Singapore - geraldgiam.sg

Debate on the amendments to the Employment Act

I am glad to note the introduction of some new protections for workers and some PMEs in this Bill. I have mentioned a few concerns about salary deductions, penalties, exemptions from work hour limit protections, compensation for holiday work and the powers of inspecting officers.

This was my speech during the debate the amendments to the Employment Act in Parliament, on 12 November 2013.

————————-

Madam Speaker,

I will focus on the amendments to the Employment Act in this Bill.

Section 30 – Deductions

I have several questions regarding the amendments to Section 30 pertaining to deductions for accommodation, amenities and services provided by employers to their workers.

First, how is the value of these deductible expenses determined? Has MOM conducted any inspections to determine if the prices charged by any employers are excessive?

Second, is the value of the accommodation based on the actual cost or the market value? If it is based on market value, these employers could potentially profit from providing accommodation to their workers, since private market rentals are very high. I note that Section 27(1)(c) allows for deductions for only the actual cost of meals, but Section 27(1)(d) does not specify “actual cost of accommodation”. Can the wording of the latter be changed so that employers are only allowed to deduct for the actual cost of accommodation?

Third, what can “amenities” and “other services” include? Unscrupulous employers could potentially throw in anything as a service or amenity, in order to deduct their workers’ salaries and reduce costs. I understand that some workers earning less than $800 per month still face deductions to their salaries. This could lead to financial hardship for them and their families, as their salaries may fall even further below subsistence levels. Would the Ministry consider prohibiting salary deductions for workers who earn below a subsistence threshold?

And fourth, I note that the protections under Section 30 are all still subject to mutual agreement between the worker and his employer. While one could argue that the worker is free not to sign the contract, in reality, most low wage workers are not in a strong bargaining position to refuse. This makes it more necessary for the law, and not just a contract, to protect the worker.

Section 34 – Penalties

Next, on penalties. This Bill specifies in Section 34 the penalties for failure to pay salary in accordance with the Act. A first-time offender will be liable to a fine of between $3,000 and $15,000 and/or six months’ jail, and a subsequent offence could double that.

Non-payment or late payment of salaries are a concern for many workers. Stiff punishment must be meted out to errant employers who fail to meet their obligations to their employees, in order to send a strong deterrent message.

However, the penalties do not guarantee that the worker will actually get paid what is owed him. While Section 134 stipulates that the court can order fines to be paid to the aggrieved worker, this is discretionary. Can the fines imposed be automatically paid to aggrieved workers, so that they receive all their salary arrears?

Section 40 – Exemptions from work hour limit protections

The amendments to Section 40 allow workers in “essential services” industries to work for more than 6 consecutive hours without a break or more than 12 hours a day, and without being paid for overtime work if it does not last for more than 3 weeks. Currently, this exemption is granted mostly for ad hoc work exigencies, like accidents, unforeseeable interruptions and urgent work, or defence and security duties.

This amendment could greatly increase the number of workers in Singapore who will not enjoy the work hour limit protections under Section 38(1). It will now include workers in broadcasting, newspaper and postal services, and even bulk distribution of fuel and lubricants, from among a list of 28 essential services listed in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

What is the reason for including these new exemptions and in what way was the previous list of exemptions insufficient?

More importantly, how will the Ministry ensure that essential services workers are not made to work excessive hours without breaks, rest days or overtime pay, over an extended period of time?

Section 88 – Compensation for work during holidays

The insertion of a new subsection 4(A) in Section 88, increases flexibility for employers to compensate employees who work on holidays by granting them time-off in-lieu of overtime pay. It also specifies the number of hours of time-off in-lieu, depending on whether the employee worked a full day or half a day during the holiday.

Madam, holidays are very important for workers, as they provide them a day to spend with their families and recuperate from work. A disruption of a holiday due to work exigencies should be properly compensated by the employer.

This Bill allows the employer to grant only part of a day off to replace a full day of holiday work, “as may be agreed between the employee and his employer”.[1]

Why is it necessary to give this additional option to employers? It could give employers a way to avoid fully compensating their employees for holiday work, as the employee will find it hard to refuse a lower compensation.

