Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.20 pm

The Second Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill will amend the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Act in three areas. First, it will allow more CPF members to make CPF transfers to their parents and grandparents. Second, it will update the payout benchmark for Retirement Sum exemption. Third, it will clarify and streamline the administration of some parts of the CPF Act.

To encourage families to support one another in their retirement years, CPF members who have met their own retirement needs can transfer their CPF savings to their spouses, parents, grandparents, parents-in-law, grandparents-in-law or siblings.

The first amendment will allow more members to make CPF transfers to their parents and grandparents. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a table on CPF transfers to Members of this House?

Mr Speaker: Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, let me just briefly orientate Members to the table. It describes how much CPF transfers givers can make through the CPF Retirement Sum Topping-Up Scheme. So, if Members look at the different rows, one row is for the "Amounts that can be given to the Spouse"; the second row has got to do with how much transfers can be given to the parents and grandparents; and the third row has got to do with transfers to parents-in-law, grandparents-in-law and siblings.

For the purpose of our amendment Bill today, we are only looking at those transfers to parents and grandparents. So, Members should be looking at the middle row where we described what the current practice is and what the new practice will be for both members who are aged below 55, as well members who are aged 55 and above.

Currently, when a CPF member below the age of 55 has sufficient savings in his Ordinary Account (OA) and Special Account (SA) to meet the prevailing Full Retirement Sum (FRS), he can transfer part of his OA savings to his parents and grandparents.

For a member aged 55 and above to do likewise, the CPF Board will look at combined savings, not just in his OA and SA, but also include his Retirement Account (RA). In other words, we will look at all three – OA, SA and RA – and if those combined savings are sufficient to meet the FRS of his cohort, he can transfer part of his OA savings. That is the current practice.

To explain the amendment, let me first talk about the property charge. Many CPF members own property. When CPF OA savings are used to finance the property purchase, a charge is placed on the property so that if the property is subsequently sold, proceeds from the sale will be used to refund the CPF OA principal sum previously withdrawn to buy the property, plus interest the member would have earned if it had not been withdrawn. So, that is the property charge.

The property charge, therefore, helps to secure the member’s CPF savings. However, a member’s property charge is not currently taken into consideration when he applies to transfer part of his CPF savings to his loved ones. With this amendment, the property charge will be considered together with other CPF savings when assessing whether a member is eligible to make transfers to his parents and grandparents.

A member below the age of 55 will be able to transfer part of his OA savings above the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) to his parents and grandparents if he has sufficient OA and SA savings to meet the prevailing BRS, which together with a property charge, are sufficient to meet the prevailing FRS.

For a member aged 55 and above to do likewise, CPF Board will look not just at his OA and SA but include the RA as well. If he has sufficient savings to meet his cohort BRS which, together with his property charge, is sufficient to meet his cohort FRS, he can transfer part of his OA, SA and RA savings above the BRS to his parents and grandparents.

It is quite a lot to remember. That is why I have provided the chart for Members to refer to. But the upshot is this: whatever their ages, the members would be required to set aside the BRS in their CPF savings before they can make transfers to parents and grandparents. This ensures that these members have enough for their own basic retirement needs and have also added security through the property charges.

About 20% of CPF members aged 30 to 70 meet the current thresholds to make transfers to their parents and grandparents. With the amendment, 30% of CPF members will be eligible. This means about 340,000 more members.

This amendment will give members more options to strengthen their parents' and grandparents' retirement adequacy. In particular, it will help members who want to increase their parents' or grandparents' retirement savings but may not be able to do so through cash top-ups.

The second amendment updates the payout benchmark for Retirement Sum exemption. Today, in addition to his CPF savings, a member may have lifelong payouts from a private annuity or pension which is higher than the monthly CPF payout that an age peer receives under the Retirement Sum Scheme (RSS).

Such members have been allowed to apply to withdraw their CPF savings, without having to set aside their cohort Retirement Sum. Those with lower private annuity or pension payouts may apply for partial exemption from setting aside their cohort Retirement Sum.

