Saktiandi Supaat
Singapore
“I have two supplementary questions. For my Parliamentary Questions that the Senior Minister of State answered earlier, I thank him for answering them because those are questions that my dialect-speaking seniors in Toa Payoh East and their families have raised to me.”
“As the Review Group has recognised, there is no "silver bullet", a holistic ecosystem-wide approach is required. The implementation of these recommendations appears to have been phased, with announcements across February, July and November 2025.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Three questions. First, given that the Section 301 actions can sometimes be broad-based, how is Singapore engaging with our US counterparts to ensure that our firms are not inadvertently affected by measures aimed at other economies?”
“Many of them do not openly express their difficulties. This is why social and emotional support must go beyond the occasional event. It must be sustained, trusted and easily accessible.”
“Would the Government consider developing a National Master Trades Accreditation framework – a national tiered certification that recognises advanced trade mastery, similar to chartered professionals in other sectors and create a new avenue for career switchers and career transition for segments of our workforce?”
“When the scheme is implemented in 2028, how will the Ministry measure success in terms of participation rates, risk-adjusted returns and improvements in retirement adequacy outcomes for CPF members?”
The complete record
Every one of 992 lines we hold for Saktiandi Supaat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 20.
“This clearly demonstrates the compassion and concern of my residents regardless of race or religion for those affected in Gaza, even though an SCDF effort in a war-torn area might not be possible. I shared that all of us can provide immediate assistance to the Palestinian victims through the various accredited charities that are raising funds for aid to Gaza. For example, Islamic Relief, the Singapore Red Cross and RLAF are running ongoing fund collections. I am proud of the local community's speedy and generous response to RLAF's fund collection efforts, raising more than S$4.6 million in only 2 weeks, as mentioned earlier by my Parliamentary colleague Ms Nadia. (In English) I will now speak in English, Mr Speaker, on what I hope the Government will do and take next steps. Mr Speaker, Sir, I had the opportunity to hear various feedback from my youth residents and volunteers in Toa Payoh East, all of whom hail from diverse backgrounds. Despite the difference in views on the issue, all of them found common ground in condemning the use of violence and are concerned with the needless loss of civilian lives, particularly those of children. To that end, some of these youths have expressed willingness to contribute to numerous calls for aid within the community. Similar to the feedback raised by my Muslim residents, the youths also brought up a few points of concern, chief of which is the influence of media, both traditional and social media. I note that different media channels seem to report different aspects of the conflict and, sometimes, with a subjective spin. Such is evident in the various feedback I have gathered, where I enquired about how opinions are formed and what the source of their information is.”
“Worse, I am concerned of divisive voices online using it for incitement or hate speech against other religions. As a Singaporean, I am proud of the way that the outpouring of sympathy for those suffering is largely done in constructively and calmly. We should all understand the complex context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and know the facts, before forwarding such messages to our family members and friends. I hope that we can continue to perform supplication and our solat hajat special prayers for peace and alleviation of their suffering. In Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, mosques such as Masjid Omar Salmah and Masjid Muhajirin have held special prayers on 20 October, following the call of encouragement by MUIS and the Office of the Mufti to conduct recitation of the supplication Qunut Nazilah, as well as special supplication during the Friday sermon and prayers. I have attended Friday prayers in which these prayers were done since early October. MUIS has also worked with Muslim.sg to offer religious guidance on appropriate responses to this conflict and will soon be issuing an irsyad (guidance). During my recent dialogue with a group of Toa Payoh East residents, both young and old, several residents asked how each resident can help in terms of providing donations through the right channels, that is, the mosques, the UN and also how to receive the correct information through the Government. One resident even asked if we could send our SCDF Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (DART) personnel to conduct search and rescue operation, similar to the help provided in response to the Türkiye-Syria earthquake in February this year. I said that we should focus on providing the basic needs like water, food and medical supplies to the civilians in Israel-Gaza.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. While the conflict is miles away from Singapore, we cannot help but mourn the heart-wrenching violence against innocent civilians, including children, on both sides of the conflict. I echo fellow Parliamentary colleagues who have given their speeches earlier and express my deepest condolences to all innocent victims and civilian casualties and their families. I have been encouraged by the views of some residents I have engaged in my closed-door chats and dialogues with them on this issue in the past week and would like to voice some of their perspectives in Parliament on this Motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Many of us in the Malay/Muslim community have heavy hearts regarding plight of the Palestine people. It was reported in the news that some of us are feeling a "real sense of helplessness". The community is experiencing difficult emotions, as we hear daily about the powerless Palestinians suffering through the disproportionate, aggressive actions by both parties in the conflict. It is understandable, when they see the news and social media posts, and are disturbed by hospitals and places of worship in Gaza being bombed and destroyed. I have residents who are concerned and have asked if these actions comply with international humanitarian law in war. So, I agree with the Motion – (e) calling on all parties to comply fully with international humanitarian law, including ensuring the safety and security of civilians, release all civilian hostages and minimize the effects of combat on the civilian population. My residents, both Muslims and non-Muslims, have also shared that there is misinformation spreading on social media and WhatsApp on the conflict.”
