Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for National Development.

1.34 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill contains 21 clauses and makes miscellaneous amendments to several Acts. These amendments are largely technical and operational in nature. The amendments fall within the following five groups.

The first set of amendments found in Part 1 of the Bill clarifies and expands the functions and duties of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

Clause 2 amends the Building and Construction Authority Act 1999 (BCA Act) to confer the following functions on BCA.

BCA will act as the Government's agent in managing programmes such as the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) for private residential estates and the Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme.

BCA will also take on the function of maintaining foreshore structures belonging to the Government and erected on any part of the foreshore that is state land allocated to the Ministry of National Development (MND). These foreshore structures will not include coastal protection measures as defined in the Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act 1999 (SDCPA), as renamed by the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Act 2026.

Sir, I would like to highlight that MND will be moving a Notice of Amendment during the Committee stage to update the title of the SDCPA reflected in clauses 2(e) and 20(11) of the Bill when the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Act 2026, which is passed but not in operation yet, comes into operation.

Thirdly, BCA will provide administrative support to the Professional Engineers Board and Strata Titles Boards in the performance of their respective statutory functions.

Clause 3 amends the Urban Redevelopment Authority Act 1989 to confer the following functions on URA.

URA will undertake and coordinate the planning of infrastructure for transport, utilities and other infrastructure in Singapore. It will also inform and advise the Government on matters relating to the planning of such infrastructure and the planning and implementation of projects to provide and upgrade such infrastructure.

URA will also provide administrative support to the Board of Architects and the Street and Building Names Board in the performance of their respective statutory functions as well as the Controller of Housing in relation to the administration of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1965 and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act 1979.

The expanded functions and duties of BCA and URA will enable our agencies to better serve Singaporeans more effectively.

The second set of amendments provides for the deletion of certain provisions of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (or COTMA) and related matters. These COTMA provisions have served their purpose and are no longer required.

Clause 4(b) deletes Part 8C of the COTMA, which provided support to property developers who faced construction delays due to reasons related to COVID-19 and allowed affected purchasers to seek partial reimbursement from the developers for qualifying costs incurred due to the delay in delivery of possession. Clause 5 provided for saving and transitional provisions to preserve the validity and legal effect of determinations made under Part 8C.

Clause 4(c) deletes Part 10A of the COTMA, which facilitated an equitable co-sharing between contractors and developers of increases in the cost of engaging foreign manpower due to COVID-19. Clause 6 is a saving and transitional provision to preserve the validity and legal effect of certain determinations made under Part 10A.

Sir, the third set of amendments found in Part 3 of the Bill is meant to shorten the runway for students with relevant practical experience to obtain professional qualifications.

Clauses 7 and 8 will amend the Architects Act 1991 and Professional Engineers Act 1991. These amendments allow the Board of Architects and Professional Engineers Board to recognise relevant pre-graduation internship and working experience as part of the practical experience required for registration as Professional Engineers and Architects.

Moving on to Part 4 of the Bill, the fourth set of amendments perform essential legal housekeeping by validating the collection of various fees and charges charged by BCA, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the National Parks Board (NParks) and URA.

These include fees for existing operational costs, including for the expedited inspection of buildings and the processing of Temporary Occupation Permits (TOP) by BCA, NParks' animal permits and species certifications, administrative fees charged by HDB and recovery of expenses by HDB and URA for the immobilisation, towage and detention or storage of illegally parked vehicles. These fees and charges are essential to recover operational costs incurred by our agencies in providing services to the public.

When originally introduced, these fees and charges were regarded as administrative charges for specific services or enforcement activities. However, following a comprehensive internal review, MND was advised that the fees and charges should have been prescribed in legislation.

Therefore, clauses 9 to 12 validate fees and charges collected by our Statutory Boards, namely BCA, HDB, NParks and URA in the ordinary course of their operations. The necessary subsidiary legislation to prescribe the fees has either been made or will be made when this Bill is enacted to provide the agencies with the relevant powers and clear legal basis for the continued collection of these fees.

Clause 13 provides that the validation of the fees and charges made by clauses 9 to 12 do not affect any decision or judgment of the Court given and any Court proceedings commenced before the First Reading of the Bill in relation to the liability of any person to pay any of those fees and charges.

I will now move on to the last set of amendments.

Clause 14 amends section 31(5) of the BCA Act so that the maximum licence period for BCA Aggregate Importer's Licence is increased from the current two years to five years as a pro-enterprise measure.

Clauses 15 and 16 are housekeeping amendments. Specifically, clause 16(a) updates definitions regarding "floor area" to reflect the current position set out in subsidiary legislation. Clause 15 deletes an amendment to the Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 previously passed in Parliament in 2017 and clause 16(b) to (f) re-enacts that amendment in such a way that it can be brought into force in different stages. These pertain to the use of management funds for social and cultural activities, sporting events, engaging legal services or remunerating an official manager where necessary.

Clause 17 expands the definition of "scheduled species" in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 2006 (or ESA) to include hybrid plants. This addresses a practical trade issue where countries may require documentation for artificially propagated plant hybrids even when exempted under Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) annotations. Including hybrid plants in the definition of "scheduled species" allows NParks to issue the necessary documentation to facilitate trade.

Furthermore, clause 17 empowers the Director-General of Wildlife Trade Control to inspect, analyse and certify both scheduled and non-scheduled species. By providing official certification that exported or re-exported products do not contain scheduled species or their parts and derivatives, we provide our legitimate local exporters with the legal certainty they need to meet strict international trade requirements.

Clause 18 amends the Housing and Development Act 1959. HDB will be empowered to prescribe fees in respect of anything done by or on behalf of HDB under the Act and the rules made under the Act. Further, the amendments will expressly allow HDB to recover charges and expenses related to the immobilisation, removal and storage of unlawfully parked or abandoned vehicles in HDB common property and open spaces. This ensures that the costs of managing such disamenities are borne by the errant owners rather than the public.

HDB will also be allowed to recover fees, charges, expenses and legal costs incurred in vesting property in the HDB under section 59 of the Act or in compulsorily acquiring property for the reasons listed in section 63(1) of the Act.

Clause 19 raises the maximum penalties for wildlife feeding offences under section 5A(3) of the Wildlife Act 1965. Maximum fines have been increased for both first-time and repeat offenders. Further, imprisonment for a term of up to 12 months may be imposed on repeat offenders. This will provide stronger deterrence against illegal wildlife feeding and better safeguard public health and safety.

Clause 20 provides for the necessary updates to various Acts arising from the 2020 Revised Edition of Acts.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this Bill makes miscellaneous and minor amendments in the manner that I have just described. These amendments collectively strengthen our regulatory framework and ensure our Statutory Boards can continue serving Singaporeans effectively with proper legislative backing. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

1.45 pm

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Speaker, in my constituency, I represent residents across both HDB estates and private developments, from families living in Pasir Ris flats to those in condominiums across Upper Changi and Flora estate. While their housing contexts differ, their expectations are the same: clear rules, fair enforcement and well-managed living environments.

My approach to this Bill is guided by a simple principle. As we expand powers, whether for public agencies or management bodies, we must match them with clarity, fairness and accountability.

Sir, I will focus on two areas: first, certain HDB-related provisions; and second, condominium issues and Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) matters.

On HDB-related provisions, I note the clauses validating past fees and charges collected by HDB and URA, including those arising from enforcement actions.

While I understand the intent of providing legal certainty, I seek clarification on policy considerations behind these retrospective provisions. Were there legal gaps that necessitated this approach and how will the Ministry ensure future enforcement actions are firmly grounded in law from the outset? Retrospective legislation should remain the exception and not the norm. Maintaining public confidence requires enforcement frameworks that are clear, prospective and robust from the start.

I am also concerned about the fairness of the cut-off date of 7 April 2026, which limits affected persons' ability to commence legal proceedings. Those who incurred charges shortly before that date may not have had a reasonable opportunity to seek advice. Did the Ministry consider alternatives, such as pegging the cut-off to when charges were incurred, or providing a short grace period? I would appreciate the Ministry's explanation.

Sir, I now turn to condominium issues and MCST matters.

I welcome the clause 2 amendments placing BCA's administration of programmes, such as the Estate Upgrading Programme and the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme on a statutory footing.

I have long supported the EASE programme, and I am glad it is now extended to private estates, because ageing does not discriminate and neither should our policies when it comes to helping seniors age safely.

I also support the clause 16 amendments to the Building (Strata Management) Act. Expanding permitted uses of management funds to include community-building activities can strengthen social cohesion, while allowing MCSTs to engage legal services and remunerate appointed managers reflects today's governance realities. However, I seek three clarifications.

First, while access to legal advice is important, there is a risk of increased or prolonged disputes, with costs borne collectively by subsidiary proprietors. Are safeguards being considered, such as approval thresholds or avenues to challenge unreasonable legal expenditures?

Second, the expanded uses of management funds may strain smaller MCSTs with limited reserves. How does the Ministry intend to ensure financial prudence and will there be guidance on balancing community activities with long-term sustainability?

Third, as responsibilities expand, council members, many of whom are volunteers, will need greater support. If mandatory training is introduced, will it include practical guidance on financial management, governance and planning community initiatives?

