CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.35 pm

The Acting Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the enabling legislation for the following policies which have already been announced and discussed in this House:

(a) the use of CPF savings for investment in shares, loan stocks and gold;

(b) the use of CPF savings for investment in non-residential properties;

(c) the use of existing balances in the Special Account for the payment of housing loans by those CPF members who face a shortfall in their instalment payments as a result of the cut in the CPF contribution rate; and

(d) the transfer of balances in the Medisave Account, which are in excess of the required amount, to the Ordinary Account.

Sir, the details of the amendments are in the explanatory statement. I shall highlight the key provisions of this Bill.

Investment in Securities and Precious Metals

Sir, on 31st October last year I announced in this House the setting up of a scheme to allow CPF members to invest a portion of their Ordinary Account savings in shares, loan stocks, unit trusts and gold. This scheme will give CPF members the flexibility to manage their own CPF savings once they have saved a minimum reserve for old age and contingencies. Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 45 (1) of the principal Act to empower the Minister to provide for the withdrawals of CPF savings for the purpose of making such investments.

Investment in Non-Residential Properties

At present CPF members are allowed to use their CPF savings to invest in residential properties but not non-residential properties. In line with the policy to enable CPF members to manage their own CPF savings, the Government has decided last year to allow CPF savings to be invested in non-residential properties, e.g. office space, shops, factories and warehouses. Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 45 (1) of the Act to allow members to withdraw CPF savings for the purchase of immovable properties, including non-residential properties.

Use of CPF Special Account Balances for Payment of Housing Loans

With the rate of employers' CPF contribution reduced by 15 percentage points to 10% with effect from 1st April 1986, some members may face a shortfall in their CPF savings to service their housing loans. The Government has decided that as a relief measure, those who are still short of funds after making use of all available balances in their Ordinary Accounts to service their housing loans, can use the balance in their Special Accounts. Clause 4 introduces a new section 12B into the Act to empower the CPF Board to allow members to do so.

Transfer of Excess Balances from Medisave Accounts to Ordinary Accounts

The Ministry of Health has decided that CPF members need to retain only $15,000 in their Medisave Accounts for hospitalization expenses. When the amount is reached, the excess will be transferred to the Ordinary Accounts. The new section 11A (6) in clause 3 will empower the Board to make such transfers in future.

Sir, as the CPF contribution rate will be lowered from 1st April 1986, clauses 3 (b), (c) and 4 relating to the use of the Special Account balances for housing and the transfer of excess Medisave balances will come into effect on 1st April 1986, after the House has approved this Bill. The other clauses relating to the investment of CPF savings in shares, unit trusts, gold and non-residential properties will come into effect on 1st May 1986, after the necessary regulations for the operation of this scheme are gazetted.

I would also like to announce that the amount of CPF savings that members can withdraw for investment in shares, loan stocks and unit trusts will be increased from 10% to 20% of their "Investable CPF Savings". The "Investable CPF Savings" is the balance in the Ordinary and Special Account in excess of the minimum reserve of $30,000. CPF amounts invested in a home will be included in the calculation of the "Investable CPF Savings". The liberalization of the investment limit is to allow CPF members greater scope in managing their CPF savings. Gold investment will for the moment still be subject to the sub-limit of 5% of the "Investable Savings". This 5% can be used for either shares or gold.

The Government's intention is to raise these investment limits and widen the investment avenues progressively to allow CPF members maximum discretion in investing their CPF funds, subject to minimum essential safeguards. CPF members must, of course, exercise care and judgment in deciding how to invest their CPF savings and be conscious of the opportunities available as well as the risks involved. The potential for higher returns is associated with a higher degree of risk. A member may make gains or incur losses depending on his investment decisions and the timing of those decisions.