“And what percentage of deceased members' accounts still contained unclaimed CPF monies six months after CPF Board is notified of the member's death, such that the monies had to be transferred out into the general CPF fund and no further interest is payable on such monies? Before these amendments, what percentage of CPF members gave their consent to the CPF Board to disclose information after death, when making their nominations of the persons entitled to receive their CPF monies upon their death? Under the new section 59(11), the information which CPF Board may disclose without consent includes the deceased member's CPF accounts, any nomination made by the member and "any other information as may be prescribed in regulations". So, the question I have is: will the prescribed information be broader than the scope of information that a member can presently consent to the CPF Board's disclosure? Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“I am just curious why the Bill expressly provides that the time prescribed for terminating such schemes "may differ for different classes of members". Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification on what the provision seeks to address. Is the move to ring-fence the benefits of CPF to Singaporeans a sign that we will be seeing significant changes to the system? When many Members, including me, queried the relevance of the CPF interest rate pegs amidst soaring inflation and global interest rates, Minister Tan See Leng stated during the Committee of Supply 2023 that the Ministry is watching this interest rate environment very closely to ensure that the CPF interest rate pegs remain relevant in the prevailing operating environment. Are we about to see an increase in the 2.5% and 4% pegs for the CPF Ordinary Account (OA) and other accounts respectively? I am glad that we are taking steps to make it even easier for a CPF member's monies to be disbursed to beneficiaries upon the member's death. When we last debated amendments to the CPF Act in 2021, this House was informed of how CPF Board already reaches out to nominees once it is notified of a member's death and it disburses the monies within a month. The Bill now introduces a power for the CPF Board to disclose certain information about the deceased CPF member to his or her nominees or any persons who would be the member's beneficiaries if no nomination was made. This would enable nominees and beneficiaries to come forward and withdraw the member's leftover CPF monies even more quickly. Since 2021, what percentage of deceased members' accounts was not disbursed and emptied within a month of the member's death being notified to CPF Board?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the key amendments in this Bill is to limit CPF schemes to SCs and PRs only. Following the amendment, foreigners who currently have CPF accounts will either have to withdraw all CPF monies standing to their credit or have their monies transferred to the General Moneys of the CPF Fund which would not bear interest on or after 1 April 2024. How many such accounts will be affected and what percentage of all CPF accounts do they constitute? Is there any particular demographic of workers that is especially affected by this change? As these workers will be entitled to withdraw all existing monies once they lose their right to participate in the CPF scheme, are we doing anything special to brace ourselves for the expected rate of outflow of monies from the system? While it is understandable that we want to ring-fence the benefits of the CPF system to Singaporeans only, I am sure there were also good reasons why we allowed foreigners working here to participate in the CPF scheme previously. Can the Government share how those considerations have changed today? One reason that immediately comes to my mind is to ensure the relative competitiveness and employability of Singaporeans. By disapplying the CPF system to foreigners working here, would that cause businesses and employers to turn away from Singaporeans to foreign workers since they do not have to pay additional CPF contributions for the foreign workers? As the CPF system becomes inapplicable to non-PR foreigners, related schemes, such as the Lifelong Income Scheme and the Home Protection Insurance Scheme, will naturally have to be terminated for such individuals.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to seek clarifications from the Senior Minister of State for Transport. With regard to the "cut-and-fill" approach, will there be any trade-offs in respect of the impact on the roads with this initial reduction of the peaks and troughs that the Senior Minister of State mentioned? The second clarification is that I am glad to hear that LTA is looking at the COE market, in terms of speculative activities in relation to my Parliamentary Question, and I am wondering whether the Senior Minister of State can share a bit more about the possibilities on what are the measures that we can take to relook into the speculative activities going forward, on the side of car COEs.”
“For example, a customs officer may enter an FTZ to monitor compliance with the Act, search the FTZ, detain goods for inspection, require persons to provide information and documents, just to name a few. Does this mean that the customs officers did not have these powers before this? How then have we ensured that our FTZs are free of money laundering, terrorist financing or any other illicit activities over the years? Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“My concern is that they could seek to pass these cost increases on to the businesses and companies which operate in the FTZs, which may erode the more business-friendly conditions within these FTZs. More importantly, how do our FTZs measure up in terms of competitiveness against the "free zones" operated by other major trading countries, especially those in the region? Based on a study by the World Customs Organization, it appears to be getting harder to differentiate between the regulation and operation of the "free zones" in various countries. What can we do to maintain our advantage as the transshipment hub of choice for traders and shippers? The amended Act will also require FTZ cargo handlers to disclose certain cargo information to the licensed FTZ operator in a prescribed form, manner and timeline. In turn, the FTZ operator owes a duty to disclose the same information to the DG of Customs in order to facilitate enforcement of the Act. While I understand that the form and manner of such reporting are to be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, will we be adopting the harmonised digital solutions and data standards which the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has been working with other foreign ports to develop? May I also ask what is the expected timeline for the enactment of such subsidiary legislation? Have any exercises been undertaken to consult the current industry practice on such data submissions and have they been completed? When will these reporting obligations be expected to come into force? Finally, I note that the Bill introduces new sections 14Q to 14Z setting out the powers of enforcement of customs officers, among other things.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, our 10 FTZs in Singapore are the lesser-known ingredients to our continued economic prosperity. They are governed by the Free Trade Zones Act 1966, which we enacted shortly after our Independence in order to facilitate the entrepot trade which we had become known for. Since Singapore's early days as a British colony, its geographical location at the centre of major trade routes attracted traders to ship their goods here with the aim of re-exporting them elsewhere. I note that the FTZs Act has not been substantially amended many times since it was first enacted in 1966. May I ask the Minister to provide further details on why we are suddenly looking at amending it now rather than doing it much earlier? I note the Senior Minister of State's speech highlighting that it is meant to update and strengthen the FTZ regime. But could the Senior Minister of State provide further details as to why it was not done much earlier? One of the main changes appears to be that the FTZs will no longer be managed by authorities that are answerable to the Minister but, instead, by FTZ operators who will be licensed by the DG of Customs. However, I understand that the same three authorities – Jurong Port, PSA Corporation and Changi Airport Group – will continue to manage the 10 FTZs as FTZ operators. Is this amendment more of form than substance, or is it the case that, with this change, the Ministry will look to license other FTZ operators? It is also unclear if this seemingly unnecessary change will bring about an increase in regulatory or compliance costs. For example, will the existing operators have to pay more to apply for and maintain their licence as FTZ operators?”
“Mr Speaker, I just want to seek clarification from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The reason why I asked is because, for first offenders, they get it six months later, thinking that they were not supposed to be fined. So, I think the long duration exacerbated the concerns of the resident. So, my clarification is with regard to the notification slip. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if the notification slip will be placed into the letter box or under the HDB flat unit's door? So, in what ways will the notifications be delivered? I am wondering whether there would be instances where the notification slips would be sent to the wrong addresses or may have actually flown away or disappeared if it is hung on the door.”