As CPF LIFE has replaced RSS as the default retirement payout scheme for members entering retirement, it is timely to update the benchmark used for Retirement Sum exemptions. Instead of the RSS payout, we will now use the monthly CPF LIFE payout that a member who has met the cohort FRS is expected to receive.

Annually, for the past few years, about 200 members have successfully applied for full or partial exemption. The effect of this amendment is that more members will qualify for full exemption.

The third and last set of amendments provide greater clarity and efficiency in the administration of some parts of the CPF Act. I will provide one example.

Today, the top-up limit for transfers from the OA to the member’s own SA is prescribed in the CPF Act. However, all the other top-up limits, such as for CPF transfers to spouses, are prescribed in the regulations instead of the main Act.

The amendment will simplify the CPF Act such that all computational details for limits on voluntary top-ups to various CPF accounts will be specified in the CPF Regulations. There is no change to the top-up limits, only where they are specified.

In conclusion, this Bill provides greater flexibility for CPF members as well as simplifies and clarifies the administration of the CPF Act. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

1.25 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. As a mandatory social security savings scheme funded by contributions from employers and employees, the CPF system is closely tied to employment. This means that there will be certain groups in our populace, such as our elderly who are likely to have little to no CPF savings, who would not be able to benefit directly from the system to meet their retirement, housing and healthcare needs.

The move to implement a lower threshold to allow members to make CPF transfers to top up their parents' and grandparents' CPF accounts provides members the option to build up their parents' or grandparents' CPF accounts for their retirement needs. This is in addition to the option of topping up the CPF accounts of their spouses for the same purpose at the same lowered threshold. While providing members with flexibility is good, I remain concerned about the trajectories of various forces which will challenge the robustness of our CPF system to meet the needs of our people's retirement.

First, as our life expectancy increases, the gap between our retirement age and life expectancy widens. Our statutory retirement age remains at 62 while our re-employment age has recently been raised to 67.

According to the 2017 World Health Statistics report by the World Health Organization (WHO), the average life expectancy in Singapore is 83.1 years. The report also found that Singapore's healthy life expectancy, that is, number of years people live in full health, is 73.9 years. Assuming that one is employed up to age 67, his retirement savings must be sufficient to last him for another 16 years, of which there would likely be increased healthcare expenses for 10 years due to ill health. This is not taking into account rising healthcare costs. Based on a report by Marsh & McLennan Companies' (MMC's) Asia Pacific Risk Center, the total healthcare costs of the elderly in Singapore are projected to rise tenfold over the next 15 years to US$49 billion annually.

Second, women are more vulnerable than men. The WHO report found that in Singapore, women could well expect to live for 86.1 years, while the average male expectancy is 80.1 years. The labour force participation rates of women, although increasing, have always been lower than their male counterparts. Based on age-gender specific resident labour force participation rates in 2016, the participation rate for females peak at 25 to 29 years at 90.6% and declines steadily thereafter to 77.2% by 45 to 49 years of age. In comparison, the participation rate for males peak at 35 to 39 years at 97.8% and holds steady at above 90% to 50 to 54 years.

According to the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) study on "Family and Work", women are more likely than men to remain outside the labour force for family-related responsibilities, such as housework, childcare and caregiving to families or relatives.

Third, the size of our families has been on the decline. With fewer children, the older generation will have less financial support for their retirement from the younger generation and some will have none. Our population has been ageing since 2000, with the number of residents in the older age groups increasing significantly. The median age of the resident population rose from 34 years in 2000 to 40.5 years in 2017.

On the economic front, we are also facing uncertainties as we push on with restructuring efforts to stay ahead of the game against global headwinds of market volatility and increased protectionism. In this climate, we are also likely to face challenges to traditional employment models. In view of the above trajectories, I have the following questions on the proposed amendments to the Act.

First, the Ministry said that this proposed amendment will give members who are providing for their parents and grandparents more options to strengthen their parents’ and grandparents’ retirement adequacy. I would like to request the Minister to share some of the key statistics of our elderly populace’s retirement adequacy with reference to aggregated CPF data.