Why not take away this option, so that it will be mandatory for employers to either compensate the employee with extra pay, or time-off in-lieu in proportion to the time spent working on the holiday?

Section 105 – Power to arrest

The Bill introduces a new Section 105, which gives inspecting officers the power to arrest without warrant persons suspected of committing offences under this Act. It includes powers to “use all means necessary to effect the arrest”. Section 105D provides for the inspecting officers to be armed.

Currently, Section 103 gives inspecting officers no such powers. They are allowed to examine, search and retain evidence, but not to arrest suspects.

I would like to ask the Minister why is there now a need to give inspecting officers powers to arrest and restrain people suspected of violating the Employment Act?

With these new powers, will inspecting officers be given the same level of training as police officers to ensure that they do not use excessive force when conducting the arrests or restraining suspects?

Salary thresholds

Lastly, the Bill raises the salary threshold for employees covered under the Employment Act to $2,500 for non-workmen but keeps it at $4,500 for workmen. According to MOM, this will allow the salary threshold of non-workmen to catch up gradually with workmen and, in the longer term, will allow the removal of the demarcation between these two groups of workers.

May I ask the Minister how long it will take to remove this demarcation, and what are the existing obstacles to its removal?

Summary

In summary, I am glad to note the introduction of some new protections for workers and some PMEs in this Bill. I have mentioned a few concerns about salary deductions, penalties, exemptions from work hour limit protections, compensation for holiday work and the powers of inspecting officers. I hope the Minister will address these concerns in his response.

[1] Section 4(A)(a).

Health screening

We know that health screening is useful for early detection of chronic diseases and other illnesses like cancer. This can enable early treatment which means a better chance of recovery. The Health Promotion Board has been sending out letters to all Singapore residents aged 40 and older to attend health screening, yet from the Minister’s reply to my parliamentary question on 21 October 2013, it appears that the participation rate is quite low, and even MOH agrees that there is room for improvement. Here is my PQ and the Minister’s answer.

What can we do to increase the participation rate?

———————————————-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health from 2011 to 2013 to-date (a) how many invitations have been sent annually to residents of 40 years old and older to go for health screening under HPB’s Integrated Screening Programme (ISP); (b) how many residents took up those invitations in each of those years; (c) what are the charges for such screenings; (d) what is the rationale for charging such screenings; (e) what are the KPIs the Ministry uses to measure the success of the ISP; and (f) how does the Ministry rate the success of the ISP.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Minister for Health):

The nationwide Integrated Screening Programme (ISP) offers affordable and convenient screening for high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and diabetes, as well as breast, cervical and colorectal cancers to Singapore residents for the recommended age-groups. Under the ISP, Singapore residents who reach 40 years of age receive invitation letters to go for the various ISP screening tests at GP clinics. Those who are screened receive rescreen invitations according to the recommended intervals in subsequent years for the various screening tests. To enhance accessibility, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) collaborates with partners such as People’s Association as well as companies, to bring subsidised health screening to residents in the community and workplaces.

The total number of residents aged 40 years and older who received 1st invitation letters and rescreen invitations were 490,000 in 2011 and 200,000 in 2012. In 2011, 36,000 people attended health screening under the ISP and 19,000 people in 2012. The total number of invitations and residents who attended health screening was higher in 2011 because 365,000 invitation letters were sent to women aged 50 and above who were due for their mammogram screening in conjunction with the launch of the Celebrate Wellness (CW) programme, a HPB partnership initiative with WINGS and Toteboard.

Costs for screening services under the ISP have been kept affordable. For example, the cost of the blood tests in the GP clinics to screen for diabetes and high blood cholesterol is $8, the cost of Pap smear to screen for cervical cancer is $15, and the cost of the Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) which screens for colorectal cancer is $30. This is in addition to the GP consultation fees. Lower-income Singaporeans receive all these tests for free and only need to pay GP consultation fees. For community based screening, the cost of blood tests to screen for chronic diseases is $2 to $5.

