Hansard, Monday, 3 July 2023

1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Prime Minister whether the two Ministers' tenancies at Ridout Road from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) have been handled without any corrupt behaviours.

2 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister (a) how will the Government assure the public that the Minister for Law and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were not in receipt of any privileged information pertaining to the lease of 26 and 31 Ridout Road respectively; and (b) whether there are any rules, conventions or policies to ensure that Cabinet Ministers do not take advantage of privileged information received in the course of their official or non-official duties in regard to the lease of Government properties.

3 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister what are the Government's reasons for not calling a press conference in May 2023 to address the public allegations in regard to the lease of 26 and 31 Ridout Road to the Minister for Law and the Minister for Foreign Affairs respectively.

4 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister (a) who is the senior Cabinet member that Minister K Shanmugam had notified regarding his bid for the state property at 26 Ridout Road; and (b) what actions has the senior Cabinet member taken after the notification.

5 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Prime Minister why is the Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security tasked to review Minister K Shanmugam's tenancy of 26 Ridout Road and Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's tenancy of 31 Ridout Road, rather than an individual from another branch of Government, such as a Supreme Court Judge.

6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Prime Minister (a) whether there is any actual or perceived conflict of interest on the part of the Minister for Law and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in their respective leasing of 26 and 31 Ridout Road; and (b) if there is any perceived or actual conflict, what actions will be taken to ensure compliance with section 3.7 of the Code of Conduct for Ministers, which requires relinquishing or disposing of the financial interest where there is a conflict between private interest and public duty, or with any other provision of the said Code.

7 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) what steps were taken to address any conflict of interest which may conceivably arise under section 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Ministers (Code) when applications were made to rent 26 and 31 Ridout Road bungalows respectively by the Ministers from SLA; (b) what are the reporting requirements under the Code and whether these were complied with; and (c) whether the rental applications are made in names other than the Ministers.

8 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law (a) what were the steps taken to market, tenant and renew the tenancies of 26 and 31 Ridout Road; and (b) whether the Minister for Law was involved in his official capacity in any decisions relating to the rentals of 26 and 31 Ridout Road.

9 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law in respect of tender of rental properties managed by SLA, what measures have been put in place to ensure that (i) any bidder participating in the tender is not provided with any advantage over other bidders and (ii) the bid process is fair, transparent and competitive.

10 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Law with regard to the two state properties at Ridout Road that are currently tenanted to two Ministers (a) what were the circumstances under which the properties came to be rented out to them; and (b) how had SLA marketed the two properties to be leased.

11 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Law in respect of the two state proprieties at Ridout Road that are currently rented out to two Ministers (a) what are SLA's standard tenancy operating procedures; (b) whether SLA has followed these procedures; and (c) what are the rental rates for the properties.

12 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Law besides the two state properties at Ridout Road that are currently tenanted to two Ministers (a) how many of such similar properties are there in Singapore currently; (b) whether the rental rate is benchmarked against the private residential market; and (c) whether SLA has a transparent process to list all these properties available for rental.

13 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Law what was the guide rent set by SLA for the lease of 26 and 31 Ridout Road when they were leased out to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Law respectively.

14 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) why are rental rates for state properties not publicly available beyond six months of the tender; (b) what are the rental rates in respect of the two state properties at Ridout Road that are currently rented out to two Ministers; and (c) how do these rental rates compare with the rent paid by other tenants of comparable black and white bungalows.

15 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law with regard to the 26 and 31 Ridout Road properties that are currently rented out to two Ministers (a) how do the terms of the lease agreement of these properties compare to the terms of lease agreements of other black and white bungalows managed by SLA; (b) whether there are any non-standard clauses in the lease agreements of these two properties; and (c) whether the lease agreements of these two properties will be made public.

16 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the reasons why the rental bid of 26 Ridout Road is made by an agent; (b) whether SLA knew that the Minister for Law was the principal behind the bid; and (c) if so, how and when did SLA come to know of this.

17 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Government has incurred any costs, such as renovation, construction or maintenance costs, relating to the tenancy of the state properties at 26 and 31 Ridout Road, before or after the properties are rented out to the Ministers; and (b) if so, how long have the renovation and construction works taken and how much has been incurred.

18 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Law whether the Government has plans to redevelop more of the land that are currently occupied by black and white colonial bungalows for more productive uses like public housing, industry or commerce.

19 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the bidding process of black and white bungalows managed by SLA is audited by the Auditor-General's Office annually; (b) if not, in which year was the latest audit conducted; (c) what sampling methodology was used for the latest audit conducted; and (d) whether bids by Government officials, Members of Parliament and related parties are always included as part of this sample.

20 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) how is the bidding process publicised by SLA for its black and white bungalows; and (b) in view of the long periods when some SLA bungalows have been vacant, what has SLA done to address those vacancies.

21 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) how long was the bidding open for 26 Ridout Road after Minister Shanmugam's bid was received as compared with the normal procedure for such bids; and (b) whether there is any prescribed process for declaring any related party transactions or conflicts of interests when bidding and how was that process observed for 26 Ridout Road.

22 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Law (a) how are maintenance and upgrading costs for black and white bungalows owned by SLA divided between tenant and SLA; and (b) what are the annual costs of maintenance and upgrading borne by SLA at 26 and 31 Ridout Road respectively from 2013 to 2022, inclusive of both years.

23 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Law (a) what are the parameters and guidelines used to decide whether to grant conservation status or when deciding not to develop the large pieces of undeveloped land on plots containing residential black and white houses owned and managed by SLA; (b) how much consideration is given to factors, such as the severe land space constraints in Singapore; and (c) what is the total area of undeveloped land tagged to such properties.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as Minister Edwin Tong and I have given notice and will be making Statements later at today's Sitting, may I have your permission to answer Oral Question Nos 1 to 23 in our Ministerial Statements later today?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

The following question stood in the name of Dr Lim Wee Kiak –

24 To ask the Minister for Health (a) whether public hospitals are allowed to reject patients referred by polyclinics because their residential addresses fall outside the healthcare cluster and, if so, what percentage of referrals are rejected for this reason; and (b) how will the Ministry assist such patients, including hospital staff, who may be denied access to their workplace's outpatient benefits due to their residential addresses.

25 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry plan to improve the triage process for patients referred to public hospitals by polyclinics, ensuring transparent justifications for rejecting referrals; and (b) what plans does the Ministry have to ensure effective communication in cases of rejected referrals, while establishing appropriate channels for follow-up and resolution.

Question No 24.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 24 and 25 from today's Order Paper?

Yes, please.

Public hospitals do not reject patients referred by polyclinics based on their residential address. Public hospitals may occasionally reject patients if the referrals are inappropriate, such as to a specialty that the hospital does not provide.

Patients are also prioritised based on their medical condition and need. In rare situations, if the hospital is not able to provide an appointment within the time demanded by the urgency of the case, the hospitals will then inform the patients and refer the polyclinics to direct the referral to a more appropriate institution, for example, one where there are more timely slots available. The polyclinics will discuss alternative arrangements with the patient, including making a referral to another institution where applicable.

Patients may also contact the polyclinic, hospital or the cluster's main appointment centre to seek clarification and assistance for their referrals.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I declare that I am a medical doctor at a public hospital. I raise this in my capacity as Member of Parliament (MP), as I have Clementi residents who are concerned about the matter in this Parliamentary Question. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State if he can reassure the House that based on the Minister for Health's commitment last year during the March 2022 Committee of Supply debate on the Healthier SG concept. The Minister at the time said individuals will have a choice – you can choose whether to enrol or not in Healthier SG, you can choose whom to enrol with, even doctors who are far away from your home, there is a variety of reasons why some Singaporeans decide to do that, such as because the clinic may be nearer to your workplace, near your parents' place.

So, my first supplementary question is, can the Ministry of Health (MOH) confirm that this choice will still be available to persons seeking to enrol in Healthier SG because someone may seek care with a family doctor nearer to their workplace or with their caregivers?

Secondly, can I also draw the Senior Minister of State's attention to the points I raised during the Healthier SG debate last year on 4 October 2022? At the time, I had raised Clementi residents' concerns whether it will become harder to seek specialist care in a hospital outside their own geographical cluster because sometimes, residents may seek to see a specialist at a hospital not next to their home, but where they are going to be cared for by a family member during their illness. Can the Senior Minister of State assure us that this freedom of choice will still be available to patients seeking referral for specialist care from polyclinics?

Lastly, if there are situations arising that need appeal, can the Senior Minister of State assure us there will be options available for patients to raise the matter to MOH for further study?

Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his three questions. The answer to all three is yes. Yes, residents can continue to exercise choice about where they enrol for Healthier SG. Yes, resident can exercise choice about where they seek specialty care at the public hospitals, with the caveat that the service is available at that hospital. Sometimes, it is not widely known how sub-specialty services are divided amongst our public healthcare institutions. And three, yes, if there are any issues with this, there are routes for appeal that residents and MPs on their behalf can pursue.

26 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for National Development with respect to the announcement of the Singapore Turf Club (STC) closure in the press release dated 5 June 2023 (a) whether the Ministry is able to provide an estimated number of houses and the types of leisure and recreation facilities that will be developed on the STC site; and (b) what are the projected timelines for such developments and completions.

27 Ms Hany Soh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of the announcement of the STC closure in the press release dated 5 June 2023, whether the Tote Board has considered alternatives to preserve the sport and leisure traditions of horse racing instead of an outright closure.

28 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the staff and trainers who currently work for horse owners but are not employed by STC, whether they will be supported by STC and other Government agencies in retraining for other jobs prior to the closure of STC.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Question Nos 26, 27 and 28 on today's Order Paper relate to the decision to close Singapore Turf Club (STC) and the redevelopment plans for the site. I seek your permission to answer these three Parliamentary Questions together, as well as the other Parliamentary Questions on this topic, namely, Question Nos 3 and 45 for written answer today; and Parliamentary Questions filed by Mr Gerald Giam1,2, Ms Hany Soh3, Ms Joan Pereira4, Mr Sharael Taha5,6, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui7 and Mr Gan Thiam Poh8 scheduled for subsequent Sittings. Members who filed these Parliamentary Questions for subsequent Sittings may wish to withdraw their respective Parliamentary Questions if their queries are sufficiently addressed today.

Yes, please.

The decision to close STC was not an easy decision, nor was it made lightly. Given Singapore's small size and land constraints, the Government continually reviews our land use plans to meet present and future needs. At the same time, local horse racing has also experienced declining spectatorship over the years.

In developing our long-term land use strategies and plans, the Government has actively engaged the public to understand their needs and aspirations. These engagements have strongly affirmed that we need more land for housing, as well as a diversity of spaces for leisure and recreation, to provide a quality living environment for Singaporeans. With the demand for more land for housing and the declining spectatorship for local horse racing, the Government has made the difficult decision to redevelop the STC site to better meet our future needs.

Mr Gerald Giam asked whether the use of the Singapore Racecourse site under the current Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Master Plan has been revised to include housing. At the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, the Ministry of National Development announced that we have started on our Draft Master Plan review, which will take place over the next two to three years. The Government intends to update the revised land use for the site to include housing in the upcoming Master Plan.

Ms Hany Soh and Mr Louis Chua asked about the redevelopment plans for the site. The site will be holistically developed to meet the increasing demand for housing, including public housing, as well as leisure and recreation.

This is part of a larger overall plan for the North Region. URA will consider how the site can be developed: (a) to create a distinct identity for the precinct, taking into account its unique characteristics; and (b) to build on the green character of our North Region and the site's proximity to major parks and nature areas, such as the Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve, Mandai Mangroves and Mudflats, Lim Chu Kang Agri-Food cluster and the Mandai Wildlife Reserve attractions.

Work on the revised land use plan, as well as infrastructure design and planning for the site, will take place over the next three to four years before the Government takes over the site in 2027, so that land preparation and redevelopment can commence thereafter. The Government is studying the potential uses for the site, including the number of dwelling units that can be injected. Details of the redevelopment plan will be made known once the relevant studies and assessments are completed.

Mr Edward Chia asked about timing. The handover of the land and assets of STC is scheduled to be completed by March 2027, which is three and a half years from now. We made the announcement now to give trainers and owners sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements. This also allows them to have several more races, culminating in the Singapore Gold Cup in October 2024.

Ms Hany Soh, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Edward Chia have asked what assistance will be given to workers affected by the cessation of horse racing. We will make every effort to assist and ease the transition for them.

There are two different groups of workers affected – those employed by STC and those employed by the trainers.

About 350 STC employees are affected. The STC employees will continue to be employed for at least the next 15 months up till October 2024, with some staying until closure in 2027. Upon cessation of their employment, they will receive retrenchment packages in line with Ministry of Manpower guidelines. In addition, they will receive job placement assistance, career guidance, skills training and counselling so that they can find new jobs. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has also stepped in to offer support.

