Teo Chee Hean
Singapore
“The second point first, Mr Speaker. Certainly, it could have been a factor. But to the Panel which reviewed the thing, it was not an acceptable excuse or reason. The agencies still have to be responsible for what they are doing, whatever season of the year it is.”
“On the balance in ACRA, I would not say it is a conflict, but you have to strike the right balance between the functions that ACRA is meant to provide, which is to have a registry which promotes corporate transparency, and you have to balance that against how you protect personal data.”
“That means, if you do find a bug or you do find a way in which you can penetrate a Government system, you let us know, and there is a bounty for it. And this is evergreen. But we also do, from time to time, have a hunting season. So, for certain of our systems, we invite white hatters to attack those systems.”
“Then, he asked when the political office holders got involved in the public communications on the Bizfile portal issue. They got involved, I think, almost as soon as it became apparent that there was public anxiety. Next question about paragraph 40 and the email to senior officers, yes, the July 2024 CM was emailed to officers.”
“In fact, we monitor the dark web for a variety of things, including this, and we have not seen any sale of NRIC numbers as such. On the question of collection and use of NRIC numbers, actually, in the communication with the Government agencies, I think it is important to know who you are communicating with.”
“So, you actually make your email address available to others. But for authentication purposes, it is quite different. You do not tell your password to others. That is something which you keep for yourself and your email service provider knows. So, there is a difference between an identifier and an authentication.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,689 lines we hold for Teo Chee Hean, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 34.
“He informed MinLaw to clear any matter related to the tenancy, if it arose, with then-Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and, if necessary, with myself. By removing himself from the chain of command, Minister Shanmugam took himself out of any decision-making responsibility in the matter. So, he no longer had any duty in this matter and, therefore, that factor disappears. Once there is a recusal, no duty arises. There can thus be no conflict. And I am told by lawyers that the best way of dealing with any potential conflict of interest is to disclose the potential conflict and then proceed to recuse oneself altogether from the decision-making process. And this is what happened here on the facts of this case. Given the recusal and removal from duty, there can no longer be any potential conflict, nor does a perception of conflict arise and, therefore, there is no breach of the code of conduct. So, when we talk about perception of conflict, once we are clear that potential conflict no longer exists and we know that actual conflict did not exist, that should dispel the idea that there is a perception of conflict of interest in the minds of any fair-minded person.”
“Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that I am surrounded by lawyers and I am not one myself. But I will try and explain on this issue of conflict of interest. On conflict of interest, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim has referenced the Code of Conduct and asked essentially whether there is potential or perceived conflict of interest in the case. Conflict of interest arises when two things coincide: when a person's duty, for example, a function or responsibility from the office or position that he occupies, conflicts with his own personal interests. So, both of these elements have to exist. If there is one without the other, no conflict arises. So, both have to exist. A conflict can be actual, which arises when a person, in fact, makes a decision on a matter where his duty and his personal interests in that matter remain. So, his duty and his personal interests are there and he made a decision in his capacity which affects his personal interests. Or it can be a potential conflict of interest, which arises when a conflicted person is in a position to but does not yet make such a decision. So, that is a potential conflict of interest. Either of these scenarios has to depend on the specific facts of each case. A conflict is not a conflict just because of someone's perception of the facts. In my report, I have found that there was the potential for a conflict of interest to arise, a potential. However, Minister Shanmugam identified this potential conflict of interest early, beforehand, and took steps to prevent it from actualising. He removed himself from the chain of command and recused himself from any decision-making for the matter in question.”
“I do not know because that was a comment that you made – that it has been going on for a very long time. I did not understand what you meant by that and if you do not recall having made that statement, I would appreciate it if you withdraw that. Minister Shanmugam explained why he approached the Deputy Secretary. As I have explained, this is not privileged information. Any credible tenant, any credible prospective tenant – and there are many examples of that – who asks for this information, can either access it directly or can get it. So, this is not privileged information. The issue of scarce commodity and land and so forth, I think Second Minister Edwin Tong has addressed that and I think he will be happy to address that further, if necessary. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that there are a number of different issues that can come up in today's discussion. But the central issue why we are here today, actually, is to deal with allegations of corruption, abuse of power and conflict of interest. There are other issues like how SLA manages state properties or, indeed, whether there are equity issues and so forth. Perhaps, these associated issues, we can deal with them subsequently. I will be happy to answer them. But let us satisfy ourselves first on these issues of corruption, abuse of power, conflict of interest, as several Members have asked. Let us satisfy ourselves on these issues. Then, we can discuss the other associated issues.”
“In June 2018, the tenant of the property, as well as the neighbours living in nearby houses, raised persistent feedback on mosquitoes originating from this heavily vegetated area within the Dalvey Estate property, which was tenanted out. SLA's MA carried out fogging in the area. In spite of this, this did not resolve the problem. Having confirmed with the National Environment Agency that the heavily vegetated land was, indeed, the source of the mosquitoes, SLA carried out partial site clearance of the vegetated area and created a two-metre buffer to nearby properties. And with the agreement of the Dalvey Estate property's tenant, the fence line was, in fact, shifted inwards so that SLA could take over the maintenance of the vegetated area. Based on the MA's account, I think the tenant was not unhappy about the smaller fenced-in area because he did not have to maintain the vegetated land. There was no reduction in rental as the MA's valuation was based mainly on the GFA of the house. This case illustrates the issues at hand: that added land is not always a net gain in value and that some tenants may not be unhappy to reduce the land area to reduce the responsibility and the cost of maintenance. I hope that adequately addresses Mr Pritam Singh's question on that. On the issue of addressing why Minister Shanmugam asked the Deputy Secretary – and I think Mr Pritam Singh said this has been going on for a very long time – I think Mr Pritam Singh should not make general comments like that unless he can back them up. An hon Member: [Inaudible.]”
“Second Minister Edwin Tong has explained why, in the context of renting these properties, the GFA is of more significant importance than the total land area. I think Mr Pritam Singh would have heard the explanation and I am sure Second Minister Edwin Tong would be happy to repeat that. The reason is because when you buy a property, you want the land, and the land belongs to you for the entire duration, whether it is a 999-year lease or freehold or whatever it is or 99 years, and you can develop the property. It is worth something to you. When you rent the property for a short period of time, whether it is two years, three years, nine years, you cannot develop the property and you have to maintain it. I think Second Minister Edwin Tong and Minister Shanmugam himself have explained it. In the valuation of the property by the valuers of SLA, they take this into account when assigning that valuation. I should point out, as I said just now, that the SLA valuer did not know the rental amount which the leasing division had negotiated with the tenant, nor the identity of the prospective tenant. The valuer values the land based on the valuer's professional judgement. I am not one to second guess the professional judgement of a professional valuer. But let me give Members some examples. The clearance of land is not unique to the case of 26 Ridout Road. An example where SLA also cleared land to address disamenities is at a state property in Dalvey Estate in 2018. I referred to that in my Statement earlier. The state property in Dalvey Estate had a significant amount of heavily vegetated land within the tenancy boundary.”
“The listing includes the locations and characteristics of the properties so as to help the interested organisation or person to decide which property to rent. And site visits could be arranged or would have been arranged. So, Sir, this is not unusual and it is not privileged information.”
