Full transcript, 788,300 characters — every turn. Summarised passages are
highlighted: 646 passages across 101 turns, covering
13.7% of what was said. The rest is the record itself.
Open on 648 sentences (13.7%
of the characters). 5,320 sentences in 946 stretches are folded
inline — tap a [+N sentences] to read them where they sit.
5 further highlights held back as procedure or repetition (3 restatement, 2 chair housekeeping) — collapsed, not removed. Every topic below is closed until you open it.
The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow)757 words
[+10 sentences]Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This past year has been challenging for many businesses. The conflict in the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted supply chains and pushed up energy costs. At the same time, artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming industries, and companies must adapt quickly to stay competitive. This Bill does three things. First, it brings into legal effect tax measures, that were announced at this year's Budget and during the April Parliament Sitting to help businesses cope with these cost pressures and invest in AI. Second, it introduces amendments to comply with the latest Pillar Two global minimum tax rules, which will provide greater certainty to multinational enterprises. Third, it introduces changes to simplify tax filing for taxpayers. Let me first start with the first set of amendments on business support. Clause 31 introduces the Corporate Income Tax Rebates and Cash Grants for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2026. At this year's Budget, the Government had announced a 40% tax rebate with a $1,500 cash grant for active companies that employed at least one local employee in 2025.[+1 sentence] The total benefit was capped at $30,000. When the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz broke out, I shared in Parliament in April that we would raise the tax rebate to 50%, and the cash grant to $2,000, to help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) cope with cost pressures.[+2 sentences] The benefit cap was also raised to $40,000, and today's amendment brings this into legal effect. Clause 13(1) enhances the Enterprise Innovation Scheme to support businesses in AI adoption. At Budget this year, we announced an expansion of the scheme to include AI expenditure and businesses will now be able to claim an enhanced tax deduction of 400% on up to $50,000 of qualifying AI expenditure, for YA2027 and YA2028.[+10 sentences] The second set of amendments, Sir, concerns our Pillar Two taxes, namely the Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax and the Domestic Top-up Tax. In January this year, all 147 jurisdictions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Inclusive Framework agreed to the Side-by-Side package, which exempts the United States (US) multinational enterprises from certain Pillar Two rules. Clauses 38 and 49(b) give effect to this agreement in Singapore. US multinational enterprises will be exempted from our Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax. The Domestic Top-up Tax will continue to apply to all multinational enterprises in Singapore, including those from the US. Clauses 36, 37, and 39 to 50 align our laws with other updates to international rules. For example, we will allow the exchange of Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) Information Returns with other jurisdictions under Pillar Two, so that multinational enterprises only need to file these returns in one jurisdiction. The third set of amendments make tax filing simpler for taxpayers, especially the self-employed. Today, self-employed persons have to compile and calculate their actual business expenses when filing tax returns – and for some, this can be onerous. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has simplified the process by allowing some groups of self-employed taxpayers, like real estate agents, insurance brokers, or financial advisors, to deduct a fixed percentage of their gross commission revenue as expenses if they wish to. This simplified tax filing process has been popular. So, clause 13(2) extends this option to all self-employed persons and individual sole proprietorships, with annual revenue of up to $50,000, allowing them to claim a Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio of 20%.[+11 sentences] This is an option and not compulsory. Those who still prefer to claim their actual expenses may continue to do so. We will also require all companies to use IRAS' e-service for specific tax filing matters. Today, all companies already file tax returns using IRAS' e-service, and nearly 80% do this for objections and revisions to tax filings. Clauses 27, 28, 32, and 34, require all companies to use IRAS' e-service for filing of objections and revisions from 1 July 2027. This will allow for faster resolution of tax matters. IRAS will work closely with business associations and taxpayers to support those who need help to use the system. Mr Speaker, in summary this Bill builds on the strong foundation of our tax system to support businesses through a difficult year and help them invest for the next. It helps keep our tax system in step with international tax developments and provide certainty to multinational enterprises. And lastly, this Bill aims to simplify tax filing for businesses and self-employed persons. Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh)768 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill 2026, which introduces tax changes to support businesses and Singaporeans amid a challenging and uncertain economic environment. I will focus on several provisions in the Bill where implementation clarity can help ensure that the intended support reaches businesses and taxpayers effectively. First, I welcome the enhancements to the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, particularly the 400% tax deduction on up to $50,000 of qualifying AI-related expenditure for YA2027 and YA2028.[+13 sentences] This is timely as more enterprises seek to adopt AI to raise productivity and transform their operations. I have two clarifications. First, how will IRAS define "qualifying AI expenditure" in practice? Increasingly, commercial software incorporates some form of AI capability. It will therefore be important for businesses to understand where the line is drawn between ordinary software expenditure and expenditure on AI solutions that qualifies for the enhanced deduction. This is particularly relevant where a single expenditure contains both qualifying AI and non-qualifying components. Will IRAS provide guidance and practical illustrations on how businesses should apportion such expenditure ahead of YA2027? Second, unlike some other qualifying activities under the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, businesses do not appear to have the option of converting qualifying AI expenditure into a non-taxable cash payout. Could the Minister explain the rationale for this distinction? This could be particularly relevant to smaller and younger enterprises which may have limited taxable income but could benefit greatly from adopting AI. Second, I welcome the continuation of the 50% Corporate Income Tax rebate and the $2,000 cash grant for eligible companies. On the cash grant, I seek a clarification regarding the eligibility requirement relating to Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for local employees. The Bill allows the Comptroller to waive the relevant time requirement in certain circumstances. Could the Minister clarify the scope of this discretion and how the Government will ensure that the grant continues to benefit companies with substantive local employment? I also welcome the increase in the expenditure cap for qualifying internationalisation activities that can be claimed without prior approval from Enterprise Singapore or the Singapore Tourism Board, from $150,000 to $400,000 per year of assessment.[+6 sentences] This should reduce administrative friction for Singapore companies seeking to expand overseas. Could the Minister elaborate briefly on the considerations behind the significant increase in the cap, and how the change is expected to facilitate the internationalisation of our enterprises? Third, on the amendments to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act, I have one clarification. As Singapore implements the GloBE Information Return exchange framework, sensitive corporate financial and tax information may be transmitted between jurisdictions. What safeguards will apply to such exchanges, particularly in relation to data protection, cybersecurity and reciprocity, to ensure that information concerning businesses operating in Singapore is appropriately protected? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please. (In Malay): I also welcome the tax exemption for payments under the ComLink+ Progress Package, which will apply retrospectively to payments made from 1 May 2025.[+5 sentences] Given that this amendment will apply retrospectively, could the Minister clarify whether the exemption and any necessary tax adjustments will be made automatically by IRAS, or whether recipients will need to apply? I also seek clarification on the tax exemption for subsidies, allowances or benefits provided for an employee's child attending an MOE Kindergarten. Could the Minister confirm how this amendment will ensure fair and consistent tax treatment for parents who receive childcare or education benefits from their employers? (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in English again. Finally, I have two brief points on tax administration. The introduction of the Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio should simplify tax filing for self-employed persons and sole proprietors.[+9 sentences] However, different occupations and businesses can have very different cost structures. Can the Minister confirm that self-employed persons whose actual business expenses exceed the 20% ratio can continue to claim their actual allowable expenses without undue administrative friction? Lastly, I support the move towards greater use of digital tax services, including mandatory electronic filing of objections by companies. At the same time, some traditional micro-enterprises and older business owners may still face difficulties navigating digital systems. What assistance or alternative arrangements will IRAS provide to ensure that these taxpayers are not disadvantaged as tax administration becomes increasingly digital? Mr Speaker, Sir, effective tax legislation must strike a balance between supporting enterprise transformation, preserving Singapore's competitiveness and ensuring that our tax system remains clear and accessible. The measures in this Bill move in that direction. Providing clarity on these implementation issues will give businesses and taxpayers greater certainty as they adjust to the changes. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang)2369 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, as with past years, the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill before this House seeks to implement the tax changes announced in Budget 2026, by amending the Income Tax Act and related legislation. My speech today will be largely domestic in focus, while my Sengkang colleague, Jamus Lim will focus on international issues, such as those relating to Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0. My speech today is in two parts. In part one, I will touch on key specifics of the Bill, in particular the new deduction for qualifying AI expenditure. In part two, I will set out what remains my wish list for tax changes in Singapore, which hopefully can come as soon as Budget 2027. While the Minister and the team from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) listening in will likely find some of them familiar, these issues are, if anything, more pressing than when I last raised them in this House during the Budget 2026 debate and on last year's edition of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill in 2025. Let me first touch on how we can support our companies in their AI journey. Clause 13 inserts a new section 14ZK, allowing a deduction for qualifying AI expenditure for YA2027 and YA2028. Up to $50,000 of such expenditure a year qualifies, with a multiplier of 300% where the cost is already deductible and 400% where it is not.[+24 sentences] I support the intent of this new measure. Qualifying AI expenditure includes expenditure on AI systems or a qualifying AI business service, as defined by section 14ZK(2). However, especially after the so-called "SaaS pocalypse" fears in early 2026, almost every self-respecting developer of business software will call itself AI-powered and the definitions in section 14ZK(2), which includes the provision of an online platform, are understandably broad. This creates two opposite risks. The first is overclaiming. A firm could claim its entire Customer Relationship Management (CRM) or accounting software, because an AI assistant is built in. The second is actually the reverse – an overly narrow reading could penalise a firm that pays a premium for software to adopt AI where its staff actually work inside everyday software that is, used rather than buying a standalone chatbot. In my view, the guidance from IRAS should address both areas explicitly. Consider what small businesses actually buy. Looking at the major software providers today, Xero's AI agent, JAX, is currently included in existing subscriptions at no extra cost. So, there is no AI-specific price at all for now. Is the qualifying amount zero, the whole subscription or something in between? Intuit, the developer of the widely used accounting software QuickBooks has woven its AI features into QuickBooks Online and changed its subscription prices from August this year. Is the price increase the AI component? Salesforce, arguably the largest CRM player today, sells some of its Agentforce AI at separately priced add-ons and credits, which are easy to identify, but also in bundled additions, where the CRM licence and Ante AI come at a single per user price. Then there is, of course, the additional complication of per-seat versus usage-based pricing models, which may evolve quickly alongside the rapid developments in AI. Section 14ZK (5) requires a person who cannot, despite reasonable efforts, obtain evidence of the qualifying portion to apportion it in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances. And if the controller is not satisfied that it is reasonable, section 14ZK(6) allows the controller to apportion according to his or her best judgement. With respect, a sole proprietor of a five-person firm in Sengkang cannot negotiate a cost breakdown from a global software vendor. Hence, when AI is bundled into ordinary software and the vendor discloses no AI-specific price, what evidence does the Government expect a small business to obtain and what allocation will IRAS accept? I suggest that IRAS provides additional guidance with worked examples on bundled software soon after the Bill's passing. As with other forms of claims, such as the deemed business expenses, commission agents and taxi drivers, or employment work-from-home expenses, we can also adopt the simple default percentage for smaller claims where no such pricing transparency exists. Third, a list of common software products with accepted apportionments, much as the Productivity Solutions Grant list pre-approved solutions that qualify. And fourth, no penalties for good faith apportionment made in line with guidance, even if later adjusted. On a related note, I can understand the urgency to encourage AI adoption among firms, especially as a Ministry if Manpower report released on April 2026, found that 72% of firms have yet to adopt AI, and only 4% are integrating AI into their core processes.[+7 sentences] Looking forward, however, if the data breach at Bee Cheng Hiang, the first AI-related breach notified to the Personal Data Protection Commission is anything to go by, the scheme should be expanded to place greater emphasis on qualifying expenditure in the specific areas of AI governance, risk management and security so that controls and responsible use can be built up alongside adoption. Next, let me turn to how we can better support an individual's AI journey. On course fees relief entered from YA2026, in April, I asked whether it would be reinstated from YA2027 or replaced with another personal income tax relief for skills upgrading. The Senior Minister of State replied that the Government had introduced more targeted direct support for lifelong learning and that there are no plans to do either. I think this is a lost opportunity. As I said in November 2025 and again in February 2026, a broad-based skills investment relief, capped at deduction for out-of-pocket training expenses would reward workers who retrain on their own initiative, including for a career unrelated to the current job. The contrast with corporates is stark. A company that spends $50,000 on AI subscriptions can deduct up to $200,000.[+12 sentences] An individual gets a single six-month subscription to a premium AI tool and only if enrolled in a selected AI course. Why does the Government give businesses an enhanced deduction for AI subscriptions, but give individuals only a time-limited cost link subsidy? AI fluency, like any skill, comes from daily practice, not from a course certificate. How will the Government support a continued access after the free six months, particularly for workers who need to practice independently or while between jobs with no employer to pay? For these workers, they inevitably also lose out on opportunities to upskill themselves, especially if they have already exhausted their SkillsFuture credits and do not have the ongoing training provided by their firms seeking to build up human capital. If the concern is that a flat relief favours higher earners, there are alternatives. A targeted credit or a subsidised renewal for lower-income learners would reach those who pay little or no income tax. As I have shared in Budget 2026, Prime Minister Wong spoke in length about AI and in an era where AI is recognised as a critical driver of economic transformation. It is incongruous that personal expenditure on AI-related tools and education does not receive the same tax relief consideration as corporate AI investments. Staying on the personal income tax front for YA2024 and YA2025, resident taxpayers have received a personal income tax rebate capped at $200. For YA2026, there is none. As I said last November, the rebate looks temporary and so it has proven to be the case. As I stated in my Budget 2026 speech, the lower- and middle-personal income tax brackets, including the $20,000 tax free threshold, have not been updated since 2001, some 25 years ago.[+1 sentence] Since then, nominal wages and the cost of living have risen significantly, leading to the so-called bracket creep, where taxpayers are pushed into higher marginal tax brackets, even if their real purchasing power had stagnated. In his Budget round-up speech, Prime Minister Wong said that about one in three resident workers pay no personal income tax, and that about eight in 10 of those who do, have an effective tax rate of below 6%.[+5 sentences] In November 2020, in a Parliamentary reply, then-Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said about half of workers paid no personal income tax, and 80% of taxpayers had effective rates below 4%. In about five years, the share outside the tax net had declined from about half to around one in three; while the effective tax rate the Government cites for eight in 10 taxpayers had moved from below 4% to below 6%. Some of that is real wage growth, which we welcome, but part of it is also what bracket creep looks like when the $20,000 threshold has not moved since 2001. With the earned income relief at $1,000 for workers below 55 for as long as I can recall, I hope they can institute a mechanism to regularly review both the personal income tax brackets and basic relief quota so that the system keeps pace with wages and prices. Sticking to tax rates and this time on corporate income taxes, in our Motion on an Economy of the Future that Works for All in August, the Workers' Party argued that we must better support local SMEs, a point that I believe saw broad agreement in this House. According to the OECD's Corporate Tax Statistics 2024 report, multinational corporations (MNCs) were responsible for 73% of Singapore's corporate income tax revenue in 2021.[+6 sentences] That makes us the fourth-most dependent economy in the world on MNCs for corporate income tax behind Chile at 76%; Hong Kong at 79%; and Ireland at 87%. In his round-up, the Prime Minister himself attributed recent elevated collections partly to better than expected contributions from multinational enterprises in a few key sectors. The flip side is that we can better support SMEs without sacrificing much revenue. In August, the Ministry of Trade and Industry upgraded this year's growth forecast to between 4.5% and 5.5%, citing global AI-related capital expenditure. Growth led by large export-oriented firms, not your neighbourhood SME, nor are SMEs lightly taxed. As I noted in 2021, based on figures from my Parliamentary question, SMEs then accounted for a 9% of total profits before tax in YA2019, yet contributed an outsized 29% of corporate income tax paid. As I have often shared, the current system of fluctuating corporate income tax rates, varying from 20% to 50% over the last decade, lacks the certainty and predictability needed for long-term planning. I hope the Government can introduce more structural progressivity into our corporate income tax regime and better support our SMEs, such as through reversing the cut to partial tax exemption limits that were introduced in Budget 2018, where the maximum exemption was reduced sharply from $152,500 up to YA2019, to $102,500 from YA2020 onwards; or introduce a two-tiered profits tax similar to Hong Kong's model.[+13 sentences] Finally, on measures to address our total fertility rate. I welcome the measures announced at the National Day Rally, including the SG Child Support Package for a Singapore Citizen child, regardless of birth order and more childcare leave. It is time our tax policies follow suit. In my Budget 2026 speech in February this year, I spoke about Hungary. To recap and update, since October 2025, Hungary has exempted qualifying mothers of three children, regardless of age, from personal income tax on their earnings from work, and its government estimated that about 250,000 women were eligible. From January this year, it removed the income tax on the existing relief for qualifying mothers under 30 and introduced a similar exemption for qualifying mothers of two born in 1986 or later. The two-child measure is scheduled to extend to older mothers in 2027 and 2028, and to all qualifying mothers of two from 2029. I asked back then whether we are willing to be this bold. But even if we do not wish to go that far, there is a more modest step. I am comforted that this Government is not afraid of U-turns and the large family scheme was launched in Budget 2025 for the third and subsequent Singapore Citizen child, and the Prime Minister cited it again in his round-up earlier this February. Six months later, it is being absorbed into the SG Child Support package, just 18 months after its launch. I welcome the move away from birth order arithmetic, but if the Large Family Scheme can be revisited in 18 months, surely the Working Mother's Child Relief can too. Let me recap a point from the Workers' Party manifesto. The adjustment of the Working Mother's Child Relief to a fixed-dollar relief from YA2025, leaves a large majority of working mothers either unaffected or worse off, while offering minimal additional tax savings of about $40 a year or less to a small minority. The Working Mother's Child Relief should revert to a percentage of income. And because working mothers earning less than $22,000 a year pay no income tax and so, gain nothing from the Working Mother's Child Relief, we propose a $1,000 working mothers tax credit for all mothers earning $25,000 a year, including single mothers.[+6 sentences] Allow me to conclude, Mr Speaker, with five asks. First AI for businesses. IRAS should publish clear guidance on claiming tax deductions for bundled AI software and commit to no penalties for good faith apportionment. Second, AI for workers. Introduce a skills investment relief so that Singaporeans who upskill and build AI literacy at their own expense are recognised and supported. Third, end bracket creep. In about five years, the share of workers who do not pay income taxes has fallen from about half to about one in three, while the effective tax rate for eight in 10 taxpayers has moved from below 4% to below 6%.[+1 sentence] Fourth, a fairer deal for SMEs. Since YA2020, the maximum partial tax exemption has been slashed by almost a third, from $152,500 to $102,500.[+5 sentences] Reverse the cut or adopt stronger progressivity. Fifth, working mothers. If the Large Family Scheme can be revisited in 18 months, surely the Working Mothers Child Relief can be too. The fixed-dollar Working Mother's Child Relief leaves a large majority of working mothers unaffected or worse off. Restore the percentage-based relief to send the right signal to our working mothers.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh)2226 words
[+5 sentences]Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Taxes do more than raise revenue. They are signals. They nudge businesses toward good practices, encourage generosity and help build a fairer system. This Bill makes four significant moves. First, clause 13 gives businesses a 400% tax deduction on spending to adopt AI alongside a corporate income tax rebate to ease cost pressures.[+2 sentences] This prepares Singapore for the economy that is coming. Second, clauses 8 and 9 make it easier for our companies to venture abroad. From YA2027, firms can claim double tax deductions on up to $400,000 of overseas expansion costs a year without prior approval up from $150,000; and more early groundwork, such as feasibility studies, will qualify automatically.[+3 sentences] At this year's Committee of Supply, I noted that four in five SMEs hope to expand overseas, yet only 3.1% of our resident workforce has worked abroad full-time for six months or more. I ask for smoother lower-risk pathways into foreign markets, and I am glad that the Government is now saying: go out, build, come back stronger and we will share some of that risk with you. Third, and here I declare my interest as Executive Director of CampusImpact, an Institution of Public Character (IPC). Clause 17 extends the 250% tax deduction for IPC donations due to lapse this year, to the end of 2029.[+1 sentence] Donations are vital to our social service agencies and three more years gives charities and beneficiaries the confidence to plan. Fourth, clause 14 lets platform operators claim tax deductions when they voluntarily top up their platform workers' MediSave accounts.[+47 sentences] Until the Platform Workers Act took effect last year, operators made no CPF contributions for the riders we rely on daily, so their healthcare savings have had less time to grow. This clause helps us do right by them. At the same time, let me ask a few clarification questions. First, on the tax incentives for AI use. I would like to ask first, whether the Government will fund consultancy projects or an in-house matching service to help companies identify the right AI software for their business needs, lest we create white elephants. At the same time, would the Government consider embedding a compulsory job redesign component as a prerequisite for use of these consultancy services, in order to maximise the number of Singaporeans that are able to partake in the purported economic benefits of AI, rather than being replaced by AI? In that same vein, would the Ministry commit to publishing an evaluation before any decision to extend before YA2028 by take-up by firm size and sector, and its effect on human capital, both whether claimants' productivity and wages rose, and the effects on workers whose roles the tools changed. Second, on tax incentives for giving. Will the Ministry commit now that the 250% tax deduction will not simply lapse in 2029? If I could be so bold as to ask for the 250% tax deduction for charitable donations to social service agencies to be made a permanent feature of our tax incentives. Our social service agencies do important work. Uplifting those in our communities who need help, committing to journey with them with compassion and bringing hope to others should always be a feature of Singapore society. Let us give our social service agencies the assurance that Singapore will always have your back. Not everyone can nor should be a social worker or counsellor, but we can all stand together with our social service professionals. I would also like to ask if the Ministry could consider enhancing the Corporate Volunteer Scheme to specifically target skills-based secondments, from finance, data, IT and consultancy to small social service agencies. Additionally, skills-based volunteers also contribute significantly to the social service sector. Would the Ministry consider a 300% tax deduction for higher-impact executive volunteering and pro-bono services rendered to charities? Third, on the platform worker CPF top-up incentives. Firstly, would the Ministry track and report after three years, how many platform workers received voluntary top-ups and the median amount by age group, together with the opt-in rate among workers born before 1995. Secondly, one group that I would request the Minister to pay closer attention to is older platform workers who are no longer allowed to drive full-time and therefore, are not officially recognised as platform workers and cannot receive these benefits. Some of these drivers are my constituents and they have shared how they are pressed for income. And yet, they have found ways to continue driving past their statutory retirement age by using car-pooling arrangements, so that they can still get an income to manage the rising costs of living. Would the Ministry consider extending these CPF top-up incentives for this demographic of platform workers? Going further, on a matter of granularity, would the Ministry consider incentivising operators to further direct top-ups towards older platform workers that are closer to the statutory retirement age in order to further boost their retirement adequacy? Sir, these four clauses share one principle. Capital flows like water, and our tax system helps guide where it goes – towards innovation, enterprise, generosity and care for workers. But even as we pull capital towards productive uses, we should ask whether our tax system lets it stagnate in places that do little for the wider economy. A home is not like other assets. If someone buys gold or shares, no young couple is worse off. But in land-scarce Singapore, when one person holds a fifth or a 10th residential property, it takes away another family's chance at a home. Anyone who has played Monopoly knows the game changes once a player owns several properties. They collect rent at every turn and that advantage helps them buy more. We already charge higher stamp duty on additional purchases, which affects the decision to buy the next property, but our current system does little to change the cost of holding the properties already owned. Last year, a case came before our High Court which disclosed a family dispute over who owned 26 properties in Singapore, many of them residential. It found that the mother was the true owner of 25 of them, even though most had been registered partly in her children's names, in some cases, with a child holding as little as 1% on paper. Over the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, real wages in Singapore rose meaningfully, by 27%. Over the same period, the residential property price index rose by 42%. We have been trying to reduce inequalities. Since 2009, the Government has introduced at least 15 rounds of property cooling measures. I want to acknowledge that, and to acknowledge that these measures have worked to slow things down. This has taken the form of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty, Seller's Stamp Duty, loan-to-value limits and more. But all of these measures only create a high barrier to entry. Once a person has already acquired the properties, the cost of simply sitting on them, year after year, decade after decade, is comparatively modest. Singapore has no capital gains tax and no inheritance tax. So, property, once held, can appreciate significantly across an entire lifetime; and then pass to the next generation and appreciate again. The asset compounds and the advantage compounds. The young couple at the viewing, bidding against an investor who already owns four properties, is not competing on equal terms. They are competing against accumulated advantages built up over decades. So, I would like to propose a targeted reform: a tiered, progressive tax on second and subsequent investment residential properties.