Second, I would like to request the Minister to provide examples of the types of family units which will benefit most from exercising this option to top up their parents' or grandparents' CPF accounts for their retirement needs, provide specifics on the age, salary and CPF account balances of the CPF members making the top-ups.

Third, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the member who is making top-ups of his parents’ or grandparents’ CPF accounts is adequately advised of the impact of his actions on his CPF savings for his own retirement needs? What are the outreach efforts to educate the public about these top-up options? Would CPF Board be offering advisory services to members or to assist them in making informed choices on the various options available to them?

Fourth, the CPF member who wishes to top up the CPF account of his parents or grandparents needs to meet the requisite BRS in his/her OA, SA as well as RA and have sufficient property pledge or charge to make up for the requisite FRS. For a CPF member who has met the FRS with a property pledge or charge and made top-ups to his parents' CPF account, I would like to ask the Minister what would be the impact on the member, if any, in the event that he wishes to sell his property, and what is the subject matter of the property pledge or charge and his ability to use his CPF monies to purchase a new property?

Fifth, what other alternatives are there for families of lower-wage earners with insufficient amounts in their CPF accounts and who are unable to utilise this “self-help” option to make the top-ups for their parents or grandparents for their retirement needs?

Sixth, would the Minister consider allowing the balance of top-ups in the parent's or grandparent's accounts to be returned to the contributing member’s CPF account with accrued interest when the parent or grandparent whom he has contributed to passes away or that the CPF nomination still prevails?

I also have some additional questions on the provision for CPF members to apply for exemption from setting aside the Retirement Sum if they have their own private annuity which provides them with payouts for life. This option has been made available for some years. Could the Minister share the take-up rate for this option?

I would also like to ask the Minister what outreach efforts have been in place to educate CPF members and the financial institutions offering personal annuities which qualify for this exemption. In the event where the member decides to procure a personal annuity to be exempted from setting aside the Retirement Sum in his CPF account, does CPF Board offer advisory services to such members to assist them in assessing the difference between the annuities offered by the financial institutions and CPF schemes or is the advising left solely in the hands of the financial planner from the financial institution?

I would like to end off by referring to a poll commissioned by the feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) in June 2014, which found that while eight in 10 Singaporeans have heard of the Minimum Sum and more than six in 10 have heard of CPF LIFE, awareness of policy specifics was relatively lower. As the number of options available to members increase, I urge the Minister to ensure that adequate public education and advisory services are made available to members so that they can make informed choices that would best suit their needs, especially considering the challenges that we will be facing as an ageing population.

Mr Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.

1.34 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mr Speaker, each time the CPF Act is tweaked, lives will be impacted, one way or another. For many Singaporeans, their dreams and plans for retirement, flat ownership, or even going on a once-in-a-lifetime haj could hinge on the policy directions set by some of these amendments.

As our social security system adapts to changing times, the facts and impact of each amendment to the Act must be made known to the affected members in a simple and easy to understand manner. This is important because, compared to the CPF of yesteryears, the scheme we have today has evolved over time to allow members options to choose the types of retirement plans or top-up schemes to support their loved ones, to name a few. Thus, CPF members today need to make informed choices. For this purpose, I have some brief clarifications to seek from the Minister on some of the key features of this CPF amendment Bill.

First, I have some questions pertaining to the proposed amendment made to section 18 of the CPF Act. This amendment is to give the Board the flexibility to determine the amount of money standing to a member’s credit in CPF that can be transferred to the RA and SA of a relevant individual.

Although this feature of the 2017 CPF amendment Bill is touted as a change to strengthen family support by allowing more CPF members to make CPF transfers to their parents and grandparents, the proposed changes to section 18 of the CPF Act seem to only bring in line the changes made previously and, that is, to allow members to transfer less to their RA if they have sufficient property charge.