“The AGC reviewed CPIB's investigation papers, concurred with CPIB's findings and recommendations and directed that no further action be taken as the facts did not disclose any offence. Sir, which state properties are available for rent is public information. I have explained that. Second Minister Edwin Tong has explained that. They are available via SLA's managing agents (MAs) responsible for marketing the properties on SLA's State Property Information Online (SPIO) system, prominently displayed with "For Lease" signs on the premises and available if a credible, potential tenant asks SLA or the MAs. Sir, it is in SLA's and MA's interest for the properties available for lease to be made known to credible, prospective tenants. SLA and MAs want to rent out these properties. So, they want people to know about them. Hence, if a credible, prospective tenant were to ask SLA or the MAs which properties, for example, with certain characteristics that a credible, potential tenant has in mind, are available for lease, SLA or the MAs will provide the appropriate information, including on properties not listed on SPIO, but available for rent. This is not privileged information. SLA or MAs have received inquiries from ambassadors, company executives or professionals to rent state properties, and SLA provides the information to companies, too. Let me give Members an example. In June 2019, SLA provided a list of several state properties to a company which was looking to rent several properties for its employees for its operations in Singapore. It is, in fact, a 22-page slide deck, listing more than 10 properties of various types.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, both are very pertinent questions. First, with regard to myself, there is no conflict of interest for me to conduct the review. I am not involved in the rental transactions of both these properties. I am not a party to the transactions, nor a participant, nor have I taken any actions or decisions regarding the rental of these two properties. So, I am not an involved party, I am not a subject of the CPIB investigation, nor, indeed, a subject of this Review either. Sir, I think it is important to know that the Prime Minister has directed the CPIB to investigate and determine if there was any corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties by the two Ministers. The investigations by the CPIB are independent, thorough and authoritative. In my review, I have relied extensively on the CPIB's independent, thorough and authoritative report. So, Sir, I have no difficulty conducting this Review as an independent reviewer. On the subject of the Minister for Law having asked the Deputy Secretary for MinLaw, Sir, this point, actually, was noted by the CPIB in its investigation and was reported in the CPIB's findings. So, in fact, this point was looked into by CPIB. Minister Shanmugam asked the Deputy Secretary for MinLaw for a list of properties that were available to the public for rent, and this was stated in the CPIB's report. The CPIB looked into the matter and found no evidence to suggest any abuse of position for personal gain. The CPIB also concluded that there was no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transaction.”
“Second, both the Ministers and the public officers, as well as private sector intermediaries involved, conducted themselves properly in the two rental transactions. They were aware of their duty to declare and avoid any conflict of interest and took appropriate steps to prevent any potential or actual conflict of interest from arising. This is testimony to the integrity of our officers. I want to thank our officers for acting professionally and with integrity in carrying out their duties. I should add that the thorough investigations by CPIB proceeded smoothly because the persons interviewed, including Ministers and their spouses, public officers and private sector managing and property agents, were forthcoming and cooperative, allowing the investigations to proceed smoothly. Third, the rental of the state properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road by SLA to Minister Shanmugam and Minister Balakrishnan did not deviate from the prevailing SLA guidelines and approaches in renting out black and white bungalows for residential purposes. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this episode demonstrates the paramount importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability in the Government and nationally. The extensive questions posed by Members from both sides of the House reflect the importance we place on the integrity and quality of Singapore's system of Government. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us continue, generation after generation, to instil strong values in our people, especially the men and women in politics and public service, to continue serving with integrity and excellence, even when no one is looking. I will be ready to answer any clarifications that Members may seek after my colleagues have made their Statements.”
“An additional piece of work relating to 26 Ridout Road was the clearance of the heavily vegetated land. SLA recovered the costs from the tenant by amortising it at $2,000 per month over the lease period. An example where SLA also cleared land to address disamenities is at a state property in Dalvey Estate in 2019. SLA carried out partial site clearance even after the tenancy started, due to feedback from the surrounding neighbours and the tenant on mosquito breeding, which was not resolved despite repeated fogging. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The two Ministers had requested the Prime Minister to carry out a review into the rentals of 26 and 31 Ridout Road. As I stated earlier, that the Prime Minister had directed CPIB to investigate the matter shows his determination to establish the facts of the case and to get to the bottom of the matter. The Review arrived at three key conclusions, drawing substantially from CPIB's independent report. First, CPIB found no evidence of corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan. CPIB found that the Direct Tenancy rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions. The investigation did not reveal any corrupt intent on the part of any person, or any inducement given to any individual involved in the processing of the rentals. CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers and their spouses, and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain.”
“Let me refer Members to Chart 3. It shows the scope of the works done by SLA for 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road, compared to the works done for other SLA black and white state properties. The works for 26 Ridout Road totalled $515,400. The works included general building repairs, electrical rewiring, water pump repair, sewerage repair, horticulture works, road and fencing repairs, and treatment for termites. Members can get a sense of the nature and scope of the works done from the pictures at Handout 4. The works for 31 Ridout Road came to $570,500. This comprised general building repairs, roof repair and waterproofing, electrical rewiring, replacing the water tank, horticultural works, road and fencing repairs, and treatment for termites. Members can get a sense of the nature and scope of the works done from the pictures at Handout 5. The works done by SLA for 26 and 31 Ridout Road were to make both properties safe and habitable. The scope of works is comparable to that for other SLA black and white properties, as Chart 3 shows. The valuation of the property will have factored in the condition of the property after works are done to bring them to a habitable condition. SLA did a cost-benefit analysis to confirm that the rent that can be received will more than justify the works over the expected service life of these works, which can be 10 years or more. And once rented out, the tenant is responsible for the proper maintenance of the property. CPIB's report also stated that "SLA policy is that upon expiry of the lease, the tenant is responsible for repairing any damage to the property, where appropriate. The property with any improvements approved by SLA will be surrendered to SLA as is, without any right of claims or recovery of costs by the tenant".”
“As such, tenants who incur substantial capital expenditure for improvement works will be granted longer tenure, to allow for the amortisation of their expenses over a longer period. Both the tenancy periods of 26 and 31 Ridout Road were within the maximum allowable tenancy of 3+3+3 years for residential properties rented out by SLA or SLA's MAs at any one time. In the case of 26 Ridout Road, SLA granted a tenancy of 3+3+3 years because Mrs Shanmugam had committed to undertake improvement works at a cost in excess of $400,000. In the case of 31 Ridout Road, SLA had granted a tenancy of 3+2+2 upfront as Mrs Balakrishnan had committed to undertake improvement works totalling over $200,000. At the first renewal, Mrs Balakrishnan requested for, and SLA agreed, to an extension of 3+2 years. This was also within the cap of 3+3+3 years tenancy that SLA can grant, at any one time. The Review also concluded that the works done for the two properties were in keeping with SLA's general practices. As the landlord, it is the role of SLA to ensure that the properties rented out are in a reasonably good condition so that tenants are able to reside in these properties safely. With your permission Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the second set of handouts?”