The investment schemes are optional. If a member prefers not to take any risk, he can choose to leave his entire CPF savings with the CPF Board where the funds are guaranteed by the Government. The CPF interest rate is not only pegged to bank rates, but also tax-exempt. Those members who prefer to invest their CPF savings in expectation of higher returns will have the flexibility to do so. If a member makes the right investment decision, he will gain. If not, he will lose. He will have to live with the results of his own investment decisions.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, despite my appeal to the Minister, he is apparently trying to make CPF money more easily withdrawn. From 10% now he is increasing it to 20% for investing in shares. In the debate on the estimates for his Ministry last week, I requested the Minister for Labour to be cautious in making hasty moves to allow more liberal use of CPF savings. My main grounds are that, firstly, the level of CPF savings may not always remain at a high level in future as the percentage of contributions is now being varied according to the economy. The second point is that the CPF is now paying a risk-free and tax-free market rate of return. With such a good return, the Government need not be in a hurry to appease those who are more speculative.

I welcome the amendments, however, on the use of CPF for properties other than residential properties. I advocated then that members should be able to invest more money in properties as it makes good philosophical sense. As an office shop or a small factory is indispensable in almost all businesses, this move will enable those with a low capital to start their business once an office is being paid for. I think it will also help smaller companies to restructure their capital, particularly if they are facing cash flow problems. By using CPF a small business will save on rental expenses by owning a shop, an office or a small factory. However, I hope that the non-residential property scheme will be flexible so that it may be more effective.

In an oral reply last week, the Minister has mentioned that plans for non-residential property purchased with CPF will only be announced in May. I know the Minister will ask me to be patient and wait until next month for the full details. Nevertheless, I am requesting the Minister to provide the public with some rough details now as this will help those who are looking forward to this scheme to do some advance planning. I hope the Minister will oblige.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support this amendment Bill and I would like the Minister to explain to the House what is the rationale of this amendment Bill by releasing CPF money for shares, gold and for non-residential property. These investments may fluctuate, as we have seen. If the time should come when a person retires and all these investments are at their lowest, what will happen then? It is true that the investor will have to take his chance in investing. But if the main purpose of CPF is to secure a worker in his old age or to give him security, then I think this piece of legislation is certainly not in line with the original purpose.

I would also like to know how much money is going to be released in the share and property markets. Does the Minister hope that this money released will in fact boost up these markets which are now in the doldrums? Would it not be better, in fact, if the intention were to give a stimulus to the property and share markets by releasing part of the employee's CPF which I have advocated? I think it is important that CPF money, which is originally meant to give workers a security in their old age, will not create the false hope of big returns in the future which may not come. The property market is now so bad that the two years envisaged to revive the economy will not bring the demand for the property market and in fact it is so gloomy that there is speculation that the property market will not reach its giddy heights of 1981. So why should the hard-earned money of the workers be given to such investments?

Many Members in this House have urged the Government to use part of the CPF money for the educational needs of their children which I support. Education for the children of workers is a form of investment and that is certainly a better form of investment than shares and gold and property.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The Bill seeks to change CPF policy on four issues: (1) limit the maximum amount of Medisave balance; (2) allow members to use their Special Account to repay housing loans; (3) permit the purchase of non-residential properties with CPF moneys; and (4) permit investment in precious metals and securities. Sir, the first three issues have been well covered in previous debates and I do not wish to touch on them. However, on the fourth issue, ie, the permission for members to invest a portion of their funds in precious metals and securities, I would say that, first and foremost, this is very much an elective type of option which means that members who do not think they want to risk their money in either the stock market or investment in precious metals, then these members need not use their funds for such purposes. In that case, they can still leave their funds in the CPF and earn a Government-guaranteed return which in the long run might be better for them. However, Sir, we must realize that there are members who feel that they are very much better investors than the CPF and they think they can get better returns than what the CPF can give them. For such members, giving them the flexibililty and liberty to invest their funds in the stock market or in precious metals is not amiss with the objective of giving more flexibility to the people of Singapore.

These members who wish to avail themselves of this scheme normally would have some knowledge of the market as well as knowledge of the risk that is inherent in such investment. Perhaps the CPF should take one step further, that is, to give them a warning similar to the one against cigarette smoking where it says "Smoking is hazardous to your health." We can say, "Investment in precious metals and stock market carries great risks which you may not want to undertake." If they are forewarned of such risks, then those who are on the borderline cases, ie, those members who may not really have the intention of making such investments, may be forestalled or prevented from making such risky investments. In such cases, then, I do not think the CPF would really put members' funds at risk or their old-age savings at risk through such a scheme.