“I think there were some instances of that and whether we can avoid that, by handing over the letters physically in such cases and to check the ownership of the breeding sites. I hope the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share a bit on that.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask two supplementary questions, please. The reason why I am asking this Parliamentary Question (PQ) and these consequent supplementary questions is because I have been getting a number of residents complaining about letters coming in close to six months later, or a bit lengthier in some sense. One resident told me that it is their first offence as well and they would not get fined again, but then found out eventually, six months later, that they got a fine in the letter box. My Toa Payoh residents found this a bit worrying – six months after the fact. And also, the fines are substantial and can be quite significant for some of the low-income residents in my constituency. The first supplementary question, Mr Speaker is: can the letters be sent earlier? I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has highlighted that the Ministry is trying to work to reduce the timeframe. If the Ministry can hasten that a bit, it will be very useful. It can help in some ways, especially when the offence is initiated earlier. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give some details on how first offenders are treated in such cases, especially the first offenders, because they are not familiar with this? Second, can there be instances where the letters can be handed over physically? The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there were four cases where wrong addresses were given to those who were fined. I think these are instances where the owner of the breeding sites is on the ground floor of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) block, for example, where the locations of the breeding sites could not be ascertained clearly.”
“Will it be compulsory for SEPs to participate once IRAS issues a notice to the third-party intermediary to collect, retain or provide income data, or will SEPs be able to opt in or opt out? (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, finally, I am supportive of the move to enhance the tax incentives for qualifying expenditure on R&D. This is especially important in these times of high interest rates, where companies are likely to shelf or postpone their R&D plans, which may require borrowing to fund the significant investment upfront. However, could the Ministry shed light on how it decided on the 400% that the tax deduction will be raised to? Has there been any studies on how the changes in the tax deduction for R&D over the years had impacted the amount of R&D that is conducted? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought and the questions asked, I support the Bill.”
“If the aim is "to encourage couples in all income groups to have children", as Deputy Prime Minister explained in his Budget round-up speech, did the Ministry consider retaining the percentage deductions while adding fixed dollar floors to the deductible income? This would allow lower-income mothers to gain more without being at the expense of higher-income mothers. On a related note, I notice that the Bill also removes the deduction allowed to a woman in relation to the levy she or her husband pays for a domestic helper. What is the rationale for this? Is the underlying basis for such a deduction no longer relevant today? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Bill also introduces a new provision for IRAS to require prescribed persons to collect, retain and submit income information for SEPs. While the list of prescribed persons has not been announced yet, I expect that it will include platforms and ride-hailing companies who would be able to process such information for the delivery riders and private-hire drivers that they work with. Therefore, what other types of intermediaries does the Ministry expect to prescribe in subsidiary legislation? I also understand that a phased implementation approach will be adopted. Can the Ministry share how it expects to do this? Will this come into effect for next year's income tax filing for YA 2023? I am a strong advocate of the use of data and technology to push and deliver Government support schemes to Singaporeans. However, there may be good reasons why SEPs do not want their income data to be collected and retained by other persons, including the operators of the platforms which they might be providing their services on.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I spoke on amending the Income Tax Act last year, I mentioned how the Act is frequently amended almost every year to implement the Government's latest fiscal strategy announced in the Annual Budget Statement. I am glad this year is no different, as we seek to make our tax system fairer, easier to use and an important lever to boost our economic competitiveness. Just like the last few years, this Bill implements the tax changes announced by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance during the Budget Statement in February 2023. One significant change is to the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR), which allows working mothers to enjoy deductions to their taxable income for each additional child they have. For every child born or adopted from 1 January 2024 onwards, the mother will get a fixed deduction of $8,000 for the first child, $10,000 for the second child and $12,000 for any subsequent child and no longer a deduction of 15%, 20% or 25% of her annual income. From my conversations with young couples, I understand that some are frustrated that this move penalises higher-income mothers as they would enjoy less tax benefits than before. Even though I clarify that they will continue to enjoy the percentage tax deductions for any child born before 1 January 2024, the fact remains that mothers earning more than $4,500 per month will get less benefit than before for any future child. Taking the latest tax data, how many mothers enjoying the WMCR earn less than $54,000 a year and how many earn more than that amount?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question. I would like to direct it to Minister Indranee and Minister of State Alvin Tan. I listened to Minister Josephine's speech just now. She mentioned about the financial sector contributing about 14% to GDP and 200,000 workers. I am mindful of the importance that the financial sector contributes to Singapore's GDP and, of course, our entrepot hub, trade hub as well. So, I just want to ask a supplementary question on the enhancement aspects of things, following this episode. First question I have for Minister of State Alvin is with regards to resources: how much we have spent on handling anti-money laundering in MAS to handle such things, including in terms of staffing, in terms of capacity building? So, it is somewhat related to the previous supplementary questions on staffing, resources. An additional question is to Minister Indranee: in the IMC, in terms of capacity building for agencies in relation to the financial sector like MAS, how do we compare – in terms of staffing and amount spent on capacity building comparing to other financial hubs like New York, London, Hong Kong and other jurisdictions as well? Do we pale in comparison in terms of spending, in terms of spending, in term of staffing levels, going forwards as well?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Just one supplementary question. May I ask the Senior Minister of State what is the long-term COVID-19 exit strategy for Singapore and whether we have attained herd immunity such that continued vaccination will be optional from now on? I am glad to hear the Senior Minister of State mention that there are no plans to charge for booster shots going forward and that those aged 12 to 59 would still be advised to take their vaccines.”