“Instead, SLA treated the guide rent as $24,500, but with the additional $2,000 amortised cost to also be recovered. Mr Deputy Speaker, I should report that SLA accepts CPIB's observations and finding on this point. CPIB found that despite the imprecise use of the term "guide rent", SLA was always clear that the minimum rental to be achieved was $26,500 and ensured that Minister Shanmugam paid not less than this amount. CPIB has also confirmed that this lack of precision in the process of deriving the guide rent did not result from any ill intent on the part of any SLA officers involved. It found no evidence of any mala fide abuse of position in the valuation. This was also covered in CPIB's report. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Ms Hazel Poa asked whether the terms of the lease agreements of these properties were standard as compared to other black and white bungalows managed by SLA. Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Leon Perera asked about the costs incurred in maintenance and upgrading works for these two properties. Mr Deputy Speaker, the review established that the tenancy terms and renewal of both properties were in accordance with the general policies guiding tenancy and renewal of tenancies for residential properties managed by SLA. Tenancies are granted on two-year or three-year terms, and up to a maximum of 3+3+3 years in the first instance when entering into a tenancy agreement. In deciding on the length of the tenancy, SLA will take into account various factors, including the likely capital expenditure that the tenant will incur to live in the property. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, all approved improvements undertaken by the tenant that remain usable, will subsequently become the property of the landlord and revert to state ownership upon return of the property.”
“A neighbouring unit was tenanted at $26,000. SLA proposed a rental of $26,500 and this was agreed to by Minister Shanmugam. SLA wanted to recover from the tenant the cost of land clearance and new fencing to amalgamate the cleared land. SLA's Leasing Division calculated that SLA needed to recover an amortised cost of $2,000 per month from the tenant, over the duration of the tenancy. This includes interest as well. The SLA's Leasing Division then asked the SLA's Valuer what the impact would be on the guide rent if the plot was enlarged, the additional land cleared and SLA recovered the amortised cost of the land clearance from the tenant as part of the monthly rental. The SLA's Valuer told CPIB in the interview that, in her view, the guide rent for the larger land area of 23,164 square metres, once cleared of vegetation, should be $26,500. But if the tenant paid the clearance costs, then the guide rent of $24,500 could be maintained. Throughout this episode, the SLA Valuer did not know the identity of the prospective tenant. The SLA Valuer only learnt that the tenant was Minister Shanmugam after the matter was reported in the media. The SLA Valuer also did not know the rental amount which the Leasing Division had negotiated with the tenant. The SLA's Leasing Division then added the amortised cost of $2,000 per month to what the Leasing Division treated as the guide rent of $24,500, calculated the minimum rental to be achieved at $26,500 and confirmed that the agreed rental of $26,500 met this threshold. Sir, as the "guide rent" should be the minimum rental to be achieved, SLA should have assessed the guide rent for 26 Ridout Road with the additional cleared land at $26,500.”
“As a result of this lack of precision, the earlier SLA statement dated 12 May 2023 that the offer by the tenant – that is, $26,500 – was above the guide rent was incorrect. In fact, the $26,500 rental Minister Shanmugam paid was equal to the correct guide rent on the property. I would like to take Members through what CPIB's investigation found. The guide rent of 26 Ridout Road, with the original land area of 9,350 square metres, was established by the SLA's Valuer as $24,500. From February 2018, SLA and Minister Shanmugam, through his appointed agent, negotiated the rental of 26 Ridout Road. Both sides discussed the clearance of the heavily vegetated adjacent land which posed potential public health and safety concerns. Minister Shanmugam offered to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost if SLA cleared the vegetation. He told CPIB that he preferred to exclude the land from his tenancy, as there would be legal obligations attached to including the adjacent land. However, SLA's preference was to include the adjacent land within the property boundary. That would make it clear that responsibility for maintaining the land would fall on the tenant, as would the legal obligations, for example, the tenant would be responsible for any mosquito breeding. SLA negotiated an agreement with the prospective tenant in which the adjacent land would be included within the property boundary, with the tenant responsible for maintaining it. This would make the responsibilities clear and the tenant, rather than SLA, would bear the obligations and the cost of maintaining the land. Minister Shanmugam initially offered a rental of $25,000 per month, based on the agent's advice. He instructed his property agent that he should not be paying less than his neighbours.”
“Members may also access the handouts through the MP@SGPARL app. These show the rental rates for transactions involving black and white bungalows in the Ridout Road estate at the material time in 2018 and 2019. So, these were new transactions at the material times in 2018 and 2019. Chart 1 shows that in 2018, the rental per unit gross floor area for the black and white bungalow at 26 Ridout Road was $30.94 per square metre per month. This was comparable to that for the other Ridout Road properties, which ranged from $26.00 per square metre per month to $33.33 per square metre per month. These are averages. Chart 2 shows that in 2019, the rental per unit floor area for 31 Ridout Road at $23.05 per square metre per month was slightly lower than the range of $25.00 to $33.33 per square metre per month for other Ridout Road properties that were tenanted out at the material time. However, this was due to the condition of the property. The rental of $23.05 per square metre was comparable to other properties of "average" condition at that time. When the tenancies of the two properties were up for renewal after the initial three years, a revaluation was done to peg the rentals to the prevailing market rate, that is, to mark them to market. This valuation was also based on market comparables. The property at 26 Ridout Road was renewed in June 2021 for three years with the rent maintained at $26,500 per month. The property at 31 Ridout Road was renewed in October 2022 for three years with the rent increased to $20,000 per month, from $19,000 per month. However, CPIB discovered that there was a lack of precision in SLA's use of the term "guide rent" for 26 Ridout Road.”
“Both properties had "For Lease" signs displayed prominently at the gates of these properties and, in addition, 31 was listed on the State Property Information Online (SPIO) website. The guide rents were not revealed to Minister Shanmugam and his agent, nor to Minister and Mrs Balakrishnan. The review also established that the rental rates paid by both Ministers were at fair market value and not below market valuation. There was no evidence that the Ministers were given favourable rental rates due to their positions. With your permission, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute some handouts which are already Annexes to the Review Report submitted to Parliament?”
“In addition, the Public Service Division will work with relevant Ministries and Statutory Boards, such as the Housing and Development Board, JTC, the National Environment Agency and SLA to introduce a standard declaration requirement for selected groups of officers who have access to or are involved in leasing and valuation matters. Officers in these organisations who have access to privileged information and/or can influence the outcomes of decisions will have to make a declaration before they can rent Government properties managed by their agencies. The officer will have to declare that he has taken adequate steps to prevent any conflict of interest from arising, for example, by recusing himself from overseeing or processing the transaction. These properties will include commercial and residential state properties, such as black and white bungalows, terraces, factory/office spaces, business parks, shops in neighbourhood centres, hawker and market stalls. The Prime Minister will also review the declarations required for property transactions for Ministers and PAP Members of Parliament. Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked whether the Ministers had benefited from privileged information or from favourable rental rates. The review concluded that the Ministers did not benefit from any privileged information. CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers or to their spouses and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain. CPIB established that the availability of 26 and 31 Ridout Road for lease was public information.”