The horse trainers employ or engage about another 420 workers. While these are not STC employees, STC will nevertheless lean forward to work with their employers, the trainers, to provide support to these workers and ease their transition. The media had recently reported that some equestrian entities are prepared to offer them jobs. STC will also be extending employment facilitation, skills training and career counselling.

Members have also asked what will happen to the racehorses. There are approximately 700 racehorses. They will have to be rehomed once the races cease. In the meantime, STC has already rolled out support for racehorse owners and trainers for horse maintenance, as well as horse exportation and placement. STC is discussing with owners and trainers what additional support they may need to rehome their horses and will do its best to meet reasonable requests.

Some trainers have highlighted concerns that the owners might abandon their horses. I hope that this is indeed not the case and I would caution any owner against so doing. Owners have the responsibility to look after their horses. It would be an offence under the Animals and Birds Act to abandon their horses or fail to care appropriately for them. STC is committed to working with owners to manage their horses in a responsible manner, such as through rehoming, either overseas or in a stable in Singapore.

Members have also asked about the impact of the closure of STC on equestrian activities in Singapore. While horse racing will cease, other equestrian activities are not affected by STC's closure. Sport Singapore engages regularly with the Equestrian Federation of Singapore which oversees our national team's training. The STC's closure does not affect our national equestrian team's training, which is located at Jalan Mashhor.

On heritage, we recognise the rich history of the Turf Club and the racing community. The National Heritage Board will work with STC and stakeholders to capture and commemorate the heritage of STC and local horse racing.

We will make every effort to assist those affected, and to ensure that the history and heritage of STC and the racing community is commemorated.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank Minister Indranee for the response. Many of my Woodgrove residents are very happy and look forward to the redevelopment of the Kranji Turf Club into more housing and recreational facilities, especially for the young couples. But at the same time, some have given me feedback that they are also rather concerned in terms of the traffic congestion situation that is already happening around that area because of our close proximity to the Checkpoint and also to the various highways.

I am just wondering, for the purposes of this redevelopment, would we be working very closely with the Ministry of Transport (MOT) to ensure that we will look into the additional populations that are coming in, at the same time, addressing the concerns of the traffic congestion there?

The second supplementary question that I have is that many of my residents have shared with me that they appreciate the many fond memories that they have seen in the culture and events that have happened at STC. So, I am hoping that for the purposes of this redevelopment, when we establish our distinct identity, can we also look at how we can preserve many of these fond memories, engage the residents around the area to incorporate them into the housing, so that we can allow the future generations to still have some memories in relation to STC?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the answer to both of Ms Hany Soh's supplementary questions is yes. We will be working with MOT to do an impact assessment. In fact, that is one of the reasons why we need these three years before 2027 because you need to look at what are the infrastructure requirements around the place, the road network, the ease of traffic flow. All of these things will be part of the assessments and technical studies that have to be done as part of the land use review and site preparation.

With regard to the second question about whether, when it is redeveloped, regard will be had to the heritage, the answer is yes. We are very mindful of the identity and heritage of various areas. In the early years when we were doing our redevelopment, we used to clear a lot of things and it was just new buildings coming up. But increasingly, we have become much more sensitive – not only as a Ministry, but as a population – to our history and heritage. This was very evident when we did the long-term plan review, and that is one of the pillars that has come out of the long-term plan review. Members will see this approach. We have said that we will do that for the old Police Academy site, also for Paya Lebar. Similarly, for this site, we will have regard to the heritage.

Mr Gerald Giam.

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive replies. The Minister said that other equestrian sports will not be affected. Is there currently any scheme to use retired racehorses for other equestrian sports? If so, would this supply of horses not be constrained after the Singapore racecourse closes down, leading to higher costs for buying and importing horses for equestrian sports?

On the question of retired racehorses going to other equestrian sports, that may have to be directed to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth in terms of sports. But I just want to clarify something about these horses. These are racehorses and the majority of them would probably continue racing. So, the question is how to get them to places where they can continue to race. So, exportation would be one of the main strategies to deal with these horses. There are other countries. In fact, the exportation of horses does take place quite regularly. I understand from STC that every month, there are actually a few. They may go to Malaysia, for example. I think some interest has been expressed in Malaysia in taking in some of the racehorses from STC when it closes. Australia is another destination although, for Australia, they take in a smaller number.

So, I think the primary strategy for these racehorses would actually be exportation, to allow them to continue to race if their owners so choose. But obviously, this is a conversation that we are having with the owners to see what they would like to do with the horses. But bottom line, we will find homes for all the horses.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Minister. With respect to the announcement of STC dated 5 June 2023, whether all relevant stakeholders have been consulted in the decision-making process and, if not, why was it not undertaken in arriving at this decision?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Pereira for her question. On consultation, there are different types of consultation. With respect to the decision on land use, what the site should be used for, this is no different from decisions that we make in respect of other sites that are developed for public or other housing, and that is a decision that the Government has to take.

We would not usually go for public consultation on whether or not to take back a particular site. That has to be part of the planning that the Government looks at. But before the decision was made, we had engaged very widely with Singaporeans at large on land use and this was under the long-term plan review as well as other regular engagements. And one thing which came back very strongly – not just from Singaporeans whom we engaged, but in this House in recent debates – was the need for more housing, in particular, public housing.

So, that was one of the imperatives and drivers as we looked at and reviewed the amount of land available for housing and that informed our decision as to whether to take back this site for housing purposes. But the decision, having been made, what is very important is that all the stakeholders who are affected by the decision need to be assisted with the transition and that includes, as I mentioned earlier, the employees of STC, the trainers, the horse owners, the employees of the trainers, and there are some tenants, for example, on the site. Those tenants, for tenancies like food and beverage and so on, the contractual arrangements with them will be fulfilled and, if there are one or two who may need to be relocated, we will assist with the relocation.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Minister for the response. I just have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, I declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union, which is a union overseeing the STC.

Just three worker-related issues. Firstly, the duration of 15 months may be too short for some of those involved, and whether we can consider extending that. Secondly, over and above the retrenchment benefits as well as the various hardship support we are giving through the unions and NTUC, whether some of those who have special needs or requirements can have extra assistance in terms of hardship cases. Finally, as a run-up to this entire layoff exercise, whether STC can allow within the retraining, reskilling and upskilling for the workers there to undertake skills training that may not be related to the job, may be related to a new job, maybe for an extended period, because these workers are still in employment, it is employer-supported, whether the employer can support outside of the normal traditional kind of skills and upskilling.

I thank Mr Patrick Tay for those pertinent questions. He raised three points. Let me take them in turn.

With regard to the duration of 15 months, let me explain how that is derived. Fifteen months is the period when we expect the last race to take place. So, the last race to take place would be the Gold Cup next year, in October 2024. Working backwards, if we take back the land in 2027, you need to allow time for horse exportation as well. And horse exportation does not happen just so easily – you need time for quarantine, you need time for vaccination, you need time for transport, you need time to have them rehomed. So, working backwards, it was determined that October next year should be the last race, which means that between now and October, these employees, all of them, whether STC or for the trainers, will be able to continue in employment. Then the question is when it stops, because once the last race finishes, in a sense, especially for the trainers, there are no further races. So, there will still be horses to be looked after for exportation, but you would not be preparing for racing, for example. So, the workload is already going to start tapering off.

Exportation is by 2026. So, there is still a period between 2024 and 2026 when there will be a tailing off. So, this is something that STC, as well as the trainers, will have to work through with their employees to bring the employment to an end. For STC, as I mentioned earlier, some will have to continue being employed right up to 2027, because the administration staff, whoever is doing payroll, payments and so on, they will still need to be around to do the winding down.

The second point that Mr Patrick Tay raised was those employees who may be experiencing hardship and may require extra support. I would certainly encourage them to raise with their employers and with STC if they have special needs, or face particular hardship, and we will lean forward to assist them.

The third point on whether STC could allow workers to undertake skills training for other jobs, the answer is definitely yes. But I think the real question is: we need to be sensitive to what the workers themselves would like to do. There may be some who are able to find other jobs in the equestrian industry and, if they are able to find them those jobs and they want to continue, that should be very much their choice. But there may be some who may decide to exit the industry and wish to enter a new industry. For those, we would most certainly make every effort to assist them to be reskilled.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, in relation to the existing Kranji Turf Club as well as the former site of the Turf Club at Bukit Timah, what is the targeted completion date of the first batch of residential properties to be completed over there? The reason why I am asking is because it has been about 20-odd years since the Turf Club relocated from Bukit Timah to Kranji, and I think, over there, there has not been any residential development as yet, even though the land has been earmarked for residential use since Master Plan 1998. Hence, the second supplementary question is: can there be provisions to extend the closure of the Kranji Turf Club should there be delays in other processes?

I thank Mr Chua for his supplementary questions. Mr Chua's question actually covers two different sites – one is the Kranji Turf Club and the other is the Bukit Timah Turf Club, now known as Turf City. Let me deal with each in turn.

For the Kranji Turf Club, this is something that has been earmarked for immediate development. So, if you have an extension, it is going to push back the plans to be able to develop the area immediately. Given the shortage in housing, if you push back and you extend it, it is going to push back the housing programme for the houses that can be built in the Kranji area. And the question is: extend for what purpose?

So, if it is extended just to have more races, although it may not seem so, but that would not really help, in the sense that—consider this: the announcement has already been made. You already know that the operations are going to come to an end with respect to racing. It is not going to increase the number of people coming, which was already on a downward trajectory. So, the best approach is to use the time between 2024, with the last race, and 2027, to rehome the horses, export them, find jobs for the employees and do an orderly winding down and not hold back the housing programme.

Bukit Timah, though, is a different proposition. So, let me just run through for Bukit Timah because Bukit Timah, when it was taken back, primarily at that time, the reasons why it was taken back was twofold. One was the disamenities. I am not sure whether Members were around at that time in this Chamber, but I think there were quite a lot of complaints about traffic and other disamenities caused. Let me see if I can find, just to give Members a flavour of what was said at that time. So, it was a "push" factor when STC was relocated from Bukit Timah.

There was a letter, I think, that came in 1998, where a resident wrote in to the Forum Page to say, "The traffic situation has worsened along Dunearn Road on race days, specifically between the Turf Club entrance and Clementi Road junction. The heavy vehicle flow is impeded by turnings into Swiss Club Road and the best solution for the Turf Club is move to another site, away from the residential zone, as reported in The Straits Times some time ago. I hope that Bukit Turf Club committee is seriously searching for an alternative site." And then, it goes on to make a lot more complaints about the traffic situation and it was signed off as "Long-suffering Citizen". [Please refer to "Clarification by Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 3 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 105, Correction by Written Statement section.]

And questions were also raised in Parliament at that time. Mr S Dhanabalan, who was the Minister for National Development, mentioned that they would have to think about relocating Turf Club. Dr Richard Hu, who was the Finance Minister at that time, also made the same point.

The other issue that came up was whether or not the Bukit Timah Turf Club site was best used for horse racing, given that it was prime land. And questions were raised in Parliament about that as well. So, the approach back in 1998/1999 was that Bukit Timah Turf Club was moved out of Bukit Timah because of the disamenities that it was causing and because that was not the best use for that land, and it was given the Kranji site in replacement.

But at that time, what we did was we earmarked it as land reserved for housing, but not for immediate development. So, that is why it was reflected in the 1998 Master Plan as for housing. I think now, as our housing programme picks up pace, we will be looking at developing it. But before you do that, you have to do infrastructure and road networks. You cannot just build a housing development there and then not have all the surrounding infrastructure, services, amenities and so on. As Members would know, one of the Mass Rapid Transit stations, which has just been announced, would be at that site. I think that one is scheduled for completion in 2031/2032, around there.

So, the short answer is, it will be developed, there will be housing, but we need to build up the surrounding infrastructure and road network first.

We have been on this topic for quite a while. So, the last supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. If I may just build off the question by Member Joan Pereira about stakeholder consultations and, in light of press reports that indicate that many stakeholders expressed surprise and dismay at the decision, I am wondering if the Ministers are willing to share if a formal stakeholder consultation process will now be undertaken with residents in the neighbourhood with regard to future plans for this Turf Club site and, more generally, if the notion of a stakeholder consultation process for any major Government decision with public policy implications will be weaved into more standard practice.

I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for his supplementary questions. The answer to the first one is yes. Immediately after the announcement, STC embarked on engagements with the trainers and the horse owners. It is an ongoing conversation because as Members can imagine, when the announcement was first made, many were, shall we say, it came out of the blue. So, it is taking some time to adjust to the announcement and obviously with the employees as well.

