10/05/2026
๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ง๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฒ: ๐๐โ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ง๐, ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐๐๐ง๐ฌ
Two days ago, the Workers' Party opposed a Bill for the first time in this sitting of Parliament. The Bill, presented by Senior Parliamentary Secretary for National Development Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi, sought to validate years of fees collected by four MND agencies and to close off court challenges to those collections.
Some of these charges were described as โadministrative feesโ to cover things like processing applications or inspections, but they were not properly written into Acts of Parliament. Now that this has been discovered, the Government is asking Parliament to change the law backwards in time so that all those fees are treated as legal from day one, and so that nobody can go to court to question them.
๐๐ฌ๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ
Harun was asked what exactly these fees were, how much had been collected over the years, and who had been paying them โ ordinary flat owners, small contractors, or mainly big developers. He was also pressed on whether, if the legal basis was weak for so long, there was any consideration of refunds or other remedies for those who might have overpaid, instead of simply changing the law now and closing off the courts.
After flipping through his notes, asking the Speaker for more time, and even appearing to do some calculations on his phone, Harun still could not tell the House how much had been collected or how many people had paid these fees.
These are important questions. What exactly are these fees for? How much money has been collected over the years? Who has been paying โ ordinary flat owners, small contractors, or mainly big developers? And if the Government itself now admits that the legal basis was inadequate for so long, was there ever any serious consideration of refunds or other remedies for those who might have overpaid, instead of simply changing the law now and closing off the courts?
Harun appeared illโprepared in taking this Bill to Parliament. The Government must have thought that it was just an administrative Bill and that no one would oppose it.
๐๐ก๐๐ง โ๐๐จ๐งโ๐๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐งโ ๐๐จ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ซ๐๐ก ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ญ๐๐ฉ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐
In the end, the Minister for National Development, Chee Hong Tat, had to step in to explain that the fees may have been collected โsince independenceโ and that the ministry did not have a full and accurate record of the amounts.
The WPโs opposition to the Bill is not theatre. They raised real concerns about a government that wants to rewrite the law first and explain later. Their objections are important, but Singaporeans deserve more than occasional resistance โ we need a Parliament willing to demand structural safeguards, not just vote against a bad Bill and move on.
But what is more glaring is that none of the NMPs saw this as a Bill that should not be rushed through โ perhaps even a Bill that ought to have been sent back to the ministry, with instructions to return at a future sitting with full costings, clear categories of fees, and a proper account of who has been paying and why refunds were ruled out.
Although NMPs are presented as non-partisan voices, their silence on this Bill shows how closely many of them are aligned, in ideals and instincts, with the ruling party โ and how little real diversity of thinking Singaporeans actually get in Parliament when it matters.
Instead of pausing to get the facts right, the PAP used the strength of its numbers in Parliament, with the NMPs in tow, to push this Bill through. The result is that the people may never know how much was collected, who really paid these fees, and whether anyone was unfairly made to bear costs that the law did not clearly allow in the first place.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ง๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ฐ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ
When working people miss a payment or dispute a fee, do they get to change the rules after the fact โ or do they face penalties, interest, and even legal action?
This is the double standard. When the Government discovers that its own legal footing has been weak for years, it expects Parliament to clean up the problem with a retrospective law, no figures on the table, and no real discussion of remedies for those who may have overpaid. That double standard โ one set of rules for citizens, another for the state โ is what makes this Bill so troubling.
When agencies overstep, or even appear to overstep, people must be able to push back. A Parliament dominated by one partyโs supermajority does not give Singaporeans that assurance โ especially when retrospective laws are used to shut down court challenges. We may never know if there are any skeletons in the closet, and that is the power imbalance between state and citizen.
When a ministry admits it has lacked proper legal footing for years, those who paid the fees never had the same luxury of uncertainty. They had to pay, on time, under threat of penalties. The ones most at risk are the people with the least leverage โ homeowners, small businesses and lowerโincome Singaporeans who are least able to fight a dubious fee, and whose rights may be extinguished without full disclosure.
This is not about whether the speeches were smooth or โfumblingโ. It is about a Parliament that is asked to close off any future legal challenges without being told who has been affected and how badly they were hit. If we want Singaporeans to respect the law, we cannot treat legality as something we retrofit later while insisting everything done before was โappropriateโ.
If we expect citizens to play by the rules, the Government must be prepared to face scrutiny when it fails to do the same.