“Ministers are expected to be scrupulously above board and to ensure that there is no real or perceived conflict between their official duties and private interests. The Code and Rules set out the principles to be applied. The Code of Conduct and the Rules of Prudence also give examples to illustrate the application of the guidelines, but these examples are not exhaustive. In fact, the Code says so. The examples are not exhaustive as it is not possible to lay out specific rules governing behaviour for every single situation. For the Public Service, the Code of Conduct is set out in the Instruction Manual (IM). All public officers must take an annual Code of Conduct quiz and make the necessary declarations, such as being free of financial embarrassment, their investments in non-owner-occupied properties and their investments in private firms. They are also required to make ad hoc declarations of purchases of private residential properties, commercial properties and land. The principles laid out in the Codes of Conduct adequately cover any potential conflict of interest that could have arisen, including in this case. Both the Ministers and the public officers, as well as private sector intermediaries involved, conducted themselves properly in the two rental transactions. They were aware of their duty to declare and avoid any conflict of interest, and they took appropriate steps to prevent any potential or actual conflict of interest from arising. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is more important to observe the spirit rather than the letter of the Codes. Nevertheless, the Public Service will reference this case as an additional example to reinforce the importance for public officers to act with integrity.”
“In response to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law's queries, the Chief Executive of SLA assured him that the proposed rental was according to market rate with assessment done by SLA valuers, independently of the SLA leasing officers. He also confirmed that the tenancy agreement was a standard form for all other residential tenancies. In the case of 31 Ridout Road, no issue of conflict of interest arose because Minister Balakrishnan's official responsibilities did not include SLA. CPIB also found that there was no preferential treatment given in the process of the rental transaction. In fact, CPIB found that in response to the MA's query on policy for very very important persons (VVIPs), the SLA Leasing Manager had emphasised in her email reply that there was no policy for VVIPs and all prospects and tenants were to be treated equally. Ms Hazel Poa asked what are the current rules and processes for Cabinet Ministers to declare conflicts of interest and whether there are any plans to strengthen such rules and processes. Mr Deputy Speaker, a Code of Conduct for Ministers has been in place since 1954 and was last updated in 2005. Ministers and other political officeholders are notified of this Code at the start of each term of office and whenever a new political officeholder is appointed. The Prime Minister also issues Rules of Prudence after every election to all Members of Parliament of the People's Action Party (PAP). These Rules are released to the media, with the latest version released in August 2020. The Code clearly states that a Minister must not direct or request a civil servant to do anything or perform any function that may conflict with the Civil Service's core values of incorruptibility, impartiality, integrity and honesty.”
“If he had taken any decisions affecting his own rental, that would have been an actual conflict of interest. However, Minister Shanmugam had removed himself from the chain of command and decision-making process entirely. CPIB established that Minister Shanmugam informed the then-Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Law that he would recuse himself on any discussion related to the rental of the property. Minister Shanmugam also instructed the then-Deputy Secretary to approach the then-Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Law, Ms Indranee Rajah, in the event that any matter had to be referred to the Minister. Minister Shanmugam had also informed me that if the matter had to go beyond Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah, she would approach me. CPIB established that there was no matter raised by SLA to the Ministry of Law and, hence, to any of the Ministers during the entire rental process. Minister Shanmugam had recognised the potential conflict of interest, duly declared it to me and took effective steps to eliminate this potential conflict. This prevented any actual conflict from arising. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish also to state that as no matters were raised to me regarding any aspect of the rental transaction, I am not an involved party in the rental process. CPIB found that due diligence checks were also carried out before the signing of the tenancy agreement for the 26 Ridout Road state property. The then-Chief Executive of SLA made a declaration dated 29 March 2018 to the then-Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law and reported that the processing of the rental transaction was properly done with no conflict of interest.”
“In CPIB's view, the Direct Tenancy rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions. The investigation did not reveal any corrupt intent on the part of any person or any inducement given to any individual involved in the processing of the rentals. CPIB found no preferential treatment given to the Ministers and their spouses and no disclosure of privileged information in the process of the rental transactions. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain." CPIB has submitted its investigation papers to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). AGC has reviewed and agreed with CPIB's findings and recommendations and directed that no further action be taken. Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Hazel Poa asked whether there was any conflict of interest involved in the renting of the two properties to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan, and if the Ministers had complied with the Code of Conduct for Ministers. The review concluded that there was no conflict of interest in the rental of these two properties. Both the Ministers and the public officers involved duly declared any potential conflict of interest and followed the proper processes to prevent any actual conflict of interest from arising. In the case of 26 Ridout Road, as Minister Shanmugam is the Minister for Law, and the Ministry of Law oversees SLA, a conflict of interest could have arisen if Minister Shanmugam had remained in the chain of command exercising authority over the renting out of the property. And had Minister Shanmugam made decisions that affected his own rental of 26 Ridout Road, that would have been an actual conflict of interest. So, it could have been a conflict of interest.”
“31 Ridout Road state property was independently determined and valued by the MA. Neither Minister Balakrishnan nor Mrs Balakrishnan were aware of the guide rent. The SLA Leasing Department subsequently accepted the lease proposal, because the final secured rent of $19,000 was not below the prevailing guide rent, which was $18,800. The total cost of essential repair works borne by SLA to restore the No. 31 Ridout Road state property was $570,500. Minister Balakrishnan stated in his interview with CPIB that he paid more than $200,000 on additional improvement works to the state property. The tenancy agreement for 3+2+2 years was signed by Mrs Balakrishnan in October 2019. After the first three-year term, Mrs Balakrishnan requested and was granted a renewal of another 3+2 year-term instead of 2+2 year-term that was earlier granted. The rental for the second term was increased from $19,000 to $20,000 per month, taking into consideration the then-prevailing market conditions in 2022." Unquote. Again, I must emphasise that the preceding paragraphs were from CPIB's investigation report and findings. Let me now address the key questions raised by several Members. I will address questions on the rental transactions of these two properties, while Minister Edwin Tong will address questions regarding SLA's policies and practices in the management of state properties in general. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked whether the two Ministers' tenancies at Ridout Road from SLA have been handled without any corrupt behaviours. Let me quote verbatim again from CPIB's report to the Prime Minister: "CPIB has found no evidence of corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan.”
“The landlord, that is, SLA, has the responsibility to undertake essential repair works to ensure that the condition of the property is habitable. Minister Shanmugam paid $61,400 to build the car porch. In addition, he stated in his interview with CPIB that he paid over $400,000 for additional improvement works to the state property not covered by SLA's restoration works. Mrs Shanmugam signed the Tenancy Agreement of 3+3+3 years in June 2018. After the first three-year term, the tenancy was renewed in June 2021 for a second three-year term. The rental for the second term was maintained at $26,500 per month, as determined by SLA, considering the then prevailing market condition." The preceding paragraphs were all quoted verbatim from CPIB's report. For the rental of 31 Ridout Road, the key facts are as follows. Again, the next three paragraphs are verbatim from the CPIB report. "The No. 31 Ridout Road state property, of land size 9,157.36 square metres, had been vacant since July 2013. It was listed on the State Property Information Online website. The property had been vacant for five years before two unsuccessful bids were made below the then prevailing guide rent, that is, $12,000 in July 2018 and $5,000 in August 2018. Mrs Balakrishnan came across a 'For Lease' sign at the No. 31 Ridout Road state property. She contacted the SLA's appointed managing agent (MA) on 11 September 2018 and they negotiated on the rental price. The MA named an asking rent of $19,000. Mrs Balakrishnan offered $19,000 with the inclusion of essential repair works and upgrading of the toilet. The MA rejected the toilet upgrading as it was considered to be improvement works, and Mrs Balakrishnan subsequently agreed to bear the costs of the toilet upgrading. The asking rent for the No.”