“Does this also mean that disputes over non-compliance with the leasing principles must always be subject to the mediation and adjudication process under the Bill, and cannot be decided by a Court or arbitral tribunal? Mr Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to briefly touch on one area which is not presently dealt with by the Code of Conduct or the Bill. In most longer-term leases, including those that are renewable for further periods, there are usually terms providing for a rent review exercise to "refresh" the rent payable after a certain period of time. This recognises that rent amounts are susceptible to market changes and fluctuations over time. Rent review is an area which is regulated in other jurisdictions. In France, the law provides for a legal mechanism where the rent will be revised every three years based on an index without recourse to the courts, following a request from the landlord or the tenant. In Belgium, a party may apply to court to obtain an adjustment of the rent where there are new circumstances affecting the normal rental value of the leased building. In various Australian states, the law prescribes certain restrictions on the rent review procedure and calculation methodology that may be agreed by the parties in the lease agreement. This may be an area that FTIC or the Ministry may wish to look into going forward. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“I would also like to commend, Mr Speaker, the aim of a "low-cost and expedient" dispute resolution process for any non-compliance with leasing principles, through the introduction of mediation and adjudication processes at Part 4 of the Bill. I look forward to seeing the rules, procedures and other details that will be established under clause 10 by the authorised dispute resolution body, which I understand will be the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC). However, can the Minister of State clarify if there would be a stipulation equivalent to paragraph 3 of Part D of the Code of Conduct? It says there that a landlord or tenant may escalate any non-compliance in the lease agreement to SMC "within 14 days of the signing of the lease agreement". If yes, what is the consequence if the parties do not escalate the matter within 14 days of signing the lease agreement? A bit of a technicality, but I thought it is good to clear this. Are they barred from raising the issue from then on? To keep the process "low-cost and expedient", will the mediation and adjudication be carried out without lawyers? I also note that the prescribed mediation and adjudication process is only meant to cover a dispute over "non-compliance with a leasing principle in relation to their lease agreement". If there are concurrently other disputes arising out of the lease agreement, I presume these will have to be referred to the Courts or to arbitration, depending on what the lease agreement provides. May I ask the Minister of State is this a circumstance where a Court would exercise its discretion under clause 13 of the Bill to stay parallel Court proceedings?”
“Such data provides tenants with a more even playing field when negotiating shopping mall leases with building landlords, especially if the lease contemplates a gross turnover rent structure. On the application of leasing principles set out at Part B of the Code, the Bill provides that this would only apply to a "qualifying lease". Among other things, the lease would be one which is for at least one year, and any period for which the lease can be later extended or renewed is disregarded. May I ask the Minister of State: does this allow for landlords or tenants to escape compliance with the leasing principles by structuring their lease as multiple renewal periods of 11 months, for example? Four out of the 11 leasing principles under the Code – relating to exclusivity terms, sales performance clauses, rental structure and security deposit – can be deviated from, provided that the landlord and the tenant mutually agree. However, the Code also provides that deviations for the first three principles are to be "on an exceptional basis". May I ask the Minister of State as well does this mean that something more is required on top of the mutual agreement of the landlord and the tenant? Clause 6 of the Bill also provides that any permitted deviation from the leasing principles must be declared to FTIC or else it might be void. The Committee will maintain a register and record of permitted deviations under clause 7 of the Bill. May I ask the Minister of State what is the purpose of lodging these declarations with the FTIC? Is there room for the FTIC to interfere with these permitted deviations if they have been mutually agreed by the landlord and tenant in question?”
“Even though clause 5 introduces the Code of Conduct generally, it appears that the Bill only gives legislative bite to Part B of the Code, by requiring the landlord and the tenant of a "qualifying lease" to comply with the leasing principles set out in Part B. May I clarify with the Minister of State if the intention is for Parts A, C and D of the Code to have the force of law as well? For example, Part A of the Code mandates landlords and tenants to "adopt a consensual approach to negotiate in good faith". With the passing of this Bill, is there now a legal duty to negotiate in good faith, even in the absence of an express contractual term? I understand that this is not the current state of the law. Part D of the Code also requires a landlord to provide the tenant with a completed checklist indicating whether its draft lease agreement deviates or disapplies particular leasing principles under the Code. Will this become a legal requirement? While I understand that the Code has already been voluntarily adopted by major private sector landlords like CapitaLand, CDL, Frasers and Keppel Land, I am concerned about the compliance readiness and costs to other relatively smaller landlords of retail premises, such as, for example, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) or clan associations. Most significantly, there has been some concern over the Bill’s silence on the data transparency guidelines at Part C of the Code. The tenant group Singapore Tenants United for Fairness (SGTuff) made a public call for landlords to be required to provide data on the footfall and average rental per square foot in their retail premises.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, retail and commercial leases have long been a special class of tenancies that are protected by legislation in other countries, such as Australia, France and Belgium. Despite the rise of online shopping and transactions, the retail shops in our neighbourhoods and shopping malls are still an invaluable part of our lives in Singapore. This Bill is significant, as mentioned by some of our hon Members who have delivered their speeches, as it seeks to regulate the negotiation of private leases between landlords and tenants. It represents an exception to Singapore's reluctance to interfere with the free market of private commercial transactions. It goes beyond the specific and temporary interventions that this House had passed during the height of the COVID-19 crisis. One main aspect of the Bill is to elevate parts of the Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises into law. The Code was co-created by the retail industry landlord and tenant representatives through extensive discussions between June 2020 and March 2021. That time period suggests that the Code was created in a context where COVID-19 had significantly affected retail businesses as footfall plunged during the pandemic. Are the principles in the Code suitable for permanent adoption going forward, especially as we leave the pandemic days behind us? Clause 5 of the Bill, which introduces the Code into legislation, provides that the Code can only be modified with the Minister's approval. So, I would like to ask the Minister of State, would such a requirement introduce bureaucratic "red tape" that makes the Code less nimble and ready to adapt to changing market conditions? And how many times has the Code been amended or revised since it was initially issued?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State a supplementary question. With regard to the recourse on products which are not specifically fronted by FIs, for example, commodities-related products, such as gold, can I ask the Minister of State for clarification? Is the appropriate recourse via FIDReC in those types of situations? Because if I am not mistaken, when it comes to commodities-related products, it is not. So, maybe the Minister of State can help me clarify that point.