[+6 sentences] This could either take the form of increased tax on rental property income, as governed by section 10 of the Income Tax Act, or a general property tax. First, your home is untouched. Owner-occupied residential property continues to enjoy existing concessionary property tax rates. If you live in that property, you do not have to pay higher property taxes. Second, your one investment property is untouched. The income from first non-owner-occupied residential property continues to be taxed at current rates. Some Singaporeans have bought a second property as their retirement plan, counting on a modest rental income in old age and this proposal leaves those Singaporeans alone. However, from the second investment property onwards, a significantly higher and progressive set of rental income tax rates for your property would apply, meaningfully increasing holding costs.[+29 sentences] I am not proposing a higher property tax for your family home. That remains unchanged. For Singaporeans who have fought all their lives to hold one investment property as a legacy for their children, tax also remains unchanged. But beyond that, the more of this scarce, precious land you hold, the more you contribute for holding it. As Singaporeans, we already accept this logic at the point of purchase, since the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty a Singaporean pays rises with the number of homes already owned. I am asking that the same logic continues beyond the day of purchase and into the years of holding. Sir, I want to be very clear about what this proposal is not, because some may misunderstand. This is not a call to tax the wealthy more heavily. Singapore should remain a country where people who have done well can enjoy what they have built, and I hope many more of our people will enjoy similar success. I have no wish to see us resent success. My concern is with what we do with our wealth. Wealth parked in housing is not flowing and building anything else. If we invest that wealth in our Singapore companies, we build products, hire workers and perhaps, one day even help these companies list on our exchange. But buying a third residential unit and more does little of these things. It simply hoards that wealth and pushes up the price of residential properties for everyone else. Only last year, we introduced a set of incentives to encourage listings on our exchange and to draw investment into Singapore-listed equities. In today's Bill, we are supporting companies to adopt AI. So, the direction is clear – we want capital to flow to enterprise. My proposal addresses the other side of the same equation. While we offer carrots to move capital towards productive investment, would we consider a nudge for capital to move out of an attractive parking space in the economy, a scarce, appreciating necessity like residential property? Let us make it a little less attractive to hoard homes and correspondingly, more attractive to put money into venture capital, into private capital, into our SMEs, into companies listed on the Singapore Exchange, into funds managed in Singapore. That is wealth that builds Singapore, rather than wealth that merely waits at the expense of someone else's wait for a home. I pre-empt three main difficulties with this proposal. First, rent. Landlords holding multiple properties will try to pass higher costs to tenants. This reform should not be implemented alone. It should be paired with deliberate expansion of long-term rental and co-living supply, so the rental market has somewhere to breathe. And it should be phased with a long lead time, so the market adjusts gradually rather than abruptly. Second, avoidance. If the tax attaches only to the person on the title, it can be side-stepped through entities, trusts, nominees and family members.[+5 sentences] For this to work, liability must reach beneficial ownership, with annual declaration of total residential holdings and firm anti-avoidance rules. Third, market effects. Some divestment is likely and the net effect on prices and on rental supply is genuinely uncertain. This is why we need careful calibration and phasing as we implement these policies. Sir, this Bill is chiefly about income tax, although it also reaches into the Property Tax Act to give owners more time to appeal their valuations. But every measure I have spoken on today – the AI deduction, the overseas expansion deduction, the donation tax exemption extension, the MediSave clause, and my proposal to increase the property tax for the third private residential property and beyond – has the same intention of encouraging enterprise and investment, so we build a stronger Singapore economy. I therefore ask the Government to study a progressive holding tax on multiple investment residential properties as part of its ongoing review of our tax system and to consider it for a future Budget. To inform that study, I would be grateful if the Minister could share how many individuals today own three or more residential properties, and how that number has changed over the last decade. Our social compact rests on a promise that has been held for 60 years – that in Singapore, if you work hard, you can own your home.[+1 sentence] Not inherit it; own it. That promise is what makes a young couple believe this country is a place where they can build a life and perhaps, a family. I do not believe that foundation is cracking, but I would like us to attend to it while it is still sound and not wait till it is too late, and Singaporeans find ourselves playing a game of Monopoly that is already stacked against them because someone has already bought up all the properties, leaving them with no chance at all.[+1 sentence] Instead, let us continue to build that Singapore spirit which has contributed to our success – a spirit of innovation, generosity and enterprise.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang)1654 words
[+9 sentences]Mr Speaker, this Bill has two main arms. The first implements changes to the Income Tax Act and are consonant with the announcements made in this year's Budget Statement; and the second amends the Multinational Enterprise Minimum Tax Act to align it with the latest Side-by-Side package. I will confine my remarks on the domestic aspects of the Bill, mainly to those related to corporate tax relief, before turning to the international dimensions, comprising concerning updates to the base erosion and profit sharing of BEPS 2.0 project. My hon friend, Louis Chua, has previously addressed the Bill's more domestic elements as they relate to AI adoption as well as household tax relief. The Bill and Budget provide additional support for firms based here in several ways, with measures to support the roll-out of AI technology in their business, expanding corporate tax rebates for firms that hire locals and extending withholding tax exemptions for the financial sector, among others. The global economic environment is undeniably uncertain, and I am sure that companies appreciate any additional support they get. Many of these proposals have also undergone a process of public feedback and a number of these suggestions have already been accepted. These measures are therefore largely unobjectionable. However, I wish to offer some additional perspective on the proposed tax remission and associated cash grant before making a more general point about the tax treatment of corporate relative to personal income. The Government has stated that the motivation for the 50% corporate income tax rebate provided for in clause 31 was to lend businesses a helping hand as they navigate the economic challenges arising from the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. I also note that the rebate is slightly more generous than had previously been announced in February, up from 40% in recognition of the changing energy costs and cash flow challenges faced by SMEs.[+8 sentences] Let me first observe that the different fuel prices have actually gone in opposite directions. While petrol prices did indeed spike up in September after a period of easing, diesel prices have remained low. While diesel remains more expensive in absolute terms, one wonders if this divergent trend was due to Government action which will come over and above the cash relief granted to car and taxi drivers since April. If so, this will amount to a subsidy for industrial and military vehicles and taxi cabs, which is not enjoyed by, say, drivers of commercial private hire cars. Moreover, as other observers have pointed out, the nature of tax-based relief as such that a support will only be enjoyed by profitable firms. However, given how local business closures have jumped by close to 13% this year to-date, it will be unsurprising if a large share of SMEs are currently struggling mightily to make ends meet and operating under loss-making conditions. I believe many in this House would have had residents share that their own businesses have not been making any money. I am aware that IRAS allows carry-back relief for up to a year and other schemes, such as a whole suite of financial support and capability development programmes, are in place to channel financing to local firms on request. But we must recognise the insofar as this particular relief is concerned, loss-making firms are excluded. It is perhaps for this very reason that the Government has chosen in the new section 92M to also introduce an additional $2,000 cash grant available to SMEs in particular. I believe that this amount was also increased from the original $1,500 previously announced during the Budget.[+30 sentences] The question then is whether $2,000 is a sufficient lifeline for loss-making firms, one that is broadly proportional to the extent of the support received by profitable firms. How was this amount arrived at? How many firms are expected to receive this cash injection versus the number that are estimated to benefit from the tax write-off? Is the grant listed at $2,000 in the legislation distinct from the SME 2026 Cash Grant currently listed on the IRAS website, which is capped at $2,500? One final point pertaining to Part 3 of the new section 92, Part M. The qualification criteria appear to be so long as one local employee is on the payroll as defined by Part 7. I am left to wonder why this is not tiered such that businesses with more local employees may enjoy even larger grants. After all, assuming that the 2026 SME Cash Grant is indeed a distinct payout, IRAS appears to already have adopted this incremental tiered approach there. Allow me to make a more general observation. In my view, most of the Budget's corporation-oriented initiatives have provided financial support to companies in the form of tax relief. In contrast, the most visible household initiative has relied on transfers, principally in the form of coupons and vouchers. In principle, these two forms of support are comparable. Indeed, a long tradition in economics speaks of their equivalence. These two choices may also engender rather different behavioural responses. While both ease financial constraints, tax relief makes it clear that the originator of the funds are the firms themselves. In contrast, the provenance of vouchers is muddy. It is less evident that these, likewise, also originated from tax revenue collected from households before being redistributed back to them. They may come across as an entitlement lavished by the generosity of the Government. It also could foster the culture of dependency, a coupon culture. Once granted, people come to expect them year after year. This makes them harder to remove even when the policy need has long passed. This is another reason why the Workers' Party has previously harped on about Budget marksmanship. My other Party colleagues as well as myself have previously explained why structural levers are preferable to ad hoc voucher schemes for addressing costs of living increases and how the timing of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike may have had unintended consequences, such as contributing to inflation. My argument here is distinct from these. Collecting monies when they are not needed yet before turning around and then returning them may seem innocuous. But the subtle shifts in mindset and distortions, to expectations, could well be more pernicious than they first appear. Sir, I wish to offer a suggestion concerning as well, the initiatives in the Bill designed to nurture philanthropic activity. This is a laudable goal. Indeed, one of the motivations for the Workers' Party alluding to for proposing a wealth tax was to encourage the wealthy to give back to society. I have developed that idea further during the debate surrounding the amendments to the Business Trust Act in 2022 by suggesting that such trust can evolve to become vehicles for encouraging a culture of philanthropy by making them grant-making institutions. While I accept that the merits of further developing our philanthropic institutions goes beyond the scope of this Bill, I would simply note here that tax benefits made available by clause 11 are limited to IPCs.[+3 sentences] I can see why IPCs with explicit requisite that their activities benefit Singaporean society and being subject to more stringent reporting requirements that limit abuse are the gold standard for such giving; and I have little doubt that the largest donors will continue to channel their charitable contributions through such institutions. But smaller charities in Singapore are not exempt from regulation either and often, these are the ones that are most in need of assistance. While their mandates may be narrower, these smaller outfits typically do not pursue IPC status not because their work does not clearly benefit the community, nor because they are engaged in activities that they will rather avoid scrutiny over. Rather it is because being small almost by definition, they can ill afford the additional burdens associated with compliance necessary to attain IPC status. I therefore urge the Government to consider expanding the scope of tax deductibility to include non-IPC charities that have a demonstrable record of sound operations and clear contributions to Singapore society as a whole.[+8 sentences] Beyond providing crucial support to non-profits that are often most in greatest need of help, doing so will also lead more donors contemplating philanthropic giving since the universe of charities that they may now offer their help to will no longer be as limited. Sir, let me move on to the international aspects of the Bill. I am aware that the revisions to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act were necessitated by the adoption of the Side-by-Side package negotiated among the members of the OECD and G20 Inclusive Framework. This in turn has largely been the result of the recalcitrance of the US to concede to GLoBE Rules and its insistence on retaining its own minimum tax regime for MNCs. I had alluded to the possibility of such compromise in my speech on the analogous Income Tax Bill in this House late last year. So, here we are confronting revisions to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act. I believe that the proposed changes may paradoxically work to our advantage. After all, a qualified minimum top-up tax remains unaffected by the Side-by-Side framework. The main change relative to last year is that the Income Inclusion Rule and the Under Tax Profits Rule jurisdictions will no longer be able to take a second bite of the pie.[+1 sentence] But so long as we faithfully implement our own domestic top-up tax, we are assure of our own minimum collections. Thankfully, the eroding foundation of GloBE Rules and BEPS has yet to trigger a complete surrender to less multilateral regimes, such as an EU-wide Digital Service Tax. It would, nevertheless, perhaps be valuable at this juncture for the Government to share what it expects the expected effective tax rate for MNCs to be after this proposed iteration of the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act, especially relative to SMEs.[+1 sentence] Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang)1154 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I spoke about the need to help our enterprises adopt AI, especially SMEs during this year's Ministry of Trade and Industry Committee of Supply. I am therefore glad that this Bill takes a practical step in that direction. The Bill introduces a 400% tax deduction on the first $50,000 of qualifying AI expenditure for 2027 and 2028.[+23 sentences] This is intended to lower the effective cost of AI adoption and encourage businesses to invest in these capabilities. However, we should guard against an enterprise gap in AI adoption. Larger and profitable firms are more able to invest upfront and make immediate use of a tax deduction. Startups and smaller businesses may have sound plans to adopt AI to reduce their operating costs or improve productivity but have limited cash flow and taxable profits. They may therefore be unable to make full use of the tax deduction when they first incur the cost. Take, for example, PitStop Auto Club Pte Ltd, a traditional SME seeking to invest in AI to reduce operating costs and improve productivity or a startup at a scaling phase. Even where the investment makes good business sense, the upfront cost may be significant, while the value of a tax deduction depends on the firm having sufficient taxable profits. This illustrates why direct support may complement tax deductions, particularly for smaller firms facing cash-flow constraints. As my Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Chair Saktiandi mentioned, unlike the other qualifying activities under Enterprise Innovation Scheme, qualifying AI expenditure cannot be converted into an Enterprise Innovation Scheme cash payout. Could the Minister explain why AI expenditure has been excluded from the cash payout option? Could the Government consider allowing a limited Enterprise Innovation Scheme cash conversion for young firms and startups with little taxable profit? This would then help them receive part of the benefit when they first incur the cost, rather than having to wait until they become profitable. As a complementary form of support, could the Government also consider a capped dollar-for-dollar matching grant for qualifying AI expenditure? For every dollar invested by an eligible startup, the Government could match $1 up to a modest cap. This would provide upfront support while ensuring that the firm continues to bear part of the cost and has skin in the game. Both forms of support can serve different needs. The Enterprise Innovation Scheme cash payout offers a simpler and broader route, while the matching grant can provide more targeted help to startups with sound plans but greater financing constraints. Appropriate safeguards could include local operations and employment, a clear AI adoption plan, proof of implementation and no double funding of that same expenditure. Beyond the form of support, we should also track where firms face difficulties in their AI journey. Do they struggle to identify a suitable business problem, choose a vendor, prepare their data, train their workers or scale a successful pilot? If firms repeatedly stall at that same stage, our support should be refined to address that gap. I hope that this Bill marks only the beginning of more AI support for businesses in Singapore. I also welcome the expansion of the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation. The expenditure cap for claims that do not require prior approval will rise from $150,000 to $400,000 per year of assessment.[+6 sentences] Could the Minister share how many companies have benefited from the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation in each of the past three years, and how many have reached or came close to the old $150,000 cap? Could the Minister also provide a breakdown by company size? Raising the cap may help firms with larger overseas expansion plans. However, smaller companies with limited taxable profits may not enjoy that full benefit. Could the Minister share which types and sizes of companies are expected to gain most from the higher cap, and how smaller firms will be supported in their international growth? These measures should also be considered in our wider fiscal context. Corporate income tax is Singapore's largest source of operating revenue. It is estimated to contribute $37.77 billion in FY2026, or about 28% of operating revenue.[+1 sentence] This is higher than the estimated collections from GST and personal income tax. Could the Minister share the estimated revenue impact of the corporate income tax rebate, the new AI deduction and the expansion of the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation?[+8 sentences] More broadly, as we provide tax support to help firms grow, how does the Government assess the long-term path of corporate income tax revenue, especially in light of global tax changes and the uneven nature of corporate profits? I also welcome the extension of the tax exemption for employer-subsidised childcare benefits to children attending the Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens. This supports employers that wish to provide family-friendly benefits and ensures that employees are not taxed on this support. Currently, employer subsidies for children attending licensed childcare centres are exempt from tax. Does the Government have data on how many companies provide this benefit, how many employees use it, and the value of the benefits provided each year? It will also be useful to know whether such support is mainly offered by larger companies, or whether SMEs are also using the exemption. Could the Minister also explain why the Government has chosen to close the gap between licensed childcare centres and MOE Kindergartens now? Is this in response to feedback from employers and working parents, or part of a wider effort to encourage more employers to offer family friendly benefits? For a Singapore Citizen child, MOE Kindergarten costs $160 a month, but because it is only a four-hour programme, working parents may also pay between $200 and $400 a month for KCare after the basic subsidy. Together, the fees can be comparable to full-day anchor operator fees.[+3 sentences] Could the Minister clarify whether the exemption will cover the whole care arrangement or only the $160 MOE Kindergarten component? From a parent's perspective, MOE Kindergarten and KCare form one continuous care arrangement that allows the parent to remain at work. If KCare is excluded, why should the two parts receive different tax treatment? Any potential employer subsidies for student care currently remain taxable.[+3 sentences] Yet, when a child enters primary school, the family's need for care during working hours does not disappear. It simply moves from childcare to student care. Could the Minister explain why the exemption is not being extended to KCare and student care at the same time? Will the Government consider extending it to employer subsidised student care for children aged seven to 12, so that family friendly tax support follows the childcare needs as the child grows?[+3 sentences] Speaker, Sir, these amendments provide useful support for businesses and working families. I hope we can ensure that the benefits also reach young and small firms with limited profits, and families whose care needs extend beyond the formal school day. Subject to these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang)626 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the maritime related amendments in this Bill, in particular clauses 3, 5, 6 concerning sections 10, 13(a) and 13(e) of the Income Tax Act. At the outset, I declare that I am a consultant in the shipping law firm specialising in shipping and maritime legal matters. My understanding is that these amendments are intended to streamline and consolidate the tax treatment of approved international shipping enterprises. In particular, certain income currently exempted under section 13(a) will, from YA2027 be exempted under section 13(e). Instead, with related transitional provisions dealing with capital allowances, balancing charges and losses.[+13 sentences] These amendments appear intended to ensure continuity in the operation of the exemption regime, while simplifying its legislative structure. As someone who has practised in the maritime sector, who has worked in the maritime sector, I support efforts to simplify and rationalise Singapore's shipping tax regime. Clarity, certainty and predictability are important considerations for international ship owners, operators, financiers and investors when deciding where to locate their commercial operations, management functions and strategic decision-making activities. Mr Speaker, while these amendments appeared to consolidate the tax treatment of approved international shipping enterprises under section 13(e), it will be useful if the Minister could explain the policy rationale for the restructuring. What advantages does the Government expect for administering these exemptions, principally through section 13(e), rather than across both sections 13(a) and 13(e)? More broadly, these amendments provide an opportunity to reflect on the importance of Singapore's maritime tax incentives in an evolving global landscape. Singapore competes not only for shipping, tonnages and maritime business, but also for high value functions that surround it. These include commercial management, chartering, cargo and freight operations, logistics, ship finance, marine insurance, ship broking, arbitration and maritime legal services. The success of Singapore as an international maritime centre depends not merely on ships at our port, but on our ability to attract and retain these high value maritime businesses and activities in an increasingly competitive international environment. In that regard, I have three broader policy questions for the Minister. First, on global competitiveness. As international tax and regulatory frameworks continue to evolve, how does the consolidation of these shipping tax provisions under section 13(e) support Singapore's continued competitiveness as an international maritime centre relative to other leading maritime hubs, such as London, Dubai and Hong Kong? Second, on effectiveness. Could the Government share updated information on the effectiveness of Singapore's principal maritime tax incentive schemes? Specifically, what is the estimated annual tax revenue foregone under these schemes, and what measurable outcomes have they generated in terms of Singaporean employment, business spending, and the anchoring of maritime management and commercial functions in Singapore?[+8 sentences] Has the Government studied the net benefits of these incentives, taking into account both the revenue foregone and the economic value created? If so, could the Minister share the key findings? If not, would the Government consider doing so, so that Parliament can better assess whether these incentives remain appropriately calibrated and continue to deliver good value for Singapore? Such an assessment will also help inform what our maritime incentive framework should involve to meet the industry's changing needs. Third, on the future of Singapore as a global maritime hub. As the maritime industry undergoes decarbonisation and digital transformation, is the Government considering future enhancements to Singapore's maritime tax incentive framework that will further support green shipping initiatives, innovation, digitalisation and the development of Singaporean maritime talent? The answers to my questions will also help Parliament better assess the contribution of these incentives to Singapore's continuing position as a leading international maritime centre and the long-term value they create for Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast)1424 words