Sir, this Bill moves us in the right direction. But as we expand powers, whether for public agencies or MCSTs, we must match them with clarity, safeguards and accountability. With these clarifications, I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's response.

Mr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin Malik.

1.49 pm

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Sir, the Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill spans a wide range of topics, many of significant concerns to Singaporeans. Today, I will speak four amendments especially relevant to my work in Sengkang.

First, the empowerment of BCA to administer private estate upgrading programmes; second, increased penalties for wildlife feeding; third, the expansion of scope for MCST management fund utilisation; and finally, HDB's cost recovery for compulsory acquisitions.

Sir, I am happy to see that Jalan Merdu in Sengkang has been shortlisted as one of the private estates earmarked for the EUP. The maintenance of estate amenities has always ranked high in the list of concerns among both private and public estate residents.

With respect to this amendment, I would like to raise two specific questions for MND.

First, on Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme, clause 2 amends section 8(1) of the Building and Construction Authority Act 1999 to confer on BCA the duty "to act as an agent of the Government in managing, implementing and administering programmes, such as the Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme".

Currently, the EASE programme for public estates falls under HDB. With BCA now undertaking management of the EASE programme for private estates, I would like to seek clarity on the implementation framework.

How does BCA plan to partner with MCSTs to implement the installation of fixtures? Will BCA appoint contractors directly to coordinate installations and maintain quality control across all private estates? Or will MCSTs retain the discretion to hire their own contractors? If the latter, what quality assurance mechanisms will BCA put in place to ensure consistent standards across diverse contractors and estates, given that MCSTs have varying levels of capacity and expertise.

Sir, as of January 2025, the EASE programme for public estates has benefited 340,000 households. As the programme is extended to private estates, it is important that robust implementation and quality assurance frameworks are in place to ensure similar positive outcomes.

Second, on post-completion maintenance of the EUP, the same amendment confers on BCA the duty to act as an agent of Government in management, implementation and administration of programmes established and funded by the Government for the upgrading of public spaces, infrastructure and facilities in private estates.

While the BCA is given a role in consultations and site assessments, the Bill does not clearly address who bears responsibility for estate maintenance and upkeep after upgrading works are done. I will ask the Ministry to clarify whether this responsibility continues to rest with BCA and if so, whether commensurate support will be extended to them.

Sir, neighbourhood estates are shared spaces that form a collective memory for all Singaporeans. Ensuring a fair, transparent and sustainable allocation of resources is critical to the longevity of such programmes.

Sir, now, I would like to speak about the increased penalties for wildlife feeding.

Clause 19 amends section 5A(3) of the Wildlife Act 1965, to "increase the penalties for an offence that relates to the intentional feeding of any wildlife in any place". Over the past year, I have raised several Parliamentary Questions on the management of our pigeon population. Residents regularly flag concerns about pigeons roosting on aircon ledges, and some even have birds fly into their kitchens and balconies. I therefore welcome the Bill's stronger stance on wildlife feeding.

That said, I would urge the Ministry to also address the deeper social dimension of this behaviour. A recent CNA article highlighted that the habit of feeding birds can go beyond mere recalcitrance. It can reflect social isolation and a lack of purposeful engagement, particularly among seniors. Penalising behaviour without understanding its root causes risks addressing the symptom while leaving the underlying issue unresolved.

With this in mind, I would ask the Ministry to consider two complementary measures. First, to strengthen partnership with social service agencies to engage residents, especially isolated seniors, on the consequences of wildlife feeding, and to connect them with more meaningful social activities. Second, to pay the increased penalty regime with a corresponding uplift in enforcement efforts so that the deterrence is not only higher in principle but felt in practice.

Sir, I turn now to the proposed expansion of the MCSTs' management funds permitted uses. In clause 16, the amendment to section 38(3) of the Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 states that "monies from a management fund may be disbursed for the following additional purposes: (a) to organise any social, cultural, educational or sports activity, or any similar activity, that benefits all subsidiary proprietors and occupiers; (b) to engage any legal services for the management corporation". In short, management fund monies may now be applied towards social, cultural, educational and sports activities, as well as engagement of legal services on behalf of the management corporation.

Management funds are, at their core, contributions made collectively by the subsidiary proprietors, residents who trust that their money will be managed prudently and in the interest of the estate. Any expansion of how these funds can be used, therefore, warrants careful scrutiny. Under the current framework, expenditures above a prescribed threshold must be authorised through an ordinary or a special resolution at the annual general meeting, ensuring that residents have a say in significant financial decisions.

I would like to ask the Ministry whether these same safeguards apply equally to expenditures under the newly expanded scope. If a management corporation wishes to draw on the management fund for a social event or legal engagement, would the existing resolution requirements still govern that decision? I raise this because the expansion, while bearing good intentions, opens the door to potential misuse if oversight mechanisms are not clearly extended to cover these new categories.

The use of management funds for legal services is of particular concern. Without clear parametres, there is a risk that funds could be directed towards legal proceedings that serve the interests of a few rather than the collective. I would ask the Ministry to clarify what safeguards are in place to prevent such outcomes and whether additional disclosure or reporting obligations will accompany this expanded scope.

Sir, expanding what the management fund can be used for is a meaningful shift in financial governance for strata communities. Getting the safeguards right is just as important as getting the scope right.

Sir, I wish to raise a final point concerning cost recovery by HDB in compulsory acquisition exercises. The clause in question amends sections 59, 63 and 67 of the Housing and Development Act, "enabling HDB to recover fees, expenses and legal costs from any compensation payable, whether in cases of property vesting under section 59 or compulsory acquisition under section 63".

According to figures released by MND, 203 HDB flats were compulsorily acquired between January 2020 and June 2022. Of this, 82% involved mortgage arrears. While this represents a small fraction of the broader home ownership population, each case is not merely a statistic, but a family in genuine financial distress.

In light of this, I would like to pose two questions to MND. First, will there be a cap on the amount that may be clawed back from compensation payable to affected households. Second, for families who face not only mortgage arrears but other concurrent financial obligations, whether the Ministry will include a statutory floor below which compensation cannot be reduced by deductions, to ensure that no family walks away from compulsory acquisition with an amount insufficient to secure alternative housing. To prevent abuse, the floor will be activated as long as the Government is satisfied that the family is truly in dire straits through standard evaluation procedures already in place for assessing means.

Sir, the Singapore Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill introduces meaningful changes across multiple domains, affecting residents of all walks of life. My remarks today have centred on four areas of concern: first, the need for a robust implementation framework governing the EUP; second, the increased penalties for wildlife feeding are accompanied by a proportionate social support; third, establishing clear safeguards around the expanded use of MCST management funds; and fourth, securing compassionate support for families facing compulsory acquisition by HDB.

Taken together, these are not merely technical amendments. They have real consequences for real Singaporeans. I urge the Ministry to address these concerns directly so that the Bill's intentions are realised, not just in letter, but in spirit, delivering outcomes that are fair, sustainable and humane for all.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

1.59 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, most of this Bill is uncontroversial housekeeping. Hence, I focus my remarks on Part 4, which is of a rather different character.

Part 4 asks this House to declare that the sums collected over a period of years by four agencies under MND, namely HDB, NParks, URA and the Commissioner of Building Control were always validly collected.

When a statutory body has collected fees without the clear rule-making authority to do so, the responsible course is to come to Parliament, put the position right, and ensure that the underlying functions continue on a sound legal footing.

That said, Mr Speaker, I think this House should take a moment of genuine interest in how we came to need Part 4 at all. These are not minor agencies charging obscure fees. Three of them are Statutory Boards with long histories and well-resourced legal and policy functions behind them.

The list of affected collections include some of the most routine transactions a citizen in Singapore will have with the state, paying to expedite a TOP application, paying to register as a renovation contractor, paying a release fee after a vehicle has been clamped in the car park at the foot of one's block. For each of these fees were being levied and collected over a period that the Bill, itself, implies ran for years on a legal basis that the Government now concedes was inadequate. It is a significant thing for this to have happened across four agencies under four different parent Acts, and to have gone undetected for as long as it did.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister a few a few questions, because this House and the public deserve clarity.

First, what is the aggregate quantum of the sums being validated under Part 4? How much money in total was collected under each of the four validating clauses and over what period? Moreover, how many Singaporeans have been affected by these collections? This is information this House should have before it is asked to put the matter permanently to rest.

Second, on what legal basis did each of these agencies think they had the authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place? Every one of these validated categories was presumably charged pursuant to something – a rule, a subsidiary instrument, an administrative direction or an internal policy. It would assist this House and bolster public confidence in the Bill to understand what the legal basis was in each case and why it was thought at the time to be sufficient? These are questions about how the relevant agencies arrive at the view of their own powers.

Third, how and when did the Government come to realise that there was a problem?

Fourth, what has the Government done to satisfy itself that this problem is confined to four agencies and the categories listed in Part 4? A defect of this kind arising across four agencies under four different parent Acts is not the sort of thing one expects to find in isolation. Is there something specific to the internal processes of these agencies that led to all four of them to independently arrive on a mistaken view of their rule-making authority, or is there a possibility that the rulemaking frameworks of our statutory bodies have a common weakness, which has now been exposed in these four cases, but may still be present in others?

