MP uses phone calculator during Bill debate as WP presses for figures on fees collected by 4 agencies

MPs debate ‘administrative’ fees and charges by BCA, HDB, NParks, and URA in Parliament

A debate over the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill led to a lengthy exchange in Parliament between members of the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the Workers’ Party (WP).

Passed on Thursday (7 May), the Bill included amendments to give formal legislative backing to certain fees and charges that had already been collected by four statutory boards under the Ministry of National Development (MND).

These fees had previously been treated as administrative charges, but MND said it was later advised that they should have been expressly set out in legislation.

The agencies involved are the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), Housing and Development Board (HDB), National Parks Board (NParks) and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for National Development Syed Harun Alhabsyi led the debate on the Bill.

Dr Syed Harun seen flipping through notes and using phone calculator

According to Dr Syed Harun, the affected fees and charges included those for expedited building inspections, temporary occupation permits, animal permits, species certifications, and other related services.

He said the fees had originally been treated as administrative charges for services or enforcement activities.

However, following an internal review, MND was advised that such fees should have been expressly prescribed in legislation.

Despite repeated questions from several WP MPs, Dr Syed Harun did not provide a full figure for the amount collected through the affected fees, or the number of people who had paid them.

The back-and-forth involving Dr Syed Harun, National Development Minister Chee Hong Tat, and several WP Members of Parliament (MPs) lasted almost an hour.

Towards the end of the exchange, WP Secretary-General Pritam Singh asked whether the Government had figures on the number of people affected and the quantum of fees collected.

Dr Syed Harun replied that he did not have “the full number of the extent of the collective amount”, but tried to give an “indication” using current examples.

He was then seen pausing and flipping through several pages of notes for nearly a minute before citing some HDB-related charges.

Dr Syed Harun later continued looking through his notes, before appearing to make several calculations on his phone.

Fees collected over long period, hard to provide full record ‘precisely’

After another pause while Dr Syed Harun went through his documents, Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng called on Mr Chee to speak.

Mr Chee said the fees had been collected over a long period of time, possibly “since independence”, and that determining the full amount would take time.

He said the ministry might not have the “full, accurate record of all the amounts collected” to share “precisely”, which was why Dr Syed Harun was “struggling a little bit to look for the exact information”.

Mr Chee added that the Government would try its best to arrive at an accurate figure.

However, he urged the House to first accept the Government’s position that the fees were not wrongful collections, but administrative fees charged for services provided.

After several more exchanges over the legality of the fees, including WP MP Gerald Giam’s characterisation of them as having been “illegally collected”, Parliament proceeded to vote on the Bill.

The Bill was passed, but all 11 WP MPs present recorded their dissent.

This marked the first time the WP formally recorded its dissent against a Bill in the current parliamentary term, which began in September last year.

WP MPs ask about legal basis of fees

Earlier in the debate, WP MP Fadli Fawzi questioned Dr Syed Harun on the legal basis for the fees collected by the four statutory boards.

He said the amendment implied that the collection of these fees had gone on “for years on a legal basis that the Government now concedes was inadequate”.

Mr Fadli also pointed to the length of time involved and the fact that the issue affected four agencies under different parent Acts.

“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,” he said.

He asked how much money had been collected through the affected fees and charges, and whether a broader cross-government review had been conducted after the issue was discovered.

Non-Constituency MP Andre Low similarly said it was important for the Government to disclose how much had been collected and how many people were affected.

“If the deductions were trivial and affected very few people, the Government can say so. The information exists,” Mr Low said.

He added: “If the answer is reassuring, disclosure costs nothing. Its absence is harder to explain.”

No refunds as fees were not wrongful collections, says Chee Hong Tat

Mr Low later questioned the legality of the fees and asked directly whether refunds would be provided, prompting Mr Chee to clarify the Government’s position.

Mr Chee reiterated that the fees and charges were administrative in nature and were meant to recover the cost of services provided by the agencies.

Without such fees, these services would “otherwise have to be funded by taxpayers”, he said.

Mr Chee said there was “really no refund to talk about” because the fees were not wrongful collections.

He added that the matter had been brought to Parliament in the interest of transparency, and maintained that the fees were appropriately collected as administrative charges.

Also read: No plans for govt to regulate secondhand smoke at home, says Janil Puthucheary

Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.

Featured image adapted from MDDI Singapore on YouTube.