With respect to the surrounding area, there are not a lot of residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity. But it is part of the Housing and Development Board's normal consultations when they ask people, "What would you like for your town or for your area?" So, that will take place.

On the second part, I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked when we would consult. I think we have been doing a lot of that. For example, Acts, Bills, some of them, in fact, the majority of them are put out for public consultation. When we have the Remaking Our Heartlands exercise, for example, that is put out for public engagement, consultation ideas and suggestions. When we do placemaking, the long-term plan review was one such.

So, I think that there is a category where it is sensitive, meaning, market-sensitive, and you would not normally go out and say, "Can I have public consultation on whether I want to do land acquisition?" That is a category that you would not do public consultation on. But your decision in deciding whether or not to do the land acquisition may be a result of previous consultations on feedback, congestion, what people want and so on. So, the short answer is we will do as much public consultation as we can.

We move on.

29 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the reasons driving the number of wild boar attacks on residents in Bukit Panjang; (b) what is the current estimate of the wild boar population in Bukit Panjang based on the most recent assessments conducted by the relevant authorities; and (c) what measures are implemented thus far by NParks to manage the growing wild boar population in Bukit Panjang and ensure the safety of residents in densely populated residential areas.

30 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the causes for the recent wild boar attacks in Bukit Panjang; and (b) what further measures are needed to prevent wild boar attacks and ensure the safety of residents living near nature reserves.

31 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the actions taken by NParks when the public reports wild boar sightings at the residential neighbourhoods; (b) whether the current number of wild boars at the nature reserves are at an ecologically sustainable level; and (c) what further measures and plans are there to manage the population of wild boars.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take the next three questions together?

Yes, please.

Members have asked about what the National Parks Board (NParks) is doing to manage Singapore's wild boar population and to ensure public safety. Public safety is our priority. We want residents to feel safe in and around our green spaces. That is why we take a proactive, holistic and science-based approach in managing the wild boar population.

Wild boars are naturally found in many parts of the world, including Singapore and our region. For the most part, wild boars travel in herds and stay within forested areas.

While Bukit Panjang and the adjacent Zhenghua Nature Park do not have a resident wild boar population, wild boars appear from time to time due to the estate's close proximity to nature reserves and other forested areas, such as Chestnut Nature Park and Dairy Farm Nature Park.

We know that residents in Zhenghua and Bukit Panjang are concerned about the recent wild boar incidents in the area. NParks has taken steps to mitigate the risks and will be closely monitoring the situation.

For instance, NParks has trapped and removed 19 wild boars from the vicinity of Bukit Panjang since May this year. In addition, NParks has been installing exclusion fences to reduce the possibility of wild boars entering the estate. NParks is also working closely with the grassroots and the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council to engage the community on proper food waste management to reduce human-generated food sources that may attract wild boars.

Wild boars have high reproductive rates, giving birth up to twice a year with a litter size of up to 12 piglets. Female wild boars can start reproducing from 18 months of age. Wild boars also do not have natural predators in Singapore. NParks, therefore, has to actively manage the wild boar population. This includes carrying out habitat modification, such as removing oil palms to reduce wild boars' food sources. In line with the practice in many other countries, NParks also removes boars where necessary to ensure public safety. Based on studies by NParks, these measures have helped to keep the wild boar population in our nature reserves stable, at a density that is lower than those recorded in similar forest reserves in the region.

NParks is also working closely with stakeholders on public education and outreach, to promote safe and responsible human-wildlife encounters. This includes discouraging the feeding of wildlife, which can alter their natural foraging behaviour and cause them to rely on humans for food. NParks does this through public education as well as enforcement action against illegal feeding of wildlife. NParks is also engaging the community on how to respond to wildlife sightings, such as remaining calm and keeping a safe distance if they encounter a wild boar.

When a member of the public reports a wild boar sighting, NParks will respond immediately. NParks will trap and remove any wild boar that is found in a residential area, to ensure public safety. NParks will continue to take a comprehensive science- and community-based approach to manage Singapore's wild boar population and to ensure public safety.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Sir, first and foremost, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State and also his NParks team for coming down to the Nature Park at Bukit Panjang to assess the situation and to announce enhanced measures to deter the wild boars from coming to our area.

Two supplementary questions. Firstly, as what the Senior Minister of State has said in his reply, NParks will be putting up exclusion fences to deter the wild boars from coming in. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State how effective has that been? And in the case of Bukit Panjang, we have a very lengthy border with the nature reserve and nature parks, so whether that is actually possible to exclude wild boars from coming in.

The second question is, as the Senior Minister of State also mentioned about the high reproductive rate of the wild boars and that there being no natural predators, how is NParks going to ensure that the population growth of the wild boars will not cause damage to the ecosystems within the nature parks and whether the nature parks, indeed, have the space to accommodate so many wild boars?

Sir, on the first question by Mr Liang Eng Hwa on the effectiveness of the exclusion measures, let me set the context by saying that in certain hotspots, NParks has installed exclusion fences that adhere to specific guidelines, such as the depth of installation and the type of materials used.

These have been effective in restricting the wild boars' access to the fenced areas. In some areas, NParks has also deployed cattle grids, which are metal grates designed with gaps that are wide enough for the feet of hooved animals, such as wild boars, to enter. This deters such animals from crossing the grid, whilst still allowing people to cross. In Pulau Ubin, it has been observed that wild boars tend to avoid stepping across such cattle grids.

Therefore, to restrict the wild boars access to Zhenghua Nature Park, NParks has been installing a combination of exclusion fencing and cattle grids at three access points where we have deemed it more likely that wild boars could enter the residential areas.

The cattle grids at the Bangkit underpass were completed on 23 June 2023 and our monitoring shows that these grids, as well as the areas with exclusion fencing, have been effective so far. NParks is also installing a combination of exclusion fences and cattle grids along Chestnut Avenue and under the Gali Batu flyover. These works are expected to be completed by end-August 2023. NParks will continue to monitor the efficacy of these measures, moving forward.

On Mr Liang Eng Hwa's second question, I would like to share with the Member that NParks carries out tracking studies to monitor changes in the wild boar population and to identify hotspots. Based on NParks' findings, the wild boar population in Singapore's nature reserves has remained relatively stable.

Between 2019 and 2020, NParks conducted a study using camera traps which found that the density of wild boars was about 6.57 per kilometre square in our nature reserves and about 5.22 per kilometre square in our nature parks. These densities are lower than those recorded in larger tracts of forest reserves in the region with similar vegetation types.

As I shared in my earlier reply, NParks will continue to take a comprehensive science- and community-based approach to manage Singapore's wild boar population. This includes conducting habitat modification to reduce their food sources, managing their movements through fencing and hoarding, and removing wild boars where necessary to ensure public safety. We will also continue to discourage the feeding of wildlife and take enforcement action against such acts.

Mr Edward Chia.

Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State was the presence of a dog in the latest incident at Zhenghua Nature Park a contributing factor to the incident? And the second supplementary question is, if the wild boar population is left unmanaged, what is the impact to our biodiversity?

Sir, I thank Mr Edward Chia for his two questions. The first one is on walking dogs. For dog owners who walk their dogs in parks that are near forested areas, we encourage them to avoid walking their dogs at night due to the low visibility and the possibility of encountering nocturnal wildlife. If a dog owner sees a wild boar in the distance while walking his or her dog, the owner is advised to keep the dog close by tightening its leash and to move away from the wild boar as quietly and rapidly as possible.

On the Member's second question on the ecological role of wild boars, as I mentioned earlier, wild boars are indigenous to many parts of the world, including in Europe, parts of Asia, in Singapore and the region. They do serve important ecological functions, such as acting as seed dispersers and helping with soil nutrient recycling with their rooting behaviour. Wild boars are omnivorous. They eat not just vegetation, but they also dig up soil to eat the small worms and insects under the soil. Their feeding behaviour helps to have a positive impact on the ecosystem by dispersing seeds. So, in this way, they can help to regenerate native flora. Boars also compete aggressively with other species for food. So, they play an important ecological function.

But at the same time, I think we look at two extreme suggestions that have been raised by different people. Firstly, as I explained in my earlier reply, we proactively adopt a science- and community-based approach to manage the wild boar population, importantly to ensure public safety. But on the other hand, it is also impossible to not have any wild boars in Singapore at all, not least because within our region, there are many wild boars outside of Singapore and they can swim to Singapore as well.

So, our approach is a proactive one, using a science- and community-based approach to manage wild boars and to maintain the balance in our ecosystem.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing about the population density. But could I also ask what is the carrying capacity of our forests for wild boars in Singapore and also whether NParks has the projected carrying capacity as we develop more forested areas?

Secondly, I appreciate that the Senior Minister of State has stressed again that our approach is science-based and I hope we continue this science-based approach. But could the Senior Minister of State clarify how it would be science-based if we are really basing it on complaints? When there are complaints, we go in and remove a few wild boars. Again, considering the high reproduction rate of these wild boars, how effective is it to just remove a small number of wild boars and kill them?

Sir, I thank Mr Louis Ng for his two questions. I explained earlier about our study which used camera traps in our nature parks and nature reserves. And we benchmarked them with some of the comparable densities that we found in the region of similar tracts of land and similar vegetation. But it is not a complete science. It is something for which we have to find a balance. When I say "science-based", it is that we want to look at evidence and we work very closely with our institutes of higher learning, researchers, international partners and industry partners, to make sure that our approach is in line with best practices around the world.

On the Member's second point about how effective it has been, I also mentioned earlier in my reply how we measure their density and look at comparisons around the world. But it is also not just about removing wild boars. I explained our approach earlier in terms of how we have exclusion fences, cattle grids, and how we work together with the community to educate members of the public and our residents about feeding wildlife, and how we use a science-based approach to track the carrying capacity or density of wild boars.

So, it is a holistic approach. I am not saying that we are perfect or that we have found the answers. This is an issue that does not just confront Singapore. Many other jurisdictions, many other countries that we speak to beyond Asia, in Europe as well, face the same problems and challenges. We are constantly working with them, understanding what they do and updating our playbook here.

32 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there is a standard school continuity or contingency plan that is applied across all schools to ensure the well-being of students and staff during hot weather situations; and (b) whether parents and students are made aware of the details of these plans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has clear guidelines in place for schools to ensure the safety and well-being of students and staff amidst the hot weather. For example, outdoor physical activities are minimised between 10.30 am and 3.30 pm. Students are encouraged to drink water before, during and after physical activities to prevent and alleviate exercise-induced heat strain. Teachers watch out for students who are more vulnerable and those who appear unwell.

To promote environmental sustainability, classrooms are also designed to be naturally ventilated to provide a reasonable level of thermal comfort. This is achieved through a mix of design measures, including providing sunshades and installing ceiling and wall fans to optimise natural cross ventilation.

When necessary, schools put in place additional measures, such as reducing the duration or intensity of the activities and ensuring more frequent rest and water breaks. Schools may also explore ways to help students better manage the heat, such as allowing students to dress in physical education (PE) attire or their school T-shirt, depending on their specific needs.

These guidelines are communicated to students and staff to consciously build a culture of safety and well-being. Schools also keep parents updated on the measures taken.

MOE works closely with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment, the National Environment Agency and the Ministry of Health and calibrates our management measures in alignment with the whole-of-Government plans and advisories.

Ms He Ting Ru.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have one quick supplementary question. I just wanted to ask whether there is a consistency in these rules and guidelines that are applied across all schools, because I noticed in some of the reports that there are some schools which actually switched to wearing PE uniforms and some of them do not. So, I am just wondering whether there is a consistency that is applied across all the schools so that, let us say, if I am a parent and I have got children in different schools, I do not get confused about what applies across them.

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. The guidelines are consistent. But we leave it to the schools, depending on the way the conditions affect them at that point in time. Schools, as I mentioned earlier, are allowed to encourage the students to put on their T-shirts should the temperature get high. Though Singapore is small, sometimes, you do get rain in one part and you get very hot weather on the other side. So, it really depends on the schools to determine what is suitable for the students at that point in time.

33 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Prime Minister (a) whether an update can be provided regarding the CPIB investigation into Seatrium; (b) whether the investigation pertains to the predecessor entities of (i) Sembcorp Marine and (ii) Keppel Offshore and Marine; (c) what measures are being taken to ensure that individuals will be brought to justice in the event of offences being made out; and (d) what is the assessed impact to Singapore's reputation (i) in general and (ii) in the jurisdiction or region where the alleged offences took place.

