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 8 of 20.
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answers. My question is probably on the on the flip side. I have a resident who came to me recently about the case of her husband who, supposedly, has a mental disorder. When he was violent towards her, the Police could not take action against him. My question is, if the Minister can share, what processes could be made to be clearer to the ground officers in cases involving mental disorder, especially as what you mentioned just now, the risk of defensive policy to the ground officers. My suggestion is possibly, if there could be further link-up between officers dealing with mental capacity cases and IMH, and whether there be could be quicker relations, with regard to individuals with mental disorders?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the answers he gave earlier. I just want to ask a broad, macro question. Can I have a sense of the Government's view of the growth and inflation bias for 2023 and into 2024 as well, especially with China reopening. The Minister of State has given a very extensive answer on inflation. But may I have a rough sense, what is the growth and inflation bias in terms of the outlook for 2023 and going into 2024?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask two supplementary questions in relation to what the Senior Minister of State has answered. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers he gave earlier. First question is in regards to – the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the situation has improved, but given the endemic COVID-19 situation that we are in now, would he see possibilities of over-the-counter medicine running out of stock more frequently? And in relation to my Parliamentary Question, how often or periodically does MOH or its relevant agencies assess the periodic intervals to assess the stock? Second question is, leaving it to market entities like the Senior Minister of State mentioned, to assess their stock, would it sometimes, at times, depending on the periodic intervals that we check, lead to market failures and lead to runs potentially if there is a global shortage which lead to anxiety in the population. How can we assess that in terms of, by either domestic production or diversification of our over-the-counter medicines that will be much in need, given the endemic COVID-19 and going forward as well?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek clarification from Minister Iswaran with regard to the transport issues that he shared earlier. The Minister mentioned just now about 38 weekly flights from China, while pre-COVID-19, there were 400. So, the Minister was trying to share the general trend that we would proceed through to pre-COVID-19. The Minister mentioned about the careful and calibrated approach. May I seek clarification from the Minister, when he said careful and calibrated approach, he did mention about the epidemiological factors that may affect this dynamic. What does it mean, in terms of, it affecting our original plans? For the whole of this year, we will eventually try to target future flights to be achieved by this year or potentially 2024. What does this careful and calibrated approach mean, in terms of changes to our original plans, to open up to reach pre-COVID-19 levels?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask two supplementary questions to the Minister. First, in relation to his reply earlier about HDB working with the CEA, given the numbers that he shared earlier – about 60-plus errant cases being investigated – what are the follow-up steps that HDB is working with CEA to follow up on the ecosystem? The data encompasses five years, which means that whether the trend has been increasing or falling, I am not sure. So, follow up with the ecosystem to enhance the ethics, and whether the Codes of practices amongst the property agents can be further built on? Second, in relation to my Parliamentary Question, I may have missed the Minister's answer. Can the Minister highlight if the cases are detected, as per my Parliamentary Question – whether they were detected by periodic inspections, whistle-blowing by property agents or other methods?”
“HDB and JTC are likely to be the largest landlords with which EVCOs will contract with in Singapore and such tenders are usually conducted by LTA. Where an EVCO has its licence suspended, revoked or surrendered, instead of externalising the costs to taxpayers by ordering a step-in, a vibrant and competitive EVCO sector would mean that market forces can be counted on to secure a replacement EVCO for continuity of services. Having regard to the large tenders which have already gone out this year, what are LTA's optimal long-term plans in terms of the number of EV charging points, percentage of HDB carparks that are EV charging lots and so on? Three, are there any plans to develop this legislation in future to go beyond regulating the EV chargers and become an omnibus Act that will cover all aspects of our EV transition? Mr Speaker, Sir, while EV and charger companies can do their part to manage costs, the full package of Government policies, taxes and fees, ultimately, has a major impact on the lifetime cost competitiveness of EV versus ICE vehicles. MOT and LTA will have to dynamically continue to manage the relative calibration of all the components to meet Singapore's overall goals and ensure safety at the same time. Notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“Can I confirm that notwithstanding the Ministry's position that the charging of detachable batteries at home remains disallowed, it is prepared to proceed to register and license battery charge and swap stations, or BCSS, while the regulatory sandboxes are ongoing? Fourth, can I check if LTA intends to take a proactive and pre-emptive enforcement stance, instead of prosecuting persons only after a particular safety or other incident has occurred? How does LTA intend to do so beyond mandating periodic inspections of registered EV chargers, which will not flush out cases of unauthorised supply or modification of EV chargers? Also, what are the enforcement capabilities and resources needed by LTA in the future and if it will meet the rise in enforcement needs? Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by sharing some thoughts on matters that do not appear to be expressly dealt with in this Bill, but which should be considered as part of our holistic plan to transition towards an EV population. One, would this Bill and its subsidiary legislation, if passed, regulate the commercial aspects of how EVCOs conduct their business, for example, by imposing ceilings on charging costs or mechanisms to regulate any increase in charging costs? Given that the road tax for an EV is significantly higher, how the EV charging costs compare with the cost of petrol will be key in determining consumer take-up. Some assurances or controls over future increases in EV charging costs will give some consumers the confidence to take the leap of faith and go with the relatively new EV option. Two, LTA's power to order a step-in arrangement under Part 7 of the Bill is a useful power, but LTA's role in encouraging a vibrant and competitive EVCO sector is equally, if not more, important.”
“It would be important for them to have enough certainty over their projected revenue stream in the mid to long term so as to perform their internal financial calculations for their business. Also, considering our targets for our EV population and the number of EV charging points, as mentioned by the Minister earlier, does the Ministry have a rough idea of how many licensees it intends to allow to operate in the geographically limited market here? I recognise that there are potentially a number of operational issues that LTA will need to formulate in consultation with the industry, such as what the optimal licence conditions ought to be. Considering the importance of this area in the next 10 to 20 years as we work to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, there may be value in encouraging a professional body to bring the relevant stakeholders and actors together. I believe the licensing regime introduced under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 was implemented quite smoothly, in part because there already existed professional bodies like the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Singapore (IPAS) that was anchoring the professional development and standards in that space. Third, Part 4 of the Bill specially empowers the Government to make rules to trial non-approved or non-registered EV chargers. I assume they will automatically apply to the existing regulatory sandboxes that are taking place. On that note, may I ask if there are any interim findings from the ongoing regulatory sandboxes for battery swapping for electric motorcycles? I had previously raised a Parliamentary Question on this back in October and earlier as well. I note that the Bill is technically broad enough to cover battery swapping services.”