Under the ISP, GPs can refer women for mammography for breast cancer screening at Breast Screen Singapore (BSS) centres at 16 polyclinics, at a subsidised cost of $50 for citizens. Women aged 50 and above can use Medisave to pay for mammograms at all Medisave-approved screening centres, including the BSS centres.

Patients are charged for screening under the ISP as the health of an individual is a shared responsibility. We have also targeted government subsidies at those who need help most. To make screening even more affordable and accessible, the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) has been enhanced to increase the coverage of subsidies for screening tests under the ISP. From 1 January 2014, the recommended tests will be fully subsidised by the government for CHAS patients at accredited GP clinics. They will also enjoy subsidies for GP consultation charges of up to $18.50 per visit, for their screening and subsequent follow-up consultations, up to two times a year.

The results have been encouraging. In the National Health Survey 2010, among Singaporeans aged 40 to 69 years, 71% had been screened for high blood pressure in the past year; and 61% and 64% had been screened for high blood cholesterol and diabetes respectively in the past three years, in accordance with the recommended frequency of screening. In terms of cancer screening, 48% of women aged 25-69 years had undergone the Pap smear test within the past three years; and 10.3% of Singapore residents aged 50-69 years had a Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) within the past one year.

Nevertheless, there is room to further improve the screening participation rate. My Ministry will continue to look into how we can encourage more Singaporeans to undergo appropriate screening, and make screening even more convenient and affordable.

Age profile of MediShield policyholders

I asked the Minister for Health on 21 October 2013 for the number of MediShield policyholders in each age group. Here was his written reply to my parliamentary question.

————————————

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health how many MediShield policyholders are currently in age ranges of (i) 0-20 years (ii) 21-30 years (iii) 31-40 years (iv) 41-50 years (v) 51-60 years (vi) 61-65 years (vii) 66-70 years (viii) 71-73 years (ix) 74-75 years (x) 76-80 years (xi) 81-83 years (xii) 84-85 years and (xiii) 86-90 years.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Minister for Health):

As at June 2013, 3.6 million members, or 93% of the resident population, were covered under MediShield. The breakdown of MediShield policyholders by age group is presented below.

Age Group	MediShield Policyholders
0-20	881,800
21-30	505,100
31-40	598,500
41-50	598,200
51-60	537,800
61-65	189,200
66-70	106,300
71-73	51,500
74-75	29,700
76-80	46,800
81-83	16,500
84-85	6,300
86-90	2,600
Total	3,570,200

The maximum coverage age for MediShield was recently raised from 85 to 90 years in March 2013, in view of the increasing life expectancy of Singaporeans. As a next step, with the proposed move to MediShield Life, we will be studying enhancements to provide universal, lifetime coverage for all Singaporeans, including the most elderly.

MediShield’s capital adequacy ratio

At the 21 October 2013 Parliament sitting, I asked the Minister for Health about the reserves and Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) of MediShield, the government-run health insurance scheme. The MediShield Fund has $507 million in net assets (as at December 2012). The purpose of this question was to find out what proportion of this $507 million consisted of reserves and capital set aside to meet MAS regulations for insurers. I also wanted to find out what was the target CAR of MediShield. In his answer, the Minister said that MediShield’s CAR was 165% as at the end of 2012. This means that the scheme has enough capital set aside to fund up to 165% of its claims in 2012. While MAS requires a minimum threshold of 100-120%, MediShield is in fact aiming for a CAR 200%.

This was a follow up to my parliamentary question on 21 November 2011, when the Minister told me that “(b)esides funding current claims, a portion of MediShield premiums is set aside as reserves in line with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)’s Risk-based Capital framework. Beyond the reserves, MediShield is also required to set aside a certain sum of capital, to meet MAS’s risk requirements and keep the Fund solvent in case of adverse risks.”

In his answer on Monday, the Minister said that MediShield’s CAR was 165% as at the end of 2012. This means that the scheme has enough capital set aside to fund up to 165% of its claims in 2012. While MAS requires a minimum threshold of 100-120%, MediShield is in fact aiming for a CAR 200%.