34 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister regarding CPIB's investigation into Seatrium and individuals from the company (a) what is the number of current and former employees of the company being investigated and whether they are based in Singapore; (b) whether the decision by Temasek Holdings to inject capital into then-Sembcorp Marine took into account the alleged corruption offences that occurred in Brazil; and (c) whether CPIB is working with the Comptroller General of Brazil on the preliminary administrative liability proceedings against the company's subsidiary.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I take the next two Parliamentary Questions together, and also address Mr Murali Pillai's1 Parliamentary Question on the same topic which is listed for tomorrow's Sitting? I invite Mr Pillai to raise any supplementary questions that he may have today and to withdraw his Parliamentary Question for tomorrow if his queries have been addressed.

I give my consent.

Mr Deputy Speaker, on 31 May 2023, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) announced that it had, acting on information received, commenced investigations against Seatrium Limited and individuals from Seatrium Limited, for alleged corruption offences that occurred in Brazil. Seatrium Limited was previously known as Sembcorp Marine Limited, which merged with Keppel Offshore and Marine Limited (KOM) in February 2023.

As investigations are ongoing, it is not appropriate to provide further details at this juncture. CPIB will be interviewing various individuals of interest and reviewing all documentary and other records to which it can gain access. Other than CPIB, we understand that the Brazilian authorities are investigating Seatrium, but it would not be appropriate to provide any details or comments at this juncture.

CPIB takes this matter seriously. It will investigate the case thoroughly and seek to complete the investigations expeditiously.

Dr Tan Wu Meng asked about the assessed impact on Singapore's reputation. As CPIB's investigations are still ongoing, it would be premature to speculate on the outcome. Suffice to say, there is no change in Singapore's zero-tolerance policy on corruption and our commitment to uphold the rule of law.

Mr Louis Chua asked whether the decision by Temasek to inject capital into then-Sembcorp Marine took into account the alleged corruption offences in Brazil.

Temasek became a direct shareholder of Sembcorp Marine in 2020 following the demerger of Sembcorp Marine from its then-parent, Sembcorp Industries. Temasek participated in Sembcorp Marine's two rights issues in 2020 and 2021.

The Government understands that Temasek conducted the due diligence appropriate to the rights issues, bearing in mind that the company was already part of the group. This due diligence took into account Sembcorp Marine's public disclosures that had already been made. The disclosure pertaining to the Brazilian case mentioned that there were charges by Brazilian authorities against an ex-employee in his personal capacity and not against Sembcorp Marine's Brazilian subsidiary or the company. Sembcorp Marine Group also stated it was not aware of any other of its employees being subject to those investigations. All disclosures in the circulars and Offer Information Statement came with a representation by Sembcorp Marine's board on the accuracy of information and that all material disclosures had been made.

Temasek's investments in Sembcorp Marine pursuant to the rights issues, as well as those of all other investors, were based on the information provided in the shareholders' circulars and Offer Information Statement.

In the Sembcorp Marine Group's announcements on 3 July 2019, 8 July 2019, 3 February 2020 and 21 February 2020, it further stated that it was committed to the highest standards of compliance with anti-corruption laws and does not condone, has not condoned and will not tolerate any improper business conduct.

Based on the available facts and disclosures at that time, Temasek made an independent, commercial decision to inject capital into the company. The rights issues were raised during the pandemic to ensure that Sembcorp Marine had sufficient funding to see through its business obligations and complete existing projects, given the downturn of the industry which was exacerbated by COVID-19. Without the recapitalisation, there would potentially have been an erosion of value and a loss of jobs.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister for her answer. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, can I draw the Minister to the questions I raised on KOM five years ago in January 2018? At the time, I said, "If a prominent company, especially one linked to the Government, fails to uphold the law and proper standards of conduct wherever they are, it hurts our national reputation." Can I ask the Minister whether she agrees that we have to maintain Singapore's reputation for zero tolerance against corruption?

My second question to the Minister is: have CPIB and the Government considered the use of bounties or rewards for whistleblowers and tipoffs that lead to a conviction? I note that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore recently offered a reward for whistleblowers who report tax evasion. Would CPIB consider a similar approach, especially for cases where Singapore's reputation is at stake?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. The short answer to the first question is absolutely. Singapore's approach is to have zero tolerance towards corruption. That remains unchanged.

With regard to the second question of whether CPIB should offer bounties or rewards for information that lead to conviction, first, I understand from CPIB that, actually, there is no shortage of people coming forward to provide information or whistleblowing. Second, I mean, we can consider this. But part of the consideration or the factors that must be taken into account are these: do you want to incentivise reporting with the lure of gain of a reward? Or do you want a system where people whistleblow or make the report or complaint because, fundamentally, they feel that something is wrong and it is the right thing for them to do – to make the report or bring this to the attention of the authorities?

I think that is the balance that we need to maintain. And if it were possible to maintain a system where people file reports because, as a matter of principle, they feel that something is wrong, that means that we would have a healthy system, where there is a strong sense of right and wrong in the community and in business circles, and people do the right thing.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Minister. In the interest of good stewardship and given that it is Singapore's reputation at stake, how does the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and Temasek ensure that there are adequate anti-corruption and bribery controls that are put in place, that these are effectively enforced and that Temasek, as a shareholder, has effective oversight over these risk mitigation strategies and controls?

I thank Mr Louis Chua for what is an important question. First, he had asked about MOF and Temasek. MOF and the Government, as a whole, it is well-known that our position is that we have to have zero tolerance on corruption. We have got strong laws on that and do not hesitate to enforce if need be. That, obviously, is communicated to all companies in which the Government either owns or, in fact, companies which the Government does not own. It is to the public at large.

With respect to Temasek, I think as they had mentioned before publicly, they do regular engagements with their portfolio companies. They, too, send a strong signal that corruption is not to be endorsed, encouraged or in any way acceptable. The thing to remember about corruption though is that, by its nature, it is done in secret. I mean, unless they are not very adept, nobody goes around actively publicising that you are doing a corrupt activity. Fraud and corruption, by their very nature, tend to be secret.

So, the key thing here is to continually review processes to see whether your processes are robust and enable something to be flushed out if need be. And even then, as we have seen in many other cases, it is not 100%.

So, the short answer is that we just need to continue to be active, vigilant, get the message out and, as Temasek has said, keep continuing its regular engagement with companies and setting the standards.

35 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health in light of the Government's intention to include mental health under the Healthier SG initiative, whether the Ministry will consider providing subventions for citizens in need of community counselling, particularly in addressing issues, such as caregiver stress.

36 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Health in view that more than 24,000 individuals have pre-enrolled for Healthier SG programme during the pre-enrolment exercise for Singaporeans aged 40 and above with chronic conditions, whether the Ministry will consider extending the Healthier SG enrolment to include Singaporeans aged 40 and above when Healthier SG is officially launched on 5 July 2023.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer the next two Parliamentary Questions together, please?

Yes, please.

My response will also cover the matters raised in the question by Dr Lim Wee Kiak1 which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. Dr Lim Wee Kiak is not here but I hope he gets to read my answer and if it answers his question, he may want to withdraw his question for a future Sitting.

We started a Healthier SG pre-enrolment exercise in May this year so that residents aged 40 and above with chronic care needs can continue to be cared for by their regular general practitioner (GP) clinics. So far, over 47,000 of these residents have been pre-enrolled. So, the response has been encouraging.

We are commencing national Healthier SG enrolment from 5 July this year. We will need to do this in phases, to manage the workload of our GP clinics and polyclinics and ensure residents have a positive experience when they enrol to Healthier SG. We will prioritise those with chronic conditions, followed by those aged 60 and above. We hope to extend this to residents aged 40 to 59 sometime next year.

In providing care to residents with chronic conditions under Healthier SG, family doctors will be guided by care protocols. We have, so far, developed 12 such protocols. Every one of them requires significant consultation, coordination, preparation as well as training. We will expand the coverage and intend to cover mental health in due course.

In any case, Healthier SG is not the only avenue to care for residents experiencing mental health issues. Under the Community Mental Health Masterplan, we work with social service agencies to set up community outreach and intervention teams to support persons with mental health needs as well as their caregivers. This includes educating caregivers on stress management and self-care, linking them with counselling services and support groups when needed. And the Ministry of Health (MOH) provides full funding to these teams, and residents that can access their services and support at no cost.

As Healthier SG is progressively rolled out and stabilised, it is possible for residents to receive annual health reports, as suggested by Dr Lim Wee Kiak. With Healthier SG, enrolled residents will have access to a personalised Health Plan via their HealthHub mobile application or the web portal. If the resident is diligent with his health screening, he will also have access via HealthHub to his latest health screening results. We will monitor the usage of such information on HealthHub and explore how we can further enhance it to support residents' health journeys.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the very positive updates on the number that had already been pre-enrolled. I have two supplementary questions.

Some of my Jalan Kayu residents, having heard about Healthier SG, especially the younger ones, who know that chronic disease risk can start from 40 years old and seeing that those with chronic disease can be pre-enrolled, asked if in the course of the year – they understand the phases and the need to prioritise our seniors – should they happen to be in a GP clinic and the GP clinic has the capacity to enrol them, can they be more proactive and be allowed to enrol? So, the question is: if they happen to be in a GP clinic for the next one year before their phase comes, and the GP clinic has the capacity to enrol them, can they be considered?

The second supplementary question is that some of my more senior residents who have been seeing polyclinic doctors for their chronic disease management are quite convinced that GP clinics may be closer to their home and, as they age, mobility issues come in, and being enrolled will be good. So, they are asking whether their out-of-pocket expenditure, when they go to the GP clinic for their regular follow-up visits, will the consultation fee and medication fee be also managed and be close to what they are paying for at the polyclinics?

The first question is about the young. Even with the GP, if that particular clinic has capacity, we do need to look at the nationwide capacity. We need to prioritise capacity for those who are older. So, from a national perspective, from a systemic perspective, it will be difficult for us to implement this.

In any case, Healthier SG is about MOH as well as the health ecosystem doing more to help people to take care of their own health. So, for young residents, I will encourage them, with or without the Government's explicit support, they can always do more to lead a healthier lifestyle. And I think the young are increasingly mindful of that. So, please do help us encourage them. There is a lot they can do here – eat less sugar, eat less salt and have less device time – to start with.

As for our more senior ones, we will encourage private GPs to price their consultations and their services competitively. I do know that because of rising healthcare needs plus Healthier SG, costs can increase. But through benchmarking, persuasion and encouragement, plus giving more options to patients and residents, we hope there would be competitive dynamics that can keep prices in check as much as possible. So far, healthcare inflation has lagged behind national inflation, and we will try our best to continue to do so.

37 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the plans under Healthier SG for younger persons with disabilities; and (b) whether the Ministry is willing to pilot some programmes with major disability social service agencies and healthcare professionals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Health (MOH) will build on the Enabling Masterplan 2030 to enable Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), including those with intellectual disabilities, to live healthier lives.

There are specific considerations in delivering care to PwDs and we are committed to working with partners on this journey. Our healthcare professionals may face challenges, such as when there are high medical and social needs involved which need detailed support.

As part of the Master Plan, MOH has collaborated with the College of Family Physicians Singapore to offer a Family Practice Skills Course for general practitioners, which equips them in caring for persons with intellectual disabilities. We are also piloting a Community Integrated Health Team in partnership with a social service agency and a specialist outreach team from the Institute of Mental Health. These multidisciplinary teams offer home- or community-based care for persons with intellectual disabilities who have complex health needs. We will continue to build these capabilities in the community so as to support more caregivers and families of PwDs.

In line with making healthy living more accessible under Healthier SG, we are also working with partners to bring a wider range of programmes and activities closer to all residents, regardless of their level of mobility. For example, the Singapore Physical Activity Guidelines, developed by the Health Promotion Board and SportSG, were updated in 2022 and expanded to be inclusive of PwDs, providing recommendations and tips for PwDs to stay active. SportSG has expanded sporting opportunities for PwDs through the Para Sports Academy programme and is also working with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth to update the Disability Sports Masterplan.

Meeting the health and healthcare needs of PwDs will require coordination of the efforts of different stakeholders. MOH and the Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to study the gaps in service provision for PwDs and explore how to work with healthcare providers and community partners to strengthen support for them.

No supplementary questions. Mr Seah Kian Peng, next question, please.

38 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the last five years, what have been the commonly reported forms of workplace discrimination; (b) whether there has been an increasing trend of discriminatory practices; and (c) how will the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation address these issues.

39 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation; and (b) when considering the proposed legislation, whether the Ministry will take into account (i) plans to mitigate any negative impact, (ii) how employees can seek help and (iii) the impact on the employer-employee relationship.

40 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will provide SMEs with additional support measures to ensure that they are compliant with fair employment best practices and processes; and (b) if so, what are they.

41 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower given that firms with fewer than 25 employees are exempted from the Workplace Fairness Legislation, what recourse will employees of such firms have when faced with workplace discrimination.