[+3 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. I declare interest as the chief executive officer of EtonHouse Community Fund, an institution of an IPC, as well as a member of Community Chest, and Board Member as well as adviser to several IPCs. Today, Mr Speaker, I will focus on one aspect of the Bill and touch on three key points. The extension of the 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations to IPCs until 31 December 2029.[+27 sentences] I welcome this move which as my hon friend Ms Elysa Chen had mentioned earlier, signals Singapore's continued commitment to building a society for good. Mr Speaker, first, monetary giving remains an important foundation of a strong culture of philanthropy. The extension of the 250% tax deduction strengthens Singapore's culture of giving and reaffirms our social compact. Second, on the Enhanced Fund-Raising Programme (EFR) which will step down, how can Singapore better support smaller charities? Third, how tax policies go beyond encouraging more giving, but more sustained giving to complement the Sustainable Philanthropy Framework and strengthen the partnership between public, people and private sectors, the Government, the social sector and the businesses? Mr Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I welcome the extension of the 250% tax deduction which is an important signal. As someone involved in the social sector for close to 15 years, I have seen how donations translate into support for children, families, seniors and persons with disabilities, changing lives across generations. Monetary donations remain particularly important because they give charities the flexibility and resources to sustain programmes, respond to emerging needs, identify gaps and plan. I welcome the Government's continued support for monetary giving through the 250% deduction and will outline how this move can be complemented. This brings me to my second point, the EFR programme. During the August Parliamentary Sitting, I asked about the impact of the EFR changes and suggested a GST-voucher type support for charities. This came about following leadership conversations I had with charity leaders. I note the Ministry's explanation that GST is a broad-based tax, and that Government support is provided through direct grants and other schemes rather than a separate GST regime for charities. I also note the Ministry's assessment that given the recovery in donations and the range of Government support, EFR tapering is not expected to have a significant overall impact on the charitable sector. But Mr Speaker, within an overall resilient sector, there may still well be charities that face greater pressure. We are operating in a period of continued uncertainty and cost pressures. The Government has recognised this by strengthening cost-of-living support for Singaporeans, including the Enhanced Budget 2026 Cost-of-Living Special Payment. At the same time, charities are supporting many of the same families and communities experiencing these pressures. So, I would ask whether this is also the right time to review the pace of the EFR reduction? Could the Government consider adjusting the tapering, if necessary, should conditions warrant it particularly for smaller charities and those serving communities with greater needs? Furthermore, perhaps the EFR programme can consider a refreshed, targeted approach where support is tailored according to the size of a charity's receipt. While I understand the rationale for review, support should also remain responsive to circumstances. If we are prepared to step up support for households when cost pressures remain elevated, perhaps we should similarly ensure that the charities helping these households are not facing an abrupt reduction in their ability to raise funds. The objective is not for Government's funds to replace philanthropy, but to ensure that our social sector has the resilience to respond when our communities need it most. Mr Speaker, my third point is about sustainable philanthropy. Singapore should encourage giving that is more sustained and purposeful. Community Chest has led the charge on this front. In FY2025, and just announced yesterday, Community Chest channelled about $80.62 million to 340 social service programmes and projects, which benefitted more than 130,000 individuals and families. More importantly, Community Chest also secured $113 million in multi-year commitments.[+8 sentences] This is significant. Sustained monetary giving gives social service agencies greater certainty to plan, sustain and strengthen their offerings. It reinforces why monetary donations remain a core part of sustainable philanthropy. They provide charities with the resources and flexibility to respond to needs. The Sustainable Philanthropy Framework developed by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) encourages businesses to move towards more sustained and purposeful philanthropy. While the framework sits within the social sector, MOF also has an important role through tax policy. The 250% tax deduction is a key instrument to encourage monetary giving, and I would emphasise that monetary donations remain a core part of sustainable philanthropy. They give charities the resources and certainty to sustain their work. At the same time, we should encourage businesses to complement monetary giving with their expertise, networks and capabilities. So, my question is a specific one: when the 250% tax deduction is reviewed ahead of its expiry in 2029, or perhaps as Ms Elysa Chen mentioned earlier, be made as a mainstay, could the review also look beyond the quantum of donations generated but assess whether the incentive is encouraging the type of giving we that want: regular, sustained and long term?[+10 sentences] If the objective is to use tax policy to level up private philanthropy sustainably, we should also consider whether the design of the incentive is achieving that objective effectively. This would complement the broader Sustainable Philanthropy Framework, while keeping MOF's role focused on what it can influence to encourage sustainable giving. Mr Speaker, there is also a broader point. Businesses do not operate separately from society. Businesses depend on resilient families, healthy communities and a workforce that can participate and contribute. When businesses contribute to a stronger society, they help create the conditions in which businesses themselves can thrive. So, philanthropy should not be seen simply as what businesses give back after making profits. It can also be part of building the social foundations that enable our economy to remain resilient. Speaker, Sir, in Malay. (In Malay): Mr Speaker, allow me to summarise my observations in Malay and highlight the perspectives of our community as well as those of the I and MMOs. As someone who serves in this sector, first and foremost, I welcome the extension of the 250% tax deduction for donations to IPCs.[+4 sentences] Monetary giving remains an important foundation for building a strong and sustainable culture of giving. For many I/MMOs and community organisations, such donations provide them with the space and resources to continue supporting families, children, seniors and others in need. Mr Speaker, the impact of such support can improve the quality of life across generations. Secondly, as EFR support is gradually reduced, we must continue to monitor its impact on smaller charities, as they may face constraints in raising funds. Perhaps the Government could also consider reviewing its approach of tapering the EFR in light of current circumstances. Another approach could be to tailor the level of support according to the size of an SSA. Third, through tax policy, we should continue to encourage not only more giving, but also more regular and longer-term giving.[+12 sentences] This would give I/MMOs and charities greater certainty to plan and expand their work, as well as explore new initiatives. Ultimately, we want to build an ecosystem where the Government, businesses, charities and the community build a stronger society together. (In English): Mr Speaker, in summary, first, I support the extension of the 250% tax deduction. Monetary giving remains a core foundation of philanthropy and we should continue to encourage a strong culture of giving. Second, for the Government to consider reviewing the tapering of EFR to remain responsive to circumstances and adjusting the support, should conditions warrant it. Also, to consider future EFR matching support that is targeted, such as according to size of charity's receipts. Sir, as we look towards 2029, I hope MOF assesses whether our tax incentives are encouraging not just more giving, but more regular, sustained and longer-term giving. Singapore have a range of tools: tax incentives, matching grants and direct support. The opportunity now is to make sure these tools work together to build a philanthropy ecosystem that is sustainable, inclusive and impactful. Ultimately, we want charities to have the resources and certainty to serve our communities, businesses to see philanthropy as part of their contribution to building Singapore, and our tax policies to help bring these efforts together. Mr Speaker, a thriving society is the foundation of a thriving economy. With that, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Diana Pang.
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights)924 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. I will focus on two areas: helping businesses make better use of artificial intelligence (AI) and making tax matters easier to manage. As an SME owner, I look at these measures from a practical perspective: can businesses use them easily? Will they help us to do our work better? Will they leave us with more time to run the business. Let me start with AI. Under clause 13, the enhanced Enterprise Innovation Scheme provides a 400% tax deduction, up to $50,000 of qualifying AI expenditure in each of the YA2027 and YA2028.[+28 sentences] I welcome this support. An off-the-shelf tool can be useful. But a company may benefit more by adapting AI to its own processes and its unique need. To do this well, it needs to draw and acknowledge its employees. Take a small company that wanted to use AI to process invoices. It can pay for subscription, but someone still has to connect the tool to its accounting systems, check the figures are correct and decide which invoices a person to review them. If the system reads an amount wrongly, the business still needs to catch the mistake. Or when its needs change, someone must know how to update the system. Employees understand the day-to-pay pain points. They know where works get held up, which tasks have to be repeated and where mistakes are often made. Their knowledge can help the companies adopt AI to solve problems that matter most to the business. Much of this work can be done in-house. This brings me to my question about qualifying expenditure. The proposed definition covers spending on subscriptions or licences for AI systems, as well as subscriptions, acquisitions or licences for qualifying AI business services obtained from another person. This appears to focus on obtaining systems and services brought from external providers. Could the Minister clarify whether costs directly related to developing and implementing AI in-house can also qualify? For example, a company may assign its employees to develop an AI application, prepare data, test it and connect it to existing systems. It may also train staff to operate and maintain it. Would these costs qualify? If they do not, would the Government consider including directly attributing them internally to development costs, with safeguards to prevent the same costs from being claimed twice? External vendors and consultants can certainly help. But when our own staff learn how to use, maintain and improve these tools, that knowledge stays with the business. For an SME, this matters a lot. We want staff who can keep improving the way we work even after the consultant job is done. I hope this support will help businesses both adopt AI, develop skills to use it well over time. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me turn to tax administration. For a small business owner or a self-employed person, filing taxes is often done after a full day's of work. They may be suffering customers in the day, sorting out receipts at night. The easier the rules are to understand, the easier it is for them to get the taxes right. I therefore welcome the proposed 20% fixed expenses deduction ratio, which takes effect from YA2027. It applies to eligible self-employed persons and individual sole proprietors with gross income of up to $50,000 per business or trade, where existing industry-specific ratio do not apply.[+10 sentences] Put it simply, eligible taxpayers can choose to deduct 20% of their gross business income as expenses, instead of claiming the actual allowable expenses. For example, someone with $40,000 in gross business income could use the fixed ratio to deduct $8,000 as expenses. If the actual allowable expenses are $12,000, claiming those expenses may be more beneficial. It is helpful that this choice remains available. The question is whether taxpayers will now know which option works better for them. Could IRAS provide a simple comparison tool and work out the examples? A taxpayer should be able to enter a few figures and understand the difference. The guidance should also clearly explain which records they must still keep if they use the fixed ratio. A simpler method would be easy enough to use without needing a professional advice just to understand it. I also welcome the aim of resolving tax matters faster. From 1 July 2027, companies will be required to use IRAS e-services for specific objections to tax assessments and revisions to the corporate income tax returns.[+12 sentences] For this to work well, the online process must be easy to follow. Company needs clear instructions and confirmation that their submission has been received and access to a person when they need help. Imagine trying to submit a correction near a deadline only to encounter a technical problem. The immediate worry is: has my submission gone through? Will I miss the deadline? Could the Minister explain how IRAS will help companies that have difficulties using the e-service and how submissions affected by technical problems near a deadline will be handled? As these changes are introduced, I hope IRAS will continue to hear from the small businesses, the SMEs and self-employed taxpayers about the difficulties that they are facing. Could IRAS also review whether these measures actually reduce the time spent filing income tax, filing taxes, correcting error? That will tell us whether the changes are making things easier in practice. Mr Speaker, these measures can make a practical difference, helping companies and businesses use AI more effectively. Helping taxpayers spending less time working out their tax obligations does wonders. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Assoc Prof Terence Ho.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member)739 words
[+5 sentences]Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. I welcome, in particular, the measures that advance important social objectives and simplify tax filing. These include the tax exemption for CPF contributions and cash payments under the ComLink+ package for employment, as well as the extension of tax deductions for employers that send employees to or provide services to IPCs. I also welcome the introduction of a broad-based 20% fixed expense deduction for eligible self-employed individuals, as this will simplify tax filing and reduce the administrative burden of claiming individual business expenses. I would like to focus my brief comments and questions on the enhanced tax deduction for AI expenditure. The Bill provides an enhanced deduction for up to $50,000 of qualifying AI expenditure in YA2027 and YA2028.[+7 sentences] Qualifying expenditure is defined quite broadly, covering not only subscriptions and licences for AI systems, but also services relating to their development, deployment, operation and maintenance. This measure could help enterprises, particularly SMEs, that may otherwise be reluctant to spend money experimenting with new AI tools when the returns are uncertain. The enhanced deduction could encourage them to experiment with more capable AI tools and discover applications to improve their operations. However, as organisations move from experimentation and sporadic use of AI to more systematic, enterprise-wide adoption, the challenge is to translate adoption into productivity gains and business value. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to elaborate on how the new tax deduction will complement existing grants and programmes to support firms along this journey from initial experimentation to wider deployment. My second question concerns businesses with little taxable profit, as this incentive takes the form of a tax deduction and provides no immediate benefit to a startup or business that has yet to turn profitable, even though the deduction may potentially be utilised against future taxable income. However, such firms may have just as much and perhaps even more to gain from AI adoption. Under the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, eligible businesses can opt for a cash payout in lieu of enhanced deductions for certain qualifying activities to benefit businesses that have yet to turn profitable or have insufficient profits to maximise the deduction. However, this cash conversion option does not apply to qualifying AI expenditure.[+4 sentences] Could the Minister explain the reason for this difference in treatment and whether other measures are available to ensure that startups and businesses with little or no taxable income are similarly encouraged to adopt AI? Third, we should ultimately judge the success of this measure not by how much qualifying expenditure businesses incur, but whether it leads to additional AI adoption and ultimately productivity improvements. I appreciate that imposing detailed reporting requirements on every business claiming the deduction could undermine the simplicity and accessibility of the scheme. But at the aggregate level, we should have a clear picture of the outcomes being achieved. How will the Government assess whether the enhanced deduction is encouraging additional AI adoption and generating productivity improvements, and what outcomes will it consider in deciding whether the scheme should be extended or modified beyond YA2028?[+9 sentences] Finally, spending on technology alone does not guarantee productivity gains. Successful AI adoption often requires firms to redesign jobs and workflows, equip workers with the skills to use the technology effectively and develop the organisational readiness and mindsets to change established ways of working. The tax deduction should therefore complement broader efforts to support enterprise and workforce transformation. The objective should not simply be to get more companies to purchase AI tools, but to help them use these tools effectively to transform how work is done and to raise productivity. At the Institute for Adult Learning, we are seeing strong demand from companies for support in work redesign and workforce transformation, from reskilling to workplace learning and mindset activation. The Enterprise Workforce Transformation package is an important vehicle supporting such holistic interventions. I hope that as the package is implemented, there will be sufficient support for enterprises to undertake work redesign, reskilling and workplace learning alongside their investment in AI. The value of the enhanced tax deduction for AI will ultimately be reflected not on the amount of AI expenditure that receives tax relief, but whether it encourages businesses, including smaller firms, to experiment, adopt useful technologies, redesign work and raise productivity. Mr Speaker, I reiterate my support for the Bill and look forward to the Minister's clarifications on the points I have raised.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Gho Sze Kee.
Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten)924 words
[+11 sentences]Mr Speaker, first, I would like to declare my interest as a maritime lawyer. I have been involved in the maritime sector for my entire professional life. I shall focus on this sector today. Sir, shipping is a tough business. It is very capital intensive. Ships are expensive, investment horizons are long. It is also a brutally cyclical business, as the COVID-19 years and recent events have shown. Companies have to make careful decisions on where to base their operations, register their ships, how to finance them and so on. Taxes are, of course, an important part of those decisions. Some years ago, we introduced the Maritime Sector Incentives (MSI). It brings together tax incentives supporting different parts of the sector, from international shipping to shipping support services and maritime leasing. Two years ago, in response to the BEPS 2.0, the Alternative Net Tonnage Basis of Taxation (NTT) basis, was introduced for three MSI schemes. Qualifying businesses under the Maritime Sector Incentive – Singapore Registry of Ships (MSI–SRS), Maritime Sector Incentive – Approved International Shipping Enterprise (MSI–AIS) and Maritime Sector Incentive – Maritime Leasing (MSI–ML) schemes can choose to be taxed on a deemed income basis, based on the net tonnage of their ships and the number of days the ships are in operation.[+10 sentences] It satisfies the minimum tax requirements or BEPS 2.0. But it comes with trade-offs. Under the conventional basis, tax is directly linked to profits. If a shipping business makes no commercial profit during a downturn, it pays no corporate tax. Under the NTT basis, however, the tax liability is based on the tonnage of the fleet and the number of days the ships are in operation, regardless of whether the business is profitable. Businesses on the NTT basis also cannot use trade losses or unutilised capital allowances to reduce this NTT income. So, even if a business is bleeding millions in a recession, it must still bear this tax cost. The NTT basis can therefore become an unforgiving drag on a business during bad times. So, clearly, there are good reasons why shipping businesses would want to be able to switch their tax basis more readily. But there are also clear differences in the NTT election rules across the MSI schemes. For businesses under MSI–SRS, there is a fixed lock-in period of 10 years upon election into the NTT basis.[+18 sentences] For businesses that are concurrently on the MSI–AIS or MSI–ML awards, the end date of the NTT election follows the award tenure, and they can opt into the NTT basis during the award period. The award periods can be five or 10 years. This means that, in practice, a business under these arrangements could have a much shorter effective NTT lock-in period. For example, a business could opt into NTT in year eight and remain on it only for two years before the end of the award period. And this also means companies are effectively penalised with a longer lock-in period if they elect early. Sir, 10 years is a long time in a famously cyclical business. The maritime sector did not have to deal with COVID-19, shifting supply chains and disruptive geopolitical conflicts a decade ago. It continues to face major uncertainties going forward. Now, it also has to contend with climate change, the AI revolution and the green transition. A business may make its tax decision based on a particular set of assumptions about its business and operating environment, but it may easily find itself operating in a much more difficult environment shortly down the road. So, when we ask a shipping business to commit to a particular basis of taxation for an extended period of time, we are asking it to make a long-term commitment in an industry where the operating environment can change very quickly. This basically makes the choice of tax regimes a higher stakes gamble for our maritime businesses. To be clear, I understand the need for a meaningful lock-in period. There is a good reason for doing so. Allowing businesses to switch at will creates opportunities for tax arbitrage. But we also do not want our tax framework to trap our maritime businesses when the tide turns against them. I think we can do better. Sir, I propose that we harmonise the NTT election criteria across all three MSI schemes, with a uniform five-year election cycle. Businesses should be allowed to opt into the NTT basis at any time during that cycle, with the lock-in period ending when the cycle ends.[+11 sentences] I note that five years is already an established award tenure under the MSI–ML scheme. So, five years is a threshold that the Government already accepts. This suggestion does two things. First, it mitigates the penalty of early choice. Whether a company elects to use NTT in the first or in the fourth year, they end up in the same review point at year five. Second, a maximum lock-in period of five years gives our maritime businesses more room to respond, especially during a prolonged downturn. This further enhances the predictability and competitiveness of our tax regime. Sir, as we tidy up the legislative tails of section 13 of the Income Tax Act with this Bill before us, I hope the Government will look into my suggestion too. The maritime sector ebbs and flows like the tide. We must not only ensure that our tax framework stays predictable and competitive during the good years, but also agile and flexible for our maritime businesses during the bad. I support the Bill, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang)1622 words
[+8 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm with investments in AI technologies, where I track technological disruption and work on AI diffusion and capability development. In the course of my work at Temasek, I came across two very different views of the future. The US public policy think tank RAND's research suggests that AI's impact on work will be significant but uneven. Veteran Silicon Valley technologist and investor Vinod Khosla predicts something far more radical: that over the next 25 years, AI could perform 80% of the work in 80% of today's jobs. That is quite a range. Nobody knows precisely where reality will land. But with this Bill, Singapore is not waiting to find out. We are using the tax system deliberately to accelerate AI adoption. Through the new section 14ZK, businesses can claim enhanced deductions on up to $50,000 of qualifying AI expenditure for YA2027 and YA2028, at 300% where the expenditure is already deductible under section 14, and 400% where it is not.[+46 sentences] I support that strategic direction. But AI adoption is not the destination. Productivity is. And its gains must be shared. If taxpayers are helping businesses adopt AI, we should ask whether this incentive actually changes what businesses do, raises productivity and ultimately, strengthens both enterprises and workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a wide-ranging Bill. I focus on section 14ZK because it seeks to shape tomorrow's capabilities. Its drafting contains an important insight. Qualifying expenditure is not confined to AI software. It includes subscriptions and licences, but can also include system development, consultancy and strategy, data and analytics, engineering and compliance, and training. The Bill recognises that buying AI and transforming a business are not the same thing. I have three questions on the Bill. Who adopts? What works? And does it spread? First, Mr Speaker, Sir, who adopts? Think about the owner of a 10- or 20-person SME, perhaps a precision engineering company, logistics firm or professional-services business. The question is not whether AI will transform the global economy. It is much more immediate: what should I use it for on a Monday morning? The constraint may not simply be price. It may be knowing where and how to deploy AI productively – which process to change, what data is needed, which tool works and how employees should use it. A tax deduction lowers the cost of buying AI. But it does not automatically answer the question: what should I actually do with it? That is a different cost. The cost of discovery. Section 14ZK recognises part of this by covering consultancy, strategy, data and training. But every firm should not have to rediscover what similar firms have already learned. The experience generated across this incentive can reduce that cost further. There is also a fundamental finance question: a tax deduction is not an end in itself. Government is giving up tax revenue because we want businesses to behave differently. So the question is not simply how much was claimed. Did the incentive actually change what businesses did? Did it encourage investments that otherwise might not have happened? And did those investments make businesses more productive? Indeed, section 14ZK itself reflects this fiscal discipline. Expenditure is excluded to the extent that it is already subsidised by a Government or Statutory Board grant or subsidy. That rightly guards against double public support. If we are careful about where the public dollar goes in, we should be equally interested in what additional value comes out. But there is a longer-term finance question too. Recent analysis by The Economist highlights a paradox worth considering. AI could make economies more productive while, over time, placing pressure on traditional tax bases if economic returns shift significantly from labour towards capital. The fiscal question is therefore not only whether AI makes the economic pie larger. It is where the new income lands. This is not an argument to slow AI adoption. Singapore cannot protect itself from technological disruption by standing still. But that is another reason why the quality and distribution of productivity gains matter. If AI raises output while weakening labour income, the consequences may eventually extend beyond jobs and wages to the fiscal foundations supporting our social compact. I therefore ask whether the Government will publish take-up of section 14ZK by enterprise size and sector.[+12 sentences] If adoption is concentrated among firms already digitally sophisticated, the incentive may help the leaders move faster without sufficiently raising the rest. Singapore's productivity challenge is also to help thousands of ordinary companies become better companies. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, what works? Section 14ZK allows very different kinds of expenditure. One company may purchase an AI subscription. Another may combine AI with data preparation. A third may redesign workflows. A fourth may combine technology, redesign and worker training. All may qualify, but their economic outcomes may differ. The drafting itself recognises a measurement challenge. Where a single expenditure contains both qualifying and non-qualifying components, section 14ZK requires reasonable apportionment, where the Comptroller is able to intervene if that apportionment is not reasonable. But if we are prepared to ask carefully what portion of expenditure qualifies, we should eventually ask an equally important question: what did that expenditure achieve? My main proposal is straightforward: design the evaluation before the incentive begins. Could the Government decide now, how section 14ZK will be evaluated, rather than reconstruct the evidence after it ends?[+10 sentences] I recognise the difficulty. Businesses using the incentive may already be more digitally capable or productive, so I am not suggesting simplistic attribution. Nor am I asking companies to fill in another form. Where practicable, use existing administrative data and decide in advance what evidence we need. When the two-year window ends, we should be able to answer three questions. First, which businesses became more productive? Second, which combinations of technology, workflow redesign and training worked best? And third, did the incentive cause investments that otherwise would not have happened? Then, where robust analysis permits, we can examine what happened to jobs, skills and wages. The purpose is to discover what worked, because that should influence where the next public dollar goes. We should subsidise what works, not merely what qualifies. So, I ask the Government to design the evaluation now, and after the two-year window, publish what we have learned about the forms of AI adoption most associated with genuine productivity improvements and business transformation.[+7 sentences] Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, does it spread? If we identify what works, the value is not merely knowing it. It is reducing the cost of discovery for the next SME. The first precision engineering company may have to work out which processes, tools and jobs should change. The 100th similar company should not have to start from zero. Public policy can turn individual experiments into collective know-how. I am not proposing another scheme. Use what we discover through section 14ZK to make the next firm's transformation easier, faster and less costly.[+8 sentences] That is how a temporary tax incentive can build permanent national capability. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few months ago, the House debated an AI transition with no jobless growth. We reached important common ground: enterprises and workers should advance together, anchored in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all. In my speech for that Motion, I argued that AI adoption must become AI fluency; fluency must lead to workflow redesign; workflow redesign to job redesign; and job redesign, ultimately, to tangible outcomes for workers. Section 14ZK gives us a practical test of that ambition. The Bill can subsidise adoption. Our wider policies must complete the journey from adoption to better work. And there is a fiscal dimension to this too. If AI increasingly shifts economic returns from labour towards capital, ensuring that workers continue to participate meaningfully in economic growth, it is not merely a question of fairness.[+20 sentences] It also matters to the breadth and resilience of the economic and fiscal base on which our social compact rests. The two-year design can therefore be a strength. AI is developing too quickly for policy to be put on autopilot. Today's constraint may not be tomorrow's. The window gives us a natural review point. But a review is only as good as the evidence we prepare to collect. The time to think about that evaluation is not after the window closes. It is now. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to RAND and Khosla. They offer very different futures. Perhaps reality will resemble one. Perhaps the other. Most likely, it will be somewhere in between. Singapore does not need to predict the future perfectly to prepare intelligently for it. But we should learn deliberately from what we are about to subsidise. Over the next two years, companies will buy AI tools, redesign workflows and train workers. Some experiments will fail. Others may transform businesses. The first firm may have to discover what works. The next should not always have to start again. So, when this incentive ends, let us ask not simply: how much AI did Singapore buy?[+4 sentences] Let us ask: what worked? For whom? Did it make our businesses more productive? Did our workers advance with them? And over time, did those gains remain broad enough to strengthen the economic and fiscal foundations on which our society depends?[+8 sentences] Because AI adoption is not the destination. Productivity is, and its gains must be shared. The fiscal question is not only whether AI makes the economic pie larger. It is where the new income lands. RAND and Khosla may disagree about the future. Our job is not to predict which one is right. Our job is to make Singapore ready for either – economically, socially and fiscally. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Victor Lye.
Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio)628 words
[+19 sentences]Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill and I will focus on clause 13, which provides a 400% deduction on up to $50,000 of qualifying AI expenditure for YA2027 and YA2028. I welcome that it recognises AI adoption as more than subscribing to an AI model. Nonetheless, my key concern is to go beyond encouraging AI spending. We should ask: what economic capability do we want this expenditure to create? For this, I offer three considerations. First, connect AI capability with internationalisation. Consider two Singaporean companies. One subscribes to an overseas AI service and becomes more productive. That is valuable. Another uses AI to develop proprietary technology, applications, datasets, intellectual property (IP) or services that can be sold internationally. Both use AI, but the second creates more enduring economic value for Singapore. This matters especially for our SMEs. Singapore has a small domestic market. In the past, internationalisation often required substantial physical presence, manpower and capital deployed overseas. AI changes these constraints. A Singapore SME can now use AI for research, translation, marketing, software development and customer support. How to reach customers far beyond Singapore? I say we should consider two objectives. One, give our SMEs AI capability; and at the same time, two, help them use that capability to reach beyond Singapore. I note the Bill's enhancement of the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation.[+1 sentence] I welcome that. But in this regard, could the Government evaluate the AI incentive together with our internationalisation schemes – not merely by expenditure claimed, but by whether SMEs create new products, develop IP, export services and conduct overseas ventures?[+8 sentences] Second consideration is to maximise productivity, not to maximise AI spending. A company that achieves substantially more with $10,000 of AI spend may create greater value than one that spends the full $50,000 qualifying amount. An expenditure-based deduction is administratively straightforward. But our objective should not be to maximise AI spending. It should be to maximise productivity and strategic economic value. I am not suggesting another reporting burden for SMEs, nor that IRAS prescribe which AI models companies should buy. But at the programme level, can the Government assess outcomes, such as productivity, revenue growth, manpower leverage, IP creation and ultimately, internationalisation? The third consideration is to ensure that the incentive works for firms at different stages of growth. AI expenditure, unlike other qualifying Enterprise Innovation Scheme activities, will not be eligible for conversion into a cash payout. Could the Minister explain the reason for this distinction?[+6 sentences] A profitable company can benefit readily from an enhanced tax deduction. A young or pre-profit company investing aggressively in AI may have less taxable income against which to use it. These may include precisely some of the innovative firms that we want to grow and encourage. I am not asking for a cash payout. But I hope the Government will examine whether the structure provides useful support across different stages of growth, and whether the firms we most want to transform can benefit meaningfully from it. Finally, this enhancement runs for YA2027 and YA2028. By 2028, I suggest we should be able to answer three simple questions.[+8 sentences] First, productivity: are our companies producing more with the same resources? Second, innovation: are we creating proprietary products, IP and valuable AI capabilities from Singapore? Third, reach: is AI helping our SMEs overcome the limits of our small domestic market and earn more revenue overseas? AI can give small enterprises capabilities and global reach previously available only to much larger companies. Clause 13 is a sensible start. But it should not be merely to encourage AI spending or to subsidise it. Rather, it should help Singapore SMEs use AI to be more productive, more innovative and reach beyond Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh1266 words
[+14 sentences]Mr Speaker, I support the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill. Before I begin, I declare that I am the Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group. We operate businesses that collectively earn more than $200 million in annual revenues and steward more than 1,000 livelihoods. So, naturally, tax changes can be significant. Mr Speaker, in broad terms, our tax policies contribute towards three goals. One, collecting enough revenue, so that the Government has sufficient resources to support its agenda. Two, ensuring a conducive business environment so that businesses can thrive, which in turn, helps to create and sustain jobs for Singaporeans. And three, shaping society according to the values that we want to nurture. Taxes change the effective price of certain behaviours. Shaping behaviour leads to shaping beliefs, which then leads to shaping values. I will comment on each, in relation to the Bill on hand. First, on collecting enough revenue. The Government is in a fortunate position to collect sufficient revenue to support its agenda in the near term. In fact, with better-than-expected gross domestic product (GDP) results in the last two years, I fully expect corporate income tax collections to continue to be more buoyant than earlier expected. This is a good thing, and we should sustain it for as long as we can. So, if a higher rate of corporate income tax must be paid by MNCs, according to global minimum tax rules, then Singapore must be the best place to pay such taxes.[+2 sentences] I spoke about this in detail last year. In this speech, I would add that it must be as easy as possible to comply with global minimum tax rules, and to pay such taxes in Singapore. To that end, I support the amendments to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act. I also note the MOF's reply to a recent Parliamentary Question that I filed, which committed to providing an update of their fiscal projections by the second half of 2027.[+8 sentences] This would be helpful to inform public discussion over future tax changes. Second, on ensuring a conducive business environment. I support the Government's continued bets on maintaining Singapore's position as an international financial and trading hub. Through incentives in the global commodities trade, finance and treasury sub-sector, and the maritime sector. I also support the Government's direction to encourage internationalisation of our companies, by expanding the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation scheme. I find that the range of activities qualifying for deduction is sensible. And the higher expenditure cap for claims without prior approval from economic agencies will be welcome by companies. However, I have two comments on the Corporate Income Tax rebates. First, on some reflection after this year's Budget debate, I am not sure whether the $2,000 floor on the corporate income tax rebate is necessary.[+25 sentences] This floor effectively gives $2,000 to each unprofitable company. I very much prefer for only profitable companies that pay tax to get this rebate. And should we want to give a grant to all companies, it would be better to tie it to jobs, such as time-limited wage subsidies for hiring, especially hiring those who are long-term unemployed. We just discussed this in Parliament earlier today, so that the more you hire, the more grant you can get. My second comment is a practical one. The rebate is given to each company at the Unique Entity Number (UEN)-level. Some businesses have multiple UENs for a single operating entity, such as if they have multiple outlets and if each outlet has its own UEN. Such businesses would benefit disproportionately from the corporate income tax rebate. I wonder if this has led to a proliferation of micro companies over time. This practical concern over corporate structuring would also apply to Mr Louis Chua's suggestion for more progressive corporate taxes. I hope the Government will factor these considerations in for future corporate income tax rebates. Finally, tax policy allows us to shape society according to the values that we want to nurture. This should become increasingly important as a policy goal – values, such as giving back if you do well. On this, like Ms Hazlina, I fully support the extension of tax deductions for giving towards IPCs, as well as to support corporate volunteerism. Going forward, we could consider sweetening the deduction further for contributions toward a small number of national priorities, which could benefit from more localised and bespoke support. Perhaps a priority, such as ComLink+. Corporates would then have a greater incentive to align their corporate social responsibility strategies with the Government. The Government may find that the private and non-profit sectors are able to deliver more tailor-made interventions and therefore deliver more bang for the buck. Another area that tax policy can help shape our future society, is to reduce wealth inequality across the generations. I have mentioned before that the need to address the growing wealth divide is one of the greatest challenges of our time. This will get worse and more entrenched as wealth gets passed down from generation to generation. A large part of wealth in Singapore is stored in property. If the reason for the increase in property values is not due to the effort or expense of the property owner alone, but due to the nation's collective success, it follows that part of the increase in property value should be shared with those that have less. If we accept this argument, then I think we should consider a few ideas. First, property taxes are rightfully progressive. If wealth inequality worsens, the Government should be prepared to increase property taxes further, especially on higher-value properties that are for investments.[+2 sentences] Ms Elysa Chen spoke about this earlier. Second, wealth that is not earned but inherited should be taxed, if it is feasible to do so. Given that property is an immobile asset, the Government could apply an inheritance tax for high value properties, perhaps the most expensive 1% of properties, without worrying about tax leakage. Third, I am mindful that some property owners affected by such proposals could be asset-rich but cash-poor. So, the Government could consider a deferred tax mechanism in tandem. We could accrue the taxes owed with interest. This amount owed can be charged against the property and it can be paid only when the property value is realised, such as when it is eventually sold. We already do this for CPF funds used for property purchases and we can consider extending this approach to property taxes owed.[+9 sentences] And of course, should such property owners wish to reduce their tax obligations, they would be welcome to contribute on their own to charitable causes, similar to what is provided for within this Bill. Mr Speaker, taxation is a politically sensitive policy area as it involves Government taking from some and redistributing it to others. No one can be entirely happy about this. But we must accept that no one is successful on his or her own. We must accept that we need to support one another, and ensure fair access to opportunities for those who are not related to us by blood or name, but who are part of this same country that we live and work in. And we must accept that they contribute to our collective success. So, we have had successful tax policies that speak to shared values. The Bill takes a step in the direction of more actively reflecting the values that we want to see in society. I support the Bill and hope that the Government will take further steps in this direction and consider some of my suggestions over time.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok)608 words
[+5 sentences]Mr Speaker, I will begin my speech in Mandarin and I will conclude in English. (In Mandarin): I support the Finance (Income Tax) Bill. The Bill sets out measures relating to AI and internationalisation, providing support for businesses to build capabilities and expand their operations. I would like the Minister to explain three aspects of implementation on how SMEs can better leverage these measures. First, support for investments in AI. The Bill proposes that for the YA2027 and YA2028, qualifying AI expenditure, net of grants from the Government or statutory boards, will enjoy a total tax deduction of 400% on the first $50,000 of such expenditure per YA.[+1 sentence] This deduction applies in the computation of taxable income. According to the IRAS' published arrangements, this new category does not include a cash conversion option.[+9 sentences] This measure helps to encourage businesses to adopt AI. I would like the Minister to further explain the policy considerations for not providing a cash conversion option. For small enterprises that may not be able to fully utilise the tax deduction in the short term, how can existing assistance schemes complement this measure to help them progressively embark on AI investments? During the two years of implementation, how will the Government assess the take up by small enterprises and the actual effectiveness of this measure? Second, guidance on cost apportionment for claims. Where a single expenditure comprises both qualifying AI expenditure and other costs, the Bill proposes that if a business has made reasonable efforts but is still unable to obtain evidence to determine the qualifying portion, the expenditure should be apportioned reasonably based on the circumstances. This helps to address practical situations involving bundled quotations. On this basis, could the tax authority consider providing additional examples of documentation to help small enterprises understand how to substantiate reasonable estimates when itemised quotations or comparable alternatives are unavailable? Third, beneficiaries of internationalisation support. From the YA2027, the cap on qualifying expenditure that does not require prior approval will be raised from $150,000 to $400,000 per YA.[+1 sentence] The Bill also expands the scope of such expenditure. According to the tax authority's published arrangements, newly included activities cover market research, feasibility studies and investment due diligence, with the qualifying period extended to 31 December 2030.[+12 sentences] These adjustments provide greater convenience for businesses planning overseas expansion. As the measures are implemented, could the Government consider leveraging existing data and appropriate sample surveys to understand the benefits enjoyed by first time users as well as existing participants, to inform future reviews, while keeping reporting requirements as simple as possible? I look forward to these measures helping more businesses translate investments into operational capabilities and lay a strong foundation for long-term development. (In English): I will now conclude in English. For this Bill, I would also like to highlight how these measures can help businesses build lasting capabilities. For AI adoption, a small firm may subscribe to or license a qualifying AI system and need guidance to adapt its workflow and train its employees. Could the Minister share how this tax measure can complement existing implementation support, particularly in helping smaller firms use AI effectively and improve productivity? For internationalisation, market research and due diligence can help businesses make informed decisions before committing capital. The expanded automatic claim arrangements should encourage this preparation and help firms manage the risks of overseas expansion. As these measures take effect, it would be useful to learn how they contribute to stronger operating processes, employee capabilities and better-informed investment decisions. I hope these measures will help more businesses improve productivity and pursue overseas growth with greater confidence. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Minister Jeffrey Siow.
Mr Jeffrey Siow1784 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Speaker, first of all, let me thank the Members for supporting the Bill as well as offering a variety of meritorious suggestions on how to improve our tax system. I would like to seek Members' understanding that I am not able to address every single suggestion and question raised today. Some of the topics, such as those on property taxes, wealth taxes and personal income taxes, actually go beyond the scope of this Bill. Several measures in the Bill were also extensively debated at this year's Budget. So, I will therefore focus my response on the points raised by Members that relate directly to the amendments in this Bill, and I invite Members whose questions are not addressed or taken to file Parliamentary Questions at a later Sitting, Mr Speaker, on the amendments to support businesses, I am glad that Members broadly agree on the need for such measures. I want to thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Ng Shi Xuan as well as other Members for their support for the Corporate Income Tax Rebates and Cash Grant. Mr Ng asked about the revenue impact of the schemes. We estimate that this will cost around $1.5 billion.[+12 sentences] Specifically on the cash grant, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether the amount of $2,000 is sufficient for SMEs. Mr Shawn Loh conversely suggested limiting the Corporate Income Tax Rebate only to profitable companies. So, there are differing views even in this House. The tax rebate and cash grant is meant to provide responsive broad-based support to all businesses facing short-term cost pressures, such as those arising from the recent Middle East situation. And the cash grant is also only one of many measures to support SMEs on cash flow, and should be seen in this context and not viewed in isolation. Next, I want to thank Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Loh for supporting our sectoral incentives to attract and anchor businesses in Singapore. To Mr Tan's question on the rationale for the maritime sector incentive amendments, indeed, it is meant to streamline the various schemes. Ms Gho spoke passionately about the net tonnage tax under the maritime sector initiative. I want to reassure her that the maritime sector is very important for our economy. And so, we will continue to review these schemes and consider Members' suggestions, including hers, to improve the schemes and to ensure that our maritime sector remains competitive. Several Members asked about enhancements to the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation scheme. Previously, we allowed automatic claims for certain qualifying activities for expenditure up to a cap of $150,000 and any higher amount required Enterprise Singapore's approval. To further simplify the claims process, we will raise this expenditure cap to $400,000 and expand the list of activities that will qualify for such claims.[+9 sentences] For claims above $400,000, or for other qualifying activities outside of this list, Enterprise Singapore's approval is still required. Mr Ng noted that smaller firms with limited taxable profits may not enjoy the full benefit of the enhancement and asked what more we can do for them. SMEs may tap on other schemes to support their overseas growth. For example, at this year's Budget, the Prime Minister announced increased support for grants, helping companies to internationalise and enhancements to the Enterprise Financing Scheme as well to provide better access to financing. On including AI expenditure under the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, which several Members spoke about, I want to thank Members for their support, especially Mr Saktiandi, Assoc Prof Terence Ho, who spoke extensively about it, and Mr Yip Hon Weng, who spoke about how we can help more businesses go further, translate enterprise-wide AI adoption into productivity gains and business value – very important end goals. Our businesses, all of them, are at different stages of AI adoption. The revised Enterprise Innovation Scheme provides broad-based support for businesses, including consultancy services, which Ms Elysa Chen had asked about. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Louis Chua asked if IRAS could provide guidance or worked examples for businesses on how much to claim. I think these are good suggestions. IRAS will try its best to improve the e-Tax Guide on the Enterprise Innovation Scheme, which explains in more detail what expenditures will be supported and how they should be apportioned.[+6 sentences] Beyond the scheme, businesses can also purchase off-the-shelf AI solutions using Enterprise Singapore's EDGE Grant. Those that require more customised AI solutions can tap on the Enterprise Compute Initiative, which supports the development of AI systems and associated training, which Ms Diana Pang asked about. Several Members, including Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Mr Victor Lye, also asked if a cash payout option could be provided for AI expenditures. There is a cash payout option for existing qualifying activities under the scheme, which businesses can opt for in lieu of tax deductions. These activities are, however, more tightly scoped to minimise spurious or fraudulent claims. For example, claims for training can only be made for pre-approved courses aligned with the Skills Framework. Claims for innovation projects must be certified by a polytechnic, the Institute of Technical Education or selected qualified partners However, for AI activities., we wanted to give more flexibility in the first instance and allow businesses to claim for a broader range of expenditures without the need for pre-approval. Hence, we decided not to provide a cash payout option for now.[+7 sentences] But I note the various suggestions, including Mr Lye's suggestion of how to help startups access more support for AI, and we will take a look. On evaluating the Enterprise Innovation Scheme against its intended objectives, we will monitor overall the take-up and effectiveness of these enhancements and make adjustments where needed later. But let us get on with the scheme first and see what the take-up is like. Mr Chua suggested providing similar relief to individuals who pursue AI skills training at their own expense. We support businesses and workers in AI adoption through different ways. For workers, training support is provided regardless of their taxable income, mainly through targeted subsidies for course fees and SkillsFuture Credits. Let me now address the questions on Pillar Two rules. As Assoc Prof Lim observed, Singapore's Domestic Top-up Tax will continue to apply to US multinational enterprises. The effective tax rate for multinational enterprises here will therefore be at least 15%, as set out under the Pillar Two rules.[+14 sentences] And to Mr Saktiandi's question on data protection under the GloBE Information Return exchange framework, the exchange of information is subject to strict safeguards that are agreed internationally. For example, tax authorities will have to ensure that the information is only used for tax administration purposes. Let me turn finally to tax administration. Over the years, IRAS has earned a deserved reputation for being one of the most efficient tax authorities in the world. Its digital services are seamless, efficient and taxpayer-centric. Since 2020, companies have been successfully using IRAS' e-service to file corporate income tax returns. But we recognise Mr Saktiandi and Ms Pang's concerns that micro-enterprises and less digitally literate business owners may need help in filing objections or revisions digitally. And this is why we have designed this e-service to have a similar user interface and are prepared to allow other filing modes if technical issues arise. And taxpayers may also contact IRAS for further assistance and support, if needed. I thank Mr Saktiandi and Ms Pang for their support for the new 20% Fixed Expense Deduction Ratio. For those who opt to claim actual expenses, the current claim process remains unchanged. On Ms Pang's suggestion to provide more guidance for taxpayers to decide whether to use the ratio or to use actual expenses, IRAS' website provides worked examples of allowable business expenses that will help taxpayers make a better and more informed choice. IRAS will also publish more guidance on its website, including on record-keeping requirements. Finally, Mr Speaker, let me briefly address other suggestions made by Members. I want to thank Mr Ng Shi Xuan for supporting the extension of tax exemption for employer-subsidised childcare benefits to MOE Kindergartens. This tax exemption previously applied only to childcare centres licensed under the Early Childhood Development Centres Act, which does not cover MOE Kindergartens. And so, we are extending the tax exemption to MOE Kindergartens to encourage employers to provide family-friendly benefits.[+21 sentences] And this tax exemption will also apply to KCare, since it is provided in the same premises as MOE Kindergartens. Mr Ng suggested extending the tax exemption for employer-subsidised childcare benefits to student care services to support parents with older children. For the student care sector, the Government is undertaking a broader fee review to ensure affordability. The Prime Minister announced this review at the National Day Rally. The Government will announce more details when the review is completed. Mr Saktiandi asked about the tax exemption for payouts under the ComLink+ package for employment. Most ComLink+ recipients do not pay income tax. For the small group that does, the tax exemption for the payouts will apply automatically. They did not declare such payouts as income going forward and they will receive the full amount of the payouts. Those who have previously declared and paid tax on the payouts in the Year of Assessment 2026 will receive refunds, and the Ministry of Social and Family Development will contact them directly. Let me thank Ms Chen, Mr Loh, Assoc Prof Lim and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim for their suggestions on the 250% tax deduction scheme for qualifying donations and corporate volunteerism. At 250%, Singapore's tax deduction rate is already one of the most generous internationally, and it is complemented by matching grants for donations and capability development grants for charities and social service agencies. Together, these form the foundation of our "we first" society. We regularly review our support for the charity sector, and we will consider our Members' suggestions today. I also assure Ms Chen that any changes to the tax deduction rate will be announced with enough lead time. And finally, Ms Chen suggested tracking and reporting statistics on the CPF cash top-up by platform operators on behalf of platform workers. As this tax deduction only started this year, the Government will report the relevant indicators when more data is available. Mr Speaker, the amendments in today's Bill are part of our continuing efforts to keep our tax system relevant and competitive as the global environment evolves. I thank Members today for all of your suggestions. For suggestions we have not been able to address or take in this round, we will consider them as we review and strengthen our tax system for the future. Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker72 words
[+3 sentences]Are there any clarifications for the Minister? None. . (proc text)]
Mr Speaker62 words
[+3 sentences]Order. I propose to take a break now. Minister of State Alvin Tan, you will have the session later. So, I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.15 pm.[+2 sentences] Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.54 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm.
