Parliament validates MND fees that should not have been collected as admin charges
Workers' Party opposed the move citing lack of data, but the government said comprehensive figures, including the number of people affected, were not readily available.
by Vanessa Lim · CNA · JoinRead a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: Parliament passed a Bill on Thursday (May 7) validating past fees charged by four government agencies, with the Workers' Party (WP) opposing after raising questions about the sums collected and the number of people affected.
The Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill set out amendments to several Acts, which Senior Parliamentary Secretary for National Development Syed Harun Alhabsyi described as “largely technical and operational in nature”.
Among the amendments, it proposed that certain fees and charges imposed by the four agencies under the Ministry of National Development (MND) – the Building and Construction Authority, Housing and Development Board, National Parks Board and Urban Redevelopment Authority – be prescribed in legislation.
The fees in question include charges for the expedited inspection of buildings, the processing of temporary occupation permits, and animal permits and species certifications, among others.
CNA Games
Guess Word
Crack the word, one row at a time
Buzzword
Create words using the given letters
Mini Sudoku
Tiny puzzle, mighty brain teaser
Mini Crossword
Small grid, big challenge
Word Search
Spot as many words as you can
Show More
Show Less
Dr Syed Harun said the fees and charges were originally treated as administrative charges for specific services or enforcement activities. Following a comprehensive internal review, however, MND was advised that they should have been prescribed in legislation from the outset.
The Bill also seeks to validate fees already collected by the four agencies, ensuring such charges are formally "provided for in legislation" going forward.
WP PRESSES FOR DATA
WP Members of Parliament (MPs) repeatedly pressed for figures on the total quantum of fees collected and the number of people affected, arguing that parliament could not properly scrutinise legislation that both validated past collections and extinguished potential claims without that information.
MP Fadli Fawzi questioned why validation was necessary, saying the proposed change implied that fee collection "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,” he said.
He asked whether a cross-government review had been commissioned when the gap was discovered.
Non-Constituency MP Andre Low drew a parallel with a 2023 debate on a Bill that backdated provisions related to President Tharman Shanmugaratnam's international appointments, noting the argument then was that backdating was acceptable because no one was 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,” said Mr Low.
“I am not asserting that large numbers of people suffered serious harm. I do not know. Neither does this House because the government has not said.”
WP chief Pritam Singh later asked whether the government had data on the number of people affected and the total sums involved, and whether it was prepared to disclose this before the vote.
Party chair Sylvia Lim raised the need for proper parliamentary authorisation when the state collects money from citizens, while WP MP Gerald Giam asked if at least an "order of magnitude" estimate could be provided.
MND SAYS RECORDS NOT READILY AVAILABLE
National Development Minister Chee Hong Tat said comprehensive figures were not readily available.
“It is not that we do not want to give you a number … These fees were collected over a long period of time, if I’m not wrong, since independence, when we first started," he said. "So we may not have the full, accurate record of all the amounts collected that we are able to share with you."
He added that the ministry would try to compile and share the data subsequently.
Both Mr Chee and Dr Syed Harun rejected WP's suggestions that the fees had been wrongly or illegally collected.
Mr Chee said the charges had been imposed on a cost-recovery basis for services rendered and were treated as administrative fees at the time, and there was therefore no obligation to issue refunds.
Sign up for our newsletters
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app