42 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the expected impact of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation on employer-employee relationships; (b) how does the Government intend to mitigate any negative impact, such as more litigious workplaces; and (c) how does the Government intend to mitigate the challenges that small firms may face, such as lack of human resource capabilities.

43 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower besides Government legislation and guidelines on workplace fairness, what are the efforts needed to address the mindsets, attitudes and perceptions of individuals, to root out discrimination and build fairer workplaces.

44 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower how will the Government mitigate any negative impact of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation, such as a more litigious workplace culture.

45 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation; (b) when will the proposed legislation be implemented; (c) what are the possible negative impact of the proposed legislation; and (d) how will the Ministry manage any negative impact of the legislation.

46 Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there has been competing definitions of workplace discrimination between employers and employees raised during investigations conducted by the Ministry; and (b) how does the Ministry communicate what constitutes workplace discrimination to both employees and employers to help employees assess if they have a case and that employers are clear about their obligations.

47 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower regarding the acts of discrimination that will be made clear in the proposed Workplace Fairness Legislation (a) how will the Ministry educate and make it clear to the public on unacceptable acts of discrimination; and (b) how will the Ministry assist employers, especially the smaller firms with limited human resource practitioners, understand more about discriminatory practices.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Oral Question Nos 38 to 47 on today's Order Paper, please?

Yes, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in the questions filed by Members Mr Yip Hon Weng, Miss Cheng Li Hui, Mr Louis Ng1 and Ms He Ting Ru2 which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I would like to invite Members to seek clarifications today if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.

Sir, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has received a number of Parliamentary Questions on workplace fairness, including the upcoming legislation. I wish to thank my Parliamentary colleagues for their interest in this important issue.

The proposed legislation is a significant step forward in enhancing protection for workers from workplace discrimination, as well as strengthening fair employment practices and outcomes. It builds on progressive efforts by the tripartite partners over the years to enhance workplace fairness through a range of education and enforcement efforts and will send a strong signal against workplace discrimination. This is increasingly important in view of our ageing population and our marriage and parenthood efforts. It must also assure locals that they are fairly considered for job opportunities. Employers will benefit from a more productive and engaged workforce, be better able to attract and retain talent and can continue to access a complementary foreign workforce, contributing to stronger business outcomes. In this way, the legislation will benefit workers, employers and society-at-large.

This was, indeed, the experience in the United Kingdom (UK). In a study trip led by myself and our tripartite partners, we learned that the UK's Equality Act has had a positive impact on the workplace, and workers look to join organisations that operate fairly and treat all workers with respect. It is clearly in the interest of both employees and employers to create more trusting and harmonious workplaces by taking a strong stand against discrimination.

Thus, strengthening our framework for workplace fairness through legislation is the right thing to do, but it should be done with an eye on maintaining a workplace culture that is harmonious and not litigious. The steps have to be precise and clear, leaving little scope for subjective interpretation. This has always been one of the key objectives of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness as we formulated our recommendations. This is why we have tried to scope the recommendations more tightly and to the common and familiar forms of discrimination in the first instance. We believe it is better to take a measured first step, let our stakeholders adjust to the new rules before reviewing if more needs to be done.

To Mr Seah Kian Peng's question, over the years, the number of workplace discrimination complaints has, in fact, fallen, but the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) and MOM still received about 315 complaints of discrimination a year over the last five years. The most common types of discrimination complaints received were on nationality, age, sex, race and language. The Committee has proposed that legislation provide protection against the common and familiar forms of workplace discrimination, including the characteristics I have just mentioned. The legislation will work in tandem with the existing Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) to cover all forms of workplace discrimination.

I am heartened that Miss Rachel Ong, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Edward Chia, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Cheng Li Hui share the Committee's concern over the potential impact of legislation on workplace culture. Indeed, workplace harmony is an invaluable hallmark of Singapore's employment landscape and needs to be protected, too.

Therefore, the Committee's recommendations focus on resolving disputes at the source as much as possible and emphasising mediation rather than litigation.

To this end, the Committee recommends requiring employers to put in place grievance handling channels and processes at their workplace to facilitate amicable dispute resolution within the firm. If that fails, mediation at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) will be the next step, with a focus on educating employers on fair employment practices and mending the relationship between the employer and employee where possible. Adjudication at the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) is the last resort. To ensure that employees who experience discrimination feel assured to come forward to report it, there will also be protection against retaliation for making a complaint of discrimination.

As Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Edward Chia and Mr Sharael Taha have pointed out, small firms may lack the expertise or resources to fully implement the legislated requirements from the get-go. Therefore, the Committee recommends exempting small firms with fewer than 25 employees from the legislation for a start, with a view to lowering this exemption in five years.

The Government will work closely with partners, including TAFEP and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME), to support small firms in their journey to ramp up capabilities. More details on this will be shared later.

I want to encourage smaller firms to work with the partners as early as possible to strengthen their human resource (HR) practices and capabilities, as well as nurture a fair and harmonious workplace culture. As mentioned earlier, this will contribute to stronger business outcomes.

Although exempted from the legislation at the start, small firms will continue to be subject to TGFEP, which prohibits all forms of workplace discrimination. Anyone who has faced any form of workplace discrimination can approach TAFEP for advice and assistance. Where there is a breach of TGFEP, TAFEP will report the case to MOM for enforcement action.

We agree with Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Sharael Taha that a coordinated and sustained effort by employers, employees, unions and the Government is required to educate all stakeholders and shape mindsets and attitudes. Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman also rightly points out that complaints of workplace discrimination may be borne out of different understandings of what constitutes discrimination.

Today, TAFEP works closely with employer groups, HR partners and community groups to increase awareness of fair employment practices among employers. TAFEP also offers workshops and training tools to help employers implement fair employment practices in their organisations. With the impending legislation, the tripartite partners will provide case illustrations of what may constitute discrimination and what may not, and regularly review and refresh these illustrations. The tripartite partners will also continue working closely to educate employers and workers to help advance fair and progressive employment practices in Singapore.

To Mr Louis Ng's question on protection for women who are breastfeeding, and Ms He Ting Ru's question on reasonable accommodations, these are matters that the Committee is still considering.

To Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Sharael Taha's questions on the timeline, the Committee targets to complete its deliberations and release its final recommendations in the later part of this year. Thereafter, drafting of the legislation will commence and we aim for that to be ready in the second half of 2024.

Mr Deputy Speaker, rooting out discrimination is a whole-of-society effort. It requires knowledge, understanding and ownership by employers, and support from employees. The Workplace Fairness Legislation will significantly strengthen our stand against discrimination, while maintaining a workplace culture that is harmonious and not litigious.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. With regard to discrimination at breastfeeding mothers' phase, I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing that the Committee is reviewing this.

Could I ask whether the Committee is engaging non-governmental organisations, like the Breastfeeding Mothers Support Group Singapore, to get their feedback and to consult them on this process?

Second, I do understand some forms of discriminations are not going to be covered under the proposed legislation and would be just covered under the Tripartite guidelines. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State whether we can strengthen the penalties under the Tripartite guidelines? Because, again, as I raised many times in this House, it would not make sense if you discriminate against the women and the penalty is that you cannot hire foreigners. I hope we can strengthen those penalties to again send a very strong deterrent message.

Sir, I thank the Member for his suggestion of engaging widely some of the other stakeholders. We will get the Committee to look at this and engage as widely as we can.

On the second question of whether we can strengthen penalties under the guidelines, let me just say that when the protected characteristics of sex were included in the new legislation, it will look into how we can protect maybe women who are pregnant as well as perhaps in the postpartum period as well. Whether the specific issue of breastfeeding ought to be one of the sub-characteristics, for example, within the sex category, that is something that the Committee will deliberate on.

We need to look at how we can also educate employers to ensure there is a more conducive workplace that will cater to all the diverse needs of their workers as well.

Currently, there are penalties that will be included in the legislation will be graded towards the level of egregiousness of that particular offence and discrimination. And when the legislation is tabled for discussion in Parliament, it will be clearer what levels of penalties may be effected.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Firstly, I declare my interest as part of the Tripartite Work Group looking at this piece of legislation.

I just want to weigh in with what the Member Mr Louis Ng brought up about TGFEP and those characteristics that are not covered within the main piece of the legislation. I thought more teeth and more enforcement measures would help, particularly the investigative powers.

My supplementary question would be, in this upcoming piece of Workplace Fairness Legislation, it is very important to take cognisance of the fact that we are going to help employees or workers in general. They are usually in a weaker bargaining position and usually do not have deep pockets. Therefore, I hope to see in this upcoming piece of legislation some form of tilting of the burden of proof towards them. Traditionally, you want to establish a prima facie case, you want reasonable doubt, but in different parts of the world, in certain jurisdictions, the burden is a bit lower, especially when employees and workers file complaints. So, I hope this can be taken cognisance of.

Sir, I want to assure the Member that the Committee is aware of some of these challenges at the workplaces when it comes to burden of proof. And we will take this into account when drafting the legislation. But I must say that emphasis is also on ensuring that companies have in place a proper grievance handling process and that will include documentations about how to engage with employees when a complaint surfaces. So, that can become one of the documented evidence when the adjudication needs to take place or where TADM needs to look at the dispute resolution between the employer and employee.

In the instance where the employer has insufficient documentation, that may be taken against the employer. I believe that the process would be seen to be fair to both the employers and employees in this instance.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just a quick question for the Senior Minister of State on the legislation and the earlier point he made – the in excess of 300 complaints with regard to discrimination. Of those complaints, can I confirm with the Senior Minister of State how many of them involve companies with a headcount of less than 25? That would give us a sense of whether the five-year timeline is too long and whether it can be shortened or whether more work needs to be done to try and bring smaller firms up to speed.

Sir, I thank the Member for his question.

When I mentioned that there are 315 complaints, I do not have the exact breakdown of the complaints by company sizes, but I would say that complaints like these do span across companies of varying sizes as well. In our thinking and deliberation of initial exemptions for companies with less than 25 employees, it was really to give them more time to build up their capabilities and ability to deal with more of these workplace grievances, so that there is also time for stakeholders to engage smaller companies to up their capabilities to put into the grievance handling processes within the companies. So, it is really more targeted towards building capacity.

Having said that, smaller companies today are already subjected to TGFEP, which also stipulate that all forms of discrimination are not to be tolerated at the workplace. The only difference between the guidelines and the legislation is that the legislation allows us to have more finely calibrated penalties on the companies. The guidelines today allow MOM to take administrative measures against companies of any size which discriminate against a worker, by imposing, say, a blacklist for them to hire further foreign workers. So, there is already some pain that we can inflict on companies which undertake discriminatory practices today under TGFEP.

But obviously, that is a very blunt approach and certain companies may find that such forbidding of hiring foreign workers over a case of infringement against one hiring of a Singaporean may become too overly excessive and impede the company's ability to function properly, thereby impacting the wider business operations that will impact a larger workforce within a company as well.

So, in drafting the legislation, what we are trying to do is to have a graded approach of penalties that is more commensurate with the egregiousness of the company's offence in workplace discrimination. But companies with less than 25 in their workforce today will still have to follow TGFEP that forbids all forms of discrimination.

I hope that clarifies that we are not letting smaller companies completely off the hook, but we are giving them more time to build their capabilities so that, through this process, we can build a more harmonious workplace and not a more litigious one.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard from many residents who come to us for these cases.

In firming up the framework that is coming up, I would like to suggest to the Senior Minister of State that we make it easy for people who feel aggrieved to report such cases. So, I hope that as the Ministry firms this up, let us make it easy for people to file such complaints.

Sir, I thank the Member for his observation that, indeed, there may be cases of those who are hesitant to step forward and report any form of discrimination that they experience. One of the things we want to prevent and encourage people who faced discrimination to come forward to report is to make sure that when they do report a case of discrimination, whether as a victim or as a fellow worker who witnessed any form of discrimination, is to make sure that, in the legislation, we put in place safeguards against retaliation against these employees or workers who raise issues of discrimination.

So, there will be sufficient safeguards that we hope to put into the legislation to make sure that if any retaliatory action is taken by the employer against the employee, there will be penalties on the employers as well, just so that we can encourage those to step up to report any discrimination they face.

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statements. Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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?

Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

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. 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. 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. 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.

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?

Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]

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".

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.

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.

The Second Minister for Law, Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Law will be making related Ministerial Statements. I will allow Members to raise points of clarification on all four Statements after the Minister for Law's Statement. Second Minister for Law.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the remaining questions by Members relating to the rentals of black and white bungalows, or Black and Whites, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). Specifically, I will address Members' questions raised in relation to SLA's management of Black and Whites. And I will refer to the various Parliamentary Questions (PQs) which I will address in the course of this speech.

