Fees collected by govt agencies legal and proper, even though not set out in law, says MND

The fees charged by four government agencies for services such as expediting building inspections were legal and proper, even though they were not set out in legislation, the Ministry of National Development (MND) said on May 12.

In a social media post, MND added that a new law passed in Parliament last week is meant to put the legal position beyond doubt and provide “greater clarity, transparency and certainty for future transactions”.

“The Government’s position is that the fees and charges were legally and properly collected,” said MND in a separate statement released on the same day.

Noting that the Workers’ Party had queried in a social media post whether these fees were illegally collected in the past, MND said: “As these fees and charges were for carrying out statutory and regulatory functions, the Government has also acknowledged that it would be better to provide for them in legislation, even though the agencies can prescribe such fees, without such legislation.”

The House passed the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill on May 7 after an intense debate, with the WP questioning the amendments that retroactively validated fees charged by four agencies under MND in the course of their operations.

The fees include charges for the towing and detention of illegally parked cars by the HDB and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), as well as fees for processing of resale flat applications, animal permits and species certifications.

Several WP MPs had questioned the legality of the past collections, saying they were not authorised. All 11 WP MPs present eventually voted against the Bill.

Rebutting the WP during the debate, Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat said the fees were collected to recover the cost of services rendered and were legal.

He added that the new laws were proposed after a review by the Attorney-General’s Chambers concluded that it was better to put the fees into legislation rather than leave them as an administrative arrangement.

On May 11, the WP said in a social media post that it could not possibly have supported the amendments that would validate what were in effect “administrative errors”.

“The Workers’ Party cannot support a provision that retrospectively validates money collections not provided for by legislation, (and) removes legal rights from citizens without providing Parliament with the full facts,” it added.

In its May 12 social media post, MND reiterated that the fees collected by the four agencies – the HDB, URA, National Parks Board and Building and Construction Authority – in the past were not illegal.

The reason for the Bill being passed now was to set out the fees and charges more explicitly in legislation, the ministry said.

MND said the fees and charges were publicly known and properly administered to recover the cost of the services provided.

“There is legal basis to collect these fees and charges,” it said. “The Government reviewed all relevant advice and concluded that they were legally and properly collected.”

During the debate, the WP MPs had also asked whether people would be refunded for fees collected in the past, given that the fees were not validated under the law then.

In its social media post, the WP noted that the law also removes the right of people to challenge past collections.

On the issue, the MND said in its post that the past fees and charges were collected fairly on a cost-recovery basis for actual services required and provided.

Refunding the past fees would thus mean taxpayers subsidising services that had already been performed for users, and this would not be fair to other Singaporeans, it said, adding that there would be no refunds.

“Good governance means constantly reviewing and improving our laws and systems; proactively bringing matters of public interest to Parliament; and upholding public trust through transparency, accountability and responsible governance,” MND said.

“This was about clarifying and strengthening the law to ensure certainty, fairness and transparency for Singaporeans.”

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

TOC’s Terry Xu ordered to pay more than $154,000 in costs to Shanmugam, Tan See Leng