————————-

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health regarding the $507 million in net assets of the MediShield Fund at the end of 2012 (a) how much of this represents (i) reserves set aside to fund the expected scheme liabilities (ii) capital set aside to meet MAS’ risk-based capital framework requirements for insurers; (b) what is the quantum of (i) reserves and (ii) capital set aside for each of the years from 2005 to 2012; and (c) what is the minimum Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) that MediShield targets to maintain over and above the minimum CAR of 100% required by MAS.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Minister for Health):

MediShield is a self-sustaining and not-for-profit insurance scheme. This requires setting aside sufficient reserves in the MediShield Fund to meet its liabilities, expected risks and target Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR).

Between 2005 and 2012, on average, about 65% of the MediShield Fund comprised reserves to fund the expected scheme liabilities. Scheme liabilities include policyholders’ claims as well as premium rebates to help policyholders with old-age premium affordability.

The remaining portion of the Fund, which is what Mr Giam has referred to in his question as “net assets”, is capital from which the MAS-based risk requirements are financed. CAR is computed as the ratio of these “net assets” to the MAS-based risk requirements.

The member also asked about the CAR that the MediShield Fund targets to maintain. While the minimum CAR is 100%, MAS requires funds to meet a minimum threshold CAR of 120%, below which a “financial resources warning event” is triggered and the regulator may intervene. No prudent insurance fund operates by holding only the absolute minimum requirement, otherwise a small variation in claims would immediately cause a breach. Reserves and capital numbers change from year to year as claims payout changes and the Fund’s assets are marked-to-market. As at end 2012, the CAR of MediShield Fund is about 165%. The MediShield Fund has set a target CAR of 200% to ensure that the Fund is able to meet its liabilities to policyholders even in adverse scenarios. This target is in line with industry best practices.

MediShield liabilities and reserves are reviewed on an annual basis in line with actuarial principles.

Median cash-over-valuation (COV) for resale HDB flats

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development if he can provide the figures for the median Cash-Over-Valuation for resale HDB flats by town and flat type in each quarter since 2nd Quarter 2007, with a breakdown of buyers by (i) Singapore citizen (SC) households (i.e. households with at least one SC owner) and (ii) Singapore permanent resident (SPR) households (i.e. households with SPR but no SC owners).

Parliament sitting date: 16 September 2013

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development if he can provide the figures for the median Cash-Over-Valuation for resale HDB flats by town and flat type in each quarter since 2nd Quarter 2007, with a breakdown of buyers by (i) Singapore citizen (SC) households (i.e. households with at least one SC owner) and (ii) Singapore permanent resident (SPR) households (i.e. households with SPR but no SC owners).
Mr Khaw Boon Wan : Detailed Cash-Over-Valuation (COV) data, provided there are sufficient transactions during the quarter, with breakdown by town and flat type are published in the HDB InfoWEB and updated quarterly. HDB, however, does not monitor the detailed breakdown as requested by the Member.

We do have some breakdown of COV data by buyer group, as tabulated below:

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Tax concessions given to foreign nationals

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many foreign nationals or entities have been exempted from paying the 10% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) from 8 December 2011 to 11 January 2013, the 15% ABSD since 12 January 2013 or any other stamp duties when buying residential properties in Singapore because of free trade agreements (FTAs); (b) what is the total amount of stamp duties exempted for these individuals or entities; and (c) whether any FTAs currently under negotiation, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, have similar concessions for foreign nationals or entities.

Parliament sitting date: 16 September 2013

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many foreign nationals or entities have been exempted from paying the 10% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) from 8 December 2011 to 11 January 2013, the 15% ABSD since 12 January 2013 or any other stamp duties when buying residential properties in Singapore because of free trade agreements (FTAs); (b) what is the total amount of stamp duties exempted for these individuals or entities; and (c) whether any FTAs currently under negotiation, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, have similar concessions for foreign nationals or entities.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : Under the “national treatment” obligation of the US-Singapore FTA (USSFTA) and the Singapore-European Free Trade Association FTA (ESFTA), Singapore is obliged to accord Nationals of the United States of America, and the Nationals and Permanent Residents of Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland, similar tax treatment as Singaporeans in the purchase of residential properties in Singapore 5 .