Now, Sir, if I may, I would like to come down to the specific amendments. If one looks at clause 6 it assumes that the total proceeds from the sale of investment in precious metals and securities must be paid into the fund. This means that gains from such investment cannot be prematurely withdrawn. Does it therefore not also mean that losses need not be made good by the member? I will give you an example. If somebody takes $10 to buy a share and subsequently the person sells the share at $12. Then according to clause 6, the whole sum of $12 must go back into the fund. However, if he sells at $8 instead of $12 then, again, according to clause 6, the whole sum of $8 must go into the fund. From clause 6, it appears that he cannot take out the $2 that he made had he sold the share at $12. Does this therefore not imply that he need not make good the loss of $2 had he sold the share at $8?

If this be the case, would the Minister therefore not consider applying this principle to those who have purchased residential properties under the current Approved Residential Properties Scheme (ARPS). Currently, there are owners of properties under the ARPS scheme who would like to sell off their investment to cut losses but they cannot do so as the values of houses have fallen below what they purchased for. Thus, if they sell off these properties under the present regulations they are liable to CPF to make good losses or make good the funds they have withdrawn, including the imputed interest. If this principle were to be applied to those withdrawals under the ARPS scheme, perhaps it will help some members to make rational decisions based on the fact that they want to take their losses now instead of later. However, without such a principle being applied and where they are liable to the CPF to make good the shortfall their decision today is more influenced by their inability to make good the shortfall.

Sir, may I now turn to clause 7 (c) which permits the reimbursement of fees, charges or incidental expenses from CPF. I feel that this should not be permitted. Instead, members should be asked to pay for those items for two reasons. One, these are expenditure items and do not add value to the underlying investment. Two, since members can claim reimbursements for such items, it may encourage them to trade instead of invest. By trading, Sir, I mean buying and/or selling on a frequent basis thereby incurring large expenditure. Of course, they could do so now. They could do so even if they have to pay for the incidental expenses themselves but then it incurs an expenditure out of their own pockets immediately. If clause 7 (c) goes on as it is, they will be encouraged to do so because then they would not have to incur any additional expenses. Of course, Sir, they do so because they hope to make money on the price movements which, unfortunately, for this type of investment, are rather frequent. However, history has shown that such practices usually end up in more losses for the so-called investors rather than gains. Hence the payment of incidental expenses out of their own pocket would discourage such a practice from developing.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe members of the public will welcome this Bill as it enables them to invest their CPF funds more flexibly contrary to what the Member for Potong Pasir has said and, to reiterate the point made by the Member for Jalan Kayu, there is nothing in this Bill that forces any CPF member to invest any of their funds in gold or securities or non-residential property. Sir, the point made by the Member for Potong Pasir is completely wrong.

I would like to seek clarification on a number of issues from the Minister. One is that in the event that dividends or interest are payable on the securities, are these to be enjoyed by the CPF members or are they to be credited to their CPF account? Another question I have is with regard to the purchase of precious metals. Why has he limited the purchase to only gold? What about silver and platinum and any of the precious metals that may be on the market?

I welcome the provision for the purchase of non-residential properties because I believe this will benefit particularly those CPF members who own HDB flats. As the present regulation stands, such members cannot buy a second property, whether it be HDB or private residential property, so that if they wish to make such purchases on the private market they will have to leave their HDB flats whereas this provision in this Bill which allows them to buy non-residential properties allows them to continue staying in their HDB flats and yet make an investment that may prove to be worthwhile over the long term. So I would like to support this Bill.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.

As some Members have pointed out, and I have said so in my speech as well, the intention of the scheme is to give members greater flexibility in managing their old-age savings. It is entirely up to the member himself. If he is happy with the interest rate paid by the CPF Board, he should leave his money with the CPF Board and we will only be too happy.

The intention of this Bill, Sir, is not to stimulate the stock market or the property sector. The fact is that there are people who want to take advantage of the markets whether it is stocks and shares, gold or properties. Some of them may feel that this is a good time to do so. If the Government is seen to be too restrictive, we may appear to be depriving them of an opportunity for making gains. But, of course, they must realize that in any investment, there are risks involved. If a member wants to have a no-risk or risk-free investment, then he must be content with a low rate of return. He can put it with the CPF Board and get an interest rate which is comparable to what the banks are paying, and it is also tax-exempt. So it is a very good deal for the majority of CPF members who may not have the expertise or the stomach for other kinds of investments.