“The Bill also requires the registered responsible person for an EV charger to keep and retain records, such as certificates, going back at least two years. Given the overarching theme of sustainability in relation to this Bill, my humble suggestion is that such records can be uploaded and kept in a centralised electronic repository rather than in paper form. This will be in line with our general push to digitalise our systems and records. This would also assist LTA in transposing the necessary information to the register of registered-for-charging EV chargers that it is required to maintain. I also have a couple of questions on the register to be maintained by LTA. First, what are the concerns that drive the confidentiality provision at clause 22(4) of the Bill? I note from the public consultation feedback that the key concern is over undue disclosure of commercially sensitive data by the EV charger companies. What commercially sensitive information is LTA register expected to contain? Second, clause 35 requires a manufacturer or supplier of an EV charger who becomes aware of any safety-related defect in the EV charger to give notice to every registered responsible person for a registered-for-charging EV charger of the same model, among others. How would a manufacturer or supplier go about obtaining such confidential information? Finally, on to the third level of control, that is, licensing of service providers and operators. As a preliminary question, what is the expected duration for which licences will be valid? Will the conditions of renewal be spelt out clearly in subsidiary legislation? I ask these questions because I expect an EVCO to have to invest significant capital expenditure at the outset which can only be recouped by its provision of services over time.”
“Not only are physical labels susceptible to wear and tear which may cause them to peel off the EV charger; more importantly, who is the intended audience of the label? For the regulator, the presence or absence of a label is unnecessary for it to identify whether an EV charger is an approved model. For an end-user, I am doubtful that the absence of a label would cause them to avoid using a particular EV charging station. The second level of control is for LTA to register an EV charger if the EV charger is lawfully certified as fit for charging any EV in Singapore and lawfully installed in accordance with clause 24 of the Bill. Given that a certifier is obliged to check that an EV charger satisfies the applicable safety and performance standards here, does it not render the first approval-label stage superfluous? Why is it necessary to separate the approval of EV model and registration of EV chargers into two stages? Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill provide that the certification will have to be done by a prescribed competent person and a prescribed person. We now know from LTA's announcement that these refer to charger equipment specialists and a Licensed Electrical Worker, or LEW, respectively. Are there any plans by the Ministry or LTA to train and recruit more Singaporeans to be LEWs and charger equipment specialists? Are there any targeted numbers of such specialists to support our EV charging push? While there may already be ITE and Polytechnic courses and programmes in this regard, can we aim to do more, for example, by designing career conversion programmes or Career Transition Programmes around these aims to meet our requirements?”
“In the longer term, this is all going to have a material impact on the cost of EV charging, which I feel will make or break our efforts to get Singaporeans on board with our vision to transit to EVs. I would like to ask the Ministry if there is a fair valuation exercise built in for EV charging over the next five to 10 years. While EV and charger companies can do their part to manage costs, the full package of Government policies, taxes and fees, ultimately, have a major impact on the lifetime cost competitiveness of EV versus ICE vehicles. It will be useful to have a sense of the extent of the fair value EV charging costs in the future at this juncture. In relation to the first level of control, LTA will only approve an EV charger model if it is satisfied that the model meets the safety and performance standards prescribed by the regulations. The question I have is: have these regulations been prepared and are they ready to be put into effect immediately? What are all these safety and performance standards that will be built into the legislation? It is also contemplated that LTA-approved models of EV chargers will be identified with an approved label that is affixed to each EV charger which is intended to be supplied, installed, certified or charged in Singapore. What is the applicable fee that would be prescribed for the issuance of an approved label? That would be useful to note. Further, what is the applicable fee for the issuance of an additional label where LTA approves a proposed alteration or modification to the EV charger model? Another question is: is the approved label really the most suitable enforcement mechanism?”
“Further, is there a particular reason why the new Part 8 requirements will not apply to works carried out by the Government or any public authority on land that they own? Given the nationwide push for a greener transport infrastructure, I would have thought that the Government would join the effort and take the lead in equipping its developments with the necessary electrical infrastructure. Second, a large part of the Bill serves to regulate the devices that are intended for charging EVs in Singapore, the operators of charging stations and the providers of charging services for EVs. As we are contemplating widespread use of EVs and EV chargers, it is key that we have a regulatory framework to ensure the safety and efficient deployment of EV chargers. From my reading of the Bill, I understand there to be three levels of regulatory control. First, EV chargers must be approved by LTA as an approved model and affixed with an approval label before it can be supplied or used in Singapore. Second, EV chargers must be registered with LTA and specify a registered responsible person before it can be used to charge any EV in Singapore. Third, persons who provide EV charging services in Singapore or engages in conduct as a charging station operator must be licensed. Is each of the three levels of control necessary, or is it regulatory overkill? We must be cognisant that each level increases the amount of compliance costs for EV Charging Operators (EVCOs), which could have the effect of increased EV charging costs for end users and even the effect of squeezing out potentially competitive EVCOs from the relatively small market we have in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important milestone in our journey to become greener as a country. As recently as 2020, transport accounted for 16% of Singapore's carbon emissions. This is already a lower percentage than the US, UK and the global figure, but it is still a significant piece as we look to cut our carbon emissions. Introducing this framework to regulate safe and efficient charging of EVs is a significant starting step, but it should not be the end. My speech will not only focus on clarifying how certain provisions in this Bill are going to operate, but also discuss the broader implications on our strategy to transition Singapore's vehicle population from ICE to EVs. First, I support Part 8 of the Bill which requires developers undertaking certain building or electrical works to install infrastructure to support the supply of minimum electrical charging capacity, as the Minister has shared earlier. This helps to future-proof developments that are presently being constructed even as the national EV strategy is being considered and refined. It is, generally, more cost-effective to plan and incorporate such infrastructural elements at the outset, than to require costly variation works midway through the construction works. However, when is Part 8 going to come into force? Would present developments that have already obtained preliminary design and construction approvals be required to modify their plans? Another question I have is, what is the minimum stage that the planning and construction work has to reach before the Minister would consider exempting a development from the new requirements introduced by Part 8?”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is whether there are any specific sectors he is targeting for the electric vehicle (EV) transition for both motor vehicles as well as motorcycles. The second is with regard to EV motorcycles. Just yesterday, I had a resident who is an SME owner and trying to sell electric motorcycles in Singapore. He has concerns about the ability to rent out his motorcycles for commercial use or even private use going forward. My question is whether the Minister can shed some light on which agencies would be appropriate to help such approaches in terms of renting electric motorcycles in Singapore going forward.