These are the only two FTAs where “national treatment” has been accorded to foreign individuals in respect of taxes, which include stamp duties. Otherwise, foreign entities do not enjoy Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) remission.

For the period 8 Dec 2011 to 11 Jan 2013, there were 138 residential property transactions by foreign individuals granted ABSD remission due to the two FTAs. For the period 12 Jan 2013 6 to 31 Jul 2013, there were 114 transactions granted ABSD remission. These transactions are about 1.5% of all property transactions that attracted ABSD during the period.

The amount of ABSD which has been remitted for these 252 transactions was $81.2 million.

Negotiations on other FTAs like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are still ongoing. MTI will continue to seek a balanced package in our FTA negotiations to ensure that the FTAs provide meaningful benefits for Singapore, while taking into account the costs.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Compulsory vaccination for children

Parliament sitting date: 16 September 2013

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the rationale for some vaccinations, including the pneumococcal disease vaccination, under the National Childhood and Adolescent Immunisation Schedule which are required for Primary 1 registration being chargeable for Singaporeans at polyclinics; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider making all vaccinations under the Immunisation Schedule free for Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong : To help parents defray the cost of childhood vaccinations, the use of Medisave was extended to cover the cost of all vaccinations in the National Childhood Immunisation Schedule (NCIS), up to $400 per account per year from June 2013. The Government has also provided a Medisave Grant of $3,000 for all newborn Singaporeans which can be used to pay for these vaccinations.

In addition, vaccinations under the NCIS that confer strong herd immunity against the respective diseases for the whole population are offered free for citizens at the polyclinics. In doing so, we hope to encourage higher up-take of these vaccinations and achieve adequate coverage for the population.

Parents are required to produce records of their child’s immunisation certificates at Primary One registration, for BCG, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis B, all of which are free for citizens at the polyclinics.

MOH will continue to regularly review the financing framework of the NCIS to ensure its relevance and affordability to Singaporeans.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Waiting list for HDB subsidised rental flats

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of applicants on the waiting list for HDB subsidised rental flats; and (b) when will this waiting list be cleared.

Parliament sitting date: 16 September 2013

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the current number of applicants on the waiting list for HDB subsidised rental flats; and (b) when will this waiting list be cleared.

Mr Khaw Boon Wan : There are 1,900 registered applicants on the waiting list for public rental flats. On average, the applicants will be allocated a flat within 7.5 months. However, the actual waiting time for each applicant differs, depending on the zone selected, the choice of flat type, as well as the EIP quota for the block and the neighbourhood.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Projected increase in MediShield payouts under MediShield Life

I asked this question during the 16 September 2013 sitting of Parliament. I wanted to find out how much more in claims MediShield is expected to bear under the proposed MediShield Life scheme, which is going to cover all Singaporeans, including those above the age of 90 and those with pre-existing health conditions. I was expecting the Government to have already done its actuarial calculations to arrive at an answer. However, the Minister was not ready to reveal the numbers yet (or perhaps the full calculations had not been done yet).Singaporeans will need to wait until at least next March (i.e., the Committee of Supply debate) to find out the details of the MediShield Life scheme.

One thing is clear: Claims are going to go up. The question therefore will be: How much more will premiums rise, and will the Government be prepared to step in the reduce the premium burden on Singaporeans?

———————

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health what is the projected annual increase in MediShield payouts if (i) all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents are enrolled (ii) all pre-existing, congenital and neonatal conditions are covered and (iii) the maximum coverage age is removed.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, as part of the overall healthcare financing review to ensure that healthcare remains affordable for all Singaporeans, MOH is studying the introduction of better coverage for large bills and moving to life-long MediShield coverage for all Singaporeans.