The Member for Radin Mas has asked why we have increased the percentage limit from 10% to 20%. I think on several occasions he has voiced caution on this matter. On the part of the CPF Board too, we are very cautious. We do not want to rush into the scheme. We want to monitor the scheme and see how it works. At the same time, we do not want to be too restrictive. After I announced this scheme in October last year we monitored the effect on the market. The impression was that many CPF members, who wanted to invest, felt that the amounts which they could invest were too little. On the other hand, there are a lot of members who are cautious and who may not go into the market. So our concern is really to do this gradually so that we do not inflate the share prices which will be at the expense of CPF members. But at the same time where we feel it is safe, we should gradually move the limit upwards, giving greater flexibility to those who feel they can invest better on their own to try their luck. That is why we have now raised the limit from 10% to 20%.

The Member for Radin Mas has also asked for some details on the non-residential properties scheme. I am happy to report to him that details are now ready, and I will ask the Clerk to distribute the papers (Cols. 1489 - 1490) showing the main essence of the scheme. [Copies of tables distributed to hon. Members.] In addition, there will be another table showing how much money can be invested under the scheme for shares and gold. This shows the number of members in the different categories of CPF balances and how much they can invest. papers - FEATURES OF THE NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SCHEME, ANALYSIS OF MEMBERS WITH INVESTIBLE FUNDS (AS AT END OF FEB 86) (Cols. 1489 - 1490)

Perhaps I can just spend a few minutes to take Members through the features of the non-residential properties scheme. Firstly, as I have mentioned, the properties can include office space, factories, shops and warehouses but they must be located in Singapore. We are also excluding undeveloped land because that tends to be very speculative and does not provide an income. In the case of leasehold properties, the leasehold period remaining at the time of purchase must be at least 75 years. The amount of CPF savings that can be used for non-residential properties will be limited to a maximum of 70% of the valuation of the property or the purchase price, whichever is lower. In the case of residential properties, the limit is 80%. Members may purchase more than one non-residential property at a time. They may also purchase more than one non-residential property. CPF members who are not relatives or family members may jointly purchase a property. This is a new idea. Basically, the scheme is to allow people to invest in properties and if they feel they want to go in together,jointly, and they can work together in this joint venture, it is acceptable to us. There will be a time bar of one year on the use of the funds. If a member invests a certain sum in the property and then sells it, he will have to wait one year before he can use the same sum plus the accrued interest gained. Previously the time bar was three years. We have relaxed this to one year now.

The other table, as I said, shows the substantial amounts which are now available to members to invest in shares and gold. Altogether about 347,000 members can take part in the scheme. These are people who have more than $30,000 in their CPF accounts, including amounts withdrawn for housing. The members are placed in different groups ranging from those who have below $1,000 to those who have more than $40,000 to invest. The total sum which may be released under the scheme is roughly $2.4 billion. This is roughly double the amount that was announced on the previous occasion. Other details of the scheme will be spelt out in the regulations and the CPF Board will provide more details to members of the public, if necessary. All these steps will be implemented within April so that the scheme can start operation from the 1st May.

Turning now to the Member for Jalan Kayu, he has suggested that we put a warning on the application form. I think there is no need for this. Members are already aware. One possibility is maybe we should put at the bottom of the form, "Members invest at their own risk." This is an idea which we will look into.

The other point he made concerns the proceeds from the sale of properties, non-residential properties and residential properties. In the case of shares, as he has noted correctly, both capital gains and losses will be for the CPF account. Now, in the case of residential properties, regula- tions have already been effected to say that if the member sells the property, he will have to return to CPF the capital sum withdrawn from the CPF, plus the imputed CPF interest, or the sale proceeds if that is less than the first amount. So it is an either/or situation - either the sum plus interest or the sale proceeds, whichever is less. So I think his point has been answered, and in fact it has already been implemented.