Sir, the main issues raised in these remaining PQs are as follows: first, what are SLA's policy mandate and objectives in managing state properties, including Black and Whites? Why do we continue to maintain such a portfolio of older, historical properties and what is SLA's management strategy for such properties?

Specifically, what is the process by which residential Black and Whites are leased out? And finally, whether, in the case of 26 and 31 Ridout Road, SLA took any unusual steps or measures that deviated from its usual process.

On this last point, the short answer is that SLA complied with all its procedures and requirements in these transactions. SLA adhered to its internal processes, guidelines and requirements in leasing both properties. The properties were rented at market value, determined by an independent team of valuers who, as Members heard from the Senior Minister earlier, were not aware of the identities of the prospective tenants at the time of the transaction.

SLA acted properly. It sought at all times to achieve a commercially viable outcome, which would secure its interests, as landlord, and also as manager of state properties. In addition, Minister Shanmugam recused himself, as Minister for Law, from any decisions and discussions related to the issue of his own tenancy, should any matter arise.

This is validated by the findings of the independent review conducted by Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security, Mr Teo Chee Hean, which Members heard earlier, as well as the investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Members would have heard the Senior Minister's speech in this House.

These conclusions were reached after a rigorous investigation by CPIB, which also inquired into SLA's conduct as the landlord. Numerous SLA officers, both former and current, as well as SLA's property and managing agents (MAs), were interviewed by CPIB officers, some of them on multiple occasions.

SLA's processes were closely reviewed, including through the requisition of contemporaneous documents ranging from emails, the leasing documents and approval chain, to messages on private messaging applications.

Following this investigation, CPIB found that the rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions. It was established that there was no evidence of corruption or wrongdoing in the two rental transactions of the Ridout Road state properties. The Direct Tenancy rules were applied fairly for both rental transactions. There was no corrupt intent on the part of any person, or any inducement given to any individual involved in the processing of rentals. No preferential treatment was given to the Ministers and their spouses. There was no disclosure of privileged information in the process. There was also no evidence to suggest any abuse of position by the Ministers for personal gain.

Sir, to address the remaining PQs, I will organise my speech as follows: first, I will set out the contextual background against which Members' questions arise, starting with a brief outline of the nature of Black and Whites, and explain the value which they have in Singapore as heritage properties, having historical and architectural significance. I will then set out SLA's management strategy concerning these older, heritage properties, including Black and Whites.

Next, I will outline SLA's management approach to these properties, covering the questions of marketing, valuation and leasing, which Members have raised. It would also be useful, as we deal with these commercial questions, to have regard to the state of the residential rental market at the relevant time, a question which Mr Don Wee had posed.

Finally, I will deal with some specific queries raised in relation to the two leases for 26 and 31 Ridout Road and also address SLA's approach in undertaking these transactions.

Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Don Wee, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms He Ting Ru have asked about SLA's management of black and white bungalows, including its plans for such Black and Whites and the context in which they are maintained, including the broader development plans.

Let me start with some background. SLA is the custodian of state land and property. One of its key roles is to optimise land resources for Singapore's economic and social development.

SLA oversees the management of about 2,600 state properties in total. These include landed and non-landed residential properties, former schools, former army camps and shophouses, for example. Within this portfolio of properties are older, heritage bungalows, and these include the Black and Whites.

Some Black and Whites are also gazetted as conservation properties under the Planning Act and, consequently, carry the obligations which are imposed on conservation properties. There are other properties which are accorded "protected" status, whilst they are evaluated for conservation.

Nos 26 and 31 Ridout Road were designated on 29 November 1991 as conservation properties and they were subsequently gazetted in 1992, as they are two rare and intact remaining historic bungalows built in the early 1900s, whose outstanding architectural quality represents the culture and lifestyle of a period in Singapore's history.

Ms He Ting Ru had asked about parameters and guidelines for the grant of conservation status. As Singapore's conservation authority, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is mandated to identify for protection and conservation properties in Singapore which are of heritage value.

URA conserves various categories of pre-war bungalows, amongst which the Black and Whites are one category. These are characterised by a particular architectural style from the early 1900s and are visibly recognisable by the black timber structural frame with white infill plastered walls. Hipped tiled roofs with wide overhangs and extensive verandas are also common features.

These bungalows are a part of Singapore's history. Some are located in areas where the British naval and air bases used to be, for example, Sembawang and Seletar.

At present, there are 36 conserved Black and Whites, and a further 235 state-owned Black and Whites are marked for study for conservation; and hence, in the meantime, they are protected.

Both categories, whether conserved or protected, impose obligations on the property owner, such as respecting the key elements of the bungalows in the use of the bungalow, namely, the roofs, the structural members, facades of the building, doors and windows and significant interior features, including staircases, decorative mouldings, double volume spaces.

In assessing 26 and 31 Ridout Road for conservation, URA took into account the following: first, these are two intact remaining historic bungalows built in the early 1900s; second, they are good examples of the "black and white" architectural style which had been built by the Public Works Department of the colonial British government, which was responsible for building infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, irrigation works and so on, as well as for providing accommodation for Government servants who oversaw such works.

In managing the older, heritage properties, SLA aims to optimise their usage. At the same time, however, SLA also has to be responsible and mindful of maintaining these properties to meet their conservation and protected status.

These bungalows were built around the early 1900s and so are about more than 100 years old today, maintained in their original condition. They are located in a wide range of neighbourhoods, both in the central as well as in other areas. Some of them are found in dedicated estates for Black and Whites, for example, Malcolm Road. Others are interspersed with other private residential properties that are non-Black and Whites, for example, in the Ridout Road estate.

The development plans for these properties are ultimately guided by a few factors. We must, first, have regard to URA's Master Plan, which takes into account the intrinsic heritage value of the properties, amongst other factors.

Specifically, the planning parameters assigned to areas with Black and Whites are important considerations. The planning parameters determine how such land can be used and for what purpose. For example, whether it can sustain high intensity development, such as high-rise buildings, commercial developments and so on. Or alternatively, whether it is zoned for low intensity, landed properties only.

Where possible, we will also consider if these properties can be modified for other uses or integrated as part of new developments, with a view to rejuvenating and revitalising the area. This allows for modernisation of the estate while preserving the property's core heritage value.

In addition, we also take into account that these properties, which are dated to begin with, will require more maintenance and upkeep, and this will cost more.

Second, these lands are part of our Reserves. Singapore's overall portfolio of state assets comprises financial and physical assets. Our physical assets include state lands. The state should be able to keep land parcels, as a block, where appropriate. This will give URA sufficient planning latitude.

So, these are considered decisions that take into account a balance of factors, including, as I said, the URA Master Plan.

Specifically, for a heritage bungalow, there is the building itself. It has heritage and historical value. There is also the land on which the building sits and the areas adjacent to the building. How this land is utilised is also considered in the context of the URA Master Plan, which sets out a suite of planning parameters to guide our land use to meet our nation's needs.

In addition to preserving land, which is a part of our Reserves, we also manage the land use to cater to Singapore's land needs in areas, such as housing, education and commercial uses.

Accordingly, over time, SLA has carefully broadened the usage and deployment of these properties to meet the evolving needs of Singapore. A judicious balance is necessary, particularly between protecting heritage properties in Singapore and redeveloping them altogether.

Hence, whilst we continue to retain some of the heritage bungalows for their original residential use on the rental market, some others have been demolished as a cluster to make way for newer developments. Others have been repurposed for different uses, such as commercial and retail, or, for example, food and beverage (F&B).

With these parameters in mind, the Government has sought to repurpose our heritage bungalows for various alternative uses, and I thought it would be illustrative for me to cite some examples in this House for Members to appreciate.

At the Gallop Extension to the Singapore Botanic Gardens, the bungalow at 5 Gallop Road has been repurposed as a Forest Discovery Centre. This is a public space and serves as a picturesque backdrop to popular picnic grounds for the public. I am sure some or more Members have visited the Centre.

A standalone Black and White at 50 Bah Soon Pah Road, which used to house the executive of a rubber estate, is under study to be conserved and integrated within a new HDB residential area. This was reported in the media in August 2022.

Rochester Park and Nepal Park were developed by the British in the early 1950s to house officers and their families. The area was given conservation status in 2010. Twelve conserved bungalows at Rochester Park have been put to new uses at Rochester Commons, a new integrated campus-style development in one-north by CapitaLand. On this occasion, SLA also works and partners private sector partners to develop the space and to place-make Rochester Commons.

Standing on a 2.4-hectare site, the mixed development will have an office tower, hotel, as well as 12 conserved bungalows which are retained in their form, the bungalows themselves, with F&B and office uses.

Such properties are not only being used – "such" meaning heritage properties – for purely commercial purposes. For instance, bungalows have been also converted to kindergartens and also, in some cases, serve as a shelter for women undergoing unsupported pregnancies. So, we look at a broad range of uses: F&B, commercial and, in some cases, social as well.

In other cases, larger sites, where possible, bearing in mind the circumstances and the location and the Master Plan, a larger site comprising more properties might well be suitable for a wider scale redevelopment. For instance, a cluster of 174 Black and Whites in Seletar Camp were previously demolished to make way for an industrial park.

As I said, one has to bear in mind the specific context in which the estate is found and also the Master Plan. If the Black and Whites are located amidst or amongst a landed enclave, such as Ridout Road or perhaps Nassim Road, an area that is zoned for landed properties, removing the Black and Whites or redeveloping them and the land around them would not change the area much. The cleared land can only then be similarly used for low intensity development. It would not be possible to put the site to other uses, for example, some of those examples and occasions that I cited earlier.

Accordingly, to Mr Gerald Giam and Ms He Ting Ru's questions about the Government's development plans for Black and Whites, these plans are driven by master-planning considerations, taking into account specific circumstances of each set of properties, where they are located, but also bearing in mind the intrinsic heritage value and the possible uses that might be made of not just the building but of the location and the site.

One also has to be sensitive to the surrounding vicinity. As I mentioned, we cannot intersperse commercial activities amidst low-intensity development spots. And within that entire framework, SLA seeks to optimise social outcomes and occupancy and, ultimately, to generate revenue where possible. These plans also seek to strike a balance between the preservation of heritage and the need to re-allocate land for other uses.

Another related question raised is: why not break down a large plot of land and sell it in smaller parcels?

Singapore's approach to land sales is primarily based on planning and development needs and not mainly to maximise land sales proceeds. This is a considered decision that takes into account various factors. URA, through the Master Plan, assesses the best uses of the land, in the overall context of land allocation in Singapore.

The planning considerations I have spent some time outlining are also relevant. And it is not always tenable to break up land into small parcels, situated side by side, but then each having a different use. It would not place-make and, in some cases, the uses may conflict with one another. In addition, the state should be able to keep land parcels as a block, where appropriate, as part of its land bank. And as I mentioned, this gives URA maximum planning latitude when it comes to future master plans.

Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Leon Perera asked about the maintenance of Black and Whites. As I explained above, a portfolio of such Black and Whites are kept as residential housing. They are leased out. They are not sold. So, on a rental basis. They are also subject to conservation and protection requirements.

I would add that, particularly for conserved Black and Whites and those which are protected whilst being studied for conservation, SLA invests a significant amount in upkeeping and maintaining the properties.

A key reason for the cost is the nature of the conservation requirements for such properties. They are much older than the average property in Singapore and require a lot more care, by way of renovation and maintenance. This is consistent with other similar conserved buildings in Singapore which have to comply with the relevant guidelines imposed on them as a result of either their conservation or their protected status.

The requirements to maintain a conservation property apply to many aspects of the property and are very specific. For example, the guidelines will spell out the restoration requirements for the conserved building and the alteration works that can be considered and the interfacing zone between the conserved building, the new additions, if any, around the area.

The restoration guidelines will specify details, such as the design, location and material that can be used for all key elements, such as the roofs, building facades, outhouse, floors, staircases, internal finishes, building colours and even in the context of air-conditioning and exhaust fans.

Renovation and refurbishment of a conserved residential property put up for rent is, thus, not just to ensure that it is in a tenantable condition, but also to comply with the relevant guidelines which protect the heritage value of the property. When renovating a conserved or protected building, there is significant prescription on how the works and renovations are to be done. Features, such as the beams and roof of the property, must remain unaffected to the extent that they reflect the architectural value of the property, which was the reason it was identified for conservation in the first place.

Besides the renovations required under conservation obligations, the interior and facilities of most Black and Whites also require upgrading. Many Black and Whites are more than 100 years old, and they are not like modern detached houses. Most Black and Whites lack modern amenities, which we often take for granted, and require significant effort to retrofit. For example, some may lack air-conditioning, water heaters or even cooking hobs.