[+1 sentence]Minister for Digital Development and Information.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information)855 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Digital Development and Information, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, we are introducing the Digital Infrastructure Bill to put in place the foundations for the next phase of our digital economy and society, by ensuring that our digital infrastructure services are resilient, secure and environmentally sustainable, so that businesses and Singaporeans can continue to rely on it. I will first explain why the Bill is needed, so that Members can better understand how the Bill supports Singapore's long-term competitiveness and growth. I will then explain the Bill's key features. Primarily, the Bill establishes two licensing regimes: first, for the security and resilience of foundational digital infrastructure services, namely major data centres and cloud services; and second, for the environmental sustainability of data centres.[+1 sentence] Finally, I will cover the key administrative and enforcement provisions that support these regimes, as well as related amendments to the Cybersecurity Act. The latest Singapore Digital Economy Report shows that our digital economy contributed $144.1 billion, or 19.3% of our gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025.[+13 sentences] This contribution goes beyond the Information and Communications sector. Around two-thirds of our digital economy comes from digitalisation in the rest of the economy, including important sectors such as finance, trade and manufacturing. Think also about how much we depend on digital services, such as digital banking and payments, ride-hailing apps, e-commerce and the many services that we transact with in our daily lives. We use them to carry out financial transactions, check health records and access Government services. Some of these digital services serve essential needs and carry sensitive data. These digital services, in turn, rely on the underlying digital infrastructure they run on to store, process and move their data. This includes data centres, which are secure facilities that house large numbers of servers and other computing equipment, and cloud services, which let businesses and organisations use computing power, storage and other digital resources at scale without having to own and operate all that equipment themselves. Many different digital services often rely on the same data centre or cloud service provider. When it is disrupted, the impact is not confined to one digital service. Many services can be affected at once and the impact can ripple across our economy and society. This is what makes this infrastructure important and why its disruption can have systemic impact. When such foundational infrastructure is disrupted, many activities we take for granted can come to a standstill. For example, a March 2021 fire in a data centre in France disrupted millions of web services, including those of banks and government agencies. In October 2023, a data centre cooling system issue in Singapore affected online banking and payment services provided by major banks for more than 12 hours, resulting in 2.5 million failed payments and automated teller machine (ATM) transactions.[+6 sentences] And in September 2025, a battery fire occurred at South Korea's national government data centre and disrupted one of the government's cloud storage systems. Years of data were lost and some of it could not be recovered. These incidents had different causes. But they point to the risks we are concerned about – technical failures and misconfigurations, power and cooling issues, fires or other physical incidents, and cyberattacks. Any one of these can disrupt the infrastructure that many businesses and organisations rely on. Besides resilience, we also need to plan for the long-term growth of data centres as we use digital technologies more extensively. For instance, demand for compute – the processing power needed to run digital services and artificial intelligence (AI) – is rising quickly, driven in large part by the demand for AI services. But an expanding data centre footprint can further strain Singapore's limited resources, such as land, power and water. This calls for long-term planning, disciplined growth and robust gatekeeping to ensure that this growth stays within what our resources can sustainably support.[+8 sentences] At this point, it is useful to look at what is happening elsewhere in the world. The sharp rise in demand for compute, particularly from AI in the last few years, has made data centre development a much more contested and politicised issue in many countries. Governments are responding in different ways, reflecting their own resource constraints, market structures and planning systems. In some jurisdictions, however, governments are now having to respond after rapid data centre growth has already created pressures around electricity, water, land, local impacts and economic benefits. We are seeing new planning and regulatory measures, project pauses and in some cases, moratoriums, even where significant investments have already been proposed or committed. These developments underscore the value of working through difficult trade-offs early, before they become harder to resolve and begin to affect business confidence, jobs and the wider economy. With your permission, Sir, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout on recent developments around the world, including in our region, around data centres. Members can see that Singapore is amongst a small number of countries that have taken steps, started several years ago, to manage and steward data centre growth.
Mr Deputy Speaker14 words
[+1 sentence]Please proceed.
Mr Tan Kiat How4601 words
[+7 sentences]Sir, Singapore has always sought to take a longer-term approach. We plan ahead and work through these trade-offs before they become acute, so that we can create as much room as possible for our digital economy and society, as well as for our AI ambitions, while staying within our resource and environmental constraints. We have done this by working closely with industry, progressively raising standards, testing new approaches and allocating scarce data centre capacity carefully to support our national and digital economy needs. In other words, our approach has been to anticipate pressures, work through the trade-offs early and make room for growth rather than wait for a crisis to force our hand. The Digital Infrastructure Bill is the next important step in this effort. We are not starting from scratch. We have been working on these challenges for some time together with industry, progressively raising standards and testing what works before moving to a statutory baseline. For security and resilience, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) developed the Advisory Guidelines for Resilience and Security of Cloud Services and Data Centres in consultation with industry, and released them in February 2025.[+4 sentences] The guidelines draw on international and industry best practices and standards. They also build on the Multi-Tier Cloud Security Singapore Standard introduced in 2013, which has been enhanced over the years. For sustainability, we have worked with industry to develop standards, best practices and benchmarks, including tropical data centres, IT energy efficiency and liquid cooling, over the years. We have managed data centre capacity growth carefully since 2019 to ensure new data centres adopt best-in-class sustainability practices, for example, under the Data Centre – Call for Application exercises. More recently, we set out our long-term plans in the Green Data Centre Roadmap released in May 2024.[+11 sentences] We are not starting from scratch. We are building on this foundation. The proposed Digital Infrastructure Act builds on these foundations. Over the years, these measures have raised standards and improved industry practice. But they are voluntary, and voluntary measures cannot ensure consistent outcomes across the sector. For security and resilience, because a single disruption can affect so many services at once, it is not enough for most providers to meet high standards. All major providers need to meet a common baseline. For sustainability, voluntary standards leave each operator to improve at its own pace. But to create headroom for the sector to grow, we need all our data centres, not only the new ones, to be resource efficient. The Digital Infrastructure Bill changes this. It gives IMDA the statutory tools to play two important roles. First, as a gatekeeper, IMDA can require the major digital infrastructure providers and commercial-scale data centres covered by the Act to be licensed and to meet a common baseline of standards. Second, as the sector regulator and standards-setter, IMDA can progressively update those baseline requirements as risks, technology and industry practices evolve.[+5 sentences] A standard that is good enough today may not be good enough five or 10 years from now. Put simply: to set a clear floor, make sure everyone covered by the regime meets it, and raise that floor over time when it is practical and necessary. Sir, before I turn to the technical provisions, let me set out the considerations that guided the design of this framework. First, proportionality. We should regulate where there is a clear policy need and calibrate the requirements to the risks and the nature of the infrastructure involved. The Bill therefore takes a targeted approach, focusing the strongest obligations on infrastructure where disruption would have systemic impact, while applying sustainability requirements more broadly across the commercial-scale data centre sector.[+26 sentences] Second, we draw on global best practices and international standards but adapt them to Singapore's circumstances. We are a tropical, land-constrained city; our data centres are often designed differently from those in other markets, and the profile of users and workloads here is distinctive. A requirement that works well elsewhere may not be directly applicable to Singapore. Third, we should not front-run technological developments. Cooling, energy-efficiency, power-management and low-carbon energy technologies are still evolving. If we lock in particular technologies or prescribe the most stringent requirements before they have matured, we may narrow our future options and create unnecessary transition costs for businesses. Our objective is not to be the most stringent on paper, but to set requirements that are effective, practical and sustainable over time. We should start with what is practical and meaningful today, rather than wait for every pathway to be fully developed, while preserving the flexibility to strengthen the standards as technologies mature and become more cost-effective. Fourth, the Digital Infrastructure Bill must fit within the wider Government framework. It is not an all-purpose instrument for every issue associated with digital infrastructure. A new data centre is not only a digital-infrastructure decision; it also has implications for land, electricity, water and our wider resource system. These broader questions are managed through their respective national frameworks and the whole-of-Government planning process. The Digital Infrastructure Bill should complement those regimes, not duplicate them. Finally, the framework must provide certainty while remaining capable of evolving. Businesses making multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar investments need clear expectations and reasonable transition periods. At the same time, the detailed requirements must be able to develop as technology, risks, energy pathways and industry practices change. Some may be concerned that the Bill introduces additional regulation and costs and may lower Singapore's attractiveness to investors. We are mindful of the business cost imposed by regulation. That is why we have consulted extensively on the Bill and will continue to do so as we develop the detailed requirements. But the alternative to clear regulation is not necessarily less regulation. For long-term, capital-intensive investments, businesses value assurance that rules will be reasonable, predictable, credible and consistently applied. This Bill provides that certainty by setting out the regulatory framework clearly, while giving us the flexibility to calibrate the detailed requirements as circumstances evolve. This is how we seek to support investment and growth without waiting for emerging pressures to become crises. Sir, I look forward to Members' support for this approach and to their constructive views on how we can continue to strengthen this approach as we move forward. Let me now turn to the Bill. Some of the terms are technical, so I will explain them in plain language as I go. The Bill establishes the legislative framework to hold major digital infrastructure service providers to baseline security and resilience standards and data centre operators to baseline environmental sustainability standards.[+13 sentences] The Bill sets the overall legal framework, and the detailed technical requirements will sit in subsidiary legislation and Codes of Practice – in other words, the regulations and operating rules under the proposed Act, which we will continue to develop in consultation with industry. This is a deliberate design: the framework should be stable, but the standards should not stand still. This lets the technical rules evolve as circumstances and technology change. The Bill comprises nine Parts. Parts 1 and 2 relate to preliminary matters and the administration of the proposed Act by IMDA, including key definitions and the scope of application of the proposed Act. Part 3 establishes the framework for the licensing and regulation of major digital infrastructure service providers, including obligations relating to the security and resilience of these services. Part 4 establishes the framework for the licensing and regulation of data centre operators, including obligations relating to the environmental sustainability of data centres. Parts 5 and 6 provide for reconsideration and appeals against specified decisions, and the enforcement powers available to IMDA. Parts 7, 8 and 9 contain miscellaneous provisions, related amendments to the Cybersecurity Act 2018, and the savings and transitional provisions. Let me start with Part 3. We are targeting the underlying infrastructure whose disruption could affect many businesses and organisations at the same time. We will start with two types of services. The first is major data centre facility services. The regime will cover data centre facility services provided in a data centre with a critical IT load, of at least 10 megawatts.[+3 sentences] Critical IT load is the rated size of the data centre's computing power supply – the maximum electrical power it is designed to deliver to the servers and other IT and telecommunications network equipment it houses. To be clear, it is not the amount of electricity the data centre consumes at every moment. The regime covers both large co-location data centres that host equipment for customers, and cloud data centres used by cloud providers to serve their customers. The second is major regulated cloud computing services that generate at least $100 million in average annual revenue from users in Singapore over the preceding three years and provide either Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) or Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS).[+8 sentences] These are the underlying cloud infrastructure and platforms on which many digital services are built. Think of it as a building. IaaS provides the basic structure, while PaaS provides the common systems and services running on top of it. Many different applications can depend on these same underlying layers. We are regulating major IaaS and PaaS services because a serious disruption at these foundational layers can affect many businesses and digital services at the same time. We are not covering Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), because these are generally finished applications used by customers rather than the common infrastructure underneath them. We have set thresholds so that the statutory obligations apply only to the major providers whose disruption could affect a significant number of businesses and organisations. This reflects the proportionate and risk-based approach I described earlier. Providers of these services will have to apply to IMDA for a major digital infrastructure licence, and licensees must take measures to ensure the security and resilience of their major digital infrastructure services.[+6 sentences] Broadly, they must: (a) implement processes and measures to ensure the physical and cybersecurity of their services and minimise the likelihood of unexpected service disruptions; (b) put in place business continuity and disaster recovery plans – plans to keep essential operations going and to restore services quickly when disruptions occur; and (c) notify IMDA of the occurrence of prescribed cybersecurity incidents or service delivery disruptions. The detailed technical rules will be set out in regulations and Codes of Practice under the proposed Act, as provided in clauses 15 and 16. In developing them, we will draw on the Advisory Guidelines I mentioned earlier, as well as relevant international and industry standards. The Codes of Practice may also set different requirements for cloud data centres and co-location data centres. This is in response to industry feedback received during the public consultation that the two types of data centres operate differently. Let me turn to Part 4, which establishes a licensing regime for data centres in Singapore to ensure their environmental sustainability. The licensing regime will apply to: operators of data centres in Singapore with a critical IT load of at least three megawatts, regardless of whether the data centre serves third-party customers or is used by the operator for its own purposes. To give Members a sense of scale, three megawatts is roughly comparable to the power demand of a major suburban shopping mall. This covers the commercial-scale data centres we are concerned about, while excluding smaller server rooms. It will therefore cover cloud data centres, co-location data centres and enterprise data centres – that is, data centres used mainly for a company's own internal systems – if they meet the threshold.[+11 sentences] This regime will apply to both existing and new data centres. New data centres are generally designed and built to higher energy-efficiency standards. But a significant proportion of Singapore's data centre capacity is housed in existing facilities. If we want the entire sector to be more sustainable, we need to improve the efficiency of those existing data centres too. We plan to do so progressively over time. The pace must balance the need for renewal against business realities, like investment and depreciation cycles. As with the security and resilience regime, the detailed technical rules will be set out in regulations and Codes of Practice under the proposed Act, as provided for in clauses 35 and 37. In developing them, we will draw on existing initiatives, such as the Green Data Centre Roadmap, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA)-IMDA Green Mark for Data Centres, as well as international standards. Clause 35 of the Bill sets out the duty to meet environmental sustainability requirements for licensed data centre operators. It provides for IMDA to prescribe requirements in three areas: (a) facility-level energy efficiency; (b) IT equipment-level energy efficiency; and (c) facility-level water efficiency. We are putting in place the legal basis for all three areas now, but will take a staged approach in introducing requirements. At the outset, licensed data centre operators will be required to meet facility-level energy-efficiency requirements, measured through power usage effectiveness (PUE).[+8 sentences] PUE tells us how much extra electricity a data centre uses on top of the power that goes directly to its servers and IT equipment, for example, for cooling and power systems. The closer the PUE is to 1.0, the less energy is being used for these supporting functions, and the more efficient the facility is. We recognise that PUE is a useful starting point, but it does not capture every dimension of sustainability. Over time, as measurement approaches and technologies mature, we can consider how other indicators should complement PUE and other efficiency measures. In the future, we may consider requirements for IT equipment-level energy efficiency and facility-level water efficiency. Each will require a different approach. For IT equipment, data centre operators often do not own or manage the servers their customers install and have limited visibility over when these are refreshed. We will encourage operators to work with their customers to understand their equipment efficiency and refresh plans and will consult industry before introducing any requirements. For water, data centres that use more than 60,000 cubic metres of water a year must already comply with PUB's mandatory water efficiency management practices, which apply to all large water users.[+18 sentences] PUB can also impose water efficiency requirements on new facilities or projects in prescribed industries, where the projected annual water use equals or exceeds a prescribed threshold, currently set at 60,000 cubic metres of water a year. The Bill allows us to set water efficiency requirements for both new and existing data centres, if these become necessary as the sector grows and cooling technologies change. These requirements will be more challenging to meet for existing data centres, which were designed and built for different technical and operating environments. Date centres operators have told us that they support the policy objectives of the new regime, but have asked for sufficient transition time to meet the new requirements, especially where significant upgrades or rebuilding work is needed. We understand these concerns. Dara centres are long-term and capital-intensive investments. It is therefore our priority to ensure a smooth transition. We will continue to work with data centre operators and other affected stakeholders on the details, including implementation and transition timelines. Beyond these baseline sustainability requirements, the Bill also allows IMDA to hold data centre operators to the commitments they make when securing scarce new data centre capacity, such as through the Data Centre – Call for Application and the Strategic Digital Infrastructure Scheme (SDIS). These conditions apply where an operator made such commitments to secure data cente capacity. Under these capacity allocation exercises, operators are assessed not only on how environmentally sustainable their data centres will be, but also on the wider value they bring to Singapore, for example, investment and business spending, good jobs and talent development, innovation, research and development (R&D), and partnerships with our local ecosystem. The Bill refers to these as strategic and economic contributions. Where an operator has made such commitments as part of its application for scarce data centre capacity, clauses 25 and 27 allow IMDA to take them into account and make them conditions of the operator's licence. If a commitment helped an operator secure scarce capacity, it should not remain merely a promise on paper. In assessing strategic and economic contributions, clause 25(4) requires IMDA to have regard to the opinion of the Economic Development Board (EDB). Where an operator is alleged to have breached a strategic and economic licence condition, clause 39(6) also requires IMDA to have regard to EDB's opinion before taking enforcement action. These recognise the role of EDB in negotiating, monitoring and evaluating the fulfilment of these commitments. In practice, EDB will first work with operators to understand and resolve any lapses, before enforcement action is taken. Operators awarded capacity under the second Data Centre – Call for Application and the SDIS have also committed to source a substantial share of their electricity from eligible low-carbon energy pathways. The Bill allows these green energy commitments to be licence conditions too. If a green energy project fails to deliver and the operator draws more electricity from other sources than it committed to, clause 39(3) allows IMDA to require the operator to make good the shortfall.[+19 sentences] This can include transferring eligible carbon credits – which are credits representing verified reductions or removals of emissions – to offset the additional emissions and, where the other electricity source is cheaper, paying an amount representing any cost savings derived from not meeting its commitment. This reflects our approach to maximise value from the compute capacity we have in Singapore. We recognise that we have to manage the growth of data centres carefully as they use scarce resources, such as land, power and water. But this does not mean imposing an arbitrary cap on this growth as it may curtail the vibrancy of the economy and the opportunities that this would bring to enterprises and workers and limit the future capabilities of digital services that Singaporeans rely on. That is why we are not seeking to attract every megawatt of data centre capacity we can. Instead, we seek to maximise the value that data centres add to our economy and society. Scarce capacity should not simply be allocated; it should be put to productive use and deliver the value that was promised. We need to grow our data centre sector responsibly and strategically to ensure that our scarce resources are used efficiently and that data centre investments continue to generate lasting value for Singapore over the longer term. Sir, this Bill establishes the statutory framework to help us achieve that objective and provides the regulatory levers to support our broader approach to new data centre and compute capacity growth in Singapore. Taken together, these requirements and commitments will help ensure that our data centre sector continues to support the growth of our digital economy. Sir, let me now turn to the key administrative and enforcement provisions that support the two licensing regimes. Part 6 of the Bill provides IMDA with the necessary investigation and enforcement powers. These include powers to obtain information and documents to assess compliance with the proposed Act or licence conditions, and to conduct investigations in relation to any offence under the proposed Act. At the same time, we recognise that during administration or enforcement, operators may be required to provide IMDA with commercially sensitive or other confidential information. The Bill therefore contains safeguards governing the disclosure of information. Clause 60 provides for the preservation of secrecy in respect of information obtained in the administration or enforcement of the Act. Broadly, persons to whom the secrecy obligation applies must not disclose information obtained in the performance of their functions or duties, except if necessary to carry out such functions or duties, or where it is lawfully required by a Court or lawfully required or allowed by legislation. IMDA may also disclose the information in any of the circumstances in clause 60(7). Sir, the last part of the Bill is Part 9, which provides for the transition into the new licensing regimes. Clause 71 provides for existing providers of major digital infrastructure services and operators of data centres that fall within the scope of the Bill to continue providing the service or operating the data centre for six months starting on the date of commencement of Parts 3 and 4 of the Act respectively.[+5 sentences] If the provider or operator applies for a relevant licence within that six-month period, the person may continue providing the service or operating the data centre until IMDA decides on their licence application or the application is withdrawn. I would like to clarify what this six-month period means. It is meant as a period for existing entities to apply for their licences. It does not mean that all regulatory requirements must be met within six months. The timelines for meeting these requirements will be set out together with the detailed requirements, in consultation with industry. Clause 18 gives the Minister for Digital Development and Information emergency powers.[+14 sentences] Broadly, these can only be used when a threat to a major digital infrastructure service creates a serious and imminent threat to Singapore's national security, defence, foreign relations, economy, public health, public safety or public order. In such cases, the Minister may need timely information and coordinated action beyond what the other regulatory measures provide for. The Minister may therefore authorise or direct any person or organisation to take the measures needed to prevent, detect or counter the threats. The Bill also includes safeguards. Information obtained under these measures may only be used or disclosed for limited purposes, such as countering the threat, and misusing it is an offence. Legally privileged information is also protected from compulsory disclosure. Sir, let me turn to enforcement and let me say a few words about how we approach it. The Bill provides IMDA with a range of tools from directions and censure to financial penalties, and the suspension or revocation of licences. These allow IMDA to respond in proportion to the seriousness of each breach. However, where non-compliance arises, IMDA's general approach in the first instance will be to work with licensees to understand the circumstances and where appropriate, require them to take remedial steps. For major foundational services, we will also be mindful of continuity for users. The purpose of regulation is to fix the problem, not create a second problem for users. Where enforcement action is necessary, IMDA will consider relevant facts and circumstances of each case in determining the appropriate response. These include the nature and seriousness of the contravention, its impact and the steps taken by the operator to rectify the breach. The maximum financial penalty for most breaches under the Bill of $1 million or 10% of the licensee's annual turnover in Singapore, whichever is higher, is a maximum, and is not an automatic penalty. IMDA will consider the same factors in determining an amount proportionate to the gravity of each case.