Why do we allow members to charge fees and other charges for share transactions to the CPF account? I take his point that this may give rise to some lack of prudence on the part of members who think that CPF money is not their own. Actually it is their own money and so they should be careful in managing the money. But the logic behind this is that since you want the member to return both the capital gains and the losses to the CPF account, the cost of making the transaction must of course, be taken into account. It is part of the cost of investment. This is the same thing as in the case of properties where we allow the cost of the transaction, whether it is conveyancing fee or other charges, to be charged to the CPF account. So I think it is fair for us to allow the fees and charges to be paid out of the CPF fund. But I take his point and we will monitor the situation to see whether this, in fact, causes more people to take more speculative investments and buy and sell their shares too frequently.

In our scheme we are going to act with the banks. Members will have to open accounts with certain approved banks and when they apply to buy the shares, the money will be transferred to the bank to buy on their behalf; and subsequently when they trade on this account, there will be no need to involve the CPF Board. This is to simplify the administration of the scheme; otherwise it will be almost impossible for the CPF Board to deal with so many members of the public. The CPF Board will be issuing some guidelines to banks to discourage speculative trading. Members will not be allowed to trade on margins. Trading will have to be on a ready basis and scrips will have to be delivered within a certain time. There will be certain precautions made to discourage speculation. However, we do not want to make it so inflexible that when a person feels that it is better for him to sell, for example, when the market turns against him we do not want to restrict his investment decision. But at the same time we do not want him to make use of the balance and trade on margin, engaging in very speculative trading.

Coming now to the points made by the Member for Whampoa. He wanted to know whether dividends will be retained by the member. The answer is no. All the dividends, net of corporate tax withheld, must be returned to the account. The idea is not for him to withdraw CPF prematurely, whether it is the interest or the earnings or the capital sum. The idea is for him to manage the savings to try and enhance the value of his savings. But you may want to note one point, and that is, we only require him to return dividends net of tax withheld, which is normally at the corporate tax rate. At present that is 40%; next year it will be 33%. Now a member, if his tax margin is below 33%, can claim some tax rebates back from the Income Tax Department. We have looked at this point and finally we decided that it is not practical for us to chase after all these amounts. So there could be a certain amount of leakage there but this could be tolerated.

The Member for Whampoa also asked why we only allow investment in gold and not silver or platinum. The reason is that gold is normally regarded as a store of value. It is used by countries as a form of national reserve and the market is almost perfect. It is almost impossible for any member to corner the market. The risk involved when we invest in gold is purely market risk - either the market goes up or it goes down, of course depending on what the Russians do or the South Africans do, and so on, or the oil sheiks for that matter.

The investment in shares, however, is slightly different. You not only have market risk but also management risk and other kinds of risks. Sometimes Government policies may move against you, for example lifting of duties. But in the case of gold, it is purely market risk. But gold does not give you any income. There are no dividends, purely capital gains. In the case of silver, however, it is normally regarded as a commodity, a high priced commodity. It is not quite in the same class as gold. The prices of silver are very speculative, even more volatile than gold. And I think Members will recall that some years back, the Hunt Brothers were able to corner the market and manipulate prices. It is much more difficult, I think almost impossible, to do the same thing with gold. In the case of platinum, we have to look into it. Firstly, I think it is of a wrong colour for most people. But basically platinum in some cases is also an industrial product. The value, I think, is better than, say, silver. But we have to look into it.

The Member for Whampoa made a good point and that is the non-residential properties scheme is good for HDB home owners. The Government is not able to allow HDB home owners to also own a private residential property because of land constraints in Singapore. If you are able to afford to own a private residential property and you, in fact, own such a residential property, then you should move out of the HDB flat and allow somebody else to buy that flat. But this does not apply in the case of non-residential property. So HDB home owners may want to take advantage of the non-residential properties scheme. They can invest in non-residential property and still keep their HDB flats.

Turning now to the points made by the Member for Potong Pasir who felt obliged to say something, I suppose, on this subject. His first point about rationale has already been explained several times and there is no need for me to repeat. I think Members have already answered him. It is purely an optional scheme. Nobody is telling anybody to invest. We are not trying to stimulate the market. I have said so before and I say it again now. If members want to put their money with the CPF Board, I will be most happy.