“He was not confident that the adjacent land would be maintained in a way that would keep the place free of health and safety issues. He offered to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost. Minister Shanmugam stated in his interview with CPIB that he had not wanted to lease the additional adjacent land as there would be legal obligations attached to leasing it. SLA's view was that the tenant's responsibility would not extend to maintain the area beyond the tenant's property boundary. If Minister Shanmugam was to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost, the adjacent land had to be included in the tenancy of the 26 Ridout Road state property. SLA then did the fencing of the adjacent land within the property boundary. As a result, the land size was increased from 9,350 square metres to 23,164 square metres. The cost of site clearance, replanting of greenery and fencing was $172,000 which was initially borne by SLA and subsequently to be recovered from the tenant's rent. The cost of maintaining this additional land was approximately $25,000 per year and it was incurred by Minister Shanmugam which would otherwise have been borne by SLA. Minister Shanmugam and his agent were not aware of the guide rent. His agent studied the rental of comparable neighbouring properties and independently determined and valued the rent. Minister Shanmugam instructed his property agent that he should not be paying less than his neighbours. A neighbouring unit was tenanted at $26,000. The final negotiated rent amount was $26,500, which met the minimum rental to be achieved by SLA. As the property had not been in use since 2013, substantial repairs were needed. The total cost of essential repair works borne by SLA to restore 26 Ridout Road state property was $515,400.”
“My review, therefore, relied on CPIB's investigation findings on the renting out of the two properties, and a review of the policies and processes governing the management of black and white bungalows, to come to its conclusions. Several Members, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Pritam Singh, asked about the rental process. Let me summarise for this House the key facts of the case, as established by the CPIB investigation. The 26 Ridout Road state property had a land size of 9,350 square metres then. It had been vacant since December 2013. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will quote liberally, verbatim, from the CPIB report because it is authoritative, independent and established the facts. Similarly, my Report, which was submitted by the Prime Minister to Parliament, quotes liberally, verbatim from the CPIB report, and Members would have seen those sections in italics. I cannot speak in italics, but I will tell Members which part of my Statement I am quoting directly from CPIB. So, let me quote directly from CPIB for the next four or five paragraphs. "In January 2018, Minister Shanmugam appointed a property agent to represent him for the rental transaction of the 26 Ridout Road state property. By then, the property had been vacant without attracting any bids for more than four years. During a site visit, Minister Shanmugam noticed thick and overgrown vegetation on an empty slope of land adjacent to the property. Minister Shanmugam expressed his concern to SLA that the overgrown vegetation might pose public health and safety risks from snakes, mosquitoes and fallen trees. Through his property agent, Minister Shanmugam negotiated with SLA on clearing of the adjacent land before leasing the property.”
“In its investigations, the CPIB conducted interviews with the two Ministers and their spouses, former and current officers from the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), SLA and National Parks Board (NParks), property and managing agents who had knowledge of the rental transactions of the two state properties. CPIB also obtained evidence from documents and other information related to the rental transactions and parties involved, including through contemporaneous phone records, WhatsApp messages and SMSes. I would like to place on record my thanks to the CPIB officers for their diligence and attention to detail in conducting their investigations into these cases. Sir, I trust Members realise the import, the meaning, the weight, of the Prime Minister asking CPIB to investigate this matter. The agency reports directly to him, the Prime Minister – not to the Minister for Home Affairs, nor to me, for that matter, the Coordinating Minister for National Security. Moreover, the Director of CPIB can go directly to the President if the Prime Minister stops him from investigating a possible crime. The Constitution provides the Director of CPIB that right. There is no more thorough, persistent and, I dare say, even fearsome investigative body in Singapore. That the Prime Minister did not hesitate to call the CPIB in to investigate two senior Ministers is a signal how seriously we take such matters; incorruptibility is an absolute value in our system. In addition to CPIB's investigation, I asked MinLaw to provide a detailed briefing on the policies and processes governing the management of black and white bungalows.”
“On 28 June 2023, the Prime Minister submitted a Miscellaneous Paper to this House attaching the report of my Review as well as the report by CPIB. Members would have had the opportunity to read and scrutinise the two reports. I will now summarise the findings of my Review, which, I should emphasise, relies on CPIB's findings and report, before addressing questions on specific matters which Members had filed. The Review sought to achieve three objectives. First, to establish the facts surrounding the renting out of the two properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road. Second, to establish if there was any wrongdoing, including any abuse of power or conflict of interest, resulting in the Ministers gaining an unfair advantage or privileges. Third, to establish whether the policies and processes governing the renting out of black and white bungalows were followed in renting out the two properties and if there were any process gaps or lapses. As the Prime Minister had already directed CPIB to investigate the renting out of the two properties for corruption or criminal wrongdoing, it was decided, in consultation with the Prime Minister, that my Review would rely on CPIB's investigation to establish the facts surrounding the renting out of these two specific properties. Sir, investigations by CPIB are carried out by professional investigators and empowered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, under which, persons required by CPIB to provide information are legally bound to provide accurate information. Hence, CPIB's investigation findings would be independent, thorough and authoritative.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Members have asked several questions about the renting out of two black and white bungalows, 26 and 31 Ridout Road, by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), to the Minister for Law and Home Affairs Mr K Shanmugam and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan respectively. Minister Edwin Tong and I will be delivering Ministerial Statements on this matter. Our Statements will address Oral Question Nos 1 to 23 and Written Question Nos 1 and 9 to 13 on today's Order Paper. Mr Gan Thiam Poh1,2, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Alex Yam3,4 have filed Oral and Written Questions scheduled for future Sittings on this matter. As today's Ministerial Statements will address those questions as well, I invite these Members to seek clarifications, should they have any, on this matter after our Ministerial Statements. And should their queries be sufficiently addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with their Parliamentary Questions for future Sittings. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 17 May 2023, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had tasked the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) to investigate and determine if there was any corruption or criminal wrongdoing in the rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties by the two Ministers. Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan had also spoken to Prime Minister Lee to ask for a review that is independent of the Ministries and agencies that they oversee. On 22 May 2023, Prime Minister Lee tasked me to review the matter and establish whether proper processes had been followed and if there had been any wrongdoing. Both the CPIB investigation and the Review have been completed.”
