companies which build infrastructure. This will help spread the cost of certain large investments over more years." Can the Minister clarify why is it necessary to borrow, considering our large reserves? Can we not rely on our other resources or borrow from our reserves and pay interest on those loans? With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. 12.44 pm”
“For those who say that we should use the Budget surplus last year to fund the increase in expenditure, I respectfully disagree because it is fiscally unsustainable to rely on a surplus which is not a constant or a guaranteed source of revenue. Last year’s surplus was an extraordinary gain and Minister Heng had explained how the surplus came about. Details of the surplus were also published in the media yesterday. Surely, we cannot expect currency translation effects or increases in stamp duty to be always available in future Budgets. For those who advocate that we use more than 50% of the expected NIR and keep less in the reserves, I would urge the Government to be cautious. It is always easy to say spend more today and save less for the future. What should be the right balance is a question that everyone has an opinion about. To me, we should exercise prudence and try to spend within our means, especially if our expenses are on recurrent spending on healthcare, security and other social spending. We have been fortunate that our NIR has been increasing year after year. Last year was $14.61 billion and this year the Budget is $15.85 billion. What if the NIR falls in the future years? Would we then say take more from the NIR again? As for using proceeds from land sales, as suggested by Mr Pritam Singh, I want to sound a word of caution: once land is sold, the asset is gone. If we to use any part of the sales proceeds to fund recurrent expenses, does that mean that we are taking the monies away from the reserves? So, I humbly submit that we should allow our reserves to grow in tandem with the economy. Before I conclude, allow me to seek a few clarifications from the Minister.”
“Thus, I am glad that the GST increase is not taking effect next year or the year after. Instead, the Government is giving three years' advance notice that in order to maintain the spending on healthcare, security and other social spending, they would need to raise revenue by increasing GST by 2%. In my view, it is fair and prudent to take a longer term view of the needs of the country. It is not always possible to expect the Government to keep increasing the spending on healthcare, security and other social spending without thinking of how to fund such spending. In particular, if the increase in GST would help reduce the healthcare burden on all citizens, if it helps subsidise transport costs, if it provides more care for the lower-income, it should be something that we should all support as we are helping the majority of Singaporeans, for the lower-income, middle-income and seniors. The Minister for Finance has committed to enhancing the permanent GST Voucher scheme and he has also committed to make a $2 billion top-up to the GST Voucher Fund. When the GST increase is implemented, there will also be an offset package later. So, with respect to Mr Pritam Singh, I would not agree that GST in the Singapore context is regressive. In fact, I am surprised at the Workers' Party's reservations on GST increase. Because if the Workers' Party agrees to increase social spending for healthcare, education and security, where can the funds come from to pay for these recurrent expenditures? Minister Heng had said, "In the next decade, between 2021 and 2030, if we do not take measures early, we will not have enough revenues to meet our growing needs." Thus, to me, it is clear that the Government is planning not just for a few years later but for the next decade!”
“However, the devil is always in the details. In allocating more resources to these areas of priorities, I urge the Government to consider and to ensure that the lives of all Singaporeans would improve. I understand the need to take better care of the poor and needy and those with low-income. But I urge the Government not to forget the struggles and difficulties of the rising number of middle-class citizens who may feel sandwiched by Government policies. They perceive some of the policies as not helping them. Hence, I urge the Government to implement policies which would help those in need and, at the same time, be fair to citizens who have contributed to build Singapore. Thus, for incentives like S&CC rebates or GST vouchers, please consider helping those who live in bigger flats but with lower-income. Please do not just assess based on house type. Review the income ceiling for those who apply for CHAS card or those who should receive Silver Support. Keep an eye on the retirees and the middle-income Singaporeans so that they, too, can share or enjoy the growth of the country. Schemes like the Housing Grant and Proximity Housing Grant are good schemes that help the middle-income own HDB flats with large subsidies from the Government. The increase in GST was voted in November last year. When the idea was floated, I said that there is always a political cost if you cannot persuade the ground that a hike in taxes is necessary. Nobody likes a tax increase as it takes away disposable income from the citizen and transfers it to the Government to manage. The GST increase is planned for 2021 to 2025. The Prime Minister had previously said that in this current term of Government, which ends in 2021, it has enough revenue.”