He mentioned this point about why we do not cut the employee's CPF. That has already been answered fully. All I need to say is that the Government did a study of the CPF contributions, relative to the ability of CPF members to service housing loans. The assessment is that about 15% is the maximum extent you can go before you make it difficult for large numbers of people to service housing loans. If you can cut 15% off the CPF rate, the question then is: do you place it on the employer's side or the employee's side? Our economic problem at the moment is high cost, wages have gone up faster than productivity. So the Government decided it is better to put the full 15% on to the employer's portion. The other reason is, which was explained before, that if you cut employee's CPF, a lot of the money will probably leak out to foreign imports, purchases of videos or cars or holidays. Of all the goods and services consumed in Singapore, about two-thirds are imported. So the stimulatory effect, while it is there, will not be as large as you would imagine.

To my surprise, the Member for Potong Pasir has now decided to talk about CPF for education. He has kept silent all this while when the Member for Jalan Kayu and others were passionately asking for the scheme to be introduced. Now that the other Members have realized the logic and the sense of what the CPF committee is trying to do, ie, to reduce therates so that people can have more savings and decide what they want to do with their own savings, he now comes out and tries to champion this issue. As I have explained before, there is really no need, in the case of tertiary education in Singapore, the NUS, Polytechnic and so on, to touch the parents' CPF savings because the fees are so highly subsidized. In the case of the NUS, the fees are only about $1,200 per year and most people can afford that. Even if they cannot afford, education is so important that the Government must make it possible for everybody who can qualify to get a place. No one will be barred because of financial circumstances. So for local education, there is no need to touch the CPF.

In the case of overseas education, the sums involved are of the order of $100,000. That will make a big hole in the CPF savings of members. It is quite different from investment in properties, shares or deposits with the CPF. What we do is to calculate the amounts needed at old age, with the idea of allowing the member to try and get a better return through his own investment. The amounts are still left with the CPF in the member's account. In the case of overseas education, if it is $100,000, it may well be half or more than half of the member's CPF account which is transferred to another member. I think most Members would know that inclusive of fees and cost of living - in fact, many countries are now using education as a form of export earnings and so fees are going up all the time - it is difficult to go overseas for education for anything less than $50,000 for the whole course. In many places, it would be $100,000, say, the US, Britain and maybe Australia.

Sir, I think I have answered all the points.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, a point of clarification on this table of investible funds. If you look at the note at the bottom, you will see that it virtually excludes the use of the special account balance. So only the ordinary account may be used. That is quite a restriction.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is correct that the special account has been excluded. The CPF committee is looking at this problem of what would be the functions of the special account. In the past, it was meant for insurance, for minimum old-age requirements and so on. Until a decision is made on the special account, we will not touch it. That is the idea behind all this.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has mentioned that dividends will have to go back to the CPF account. What about the rentals of properties? Rentals are much bigger amounts than dividends and they are collected on a monthly basis. Over the years, it can accumulate to sizable amounts.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, rentals from residential properties can be kept by the CPF member. The only requirement is that when they sell, they must put back the CPF sum withdrawn plus the accrued CPF interest. It is a fact that we have always treated properties differently from other investments. And there are good reasons to do so. This preference in favour of properties will continue. Properties are not so saleable. For many years now, the scheme for HDB properties has been very liberal. In fact, the Member can use CPF not only for the full purchase price but also the interest involved in servicing the HDB loan. So I think it is fair in our situation and in view of our policy to encourage home ownership to allow people to keep their capital gains and also rentals. This is a special feature of the scheme.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a point of clarification from the Hon. Minister? He has mentioned that in the case of sale of properties, the funds to be returned to the CPF would be the sum withdrawn including imputed interest or the sale price, whichever is lower. May I ask, in the case where the sale price is lower than the sum withdrawn plus the imputed interest, would the member still be personally liable to CPF for the shortfall? What I am asking is, has he fulfilled his complete liability to the CPF or would the CPF at some future point in time ask him to refund the shortfall?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The answer is no. There will be no further liabilities. These are spelt out in the regulations already gazetted, ie, either the capital plus the interest or the sale proceeds, whichever is less.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.