Sir, as it stands today, even without the proposed changes to section 18, CPF members with sufficient property pledge or charge do not need to set aside the FRS in their CPF anymore. If they can meet the BRS, which is half of the FRS Sum, these members can withdraw their remaining CPF savings in cash when they attained the age of 55. They can then use the cash to do a top-up of the CPF accounts of their loved ones under the Retirement Sum Topping-Up Scheme. By doing so, some of these members may get to enjoy additional tax relief of up to $7,000 per calendar year, which they would not enjoy if they were to subscribe to the proposed amendment, which is to do a top-up via CPF transfer.

Members who qualify to make CPF transfer to their loved ones under the proposed amendment would most likely come from the same group who qualify to make lump-sum withdrawal from their CPF accounts in cash after setting aside their BRS and property pledge upon attaining the age of 55.

Would the Ministry highlight this tax relief option to the members so that they can make an informed choice, that is, they could be better off withdrawing the excess amount standing in their CPF accounts first, then follow up with a cash top-up to the CPF accounts of their loved ones later, so as to enjoy some tax relief in the process? Although there is a personal income tax relief cap from Year of Assessment (YA) 2018, the incentive for cash top-up of CPF accounts remains more attractive than direct CPF transfers. Would the latest amendment to section 18 become a white elephant since qualified members are better off doing the cash top-up option?

Second, I welcome the proposed amendment to section 15 to allow members who are or will be receiving a pension, annuity or other benefit approved by the Board, the flexibility to make a withdrawal from their RA subject to the payout benchmark specified by the Minister. The differentiated “payout benchmark” is something new and, as stated in the new subsection 8CA, there are different amounts of payout benchmark for different classes of members based on the life expectancy. I seek more information on how the Board is going to classify these annuitants based on life expectancy.

Finally, behind every policy change lies a number. Just like the speaker before me, every amendment proposed must surely be motivated by some trending statistics, demands from account holders, or changing social norms. Specifically, can the Minister share what CPF has found in its big data analytics to derive at the proposed changes found in this amendment Bill? Is the number of elderly Singaporeans with retirement adequacy issues rising despite having children with healthy CPF accounts? Are there many requests from Singaporeans who want to do CPF top-ups for their loved ones? Is CPF encouraging members to borrow from their future retirement needs to pay for the current needs of their loved ones today? Is there any projection done on the retirement adequacy of these members when they grow old if they were to top up the CPF accounts of their loved ones today?

Beyond providing options to the CPF system, I hope the Ministry can help CPF members make informed choices towards planning for their own retirement adequacy.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

1.39 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the focus of CPF is to provide for a steady income stream that can provide Singaporeans with basic support for their retirement expenses.

I am heartened to note that the amendments to the CPF Act will improve the retirement adequacy of older CPF members by lowering the threshold for CPF members to make transfers to their parents and grandparents.

While the amendments are very much about technical thresholds, payout benchmarks and administrative mechanisms, I would like to highlight the core value of filial piety that underlies these amendments. It strengthens the idea of the family and familial relations as a key source of financial and social support by encouraging retirement planning that is based upon the ties within the family unit. As we debate about the specifics and technicalities of legislation in Parliament, I believe it is important to highlight and reinforce the fundamental values we stand for as a community, like filial piety, and how this can be expressed through the legislation we pass.

In line with the core value of filial piety, can the Minister clarify why the amendments will not be extended to parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law? I had raised a similar point when we debated the CPF (Amendment No 2) Bill and was heartened that in the reply, the Minister clarified that the CPF Retirement Sum Topping-Up Scheme included parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. Why then are we not extending this to this group of people now?

Next, to further encourage familial support within the CPF framework, will the Government consider tax reliefs for CPF transfers to parents, parents-in-law, grandparents, grandparents-in-law, siblings and spouses? Tax relief is currently provided for cash top-ups, subject to conditions and caps. Similar tax-based incentive schemes for CPF transfers may encourage those who are in a stronger financial position to top up the accounts of lower-balance or non-working family members. I have to add though that I hope they do not make transfers just for the tax reliefs.