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his assurance of the limited exposure to NIRC. I would like to ask specifically one supplementary question on the whole-of-Government's investment risk management capability. I think that given global banks' exposure to digital assets and some exposure to cryptocurrencies, does an investment entity like MAS, for example, do they build in the risk to cryptocurrencies and digital assets blowing up as part of their worst-case scenarios in their stress test scenarios? For example, for financial institutions and non-bank financial institutions, especially on cryptocurrencies' downside risks worst-case scenarios. It is quite important, given that the systemically important institutions may have ramifications on Singaporeans in general.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his detailed answers to my PQ. I have two supplementary questions. One is, I am mindful of the uncertain outlook that the IT sector is facing globally but may I ask the Minister about potential job opportunities in the future? I think Minister mentioned that the positions for tech is still abundant, but may I ask him about the private versus public tech opportunities? Because with the uncertain outlook, the private sector opportunities would probably be uncertain. Can Minister mention what type of skillsets and outlook would be needed for the young ones? Because we have been pushing for young people to go into the tech sector with the promotion of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and all that. That is my first question. The second question is in relation to my PQ. I think Minister has not answered the last part of my PQ, which is whether the Ministry will engage industry actors to centralise information to ensure fairer and more equitable re-employment processes.”
“Third, there is also an observation that society will become less and less informed as social media platforms deprioritise news and other serious content in favour of entertainment-related content. This is especially acute, given the success of TikTok in recent years, where user clicks are driven more by less serious content and platforms are adapting their algorithms to stay commercially competitive. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“Besides a robust consultation process leading up to the issuance of an online code of practice, may I also suggest that the Ministry think about a periodic consultation process that can be put in place so that industry feedback can be canvassed on amendments that need to be made to an existing online code of practice. May I also suggest that we have a council and, possibly, an advisory panel, set up to draw up and update the online code of practice from a diverse group of representatives? Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by sharing some thoughts that are beyond the scope of this Bill, but which I believe we should consider in our safety review of our online landscape. First, I understand that this Bill presently targets "egregious content" which should not be appropriate for consumption regardless of age or maturity. On behalf of concerned parents with young or teenage children like myself, I would like to ask if the Ministry foresees that some of the provisions here may be watered down in future to provide for age-specific classification of objectionable content. My worry there is that it is simply not as easy to verify one's age in the online world as checking one's EZ-Link card or NRIC at the cinema. Second, the algorithms on social media platforms that create "echo chambers" with like-minded individuals, while shunning opposing views, also have the risk of deepening divides in our society. While it is understandable for platforms to push products that are matched to user interests so as to maximise advertising revenues, there should be certain controls on pushing views that are consistent with an individual's echo chambers. The latter will only push people towards extremes and worsen the divisiveness of our society.”
“There are also going to be enhanced regulation of certain platforms that are designated a "regulated online communication service", having regard to the range of services provided to Singapore end-users and the extent and nature of the effect of such services in Singapore. Has the Ministry provisionally identified which platforms will be designated as a "regulated online communication service" and whether the Ministry has already engaged with these platforms? I give one example. We had a hackaton in Toa Payoh East CC and I had chatted with some of the youths there. They did share with me a platform called "Discord" – some of the gamers in this House may know about that. It is a gaming platform where gamers can chat, amongst others, within the Discord server. It is an online chat service. However, what is significant is that it has more than 140 million monthly active users now and it is being used beyond gaming. So, it is one example of an online communications service that has evolved and new things have come up. These "regulated online communication services" may be subjected to one or more online codes of practice to be issued by IMDA, and the new section 45L states that the Minister will prescribe certain consultation processes to be followed before an online code of practice can be issued, amended or revoked. Are these processes already ready to be presented to Parliament for consideration? If not, when can we expect these processes to be finalised and legislated?”
“Even after the electronic service providers are issued the disabling or blocking directions, how long will they be given to comply with the directions given? Will the timeframe be stated in the direction? This is especially significant because the new section 45G reverses the burden of proof onto the electronic service provider to show that it had done the best that was reasonably practicable to do when it is charged with an offence under section 45E(1) or 45F(1). Perhaps we can consider enhancing a second prong of enforcement by relying on the user reporting avenues to flag objectionable content. This may result in faster detection because we effectively rely on a wider pool of eyes to identify and flag "egregious content". From a regulatory standpoint, we could legislate higher frequency instead of an annual basis or more frequent audits on how quickly and effectively these electronic service providers act on the user reports that it receives and the systems and processes it has put in place. Mr Deputy Speaker, I also note that the Bill provides for the potential expansion of the regulatory scope through the issuance of subsidiary legislation, orders or online codes of practice. While the Bill, if passed, starts off by targeting "social media services" only, the Minister will be authorised to amend or add to this list of services in the Fourth Schedule by publishing an order in the Gazette. May I ask what other types of electronic services may, potentially, be brought within the scope of these new provisions?”
“What will stop these foreign service providers from keeping their operations strictly outside Singapore, while flagrantly delivering "egregious content" into Singapore? It appears from the new section 45R(3) that there will be individuals tasked to monitor and flag "egregious content" for the purpose of enforcing these new laws. Would a new department be set up under IMDA or the Singapore Police Force to do this? What would be the size of this enforcement department? This is relevant because the effectiveness of protection will depend on the speed at which we are able to block and "take down" offensive content. For example, back in March 2019 – I believe this example has been shared in many speeches before me – the far-right extremist livestreamed himself on Facebook Live shooting and killing 50 people in the New Zealand mosques. Facebook did not block the livestream. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter had to fight to take down more than one million copies of the videos circulating online within the first 24 hours. The damage was already done. I am sure most will agree that that is an obvious example of "egregious content". But there may also be other types that are more debatable, especially where Singapore's tolerance level and definition of racially or religiously offensive content may differ from the rest of the world or even from the perspective of the content provider or the service provider globally. How fast do we expect to act to issue disabling and blocking directions to electronic service providers? Can the Government share some detail about the processes it intends to put in place to arrest any unforeseen scenarios promptly?”