“NSCS will work with government agencies to study these interdependencies and develop mitigation plans for such risks. Strengthening social resilience is critical for a diverse, multi-racial, and multi-religious country like Singapore. We must continue to strengthen our foundation of unity and trust in peace time, so that we will stay united as one Singapore in times of crisis. Accelerating digitalisation poses new and enhanced risks to our social resilience and cohesion. While digital connectivity benefits businesses and citizens, it can also make us more susceptible to foreign influence and misinformation. Opportunistic actors can leverage digital connectivity to exploit societal tensions and fault lines. NSCS will work with government agencies to develop strategies to address these risks and strengthen social resilience. As security risks become more multi-faceted and inter-linked, government agencies must build the capacity and capability to collectively address them. NSCS will support agencies’ capability development with resources and funding, including for national security research. Singapore must remain vigilant and proactive in tackling traditional and emerging risks to our security and resilience. NSCS will continue to work closely with other Ministries to maintain a coherent and co-ordinated Whole-of-Government approach to protect Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“Security and resilience are critical to Singapore’s continued survival and success. Even as we face established security threats, such as terrorism, foreign subversion and espionage, new risks are emerging, driven by trends, such as growing geopolitical contestation, climate change and accelerating digitalisation. These risks include disruptions in supply chains and resources, extreme weather events that jeopardise critical infrastructure and lives, and the rapid and widespread digital transmission of disinformation that can exploit fissures in our society. The National Security Coordination Secretariat (NSCS) works with government agencies to identify, assess, and address cross-cutting medium-term national security risks. NSCS focuses on risks where a whole-of-Government response is needed. These include growing security risks in the economic and social domains. Growing geopolitical contestation has made the global environment more uncertain and inhospitable, especially for a small country like Singapore. For example, the Russia-Ukraine conflict upended global supply chains and energy supplies, even as the world was still reeling from COVID-19 disruptions. NSCS will work with agencies to mitigate risks to the flow of essential supplies, and to strengthen our resilience against global supply disruptions. Climate change affects, among others, food, water, and energy supplies. It can also cause extreme weather events that knock out critical infrastructure and pose risk to lives. This risk is exacerbated by the interdependencies across our critical infrastructure and essential services. For example, disruptions to power can affect internet connectivity and trigger a cascading impact on services provided over the Internet.”
“As the investigations are ongoing, I will not say more at this juncture.”
“A summary of the relevant findings and quotes from the judgments, on both these points, are provided in Annex A. A timeline of the events relating to the execution of the Last Will is provided in Annex B. Mr Thomas ignores these findings by the C3J and the DT, and the admissions made by Mr LHY and Mrs LSF. He comes to the surprising conclusion that the judgments clear Mrs LSF and Mr LHY of "all suspicion of improper motives or manipulations" 7. It is clear that the assertions in his book are calculated to mislead, as they are completely at odds with the findings and conclusions of the C3J and the DT. Some of the inaccurate statements in the book are set out in Annex C and contrasted with the facts. As mentioned above, the C3J and the DT found that Mrs LSF and Mr LHY had lied under oath. This is a serious matter. I understand that the Police have commenced investigations into Mrs LSF and Mr LHY for potential offences of giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. As part of the investigations, the Police requested an interview with Mrs LSF and Mr LHY. They initially agreed to attend the Police interview. However, Mrs LSF and Mr LHY later had a change of heart and refused to attend. Their refusal is disappointing. (a) The Police have advised them to reconsider participating in investigations, but they have since left Singapore, and remain out of the country. (b) The Police have also informed them that the necessary steps would be taken to complete the investigations in their absence. Their refusal to participate raises questions. (a) If they maintain their innocence, the investigation will give them the chance to vindicate themselves. (b) They should participate, take the full opportunity to give their side of the story, and clear their names.”
“Many Singaporeans would prefer to put behind us questions about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's (Mr LKY) Last Will. But there are continuing efforts to rewrite the facts. The e-book by Mr Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh (Mr Thomas), "The Battle Over Lee Kuan Yew's Last Will", published not long ago in July 2022, is one such example1. Mr Thomas claims to have spent a year scrutinising the evidence to shine a light on the events. However, the book is not credible, as it totally ignores the facts and findings which had been established, after an objective and thorough examination of the case, by the Court of Three Judges (C3J)2 in November 2020 and a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) in February 20203. The C3J and the DT found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang (Mr LHY) and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (Mrs LSF): (a) misled Mr LKY in the context of the Last Will's execution; and (b) lied under oath. On the first point, the C3J and the DT concluded that Mrs LSF was guilty of misconduct. She "focused primarily on what her husband wanted done", and "worked together with Mr LHY, with a singular purpose, of getting [Mr LKY] to execute the Last Will quickly" 4. Mr LKY "ended up signing a document which was in fact not that which he had indicated he wished to sign" 5 . The C3J suspended Mrs LSF from practising as a lawyer for 15 months. This is quite a serious penalty. On the second point, the DT said that Mr LHY and Mrs LSF had presented "an elaborate edifice of lies … both on oath … and through their public and other statements, (which were referred to/relied upon during the Disciplinary Proceedings). The Affidavits were contrived to present a false picture. Several of the lies were quite blatant." 6. The C3J also found that Mr LHY and Mrs LSF had lied under oath.”
“One example is DTC World, a local SME specialising in corporate gifts. It champions sustainable procurement and promotes sustainable consumption and it has received multiple corporate sustainability awards. So, SMEs also can do their part. Finally, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked how the Government ensures that opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans will be there amid the green transition. Many Singaporeans are passionate about sustainability – not many more than Mr Louis Ng. We will support you in challenging your passion towards making an impact. For Singaporeans who may not yet have internalised climate change, understanding the implications of climate change on the environment and our society is the first step. The Ministry of Education (MOE) will elaborate on how we will nurture our young to become eco-stewards and live sustainably, with a focus on food sustainability in 2023. We will also support Singaporeans to acquire green skills and improve their access to green job opportunities. MTI will describe how we will do so with industry players and training partners. Mr Chairman, Sir, global climate action is urgent. All countries, including Singapore, must honour our shared responsibility for our planet earth. The IMCCC takes a whole-of-nation view to make sure our efforts are comprehensive and coordinated. Businesses, communities and individuals have a key part to play. The climate transition will be challenging, but it will be a rewarding journey, with opportunities for us to innovate and reimagine a greener and more sustainable future. So, let us work together, towards a better and greener Singapore.”
“The carbon tax collected will continue to support businesses and households. We will invest in green technologies and infrastructure, extend energy efficiency grants to businesses, and cushion our lower- and middle-income households from the impact of the carbon tax on electricity prices with U-Save rebates. The Government will enable the energy transition by securing greener sources of energy. Our National Hydrogen Strategy lays out the roadmap for the use of hydrogen which, with technological advancements, could potentially supply up to half of our power needs by 2050. In the meantime, we continue to see how we can import green electrons. Mr Louis Ng asked about support for industry. Aside from economy-wide moves, such as carbon tax and decarbonising our grid, we will also help sectors reorient towards greener production and develop competitive advantages in growth sectors. As a financial hub, Singapore has a head start in green financing services. Our industry sectoral roadmaps consolidate common challenges, allowing scale-up of promising initiatives and guide companies in positioning themselves to capture opportunities. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) will update this House on the sustainability plans for the transport and tourism sectors respectively. Every business, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), must be financially and environmentally sustainable in order to thrive in the long run, by decarbonising their value chains and accelerating their green transition. MTI will report on how we are helping SMEs to level up in areas, such as sustainability reporting and carbon accounting. Small companies can drive sustainability efforts across their supply chains.”
“At both COP26 and COP27, Minister Grace Fu co-facilitated negotiations on Article 6. The Article 6 rulebook enables cross-border cooperation through carbon markets, for countries to jointly fulfil their national climate targets, making it more efficient and easier for countries to reduce their climate emissions and on a global level. The inaugural Singapore Pavilion at COP27 showcased our homegrown companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), youths and academics, including Prof Koh, to the international community. For instance, Sembcorp Industries launched its carbon management platform, GoNetZero. And one of GoNetZero's partnerships, with OCBC Bank, encourages clean energy adoption and decarbonisation, starting with Singaporean companies and scaling up to the region. Overall, COP27 advanced workstreams to support the implementation of the Paris Agreement. And we will press on at COP28. Mr Chairman, government action is necessary but not sufficient to achieve a low-carbon future. Businesses need to act as well, and we will partner them in their sustainability journeys. The industry sector contributes over 60% of our overall carbon emissions. So, to reach net zero by 2050, we must decarbonise at every level – the economy, each sector and individual firms – so that our businesses are ready to thrive in the green economy. Our carbon tax shapes economy-wide behaviour. The Government has specified carbon tax levels up to 2027 and a range of $50 to $80 per tonne of CO2 by 2030. All of us must now factor in the cost of emitting carbon. And now that the carbon tax levels are known, companies can also plan with greater predictability. This will make greener modes of production, investment and living more desirable.”