Members may have seen pictures of some Black and Whites over the last couple of weeks in the press. And you will see that the condition of these properties prior to tenancy, especially if they have been vacant for a prolonged period, is fairly obvious from the pictures.

Therefore, quite often, incoming tenants have to undertake capital expenditure to upgrade the unit to raise it to modern standards. But the conservation requirements that I just outlined often impose constraints on how far a tenant can retrofit the properties in question.

Also, unlike owners of a property, tenants can only enjoy the benefits of retrofitting for the duration of the tenancy. It is a standard term in such leases that when the tenancy lapses, the property and everything that is upgraded by the tenant at his cost, will be returned to SLA, if SLA wishes to keep the upgrade. This clause also appears in the tenancies of both 26 and 31 Ridout Road.

In such cases, there is, therefore, a need to find a tenant who is prepared to invest capital to upgrade the unit to meet modern day amenities, accept that the benefits of these investments can only be enjoyed for the duration of the tenancy and take on the risk of a higher rental price to renew, or not renewing and writing off the cost of the capital expenditure altogether.

This limits the pool of prospective tenants for Black and Whites. Most tenants would prefer a ready-to-move-in property, which they can furnish and almost immediately occupy and not have to fork out capital expenditure.

To address this challenge, SLA has been adjusting the structure of tenancies to provide more flexibility. I will give Members some examples.

In suitable cases where tenants are prepared to commit larger sums of capital expenditure to enhance the properties, SLA has been prepared to grant tenancies of 5+4 years. So, 5+4, instead of the 3+3+3 years, so that there is a longer lead time in the initial tenancy period to recover the amortised cost of the capital expenditure.

This ties in with the larger goal of maximising occupancy while ensuring that the tenants are able to keep up and maintain the properties and, where possible, also enhance and add to the property through the tenants' capital expenditure.

In addition, SLA is also studying the feasibility of extending even longer leasehold periods, for example, 30 or 60 years, in an estate en bloc, so that a private developer can come in as the master-leaseholder and rejuvenate the entire estate and then be able to upkeep the properties in the meantime as well as reap the benefits over a longer lease period.

These are various measures which SLA is taking, amongst others, to manage the category of bungalows that are within its management portfolio to maximise the opportunities for the state to benefit from these properties.

Mr Don Wee had asked about the rental rate of state-owned heritage properties benchmarked against the private residential market.

Sir, the valuation of residential Black and Whites for rental is dependent on various factors.

First, the gross floor area (GFA) is the guiding component in determining the rent. GFA represents the available live-in space for the tenant. As between GFA and land area, the former usually has a larger impact on the marketability of the property. Other factors, such as condition of the property and location, are also relevant.

In his report, Senior Minister Teo has set out the comparable rental and occupancy rates for both state-owned Black and Whites as well as private properties.

The following additional points can also be gleaned. Rental trends of Black and Whites tend to follow the general rental market trends. For the relevant period 2017 through to 2019, market conditions were weak and generally on a downward trajectory. This is evident from URA's rental index for landed properties which showed a consistent softening of the rental market from 2015 to 2020.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout which shows the URA rental index for landed properties?

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]

Thank you, Sir. Members can also access the handout through the app on their mobile devices. Members will see that this is data available from URA. It shows the rental index from 2015 through to first quarter 2023, roughly by a quarter basis.

The demand for leasing generally, and Black and Whites specifically, was much lower at that time in the period 2017 to 2019 compared to today. The occupancy rates of state properties have generally moved in tandem with market conditions. Rents of private detached homes and Black and Whites typically trended in the same direction from 2012 to 2019, though the former plunged more severely from 2020 to third quarter 2022 and recovered more aggressively from late 2022 to 2023.

This trend also has a direct correlation to the occupancy rates at the Ridout properties. In January 2018, the occupancy at Ridout Road estate was 71%. This increased to 100% occupancy in January 2022 and has stayed at 100% since that time. In 2019, four tenants, out of 14 Black and Whites in the vicinity, requested to pre-terminate their tenancies. Since 2020, no tenant has requested a pre-termination.

When the rents by land area of private detached homes in Good Class Bungalow (GCB) areas are compared against Black and Whites, there is also a significant divergence. The average land area rent per square foot per month for private detached homes in GCB areas is between three and five times higher, compared to the comparable rent by land area for Black and Whites. One reason for this is, of course, the average land area for Black and Whites is usually larger than private detached homes in GCB areas.

Sir, with that background, let me turn to the various questions raised on SLA's management of Black and Whites. Various Members of this House, including Mr Louis Chua, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Don Wee, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leon Perera have asked about aspects of the process by which SLA manages such leases. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin also asked about SLA's standard tenancy operating procedures. Let me deal with those.

Sir, SLA manages land resources for Singapore's economic and social development. Therefore, SLA supports social uses, even whilst it seeks to maximise occupancy of Black and Whites.

Managing Black and Whites, like any portfolio of real estate assets, requires an appreciation of market conditions and its dynamics and being adaptable to the demands of the market.

In respect of its portfolio of Black and Whites, some properties are managed directly by SLA, and others are managed by MAs. SLA diversifies the management of its portfolio to include private sector MAs as they are professional organisations, experienced in managing properties in the public and private markets. In addition to their expertise, they have their own networks and portals through which they can market the properties that they are managing. This allows SLA to access a wider market.

SLA works closely with its MAs, who are incentivised by the terms of the arrangement to maximise occupancy and drive rentals, as well as to reduce costs. The MAs are given a broad discretion to manage the properties, consulting SLA from time to time as may be necessary, depending on the circumstances of each case. It is not uncommon for SLA to become involved in handling the management of a property under an MA's purview, for example, when there are requests beyond the scope of an MA's mandate, for example, when the scope of works to be done exceeds the usual works that would be done by the MA or where discussions arise on issues that the MA does not usually handle, such as privacy, security and other issues. This is when the MA, which serves as the agent, goes back to the principal – in this case, SLA – for directions.

When marketing a property, the aim is to maximise occupancy, which the MAs are incentivised to do under the terms of their agreement with SLA. As with all forms of marketing and advertising, it is necessary to adapt the strategy to match prevailing market conditions.

The general market practice in the real estate industry is that when market conditions are good and demand exceeds supply, almost all vacant properties will be posted on public platforms. In the case of state properties, this will be the State Property Information Online portal, referred to in its abbreviation as SPIO. This is because in a buoyant market, with strong interest, take-up will be likely.

When property market conditions are poor, however, and supply exceeds demand, or if occupancy in certain estates is low, SLA and its MAs would avoid listing all vacant properties online. Listing all properties would result in them visibly competing for the limited demand. This runs the risk of driving the price down, depressing outcomes for the landlord.

In respect of property marketing, today, all residential state properties available for rent are listed on SPIO. They are listed for at least 14 days. This practice was implemented following a review in August 2022, taking into account prevailing market conditions at that time.

At the material time, in 2018/2019, there was no requirement to list all the properties on SPIO. SLA and its MA had the discretion on whether to list the properties they managed on SPIO.

For completeness and context, let me explain SLA's policy and thinking on whether to list its properties on SPIO, driven by the prevailing market conditions.

In 2007, experiencing high demand, SLA required open bidding, which, in turn, necessitated listing all residential properties managed by its MAs to be put on SPIO. Later, the market softened. The success rate of residential state properties allocated through open bidding dropped. SLA then adjusted its policy to allow direct letting for specified estates, particularly for those with less than 80% occupancy. SLA's MAs had the discretion to decide how to market the properties which were under their portfolio to maximise outcomes. In August 2022, as the market revived and picked up, SLA reverted to requiring all properties to be listed on SPIO. I should add that these are operational concerns decided by SLA.

The usual methods employed by the MAs to market the properties include: (a) listing available properties on property portals; (b) circulating the relevant information through its network of agents; (c) listing on social media as appropriate; and (d) placing "To Lease" or "To Let" signages on the properties themselves.

The Ridout Road estate was managed by two professional MAs at the relevant time. Nos 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road were managed by the same MA and that was DTZ Facilities and Engineering (S) Limited. They were managing them up to 31 March 2018. Subsequently, from 1 April, Colliers International Consultancy and Valuation (Singapore) Pte Ltd took over as the MA.

In both these cases, as was the case for the entire Ridout Road estate, the MAs decided how the properties would be marketed. They could also tap into, and they did, their network of private agents, advertise on social media and so on, and allow for there to be this exchange of information between agents, who might, for example, in some cases, choose to co-broke the marketing of a property.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim had asked what steps were taken by SLA to market the two properties to be leased. As highlighted, both of them were under the same MA and they decided on the best way to market them.

For 26 Ridout Road, it was marketed by the MA from the time the previous tenant pre-terminated in December 2013. The usual methods, as I have outlined above, would have been carried out. However, there were no offers.

The MA then decided to undertake some minor works to make the property more presentable to prospective tenants. This was done around late 2016. Thereafter, the property was marketed by the MA again. The usual methods of marketing would have been deployed. The MA had also broadcast the property to their network of private agents who deal with and transact in such properties.

For 31 Ridout Road, the MA undertook the usual methods of marketing as I have outlined above. In this case, it chose to list the property on SPIO. In addition, it also granted a local film company access to film an interactive arts performance at the property. This was then used opportunistically to also showcase the property.

This process, for both properties, was consistent with the approach taken by SLA in all other properties marketed by MAs, with the MAs exercising discretion on how to market the property.

Sir, let me now turn to valuation. Upon successful marketing, when a prospective tenant makes an inquiry, it would be necessary to conduct a valuation to ascertain the valuation of the property being considered for leasing. These valuations are conducted by professional valuers within the MA or SLA respectively.

The valuation team uses established industry principles and methods for valuation. Factors, such as location, use, floor area, physical condition of the property and prevailing market conditions, will be taken into account.

The SLA valuation team operates separately and independently from the team in charge of leasing. Typically, the leasing team would submit a request for valuation of a particular property, setting out the parameters of the proposed lease of the property, and the valuation team will then determine the guide rent for the property.

SLA's valuation team uses the direct comparison method when undertaking valuations. This is an accepted industry methodology for rental valuations. The premise is that a potential tenant would be willing to pay similar rent to a comparable property that is available for rental and this gives a good gauge of the market.

Hence, when valuing a Black and White, a comparable property is considered, which takes into account the factors identified earlier – location, floor area, condition and so on.

The valuation team also has regard to the prevailing market conditions and other contextual factors. For instance, in a falling market, such as in 2018, the valuer takes into account the trends in the neighbouring comparable properties, making adjustments for outliers where appropriate.

The valuation is for the purposes of determining the guide rent for a given property.

The independent SLA valuation team, which looks at valuation for Black and Whites, will assess the market value and give the leasing division a baseline that must be achieved for the property in question. They, meaning the SLA valuation team, do not know the identities of the prospective tenants or the actual rents eventually negotiated by the parties.

I turn to the final aspect in managing Black and Whites – the leasing process. Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Leon Perera have raised specific questions on SLA's bidding process, including how long the bidding was open for 26 Ridout Road after Minister Shanmugam's bid was received.

In general, there are two modalities for leasing of all residential state properties and that includes Black and Whites: the first is open bidding; the other is direct letting. In this case, both 26 and 31 Ridout Road were allocated on the basis of direct letting. Let me explain these two modalities.

Today, under an open bidding allocation, the property would be listed on SPIO for at least 14 days. This is called the notice period. Thereafter, there is a five-day bidding window.

During the notice period, either SLA or the MA, depending on which property is being asked about, whether it is under their portfolio or otherwise, will then organise open houses for the property in question.

Once the bidding window closes, the tenancy is offered to the highest bidder. This is subject to the bid meeting the guide rent and satisfying other due diligence checks on the bidder. The guide rent is not revealed to bidders or their agents in this process.

On Mr Louis Chua's question as to the publication of tender awards on SLA's website, the highest bid rent in the tender and tender results are published on SPIO for six months.

Ms Hazel Poa asked about the reason for this six-month period. The short answer to this is that, after six months, valuations would be outdated as the market might have shifted and the information is less market relevant. Therefore, it is no longer listed on SPIO after six months.

The second modality is direct letting. Under direct letting, the MA or SLA receives the bid offers directly. Their offers can be accepted if the bids meet or exceed the prevailing guide rent. These offers are not published.

The decision as to whether to allocate specific properties to direct letting or open bidding, within an estate for which direct letting is permitted, is left to the discretion of the relevant MA or the SLA portfolio manager.

In making this decision, the following general trend is considered. Estates identified for direct letting are generally one of two categories: those with low occupancy rates or which otherwise have been assessed to benefit from direct letting due to their specific circumstances. One example will be in an estate where many units have become available at the same time, together, such that there is bidding fatigue from the earlier batches of units that were released.