[+3 sentences] The Bill provides avenues for recourse against certain decisions made by IMDA. Clauses 44 and 45 provide for a two-step process under which an aggrieved party may first apply to IMDA for a reconsideration of its decision and, if the party remains dissatisfied following reconsideration, subsequently appeal to the Minister. This applies to key decisions, including those on licence grant or renewal, licence conditions, directions, financial penalties and the suspension or revocation of licences. An application for reconsideration must be made within 14 days of the initial decision, and an appeal to the Minister within 30 days of the decision on reconsideration.[+7 sentences] This framework allows IMDA, as the sector regulator with the relevant technical expertise, the opportunity to reconsider its decision and address the issues raised by the affected party in the first instance. It also facilitates the resolution of matters by the appropriate level where possible, while preserving an avenue of appeal to the Minister if the affected party remains dissatisfied following IMDA's reconsideration. The Minister may also establish an Appeals Advisory Panel to advise on an appeal. Finally, let me turn to the related amendments to the Cybersecurity Act. Part 3D of the Cybersecurity Act remains the framework for addressing cybersecurity risks relating to major digital infrastructure services. This Bill complements it to cover non-cyber risks. To ensure consistency between the two regulatory frameworks, Part 8 of the Bill makes related amendments to the Cybersecurity Act. Clause 70 harmonises the definitions of "foundational digital infrastructure service" and "data centre facility service" in the Cybersecurity Act with those in this Bill.[+21 sentences] This ensures that the Cybersecurity Act substantially uses the same concepts when referring to the same terms as the Digital Infrastructure Bill. Clause 70 also inserts a new definition of "digital infrastructure service" in the Cybersecurity Act. This is broadly aligned with the definition in the Digital Infrastructure Bill but is extended to include digital identity management services for the issuance and validation of certificates for authentication of websites, computer systems, application software or connected devices. Doing so retains the policy space for the Cybersecurity Act to strengthen the cybersecurity of these services, which in turn underpin the security of many other digital services. We recognise that major digital infrastructure service providers that are licensed under Part 3 of this Bill and designated under Part 3D of the Cybersecurity Act will be subject to requirements under both regimes. To reduce the operational burden for these providers, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), IMDA and Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) are working closely together to harmonise overlapping requirements and streamline regulatory processes where appropriate. The Bill also requires IMDA's Codes of Practice to be consistent with those issued under the Cybersecurity Act. Sir, let me conclude in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, most Singaporeans may never step into a data centre in their lifetime. But our daily lives are becoming increasingly dependent on them. Whether it is using CDC vouchers, logging into Singpass, making online payments, booking medical appointments or running a business, all these activities are underpinned by stable cloud services and data centres. This Bill seeks to safeguard not only our digital lives but also the foundations of Singapore's future economic development. Singapore has always planned ahead and does not wait for problems to escalate into a crisis before taking action. Hence, we are putting in place a framework early with IMDA as the gatekeeper, by setting out clear baseline standards first and then raising the bar progressively as technology and risks change. With limited resources, we must make the best use of every resource available. Our aim is not maximum compute. It is maximum value from compute. (In English): This Bill is fundamentally about planning ahead. Most Singaporeans may never step into a data centre. But much of what we do every day depends on one. So, we should put the right rules in place before problems become a crisis. The Digital Infrastructure Act will give IMDA the tools to be an effective gatekeeper and standards-setter: to set a clear baseline for security, resilience and sustainability; to make sure regulated operators meet that baseline; and to raise the bar over time as technology and risks change.[+7 sentences] We will start with standards that are practical and effective today, and improve them as the pathways become clearer. This is not regulation at the expense of competitiveness. Reliable infrastructure, clear rules and good stewardship of scarce resources are part of what makes Singapore a trusted place to invest and do business. Our ambition is not maximum compute. It is maximum value from compute – for Singapore, our businesses and our people. Not just for now, but well into the future. Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi)1926 words
[+13 sentences]Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I rise in support of this Bill. I was heartened to hear Senior Minister of State Tan speak earlier about the importance of growing Singapore's digital infrastructure while strengthening its resilience and sustainability. I think we are very much aligned on that direction, and I would like to take that thinking one step further and approach this Bill from a broader strategic question: what kind of digital infrastructure does Singapore need if we truly aspire to be a leading global hub for AI? Because the question before us is no longer simply about how we regulate data centres. It is about how we position Singapore for the next phase of the AI economy, and how we ensure that every megawatt of scarce energy we commit creates the greatest possible economic and strategic value for Singapore. Because data centres are no longer simply buildings that store data. In an AI economy, compute is infrastructure. Just as ports enabled Singapore to become a global trading hub, airports connected us to the world and our power grid enabled industrialisation, data centres and the computing capacity within them, will increasingly underpin the next phase of our economic growth. And because Singapore has finite land, finite energy and finite carbon capacity, we cannot compete simply by building more. Singapore's digital economy has grown significantly. It now contributes more than $128 billion, or 18.6% of gross domestic product (GDP). Our data centre sector has grown alongside it. As stated by the Ministry, Singapore has more than 70 cloud, enterprise and co-location data centres, and when this Bill was introduced, our data centre capacity had grown to more than 1.6 gigawatts.[+4 sentences] The importance of this infrastructure will only increase with AI. AI needs compute; compute needs data centres; and increasingly sophisticated AI applications require enormous amounts of computing capacity, reliable connectivity and energy. So, if Singapore wants to be an AI hub, we must ensure that the infrastructure supporting that ambition can grow with it. But therein lies the challenge. Data centres already account for around 7% of Singapore's electricity consumption, with this expected to rise significantly as our digital economy expands. By 2030, it has been estimated that 12% of our electricity consumption will be from data centres.[+13 sentences] This is therefore not simply a digital policy question. It is simultaneously an economic, an energy, a sustainability and a strategic-resource question. The objective cannot be unlimited growth. Neither should the answer be to constrain growth to the point where the next generation of AI infrastructure simply goes elsewhere. The challenge before us is therefore to achieve intelligent growth, more compute, more economic value and greater strategic capability from every unit of scarce energy that Singapore commits. That is the lens through which I have several clarifications on this Bill. Firstly, the Bill introduces important thresholds based on critical IT load. Critical IT load essentially measures the electrical capacity available to the computing and network equipment within a data centre. At three-megawatt critical IT load, data centres enter the sustainability licensing regime. At 10-megawatt critical IT load, qualifying data-centre facility services come with the major foundational digital-infrastructure regime for security and resilience. My first question is therefore: how much of our existing data centre landscape will these thresholds capture? The Ministry has said that Singapore has more than 70 data centres and more than 1.6 gigawatts of capacity. This puts the simple average capacity at around 23 megawatts per data centre, although actual facility sizes vary significantly. Could the Senior Minister of State share how many existing facilities exceed three-megawatt critical IT load, and how many exceed 10-megawatt critical IT load?[+14 sentences] More importantly, what percentage of Singapore's total data-centre capacity do these facilities represent now and in the future? This matters because the industry is changing rapidly. A recent CBRE report shared that new data centre builds across Asia-Pacific now average more than 100-megawatt critical IT load. Against that backdrop, three megawatts and even 10 megawatts are relatively low thresholds. Does this therefore mean that, in practice, virtually every substantial new data centre built in Singapore in future will be regulated under these regimes? If so, that may well be appropriate, and we should understand the breadth of coverage we are legislating for. I strongly support the objective of making our data centres more energy efficient. But the economic consequences of how we implement these requirements matter too. This Bill enables PUE requirements to be imposed. PUE tells us how much total energy a data centre consumes relative to the energy actually reaching its IT equipment. The closer to 1.0, the more efficient the facility is. Yet the Bill itself does not prescribe the eventual numerical PUE requirement. That will come subsequently through subsidiary regulation and regulatory requirements. The Ministry has also acknowledged industry feedback concerning implementation and transition. Singapore's Green Data Centre Roadmap indicates a broader PUE ambition of 1.3 or lower, while the second Data Centre – Call for Application launched in December 2025 requires successful applications to obtain Green Mark Platinum and achieve PUE of 1.25 at 100% IT load or better.[+11 sentences] Can the Ministry therefore clarify the PUE levels that we are working towards? Will it be 1.3 or lower? Will the same requirement with same limits apply to a brand-new AI-optimised facility and a legacy data centre constructed years ago? And critically, how will PUE be measured? Will it be a design PUE? PUE at full IT load or annualised operating PUE? Each measure can produce quite different results. In his speech, Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How shared that these requirements will also apply to data centres that are already in operation. This is important because, for an existing facility, achieving a significantly tighter PUE may require substantial retrofitting – from cooling systems to electrical infrastructure and other equipment. And retrofitting an existing facility can be considerably more complex and costly than designing a new facility to meet these standards from the outset. From the handout that was shared, it is also useful to consider how other jurisdictions are managing this challenge. China applies mandatory national energy-efficiency standards principally to new and expanded data centres, while we are porposing to apply to both new and old data centres. Virginia applies specific approval requirements to large data centres, defined as those above 25 megawatts, while we are proposing to apply to date centre above three megawatts and 10 megawatts.[+8 sentences] Malaysia, meanwhile, has sought to influence resource efficiency through national tax incentives tied to efficiency and sustainability criteria. Different jurisdictions have therefore adopted different approaches – through standards, approval thresholds or economic incentives – to balance data centre growth with resource constraints. Against this backdrop, could the Senior Minister of State share whether the Ministry has assessed the cost per megawatt of compliance, particularly for our existing data centres? Because ultimately, good regulation should raise standards, but it should do so while preserving Singapore's competitiveness. This is important because our competitors are moving very quickly. The Asia Pacific Data Centre market is experiencing extraordinary expansion, driven by cloud and AI demand. The availability of power is increasingly determining where this investment lands. Look just across the region. By the first half of this year, Johor had 1,110 megawatts operational, another 602 megawatts under construction and a total development pipeline of approximately 3.1 gigawatts.[+4 sentences] Bangkok's pipeline has reached approximately 2.1 gigawatts. Jakarta's is approximately 1.7 gigawatts. These are no longer peripheral markets. They are becoming major digital infrastructure hubs in their own right. Singapore's constraints are increasingly pushing larger requirements towards neighbouring Southeast Asian markets, even as Singapore positions itself as a premium hub for specialised AI workloads. This leads me to ask: has the Ministry benchmarked the total regulatory and operating cost per megawatt in Singapore against these competing markets? And factoring in the cost of retrofitting and regulatory compliance, how will Singapore's total cost per megawatt compared to cities across the region? And as we introduce higher security, resilience and sustainability standards, which I support fully, how will we ensure that the cumulative cost does not inadvertently accelerate the movement of future investments elsewhere?[+34 sentences] Mr Speaker, perhaps the most important question is not "how many gigawatts of data centres should Singapore have, or what gigawatt threshold should we set?" The better question may be, "what value can each gigawatt create for Singapore?" We should not seek to win a regional competition simply by accumulating megawatts. Regional players have more land. Other markets may have cheaper power. Singapore's competitive advantage must therefore lie elsewhere. We should ask how our regional digital ecosystem can be structured so that Singapore captures the highest value and most strategically important layers of the data centre economy. Can Singapore become the preferred location for high-value cloud services, financial workloads, sovereign and sensitive workloads, mission-critical interconnection, AI inferences and regional digital command-and-control? Can large-scale, power-intensive compute operate across a broader regional ecosystem while Singapore remains its trusted, connected and high-value core? And most importantly, as AI reshapes the global economy, can we measure success in economic value per megawatt, AI capability per megawatt and strategic value per megawatt? This also means our digital infrastructure strategy cannot be separated from our energy strategy. If compute becomes an increasingly important strategic resource, then access to reliable, competitive and progressively greener electricity becomes an important component of Singapore's AI competitiveness. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in this AI era, data centres are no longer simply places to store data. They are critical infrastructure that will drive the economy and jobs of the future. Singapore aims to become a leading AI hub. To achieve this ambition, we need more computing power. But Singapore has limited land and energy. So, the question is not simply how many megawatts of data centre capacity we can build. The more important question is: how much value can we generate from every megawatt? We must ensure that every megawatt generates greater value for Singapore – by attracting high-value investments, strengthening our AI capabilities, and most importantly, creating more high-value jobs for Singaporeans. At the same time, our data centres must become more efficient, sustainable and resilient. In the global AI race, Singapore may not have the most land or the cheapest energy. But our advantage must lie in the value we create. Every megawatt must deliver greater value – for our economy, for our AI capabilities and for jobs for our people. (In English): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill because security, resilience and sustainability are necessary foundations for our digital economy. But regulation is only one side of the equation. The other is ambition. We should regulate our data centres to be more efficient, that is no doubt about that. We should require them to be resilient. We should demand that scarce resources are used responsibly. But at the same time, we must create the conditions for Singapore to capture the next generation of cloud, compute and AI investment. It must be a balance that we must continuously strive to achieve. Because in an AI economy, compute capacity will increasingly translate into economic capability. For a resource-constrained country like Singapore, our strategy therefore cannot simply be more megawatts.[+1 sentence] It must be better megawatts. Megawatts that support higher-value economic activity and higher-value-added jobs.[+1 sentence] Megawatts that strengthen our AI capabilities. Megawatts that reinforce our position as a trusted digital hub. And megawatts that generate disproportionately greater strategic value for Singapore. With these clarifications, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang)2315 words
[+11 sentences]Mr Speaker, countries and corporations all around the world are scrambling to meet AI-driven data for data centre capacity. Yet we need to ask if this arms race compromises our ability to meet our climate targets, despite the expectation that long-term global temperatures would rise by over 1.5°C relative to pre-industrial levels within the next few years, falling way short of our collective goal to keep global warming beneath this threshold. During the debate on the Motion for our future economy, tabled by my Workers' Party colleagues in July, I noted how our economic strategy has to centre on societal flourishing and environmental sustainability. Likewise, the Government's approach to data centre development should always lean towards our people and planet. While the sustainability and resource efficiency requirements for data centres instituted in this Bill are definitely a step forward, Singapore must lead by example in driving sustainable, responsible and people-centric technological growth. This does not mean being anti-growth or anti-data centres. Instead, our approach to data centres has to prioritise our people's needs, mitigate socio-economic impact of data centre development and boost transparency regarding the admissions profiles of data centres. We should always be cognisant of how these policies have an impact beyond our shores. Data centres, wherever they are located, take a sizeable toll on electricity and water grids. When data centres roll into town, neighbouring communities can see their electricity and water supplies disrupted while utility bills skyrocket. Energy and water requirements are even worse for data centres located in hot tropical regions, such as Singapore and require more cooling relative to centres located in cooler climes. Forty-four percent of experts surveyed by the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) in this year's State of Energy Transition Survey, believe that data centre growth would lead to increased pressure on energy supply and infrastructure, while another 31% felt that there would be a greater demand for energy storage and grid upgrades. Even with our 2019 pause on new data centre construction, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) data show that our electricity consumption by the information and communication sector, which includes data centres, more than doubled from 2019 to 2024.[+5 sentences] We also have to consider who pays the bill for the required upgrades to our grid to accommodate this anticipated new load. EMA's electricity tariff structure indicates that any additional expenditure on grid upgrades is borne by the customer under the non-fuel component of the electricity tariff. This would be on top of price variations triggered by fluctuations in fuel costs, such as price increases, arising from geopolitical conflicts. According to the reply to a Parliamentary Question I filed earlier this year, the Government announced that it launched a Data Centre – Call for Application 2 exercise only after assessing that the supply of electricity and other resources could support the added data centre capacity without compromising other needs. I hope that any future data centre capacity will be introduced only if our grid infrastructure can support the additional energy usage comfortably and that the cost of upgrades required, if any, should not be borne by consumers. Could the Senior Minister of State also clarify how specifically is our green energy supply able to meet this projected additional demand, given that the recent Data Centre – Call for Application 2 exercise stipulates that 50% of a data centre's energy needs must be supplied via green avenues.[+5 sentences] SEAS also sites obstacles, such as current energy procurement mechanisms being ill-suited to the needs of low-carbon energy, lack of industry expertise in structuring power purchase agreements, difficulties faced by data centre operators in securing early access to green energy sources and the nascency of regional low-carbon energy projects. Concerns have also arisen regarding the availability of low-carbon energy sources to power the planned Jurong Island Green Data Centre Park. Also, with imported power projected to form a significant portion of our green energy supply, I asked back in January last year, about the measures instituted by the Government to address potential pricing and supply shocks. As clean energy is currently commercially bound by fragmented power purchase agreements between importers and consumers, would the Government consider establishing a centre procurement agency for low-carbon energy to strengthen their bargaining power and leverage economies of scale? Data centres are also thirsty for water. A single large AI data centre uses roughly 1.2 billion litres a year for cooling. The United Nations (UN) projects that by 2030, AI data centres worldwide will consume as much water as 1.3 billion people use daily.[+5 sentences] In Singapore, the PUB expects our national water consumption to almost double by 2065, with two-thirds of the increase expected to come from non-domestic consumption. While we now have our Four Taps programme, the reality is that Singapore's water resilience depends on costly, energy-intensive sources. Given this, I asked in May this year how such growth might strain our water supplies, especially with the Water Agreement with Malaysia expiring in 2061 and higher energy prices from the Middle East crisis raising the cost of energy-intensive desalination. The Minister's reply stated that the Government plans water infrastructure ahead of demand, but I was unable to get any further specifics. Even so, I hope any future data centre developments will take full account of the fragility of our limited water resources. Data centre operators already meet the PUB's water efficiency benchmark of 2.1 cubic metres per megawatt-hour, compared against the 2.2 cubic metres per megawatt-hour in 2021. IMDA's Green Data Centre Roadmap seeks to reduce it to below two within 10 years.[+21 sentences] What has been our progress on this and will operators' water efficiency be publicly reported? Besides water and electricity, data centres also take up large amounts of what is truly one of our scarcest resources – land. Every plot we allocate to data centres is space that could have gone to housing, parks, greenery or community spaces. And when we run out of space, we clear more forests or reclaim more land from the sea. Indeed, low carbon energy generation was nuanced to be the impetus for the Western Island project. With the urban heat island effect contributing to our concrete jungle warming twice as fast compared to the rest of the world, we must directly look at how data centre construction contributes to this problem. Data centres also emit a lot of heat owing to cooling systems pumping out hot air from the equipment into the atmosphere, with studies measuring higher temperatures of up to 500 metres downwind of a data centre. We should thus require environmental impact assessment (EIAs) to be conducted prior to key data centre construction which factored in the potential heat and noise emitted from the data centre as well as the climatological impact of such developments in any associated loss of biodiversity if land is cleared. A mitigation plan to alleviate its environmental impact must also be developed similar to how Scotland mandated EIAs to be conducted for data centres with capacities above 50 megawatts. We must likewise institute similar requirements for any proposed new data centres above a certain capacity. While data centres in Singapore are largely clustered around industrial areas, there are some, such are those located in Defu and Jurong West that are also near residential neighbourhoods. While clause 25 of the Bill allows the Government to refuse to award a licence if it goes against the public's interest, we need more information about how it determines whether a development is in the public's interest. These are issues that those of us living in Singapore need greater clarity on. In view of our recent experience in engaging with concerned residents over the decision to develop Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, how can we more meaningfully engage the public in decisions made about data centre developments? How will the Government meaningfully take feedback into account in the final decision on whether and where to build our data centres? Transparency is key to sustainable and responsible data centre development. Clause 36 of the Bill requires licensees to regularly report their compliance with the provisions under this Bill and the conditions of their licences. What metrics must operators report under this clause? Notably, it appears that operators are not required to publicly report such data. While there may be concerns about commercial secrecy, the existential nature of our climate goals means that we have to tilt the scales more in favour of closer monitoring of our energy consumption attributable to data centres. We would not be alone in doing this. The European Union's (EU's) Energy Efficiency Directive requires data centre operators to report metrics, such as their water and power consumption to a common public database, which allows the public to keep track of data centres' consumption of our shared planetary resources.[+4 sentences] Just like we mandate listed companies and large non-listed companies to publicly report carbon emissions, requiring disclosures, such as water consumption, energy needs and noise pollution should be considered. Mr Speaker, while the remit of this Bill focuses on data centre operations in Singapore, climate change is a global concern and the impact of our actions would naturally be felt beyond our borders. High demand for data centre space in Singapore, driven by our status as a major financial and technological hub, has resulted in spillover effects in the surrounding Johor region and Riau Islands. While undoubtedly boosting economic opportunities, reports have also started to emerge about disruption to the lives of local communities and ecosystems. Johor, in particular, has grown into a major data centre market in its own right, coming in third in Asia, behind Tokyo and Singapore, with life IT capacity of 1,110 megawatts. Yet, these data centres, a significant portion of which serves Singapore-based business operations, have also resulted in increased strain on Johor's electricity grid and is projected to account for approximately 40% of the state's total electricity demand by 2035.[+5 sentences] This has also adversely affected local communities with residents near data centres in Johor reporting lower water pressures, and noise and dust pollution from data centre construction. Such disruptions to daily life have even spurred angry residents to protest against such data centre projects. In Indonesia, with data centre capacity nascent relative to Singapore and Johor, we see many green industry projects, including some aimed at exporting up to 3.4 gigawatts of low-carbon electricity to Singapore, sufficient to power approximately 595,000 households annually. Despite what seems like spare capacity, there are still households who are not connected to the local grid who still continue to rely on diesel generators for electricity there. Industrial developments have also resulted in the displacement of local communities. For instance, over 800 households were forcibly removed from their homes for the construction of Sembcorp's Tembesi Industrial Park, while the risk of relocation lingers over the residents of Dapur Tiga due to plans to build a renewable energy and smart Eco Industrial Park on the site.[+4 sentences] Even as we strive to protect our land and natural resources to meet our own climate obligations, we have to be aware of the impact on neighbouring communities. Our policies must also be sensitive to how we affect the lives and livelihoods of those living beyond our shore. When it comes to the approval of clean energy imports, does EMA consider how the power generation infrastructure would affect the surrounding community and environment, and is there space for us to render technical assistance to mitigate any untoward impacts of such projects? Singapore has a global footprint in the data centre industry. In addition to having the highest proportion of data centre capacity in both Johor and Batam, at 37% and 62% respectively, Singapore-based data centre operators are present as far afield as Europe and Australia.[+1 sentence] Prominent operators such as DayOne and Bridge Data Centres are headquartered here, while Temasek Holdings back several operators, such as Ascendus, Mapletree, ST Telemedia, Nxera and Keppel. Temasek was also part of a consortium that purchased AI data centre operator, Allied Data Centres for a record $51.8 billion, while Anthropic is partnering with GIC and Macquarie Asset Management to build AI data centres for the cloud developer. Given this, can we require Singapore-based data centre operators to report their carbon emissions from their overseas data centre operations, whilst also Government-linked operators to enact sustainability measures for their overseas operations? As many large Singapore-based companies procure compute capacity from regional data centres, could we require such a cooperation to lease from operators to implement sustainable practices, similar to the principles under France's duty of vigilance law?[+9 sentences] Mr Speaker, amidst our climate emergency, data centre projects need to sit alongside the urgent need to meet our climate targets. Calls for the public to exercise individual responsibility by saving electricity and water ring hollow if we allow data centres to guzzle up excessive amounts of energy and water resources. Our already limited land should also be prioritised for uses that enable human flourishing instead of merely satisfying the ever-growing appetite of capital, with data centre projects carried out, sensitive to the surrounding environment and communities. We all have a stake in our planet. Thus, it is important to hold industry to account for carbon emissions and resource consumption in a way that is fair. We should also aim to mitigate the effects that our policies governing data centre construction have beyond our shores. It would do us a world of harm if the benefits of frontier technologies and are disproportionately and unsustainably lining the pockets of hyperscalers at the very expense of our existence as a planet. If we pride ourselves as a global technological hub, then perhaps, it is time to ensure that our policies ensure that advancements in technology are also carried out sustainably with its fruits reaped by the people for societies to flourish. While I support the Bill, I hope that the Ministry will consider these points I have raised.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru)1173 words