Fifth, has a cross-Government review been commissioned in response to the discovery that led to Part 4? If so, who conducted it, what was its scope and over what timeframe? Are there other agencies, other fee regimes or other categories of collection which the Government has reason to believe may sit on similar uncertain legal foundations? Should this House expect further validating legislation in future sessions? If no such review has been undertaking, I would be interested to know, why not?

Sir, before we sign off on a retrospective validation covering years of collections under four separate statutes, I believe it is reasonable for the House to be informed about how and what else the Government knows about the matter and what it is doing about it.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen, not here. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun. Sorry, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.

2.04 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Mr Speaker, while amendments can be technical, outcomes are real for families, seniors and residents who interacts with public agencies every day, including my Fengshan residents in the private estates who will be undergoing our Estate Upgrading Programme (Silver Estate), the first of its kind; and my Fengshan residents in the heartlands who has had to deal with pigeon populations.

Sir, I will focus on the following three areas seeking clarity for my residents and for Singaporeans: the ambit of the BCA and its resources; enhanced custodial sentencing for feeding wildlife; and retrospective validation of fees and charges.

Mr Speaker, Clause 2 amends section 8, one of the BCA Act to confer the BCA to act as an agent of the Government in managing, implementing and administering programmes, such as the EASE programme, as well as to facilitate fixtures and enhancements, including the EUP as well for public spaces and infrastructures. Another Member had also earlier mentioned this.

I understand, however, that operationally, much of this work has already been done by BCA in partnership with other agencies. The question is beyond primarily formalising existing practice alone, to what extent would it materially expand BCA's ambit and how will BCA's mandate complement rather than overlap with the functions of existing agencies as well as town councils? In particular, what gaps or needs were identified that BCA is especially well placed to address, given regulatory and industry-facing expertise?

More importantly, I also seek clarification on how resident-facing roles will be effectively managed between BCA, Town Councils, agencies and HDB to avoid duplication and redirection. I also look forward to an update as to how this change will make a difference on the lives of our residents on the ground. To what extent can we see increase in efficiency as well as expediency? Will BCA be increasing its headcount, vendors or contractors, for the agency to be able to keep pace with its expanded functions as well as its key functions, including approving authority for build projects moving ahead?

I will move on next to the enhanced custodial sentencing for feeding wildlife.

Mr Speaker, Sir, pigeons, crows, koel or the "uwu birds", are but only some of the bird species who have found themselves enshrined in the Hansard. For some Members, they continue to be a mainstay in our appeals and petitions, and top of mind to manage and tackle. Of course, these amendments to protect public health and safety are critical and much welcome.

While the enhanced custodial penalty signals the Government is committed to tackling disamenities caused by invasive bird species, it may lead to unintended consequences, especially among seniors and the vulnerable. In the past year, I met several seniors who were fined for feeding pigeons. One even built a DIY bird bath at his kitchen ledge, so the birds could have a drink or for when temperatures rise.

So, awareness is still lacking and education is key. Many feeders were acting out of habit or compassion, mostly seniors or persons with cognitive impairment.

Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary please share the Ministry's renewed plans to partner with social service agencies to engage and educate the public, particularly seniors, about the dangers of feeding wild animals ahead of the enforcement?

While a Member called for a similar move earlier, I also would like to share some concrete examples of intervention that can be considered. For example, will the Government consider ramping up efforts to refer cases involving the elderly or cognitively impaired persons to social services agencies for support, including interventions, such as engaging individuals through frequent home visits, counselling, finding alternative activities or interactions with family members or volunteers, so that the offenders would make themselves feel less socially isolated?

Finally, would the Ministry also consider publishing data on warnings, prosecutions and custodial sentences disaggregated where possible by age or profile, so Parliament can review effectiveness of the suite of measures that are being implemented, and how impactful social support would be to mitigate illegal bird feeding. With clear thresholds, a graduated enforcement approach, strong social safeguards and proactive outreach, the amendment's intent can be achieved.

Finally, retrospective validation of fees and charges. I note that the Bill confirms the legality of fees collected before specified dates, while preserving the effect of existing Court decisions or ongoing proceedings and barring new lawsuits commenced after 7 April 2026. While such validation clauses may be necessary to provide legal certainty, they should also prompt reflection.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Ministry whether any of these retrospectively validated fees were previously subject of legal challenge or adverse judicial comment? If so, what lessons have been learned from these episodes and more broadly, what steps have been taken to strengthen internal processes and legal review, so that statutory powers to levy fees and charges are consistently clear, properly authorised and transparent going forward?

Mr Speaker, I raise these clarifications to underscore the importance of maintaining public trust in statutory administration as well as the safeguards in place to prevent similar issues from arising in future. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): In any amendment Bill, the key question that must be asked is: what difference will it make to the people and how will it benefit them?

I had earlier sought clarification on the expanded role of the BCA, the penalties for feeding wildlife as well as the retrospective validation of fees and charges.

Regarding the BCA, an explanation of how these amendments change the way BCA works with other agencies, such as HDB and Town Councils, would help Singaporeans identify which agency to approach. How should they go about doing so?

In addition, it is important for the public to understand how BCA will enhance the capacity of its staff and contractors, so as to ensure more efficient implementation, particularly in the approval of building projects.

Meanwhile, on the doubling of penalties for feeding wildlife, I acknowledge that such efforts to protect public health are important and must be given priority. However, preparatory measures should also be strengthened, so that the impact on seniors and those with cognitive needs can be addressed.

I recommend an integrated approach – early engagement, education and awareness, as well as collaboration with social service agencies are all important. For instance, cases involving seniors or persons with disabilities could be referred through home visits, counselling as well as support in identifying alternative activities. I also suggest that information be shared openly so that we can collectively review the effectiveness of these amendments.

Finally, on the retrospective validation of fees and charges. What aspects will be strengthened to ensure transparency and understanding?

Mr Speaker, though technical in nature, these amendments have a real impact on the lives of residents. That is why explanation, raising awareness, having the right approach and public education are important.

(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill appears to be technical, but it is necessary to understand how provisions will be implemented as they are implications for governance frameworks, coordination between agencies, public confidence as well as awareness. I look forward to the Ministry's responses.

Notwithstanding the clarifications, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

2.13 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. I am not going to speak on every part of the Bill, but instead, I wish to focus on five specific areas where the amendments directly affect residents' lived experience, professional pathways and public understanding.

My first point, it is about the expanded role of BCA in private residential estates. This Bill allows BCA to act as an agent of a government in managing, implementing and administering programme for upgrading of public spaces, infrastructure and facilities in private residential estates. The stated aim is to improve the quality of life of residents in those estates. I welcome this move.

Very often when we talk about estate upgrading, our mind turns to HDB estates. And this is understandable because HDB houses about 80% of our resident population. But ageing in place, mobility and safety, are not only issues faced by people who live in HDB but also many seniors who live in private estates too.

When I visit Faber Hills Estate in my constituency, I meet sizeable number of seniors there. And this Bill matters to them because it affects their daily living. This senior shared with me that even as they age, they no longer want to drive. They want to walk. They want to take public transport. They want to rely just on their legs.

Therefore, I welcome this Bill, the role that BCA plays in private estates to improve quality of lives.

However, I would like to ask the Minister if we could clarify what does quality of life? How is it defined in this case, and how do we measure? Because this phrase sounds simple, but it really can mean different things to different people. For one resident, quality of life could mean nicer landscaping. For another, it is better lighting at night. For an elderly resident, it is about being able to safely walk from the home to the bus stop. For those on wheelchair and walking aid, it is whether the pavements are even and whether they are safe enough for crossing.

So, I hope the Ministry would be able to share what indicators are we looking at to assess quality of life impact and such upgrading works. In other words, the question should not be, "Did we build something?" but it should be "Did we make life meaningfully better for our residents as a result of all these things that we are building?"

My second point concerns about the Bill's provision of BCA to provide administrative support services to bodies of the professional engineer board and strata title board. Could the Ministry also clarify what does this entail in practice? For example, does this refer to secretarial support, shared services, case administration, IT system service or operational functions? This will help us to better understand how this amendment improves efficiency while preserving substantive independence and professional judgement of these bodies.

Administrative support can sound mundane, but it shapes how efficiently and responsively public facing bodies will operate. If a professional board or tribunal has a good administrative support, applications can be processed faster, correspondence may be clearer and members of public may receive more timely response.

At the same time, administrative support should also strengthen efficiency without blurring the roles of relevant boards. So, I appreciate clarification on how BCA support will be structured.

Third, I would like to talk about URA's expanded role in coordinating transport utilities and other infrastructure planning. This, in my view, is an important amendment.

So, allow me to now return back to the issue of mobility, especially for our seniors. In my constituency, residents have shared their concerns about overhead bridges not having lifts. At Faber Hills estate, many residents have been asking for years whether we could build a lift in the overhead bridge linking from Faber Drive to NEWest Park because, honestly, they will prefer just to walk across the bridge to have their breakfast there.

Furthermore, residents have also requested for a lift for the overhead bridge at Block 343 Clementi for more than 10 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, it pains every single time when I go on house visits, residents say the same thing. They say, "David, every time I take a bus, and I stop in front of Block 343 there is a flight of stairs, we just stand there and wait for someone to come and help us to carry our groceries up." These lifts matter to the seniors because they have to climb up a flight of stairs. Hence, if we are able to build lifts on overhead bridge, this matters to our seniors.

