Mr Tan Chuan Jin in Parliament

By Andrew Loh
[*Please see latest update below] According to a Channel Newsasia (CNA) report on 29 May, the Minister of Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, was reported to have said in Parliament that “there is nothing to stop PRs from continuing to own property in Singapore, even if they have left.”
CNA later removed this part of its report altogether, without any explanation. (See here: “$400m withdrawn each year by CPF members leaving S’pore”)

Deleted part of CNA report
Deleted part of CNA report
The CNA report caused much anger among the public, and the removal of the particular part of its report caused confusion.
Did the minister say what CNA reported him as having said?
Or did CNA misreport what the minister said?
The transcripts of the minister’s reply – to a question posed by NCMP Lina Chiam – in Parliament will only be made available to the public in about one week’s time.
In the meanwhile, however, it would seem that Mr Tan is wrong, if he indeed said that “there is nothing to stop PRs from continuing to own property in Singapore, even if they have left.”
In fact, in November 2012, the Law Minister, K Shanmugam, made a statement in Parliament during the Residential Property (Amendment) Bill 2010 hearing that PRs are not allowed to retain thei property after they have given up their PR status.
In full, this is the relevant part of Mr Shanmugam’s speech which you can view here [emphasis ours]:

Requiring ex-Singapore Citizens and ex-Permanent Residents to dispose of their Restricted Properties
“The final group of key amendments deals with the disposal of Restricted Properties belonging to ex-Singapore citizens and ex-Permanent Residents (PRs), and to foreign persons beneficially entitled to Restricted Properties through inheritance. Our policy is that only foreigners who are PRs and who have been given specific approval under the RPA can own Restricted Properties. Foreign beneficiaries who inherit such properties and Singapore Citizens and PRs who renounce or lose their citizenship or permanent residency, must dispose of their interests in the properties in a timely manner.
“Currently, the executors or administrators have ten years to dispose of the foreign beneficiaries’ interest in a Restricted Property if the beneficiaries do not qualify for approval under the RPA. As the estate administration process has been simplified with the abolishment of estate duty in 2008, we will shorten the disposal period to five years.
We will now also require individuals who renounce or lose their Singapore Citizenship or Permanent Residency to dispose of their Restricted Properties. The amendment will address the current anomaly in our laws whereby an ex-Singaporean or ex-PR can continue to hold on to their Restricted Properties.”

In an article on the TODAY newspaper in October 2010 following the changes, the issue was raised by the newspaper:

“[The] Government’s decision to force those who give up their citizenship or their permanent residency status to sell any landed property they have here appears to be rather harsh. Under the new rules, such people will have to dispose of their landed properties within two years or face a penalty of $20,000 or a three-year jail term. It does not seem to matter if the landed property in question is a small terrace house or a huge mansion.”

Neither the Manpower Ministry nor Mr Tan has clarified if Mr Tan said what CNA reported him as having said, or corrected what Mr Tan supposedly said.
It indeed seems that the minister was wrong.
*Update on 31 May 2014, 18:40hrs – Facebook post by Mr Tan:
TCJ310514


 
TOC has written to the minister to seek his clarification and also to seek his assistance to answer the following questions.

  1. How many Permanent Resident (PR)s own resale HDB flats.
  2. What were the statistics of PRs who own HDB resale flats who have given up PR.
  3. Whether all these persons have disposed of their properties pursuant to the Residential Property (Amendment).
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

烟霾困扰多年,何处是个头?