“Mr Chairman, first, climate change is an existential threat for us here in Singapore. As a low-lying island, we are vulnerable to rising sea levels. Being densely built-up, we are prone to trapping heat in our urban environment. Climate change poses risks to our biodiversity, food and water security, and public health. To mitigate climate change effects on Singapore, we must engage other countries to reduce their emissions worldwide. We must do our best and do our part, so that we can shape international norms to bring us closer to our collective goals. Finally, putting our climate ambition into action positions Singapore as a choice location for businesses and investors interested in participating in the regional green economy. This puts us in good stead to capture new economic opportunities in the climate transition. Ms Poh Li San, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Mr Louis Ng asked how we will meet our climate targets. The Government, through IMCCC, strikes a balance between ambition and practicality of action. And it will take a whole-of-nation effort. The Green Plan sets out how the Government, businesses and the community can work together towards a greener future. The public sector will set the example by aiming to achieve net-zero emissions around 2045, five years ahead of our national target of 2050. This year, we will enhance our public procurement strategy and start making regular progress reports on public sector sustainability initiatives. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) and MSE will provide further details to this House. We will also continue to forge international collaborations on climate action. Prof Koh Lian Pin asked about the significance of COP27 and COP28. Let me share two positive examples of how Singapore contributed and made a difference.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I speak as Chairman of our Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC). The IMCCC works very closely with the various ministries, and the ministries, in turn, work very closely with the sectors that they are responsible for, and in particular, we work very closely with Minister Grace Fu and the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE). Today I will give a broad overview and each of the Ministries will elaborate, in detail, on the plans that they have specifically. Reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is urgent. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report warns that after 2030, it will become increasingly difficult to limit global warming to 2°C and we will face heightened and more complex climate risks. At COP26 in Glasgow, countries pledged to act. But recent conditions have made it more difficult to stay the course. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, exactly a year ago, disrupted energy and food supplies, causing energy and food prices to increase in many countries. Despite these external challenges, Singapore decisively stepped up our efforts against climate change last year. In Budget 2022, we announced Singapore's intention to raise our climate ambition. In October, after several months of public consultation, we formally revised our climate targets. We will reduce our emissions to around 60 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2030, after peaking our emissions earlier. We also committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Ms Poh Li San asked about the considerations for raising our ambition – after all, we also are affected by external events and Singapore, as a small, alternative energy disadvantaged city-state, faces natural limitations on our climate action measures.”
“The Public Consultation on Singapore's Climate Ambition is part of our effort to engage multiple stakeholders following the announcement in Budget 2022 that Singapore will be raising our climate ambition. The Public Consultation closed on 26 September 2022 and builds on the series of engagement sessions with businesses, non-governmental organisations, green groups and youths under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. We have received close to 500 responses from the Public Consultation. We are currently studying the feedback and will publish a summary report of the aggregated findings, prior to any formal revision of Singapore's Long-Term Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) and 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”
“The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) also work together to identify and block suspected scam websites. In 2021, 12,000 suspected scam websites were blocked. In addition, the SPF works with financial institutions to swiftly freeze bank accounts suspected to be involved in scams. Combating scams will be a constant battle as scammers' tactics will keep changing. The Government will continue to implement backend measures to better protect citizens and we also need everyone's help to remain vigilant.”
“We are working with the telcos to build up in-network capabilities to block scam messages and calls, including robocalls and those spoofing numbers of local Government agencies and emergency services. We have developed the ScamShield mobile application to filter out scam SMSes and calls. We are also running various public education campaigns to alert citizens to different types of emerging scams. Third, we are strengthening our detection of scams in our Government transactions with citizens. For Government services, we have implemented multi-factor authentication on Singpass, including use of biometrics, to provide added layers of protection to Singpass accounts and to prevent them from being easily taken over by scammers. Like other major technology companies, we are also using and continuously improving our fraud analytics to detect and notify users of suspicious logins, such as logins from a new device or browser. For major transactions with citizens, Government agencies also conduct checks to ensure that payments are made to bank accounts owned by the correct person. This will complement similar measures that the banks are taking to mitigate the risk of fraudulent transactions, such as enhancing fraud monitoring systems to facilitate timely detection and blocking of suspicious transactions and alerting customers of outgoing transactions that exceed established risk thresholds so that they can report unauthorised transactions as soon as possible. Fourth, we are speeding up our response to scams. The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) will be launching a WhatsApp channel by 3Q2022 for citizens to quickly and conveniently report suspected scams, so that we can rapidly crowdsource information and respond to scam websites and messages.”
“There are some exceptions such as websites that are collaborations between Government agencies and non-government entities. Such legitimate websites are listed on www.gov.sg/trusted-sites which users are encouraged to check if they are asked to transact on unfamiliar website domains. The Government will also regularly remind the public that its links will always have domains1 ending with ".gov.sg", which users should confirm before clicking to transact with public agencies. For messages delivered to citizens through SMSes, the Government will also only use links where it is important to mobilise large numbers quickly and where we assess other channels to be less effective. We will not ask users to provide their credentials, such as passwords, through websites directly accessed through SMS links. In addition to these preventive and protective measures by the Government and users when interacting via SMS, the Government is implementing backend prevention, detection and mitigation measures to address attempts to conduct scams by impersonating legitimate senders. First, we are reducing the possibility of SMS sender IDs from being spoofed. The Singapore SMS Sender ID Registry (SSIR) was established in March 2022 to block SMSes that spoof the sender IDs of participants, which includes Government agencies and banks. To date, more than 50 organisations have onboarded the SSIR, with all Government agencies progressively onboarding. We are also studying the requirement for all users of alphanumeric sender IDs to be onboarded to prevent scammers from sending SMSes using alphanumeric sender IDs. Second, we will implement measures to screen out scam messages and calls upstream.”
“The SNDGG has reviewed the use of links by Government agencies. Removal of links in SMSes, emails or other messaging platforms does not eliminate the risks of users falling prey to phishing attempts, e.g. phone numbers that members of the public are asked to call or continued attempts by scammers to use phishing links. Instead, we will implement prevention, detection and mitigation measures at the backend, and continue with user education to better protect citizens from scams perpetrated through the use of links. SMS is a core text messaging component of most mobile devices. Because SMS is based on open standards, its main advantage is its widespread reach. SMS can reach anyone with a mobile phone, even if they do not use a smart phone or email, with nearly 100% coverage. Hence, SMS is widely used for many services, including communications and marketing. For example, the Government has attached links in SMSes to mobilise citizens to get vaccinated during COVID-19. However, there are deficiencies in the open SMS standards that allow spoofing. Scammers can impersonate legitimate senders, such as Government agencies, to send SMSes with links to illegitimate websites to trick users to give up their user credentials and transfer monies. Given the above tradeoffs between reach and vulnerability to spoofing, the Government will implement a number of measures in order to have safeguards and give users confidence when interacting with SMSes. When sending SMSes with links, the Government will only use domains1 ending with ".gov.sg". Any logins to Government services (e.g. keying in Singpass credentials or scanning the Singpass QR code) should only be done at genuine Government websites with domains ending with ".gov.sg".”
