Parliament passes new laws to validate fees collected by MND agencies after heated debate
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 08 May 2026
Author: Ng Wei Kai
The Workers’ Party, for the first time in this term of Parliament, opposed the new laws, which were part of a larger Bill containing several administrative changes.
New laws that retroactively validated fees charged by several government agencies and put them into legislation were fiercely debated in Parliament on May 7 before they were eventually passed.
The Workers’ Party, for the first time in this term of Parliament, opposed the new laws, which were part of a larger Bill containing several administrative changes. All 11 of its MPs in the House at the time voted against it.
A central point of contention between the WP and the Government was whether the fees were collected legally before the new laws validated them and gave them a legislative basis. National Development Minister Chee Hong Tat said the collections were not wrongly done, while the WP’s MPs questioned their past legality and asked if the Government was considering refunding citizens.
The fees in question are charged by four agencies under the Ministry of National Development (MND). They include the towing and detention of illegally parked cars charged by the Housing Board and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). Other examples include charges for expediting the inspection of buildings and the processing of temporary occupation permits, animal permits and species certifications.
The Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill validated these fees and charges collected by HDB, URA, the National Parks Board and the Building and Construction Authority in the course of their operations.
It also provided the legislation to give the agencies the powers and legal basis for the continued collection of these fees, and was proposed after an internal review by the Government.
The WP’s contention with the laws boiled down to the legality of the past collection of these fees, with two of its senior members repeatedly querying Mr Chee on this towards the end of the debate.
WP chairwoman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) said that while she appreciates that MND did an internal review and uncovered the problem, “the matter of fact is that those past collections were not authorised”.
Mr Chee disagreed with Ms Lim’s assessment, saying this depends on how the fees are classified. He said that if the fees are classified as administrative, then they can be collected by the agencies.
But in this case, these fees are considered regulatory. Therefore, the advice from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) was that it is more appropriate to put them into legislation going forward, he said.
“So that’s what we have done. So I think that’s an important point that I need to clarify. It’s not the administrative fees (that) we were unauthorised to collect. That was not the case.”
WP chief Pritam Singh then asked if it was the AGC’s position that these collections were previously illegal.
Mr Chee, in response, said his understanding from the review was that the AGC felt it was better to put them into legislation, rather than leaving it as an administrative arrangement.
He added that the AGC also supported the Bill and that is why the Government had come to Parliament to seek approval for the new laws.
When Mr Singh pressed again on whether the previous collections were illegal, Mr Chee said “we don’t want to leave this loose end unaddressed about a past collection”, which is why the Government is proposing to the House to validate the past collections.
“That’s the approach that we are taking, and I hope to be able to get the support from the whole House in terms of how we deal with this so that we can move forward...
“Going forward, (the fees) will be part of the legislation so we will be in compliance with the advice from AGC arising from the review.”
The House then voted on the Bill and Mr Singh asked Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng to record the dissent of his party’s MPs. All 11 in the Chamber – Associate Professor Jamus Lim (Sengkang GRC) was not present – then voted against the Bill, which passed with support from the PAP’s MPs.
The WP also queried the Government on the amount of fees that had been collected, and if Singaporeans would be refunded.
Mr Singh asked how much has been collected so far, and for the number of Singaporeans affected.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary for National Development Syed Harun Alhabsyi, who moved the Bill, said he did not have the numbers.
Mr Chee said it is not that the Government does not want to provide the information. Instead, the Government may not have the full, accurate record of all the amounts collected, he said. “I hope you understand these fees were collected over a long period of time – if I’m not wrong, I think since independence, when we first started.”
WP Non-Constituency MP Andre Low asked if the Government would consider refunding these fees, and raised a 2024 incident where the Government refunded wrongly collected goods and services taxes (GST) on various transactions with agencies.
Mr Chee said the agencies had provided services and fees were collected on the basis of cost recovery. Otherwise, these costs would be funded by taxpayers, he added.
“There’s really no refund to talk about because this is not a wrong collection.”
As they do not constitute a wrong collection that the Government is required to refund, this case is different from the 2024 GST incident, said Mr Chee.
He added that in cases where the Government makes a mistake, it will refund citizens, and has done so in the past.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
395