My main point here is this – whether seniors living in private estate or public estate, the need for better infrastructure to support mobility matters to our seniors. This is especially true, as I said, for elderly seniors, residents with mobility issues, parents with prams or caregivers accompanying someone frail. An overhead bridge, without lift access, can be a real obstacle, especially in our mature estate.

So, when URA takes a clearer coordinating role in transport and infrastructure planning, will this help agencies, including LTA, where relevant, identify, prioritise such accessibility gaps more systematically, including overhead bridges without lifts?

I appreciate the agencies, such as LTA will continue to lead many of these efforts, but I hope the Minister can clarify how URA's enhanced role will improve coordination and responsiveness to the ground.

If URA's role is to coordinate the planning of transport, utilities and other infrastructures, then I hope the coordination will be felt not just in master plans or major development, but also in the small practical improvements that affect daily lives. Because sometimes the most meaningful infrastructure improvement is not the most dramatic one. It is the one that allows elderly residents to be able to make their journey independently, safely with dignity.

My fourth point concerns recognising pre-qualification of practical experience for architects and professional engineers. Let me just make this clear. I support this move.

For young people, entering the built environment, the path to professional registration can be a long and demanding one. It is not that after you graduate with an engineering degree, you immediately become a professional engineer. That is not true, because it is a long and demanding one today. Practical experience matter, because their practical experience helped to shape judgement, confidence and professional competency.

If a person has acquired relevant experience before formal qualification, then it is sensible whether this experience should be counted. This is especially important because if we want to attract and retain talent in the built environment sector because many young people want meaningful careers, but they also look at how long the pathway takes and whether the system recognises the work they have already done. So, in principle, I actually support this view and this direction.

However, the built environment is also one where public safety is directly at stake. Let me explain. Because architects and professional engineers make decisions that will affect building infrastructure and safety of our public.

So, while we make pathways more flexible, we must be careful that we do not dilute standards. Will the qualifying assessment remain robust enough to assure the public that the flexibility in pathways does not mean dilution in professional standards?

In my view, the right balance should be this: do not make pathways are unnecessarily long or rigid but also do not make flexibility to become ambiguous. If pathways are shortened, then public assurance must be strengthened.

My fifth point concerns the inclusion of hybrid plants under endangered species framework. I understand the intent. If hybrid plants derived from scheduled species are not covered, then there might be loopholes that could be exploited in illegal wildlife and plants trade, and Singapore has a role to play in preventing such trade and supporting conservation. I support this intent.

But I would also like to point out from a practical point of view, from an ordinary consumer, especially those who buy plants online. Many might not exactly know what a hybrid plant is. I will be honest to confess to everyone while preparing for this Bill, I also do not understand what exactly a hybrid plant is and I had to Google, "Oh, so this is how a hybrid plant looks like."

So, what am I trying to say here? Many consumers who are just buying plants, they really might not know what constitute a hybrid plant. So, they may not know its origin, whether it is derived from a regulated species.

So, I would like to ask the Government – how will the Government ensure that ordinary individuals do not unknowingly break the law? Will there be public education efforts explaining what kind of plants are affected? Will there be simple consumer-facing guidance with pictures or examples?

More broadly, could the Ministry clarify where the responsibility would lie in common scenarios when a consumer buys plant from an online overseas store or a local retailer sells plant without clearly indicating whether it might be a regulated hybrid? I raise this because strong regulation should go in hand with strong awareness.

I just like to make a brief point on the validation of past fees and charges. The views validate various fees and charges previously collected by agencies as BCA, HDB, NParks and URA. In plain English, this means that Parliament is asked to confirm that certain sums collected in the past are to be treated properly and legally collected.

I understand that from time to time legislation that may need to regularise technical gaps or clarify legal basis for administrative practice. But whenever Parliament is asked to validate past collections, it will be helpful for the Government to number one, explain clearly what happened; number two, whether any members of the public were materially affected?

While I have trust in the integrity of our public servants to do good by Singaporeans, public trust must continue to be sustained and strengthened when such matters are explained clearly and candidly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by saying that I support the Bill. As in many views of this nature, the real test is whether the residents will feel the difference if BCA were to take on estate upgrading in our private estate – when our private residential estate residents should feel that their daily mobility, safety and comfort have improved.

If URA is coordinating infrastructure planning, seniors should feel that agencies are working together to solve real access issues on the ground. If professional pathways are made more flexible, young people should feel that their experience is recognised while the public must remain assured that standards are not diluted. If hybrid plants are brought in within the regulatory framework, the ordinary consumer should be educated clearly so that compliance is practical and not confusing. And where past fees and charges are validated, the public should receive clear explanations, so trust is preserved.

Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

2.24 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, my colleagues have addressed other provisions in this Bill, including estate upgrading programmes, wildlife and strata management changes and updates to HDB's cost recovery framework. I have nothing to add on those parts.

My concern is Part 4, the retroactive validation of past fee collections. Parliament sometimes has to correct administrative mistakes when an agency has been collecting fees without proper legal basis and foundation, and that gap is discovered. This House may need to regularise that position. This is unremarkable in itself.

What is not unremarkable is the full scope of what Parliament is being asked to do. We are not simply being asked to validate past collections, we are also being asked to simultaneously extinguish citizens' rights to challenge those collections in court – permanently – for anyone who had not commenced proceedings before 7 April 2026, the date of the First Reading of this Bill.

This Is not mere legal housekeeping. It is a significant step and Parliament deserves the information to assess whether it is a justified one. We have not been given that information.

In 2023, when this House debated the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill, a Bill to enable President Tharman to hold international appointments in his private capacity with its operative provisions backdated to the date of his inauguration, then Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stated that "backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law". He went on to argue that backdating in that Bill was acceptable because no one was actually prejudiced.

That is one possible test for when retrospective legislation may be appropriate and a reasonable one and it is precisely a test that Parliament cannot apply today because the Government has not told us who was affected by these collections, by how much or for how long. We are being asked to bar citizens from bringing claims without knowing whether those claims have could have had merit.

There is a second point that the Government needs to address. In the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2024, which addressed wrongly charged Goods and Services Tax (GST) on Government fees, the Government drew a principled line. The 18 fees were acknowledged as genuinely wrongly charged, collected against its own policy intent were refunded.

Validation was reserved for a separate category. Fees the Government maintained were correctly charged in substance where the legal basis was uncertain due to inconsistent agency interpretation. Refund for what was wrong in substance validate for what was ambiguous in law.

This House approved that approach and now consider where the agencies referred to in this Bill sit on that spectrum. They did not merely charge fees on uncertain legal ground, they collected fees and in HDB's case made deductions from acquisition compensation without proper statutory authority. By the Government's own logic in 2024, that is closer to the category that warrants restitution. Instead, Parliament is being asked to validate without refund and without any account of what was taken.

Mr Speaker, I am not asserting that large numbers of people suffered serious harm. I do not know. Neither does this House because Government has not said.

For each of the four agencies in Part 4 – BCA, HDB, NParks and URA – Parliament has not been given the duration of the lapse, the total amounts collected, or deducted without authority, or any account of how many individuals were affected and to what extent. We are being asked to permanently bar legal proceedings without knowing the claims we are extinguishing.

The HDB compulsory acquisition deductions are where this matters most. When HDB acquires a resident's flat, the resident is owed compensation as of right. If HDB was deducting its own administrative and legal costs from that compensation without statutory authority, then affected residents receive less than what the law entitled them to.

Clause 18 prospectively authorises that deductions going forward. That is Parliament's prerogative. But Part 4 simultaneously declares that past deductions were always lawful and closes the door on any legal challenge. Those who had already commenced proceedings before 7 April retained their rights, but everyone else is permanently shut out from that date, an arbitrary line drawn at the moment of First Reading.

I would add only this. If the deductions were trivial and affected very few people, the Government can say so. The information exists. If the answer is reassuring, disclosure costs nothing. Its absence is harder to explain.

I will not dwell on this, but it warrants a brief observation. Four Statutory Boards under one Ministry have simultaneously been found to have operated outside of their statutory remit. The Bill regularises the legal position. It does not explain how this came about across all four agencies at once and it puts no mechanism in place to prevent a recurrence. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Bill that we are debating today touches a very fundamental question of fairness. In simple terms, certain Government agencies have been collecting fees from members of the public without legal authorisation. The Government now seeks to amend the law to retrospectively legalise these charges and to permanently close the avenue for affected citizens to seek recourse through the Courts.

What concerns me most is that among these unlawful charges are fees deducted by HDB when compulsorily acquiring flats. As my colleague, Mr Abdul Muhaimin, has pointed out, families facing compulsory acquisition of their homes are often already in very difficult circumstances. For these families, every cent that has been deducted is money that they can ill-afford to lose.

The Workers' Party recognises that administrative errors made by Government agencies can be corrected, but the way to correct a mistake should not be to use legislative power to wipe the slate clean on past wrongdoings or worse, to strip ordinary citizens of their right to seek justice.