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the short answer to the question. I have one supplementary question. In regard to, maybe I am jumping the gun here, potentially going forward, the original proposed line was supposed to have a stop at Iskandar-Puteri on the Malaysia side, linking the Nusajaya region within Iskandar, Malaysia, to Singapore, Melaka, Seremban and Kuala Lumpur. But going forward, on the Singapore side, are there any changes to plans of the HSR potentially, within Singapore's borders? Is it still going to go through Jurong? If the Senior Minister of State can share some thoughts on that. The second supplementary question is in relation to the request for information (RFI), whether the Senior Minister of State can share if we have any inkling of the concept proposals that the Malaysia side has received through the RFI?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. First is on the matter of principle in my Parliamentary Question. I asked about the transparent guidelines for mandatory disclosures or announcements when a Minister is personally implicated. I am concerned first as a matter of principle, because a political office holder is involved and also in the context and environment that we are possibly open to leaks and the social media age that we are in, what does that mean in that sort of context? Does it really mean that we actually have to have a different set of rules or transparent guidelines when a political office holder or Minister is involved? My second supplementary question, Speaker, is in regards to the Prime Minister's point just now about Mr Iswaran's interdiction from duty, and yet, the Prime Minister mentioned that he would still be getting $8,500 per month. Can the Prime Minister explain the reasoning behind the $8,500? In normal circumstances, we would expect someone with interdiction from duty and no role or duties that would be undertaken for the month, would be taking an absence of leave from duty rather than possibly getting the $8,500? I hope the Prime Minister can help answer the question.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Senior Minister of State Chee. The first is with regards to the losses mentioned in my Parliamentary Question. I mentioned that the net value of the portfolio shrunk by $21 billion. I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned it somewhat just now, but can he reassure the House that Temasek's losses or gains in terms of threshold of returns historically, will there be ways where the Senior Minister of State can highlight that, given the worst-case scenario going forward, what thresholds should we be comfortable with in term of dollars in million or billion amounts every year? The second question I have is, the Senior Minister of State mentioned just now that the focus on Asia is about two-thirds, if I am not mistaken. Can the Senior Minister of State share, given the investment climate, Temasek's assessment or the Ministry of Finance's (MOF) assessment going forward? To what extent will be Temasek's investment domestically versus overseas going forward, given circumstances if things require domestic investments, that is, investments needed in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I would like to ask him again in relation to part (b) in the Parliamentary Question that I had, I asked about the proportion – of the jobs that were cut, how many of them were held by Singaporean workers? I think the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the proportion is the same before and after the layoff. Can the Senior Minister of State share a bit more about the proportion of those jobs were lost by Singaporean workers? My second supplementary question is a bit broad. Grab's decision to conduct a layoff is an indication of more widespread trouble lurking in the tech sector. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what processes are there in MOM to mitigate the risks of this going forward? Also, what are the forward-looking processes that MOM intends to take going forward as well?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also asking on behalf of hon Member Miss Cheryl Chan who is not here. We have two supplementary questions. First, how will EMA and HDB ensure that home owners of older residences before 1985 know of this exercise and what should they do? Some of them received the letter but some may not be able to understand, especially some of the seniors. They may not be able to understand what it is all about because it is a bit technical. The second supplementary question is, can the Minister of State elaborate on the cost associated for 3-room and larger HDB flats? The Minister of State's reply alluded to there being subsidies for those in 3-room and smaller flats. But for 3-room and larger flats, what are the home owners expected to pay as they will not be fully subsidised?”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Minister for her detailed response. I have two supplementary questions. One is with regards to the efforts to develop Singapore into a hub for carbon trading. As the Minister mentioned, there has been a multi-Ministry and Statutory Board effort, including efforts in terms of trading activity enhancements. For example, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) is working to create transfer pricing considerations for relevant carbon credits. They have announced on 23 November that the issuance transfer and sale of carbon credits including the digitised form is to be treated as neither used for GST purposes. That is one example. May I ask the Minister whether there will be other efforts, going forward, to ensure Statutory Boards work together, like for example, the IRAS case, to enhance carbon trading within Singapore? The second question is, can we get the Minister's elaboration on the possibility of jobs creation in terms of carbon trading? We are not the only country that wants to build up carbon trading to be a hub in the region. I think other countries, our neighbouring countries, would also want to build this up. So, how fast we can push these carbon trading efforts going forward?”
“Whereas the Act currently provides that any loan agreement must provide MAS with the right to require early repayment upon the suspension or premature termination of the IMF arrangement or programme, such a rule would not apply to a standard form agreement provided by IMF, or if the IMF arrangement or programme cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated. In relation to the first class of exempted agreements, I am concerned that this would cover the majority of instances where IMF requests Singapore to provide assistance in support of an IMF arrangement or programme for the benefit of one or more countries. Perhaps the Minister of State or Minister can share, based on the previous requests Singapore has received from IMF, what percentage involved "standard form agreements" which cannot be unilaterally amended by MAS? In relation to the second class of exempted agreements, I am curious what would be an example of an IMF arrangement or programme which cannot be suspended or prematurely terminated. Mr Deputy Speaker, today, Singapore is, indeed, in a privileged position to be able to contribute to help lower-income countries in their development, as we had actually benefited from previously in the 1960s. Even as we do that, we must stay true to our enduring quality of prudence in public spending. Every expense is an amount that could otherwise be accumulated into our official Reserves, which we know are there to tide us through major crises like the recent COVID-19 pandemic and for many crises in the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“In the 2016 debate, various Members, including myself, noted that not many Singaporeans would learn of the amounts of assistance we are providing to other countries by looking up the Gazette. Turning to the present amendment Bill, what is the reason for removing the safeguards in relation to agreements to finance the operations and functions of IMF offices in Singapore? While I can see the rationale for disapplying subsection (2)(b), which was "incorporated to preclude Singapore from making grants to the IMF purely on our own [and not alongside other countries]", why is the funding of IMF offices in Singapore excused from Parliamentary oversight of the maximum amount of grants that can be given by MAS? I understand that there are two such IMF offices in Singapore: the IMF-STI and IMF RRO. I see value in them. I actually went for a few courses in IMF-STI when I was in MAS – valuable training courses. But what is the function of each office going forward and how do they benefit Singapore? How much has it cost MAS to sustain the operations and functions of these offices in each of the last five years? As any grant to IMF would be an expense that reduces the amount we accumulate in Singapore's Official Foreign Reserves (OFR), who would exercise oversight over the MAS' discretion if it is not Parliament? I also note that the constitutional check by the Elected President would not apply where Past Reserves are not being touched. Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill also introduces another carve-out.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to declare that I work in a foreign bank. Mr Deputy Speaker, BWAA enables Singapore to participate and perform its obligations as a member of IMF and the World Bank. The two organisations continue to play a key role in facilitating cooperation among more than 180 member countries to promote financial stability and monetary cooperation. Many would not know that Singapore officially joined the World Bank on 3 August 1966, shortly after Independence from Malaysia. As we started out as a developing nation, we benefited from no less than 14 loans from the World Bank between 1963 and 1975 to build our water, port, sewage, power and telecommunications infrastructure. These loans were repaid by the mid-1980s and, today, Singapore is a developed country which is more likely to provide, rather than receive, assistance through the World Bank and IMF. We contribute not only because we should give back to the international community, but also because a prosperous and growing global economic environment is important to our open, trade-dependent economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment Bill mainly makes changes to section 6A of the Act, which was introduced not too long ago in 2016. When we debated the addition of section 6A back in 2016, I noted the strong safeguards applicable for Singapore to provide loans, grants and other forms of financial assistance to IMF for its arrangements and programmes, including the need for Parliament's approval in the case of grants. Since the introduction of section 6A, I would like to ask the Minister of State how many times has MAS agreed to provide financial assistance under that section. And what is the total value of such financial assistance, including loans and grants?”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. The first is in relation to what the Minister of State replied earlier in terms of the data. I refer to the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) data recently, which highlighted the number of mortgagee listings jumped in the first quarter of 2023, with more distress sales expected in the second half of the year as bankruptcy applications increased – I think this from a Business Times article in relation to the MinLaw data. That was the first supplementary question in relation to what the Minister of State had shared. Can the Minister of State reconcile that MinLaw data for the first quarter? The second is in relation to my concern about the high interest rates and increase in the mortgagee-listing statistics. I am seeing some residents coming up to me to seek help with FIs in regard to their mortgages. I think the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) just replied to me yesterday on my written Parliamentary Question, that 27,000 home owners have refinanced in the past 12 months and also indicated that MAS estimates that an increase in mortgage payments for these home borrowers was around $240 on average. For some households, a $240-on-average increase in mortgage payments can be quite substantial. Can the Minister of State share whether there are any further updates on the household debt situation in Singapore at the current situation and also going forward as well?”
“Second, I would like to get some clarification with regard to the five-year COE supply in terms of the numbers and what is the direction or thought trends going forward beyond the existing three to six months this year and probably into the many years ahead.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for sharing the Statement earlier, especially about the release of the five-year COE supply and also the measures taken by LTA over the past few months about the deposits and all that. It has actually helped, in terms of price recovery and microstructure. I got two clarifications, Deputy Speaker. First, in relation to our transition to move away from and finding alternatives to private car ownership, the Minister mentioned just now about enhancing the alternatives of P2Ps, PHCs and taxis going forward. My question is that as we still have Singaporeans aspiring to own cars and we are trying to go car-lite, I think these are the sorts of issues that I am hearing from the Minister's Statement, we are not moving away from them anytime soon – car-lite, zero-growth, we are a very small country and the push is towards public transport. That is clear, Minister. So, the question is the transition. There is going to be a time transition for people to move away from their aspirations. My question is: if you go towards the holistic approach or to the car-lite strategy and zero-growth, how can we improve our P2P, PHC and taxi services? Because the exasperation of Singaporeans on the ground, if they want to move away from a private car, but they have to wait for taxis and PHCs and these are not there, every single minute when they want to have access to it, 24 hours of the day and at any time, is something that will need to be addressed. That is my first question, Minister.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am asking this supplementary question on behalf of Ms Joan Pereira who is on medical leave. She has a very strong conviction about asking this supplementary question, so I am conveying this question to the Senior Minister of State. Can the Senior Minister of State consider asking polyclinics to consider prioritising walk-in patients who are seniors? Because Ms Joan Pereira is very particularly interested in making sure our seniors walking in, as well as those with mobility issues, are attended to, given that they may find it challenging to go to the GPs. I think the Senior Minister of State has highlighted it somewhere at the beginning, but I think it is very, very focused on seniors – whether there could be prioritising for them, especially those who are very aged and have mobility issues.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, I would like to declare that I work in a financial institution, in a bank. I have two supplementary questions, Mr Deputy Speaker. First is in relation to the Minister of State's answer just now. I have a concern with regard to the Minister of State's view and risk assessment in terms of digital bank runs in the future. I think things have evolved significantly since the last FSAP, as the Minister of State mentioned, in 2019. Things have changed in the financial sector and things have evolved in terms of digitalisation in the banking sector. So, what is the Minister of State's view and risk assessment of digital banking runs or, as some people call it, "bank rush", in Singapore and in the region? The second supplementary question, Mr Deputy Speaker, is in regard to raising the DI limit. I am actually mindful of considering the DI limits because it could have cost implications, as the Minister of State mentioned, for the banking sector as well as Singaporeans. If so, what is the cost of this increased DI coverage limit? Is the DI fund adequately sized in terms of the pre-funding? Also, can the Minister of State highlight – typically, in other countries, for example, the UK, it takes seven days for a depositor of a bank to get his or her money cash back. For Singapore, how many days would it take for a depositor to get his money if a bank goes bankrupt?”
“Speaker, I just want to reiterate again, same points. The bottom line is that Mr Chua's report explicitly states public housing in Singapore is affordable and that in Mr Chua's professional assessment, we are glad to have his agreement on this matter. 5.33 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank hon Member Mr Louis Chua for his clarification earlier. I duly recognise the report is meant for institutional clients as he mentioned. But the professional assessment and conclusion in the report is very explicit. Public housing in Singapore today remains affordable, I think I have highlighted the quotes just now. Indeed, it is affordable because of the Government policies. I am glad that Mr Chua agrees with us on this matter.”