“On the first question, I do not have a count of how many of the 5,000 which have committed to net-zero in COP26 are actually in Singapore. But we do know that there are many companies in Singapore – international companies and major ones. Minister Gan Kim Yong has given the example of Shell, which is a major E&C company, which has made a commitment to go to net-zero by 2050 – Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3. They have been long-time residents here in Singapore, contributing greatly to our economy and we will partner them. A number of other companies – ExxonMobil, for example, has committed to going net-zero in its operations by 2050. They are very interested in CCU as a technology. Both companies are very interested in developing Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) and other forms. These provide very good partnerships for us. There are other important companies in Singapore like Neste, which is a major producer of biodiesel. In fact, it is the biggest producer. We have one of the biggest plants in the world, if not the biggest plant in the world. And they have expressed an interest in expanding their range of products here in Singapore. So, there are a number of useful opportunities. Minister Gan Kim Yong may want to add to that.”
“We will have clear environmental integrity criteria to ensure that the carbon credits surrendered by businesses to offset their emissions are aligned with international carbon market rules finalised at COP26 and reflect an actual reduction in global emissions. Mr Chairman, the carbon tax is but one part of our comprehensive package of measures to move our nation decisively towards a low-carbon future. Last year, we launched the Green Plan, a whole-of-nation movement to advance our national agenda on sustainable development. All the Green Plan Ministries have gathered again during the COS this year to explain how the various initiatives under the Green Plan will be enhanced and implemented. Mr Chairman, all of us have a part to play. We can and we should make this decisive move to net-zero. We must advance on this sustainability journey together as a nation and we will require the participation and support of all Singaporeans to do so. There will be costs to bear and trade-offs to be made. But this move will reposition Singapore and bring significant benefits for generations of Singaporeans to come. By moving decisively now, we are charting the path to a cleaner, greener Singapore for our future generations – with a sustainable environment and lifestyles, a forward-looking economy with new green jobs, and a brighter future at the forefront of a low-carbon world. [Applause.]”
“We recognise that it will not be easy for the emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors to fully decarbonise their emissions in the near to medium-term while remaining competitive with other manufacturing locations. Therefore, we will also use the carbon tax collected to provide transitory support for existing investments which have contributed to the current and earlier phases of Singapore's economic growth. This will give them time to make the transition to a low-carbon economy without blunting the price signal and being very clear about what our trajectory is. Mr Louis Ng asked to expand the coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities. At this point in time, we will retain the threshold of 25,000 tonnes of emissions. This covers about 80% of our emissions and is already one of the highest in the world. Coupled with our existing taxes on transport fuels, we are achieving around 90% coverage. Lowering the threshold would impose significant additional regulatory burden and costs on companies, without any meaningful increase in coverage. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked how we can catalyse the purchase of high-quality carbon credits. Providing companies with the flexibility to surrender high-quality international carbon credits to offset up to 5% of their taxable emissions will help to create local demand for high-quality carbon credits and catalyse the development of a carbon services hub in Singapore. It will also cushion the impact for companies that are able to source for cost-effective and credible carbon credits.”
“The carbon tax will also provide the impetus for businesses to be more resource-efficient and invest in decarbonisation solutions. Mr Don Wee, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Miss Cheryl Chan asked how the Government will help minimise the impact of carbon tax on households and businesses and account for the use of the revenue collected from the carbon tax. Mr Chairman, I would like to emphasise that the Government will not derive additional net revenue from the carbon tax. The Government will flow the additional tax collected back to help households and businesses transition to a low-carbon future. Nine hundred and fifty thousand households have already benefited from U-Save rebates from 2019 to 2021, and we will provide additional support to help households manage the cost of utilities. But saving energy, and not just helping to pay the bills, is an even more important way to lower emissions and household utility bills. As of January 2022, about 70,000 or 22% of eligible households have registered for the Climate-Friendly Household Package, which subsidises the upfront cost of switching to energy-efficient appliances for lower-income households and more than 19,000 vouchers have already been utilised. All in, Mr Chairman, almost a million households and more than 200 businesses have already benefited from these schemes that we have implemented over the years. The carbon tax will fund additional schemes to support households and businesses to achieve greater carbon efficiency and decarbonisation, and these schemes will be subject to the usual stringent governance and accountability frameworks and key performance indicators (KPIs) for the use of public funds.”
“Members may also access these materials through the SG Parl MP mobile app. Save some paper. Our proposed carbon tax out to 2030 is set at a level that sends a significant price signal to influence consumer and business behaviour. Announcing our intentions and the expected trajectory early provides predictability for investment decisions. We also take reference from the carbon price levels of competitor jurisdictions. China and South Korea, which submitted net-zero pledges within the last two years, have sizeable emissions-intensive sectors and export to our region as well. The International Energy Agency estimates that, to match their targets, China and South Korea would have carbon prices of S$45 and S$61 per tonne respectively in 2030. But we should bear in mind that they have a range of renewable alternatives, including nuclear, which is not available to us in this timeframe. The 2030 projected carbon price for the European Union (EU) is about S$174 per tonne. The EU has legacy emissions-intensive sectors, some of which are still reliant on coal that will require considerable effort to decarbonise. Another useful reference is the internal carbon prices that many corporates are already using to make their medium- to long-term business and investment decisions. For example, the multinational consumer goods company Unilever already currently uses an internal carbon price of S$77 per tonne and Temasek uses an internal carbon price of S$57 per tonne currently. An appropriate carbon price will shape responsible behaviour. Individuals and households will have a greater incentive to adopt more sustainable lifestyles, such as conserving electricity and using more energy-efficient appliances. The savings from these changes will offset the increases in utility charges.”
“Two years ago, Singapore submitted our enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for 2030, and our Long-Term Low Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) under the Paris Agreement – to halve emissions from our 2030 peak to 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050, with a view to achieving net-zero emissions as soon as viable in the second half of the century. Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Louis Ng and Prof Koh Lian Pin asked about Singapore's key considerations and the process for setting our climate targets and the timeframe. In our LEDS two years ago, we laid out three thrusts to achieve our aspiration: first, transforming our industry, economy and society; second, harnessing low-carbon technologies; and third, pursuing international collaboration, for example, in the form of carbon markets and electricity imports. We said that we would continue to review our climate goals with the aim of achieving net-zero emissions as soon as viable. If the potential emissions reductions from each of these thrusts are available sooner, we will be able to realise our goals earlier. Mr Chairman, since then, there have been important developments at COP26 in Glasgow. This marks an important inflection point. More countries pledged to reach net-zero by mid-century. More companies have also made net-zero commitments. This will spur greater investment in low-carbon solutions, making them technologically and economically viable earlier. The Paris Agreement's Article 6 rulebook for international carbon markets was also finalised. With these important developments, we are now able to have greater clarity and to raise our ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by or around mid-century, in line with the Glasgow Climate Pact.”