\n<\/p>\n
Non-Constituency MP Andre Low drew a parallel with a 2023 debate on a Bill that backdated provisions related to President Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s international appointments, noting the argument then was that backdating was acceptable because no one was prejudiced.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is one possible test for when retrospective legislation may be appropriate and a reasonable one, and it is precisely a test that parliament cannot apply today because the government has not told us who was affected by these collections, by how much, or for how long,\u201d said Mr Low.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am not asserting that large numbers of people suffered serious harm. I do not know. Neither does this House because the government has not said.\u201d<\/p>\n
WP chief Pritam Singh later asked whether the government had data on the number of people affected and the total sums involved, and whether it was prepared to disclose this before the vote.<\/p>\n
Party chair Sylvia Lim raised the need for proper parliamentary authorisation when the state collects money from citizens, while WP MP Gerald Giam asked if at least an “order of magnitude” estimate could be provided.<\/p>\n
National Development Minister Chee Hong Tat said comprehensive figures were not readily available.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is not that we do not want to give you a number \u2026 These fees were collected over a long period of time, if I\u2019m not wrong, since independence, when we first started,” he said. “So we may not have the full, accurate record of all the amounts collected that we are able to share with you.”<\/p>\n
He added that the ministry would try to compile and share the data subsequently.<\/p>\n
Both Mr Chee and Dr Syed Harun rejected WP’s suggestions that the fees had been wrongly or illegally collected.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Mr Chee said the charges had been imposed on a cost-recovery basis for services rendered and were treated as administrative fees at the time, and there was therefore no obligation to issue refunds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n