[+13 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I will make three points. First, on resilience and why wider reporting makes our digital infrastructure more reliable and more secure. Second, on sustainability, and how we can raise standards in a way that is fair to existing operators. And third, why data centres matter to Singapore's future and for Singapore to flourish. Let me start with resilience. For many years, companies have come to Singapore for three things: trust, knowledge and connectivity. Data centres are at the heart of all three. That is why companies keep their knowledge here: their data, their AI models and their records. Companies place the knowledge here because they trust us to keep it safe and to keep it available. This Bill strengthens that trust for two reasons. The first is reliability. The outages that Singaporeans remember are sometimes not caused by hackers. In October 2023, a cooling fault at a data centre disrupted DBS and Citibank services for about 14 hours. Around 2.5 million payment and ATM transactions could not go through. In September 2024, a battery fire at a data centre in Loyang took more than a day to put out, and disrupted cloud services.[+18 sentences] Neither was a cyber breach. Incidents like these would have to be reported under the law. The second reason is security. Attackers no longer go only for the servers. They go for the systems that keep the servers running: the power, the cooling and the building controls. Many of them are run by software too. So, an attack on these systems may look, at first glance, like ordinary faults. One operator, looking at one fault, cannot tell the difference. But our agencies can. With wider reporting, Government agencies will see incidents throughout the whole sector. They can connect the dots, and spot a coordinated attack early, while there is still time to respond. Some may ask: do the large operators not already have continuity and recovery plans? Many do. What the Bill adds is a common baseline that can be enforced. So, every major facility is prepared, including for problems that have nothing to do with servers. Let me now turn to sustainability. Data centres use real resources. They use land, electricity and the same scarce resources that Singapore has a lack of. But nevertheless, I am heartened that the Bill takes a balanced approach. It not only sets a higher standard for new data centres but also requires existing ones, from three megawatts upwards, to meet energy-efficiency requirements.[+25 sentences] I think it is a right approach. We cannot ask new operators to be best in class, while older facilities stay as they are. But efficiency is only half of the picture. Senior Minister of State Tan has shared how past Government actions in the past have shaped the growth of our data so we can balance responsibility with efficiency. But the broader point is this: how have we actively shaped how capacity is added and on what terms. At the same time, we should also be fair to operators who have built under earlier rules and now facing new obligations. I am glad that the Ministry have given existing data centres sufficient time to make the transition. I hope that IMDA can also consider the investments that operators have already committed and the physical limits of each site. Not every older data centre can be rebuilt to the standard of a new one. And for those that cannot meet the new standards, I hope we can help them to exit in an orderly way, with enough time for the customers to move. Some may say that electricity, land and water are too precious for us to be patient. I understand the view. But Singapore is already a high-cost location for data centres. Operators who only want cheap capacities have every reason to go elsewhere, including the nearby data centres in our surrounding countries and cities. So, many of those that are remaining here today are only here because their work needs to be here. Our aim should be to raise their standards and not push everybody out. That brings to my third and final point: why data centres matter to Singapore. In every other developed country, these costs have led to some level of pushbacks against data centres, and we may hear similar views here, including in this Chamber. But I think that having fewer data centres is not necessarily the right answer for Singapore. Let me explain why. Singapore matters to the world precisely because we are a hub for many things, all in one place. We are a hub for air and sea transport, for finance and for regional headquarters. We are a hub for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and technology. We host multilateral institutions and we are trusted with data, all within a small island of only 735 square kilometres. Every one of these activities now depends on computing power especially AI. In 2024, our digital economy made up 18.6% of GDP.[+12 sentences] And with AI, more of these activities will depend on compute power even more. And there are also two separate kinds of AI work. The first is training, which is building an AI model. This can be done elsewhere where power is cheap. We do not need to compute for this. The second is inference, which is using the model to answer, and decide and answer in real time. Inference must therefore sit close to where it serves – the ports, the banks, the hospitals – and it must sit under laws that the users trust. So, if we send this capacity elsewhere, we send part of our hub away with it. Having enough data centre capacity for our core needs is not only about helping one industry. It is about our people's jobs, it is about our relevance to the world, it is about our future. For those who feel that we should have fewer data centres, there are three questions I hope we can answer: which of our hub activities are we prepared to give up? Where would our data and our AI then sit and under whose law? And what would replace the jobs that depend on them? I think the real question is not whether Singapore should have data centres. It is how many, how good and on what terms.[+1 sentence] This Bill gives us a sound answer. It makes our data centres more resilient and more efficient. It holds our operators to green energy and economic commitments that they have made in return for scarce capacity, so that every megawatt that we allocate brings back value to Singapore.[+1 sentence] Sir, let me conclude. This is a fast-moving field and no law will get everything right the first time.[+3 sentences] This Bill will be reviewed and refined as we go along, I am sure. I thank the Ministry and IMDA for consulting the industry closely, and I hope that they continue to do so, but the Bill sets the right direction. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang)2130 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker. For a decade we have governed the industry through certification schemes, technical standards and the conditions attached to tend this. And the Government's own consultation paper concluded that these measures alone could not ensure consistent sustainability outcomes across the sector, necessitating a statutory regulatory framework. Licensing enforceable conditions, audit powers and penalties of up to $1 million or a 10th of an operator's Singapore's turnover give the regulator what it needs.[+2 sentences] And I welcome them. I welcome in particular the energy efficiency duty reaches data centres already operating. Singapore is a regional data centre hub with a total capacity of 1.6 gigawatts and a framework covering only new builds would have left a significant portion of the sector untouched.[+7 sentences] I also welcome clause 39 3(b) which allows IMDA to recover the cost savings obtained where an operator breaches a license condition, limiting the amount of proportion of electricity that may be drawn from a specified energy source. This removes any financial incentive to breach such a condition. I have questions on four matters: the exemptions, the standards to be set under this Bill, carbon emissions requirement and the publication of consumption data. The exemptions. Clause 35 exempts four categories of data centres from the licensing and efficiency requirements. Data centres operated by telecommunications, electricity and gas licensees are exempt from where they are used for the licensees' regulated activities or for activities ancillary to those regulated activities. Government operated data centres situated in Government owned or occupied facilities and data centres operated by public authorities and facilities they own or occupy are exempt without the activity-based limitations that apply to some of the other exemptions. For example, in October last year, JTC and the EDB set aside some 20 hectors on Jurong Island for low-carbon data centre park capable of supporting up to 700 megawatts.[+11 sentences] While such facilities are expected to be operated by commercial operators, the scale of the project illustrates the significance of the exemption. If a public authority were itself to operate a qualifying data centre in premises it owns or occupy, Part 4 would not apply. Why are data centres run by Government agencies and Statutory Boards exempt from the same statutory energy and water efficiency requirements that apply to licensed operators? What measures would ensure that data centres run by Government agencies and Statutory Boards meet the same energy and water efficiency standards as licensed operators, so that the exemption does not undermine the Bills purpose of making the sector more efficient? Furthermore, clause 65, empowers the Minister to exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of the Act by order published in the Gazette. Unlike an order made under clause 66, such an exemption order need not be presented to Parliament. May I ask will the Ministry undertake to report to this House any exemption granted under clause 65 from Part 4 of the Act? Next, the standards. The Government has already set efficiency standards for new data centres. The main measure is PUE, which compares the data centres' total electricity use with the electricity used by its servers. A figure of 1.25 means that for every unit of electricity the servers use, another quarter of a unit goes on cooling and other overheads. IMDA's second Call for Application for Data Centres in December 2025 required a PUE of 1.25, improve of 1.3 in a pilot exercise together with green mark platinum certification, and at least half the power drawn from green sources.[+3 sentences] For data centres already operating, clause 35 requires them to meet whatever efficiency standard is prescribed and clause 67 allows different standards for different classes of licensees. The Act itself sets no period for older facilities to reach the standard, so I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State what PUE standard existing data centres will be required to meet whether different standards will apply to different classes of facilities and how long older facilities will be given to achieve compliance? On water, clause 35 allows water efficiency standards to be prescribed, but the Ministry's response in the public consultation says none will be set when the Act first takes effect. In May 2024, the Government disclosed that large data centres in 2021 use a median of 2.2 cubic metres of water for every megawatt hour of electricity used by their servers and said that IMDA would work with PUB to bring this down to 2.0 or less over the medium term.[+11 sentences] PUB has since published a sector benchmark of 2.1 cubic metres per megawatt hour. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State when will water efficiency standards be set and does the Government still intend to bring the sector to 2.0 cubic metres per megawatt hour or below? The Call for Application set a figure for electricity efficiency and none for water. Will the next Call for Application include one for water usage too? In the meantime, clause 25 requires IMDA to consider a data centre's water efficiency before granting a licence. PUB already publishes a water efficiency benchmark for data centres based on the water use figures that every user drawing at least 60,000 cubic metres a year has had to submit since 2015. Will IMDA use that benchmark when it assesses water efficiency under clause 25? Next, on carbon emissions compliance. The Bill allows IMDA to impose a licence condition requiring an operator to mitigate emissions associated with non-low carbon electricity by acquiring a surrendering eligible international carbon credits. Separately, if an operator breaches a condition limiting the use of electricity from a specified energy source, IMDA may be required to transfer credits to the Government to offset the additional emissions caused by the breach. The Bill does not, however, prescribe a percentage limit on the extent to which eligible international carbon credits may be used to meet an emissions-related licence condition. Under the carbon tax regime, a taxable facility may use eligible international carbon credits to offset no more than 5% of the taxable emissions.[+1 sentence] Government has explained that this facility level limit is intended to ensure that industry continues to prioritise emissions reductions domestically. The tax is levied on about 50 facilities in the manufacturing, power, waste and water sectors.[+20 sentences] Data centres drawing electricity from the grid indirectly bear a carbon price because of power generation companies may pass some of their carbon tax cost through electricity tariffs. However, standalone data centre operations do not appear to fall within the prescribed sectors directly covered by the carbon tax merely because they consume grid electricity. So, will a limit comparable to the 5% carbon tax limit apply when international carbon credits are used to meet an emissions related condition under this Bill? If not, what limit or safeguards will apply to ensure that operators continue to prioritise low carbon electricity and emissions reductions over the purchase of credits? Will the Senior Minister of State also clarify how the emissions impact of a data centre will be taken to account when licensing decisions are made and whether this consideration should be expressly stipulated? Clause 25 permits IMDA to consider the emissions characteristics of the electricity used. The proposed use of carbon credits and the bearing of the data centres energy consumption on Singapore's international emissions reductions commitments but leaves the weight to be given to these matters to the authority. Next, publication of available consumption data. Mr Speaker, clause 36 requires licensees to report to IMDA each year on whether they are complying with the Act, their licence conditions and the Codes of Practice. It does not expressly require annual reporting or publication of absolute electricity and water consumption for the sector, nor does it require publication of aggregate sector wide totals. Because PUE is a ratio, a data centre can become more efficient each year while using more electricity each year simply by adding service, and the same is true of the sector as a whole. This House and the public will not know how much electricity and water data centres use or how quickly that is growing. The Government already has the data. Every large water user, including data centres, has reported its water use to PUB each year since 2015, under mandatory rules. And the Government's own estimate of data centre electricity use was calculated from EMA data. Neither agency publishes a current total for the data centre sector. The most frequently cited official figure is that data centres accounted for about 7% of Singapore's electricity consumption in 2020. That figure is now several years old and does not show how electricity use has evolved as capacity and computing intensity have grown along with the recent boom in data centres demand. Some jurisdictions with large data centre sectors do publish these figures. Ireland's statistics office has published annual figures on data centre electricity use since 2020, compared from electricity metre readings. Its latest release shows data centres used 23% of the electricity metered in Ireland in 2025, up from 5% in 2015.[+8 sentences] Virginia's legislature commissioned an independent study, which highlighted the substantial generation and grid investment that may be required if data centre demand continues to grow rapidly and estimated that the industry support some 74,000 jobs. When my hon friend, Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru asked on 7 January 2025 what proportion of Singapore's total electricity consumption would be accounted for by data centres once their capacity increased by at least a third, the reply restated the Government's commitment to add 300 megawatts of capacity but did not provide the projected proportion of national electricity consumption. In February this year, the hon Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Ms Elysa Chen asked what proportion of our fresh water supply data use, or failing that, how much water in volume? PUB collects data centres' water use every year, yet the entire reply was one sentence, saying that most of the water supplied to data centres is NEWater rather than fresh water. Clause 60 requires IMDA to keep confidential what operators disclose and I accept that individual operators have good reasons for this. The design and security of a data centre should not be public and neither should one's company's commercial figures. However, aggregate usage statistics for the whole sector would reveal neither. It would not identify any operator. It would inform the public what the efficiency standards in this Bill are meant to achieve, whether the sector's use of electricity and water is being kept within what our grid and water supply can sustain. This Bill does not require IMDA to publish such aggregate figures, but I call on the Government to publish such sector level data so that the public can see whether the efficiency standards in this Bill are working and whether the sector's use of electricity and water remains within what our grid and water supply can sustain.[+3 sentences] Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the data centres are an important infrastructure for Singapore's digital economy. But they also consume a substantial amount of electricity and water. In the past, the Government relied mainly on industry standards and voluntary measures to promote energy conservation. I support its decision to strengthen regulation through legislation.[+2 sentences] However, I hope that the Government will provide more clarification on several issues. First, some data centres operated by Government departments and Statutory Boards may be exempted. If these data centres also consume substantial amounts of electricity and water, should they not be required to meet the same energy and water efficiency standards, and be subject to the same accountability and oversight, rather than being exempt from these standards? Second, what energy use efficiency standards will existing data centres be required to meet in the future, and how much time do they have to complete this transition? Third, will the Government publish electricity and water consumption data of the entire industry, so that the Parliament and the public can understand whether these measures are truly effective and whether the growth of data centres remain within the limits that Singapore's energy and water resources can sustain.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the questions above, I support this Bill. (In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this Bill gives Singapore, for the first time, a law written specifically for data centres, covering how they use electricity and water. My questions are meant to make sure it works as intended – that the exemptions for Government agencies and public authorities do not leave part of the sector outside its standards; that operators know the energy and water standards they will be held to and when; and that Parliament and the public can see the results. So, notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon)1492 words
[+12 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Much has been said about the importance of embracing AI to spur economic innovation – innovation to create higher-value jobs for Singaporeans; innovation to improve the delivery of our Public Services; and innovation to improve Singaporeans' overall quality of life. Even as Singapore seeks to benefit from AI, we are mindful that any benefit Singaporeans can reap from AI depends on the AI working. On this, we have seen extensive efforts over the years by the Government to attract infrastructure investment from all over the world such that we now have one of the highest concentrations of data centre capacity per capital in the region. As we increase scale and reliance on data, we need to also start having the right governance frameworks in place. To ensure we can fully secure these advantages and continue to build upon our robust foundations, we must ensure our regulatory frameworks evolve in tandem with our technological ambitions. Therefore, I wish to clarify on four key areas on this Bill: first, security and resilience; second, sustainability; third, the implementation of standards; and fourth, the jobs and economic opportunities that this endeavour will unlock for Singaporeans. First, security and resilience. I appreciate the Ministry and the relevant agencies' proactive efforts to strengthen the security and resilience framework surrounding our digital infrastructure. Data centres are the bedrock of our digital infrastructure. If our digital infrastructure falters, our financial systems, our healthcare delivery and our essential public services will falter with it. However, given the stakes, I must stress the critical importance of end-to-end resilience. While the current provisions in the Bill, particularly sections 17 to 22, grants the authorities extraordinary regulatory and operational powers to intervene, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Government considers going one step forward to safeguard our sovereign interests. Specifically, would the Government consider providing IMDA with "step-in" rights to put critical data centres under a statutory trust or receivership if it deems the existing operators to be unable or unwilling to act in the public's interest?[+13 sentences] Such a decisive measure would only be invoked under severe circumstances, including but not limited to, first, a fundamental failure to sustain the operations of the data centre, which threatens widespread service disruptions; second, a failure to cooperate with public officers and investigation teams during a breach or crisis; and third, the operator being deemed to be operating under malicious intent towards Singapore. While drastic, having such a legislative backstop ensures that no private entity can compromise the existential digital lifelines of our country. Can the Senior Minister of State share if such mechanisms have been considered or if they might be introduced in future iterations of our regulatory framework? At this point, I want to clarify that this is advocated in the interest of the industry. Singapore's success in attracting data centre investment is dependent on the profitability of the data centres. This is, in part, dependent on the willingness of the market to host their data in data centres based in Singapore. By empowering IMDA with "step-in" rights, we are telling the markets that the Government will serve as a guarantor for Singapore's data centres, that we would ensure the continued operation of data centres in the event of an emergency, so that data centres will continue operating for limited periods of time to allow companies to migrate their data to alternative centres. Next, sustainability. Data centres are resource intensive. Every step we take forward risks leaving a larger environmental footprint. They consume vast amounts of electricity and require significant volumes of water for cooling. While I note the regulatory frameworks being put in place to manage these environmental impacts, I believe we must look beyond mere regulation. I spoke about this during the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's Committee of Supply this year. How can Singapore ensure our AI development is climate-aligned? I wish to ask the Senior Minister of State, what active steps are the Government taking to develop green technology for data centres?[+1 sentence] How are we helping operators learn from the "best in class" around the world and import such cutting-edge technologies into our ecosystem, such as advanced liquid cooling or AI-driven energy optimisation? How does the Ministry intend to quantify Singapore-specific emissions arising from AI development?[+2 sentences] Is there a framework to measure and publicly disclose the carbon footprint associated with large-scale AI infrastructure? How is the projected energy demand being incorporated into Singapore's long-term carbon modelling and emissions trajectory planning? Are there plans to implement carbon taxes on AI infrastructure to encourage responsible use?[+7 sentences] To truly own this space, we must also have an ecosystem that is able to innovate in green technology. Will we be investing into research into this area with local universities, research institutes and public institutions, such as Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR)? Or a programme to involve major data centre players to co-fund with the Government or contribute to the R&D of sustainability technology for data centres? If we can pioneer breakthroughs in tropical data centre efficiency, we solve not only a local problem but potentially, a regional one. This brings me to a broader strategic point. The demand for digital infrastructure is exploding and with it, an urgent need for sustainable solutions. Will the Government look into further developing our local green sector to capitalise on this? By test-bedding green digital infrastructure technologies here, we can groom a new generation of local enterprises equipped to export these sustainable solutions to the region and further abroad, turning this strategic vulnerability, our limited resources, into a strategic economic export.[+5 sentences] Next, standards. Standards are inherently good. They harmonise expectations, make operational environments predictable and are highly conducive for businesses when they engage in long-term capital planning. I note there is an intent for the scope of this Bill to be expanded in the future to introduce other efficiency requirements and baseline standards. However, while businesses appreciate certainty, they are highly deterred by ambiguity regarding future compliance costs. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify the timelines for the consultation and implementation for future standards?[+5 sentences] Industry players need adequate runways to adjust their operations, to upgrade their legacy hardware and to train their personnel. More importantly, how can we assure the industry and avoid being seen as imposing a "slippery slope" of creeping regulation? The industry is watching closely. We want to attract top-tier digital infrastructure investments but if operators fear that regulatory goalposts will constantly shift under the guise of evolving standards, they may look elsewhere. So, this is the delicate balance between safeguarding public interests and maintaining our status as an attractive, pro-business hub. How can the Ministry ensure that future standards are strictly risk-based, empirically justified and developed in deep partnership with the industry?