Ms Hazel Poa asked if SLA was aware of the identity behind the bid for the leasing of 26 Ridout Road. The answer is yes. SLA has to know the identity of the prospective tenant in order to process and assess the bid. But the SLA valuation department and the SLA valuer who assessed the guide rent on 26 Ridout Road, did not know that the prospective tenant was Minister Shanmugam.

As CPIB has established, the valuer did not even know that Minister Shanmugam and SLA had settled on a rent of $26,500. She had assessed the guide rent not knowing the identity of the prospective tenant or the rent he had already agreed to pay.

Mr Leong Mun Wai asked whether the President's agreement is required when not awarding state properties to the highest bidder. This issue does not arise in the context of the rental of state properties that I have outlined. For state land and state properties, the President's agreement is required if such land or properties are to be disposed of below fair market value such that there would be a draw on Past Reserves. The grant of tenancies of state properties by SLA is not a disposal of state properties.

Next, let me turn to the works on the properties. Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Leon Perera have asked about the improvement and maintenance works carried out at both properties. Let me explain this.

For context, Members will recall that both these properties have been gazetted for conservation and SLA is responsible for the maintenance works based on the conservation and restoration guidelines that I mentioned earlier.

Let me illustrate what this means, with a few examples relevant to the two properties.

For the main roof, the original profile, pitch, height and eaves projection have to be retained and restored. Owners are required to keep the original roof tile material, colour and profile, if it is a unique feature of the building. Structural strengthening or supports like steel or reinforced concrete roof beams, if required to be added, have to be done in a way which is sensitively designed to minimise visual impact on the traditional timber system to be retained.

Another example is the architectural features on the building facades. The original fanlights, windows, doors and vents are to be retained and restored. Internally, owners may be required to keep such original finishes of the internal ceiling, wall and floor that give a distinctive character to the building.

Thus, all works have to be done in a manner which preserves the architectural style and features of the "black and white bungalows" as defined by URA. And all of this has a significant impact on the costs of the repairs.

Therefore, SLA's practice is to engage an external consultant to assess the state of the property and determine the works which have to be done, bearing in mind the relevant conservation guidelines.

While these works are done in periodic cycles, where practical, SLA tries to do them in the lead up to a confirmed tenancy, to avoid disrupting existing tenants and to ensure that the costs of the works done can be recovered from a prospective tenant.

For 26 Ridout Road, SLA engaged a consultant who had experience in dealing with heritage properties to survey the property and identify the necessary works to be done. I would add that this consultant was engaged before a bid was made for 26 Ridout Road.

The works identified by the external consultant were in the nature of structural items, such as timber beams, rafters and columns and other heritage features. Together, this aspect, as assessed by the external consultant, cost about $375,000 out of the total amount of $515,400 incurred for 26 Ridout Road.

A similar building management inspection was also undertaken by an external consultant for 31 Ridout Road and the works to be done were identified and proposed by the consultant. This included extensive works to the roof, which was assessed to be in a bad state, as well as other heritage features.

For 31 Ridout Road, these works, as recommended by the consultant, cost around $452,000 out of the total of $570,500 spent on 31 Ridout Road.

In addition, SLA also did the usual sprucing up works prior to the commencement of a tenancy. These are the usual works done shortly before the property is handed over to a new tenant to ensure that the property is habitable.

For 26 Ridout Road, the works included painting, pest control and the removal of mould. All of these cost around $140,000.

For 31 Ridout Road, the works included general repairs to the staircase, the perimeter of the house, fixing windows, painting, pest control and, in this case, also snake combing. The total cost of the sprucing up works for 31 Ridout Road cost around $118,000.

The works done by SLA were in keeping with SLA's general practices, as I described earlier in my speech.

On the clearance of the additional land for 26 Ridout Road, as I mentioned, the costs were fully recovered from the tenant by amortising it through the rental collected over the period of tenancy.

Turning to the works done by the tenants themselves, Minister Shanmugam offered to and did invest in substantial improvement works to the property. These included a new air-conditioning system, building a new carpark shelter, constructing a swimming pool, installing garden lights and upgrading the toilets as well as adding trees and other planting.

Minister Shanmugam spent in excess of $400,000 on these improvement works. All improvement works undertaken by the tenant become the property of the landlord and revert to state ownership when the property is returned to SLA. This, as I mentioned earlier, is an established practice for all tenancies requiring capital expenditure. These works are in the nature of capital expenditures and they seek to enhance the value of the properties.

Minister Balakrishnan similarly undertook improvement works with a cost of around $200,000, including installing air-conditioning, upgrading the toilets and building a pavilion as an extension of the property's garage. Many trees were also planted. URA approved the retention of the pavilion as it did not affect the façade of the conserved building.

Next, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Leon Perera have asked about the trees within the two properties that were felled.

Both properties are located within the Tree Conservation Area. Any tree within a Tree Conservation Area with more than a one-metre girth would require National Parks Board (NParks) approval to be felled.

Prior to the tenancy of 26 Ridout Road, trees of less than one-metre girth were removed by SLA as part of the clearing of the additional land. NParks' approval was not required for these trees.

After the tenancy commenced, the tenant periodically raised concerns about the structural and health conditions of the older trees, including, in one instance, after a neighbour expressed concerns about safety. There were legitimate concerns that some trees, such as decayed trees and those with poor vigour or structural defects, would pose safety issues.

This, in fact, was the specific issue that Minister Shanmugam was concerned about and which explained why he was not keen to have the additional vegetated land fenced into his tenancy. The legal obligations arising from any mishaps or failure to maintain the land properly within the tenancy boundary falls on the tenant.

On each occasion, before any decision about the tree – any of the trees felled – was made, an arborist was brought in for a tree inspection. For the trees that were removed, the reports found evidence of various problems that posed safety concerns, such as wound decay on main trunks and on buttress roots.

Nineteen trees of girth size more than one metre were removed on various occasions since the tenancy commenced about four-and-a-half years ago, each time upon feedback that the trees may pose safety issues.

For 18 of the 19 trees, there were independent arborist reports. These reports set out the condition of the trees in detail and found either decayed buttress roots, structural defects, termite infestations, poor structural form and vigour, or severe leaning resulting in high potential for failure. The reports were the basis upon which approval was then sought and obtained from NParks for every one of these trees.

NParks also conducted site visits to inspect the trees in person, where necessary. And it was only thereafter that the trees were removed.

The one tree which did not require an arborist report had failed in bad weather. NParks' approval was obtained to fell or remove the rest of the tree that had already failed.

The MA has also replaced 17 trees in the property over the last five years, and the tenant has also replanted trees in the property in addition to those replaced by the MA at his cost.

No 31 Ridout Road was also in the Tree Conservation Area. Likewise, felling of any trees with more than a one-metre girth needs NParks' approval.

Approval was granted by NParks to remove 24 such trees after an independent arborist's assessment showed that these trees were at risk of failure and posed safety concerns. Likewise, the trees were felled after NParks gave the approval and this was done prior to the start of the tenancy.

Sir, as I wrap up, I would like to address Members Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Ms Hazel Poa's questions about whether SLA had deviated from its usual processes in the rental of the two properties. Mr Murali Pillai also asked if the process was fair, transparent and competitive.

Sir, let me go back to CPIB's conclusions. It found no evidence of corruption or wrongdoing in either of the two rental transactions. It had examined the direct letting of the properties to Ministers Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan and found that they were applied fairly.

The internal processes and standards as regards marketing, valuation and leasing were adhered to scrupulously by SLA, with no preferential treatment being given to either Minister. The Ministers had access only to publicly available information concerning the leases.

I have described in detail how SLA handled the process. For both properties, offers of rental were made which met the guide rent. In addition, both tenants would be making substantial capital expenditure to renovate and enhance the properties. SLA would then be able to retain these enhancements at the end of the tenancy period. This would add value to any subsequent tenancy for SLA, and also be set off against the works which SLA had to undertake to renovate and refurbish the properties which I had taken Members through.

It should also be borne in mind that both these offers were made at a time when the rental market in Singapore was depressed. The previous tenant of 26 Ridout Road had pre-terminated their lease and no viable offers were received in the intervening period for either property.

In addition, in the case of 26 Ridout Road, the cost of maintaining the additional heavily vegetated area would then fall on the tenant and this would have been in the order of $25,000 per year.

In these circumstances, there was every reasonable, commercial basis for SLA to have entered into those transactions. The terms of both leases were standard and did not contain any unusual clauses. They were entirely at arms-length and did not deviate from usual processes. The specific valuer handling the request for valuation did not know the potential tenant. And Senior Minister Teo has explained how Minister Shanmugam had removed himself from the chain of command and decision-making process.

Sir, one last question to address and that is Mr Gerald Giam's question on whether the bidding process at SLA is audited by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO).

AGO conducts annual audits for Government Financial Statements and these include receipts collected by SLA on MinLaw's behalf. These receipts include rental income from state land and buildings. The Government Financial Statements audit does not cover the revenue tendering process of state properties as the audit objective in that case is to ascertain whether the receipts reported are accurate.

However, in addition to the annual audits, AGO also carries out selective audits of Statutory Boards in rotation. AGO last audited SLA in financial year 2018/2019. This covered the period April 2016 through to June 2018. In a selective audit, AGO has the discretion to decide what areas they choose to audit using a risk-based approach and also decide on the specific timing and timeframe of such audits.

Sir, I have sketched out how all parties concerned operated in accordance with their usual processes and procedures. I thank Members for their questions. It has provided me with an opportunity to lay out the facts clearly, fully, relating to these two tenancies. I welcome any further clarifications that Members may have subsequently.

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain "why" and "how" my family came to rent the property at 31 Ridout Road.

My wife and I have four children aged between 17 and 34. By 2018, two of them were married and we were blessed with two grandchildren and were expecting more to come. We decided to try to bring the entire extended family together under one roof whilst the grandchildren were still young.

I think older Members will appreciate that attempting to do this requires consent and concurrence of the son-in-law, the daughter-in-law and it also means each nuclear family has to live with their children in the same bedroom. My children agree and we began this journey.

We were aware at that time that there were hundreds of rustic black and white bungalows scattered throughout Singapore, some of them a century old. We had also done some initial due diligence. We went through the State Property Information Office (SPIO) website, so, we had a sense of the market at that point in time. And, of course, Members also know that if we go back to 2018, the rental market, in fact, was declining.

So, in September 2018, my wife was visiting a friend and happened to drive past the property at 31 and there was a prominent "For Lease" sign with a telephone number. She called the number and it turned out to be a property agent from Colliers International Consultancy and Valuation Private Limited.

The property agent showed her several black and white properties in the vicinity and indicated an asking rent of $19,000 for 31 Ridout Road. However, the property had been vacant for many years. Later on, we discovered it had, in fact, been vacant since, I think, July 2013 and, unfortunately, was in an advanced state of disrepair.

Just to give Members an idea of what it looked like then: the roof was leaking; the wooden floor upstairs had holes so you could see downstairs from upstairs; the staircase, the wooden fixtures in it were rotting; there was major termite infestation and it was the first time in my life I had seen termite mounds in the garden. And it was obvious that extensive repairs would have been necessary to make the house liveable.

Around the property itself, there were several large trees which, in fact, had uprooted, collapsed, damaged the fence, and the undergrowth was unkempt. Actually, we saw snakes both inside and outside the house. And there were also three adjacent properties that were undergoing comprehensive rebuilding, with all the associated noise and dust.

So, we went into this with our eyes open. The asking rent was $19,000. We said okay, we will offer $19,000, but we wanted essential repairs of the house to be conducted and upgrading of the toilets, and for these to be done by the landlord, the managing agent, before we took over the property. The managing agent from Colliers rejected this offer. I should say they rejected the offer because they said upgrading the toilets would constitute improvement of the property. So, anyway, they said no. Subsequently, we agreed to bear the cost of improving, upgrading the toilets at our expense. In fact, we have since spent more than $200,000 on a variety of improvement works to the property and we also know that all this money that has been spent cannot be recovered when the tenancy expires.

In other words, we accepted the asking rent stipulated by the property agent and the limited scope of works proposed by the Managing Agent. I should say, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, this is not a good example of – how shall I put it – of strenuous negotiations, because we basically gave in to what was asked in the first place. But I should say that when I conduct foreign affairs, I am a far sharper negotiator.

Anyway, Colliers subsequently sent a standard tenancy agreement for 3+2+2 years and this was signed, I think, in October 2019 by my wife. I should say, right up to this point, we were not aware of the guide rent, we were not even aware that there had been two prior bids in July and August 2018, and the two prior bids were at $12,000 and at $5,000. I was not aware of this until CPIB published its report. Arguably, maybe we should have held out longer. But never mind, the point is, we signed.