“As I try to reconcile, as I tried to prepare my speech, it seems odd that he and the WP said something else in Parliament in the February housing Motion. So, I just wanted to highlight that story, as the story goes as I prepare my speech. So, that is my third point, Mr Speaker. Before I end, Mr Speaker, our ageing population, spiralling costs and interest rates, and intensifying global competition for business and talent are just three of the major challenges we will need to target, adapt to and conquer as we stand on the cusp of a new world. I have shared, I have tried to look into cost of living, housing affordability and, indeed, as Mr Desmond Lee has shared during the housing debate, we have tried to ramp up supply, we have tried to make sure we can stabilise growth in the housing sector. I have shared some of my points earlier on. I think what is key is that if we can maintain the same people-government trust and partnership that saw us emerge from COVID-19 much better than other countries, I am optimistic about our future. [Applause.]”
“Despite broadly higher rates, his scenario analysis suggests affordability continues to be healthy for the average household, given wage growth momentum amid a tight labour market. And then, on page 13 of his report, he and his co-authors went on to say this: contrary to the private property market, he finds a "more favourable and resilient situation in the public housing market, i.e., HDB". This is largely attributed to the rise in average income in relation to the price of a flat. He consistently estimated a mortgage servicing ratio (MSR) that stayed comfortably below 30% bestowing upon households the freedom to still take up other loans. Therefore, he is inclined to believe that HDB markets should continue to remain resilient, supported by healthy household balance sheets. And on the regional front, on page 26 of his report, he then assessed Singapore and our ASEAN region, and said this, I quote: "From a regional perspective", he notes that "affordability continues to be healthy in Singapore where residential price increases have lagged behind that of our household income growth over the last decade. Whereas the converse is true for neighbouring ASEAN countries. Higher relative affordability for the general population of Singapore adds to relative stability and resilience, amid a rising environment globally." So, as a trained central bank economist before, I was somewhat attuned to the property report that Mr Louis Chua and his co-authors highlighted, which is somewhat in line and supported by data as well. I was wondering if that is actually indeed Mr Louis Chua's professional opinion in January 2023. Then, it seems odd.”
“The final point, Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on is housing affordability. In this segment, I am talking about cost of living and rising cost, so I had to look at various reports and pieces. In particular, I came across a report that was co-authored by hon Member Louis Chua and his team on that issue. I was trying to weigh in some of the points that were found in that report. As an economist, I am actually more attuned towards more statistical and economic reports that bear strong statistical and data support. I tried to balance it with what many WP MPs have suggested – that housing is unaffordable for Singaporeans. The Leader of the Opposition too, had echoed sentiments, calling for the Government to intensify efforts in making public housing more affordable and accessible. So, I was surprised when I came across this report as I was trying to prepare this speech on the issue about housing affordability and cost of living. More recently, I was looking at the issue and found that this report in January, where WP MP, Mr Louis Chua, put up a considered, professional view in a report which was carried in the media, saying that housing in Singapore is affordable. In fact, if I may quote him, in his report, what was interesting, Mr Louis Chua and his co-authors reported and said that "despite cooling measures, a $1 million home in Singapore is estimated to be affordable for households on an overall average household income in Singapore". This is what he and his team of property analysts said. Also, he anticipated that, I quote: "the global housing slump will deepen in 2023"; yet he expects the converse in Singapore, with a modest price growth of 3% to 5%.”
“This must be our longer-term strategy, so that Singaporean workers get good jobs, become more productive and get rewarded for the higher value they bring. In the short term, we need to help Singaporeans navigate this new environment of rising costs and higher interest rates. I will not repeat what I said during my Adjournment Motion in October last year, but I have some new observations to add. I read in the news last week that credit cards have become the most popular payment method in Singapore by transaction value. This is worrying especially given the 3% to 4% increase in interest rates just between April 2022 and April 2023. Going forward, I hope the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the relevant Ministries – and the Chamber, possibly – will discuss this, and we will have studied credit card default trends or data by age group and beyond the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) limits, whether we need to additionally regulate such leverage assumed by Singaporeans. If not, then whether more upstream work can be done with our youths and our younger population. Also, more couples will need to be dual income in order to meet their increasing liabilities. A key policy impetus will be ensuring that there are sufficient and affordable care options for young children. I note the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)’s addendum which states that by 2025, 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool with affordable fees. What metrics will the Government use to price preschool fees and keep it “affordable”? Besides infantcare facilities, it is important to ensure that there are other new care options that MSF is studying to meet different preferences and needs.”
“Mr Speaker, and finally, I would like to talk about my third point on cost of living, rising costs and interest rates. Amid rising costs and interest rates in the past year, we are seeing more news that give us cause for concern over economic growth. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in the US and Credit Suisse in Switzerland have sparked fears of a banking meltdown. Amid the uncertain outlook, I am particularly heartened by Mdm President’s call to deepen Singaporeans’ sense of shared identity and responsibility towards each other – the collective responsibility that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned on Monday too. We must remember to support one another and leave no one behind, especially as we are likely to face greater constraints in the future. Costs and prices may go up a little further in light of growing constraints. While we continue to explore innovative and creative approaches to manage our land, the fact is that land is scarce in Singapore and comes at a premium. The revisions to our foreign worker frameworks will not eliminate labour constraints, given the need to strike a fine balance between keeping our local labour force gainfully employed and attracting the necessary foreign labour to supplement the local workforce. Finally, carbon constraints are starting to bite as we make more commitments to save our planet and our carbon tax increase kicks in. Being small and import-dependent, we are a price-taker, including when it comes to interest rates. It is apt that Mdm President has called for us to better manage these growing constraints by being more adaptable and resourceful and, in so doing, compete stronger as a business and connectivity hub.”
