Causes of Time Lags in Data Used to Determine Eligibility for GSTV – U-Save Rebates

3 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the finding of the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) Report for the financial year 2021/2022 that GSTV – U-Save rebates could have been given to ineligible households (a) what are the reasons and root causes for the reported time lag issues in the data used to determine eligibility; (b) whether there are households that are eligible but do not qualify during the initial eligibility assessment; and (c) if so, how many are there and whether these households have since received their rebates.

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Deputy Speaker, the substance of my response today will also effectively cover a similar Parliamentary Question (PQ) filed by Ms He Ting Ru¹ for a subsequent Sitting. If Ms He is satisfied with the response today, then she may wish to withdraw her question after this session.

Sir, MOF uses data from various Government agencies to determine the eligibility of households for the GST Voucher (GSTV) – U-Save rebates. This way, Singaporeans need not apply for the rebate and will automatically receive the rebates in their utilities accounts.

The data used include the identities of the owners and occupiers of HDB flats, the number and types of properties they own, and their citizenship and living status. The relevant Government agencies have processes in place to keep their databases updated. For additional assurance, MOF also engages an external auditor to conduct an annual audit on the allotment logic for U-Save rebates, to make sure that households are given the correct amount of rebates. For the U-Save payments that were the subject of AGO's report, no errors were detected during these prior checks.

One of the eligibility conditions for U-Save rebates is that the household must include a living Singapore Citizen. From AGO's observations, some households were given rebates that they were not eligible for, as the sole Singapore Citizen household member had already passed away as of the date used to determine eligibility. The error arose as there was a time lag in some deceased citizens' living status data, due to legal processing of records after their deaths had taken place. For example, the date used to determine eligibility was 1 December. The citizen's death on 30 November, that is a day before, might not have been updated in agencies' database until after 1 December, as some time is taken to document and process the death record. So, the household was tagged as being eligible. By the time of the AGO audit, the updated data showed the date of death as 30 November and the household concerned would not been eligible.

While we try to strive to keep our data updated as soon as possible, there are practical constraints. This time lag issue affected about 3,100 households, or about 0.3% of all households living in HDB flats. There were another 23 cases of U-Save rebates given even though there were no Singaporean Citizens in the household, due to errors in agencies' databases. Time lag and data errors were the two sources of errors found during the AGO audit.

On Dr Tan's question about those who qualify after initial assessment, eligibility is determined on a pre-determined cut-off date. Those who do not qualify on that date will not be eligible for the relevant round of rebates. However, should their circumstances change after that date such that they subsequently meet the eligibility criterion, they will be included in the later disbursements of the rebates, provided of course that they remain eligible at the next cut-off date.

As for Dr Tan's question on whether there are eligible households who have missed out on the U-Save rebates, we have not found any system flaws resulting in this. Any feedback or appeals regarding eligible households who may not have received their rebates is investigated to ensure that eligible households are not left out.

MOF has commenced recovery of the rebates given to ineligible households. We are working with data agencies to tighten our operational processes to ensure the use of latest available data to administer the GSTV – U-Save scheme.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. I have got one supplementary question. Sir, some of my Clementi residents have observed, that sometimes the GSTV – U-Save rebate for a particular month, might not be credited in time for the SP group invoice for that month. For example, we have met Clementi residents, who, for the April invoice by SP group received the April rebate, but for the July invoice, had not yet seen the July rebate in that July invoice. Can I ask MOF whether the Ministry tracks that the GSTV – U-Save rebates are distributed in a timely manner and in particular, implemented in the service providers such as SP Group so that they arrive in a timely way for families who need that help?

I ask this because some Clementi families have observed that when a family is facing cash flow problems in a difficult time with a rising cost of living, when the rebate that they expected to see in that particular month does not show up in the SP Group invoice, it comes as a surprise and a worry. We will help these families on the ground, but we hope agencies can close the loop with SP Group as well.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, as a general rule, the rebates are given or credited into the households' accounts in the months that they are disbursed. So, if there are specific instances like this where that is not the case, then I would encourage the Member or other Members who encounter this, to raise this with us and we will see what is the cause. I mean, sometimes it could be, for example, that the resident opened the account after the crediting date, things like that on the ground, but those will be dealt with by appeal.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): I thank the Minister for the response on my Parliamentary Question (PQ) that was filed for tomorrow. I take the point that there can be limitations on how quickly the data can be updated because, as the Minister explained, sometimes, there is a bit of a time lag. But given that there is going to be some clawbacks and reimbursement steps to be taken, and also, it probably is quite a stressful situation for the households involved, when previously, they received the rebates and now they are being asked for some clawbacks.

I am just wondering are there any steps that can be taken to prevent this from recurring? After all, over 3,000 households were involved. What are the steps being discussed between the agencies to prevent this from happening again?

The second point is, the Minister stated that action has already been taken to recover the sums that were erroneously disbursed. I am just wondering is there a timeline for this to take place and, at the moment, how far is MOF through this process? How many households have actually had the amounts clawed backed from them?

And the last point: there were 3,166 ineligible households identified. Is there any further action that will be taken to identify whether there are any other households involved in this or is the number of households already taken as 3,166?

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Let me deal with the last one first because she asked, are we just taking it at this figure? As I mentioned in my reply earlier, the eligible households number was taken at a particular date and then by the time the AGO audit was conducted, that would be a subsequent time and the databases would have been updated. So, it is essentially comparing what was the database as at the cut-off date, with the updated database. So, I think, that sort of circumscribes the numbers and that is how we were able to arrive at these numbers.

The other question she asked was, given that there is a clawback and it can be stressful for families, are there steps which can be taken to prevent this from happening? We would obviously do our best but perhaps it would be useful for Members to understand the process.

The process is the agency that has the information on living status, whether you are born, or whether you have passed on, is ICA. And ICA then passes that to HDB, who will then check who is the owner living there, whether it is a tenancy occupier and then they pass the information to MOF. So, the initial part is ICA receiving the information. And really, that information comes from the family. Even if we want to speed that up, you also have to be sensitive to the family because you cannot say, "Your family member is dead. Please go and file your documents now". That would not be sensitive either. So, I think we do have to be sensitive to the families and bear in mind that it may be unavoidable that there is a bit of a time lag. Of course, we will remind them as soon as possible. And, of course, if it comes to the attention of HDB or any of the agencies we would likewise remind them.

So, we will do as much as we can to tighten the process, but bearing in mind that you must also give some time to the residents to be able to update their records. And then in terms of the action taken to recover, what is the timeline? As soon as possible. The Member asked if I have the exact figures now, how many have been recovered or not? I do not have the exact figures at the moment, it is still in process, but I think the Member can have the assurance of knowing that we are doing this as soon as we can.