The Government must be transparent and forthcoming. It must clearly state how many people have been affected by this error and the total sum involved. It should also explain why it is not considering refunding the fees that were wrongly collected.

The Government owes the public a clear and honest account of what has happened rather than using legislation to quietly draw a line under the matter.

(In English): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party's position is not that administrative lapses can never be retrospectively corrected. They can, and this House has approved such corrections before.

The concern now is more specific. Parliament is being asked to extinguish citizens' legal rights without being given the basic information to assess whether that is appropriate, who was affected, by how much and why restitution, that is, refunds to the affected individuals, especially those whose flats have been compulsorily acquired, was not considered. That information has not been provided.

The Government's own standard, set as recently as 2024, requires more than this.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.

2.33 pm

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, in particular, three sets of changes. These are the clearer mandates for the BCA and URA, the provisions that enable Government-funded upgrading in private residential estates, and the formal certification framework for endangered species under our environmental laws.

At first glance, these amendments may appear technical and disparate, but taken together, they speak to a deeper responsibility – the duty of stewardship, stewardship of our built environment so that our city remains liveable and humane, stewardship of our neighbourhoods so that no community is left behind as we renew and upgrade, and stewardship of the natural world that our children will inherit.

In a small and highly urbanised country, like Singapore, stewardship is not an abstract ideal. It is a daily discipline of care, planning and restraint. It requires us to think not just as users of our spaces, but as custodians of what we will pass on to the next generation. It is in this spirit that I support the amendments before us today.

First, on the changes to BCA and URA. Good urban life does not happen by accident. It is the outcome of deliberate planning, careful coordination and the steady work of many public officers whom residents rarely see. The amendments confer new statutory functions on BCA as the Government agency for upgrading programmes in private residential estates and expand URA's statutory mandate to coordinate not just land use but transport, utilities and other infrastructure planning.

This clarity of mandate is what allows agencies to act decisively instead of passing issues from one agency to another in a way that frustrates the public. Citizens do not experience the world in terms of which agency is in charge of which function. They experience whether the footpath is shaded and barrier free, whether the bus stop is sensibly located and whether a new development minimises disruption to daily life.

In a land-scarce city, like Singapore, this kind of integrated planning is essential to our quality of life. It determines whether an elderly resident can move independently using ramps and lifts, whether a parent pushing a stroller can reach the MRT station without navigating an obstacle course and whether we preserve green spaces as our city becomes denser.

I support these changes because they move us toward a model of urban governance where agencies are empowered to collaborate and to solve problems together. That is how we make a dense city feel humane, gracious and liveable.

Second, I support the policies that enable upgrading for private residential estates. For many years, we have rightly invested in upgrading and renewal for public housing estates. This has kept older HDB towns liveable and vibrant and it reflects our social compact that public housing should remain a good home throughout a person's life.

However, good urban life does not stop at the boundary of an HDB precinct. Many Singaporeans live in older private estates, in walk-up apartments, strata developments or landed homes where common spaces are ageing and accessibility features are lacking. By giving clearer statutory powers for Government-driven upgrading programmes to extend to private residential estates, we recognise that the quality of the environment in these neighbourhoods also matters for social cohesion and inclusion.

In some older estates, residents have shared concerns about uneven pavements that are dangerous for seniors or the lack of resting points between bus stops and homes on slopes. Some management corporations struggle to gather enough resources or consensus among owners to implement barrier-free access or senior friendly-features or even upgrading lifts.

These amendments provide a stronger legal footing for the Government to step in with structured upgrading schemes. This can support improvements that benefit the wider community, such as accessible paths, safer crossings, greened walkways, better drainage as well as intergenerational fitness and play areas and green spaces where young and old can come together, enjoying enriched social connections and a rejuvenated local community.

Of course, we must design cost sharing, co-creation and citizen consultation arrangements carefully so that homeowners are treated fairly and the voices of tenants, seniors and caregivers are properly heard. Done well, this is an investment in making every neighbourhood, public or private, a place where people of different ages and abilities can live well together.

Third, I strongly support the provisions that formalise certification for endangered species and related products. Singapore is a small country, but we are a significant node in regional and global trade. These amendments add weight to our existing commitments under international frameworks, such as CITES, and ensure that our participation is not symbolic. They carry real responsibility to ensure that our ports, airports and marketplaces do not become conduits for the exploitation of endangered wildlife.

But beyond regulations, we must also confront the profound suffering endured by the trafficked animals. When animals are trafficked, they are exposed to terrible conditions. They are crammed into carriers with poor ventilation for days if not weeks, with many dying from stress, dehydration and suffocation during transit. Those that make it into our homes suffer from physical and psychological trauma. The reptiles with spinal issues from overbreeding and the Indian star tortoises who struggle to adapt to tropical humidity are all examples of the cruelty inflicted on sentient beings if we allow such trade to take place on our shores.

A clearer certification framework, including for hybrid plants or products derived from scheduled species, gives traders, travellers and enforcement agencies a common understanding of the rules. It will help legitimate businesses to prove that their goods are compliant and it helps the authorities to act swiftly and fairly when there is suspicion of illegal wildlife trade.

As markets for exotic plants, animals and derivatives become more complex with hybrids, online trading and niche collectors, we cannot rely on outdated or vague definitions. Can we aspire to be a city that prospers while setting high standards for environmental stewardship? By tightening our endangered species regime and making certification more robust, we signal that Singapore chooses to acknowledge the incredibly hidden but rich native biodiversity.

Our precious and sensitive ecosystems support some of the rarest species on Earth – the Sunda pangolin, Singapore freshwater crab and straw-headed bulbul. Each illegally trafficked animal carries more than suffering on the individual level, but the potential to change our natural habitats and change our biodiversity and landscape forever. We must instead strive to upkeep the gentle balance of our natural world so that our children and many more after them may continue to marvel at natural wonder and the wisdom it brings to our society.

Last but not least, I would like to speak on the amendments made to the Wildlife Act 1965 with regard to wildlife feeding. Our current penalty framework has not been updated in decades and no longer reflects the seriousness with which we treat wildlife crimes or the subtle ways we harm the ecosystem through our actions, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. With this amendment, we solidify our stance on wildlife feeding and strengthen enforcement, sending a clear message – wildlife crimes are serious harms.

But more importantly, they also reflect a growing understanding that not all harms to wildlife come from malice. Many come from misguided kindness.

When residents feed pigeons and crows in our parks and public spaces, they often do so out of genuine compassion and love for animals. However, these birds are remarkably well adapted to urban life and are fully capable of foraging for their own food. In fact, it has been observed that pigeons often forage for food on open fields if they are not given human food.

Artificial feeding can disrupt the ecosystem, leading to increased competition with native birds and eventually culling in massive numbers when populations start to affect our human environment. The cruelty is beyond the feeding and culling, but the cascade of consequences onto our native wildlife and neighbours due to our actions. This amendment hopefully invites us to reflect more broadly on our relationship with the way we view urban wildlife.

Are these animals that we complain about encroaching into our spaces or have we rather encroached into theirs? Who truly belongs where and what does genuine co-existence look like? Can we truly be a city in nature if our greenery is sterile, quiet and homogenous?

We need more serious, ongoing conversations in our spaces. We must learn that kindness takes many forms and sometimes restraint is compassion and consideration.

Some may have noticed some banners that we have recently put up in Bishan East-Sin Ming trying to address these issues, with poems written in four languages reminding people that the truly kind act is not to feed the birds as they are able to forage for food on their own. Some described the posters as Shakespeare in the Wild.

I would like to thank Urban Birds Initiative Singapore for their collaboration with me to engage and educate our residents through these creative posters. But moving forwards requires not just poetic words but deep conviction and a willingness to change our attitudes and behaviours to understand that protecting wildlife often means stepping back and allowing wild animals to remain wild instead of feeding them. Only when we can peacefully co-exist with our wild neighbours can we honour our urban environments.

That said, I would like to put forth some clarifications about the amendments within this Bill.

First, on the changes of scope to the URA and BCA Act. How will the enhanced statutory coordinating role of URA interact with existing planning functions of agencies, like LTA, HDB and PUB, and what mechanisms will be used to resolve disagreements in priorities or timelines? Could the Government provide clearer criteria or examples of the types of projects where URA will now take the lead in coordination, versus where sectoral agencies remain the primary drivers? On the amendments pertaining to upgrading of private estates, what are the key criteria that will be used to identify which private residential estates can benefit from Government-funded upgrading and will there be a transparent application or nomination process?

How will the Government ensure that less well-off or older private estates, which may have weaker management corporations or more vulnerable residents, are not left behind compared to more organised and better-resourced estates? What types of works will be prioritised under these upgrading programmes, for example barrier free access, safety features, environmental sustainability or amenities and how will trade-offs be decided? How does the Government intend to maintain a fair balance between long-standing commitments to HDB upgrading and the extension of support to private estates, so that perceptions of equity are preserved?

On the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, has the Government assessed the compliance costs and administrative burden on small traders, nurseries, pet shops and logistics operators, and if so, what were the key findings? Will there be phased implementation, grace periods or targeted support, for example, guidance materials or clinics, to help smaller players adapt to the new certification regime?