“I had, since my maiden speech in 2015 and several Adjournment Motions, pushed for anti-discrimination laws that carry penalties, given my concerns about a more complex labour market going forward, so I really, really look forward to the final report on the tripartite committee on workplace fairness and the eventual legislation that will ensue. But one other key thrust to help us compete and retain talent will be building a more people-friendly and connected city. As Mdm President highlighted in her address, we must ensure our transport infrastructure and policies are refreshed from time to time. We are adapting to new commuting patterns after entering and emerging from three pandemic years. Our land constraints will become more acute as we add another 100 kilometres to our rail network which already has more than 140 stations across six MRT lines. Our green ambitions will force us to pivot away from decades-old solutions towards new innovations. Even more can be done, for example, in the addendum by the Ministry of Transport (MOT), cycling was stated to “aid first and last mile connectivity to the major public transport nodes and key amenities”. If this is the aim, we may need to complement our expansion of cycling paths with bike-sharing initiatives and with other enhancements. Those who own their own bicycles are unlikely to use their bicycle just to park it at the MRT station or bus interchanges near their house. I am conscious that private bike-sharing models have failed before and we may need Government involvement or intervention for bike-sharing to work. Possibly, has any study been done on why operators like oBike, Ofo and Mobike ultimately called it quits?”
“This has always been a sensitive topic because, as an Asian community, it is considered “unfilial” to “leave” one’s parents in nursing homes or old folks homes. However, as much as we want to ensure that we collectively support our seniors, there are still people who will need a place in nursing homes for the elderly. It is useful to find out the subscription levels for existing nursing homes and how MOH projects the demand until 2030 and beyond as well as plan ahead for possible increased demand. (In English): Turning to my second topic, Mr Speaker, I share Mdm President’s view that the global competition for business will intensify. The competition will not only be over business, but also over talent. Singaporean talent is sought after in many places in the world. Recently, Mr Chew Shou Zi dominated the headlines as he testified before the US Congress as the CEO of TikTok. I have also heard that junior Singapore lawyers are today being drawn to relocate to work in London, New York and Hong Kong. Our efforts to attract and retain talent will have to be multi-pronged. I was glad to hear when Prime Minister Lee announced in the National Day Rally 2021 that the Government will be enshrining the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) guidelines into law which is a major move to ensure fair treatment at the workplace, including tackling unfair hiring practices against Singaporeans. Such a legislation is pertinent in my view for a mature economy as middle-income Singaporeans are concerned over competition for jobs and opportunities at work in a future labour market that will be more contested.”
“Besides sufficient funds, we must also ensure that our seniors enjoy a good quality of life and dignity during their retirement. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's call on the importance of “collective responsibility” is appropriate and timely. To me, it is heartbreaking to read news about senior citizens who die alone at home without being noticed by anyone for weeks, months and even years. Therefore, although we build a more elderly-friendly building environment complete with special housing options and common space, we must supplement this hardware with people-centric policies. The return of large-scale activities organised by community centres and organisations is very helpful. But we also cannot ignore the less active senior citizens and those who are not physically active enough to go out and enjoy recreation. Therefore, I was heartened to hear Minister Desmond Lee and other Members of Parliament (MPs) mention the importance of cross-generation living. But not all estates will have this opportunity because we are ageing quickly. Perhaps, it is time for us to enhance or embark on a National Befriender Service for Seniors Living Alone programme and maybe consider some form of voluntary registration system, perhaps using technology, for seniors living alone, so that we can check on them periodically and engage them regularly at their convenience. I also welcome the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) announcement that it will expand the capacity of our nursing homes from 16,000 beds in 2020 to more than 31,000 beds in 2030, increase the nursing workforce and caregiver support from 49,000 now to 69,000 by 2030 and increase the nursing and caregiving support workforce.”
“For example, I have mentioned this before, the 2% per annum increase of payouts under the escalating CPF LIFE plan may no longer gel with Singapore's long-term inflation projections, given the shifts in the global macroeconomy, supply chain and other factors. Other areas I hope we can make changes will be on how we can more regularly and dynamically revise the methodology for applicable interest rates on the Ordinary, Special and MediSave Accounts in the upcoming quarterly reviews and adjusting the allocation ratios such that a greater percentage is allocated into the Special Account instead of the Ordinary and MediSave Accounts, to avoid increasing the financial burden on both employers and employees – the former of which I had raised in my Adjournment Motion on "Helping Singaporeans Navigate a High-interest Rate Environment" last year. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The latest changes in cancer coverage under the Integrated Shield Plan will also change the way Singaporeans plan for their healthcare and insurance needs at old age. An elderly resident, who used to work as a horticulturalist and recently found out he had Stage 4 cancer, contacted me for help just a few days ago. He is unable to work now, but fortunately he has received assistance through MediFund – which I think is an important source of help – but needs additional help to support his family and spouse. He has no insurance coverage, and I can imagine that, with recent cancer coverage changes, more of such cases will face financial challenges. This is an important issue that I hope we can analyse and find comprehensive solutions in future.”
“I am heartened to hear that almost 70% of active CPF members are able to attain their cohort Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) at age 55 today. But our concerns must be over the remaining 30% and how far they are from reaching their BRS. Further, this does not even include inactive CPF members or Singaporeans who sit outside the CPF system like non-working homemakers or self-employed persons (SEPs). When I raised the issue of non-working homemakers at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) COS last month, Minister of State Gan mentioned the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) introduced in 2021 to match top-ups of up to $600 annually to eligible seniors' CPF accounts. It may be useful to find out what is the MRSS' utilisation rate and most importantly, whether we need to do more to educate and encourage families to take advantage of such Government support. On SEPs, Senior Minister of State Koh said that MOM will continue to review if we need to go beyond encouraging SEPs to make voluntary contributions to their CPF accounts. Perhaps that exercise can include a study on the proportion of SEPs who can attain their respective BRS through their own voluntary CPF savings or private savings over the next few years. I also note that a fundamental review of our retirement adequacy policies is now underway under the Forward Singapore exercise. I am looking forward to eventual definite timelines for that review as the changes to our demographics would entail rapid changes needed to our retirement adequacy policies at an early stage. One area that continues to be important for Singaporeans is enhancing the flexibility of how and when CPF retirement monies can be paid out. New stresses are emerging and challenging the adequacy of the existing payout mechanisms.”