Next, this scheme is premised on older CPF members having family members who are able to top up their CPF accounts. I am concerned about older members who do not have any immediate family members or who do not have strong ties with their family members. Can the Minister share whether there are measures in place to improve retirement adequacy for this group of people who are the ones most in need of a steady income stream in their later years?

Lastly, there is a general lack of understanding of the CPF system and its policies amongst the general public. While having greater flexibility is laudable, it also introduces more complexity. Can the Minister share whether they are plans to improve our communications with regard to the CPF system, especially to our seniors?

Sir, this Bill creates space within the CPF framework for family members to support one another and I stand in support of it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

1.41 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I am in favour of the amendments to exempt CPF members who have pensions, annuities or other CPF-approved benefits which match the set benchmarks from having to top up their Retirement Sums. These individuals have all, in their own ways, prepared and stored up equivalent financial reserves for their retirement.

Next, I also support the amendments to allow more CPF members to make transfers to their parents’ and grandparents’ RAs. This will be achieved by reducing the members’ OA thresholds. Last year, CPF had made it easier for members to transfer monies from their OA to their spouses’ SA or RA. I would like to suggest that CPF consider further lowering the requirements to facilitate transfers between spouses.

Can CPF also expand the criteria to allow parents to transfer some of their CPF savings to their children or siblings who have special needs? Over the years, a number of my residents who are not doing well financially and are unable to meet the BRS have requested to make CPF withdrawals to support the needs of such family members. They are struggling and the assistance they receive is barely enough. If withdrawals cannot be made, at least the transfers would afford them some peace of mind.

Finally, I would like to ask how many applications for transfers to top up the accounts of family members have been made in each of the past 10 years. Will the Ministry share the breakdown of these data and how many applications were successful? I would also like to ask for the details of cash top-ups.

Mr Speaker: Second Minister Josephine Teo.

1.44 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, let me first thank the Members for supporting this Bill and their comments on how we can improve the CPF system. Let me address the comments that Members have made on specific aspects of the Bill.

Mr Patrick Tay asked for an update on the retirement adequacy of CPF members. Retirement adequacy is improving for every successive cohort. In 2013, about six in 10 active CPF members who turned age 55 met their cohort BRS. We expect this proportion to grow to seven in 10 for the cohort turning age 55 in 2020.

Even so, there is scope to help CPF members, especially older cohorts who are already in retirement, to improve their retirement adequacy. This is why we are making it possible for more CPF members to initiate CPF transfers to their parents and grandparents.

Which are the families that are more likely to benefit from the amendments? Well, they first have to have a property charge and they also have to be able to meet either the prevailing or the cohort BRS which, therefore, means that they are more likely to be older in age. Nonetheless, as I have shared in my earlier speech, we expect that the number of eligible members will increase by 340,000. So, not a small number.

Mr Patrick Tay asked how a property sale would affect CPF members who earlier made CPF transfers to their parents after using a property pledge or charge to meet the FRS. The property pledge or charge works to help restore CPF members’ savings to their FRS if they sell their property. The property sale and the resulting CPF refund do not affect the earlier CPF transfers made by the member to his spouse, parents or grandparents. To be clear, those family members will retain the transferred CPF monies.

Mr Png Eng Huat had talked about the fact that if a member is aged 55 and above, he is already eligible to withdraw his CPF savings after setting aside his cohort BRS and he can use these withdrawals to give cash top-ups to his parents and grandparents and, in fact, enjoy a tax relief on it. He is right to point this out. But instead of this two-step process of a withdrawal and then a top-up, we want to be able to facilitate a transfer by allowing him to use a property charge to help meet the cohort FRS, if he wishes to transfer part of his CPF savings above the cohort BRS to his parents or grandparents. So, it is purely facilitative in nature.

But Mr Png added that, in doing so, he does not get to enjoy the potential tax relief. He is right. What CPF Board will do is, in interacting with the member, they can, indeed, point this out to the member that if they take a two-step approach, they are eligible for a tax relief. It depends on whether they have income at that point in time. To some of the members, they may no longer be earning an income and, therefore, a tax relief means nothing to them. So, it really depends.