回溯2016年1月28日,工人党非选区议员贝理安,在国会提问财政部,政府可有监督,国家主权基金淡马锡控股和政府投资公司是否有投资在涉及烟霾问题的公司? 如有,政府投资公司(GIC)和淡马锡,在这些公司又投资多少?又如何确保他们的投资,不被用来用在支持导致霾害的活动? 当时的财政部长王瑞杰作出书面答复,是这么回答的:GIC和淡马锡的投资是相关公司的责任,政府则监督他们整体表现。两家公司“纯商业基础上运作,以最大化长期的经调整风险回酬。至于公司投资决策,完全独立于任何政府干预。 这是我们致力维持的管理原则。” 声明中称,淡马锡和GIC的投资活动,旨在持续性的基础上确保长期回报。而投资在缺乏环境永续性行为的公司,将对长期投资带来负面影响。 “淡马锡已声明全力响应零焚烧的开垦政策,也呼吁油棕公司和业者这么做。至于GIC也告知政府,GIC在印尼投资的油棕公司,已确认他们遵循零焚烧政策。”   从有关答复,再对比贝理安质询,究竟国家主权基金公司有无投资在这些涉及霾害公司?只能说答复是何等委婉迂回,仅表示两家企业“独立于政府干预”、“需最大化长期回酬”、以及淡马锡和GIC都已响应、或确保所投资油棕公司已响应零焚烧政策云云? 所以,究竟淡马锡和GIC,在印尼投资的油棕或种植园有多少?那些新加坡投资的公司涉及霾害? 工人党也配合最近烟霾问题,重新其中一个工人党脸书专页One WP, One…

MOM refuses to publish names of all errant companies which discriminate against hiring S’poreans

In Parliament yesterday (15 Jan), Minister of State for Manpower Zaqy Mohamad…

Masagos Zulkifli warns people to not participate in social gatherings as Singapore exits circuit breaker period

As Singapore officially enters Phase 1 of its circuit breaker exit strategy…

【选举】徐顺全电视演讲:信任不是用嘴证明,是用行动!

昨日(2日)武吉巴督单选区民主党候选人徐顺全在电视发表演讲。针对人民行动党秘书长李显龙在上届大选中承诺要努力减轻人民的生活,徐批评李显龙没信守承诺,新加坡依然处于高消费的生活形态,甚至还要调涨消费税,和引进外籍人士与国人竞争工作机会,因此呼吁人民勿再相信人民行动党。 “在上届大选中,李显龙要选民相信行动党,并承诺将会尽力减轻人民的生活成本,然而,他并没有信守承诺。通过水价、市镇会费、医疗费用、电费、公交费、学费等方面,逐渐提高了我们的生活成本。” “很快地,他将增加消费税,和引进许多外来人士与我们竞争工作机会。新加坡人,无论男女老少,前途黯淡。所以相信人民行动党?信任从来就不是用嘴巴证明,而是用行动证明。” “更糟糕的是,我们被告知组屋价格永远都不会下降,但如今,人民行动党承认,组屋价格将在99年租约期结束后将会降值。” 除了上述问题,徐顺全也提及有关部长薪水的问题,即使是初级部长,每月工资最低可达到10万元,并将部长薪水与新加坡人民平均薪水做比较。因此,民主党主张将致力于建设一个充满希望和改变现今问题的新加坡 “部长们不用担心挥霍自己的薪水,因为他们的薪水如同天文数字。总理每月收入可达20万元,即使是初级部长,每月工资最低达10万元,这是一个普通新加坡人要工作多久才能获得回报?” “民主党致力于改变新加坡未来,提供新加坡新希望的的政党。我们将尽一切所能接近我们的理念,改变新加坡。” 民主党也表达4Yes1No的愿景,4Yes即指暂停消费税、推出被裁员工的福利计划、为老人提供每月500元的津贴;1No则指对1千万人口说不。 徐顺全也指出,民主党的信念从未动摇过,而且政治从来就不是美化或充实自己的工具。相反,他是为了人民说话的管道。他也承诺会做到人民期待的在野党,即给予人民行动党合理的批评,根据数据结果督促执政政府。 “数十年来,民主党的信念从未动摇过。对我们而言,政治从不是美化或充实自己的工具,反而是为你所发声。我们也致力于充当你想要的在野党,一个称职、建设性、富有同情心的在野党。一个负责人的在野党理应根据真实数据和结果,给予人民行动党合理的批评。” “民主党本着以上的精神,将持续为国家服务,以自豪又谦卑的精神服务人民。我们也秉持这种精神,邀请你们一同建设更加光明和希望的新加坡。”