“He asked Singaporeans to take a longer-term view, and set out our strategic challenges clearly and plainly. He indicated that the Government will spend more on healthcare by building more hospitals, polyclinics, nursing homes and eldercare centres. The Government will also spend more on infrastructure projects like the rail network, construction of Terminal 5, Tuas Port as well as the High Speed Rail. More will also be spent on education and security. These priorities of the Government resonate with me. Indeed, healthcare is always a concern for many Singaporeans as there will be more and more seniors as we live longer. Many elderly citizens whom I speak to worry about high healthcare costs, especially those who suffer from chronic diseases or had suffered stroke or require long-term medication for cancer. In my constituency walkabouts, I see more and more residents on wheelchair or needing help with their mobility. More spending on healthcare will make it affordable for those who need help in their retirement years. Having improved infrastructure will also allow better accessibility and convenience for many people and create a better environment for all Singaporeans. Lower transport fare is welcomed because public transport is a necessity and public transport should be kept affordable. An increase in education spending is also welcomed as it will prepare our children for the future challenges in the world. Increasing the financial support for students from lower-income families will mitigate the gap between the well-off students and lower-income families. With increased terrorist activities, security should also be an area of priority and, indeed, we should ensure that whatever we have today should be protected from those who wish Singapore to fail.”
“Mr Speaker, as a Member of Parliament, I receive frequent requests from residents asking the Government to do more for them. Residents ask for financial help, they want lower transport fares, they appeal for more bus services to bring them to their specific destination; they ask for low-cost rental flats, they ask for blue CHAS cards, for higher healthcare subsidies and they ask for less expensive medical treatment at clinics and hospitals and the list goes on. For many of these requests, I am sympathetic as these residents are usually low-income. Any reduction of costs or living expenses would be greatly welcomed by them. However, what some people do not remember is that it is not the Government who just pays for the subsidies. The financial burden would be borne by other taxpayers. Not all residents understand that the Government is a trustee of sort to manage the taxes paid by Singaporeans and Singapore companies. In doing so, the Government has to be prudent in its spending and judiciously decide how to allocate scarce resources. Many of us have unlimited wants but there is only so much resource available for distribution. Singapore has no natural resources. We do not have oil reserves, no timber forest or coal or natural minerals at our disposal. Almost everything has to be imported. But despite the lack of natural resources, Singapore has remained successful with good economic growth and has accumulated respectable financial reserves. I attribute this to good government as well as a hardworking and intelligent citizenship who have helped built Singapore to what it is today. Our Budget theme for this year is "Together – A Better Future". In the Budget Statement, the Finance Minister explained that the Budget is a strategic and integrated plan.”
“I wanted to ask the Senior Minister of State why are we just focusing on giving fines to the BSOs? Surely, the BSOs should be able to review the data of the last user of the bicycle who left his bicycle in an indiscriminate manner. Would the Senior of State not agree with me that we would be better able to shape user behaviour if we impose a fine on those users who park their bicycles in a manner that obstruct fire exits and wheelchair ramps?”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the Senior Minister of State what is stopping the Ministry of Transport from taking enforcement actions against hirers of bicycles from being prosecuted because of the way they dump the bicycles? If we fine litterbugs from throwing cigarette butts, why should we not fine bicycle users for throwing their bicycles on the roadside, or expressways, flyovers, drains? Surely, these are worse litterers. They create such an eyesore for members of the public, so the entire public is put to inconvenience because of the indiscriminate littering of bicycles by some inconsiderate users.”
“In such a case, may I ask who regulates these online travel portals? In the event that these online travel agencies cease operations, how do consumers recover their payment made to such online travel companies? Perhaps, the Government can consider introducing regulations to regulate online travel agents as well. The Government should also consider an outreach programme to remind consumers who have bought their air tickets or hotels via such travel portal on the importance of purchasing travel insurance after making their booking. In summary, CASE supports the amendments to the Travel Agents Act and the introduction of enhanced measures to protect consumers. We urge STB to regularly review the legislation and the regulations to ensure that consumer interests will always be protected. 4.53 pm”
“And these figures exclude the sales recorded by some travel agencies which conduct pre-travel fair sales. And for each sale of a travel package, consumers typically pay deposits of between 20% and 50% of the package costs. Some consumers even pay for the entire package in full so as to obtain freebies from their credit card companies. In response to our concerns about closure of travel agents, STB had implemented a policy that travel agencies must inform consumers about the importance and the need to purchase travel insurance. Unfortunately, not every consumer buys travel insurance as the insurance costs add up to the overall costs paid for by the consumers. So, I would ask the Government to consider requiring travel agencies to provide a performance bond or insurance to protect against business failure. It is part and parcel of doing business, just like lawyers and doctors are required to provide insurance against claims by their clients. The amount of insurance or performance bond may be set at 20% to 30% of the annual turnover of each travel agent so that their funds are not tied up excessively. And this, hopefully, will, at least, provide some form of protection for travellers who, for some reason or other, do not buy travel insurance. I also urge STB to constantly check on the financials of the travel agencies. This will allow STB to better anticipate whether a travel agency may be facing financial difficulties and, thereafter, STB can step in to protect the deposits paid by consumers as early as possible. I would also like to highlight another area, which is the prevalence of online travel portals like Agoda Travel, Hotels.com, Booking.com and so on. I understand that many of these companies are not registered in Singapore.”