While the amended penalties under the Wildlife Act serve as important financial deterrents, we must recognise that many bird feeders act out of genuine kindness. A CNA report on 17 March this year stated that, on average, there were nearly 320 cases of illegal bird feeding this year, with half of them involving seniors. Will the Government consider alternative forms of penalty for repeat offenders, such as corrective community service alongside psychological and social support?

This is crucial since illegal feeding often reflects a deeper issue: an epidemic of senior loneliness. For many elderly seniors, feeding birds provides purpose, connection and dignity. One of my recalcitrant bird feeders told enforcement officers from the National Environment Agency (NEA) that he continues to feed birds because his wife had appeared in a dream and tell him to do so.

Rather than only punishing this expression of unmet need, should we not address the loneliness itself through befriending programmes and community services? Enforcement can then become an act of care, protecting both wildlife and our lonely seniors. Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): A CNA report on 17 March this year stated that, on average, there were nearly 320 cases of illegal bird-feeding a year, with half of them involving seniors. Will the Government consider alternative forms of penalty for repeat offenders, such as corrective community service alongside psychological and social support?

This is crucial since illegal feeding often reflects a deeper issue – an epidemic of senior loneliness. For many elderly citizens, feeding birds provides purpose, connection and dignity.

One of my recalcitrant bird feeders told enforcement officers from NEA that he continues to feed birds because his wife had appeared in a dream to tell him to do so. Rather than only punishing this expression of unmet need, should we not address the loneliness itself through befriending programmes and community services? Enforcement can then become an act of care, protecting both wildlife and our lonely seniors.

This Bill reminds us that the law is not only about prohibitions and penalties but instead, helps us to be better stewards – about shaping and safeguarding the conditions for a good life, not just for ourselves but for those who come after us.

Good stewardship means well-planned and inclusive neighbourhoods, liveable homes across both public and private estates and a natural environment that we protect, recognising that we are not its masters but its caretakers.

(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill reminds us that the law is not only about prohibitions and penalties, but instead, helps us to be better stewards – about shaping and safeguarding the conditions for a good life, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after us. Good stewardship means well-planned and inclusive neighbourhoods, liveable homes across both public and private estates and a natural environment that we protect, recognising that we are not its masters, but its caretakers.

I support the amendments before the House and I am confident that if we carry forward this spirit of stewardship across Government, communities and individuals, we will continue to build a Singapore that is not only efficient and liveable, but also deeply cared for, responsibly governed and worthy of being entrusted to future generations.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun.

2.51 pm

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments on the Bill. Please allow me to address Members' comments in six broad areas.

The first area is on the expanded functions and duties of the BCA and URA.

Mr David Hoe asked about URA's expanded coordinating role and how it will interact with existing planning functions of agencies, like LTA, HDB and PUB.

First, let me clarify that URA already coordinates infrastructure and land use planning as part of its role as Singapore's national urban planning authority. URA works with different agencies through existing inter-agency platforms and administrative processes to ensure that infrastructure is implemented ahead of time. These are large-scale infrastructure which are planned and implemented to support developments, such as industries, public housing and transport facilities and train lines. URA's role here is to coordinate and resolve differences in priorities and timelines across different projects to ensure quality infrastructure can be delivered in an optimised way.

Therefore, what the amendments seek to do is to formally recognise URA's role and give it a clear mandate to coordinate the planning of infrastructure. As individual agencies, each have their own development timelines and priorities, URA will coordinate the planning and implementation of major infrastructure, such as road viaducts and underground utilities, such as water, gas and electricity networks above a certain scale, to ensure underground space is used efficiently and public disamenities, such as repeated road openings, are kept to a minimum.

The amendments do not supersede the primary planning responsibilities and functions of agencies, like LTA and HDB. These agencies will continue to lead planning and implementation of their development and infrastructure within their respective domains, such as for smaller-scale, municipal infrastructure. For instance, to Mr David Hoe's query, the retrofitting of lifts in overhead bridges will continue to be led by LTA. Agencies will continue to work together to resolve issues which require cross-agency collaboration.

With regard to BCA's expanded functions in managing upgrading programmes in private residential estates, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked about how BCA's role will complement that of other agencies, as well as about the resourcing for BCA. Mr David Hoe asked about the criteria for selecting private estates for upgrading, how works are prioritised and coordinated and how their impact is measured.

BCA will manage infrastructure upgrading projects in private residential estates. The respective roles of other agencies, such as HDB and NParks, remain unchanged. When needed, BCA will work with agencies to coordinate upgrading works, as well as engagements with residents. And on resourcing, we will resource BCA as necessary to carry out its functions.

Private residential estates are selected for upgrading based on a range of factors. For instance, under the EUP which enhances the publicly accessible common areas in private estates, MND considers factors, such as the estates' age and physical condition, the urgency of works needed and whether there is meaningful scope for improvement. The prioritisation of upgrading works is based on the specific conditions and needs of each estate, with a focus on improvements that directly enhance residents' safety, accessibility and liveability.

To Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik's question about the maintenance and upkeep of the completed works in EUP, the maintenance of upgraded infrastructure and facilities is undertaken by the respective agencies, such as NParks and LTA.

A resident-centred approach is adopted for the evaluation of upgrading works, to assess whether the upgrades make a meaningful difference to residents' daily lives. For example, under the recently launched EASE (Private) programme, BCA has introduced a post-installation feedback process to seek residents' views on their satisfaction with the application and installation process and to identify areas for improvement.

To Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik's question about the EASE (Private) programme, I wish to clarify that BCA appoints the contractors to install the senior-friendly fittings for eligible seniors to improve mobility and safety within their homes. MCSTs are not involved in this process. After installation, the owners or occupants would be responsible for the maintenance of the fittings. We have announced the details of the programme in February 2026 and the Member may wish to refer to the details of the programme on the EASE (Private) website.

Mr David Hoe also asked about the nature of BCA's administrative support to the Professional Engineers Board and the Strata Titles Boards, and the governance arrangements which will be put in place to ensure that the independence and judgement of the Boards is preserved.

I wish to assure the Member that BCA's role is strictly administrative. BCA provides routine back-office administrative support to the Professional Engineers Board Singapore and the Strata Titles Boards, such as in book-keeping and payroll processing. All regulatory, decision-making and adjudicative functions remain solely with the respective Boards. These arrangements allow the Boards to focus on their core functions, while benefiting from BCA's sectoral expertise and the economies of scale from shared administrative resources.

The next area is on the recognition of pre-qualification experience for professional engineers and architects. Mr David Hoe asked whether recognition of pre-qualification experience might dilute professional standards. The answer is no.

To be clear, this set of amendments allow the Professional Engineers Board and the Board of Architects to consider recognising relevant pre-qualification experience. Before doing so, the Boards will assess whether the pre-qualification practical experience is relevant and adequately contributes to candidates developing the competencies and skills expected of a professional engineer or registered architect.

The third theme of questions surround the validation of fees collected by MND's Statutory Boards, which Mr David Hoe, Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Andre Low and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim raised.

The fees and charges in question were introduced over the years by various Statutory Boards for the provision of specific services to support residents' and industry's needs. The policy intent is clear and consistent with cost recovery principles, but the fees were not formally prescribed in subsidiary legislation or the parent Act at the time of implementation, as they were first regarded as administrative charges.

Upon a 2025 review conducted by MND, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), MND was advised that it is better for these identified fees to be provided for in legislation. I wish to assure Mr David Hoe that the fees were appropriate and charged in good faith for services that were duly provided, based on the principles of cost recovery.

We also disagree with how Mr Andre Low and Mr Fadli Fawzi have characterised the issue. MND has chosen to bring this issue to Parliament as we are open and transparent about the matter. The fees charged were appropriate, not wrongly collected and we are validating to ensure that this is, moving forward, aligned with legislation.

Mr Andre Low also mentioned that 18 fees were acknowledged as genuinely wrongly charged, collected against policy intent and were subsequently refunded as part of the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2024. However, in those cases, only the GST was refunded and not the actual fee itself, as they were collected in line with policy intent. In the specific case of compulsory acquisition by the HDB, GST was not charged as part of the fees, and the fees were also collected in line with policy intent.

To Mr Muhaimin's point on compulsory acquisition of HDB flats, compulsory acquisition cases are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and some cases are not just due to mortgage arrears, but are due to the violation of the HDB lease, such as renting out the entire flat during the minimum occupation period.

On Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim's queries, the fees are validated up to the date on which the fees are regularised and not 7 April 2026. The cut-off date of 7 April 2026 is the date of the First Reading of the Bill. If the Bill is passed, legal proceedings with respect of the collection or payment of the fees will be prevented from being instituted between the First Reading and the date which the Bill comes into force.

This approach aligns to that for validations under previous Bills, such as the Transport Sector (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. None of the validated fees were previously subject to legal challenge or adverse judicial comment.

Moving forward, the agencies will assess if new fees or charges being introduced are related to the carrying out of statutory or regulatory functions and properly prescribe them in legislation if needed.

Fourthly, Mr David Hoe has asked about how the Government will ensure that ordinary individuals do not unknowingly break the law under the expanded endangered species framework.

Mr Speaker, NParks' approach is to tackle the issue upstream, through regulating traders and businesses alongside public education and outreach, so that ordinary consumers and hobbyists are not left in the dark. Information is available on the NParks' website and members of the public are welcome to reach out to NParks for clarity on whether permits or certificates are needed.

