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 (See here: “$400m withdrawn each year by CPF members leaving S’pore”)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

Former CEO of NTUC Income calls for “collective protest”

Former CEO calls for protest over Income’s cut in bonus for policy holders.

Elevated WHO risk assessment level on Covid-19 sparks panic buying across nations

On Friday (28 February), the World Health Organisation (WHO) raised its Covid-19…

穆仁理坚称组屋区已有现成“人行道” 惟网民反映怕“天降横祸”

民主党秘书长徐顺全,发文反映武吉巴督其中一座组屋,缺乏合适的人行道;该区议员穆仁理坚称,组屋区已有可供居民使用的现成步道,包括在组屋底层的空间。 惟一些网民也表达他们的担忧,不是他们不愿使用这些“步道”,实在是过往曾发生高空抛物案件,居民担忧“天降横祸”,才宁可远离组屋楼下。要鼓励居民使用现有步道,还需要遏止高空抛物的恶行。 徐顺全是在本月6日,在脸书上发文指出,武吉巴督第190座组屋缺乏人行道,许多居民走在路旁,车辆往来十分危险。 他也在脸书上晒出照片,照片中可见,妇女手牵着一名孩子,只能冒着危险在大马路上行走,而且车子与行人的距离非常小,很可能会发生意外。 “车子与行人的距离相当近,而且还有许多行人牵着小孩,冒着危险越过马路,因为这是他们唯一经过的道路。” 他也目睹了行人只能在车子经过时,将孩子拉向身边,而车子也尽量往外挪动,避免撞倒孩子。 基于行人的安全,徐顺全也向一些居民询问,不少居民对这种现象见怪不怪,因此也希望能够希望有安全的人行道。 甚至有居民向武吉巴督人民行动党议员穆仁理申述,但却被告知若一旦开始建人行道,可能又会进一步要求,增建雨盖步道等。 徐顺全敦促穆仁理和裕廊-金文泰市镇会市镇会,应该在意外未发生前着手处理,保障居民安全。 帖文发出后,引发网友的讨论,目前已获得2千900赞和295转载。对此,议员穆仁里也做出回应。 他表示,针对武吉巴督组屋内没有设置人行道一事在网络疯传,居民看似被迫在大马路上或草地上行走,也因此收到不少网友的提醒。 穆仁里也张贴一张当地居民的邮件回应此事。信件内容指出,居民林先生已在当地居住逾30年,而且一直都有遮屏的无障碍通道。与此同时,他也晒出武吉巴督组屋的无障碍通道。…