“In the consultation paper put up by STB in June 2017, it was stated that STB will enhance consumer protection by amending the regulations governing the Travel Agents Act. One such amendment to the regulations will prohibit travel agents from publishing "inaccurate or erroneous" advertisements. I welcome such an amendment as advertisements which contain inaccurate or erroneous details will be misleading to consumers. Thus, if a travel agent advertises its tours as "zero costs" and then recover its costs from consumers by imposing compulsory minimum spending or compulsory tips, that is clearly inaccurate and misleading. I also welcome clause 10 of the Bill which imposes a requirement for travel agents facing suspension or revocation of their licences to disclose this fact to new and existing customers. This will allow consumers to be aware of the trading status of the travel agent. Hence, it is for consumers to make an informed decision whether to continue dealing with the same travel agent facing the restriction. For this particular clause 10, may I ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify: for consumers who had already bought travel packages from a travel agent facing suspension or revocation of their licences, can these consumers be allowed the option of terminating their contract without compensation or losses? For CASE, our main concern is about consumer protection whenever a travel agency ceases operations. Each time we read about a travel agency ceasing operations or had its licence revoked by STB, there will be losses suffered by consumers. There will also be loss of consumer confidence in travel agencies. It has been reported in the media that the amount of sales generated by travel fairs every year has been about between $80 million and $100 million.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE). Over the past five years, CASE has received 792 complaints against the closure of travel agencies. Most of these complaints relate to loss of deposits paid by consumers due to the closure of travel agencies. And based on our records, there were a total of 17 travel agencies which ceased operations over the last five years. Even established brand names, like Five Star Travels, Asia Euro Travel, Ho Wah, S-Travel and MISA Travel, who have been in the travel business for many years, were unable to survive in the tough competitive business environment and, eventually, they ceased operations. When they did cease operations, consumers who had made travel bookings and payment in advance were left in the lurch. There is nothing they can do when businesses fail; even lodging claims will not get back their payment because consumers are unsecured creditors and rank last. As not all affected consumers lodge their complaints with CASE, these reported figures of 792 complaints may represent only a fraction of the total number of consumers affected by the closure of the travel agencies. Many consumers, after finding out that the travel agency had ceased operations, do not lodge complaints to CASE because they know that they cannot recover their losses. CASE has been in constant dialogue with STB on the issue of closure of the travel agencies for the past few years. Allow me to put on record my appreciation to STB officers for meeting us regularly and discussing consumer protection with myself and my CASE officers.”
“It raises both serious legal and moral questions. Mdm Speaker, it has been a sad month for Singapore. For many Singaporeans, the quarrel is not just about the Oxley Road property. There are ways of resolving this dispute without the need to make such public accusations. Just because Prime Minister Lee does not agree with the siblings' proposal to demolish the house does not in any way mean that there is abuse of power. Even if Prime Minister Lee does agree with his father's desire to demolish the property, I would say that Prime Minister Lee still owes a duty to Singaporeans to consider the preservation of the property. What grieves me and many of my residents is that these allegations have brought dishonour to the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our first Prime Minister. Mr Lee Kuan Yew helped shaped our ideas, our values and, with his team of leaders, made Singapore successful. I truly hope that there can be some resolution to this matter through private mediation instead of having more public accusations hurled against the Prime Minister. The continuation of these baseless accusations distract the Government from its actual duty of providing leadership for the country. But sadly, from this morning's response, it seems that this is unlikely. The legacy of Minister Mentor Lee seems likely to be damaged by the continued accusations and I would say Singaporeans just have to move on. 12.44 pm”
“Why did Mr Lee Hsien Yang say this? Surely, he knows who drafted the will? Subsequently, he said in a Facebook posting that his wife, Ms Lee Suet Fern, had put the will into language. Why such a choice of words? Is this a roundabout way of saying that the will was drafted by his wife? She then asked her firm's lawyers to witness Minister Mentor Lee's execution of the will. My concern is whether Minister Mentor Lee, at age 89 or 90 at that time, was independently advised about the contents of the will. This is of legal significance because it may mean that the demolition clause in the will may not be valid and it will affect the way the Government assesses the intent of Minister Mentor Lee about the demolition clause. If there had been any misconduct in relation to the drafting of the will, then it is no longer a private matter. I hope the matter will be treated with proper seriousness by the authorities. No one should be above the law, regardless of whether the person is the Prime Minister himself, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's children or anyone related to the family. The challenge by Mr Lee Hsien Yang is that Prime Minister Lee is abusing his authority to ask Cabinet to preserve 38 Oxley Road against the wishes of Minister Mentor Lee. This means that the Government has an obligation to better understand what Minister Mentor Lee's wishes were. If Minister Mentor Lee had in March 2012 authorised his architects to submit the development application for 38 Oxley Road, then the demolition clause in the will seems to contradict Minister Mentor's position. The Government should look further into the circumstances behind the making of the last will and, in particular, whether Mr Lee Kuan Yew was independently advised when he signed the last will.”