“MHA even had to put out a statement to warn that it would be an offence to join a foreign war. Second, why do we stop at violence, cruelty, abuse or torture on human beings? Are videos of animal cruelty or abuse not equally offensive? Perhaps this can be prescribed as "egregious content", too, under other Part 10A regulations. I would also like to seek clarifications on whether there are any other categories of "egregious content" that the Ministry or IMDA is intending to prescribe under regulations. Will we also look to censor content which explicitly promotes lifestyles which are not in line with what is presently accepted as norms? Or the commercialisation of obscene and nude photos and videos? Should we also designate obvious scam advertisements as "egregious content"? I look forward to the Minister's response on this. The amendments in this Bill will allow for more effective enforcement against "egregious content", by placing the onus on the online platform providers to disable or block access. On social media platforms with millions, if not billions, of users, it is more efficient to regulate the platform rather than individual uploaders. The Bill provides that an electronic service provider is covered so long as it allows content to be accessed in Singapore, unless it is an "excluded electronic service". This would extend to a service that is provided from outside Singapore. For such foreign service providers who do not have a place of business in Singapore or its headquarters (HQ), how does the Ministry intend to effectively enforce the regulations which are premised on giving a direction to the service provider and making non-compliance with such directions a criminal offence?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to Statista's research department, an estimated 5.29 million Singapore residents accessed the Internet in 2021. If you take into account users who access online social media platforms using their mobile device, the Internet penetration rate goes up higher from 89.5% to around 90%. The age of such users is also getting younger and younger. When speaking to children and their parents at community events, I have found that it is no longer surprising for Primary school children to have their own accounts on at least one or two social media platforms. This Bill, therefore, is timely in putting in some minimum protections from the increasingly widespread use of online platforms. I have some clarifications to seek on the Bill, as well as several comments on how we can make the online aspect of our society a safe and secure place for Singaporeans and Singapore residents. First, the principal amendment of the Bill is the addition of a new Part in the Broadcasting Act that will allow IMDA to issue directions to providers of online communication services to disable or block access to "egregious content". "Egregious content" is then defined in the new section 45D to include content that advocates or instructs on suicide, self-harm, child nudity and terrorism. In connection with limb (b), I have two questions. First, does "content that advocates or instructs on violence or cruelty to, physical abuse of, or acts of torture or other infliction of serious physical harm on, human beings" catch videos that encourage Singaporeans to participate in a foreign armed conflict? I recall that when the Ukraine conflict broke out in February this year, there were people ringing up the Ukrainian Embassy in Singapore wanting to join the fight in Ukraine.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question I am going to ask is in relation to the gap that the Minister mentioned. There is a 7% increase in the cost of transport expenditure and infrastructure itself, as the Minister mentioned before. Also just now, the Minister mentioned about the 1% transport price increase annually. So, there is this gap of about 6%. Whether this gap is sustainable is one question that I have, and will the Government subsidies eventually stop? The second supplementary question is in relation to the PTVs. Can I ask if, eventually, these PTVs can be permanent or enhanced even further and made automatic in future Budgets?”
“I understand that this is to catch a situation where a seller collects output GST on goods sold but disappears without paying it to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). In the meantime, other parties in the supply chain continue to deduct input GST claims on purchases they have made. The products are then exported by the last seller in the chain, who also does not need to pay GST to IRAS, since export sales are zero-rated. However, I understand that it is already a chargeable offence – six men were charged in 2021 in connection with Nagore Trading. So, are the amendments only to include enhanced maximum penalties of a $500,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment? If so, will the sentencing precedence under the existing regime still be applicable to guide the appropriate sentences under this new enhanced framework. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, on this note, on the new sections 39 to 39F in the Bill on the treatment of services provided and of payments received across periods of different tax rates, another issue is, has the Government prepared easy-to-understand guides for small merchants, for example? If not, may I ask if the Government will do so. Speaking for myself, I did take a while to understand the various illustrations provided in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. While the amendments are unlikely to impact our neighbourhood store owners who typically provide one-off goods and services, such guides would help some of our local SMEs who might not fully grasp the options available to them. I also remain concerned about businesses taking the opportunity to increase their prices, at a rate that goes beyond passing on their costs to their consumers. Taking an example we are all familiar with, the prices of cooked food at our hawker centres and coffee shops, are usually hiked at 50 cents to $1 at a time, which is a substantial percentage increase where their base prices are around, on average, $4 today. Any unjustified increases might not be high enough to pass the threshold to be reported to the Committee Against Profiteering; and even if they do, the average consumer is hardly going to report the economy rice or nasi padang stall for a higher price than they expected. So, I would like to invite the Ministry or the Committee Against Profiteering to devise a systematic way to analyse costs increases on the ground, especially repeated increases in a short period of time. On the new measures in the bill to address missing trader fraud, can the Ministry also clarify what is the difference between the new section 62C, and the existing regime?”
“Has the recent boom in the property market led to any significant increases in the annual value of homes, to the extent of affecting their occupiers' eligibility of schemes, like GSTV? In terms of administration, how many of those eligible have yet to sign up for GSTV and what are the avenues available to those who are less digitally inclined and unfamiliar with checking the eligibility through the e-service? How many of those eligible last year were sent cheques that they did not encash? In addition, what are the cost drivers of the administrative expenses under the GSTV fund, which for FY2021/2022, amounted to $10.7 million. This was $200,000 more than the previous FY. So, could the Ministry also share what measures have been taken to minimise such expenses over the years? Will the new GovCash initiative be implemented this year reduce such processing expenditure? Mr Speaker, the good thing about raising GST, is that it catches everyone, even tourists, who just stop by Singapore for one day or one week. This is not the same for personal income tax or property taxes, which will definitely hit Singaporeans, but not necessarily our foreigner friends. With our recovering tourism numbers post-COVID-19, it makes the GST increase an even more attractive revenue option. How much additional revenue are we expecting to raise from the GST increase and how much of that are expected to come from foreigners, like tourists, and what is the projected level of tourism recovery compared to pre-pandemic levels as of today, 1 January 2023 and 1 January 2024, both in tourist numbers and the economic value that would be generated as a result?”