As the move to MediShield Life is a major policy shift, we will have a public consultation exercise later this year to seek Singaporeans’ views on the proposed MediShield Life. The details and costs of the MediShield Life, including the likely impact on the payouts from MediShield Life if all pre-existing conditions and all residents are covered for life, are currently under study. More details will be shared during the public consultation exercise.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Madam, I have three supplementary questions. First, my concern is that the increased coverage will also come with higher premiums. While I support the increased coverage, my concern is that these higher premiums will be a financial burden on some members, especially the elderly and the low income. So, my questions are: Is the Government planning to subsidise MediShield Life premiums as part of its overall plan to increase the healthcare budget, because currently MediShield is completely self-funding and receives no Government subsidies? Secondly, can the Government provide more details about the Pioneer Generation Package that was announced during the National Day Rally? Would it be means tested and what is the cut-off age? Lastly, when will the full details of MediShield Life be announced?

Mr Gan Kim Yong : Mdm Speaker, first let me explain that today, the Government already indirectly subsidises MediShield because the Government provides top-ups into Medisave, and Medisave is being used to pay for the premium for MediShield. So, indirectly there is Government subsidy for MediSheild, particularly for the lower income. Going forward, with MediShield Life, as the Member has rightly pointed out, with enhanced benefits, the pay-outs will increase and that is the objective of enhancing the benefits, and therefore the premium has to go up as well.

The Government is very conscious about the impact of higher premiums and therefore we have already made the commitment that we will make sure that the lower income as well as the older Singaporeans who may not have sufficient savings will be looked after. We will make sure that the premiums, with Government subsidies, will be affordable for them. That is the first question.

The Member also asked about the Pioneer Generation Package. The details are being worked out now. In due course, we will reveal more details on who will qualify for Pioneer Generation Package, and what is provided for in the Pioneer Generation Package. I urge the Member to be patient and we will reveal that in time.

Last question is about the details of MediShield Life. We will have a public consultation. We are still working on MediShield Life and what form it will take. But the key parameter is that we want to make sure that all Singaporeans will be included and they will also be included throughout their lives. Therefore, we will remove the age limit on MediShield Life.

As for the other features, for example, how we can enhance the payouts, how we can help to reduce the co-payment especially for the larger bills, these are the details that the Ministry is working on now. During the public consultation, we will share more details. And we hope to be able to give even more details, and the broad shape of the scheme by the next Committee of Supply (COS) debate.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

Malaysian-Registered Motor Vehicles Entering Singapore

Parliamentary Question to the Transport Minister on 12 August 2013.

——————–

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) in each of the last six months, how many Malaysian-registered motor vehicles entered Singapore, with a breakdown by (i) nationality of the vehicle registrant (ii) vehicle type and (iii) duration of stay in Singapore; and (b) what are the allowable reasons for Singaporeans residing in Malaysia to enter Singapore with Malaysian-registered vehicles.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew : In the last six months, foreign-registered vehicles made about 9 million trips into Singapore, or about 1.5 million trips per month. About 67% are made by motorcycles, 24% by cars and the remainder by goods vehicles, buses and taxis. More than 90% of these trips are of duration two days or less, with about 80% of one day duration only. We do not have statistics on the nationality of the vehicle owners.

Under the Road Traffic Act, Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are not allowed to drive or use foreign-registered vehicles in Singapore, unless they meet certain conditions. They must prove that they work and reside in West Malaysia, and have paid the relevant Singapore registration fees and taxes for these vehicles as if they were registered in Singapore. Furthermore, they are allowed to drive their Malaysian-registered vehicles into Singapore only for up to 28 weekdays a year, in addition to weekends and Singapore public holidays. Similar to foreigners driving foreign-registered vehicles into Singapore, they must pay the applicable Vehicle Entry Permit fee, which is $20 per day for cars, when they enter Singapore, and the vehicles must not stay in Singapore for more than 14 days per visit.

LTA takes strong enforcement action against individuals who drive or use a foreign-registered vehicle illegally. The maximum penalty is a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months.