On the amendments to the Wildlife Act, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim and Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked about the Government's plans to educate the public about the impact of feeding wildlife and partnership with social service agencies, particularly for seniors. Ms Elysa Chen asked whether the Government would consider alternative penalties for repeat bird-feeding offenders, given that some offenders are seniors whose behaviour is linked to loneliness and a need for social support.

As repeat offences will no longer be punishable only with a fine, the Court will have other sentencing options under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, including community-based orders, such as mandatory treatment orders.

To Mr Abdul Muhaimin's question, NParks will continue to partner agencies, such as the People's Association and Town Councils, on enforcement and surveillance efforts to deter illegal wildlife feeding. We do need appropriate penalties to deter errant behaviours, but our approach is not merely to penalise. NParks will continue its public education efforts and partner with the Agency for Integrated Care, Town Councils and other agencies to engage elderly offenders and those with mental health or psychological needs, to understand their underlying needs and motivations that drive such behaviour to address misconceptions and to raise awareness on the negative impacts of bird feeding.

NParks offers feeders with mental health needs nature-based activities, like community gardening and bird watching, as alternatives to feeding. To Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim's question on whether the Government would publish data on illegal bird-feeding, we have previously shared data with this House and will continue to do so where appropriate.

Moving on to other miscellaneous amendments, Member Ms Valerie Lee asked about the use of management funds of MCST. To clarify, the present amendments that are part of the Bill had already been passed under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management (Amendment) Act 2017, and do not introduce new policy. The amendments reenact these provisions, moving them into the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to facilitate staged commencement. The substantive policy intent remains unchanged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although this Bill is largely technical in nature, it does play an important role in maintaining a clear and reliable legal framework to support the work of public agencies and delivery of services. I seek the House's full support for the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications. Mr Fadli Fawzi.

3.05 pm

Mr Fadli Fawzi: I would like to thank the Ministry for the clarifications. To begin with, I would like to clearly frame my concern with the Bill.

The effect of the Bill is to, now and forever, extinguish the ability of those affected to claim any sort of financial restitution from the Government should they need be. Against this, we also have no idea about the size of the people who are affected. We also do not know the quantum affected. Are we talking about hundreds of thousands, or hundreds of millions of dollars?

So, I hope the Ministry can understand why there is this deep concern with me, especially since as I have said before, these are not obscure transactions, but routine transactions which affect a huge number of people, a huge number of citizens of Singapore.

And again, these are things, like paying to expedite a TOP application, paying to register a renovation contractor, so I hope the Ministry understands why it is, one, important to get a sense of the numbers, both in the sense of the total amounts that need to be claimed and the total amount of people affected.

So, I would like to reiterate the questions that I have asked: how much money in total was collected under each of the four validating clauses and over what period? How many Singaporeans have been affected by these collections? How many are we talking about? And I think it is important to know this information before we decide on this matter.

The other thing that sort of makes me apprehensive is that, on what legal basis did each of the agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges? Because if I am not wrong, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that it was classified under administrative fees. But what was the legal basis of enabling them or allowing them to understand that they were allowed to charge these administrative fees?

So, again, I reiterate my second question: what legal basis did each of these agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place?

And lastly, it would be good for this House to reflect on why is it that this happened. So, I would also like to reiterate my last question on whether a cross-Government review has been commissioned in response to the discovery, because if it has happened for such a routine manner for over a long period of time, one can easily think or suspect that it may recur in other areas, so that we can nip this problem in the bud early.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. First of all, it is important that we frame this Bill amendment appropriately. The Member frames it as having those affected, whereby it seems to suggest that there was a mistake made in the past and therefore we are trying to correct it; and something that we have done in the past seem to be egregious in that sense.

But the spirit of this Bill is really about making sure that we move forward with the legislative backing and mandate for our agencies.

Previously, these everyday charges, with regard to allowing the four agencies to fulfil their statutory functions, were regarded as administrative charges. And services were indeed duly provided by the agencies, and tomorrow, services will still be provided for by the agencies. And in the course of providing these services, they had expended additional resources to deliver the services to the end user, manpower cost, administrative cost, system cost, with a view towards delivering services for the public.

And on top of that, these fees were charged on the basis of cost recovery for the provision of such services, and as I have mentioned earlier in my Opening Speech as well as the Round-up Speech, that the review was conducted by the Ministry in 2025 in consultation with AGC, and it was advised that it is better for the fees charged for carrying statutory and regulatory functions to be provided for in legislation, which is what we are doing today.

So, the framing of what Mr Fadli is saying that it is something that we are trying to claim back or claw back, it is not the right framing for which we are actually moving this Bill forward.

And essentially, it seeks to validate past collections of the same identified fees, which then further ensures that the fees are then subsequently legislated, the agencies are given the legislative backing to further promulgate these fees and going forward, the fees will be regularised through subsidiary legislation under relevant parent Acts.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Fadli Fawzi: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I just would like to make it clear. I have no problems going forward about regularising such provisions. My concern is that we have no idea about the actual numbers that are being involved and we are asked to extinguish the rights of these people to claim any monies. So, would the Ministry agree with me that the numbers are important, especially when assessing the risk of any oversight that has occurred with regard to the regulation of this Bill?

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: I would like to reiterate again to the Member that the nature of the fees that were charged previously was on account of the service that was rendered by the four agencies. The fees were openly prescribed to the extent to where the services were required by Singaporeans, as well as consumers.

And therefore, to that end, the services were indeed duly provided for by the agencies, and on top of that, it was on the basis of cost recovery.

I hope that reassures the Member that whatever fees that were rendered were indeed transacted appropriately through the different agencies, in accordance with their desire to make sure that the services were rendered for the public good, as well as that of the industry.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation. Because if I heard him correctly in his opening speech, he said that there was a comprehensive internal review, after which MND was advised that the fees and charges should have been prescribed in the legislation – should have been prescribed. But in his round-up speech, he appears to be shifting to say that MND was advised that it is better to do it. So, which is it?

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: It should have been prescribed and therefore, it was better that it would have been in legislation.

An hon Member: [Inaudible.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, if you like to respond —

Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, sorry, Sir. I should have stood up. On that clarification, then, we are given to understand that the collections were actually not legally authorised.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: The fees, which were previously considered as administrative charges, it has been advised to MND to ensure, moving forward, requires legislative backing to continue. Because it is in the service of the statutory functions of the four agencies that are part of this amendment.

Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My questions to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary are in three parts.

The first is a bit of a repetition of what my colleague, Mr Fawzi previously asked; but I do not believe his clarifications have been adequately addressed. It is simply about the numbers. Are numbers going to be forthcoming? Are they available? I would really appreciate a straight answer.

Second, on the nature of the fees collected, I think my colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim has also alluded to this. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier that fees and charges should have been prescribed in legislation – "should have been" being operative term. Now the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is using a number of different terms: "duly", "appropriate", "not wrongly collected", "good faith". I think the simple question is: were the fees illegally collected?

On a reading of the fact that this Bill is before us today, that we are regularising the position prospectively, it goes to follow logically that previously, it was not legal. So, perhaps, if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could clarify.

And finally, it is a very simple question: will there be refunds? If there are not going to be any refunds, why no refunds?

Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.

3.16 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun has explained several times that the fees were previously considered as administrative fees. And he also explained why services were provided and these fees were collected on a cost recovery basis, which is the correct principle.

So, if the Workers' Party agrees that that is the correct approach – where we provide service, we should recover the cost, which would otherwise have to be funded by taxpayers if we do not do that – then there is really no refund to talk about. Because this is not a wrong collection. So, I think that is the first point we go to be clear about.

The second point is, we did this review ourselves together with the AGC. It was not due to a complaint or a question posed by a Member of Parliament. We initiated this review and we decided that, to be upfront, to be open, to be transparent, we want to bring it to the House and do it properly.

Going forward, we want to make sure that we put it into legislation so that there is clarity. And for those fees that were collected in the past, and as I have explained, not wrongly collected – they were appropriate and they were correctly collected. We want to make sure that we validate and we do this through this Bill.

So, I hope we understand what this debate is about and what it is not about.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Minister, do you have the number of people affected and the quantum of monies we are talking about? Does the Government have that information and is it prepared to share that information in Parliament, before we vote on the Bill?

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I do not have the full number, the extent of the collective amount as asked by Mr Pritam Singh. But I can give him some indication in terms of what are the current numbers that we are looking at for specific agencies.

In terms of the fees charged by HDB, the fees range from $3.27 for the renewal of a policy under the HDB Fire Insurance scheme for owners who default in renewing the policy, to $545 for an application for HDB's consent to sell a commercial property not under the lodgement scheme.

We have other administrative fees, which are also levied. But in in total, specific to HDB, as an example, the total annual amount collected — Give me a minute just to make sure my numbers are right.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun, do you need more time to gather the numbers? Because we have been — Yes, Minister Chee.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I would like to explain to Mr Singh and the hon Members of the Workers' Party that it is not that we do not want to give them a number. It is that I hope they understand, these fees were collected over a long period of time – if I am not wrong, I think, since Independence when we first started. So, we may not have the full accurate record of all the amounts collected that we are able to share with them precisely. And that is why my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun was struggling a little bit to look for the exact information.