Mr Png's question is: in making this change, will it be a white elephant? That is not the way we think about it. We are trying to be facilitative. It can also be that a member already has an existing property charge that was made years ago. So, after he turns age 55, the property charge is there and he wants to take advantage of it, we see no reason why he should be prevented from doing so.

To Mr Patrick Tay's question, making a property charge or pledge will not affect the members' ownership of the property or their right to sell in future. In addition, members can continue to use the sales proceeds refunded to their CPF for a future housing purchase in accordance with the prevailing CPF rules.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about flexibility for members to transfer CPF savings to their spouses. As discussed in this House last year, we reduced the threshold from FRS to BRS so that more members can make CPF transfers to their spouses' accounts. In fact, if my memory serves me right, about 75% of all CPF transfers made last year were made to spouses rather than to someone else. This is already a lower threshold than for CPF transfers to parents and grandparents and will remain so even after this round of amendments.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the amendment will also apply to parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. Today, members can already transfer CPF savings above the FRS to their parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law.

I fully agree with Mr Louis Ng that we should continue to encourage filial piety, including their parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law. However, we also need to strike a balance between protecting the member’s retirement adequacy and enabling him to support his older family members’ retirement adequacy. This is why we are making a concession to lower the threshold only for CPF transfers to parents and grandparents. Nevertheless, members who want to use the concessionary threshold for CPF transfers to their parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law can approach CPF Board and these requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh further asked about flexibilities for CPF transfers to children or siblings with special needs. Currently, CPF members can use their MediSave savings to pay for their children or siblings’ healthcare. They can also use their OA savings to provide a loan for their children’s tertiary education.

In addition, parents can make use of the Special Needs Savings Scheme to set aside CPF savings for the long-term care of their children with special needs. Under this scheme, the parents’ CPF savings can be used to provide the children with a stream of monthly payouts upon the parents’ demise.

Mr Patrick Tay asked whether the transferred CPF monies could be returned to the giver's CPF accounts upon the demise of the recipient. To safeguard the giver's retirement adequacy, all the transferred CPF monies that had not been streamed out as CPF payouts to the recipient before the recipient’s demise would be refunded to the giver’s CPF accounts. So, it depends on whether they have been streamed out and, if they have been streamed out, there is nothing to refund. But if they have not been streamed out, yes, then there is something to be refunded.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether tax relief could be given for CPF transfers between members. Currently, CPF contributions are already tax deductible and interest earned on the contributions are not taxable. Hence, CPF monies transferred from one member’s account to another have already enjoyed tax relief.

But this does not mean that there is no additional benefit to making such CPF transfers. In fact, CPF transfers often allow families to maximise the interest earned on their combined CPF savings. For example, members can enjoy higher interest by transferring monies from their OA, which earns up to 3.5%, to their loved ones’ SA or RA, which earns up to 6%. So, there is benefit in terms of the interest that can be earned even though there is no additional tax relief.

Finally, I agree with Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng and also Mr Png Eng Huat − and I believe Mr Gan Thiam Poh might have alluded to it, too − that we must continue to help CPF members better understand the CPF system.

CPF Board has stepped up its member engagement efforts. Throughout this year, CPF Board has organised retirement planning roadshows, talks and mobile service centres across Singapore to reach out directly to members. And just this past weekend, CPF Board ran a roadshow in Sengkang.

We also recognise that even with all of these engagements and outreach, sometimes we remember best when we need to do something with the information. So, CPF Board provides a retirement planning service. When a member turns 54, CPF Board will invite them to a one-on-one, face-to-face, consultation where CPF Board staff will explain the CPF options, including the impact on reliefs, for example, as well as the decisions that they can make. So, this is face-to-face, one-on-one, and the members have the chance to ask for clarification until it is clear to them what they are getting themselves into.

Mr Speaker, I hope that I have addressed Members' questions and suggestions. There may be others that do not pertain directly to the specifics of this Bill and I ask for the Members' understanding. I think a better time to address them would have to be found. With your permission, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.