“I am thankful that there had been several announcements previously in the previous Budgets to offset the impact of the GST increase. In this regard and on the basis of the economic environment we are in, and the macro outlook we are facing, I hope that the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, can assure our lower-income and middle-income households as well, and in particular, the sandwich class segments in Singapore, that they will be buffered against the GST increase, even in this heightened inflationary environment. The GST Voucher (GSTV) scheme is one of the ways in which the Government helps to buffer the middle- and lower-income against GST increase. So, I would like to seek some clarifications to ensure that the GSTV scheme is able to meet this objective well. Some of my residents have inquired on the GSTV scheme during my recent launch of the cost-of-living assistance programme, or CLAP as we call it in Toa Payoh East, a ground-up initiative involving the tripartite partners of the local merchants, residents and Toa Payoh East CCC Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF). It is aimed to supplement additional help to lower- and middle-income families beyond the Government's COL transfers or payments, and GSTV, to cope with the daily expenses and boost the businesses of our heartland merchants and hawkers. First, has the Government conducted regular reviews to assess the need to raise the per capita income threshold, such that more households can qualify for permanent GSTV? Second, the annual value of home is a key factor in the eligibility criteria of eight programmes, such as GSTV and CHAS schemes.”
“From MOF's technical report, dated October 2022, I know that four rounds of support measures in 2022 have already helped retirees and the bottom 40% of Singaporeans cover more than 100% of their projected increase in spending due to inflation. Mr Speaker, GST was part of the Government's plan to raise revenue long before the current inflation and cost of living issues arose. Since it was first announced in 2018, I note that the Government has been adjusting to economic conditions. It did not proceed with the GST increase in the height of the pandemic years and it has also taken the decision to stagger the GST increase over two years, so that consumers and businesses have time to adjust. In light of the dynamic nature of the economic environment, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance several questions. Some have been asked by other Members before, but in light of the changing economic environment now, I want to ask and seek the Minister's views again. First, should we delay the increase in view of heightened inflation? Second, whether a GST increase is the right fiscal stance as part of the macro policy mix now, given the risk of inflationary pressures remaining sticky for longer and a weakening global and domestic economy, possibly in 2023 – and you never know, maybe slightly beyond that? Third, would we proceed if there is a sharp deterioration in conditions? And fourth, can we delay the increase if our fiscal needs are not urgent? If the answer is that we should still proceed with the GST increase, then it must be implemented carefully. We cannot leave the more vulnerable Singaporeans behind. I am cognisant that not many countries talk so much about GST offsets to mitigate its effects as much as Singapore, I think, and way in advance.”
“As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong explained in July this year, the stronger dollar had helped us keep the increase in food prices to 3%, even though the global increase was 20.3%. The increase in energy prices was 13.6% in Singapore from January to May 2022, whereas the global increase was around 27.5%. So, I would like to take this opportunity to thank MAS and the team managing and formulating the Singaporean dollar policy for the pre-emptive calibrated moves much earlier in 2021, before moves by other central banks were made and before all the headline inflation concerns reared its head significantly in 2022. Second, the Government has extended substantial assistance for cost of living, in the form of support packages, beginning with the $560 million Household Support Package in Budget 2022. It also brought forward some of the measures, like CDC vouchers in April 2022, and rolled out an additional $1.5 billion support package in June 2022 to provide immediate help for lower-income and more vulnerable groups. Then, as recently as two weeks ago, the Government announced an additional $1.5 billion support package to provide further relief for all Singaporean households, including a cost-of-living special payment of up to $500 cash for 2.5 million adult Singaporeans. I am sure we can trust this Government to further add to that support if the economic situation continues to worsen. Seeing the recent developments, would further support packages be targeted at all Singaporeans rather than just a smaller segment? That is a question that I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Wong. If not, will the Government consider raising the per capita income threshold for the definition of lower-income households, so that the broader base of Singaporeans can benefit?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, looking beyond our shores, we have seen in recent weeks how a sound and sustainable fiscal policy is important to maintain investor confidence in a government and a national economy. As a global centre for investments, we must strive to maintain Singapore's track record of stable governance in a key distinguishing feature, which is farsighted planning. Three million, or sometimes, $3 billion or $3 trillion question, for any elected responsible government, is how to balance government expenditure against revenues. There are more and more things that we would like the Government to spend on to improve the lives of Singaporeans. But no one likes the idea of raising taxes to finance that. So, this Bill, if passed, allows appropriate changes to be done in the run-up to the GST increase. On that note, I turn to this GST Bill. Mr Speaker, the pick-up in inflation and the rising cost of living are some of the challenges Singaporeans are facing, especially for the lower- and middle-income families caring for their elderly parents and children. In my Adjournment Motion last month, I spoke about the new normal of higher interest rates and higher costs on our Singaporean households. This is even before the proposed GST increase and, understandably, people are concerned. However, I note that the Government has been taking steps to address current costs of living, even before the GST hike kicks in. First, MAS made five moves to appreciate the Singapore dollar since October last year and mitigated imported inflation. Two off-cycle tightening moves in January and July this year. This was done early by MAS and has been effective in reducing the impact of inflation on our import-dependent economy and, in some way, defended Singaporeans' purchasing power.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I just have one supplementary question. I am very concerned because of the recent report in Bloomberg which shared that the New York Federal Reserve's Global Supply Chain Pressure Index fell for a fifth straight month. My concern is that there could be a potential scenario where we could see an untangling of transport snarls which are happening just as fast as the system knotted up previously, last year. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that we have enough capacity and resources to potentially absorb some increase in activity. But will there be a possible scenario in 2023, where the activity picks up substantially, despite some risk of economic slowdown globally? It could potentially pick up and do we have enough manpower, resources and also the fact that we are in the transition of shifting to Tuas from our current location?”