But let me put it this way. If we agree that that amount that was collected is not incorrect, inappropriate and wrongly collected, but it is because it was regarded as an administrative fee that was charged, then I think whatever that amount is – and we will certainly try our very best to see whether we can arrive at that number accurately – whatever the amount is, it is something which we are trying to do what is right going forward, validating the past collections and going forward, putting it into legislation.

So, I do seek Mr Singh's understanding that we are dealing with a situation which goes back decades, and it is not the last three years or the last five years, that we are able to obtain the information easily and accurately.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions. Hence, those questions were asked not once, but they were asked repeatedly, I believe. They were not answered.

Hence, we had to put that question out, even though I accept what the Minister is saying in terms of how far back it goes – like in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, we did not know that these charges went back to Independence. So, this is where we have to ask those questions – or some of them, I beg your pardon.

But I note Minister's points. And I hope that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have also understood the arguments that have been mounted by the Workers' Party Members of Parliament.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Singh for his comments and his understanding of the difficulty that my colleagues in MND have in trying to put the data together.

I also understand, certainly, where the Workers' Party is coming from.

I think it is correct that we be clear what we are putting before the House. And that is why we took effort to explain what this issue is, what is the objective, what are the steps that we are taking, in an open and transparent way. That is something that will be helpful for people to understand.

So, if we are able to come up with the information subsequently, to the best of our ability, I think we will certainly be happy to share this with Mr Singh and with the House. But for today, I do seek the support of Members from the Workers' Party that if they agree with the intent of what we are trying to do with this Bill, not just this provision, but the others as well, and the spirit of what we are trying to achieve and the explanations that we have given in terms of what happened, the nature of these fees, what steps we are taking going forward, I do hope to have their support too for this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. I understand the difficulty in getting the exact numbers. But is there an order of magnitude that the Government can provide as to how many such fees were collected and what is the total quantum? Just an order of magnitude, does not have to be an exact number.

And secondly, given the difficulty, is the Government prepared to refund these fees which were illegally collected? And is Government prepared to provide at least a window of time for the claimants to make a claim for these fees which were not correctly collected?

Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot agree with the way Mr Giam has characterised the issue with his latest remarks.

I have explained earlier that these fees were not illegally or wrongly collected, and they were not inappropriately collected. I have explained why: services were provided, costs were incurred. We were trying to recover the costs for providing these services. So, this is not a wrong collection that we are required to refund or we should refund.

This is quite different from the previous case that Mr Andre Low cited about the GST, where indeed, some of the amounts were wrongly collected. And for that one, the Government provided the refund. And in cases where indeed that mistake was made and the wrong collection happened, I think that is the correct thing to do. We have done it and we will do it.

But in this situation, I hope Mr Giam understands the explanation that I and my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun have been providing, which is that these were actual services that were provided, fees were collected based on cost recovery; and so, it was not a wrong collection.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Fadli Fawzi: I thank the Minister for the question. I just would like to again state my concerns with the issue.

Firstly, if these fees go a long way back and they affected a large number of people, because these are very routine things, then, would the Minister agree with me that there is a real risk of some kind of administrative oversight? That is one.

I think this is in contrast with the finality of the extinguishing of the claims. Because my concern is that there is a real risk of oversight due to the amount and people involved. We should not have such a finality of extinguishing their claims. And we should give them some time, or at least the option of refunds. So, that is one part of it.

The other part is a question that I raised earlier about how they decided they had the statutory basis to charge administrative fees. Because going forward, this will be useful as a process issue, to avoid being in such a similar situation, going forward.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had explained to Mr Fadli and to other Members that the fees were not wrongly or inappropriately collected.

On the issue of administrative oversight, I am not sure what he meant by that. If what he meant was that we wanted to make it clearer, yes, I agree. And that is why we are here. Because we want to make sure that going forward, the situation is clearer, there is less ambiguity. So, if that is what Mr Fadli meant, then, yes, we are on the same page. Because that is what we are trying to do with this Bill: make the situation clearer for the fees moving forward.

But we still need to deal with the past collections. What we are proposing, coming to this House in an open manner, a transparent manner, to explain what the situation is, is that we want to validate those collections which were done in the past because they were treated as administrative fees. And that is what this Bill is about.

I thought we had arrived at a position where there is some level of common understanding when I heard Mr Pritam Singh. So, I hope the Workers' Party Members could also agree with our explanation. Like what Mr Pritam Singh said, we understand where the Workers' Party is coming from as well.

If we could seek your support for this Bill based on the explanations that we have given, and as I had said earlier, we will go back and see to what extent is possible for us to put together the data that you have requested, we will try our best.

We will share this data with you, to the best of our ability, to put it together so that you have a sense of the quantum, you have a sense of the amount that we are talking about every year. That is something that we will attempt to do.

But for now, I seek your support for this Bill. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I am starting to hear the same questions and the same responses. If there are further clarifications, I will allow it, but let us not repeat the same questions because you will get the same answers. Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Fadli Fawzi: I think the Minister asked me what I meant by administrative oversight. What I mean is human error. In all systems, no system is perfect. I think it is perfectly understandable if people make mistakes. If this issue affects a large number of people, there is a larger chance that a mistake would be made. That is what I mean by administrative oversight.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Fadli for his clarification. I think we are talking about two separate things.

Today, we are not here to present a case where there was human error, because the fees were wrongly computed or wrongly collected. Today, we are here because the nature in which these fees were prescribed, they were treated as administrative. But going forward, we will put them into legislation.

And then there is this issue of what to do with the past collections, which we are proposing through this Bill, for Parliament's agreement, to validate.

So, two separate issues. That is why I said I do not think this is an issue of administrative oversight, in a way which Mr Fadli had described. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.

But would the Minister also not agree really that it is an important safeguard for citizens that the Government acts in accordance with its legal authority? And one of those principles is that if the Government is going to collect money like taxes, fees from the citizens, then it has to be properly authorised by Parliament?

The fact of the matter is that those past collections were not authorised, and that is why AGC has said that they should have been prescribed. That is why we are here today.

Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Please allow me to clarify Ms Lim's point.

It depends on how the fees are being classified. If they are classified as administrative fees, the fees can be collected by the agencies. In this case, they are considered regulatory, and therefore, the advice is that it is more appropriate, it is better if we put it into legislation going forward. So, that is what we have done.

I think that is an important point that I need to clarify. It is not that for these administrative fees, we are unauthorised to collect. That was not the case.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Minister, I do not want to belabour the question. Was MND advised, after the review with AGC, was it the AGC's position that collections before the First Reading of the Bill were illegal?

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, my understanding from the review was that AGC felt that rather than leave it as an administrative arrangement, it is better, given the nature of these fees, for us to put it into legislation. So, that is what we are doing.

But AGC also supported – we would not be able to present this Bill if it is not with the support of the AGC – that we come to Parliament and seek Parliament's approval for the Bill to validate the past collections. That is what we are doing.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, that does not really answer the question. Was it the AGC's position that the collections hitherto were illegal?

Mr Chee Hong Tat: I have explained this earlier, Mr Speaker, that AGC's advice to us was that these fees, because we considered them as administrative, it is better going forward from a legal point of view to put them into the legislation. That is what we are doing.

We do not want to leave this loose end unaddressed about the past collections. The way in which we address this is to bring the Bill before the House in an open manner and to explain to the House this is what happened, this is what we are proposing, and to validate these past collections. Because they were treated as administrative fees in the past – not that they were illegal or inappropriate or wrongly collected, as a few Members have used those terms. That is not the case. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister for National Development", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Correction By Written Statement section.]

But for avoidance of doubt and to reduce ambiguity, it is better to bring it before the House and to validate these fees through this Bill.

That is the approach that we are taking. I hope, as I said, to be able to get the support from the whole House in terms of how we deal with this so that we can move forward. But going forward, the fees will be part of the legislation. So, we will be in compliance with the advice from AGC, arising from the review.

3.38 pm

Mr Speaker: Let me put the question to the House now. The question is, "That the Bill be read a Second time". Those who agree, say "Aye".

Hon Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: Those who disagree say "No".

Some hon Members: No.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, obliged if you can record our dissent, please.

Mr Speaker: Okay, we will have that recorded. Could those who want to have their dissent recorded, please stand?

Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat stood for their dissent to be recorded.

Mr Speaker: Okay. You may sit. I think the "Ayes" have it, the "Ayes" have it.

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. – [Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 –

Mr Speaker: Clause 2. Minister for National Development.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 2 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 4, line 13: to leave out “Sewerage and Drainage Act 1999” and insert “Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act 1999”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 –

Mr Speaker: Clause 20. Minister for National Development.

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 20 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 24, line 10: to leave out “Sewerage and Drainage Act 1999” and insert “Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act 1999”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr Speaker: The question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time". Those who agree, say "Aye".

Hon Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: Those who disagree say "No".

Some hon Members: No.

Mr Speaker: Those who wish to have their dissent recorded, could you please stand?

Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat stood for their dissent to be recorded.

3.44 pm

Mr Speaker: You may sit. Thank you. I think the "Ayes" have it.

Bill read a Third time and passed.