“I would like to thank the Minister of State for his answer. I have one supplementary question. In regard to the stress test scenario that he mentioned – he mentioned that the level of indebtedness is actually quite low. But does it incorporate the risk of a potentially 5% mortgage rate and above? The Minister for National Development mentioned just now that there will be an enhancement of workflow processes between MND and private sector FIs. So, whether that point that the Minister for National Development mentioned about the workflow processes being enhanced, can that be further enhanced? Because with the worsening of the scenario for mortgage rates, going forward in 2023, whether the enhancement of workflow processes would be of utmost importance?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. It is good to hear that there are 340,000 and 380,000 seniors benefiting from the PG and MG Fund. I have one supplementary question. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that there is a $6.1 billion and $5.72 billion balance in both the PG Fund and MG Fund. Is it possible if some of these excess balances can be diverted or funnelled slightly to support or enhance the Silver Support package because there are some segments of the silver generation or seniors in Singapore that may benefit further from the Silver Support package being enhanced going forward? I thank the Senior Minister of State.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for his answers to my Parliamentary Question, which is slated for the next Sitting. I just have two supplementary questions, Speaker. One is, the Minister mentioned that there will be an enhancement, potentially, in terms of land sales for supply of flats, going forward. This would be in relation to my question about how the reduction of supply of private property in the market could drive HDB upgraders to splurge on resale flats. So, my first question is, to what extent will that land sale lead to further increases in resale flats and what type of resale flats could that possibly be? My second supplementary question is, with the higher interest rate environment, will there be significant impact in the context of this current environment to impact certain demographics, for example, like what the previous Member had mentioned about seniors, but also young individuals or young families? Will the high interest rates lead to further impact on them, going forward, into buying these resale flats?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the answers. I have two supplementary questions. One is in relation to the loss-sharing framework that the Minister of State shared. I have residents who came up to me to highlight about some of their loss-sharing issues. I was wondering whether the Minister of State can share how fast this can be rolled out because it has a direct impact on residents in monetary terms. Two, in relation to the knowledge of contact information for scams, I have a few residents who came up to me experiencing a scam in process while they are literally speaking to a scammer, called 999 but was informed that that is not the number to call. So, I was wondering whether more can be done via Project FRONTIER to ensure that there is some coordination between the Police and the banks to handle such situations. So, I hope the Minister of State can share a bit more on that front in terms of coordination and whether Project FRONTIER can, together with IMCS, actually enhance that.”
“I hope the Minister or relevant agencies can shed some light on these questions as it has ramifications on our fiscal trajectory and outlook. Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that a high interest rate environment is here to stay. I hope the Government will take into consideration my suggestions above in positive light to mitigate the risk of higher interest rates on Singaporean households. We will need to take considered actions to put Singaporeans and our firms in good stead to adapt to and thrive in this situation, while the Government balances the fine line between keeping prices from rising further and dampening economic expansion in the post-COVID recovery period.”
“I ask these questions because, in part, housing loans are a long tenure, with significant overhang and forward risk exposure if the interest rates go up. And in an alternative worst-case scenario, if there is a wave of defaults/repossessions, there is always the risk of market instability with cascading social implications. These interventions I have suggested above, Mr Speaker, would require the Government's use of its revenues. I would like to ask whether the Government has done an in depth-study on how both interest rate expense and investment incomes would be affected by the higher global rates and recent market turbulence. On the borrowing side, the Government would have to incur higher borrowing rates in taking actions to manage banking system liquidity or even for our infrastructure needs. At the same time, on the investment side, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence has also shared in this Chamber that over the medium term, rising interest rates will also help to raise investment income from our foreign asset holdings. So, has the Government also taken into consideration that the rising global interest rate environment and risk of potential US recession that may occur downstream, could cause increased volatility for our investments in foreign asset holdings? Global stocks and even cryptocurrencies have already taken a hit with the latest Fed announcements on the need for more interest rate hikes. Questions that probably need to be considered are first, what are the downside risks in the event of sell-offs in these holdings and what would be the impact on our fiscal position? And how may we also maximise the investment opportunities posed by a high interest rate environment?”
“Our efforts to measure this improperly or with a decent lag can lead to social implications. There have been numerous mentions of the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) in this House, in response to Members' concerns over the interest rate and debt situation in Singapore, in the last few months. The TDSR framework captures a borrower's monthly expenses on all types of debt, including mortgages, car loans and unsecured debt as a proportion of income. Essentially, MAS sets a ceiling that only 55% of a borrower's income should be spent on servicing debt obligations. By lowering the ceiling, MAS can "tighten" the threshold up to which a person may borrow. The interest rate that is used to calculate loan repayments under the TDSR is the higher of 3.5% or the prevailing market rate. The idea was to build in a buffer against interest rate rises for borrowers who have taken out a mortgage in the past. However, with today's bank interest rates hitting more than 3% and the US Fed's expectation that its benchmark interest rate may hit close to 4.4% as soon as this year, and possibly some more next year, the "buffer" that is built into MAS' monitoring framework may soon be completely eroded. The MAS has just raised interest rates used to calculate loan repayments under the TDSR by 0.5%. However, is this move sufficient to maintain the robustness of MAS monitoring and stress testing? Given the rate of global interest rate increases and their potential landing points at up to 5%, is MAS prepared to raise this again, potentially in a matter of a few months? So, what is the impact of the current 0.5% adjustment on the TDSR data, and what would the projected impact of further increases be, considering the median TDSR of 43%?”
“The multiple extensions of TBLP, a support measure implemented to help firms with their financing needs during the pandemic, show that it is effective in meeting its purpose. I hope that the Government can consider a further extension past the current end-date of the scheme on 30 September 2022, or a replacement that is also focused on providing eligible SMEs with affordable interest rates. For the sake of fiscal prudence, I do not mean that we should commit to subsidising firms for a prolonged duration. What I have in mind is simply a temporary measure, to help our vulnerable firms and SMEs deal with interest rates that have doubled and may perhaps triple in just over a period of months. So, I urge the Government to provide updates as soon as possible on the duration of any support measures to help our firms with their forward planning. Even as we try to enhance our long-term economic growth in this environment, we are fighting business decisions to reduce investments, made amidst higher hurdle rates for projects and investments. So, in addition, can the Government work further with financial institutions to keep the processing fees of these Government-assisted loans as low as possible? To add, we should make sure that the measures apply across both bank and non-bank financial institutions or lenders. The latter might rise in prominence in the lending sector, if the rise in interest rates makes it harder for those with relatively lower credit worthiness or urgent credit needs to access bank loans. Several of them already target SMEs primarily. My fourth and final suggestion on this front. As we transition into a new high-interest rate environment, our metrics for measuring systemic risk may need to be adjusted as well.”
“I will focus on construction firms as their cash flows are also tighter due to the longer-term nature of construction projects, which have not been helped by the labour and cost disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The construction sector is critical to renewing Singapore's physical infrastructure, which itself is a key driver of our economic competitiveness. MND had announced in May 2022 that 58 Build-To-Order (BTO) projects were delayed by at least six months this year. This has already contributed to a tight housing supply situation and left many households in limbo waiting for their new houses to be completed. So, any uncertainty in interest rates could throw the sector into disarray again, within this post-pandemic period. So, it is important for the sector to be able to continue to access affordable loans. It may not be commercially viable to expect commercial banks to cap or limit the interest rates charged to construction firms, especially when they have to price in the fact that the construction sector has already been trending towards a higher risk of defaulting on repayments. But aside from arguments about consolidation as a form of creative destruction in this sector and that some of the firms may have limited long-term viability anyway, the Government may need to step in to provide reliable and affordable sources of temporary financing to eligible SMEs and firms – temporary financing. So, I am thinking of schemes, such as the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme (TBLP) that was rolled out during the pandemic, as well as the Temporary Electricity Contracting Support Scheme (TRECS), which offer firms the ability to lock in a favourable interest rate or electricity tariff, at times where such rates are extremely volatile.”
“As commercial interest rates increase and study loans become less affordable, perhaps we could enhance these existing schemes by raising the $2,700 gross monthly per capita income cap for the MOE Study Loan and extend the CPF Education Loan Scheme to cover more courses including part-time accredited diploma or degree courses. This will benefit a greater pool of Singaporeans who are in the pursuit of better education, better skills and who will ultimately be an asset in our workforce. Academic studies using US data have shown that an upskilled workforce has positive externalities to a sector, beyond the individual's gains. My third suggestion: we should not stop at assistance for individuals. Our small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and firms, especially those that operate in sectors that are highly reliant on external financing, will require targeted help as well. As our economy plays catch-up from the time lost during the pandemic, there might be a need to take a targeted sector-specific approach in limiting the adverse effects that might be brought about by higher interest rates that we cannot avoid. To prevent a hard landing from steep hikes in the cost of capital, our SMEs will need some support in transitioning to have enough reaction time to adjust their plans for cashflow, servicing existing debt and taking on new debt. There might also be a need to take a targeted sector-specific approach. Construction and manufacturing are sectors that are known to be sensitive to interest rate hikes as they are capital-intensive and dependent on commercial loans.”
“We must also ensure that Singapore is prepared in the extraordinary event where home loan rates rise sharply, such as if the US Fed raises their rates to above 5%. The US mortgage rates have already hit 6% for the first time since 2008. Does the Government have any contingency plans in place? Will MAS consider implementing temporary measures, such as rate ceilings to ensure that rates do not spiral out of control and become unaffordable? For example, there are already maximum annual percentage interest rates on credit card and pawn loans. Many countries around the world, including our neighbours Indonesia and Malaysia, have forms of subsidised housing loans targeted at lower-income citizens, and this is also an interim policy measure that is worth considering for vulnerable groups not captured by the concessionary HDB loan. Besides housing, education is another key reason for Singaporeans' borrowing. There has always been a strong policy reason to ensure that our students who are trying to secure a good education are not saddled with heavy debt before they enter the workforce. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) Study Loan allows low-income households to obtain loans that are interest-free for a limited or entire duration of the loan. The CPF Education Loan Scheme allows for the use of one's CPF OA savings to pay for one's own, children's or spouse's tuition fees for full-time diploma or degree courses at approved educational institutions.”
“HDB's statistics show that 6,800 households applied to refinance their HDB loans with bank loans in FY 2020/2021. With the present global interest rate hikes set to continue, they will now be locked into a higher rate than the HDB rate which they were trying to find a lower alternative for. While I understand that the policy is that homeowners who opt for, or refinance using bank loans can no longer take up a HDB loan, perhaps the HDB can consider allowing eligible households to make a one-time transfer back to HDB loans? While I am mindful that it may have some backend implications for the banks, a refinancing sort of mechanism, if one is eligible, could be one possible approach. The HDB loan rate is pegged at 0.1% above the prevailing Central Provident Fund (CPF) Ordinary Account (OA) interest rate, and HDB and CPF have recently confirmed that the applicable rates will remain unchanged until the end of this year. I understand that the standing policy is for the OA interest rate to be reviewed every three months. Given the impact of changes in rates on borrowers' finances in the medium-term, it would be helpful if the Government or HDB is able to provide HDB borrowers more advanced guidance on potential rate changes, beyond three months. This will allow new and existing homeowners to make a more certain choice on how they finance their home, to better prepare them amidst this new normal of interest rate levels that we may be entering. On balance, the information provided will help household decisions but the impact of the extent in which this becomes a de facto forward guidance on the rates will need to be considered in totality.”
“Some of the less sophisticated retail investors and retail bank customers might not have the same level of savviness as the "average median investor". This should not be unfamiliar to the financial sector. Insurance agents are already required to provide the benefits illustration in an endowment policy proposal based on different scenarios of investment rates of return. Financial institutions offering credit cards or mortgages are required by MAS to provide projections of instalment payments under different scenarios. They are all similarly aimed at giving the end-consumer an easy-to-understand picture of the financial calculations. This will also mean that the financial institutions may be able to pre-empt when homebuyers might encounter issues servicing higher home loans if their incomes and savings rates have become insufficient. In such cases, I hope the Government or relevant agencies work with the financial institutions to allow for longer-term mortgage tenures to accommodate homebuyers who struggle to pay higher instalments? Or at the very least be more alert now about such cases and offer some flexibility in the current environment as a baseline. My second suggestion: we should enhance the flexibility of some of our policies, in order to support the more leveraged and vulnerable households that may require help amidst higher borrowing costs. Our local banks have raised home loan rates from 1.15% per annum as recently as late 2021 to around 3.85% just earlier today, surpassing the 2.6% applicable to Housing and Development Board (HDB) loans. The fixed interest rate on HDB loans was certainly less attractive just months ago, when bank loan rates were as low as 1.15% to 1.5%.”
“I am sure that many Singaporeans, like me, have received notices from their banks that their loan rates are going up. The notices are quite brief, stating not much more beyond the new rate percentage. That may not be helpful to less financially savvy Singaporeans, who might not realise how they might be impacted by that increase, including how much more income or savings they would need to service the loan subsequently. I have had residents emailing to meet me physically, to share with me their financial issues with servicing loans, where I realised that they did not understand that their payments paid off the interest first and the principal later. They thought the lender had cheated them. In this sort of backdrop, we must ensure that the banks and other institutions that provide loans of all kinds, including the non-bank financial institutions and authorised money lenders and so on, proactively clarify the impact to their borrowers. While there are various mortgage loan calculators offered by some banks and other websites on the Internet, not everyone may know of them or how to use them. One simple solution would be to shift this task to the banks, financial and other lending institutions, who are sophisticated enough to model the practical effects relatively easily. While there may be certain uncertainties that may affect the precise impact of an interest rate rise on a particular borrower, the financial institutions can provide an indicative range to give the borrower an idea. This boils down to the basic principle of balancing caveat emptor for the investor/customer versus whether banks owe a social duty of care to more than just the average bank customer.”
“The world is unlikely to return anytime soon to the low inflation levels and interest rates it has enjoyed in recent decades. Singaporeans and Singaporean households will need to adjust to the new normal and plan their borrowings and expenditures accordingly. I note that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Ministry of National Development (MND) have just announced that there will be revisions to the medium-term rate floors, to ensure that households borrow prudently for their property purchases in a higher interest rate environment, from last month onwards. I am also heartened by recent Department of Statistics data and expert assessments that households will be able to weather higher interest rates and a potential economic recession given their financial positions as at the 2nd quarter of 2022, as their household assets-to-liabilities ratio remains healthy. Nonetheless, if interest rates rise significantly higher, one might wonder whether the expected assumptions behind these assessments will remain valid. However, in the short-term, we can and should help Singaporeans make the transition to this new normal or new "abnormal" of high interest rates. Many Singaporean families have existing borrowings to finance big-ticket items like their mortgages, cars and education, and many of them have carefully budgeted, saved and invested to achieve their financial objectives, although based on the old normal. I understand that the Government is in the midst of formulating measures to help Singaporeans cope with the upcoming economic headwinds and would like to provide some suggestions for consideration. My first suggestion: more can be done in filling the information gap on higher interest rates.”
“Mr Speaker, I declare that I work in a financial institution in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, as Prime Minister Lee has flagged in his recent National Day Message and National Day Rally Speech, the high rising inflation and cost of living is at the "top of everyone's minds" today. But, besides rising prices, rising interest rates will impact Singaporeans and their cash or payment outlays. Our domestic interest rates are likely to increase further in tandem with global interest rates as rates here are largely market determined. For example, US policy rates have been raised to fight inflation by a total of 3% in less than six months, as compared to an almost 0% interest rate for the large part of 2009 to 2021. The US Federal Reserve System (the Fed) officials have indicated that interest rates may continue to rise and hit close to 4.6% in 2023. Some market participants are even forecasting it to reach 5%. In fact, there are no stated upper limits to what the Fed can hike rates to, to achieve their inflation mandate. Recent market volatility has also led to higher cost of funds and interest rates and we are not immune to these sharp moves. Like me, many Members of this House have raised Parliamentary Questions or otherwise spoken about these issues in the last few months, both on rising prices and on rising interest rates. This Motion today is specifically on rising interest rates, what it means for Singapore and how we can help Singaporeans in this environment. In line with the Government's approach in recent times, I believe there is room for targeted interventions. For this Motion, I want to focus on helping Singaporeans transition from a low interest rate environment to a high interest rate environment.”
“Finally, allow me to wrap up by touching on one final point that have not been dealt with in this amendment Bill, but which I feel should be considered as part of the periodic review of the income tax system. As I had again raised in my speech during the Budget debate this year, it may be useful to relook the option of assessing personal income tax on a current-year, pay-as-you-earn basis. In the current economic environment, individuals may experience volatility in income levels or in employment from one year to the next. What are the hurdles that would prevent us from moving away from a preceding-year basis to one that can allow Singaporeans to better manage their cash flow by matching tax payments with contemporaneous income? Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“Even though this change may cause IRAS to have to deal with insurance companies on a different reporting cycle from other taxpayers, I expect such a change to help reduce compliance costs for tax-paying insurance companies. In turn, this could further improve their profitability in the longer term, leading to an increase in the corporate income tax collected. Can this be extended more generally to other types of companies as well? Taken together with the move to facilitate the disclosure and flow of tax information between Ministries and Statutory Boards, there may even be room for companies to file a single return to satisfy all its regulatory tax and other statutory obligations in future. This may not be a simple switch, but I urge the Government to consider such a possibility as it would boost Singapore's attractiveness as a place for doing business. My fourth area of focus relates to the changes to the appeal process before the Income Tax Board of Review. Under the amendments, the chairperson of the Board may appoint a single member, instead of a committee of three members, to hear appeals in a particular case. Will different fees be prescribed for appeals before a one-person panel and before a three-person panel? Will the factors guiding the chairperson's discretion be set out in regulations? Can the chairperson's decision be appealed? Can I also clarify that the proposed new section 80(2) will not prevent a duly authorised officer of an appellant company, including in-house counsel, from appearing at the hearing before the Board? Because section 80(2) presently states that an appellant can attend "in person" but that will be removed under clause 36 of the amendment Bill.”