[+2 sentences] Finally, I would like to touch on what this really means for the everyday Singaporean. At the heart of our economic policy is the creation of good jobs for Singaporeans. What specific jobs and economic opportunities does the Government foresee being created in this endeavour?[+15 sentences] As we tighten security requirements, there will undoubtedly be a surge in demand for cybersecurity professionals, cloud architects and digital forensics experts. As we push for greener data centres, we will need sustainability engineers, green facilities engineers and energy specialists. How is the Government working with our institutes of higher learning to ensure our workforce is ready to step into these higher-value roles? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): I support this Bill. There has already been considerable discussion about embracing AI to drive economic innovation. What is the purpose of innovation? It is to create higher-value jobs for Singaporeans, provide more efficient public services and improve the overall quality of life for Singaporeans. For Singapore to benefit from AI, AI itself must be able to operate in a stable and reliable manner. What does this mean for Singaporeans? At the heart of our economic policy is, and has always been, the creation of good jobs. May I ask what specific jobs and economic opportunities the Government expects these efforts to create? As we tighten security requirements, there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in demand for cybersecurity professionals, cloud architects and digital forensics experts. To make data centres greener, we will need environmental engineers, green facilities engineers and energy specialists. How is the Government working with our institutes of higher learning to ensure that our workforce is prepared and equipped to take on these higher-value roles? (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Digital Infrastructure Bill is a timely and necessary intervention. It sets the guardrails for our next phase of growth, ensuring that as we reach for the immense benefits of a digital-first economy, we do so on a foundation that is secure, resilient and sustainable.[+2 sentences] This will ensure that Singapore remains the premier digital hub of Asia. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang)2330 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Speaker, I support the introduction of the Digital Infrastructure Bill, and I will spend most of my time on Part 4. I have been following developments in the data centre industry closely in recent years and have asked a number of Parliamentary Questions on it. I believe it is useful to provide some context to our debate today with statistics drawn from the replies to those questions. In February 2021, I asked the then-Minister for Trade and Industry how many data centres had been approved for construction over the preceding five years and on what terms any moratorium had been imposed, since it was widely understood in the industry that a moratorium had been in place since 2019. Minister Chan Chun Sing replied that 14 data centres with 768 megawatts of IT capacity had been approved on industrial state land in those five years, against 12 data centres and 307 megawatts in the five years before.[+4 sentences] Approved capacity had grown 2.5 times in half a decade, and the Government had responded in 2019 by pausing the release of state land for data centres. I welcomed that pause then and I still do. It was an honest acknowledgment that land, power and water are scarce here in a way they are not in most jurisdictions we compete with. In January 2022, I asked again about capacity and limits. The then-Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Gan Kim Yong, replied that there were more than 70 operational data centres with about 1,000 megawatts of available IT capacity, and that we would henceforth be selective and anchor only facilities best-in-class in resource efficiency.[+1 sentence] Where are we now? In February this year, the Minister for Digital Development and Information told this House that we still have more than 70 data centres, but total capacity exceeds 1.4 gigawatts. Her Ministry's press release of 8 September puts it at over 1.6 gigawatts today.[+10 sentences] It is unclear to me whether the recently awarded 200 megawatts of capacity is part of the 1.6 gigawatts, or whether capacity is now slated to reach 1.8 gigawatts. In any case, in November 2024, replying to my Sengkang colleague Ms He Ting Ru, she also confirmed that our operational data centre capacity per capita exceeds that of Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Sydney and Tokyo. In recent years, compute demand has expanded rapidly, driven by AI, autonomous systems and other data-intensive applications. That demand is translating into demand for data centres across the world. Governments are now confronting the consequences for electricity grids, water, land, emissions and household affordability. Roughly, a dozen United States (US) states have seen data centre moratorium bills filed in sessions and more than 300 local moratoriums have been adopted across 17 states in the US. In July, New York became the first American state to impose a statewide pause, suspending environmental approvals for data centres of 50 megawatts and above for up to a year while an environmental impact statement is prepared. Its Governor cited the risk that such development would hike up utility bills, deplete natural resources and create uncertainty for New Yorkers. My speech today will thus be largely focused on Part 4 of the Bill, but I will first speak briefly on Part 3. I support the introduction of a new licensing regime to strengthen the security and resilience of major cloud services and data centres in Singapore. The Ministry's own examples from the press release make the case, including the October 2023 cooling failure that disrupted more than 2.5 million banking transactions and over 810,000 access attempts.[+12 sentences] However, I return to my exchange with Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How in this House on 5 May 2026, when we debated AI-enabled cyber risks. The Senior Minister of State confirmed then that the Government does not have access to Anthropic's Mythos model and was not aware of any local bank that had been granted access. In June this year, it was reported that Anthropic would extend Mythos to a further 150 organisations in more than 15 countries, which according to a Financial Times' article included countries, such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Switzerland, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the EU's cybersecurity agency. None of the jurisdictions named in that reporting was in Southeast Asia and critically, Singapore does not appear to be one of them. Mr Speaker, no licensing regime can close that asymmetry. Under clause 15, the Bill will require our major operators to defend themselves to a prescribed standard, yet we are not equipping our nation and our operators with the best-in-class tools available. Rather than leaving it to commercial decisions, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Government has stepped up diplomatic and government-to-government representations, to secure access to the top-tier models for our CSA and our critical information infrastructure owners? This is especially so given how Deputy Prime Minister Gan has described our partnership with the US as one "that is mutually beneficial, deeply integrated and anchored in trust", and that beyond economics, our ties extend to defence, technology and innovation. Further, given that Anthropic opens its Singapore office later this month and since OpenAI has had its Asia headquarters here since 2024, is their presence and our trusted partnership with the US being leverage on in those conversations? Moving on to Part 4 of the Bill, the philosophical question that we need to ask ourselves is this: do we actually need this many data centres? I am not arguing that Singapore should reject cloud computing, AI or companies, such as the leading hyperscalers and frontier AI labs. In fact, if the additional capacity awarded were earmarked for sovereign purposes, or for the so-called "HDB model" for compute that I proposed in this House in August, then that would be a very welcome development. The question is whether hosting a very large stock of data centres is genuinely a comparative advantage for Singapore, and whether this is the aspect of the AI supply chain that we want to compete in. We have swung from having a data centre moratorium to wanting to provide at least 300 megawatts of additional capacity in the near term, with much more through green energy deployments. And in the short span of four plus years, data centre capacity has risen by some 60% from about one gigawatt to 1.6 gigawatts. On the industry association's own advocacy figures, drawn from a 2023 study, data centres here add over $2 billion a year to our economy, or about 0.3% of GDP, while employing 7,000 people directly and a further 17,000 through the supply chain, or about 0.7% of employment in total.[+2 sentences] Set against a sector that consumed about 7% of national electricity back in 2020. Meanwhile, Johor has more than 1,100 megawatts of operational capacity and an incoming pipeline as high as more than 8,500 megawatts according to a consultancy report; and Johor does not face the same land constraints that we do. But our comparative advantage lies in hosting the decisions, the capital and the engineers. I agree that there needs to be a certain level of local data centre capacity on sovereign considerations, but my question to the Senior Minister of State is, does the Government intend to set a target level of data centre capacity, whether it is in megawatt terms or in terawatt hours, as a share of our national electricity consumption?[+17 sentences] If there is to be no ceiling, under what specific circumstances will capacity be released beyond the 200 megawatts of Data Centre – Call for Applications 2 and the "much more" additional capacity through green energy deployments? To the specifics of the Bill, clause 35 requires licensees to meet prescribed energy, water efficiency and equipment-level energy efficiency requirements. Clause 36 further requires regular reports to the Authority, which may be audited. Clause 37 allows for Codes of Practice, but these have no legislative effect, even as non-compliance may be enforced under clause 38. Regardless, I did not see any requirement for public disclosures of such information in the Bill. Hong Kong appears to have moved the other way. From 21 September this year, data centres there are brought within the mandatory energy audit regime under its Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance for the first time on a five-year lease cycle and the technical data collected in the new data disclosure form is to be published on the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department's website for public inspection. Operators here already disclosed at portfolio level without evident commercial harm. Equinix reports an average annual PUE of 1.37 for 2025 and 96% miniable coverage. Digital Realty 2025 Impact Report reports 93% renewable energy coverage. I hope the Government can consider requiring the publication of PUE and water usage efficiency at facility level, or at the minimum the operator level, with a transition period for older assets. I would also ask that the Government publish an annual aggregate of the sector's electricity and water consumption, in absolute terms and as a share of national consumption to better allow the public to understand what these technical numbers actually mean. Next, on green energy commitments. In his reply to my question of 10 September on Data Centre – Call for Applications 2, the Minister for Trade and Industry replied that the four provisionally awarded projects carry a combined 200 megawatts, around 12% of our total data centre capacity, that their demand will be drawn primarily from the national grid supplemented by onsite solar, and that more than half of that capacity will be powered by Singapore-based low-carbon generation from building-integrated photovoltaics and fuels, such as biomethane, ammonia and hydrogen. Take 200 megawatts of critical IT load at the roadmap PUE of 1.3, running at a conservative 80% utilisation. That is roughly 1.8 terawatt hours a year, of which more than half, say 0.9 terawatt hours, must come from Singapore-based low-carbon generation. Our entire national solar fleet, once we reach the raised target of three-gigawatt peak in 2030, is expected to generate about 2.8 terawatt hours a year. EMA itself notes solar can realistically supply only around 10% of our projected energy needs by 2050. So, on those assumptions, which I am happy to stand corrected, the Singapore-based low-carbon commitment of Data Centre – Call for Applications 2 alone is equivalent to roughly about a third of everything our national solar fleet will produce in 2030.[+5 sentences] And Data Centre – Call for Applications 2 is just about 12% of our current data centre capacity. Mr Speaker, sunlight falling on Singapore is a fixed quantity, as is the amount of solar energy we can generate from it. While data centres may sign power purchase agreements with local generation companies, it merely re-allocates a constrained national resource. While biomethane, ammonia and hydrogen are additional pathways, it remains unclear just how much green energy is being generated and expected to be generated in the near future from these sources. Will the Senior Minister of State provide further clarity on how the Government plans to ensure that the data centre operators from Data Centre – Call for Applications 2 and potentially the rest of the sector can meet their green energy commitments locally? Further, even as I welcome the intention to prescribe a facility-level energy efficiency requirement under clause 35, I would ask whether it will be set at a PUE of 1.3 and whether it will bind existing facilities, as adding more data centres still raises Singapore's absolute emissions and consumption, particularly as the increasingly denser AI server racks filled with advanced chips consume significantly more electricity than legacy co-location data centres. Based on statistics from EMA, Singapore consumed 58 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024, with the information and communications sector growing 12.3% in that year alone. EMA's own Electricity Demand and Supply Outlook forecasts system peak demand growing 2.4% to 4.8% a year to 2034, an increase of two to 4.3 gigawatts.[+2 sentences] In 2030, the base case peak is 9.4 gigawatts against an upper bound of 10.8 gigawatts, with generation of 67,600 gigawatt hours against 80,400 gigawatt hours. EMA states explicitly that the upper bound reflects demand from emerging high-demand industrial and digital sectors, naming data centres. Can the Senior Minister of State share his Ministry's projections for data centre development over the next 10 years, and whether our electricity generation capacity and green energy generation capacity can meet the electricity demand from data centres, and whether the current planning assumptions still allow for our reserve margin of 27% to be met comfortably for power system reliability? Further, how much has the 60% increase in additional data centre capacity over the last four years contributed to electricity prices, what are the associated costs of infrastructure upgrades and how much is the incoming data centre capacity expected to impact household electricity prices?[+6 sentences] The question of who pays is an important one. In the US state of Virginia, home to the largest concentration of data centres globally, regulators authorised a separate rate category for the largest electricity consumers, including data centres, to enable the charging of differentiated electricity rates while also implementing an electricity consumption tax of 1.1 cents per kilowatt hours on data centre operators. US regulators are also increasingly considering large load tariffs, to fairly allocate and recover associated costs to accommodating significant power demands of large customers, such as data centres. Mr Speaker, I welcome the move to implement two new licensing regimes to strengthen the security and resilience of major cloud services and data centres and the environmental sustainability of data centre operations in Singapore. On the former, I hope that the Government can support licensees and other critical infrastructure providers in Singapore with access to the best tools available; and on the latter, I hope that we can seriously consider the aspect of the AI supply chain that we want Singapore to compete in. Notwithstanding my clarifications and reservations, I support the Bill.
[+20 sentences]Mr Speaker, data centres are not just critical infrastructure but have become a political flashpoint across the world. They require hard conversations about the trade-offs and policy choices. Building data centres is not a design problem. It is a competition among political values. First, AI is driving the transformation of Singapore economy, and a robust data centre infrastructure is the foundation for our computing power. However, these centres take up land, water, power and create a ton of electronic waste. Some harmful impact on environment can be minimised by regulation, but they cannot be completely neutralised. We must weigh these costs carefully. Data centres also open up new points of fragility. They are a single source of national level failure either due to technical, operational glitches or targets of cybersecurity attacks. From Ukraine to the Persian Gulf, data centres have been targets of espionage and cyberattacks, as well as physical attacks. The rise in use of AI makes these centres more vital than ever. This second issue of security also requires careful scrutiny. With so many critical functions dependent on data centres, their security and resilience levels must be kept state-of-the-art. This will not come cheap. The higher cost will in turn mean that Singapore-based data centres are necessarily priced higher. They should also go towards those activities most critical to our country. Examples are power generation, telecommunications, finance, business and transport. These functions, which require a lower threshold of security or which are less crucial, such as entertainment and social media, service providers can choose cheaper and less fortified data centres outside Singapore. It was not so long ago that we put a stop to unbridled growth of data centes. A moratorium on data centres was imposed in 2019 to manage the unsustainable consumption of electricity. It was only lifted in 2022 under strict sustainability requirements.[+5 sentences] Notwithstanding, it still did not address the security and resilience aspect for data centres. Hence, this Digital Infrastructure Bill is timely, as we scale up our national AI ambitions. In fact, in Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How's response to my supplementary question during the September Sitting, he highlighted that the Government will maximise the economic value of every megawatt brought into Singapore. We want both growth and sustainability. With his assurance, I support the Digital Infrastructure Bill and agree this is the correct and comprehensive approach to regulate data centres. Given our limited land, water and electricity resources and our commitment towards Net Zero by 2050, we will have to put a cap to our total data centre capacity. Currently, we have 1.6 gigawatts on mainland and the Government will build another 700 megawatts in Jurong Island. That brings the total of 2.3 gigawatts for some 6.2 million population or 370 watts per capita.[+19 sentences] This is more than double the average of 158 watts per capita in the US. We also have a big concentration of IT, AI, social media, e-commerce and banking companies. They will use high volumes of compute power. Moreover, quantum computing will enter mainstream use in another three to five years, further adding the demand for data centres and potentially in an exponential manner. So, my question is, will the 2.3-gigawatt data centre capacity be enough? If not, what will we do and what is the trade-off? Mr Speaker, I had earlier pointed out the need to prioritise critical functions. The Digital Infrastructure Bill does not categorically prescribe what are the functions that can be allowed to tap into data centres housed in Singapore. I ask for the Ministry to consider including this prioritisation criteria at the start in terms of usage allocation. Otherwise, we may come to a point where critical functions may be crowded out of data centres access because less critical but more lucrative functions can pay better. We cannot and must not rely on the price mechanism to protect national security. My question is that if that situation happens, do we then force these non-critical functions out to overseas data centres or use cloud services off overseas data centres? Or do we continue to build more data centres beyond the 2.3-gigawatt capacity? Then we run up against our Net Zero goal. What industries then must make way for more data centres? What happens to the livelihoods of those in these industries that may be less lucrative? These questions may sound far into the future now, but as we have seen in recent years, time is moving at a speed faster than it did. For our long-term policy planning, we should think about such possibilities. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my reservations, I support the Digital Infrastructure Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Eileen Chong.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member)1470 words
[+5 sentences]Mr Speaker, most Singaporeans have never been inside a data centre. But when we scan a payment QR code, access services via Singpass, or video-call a loved one overseas, we are relying on one. Data centres are the physical backbone of the modern digital world, powering our daily activities, essential services and our economy. We tend to only notice them when something goes wrong. And things do go wrong. In October 2023, technical issues with the cooling system at a data centre during a planned upgrade disrupted Singaporeans' access to banking services. While the outage lasted less than 24 hours, its impact was significant – more than 2.5 million payments and ATM transactions could not be completed, and there were over 810,000 failed attempts to access digital banking platforms. In September 2024, it took Singapore Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) two days to complete the damping down operations following a fire in a battery room at a Loyang data centre.[+3 sentences] Neither incidents involved a cyberattack. It was the physical infrastructure that failed. We have a Cybersecurity Act that deals with actors who mean harm to our digital infrastrcuture. But it does not deal with a cooling system that malfunctions, a battery that catches fire, or a power supply that fails. It is thus timely to introduce legislation that addresses these non-cyber risks which also affect the security and resilience of major data centres and cloud service providers. The Bill also takes an equally important step on sustainability, by placing the resource efficiency of data centres on a statutory footing.[+38 sentences] My colleagues have earlier set out what is at stake in that respect: our power, our water, our land and the communities beyond our shores who absorb what we displace. I share those concerns and I will not repeat them. I would instead like to focus on asking: once we accept that that trade-offs must be weighed, who weighs them, against what and how would Singaporeans know? Almost every substantive requirement in this Bill will be prescribed later, in regulations and Codes of Practice. While this preserves flexibility and ensures that the requirements keep pace with technological developments, it also means that those details will not come before this House at subsequent readings of this Bill. So, even as I support the Bill, I would also appreciate the Senior Minister of State's clarifications about how it will work in practice. Operators in this sector are not lightly regulated today. They already answer to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) for the Green Mark, to PUB for water efficiency plans, to SCDF for fire safety and to their own customers for a stack of international certifications. This Bill adds a new licence on top. My clarifications today are about how the Bill will add to, rather than compete with, what already exists. First, on the licensing itself. Will the application, audit, annual report and the renewal of the license be designed as a single streamlined process, with one form and one set of supporting documents? Will information an operator that has already given to IMDA under one limb be carried across, rather than requested again under another? Second and more substantially, on harmonising with what already exists. Operators today already navigate a wide spread of credentials. Some carry legal force through the building regime. Some are national standards. Some are voluntary international frameworks to meet customer demands. I note that the draft Bill gives IMDA the tools to recognise these credentials: clause 67(3) allows different provisions for different classes of operators; clause 69 allows regulations to incorporate external standards by reference. Sir, I have four clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, will the subsidiary legislation provide that holding a valid, accredited certification, such as a BCA-IMDA Green Mark Gold Plus or Platinum rating for Data Centres, or SS 564, creates a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the clause 35 requirements? Second, will an audit report produced for an accredited framework, such as ISO 50001 or Green Mark, within the preceding 12 months or 24 months be accepted towards the annual reporting and audit obligation under clause 36? An operator should not have to be audited on the same data twice, in the same year, for two different regulators. And third, will the Ministry use clause 67(3) to set a lighter reporting route for smaller and single tenant facilities, reserving full third party statutory audits for the larger ones: say those, perhaps, at 10 megawatts and above? While hyper-scalers easily absorb extra audit overheads, mid-tier local operators should not have to choose between paying for an audit and funding the physical equipment upgrades that the audit recommends. And fourth, will IMDA's verification protocols be aligned with existing accreditation bodies, such as the Singapore Accreditation Council-accredited certification bodies, so that we are not building a parallel audit profession to check work that has already been checked? Third, on non-cyber risks that are not regulated by IMDA alone. Fire safety sits with SCDF under the Fire Safety Act. Building standards sit with BCA. Water efficiency sits with PUB. These agencies all answer to different parent Ministries and I am not suggesting that IMDA take over any of their functions. But this Bill does give IMDA a new instrument – licence conditions. An operator will read the licence conditions as the authoritative statement of what is expected of it. So, I would be grateful if the Senior Minister of State can confirm that these conditions for the license, most of which will be laid out in subsidiary legislation, will be settled amongst the relevant agencies before they are issued, so that operators work to meet one set of coherent conditions rather than having to reconcile three or more sets of expectations. I ask as this because there will be times where these requirements might pull against one another, and there should be clarity on how that will be resolved. I would like to illustrate this with the fire at the Loyang data centre in September 2024. The batteries involved were lithium ion. It is the same technology that our green energy policy encourages data centres to adopt, because it helps them store renewable power and ride through power outages. And when the fire in the Loyang Data Centre started, the sprinklers did what they were designed to do: sprinkle water. This, plus water spraying from the SCDF's firefighting operations subsequently led to the server room experiencing water accumulation and leaks, resulting in heightened risk of electrical short circuits. This led to a decision for an emergency power shutdown, which further disrupted service provision.[+2 sentences] I cite this example to illustrate how the measure that protects the building may not be the same measure which protects the service. While I am in no position to say which should yield to the other, if at all, an operator designing a battery room should get a clear, single non-conflicting answer about what is expected. Another example is what is written into clause 25(2)(b) of the Bill, which requires IMDA to have regard to both energy efficiency and water efficiency.[+2 sentences] While next-generation liquid cooling promises to optimise both, legacy air-cooled facilities that are retrofitting their systems will face operational friction. Traditional evaporative cooling towers shed heat efficiently to save power, but consume heavy volumes of water. Dialling back water use without immediate capital upgrades can then drive energy consumption up. So, this Bill names both statutory duties, but offers little clarity on how IMDA will weigh energy versus water metrics during license evaluations for legacy facilities.[+3 sentences] So, I have three clarifications in this regard. First, where the requirements pull against one another, whether within the criteria set out in clause 25, or with requirements of other agencies, what will guide IMDA's decision in striking a balance? Can the Senior Minister of State share an example of how such tension would be resolved in practice? Second, will compliance with the new licence conditions be taken as satisfying, or at least, as aligned with, the baseline expectations of the consulting agencies, so that an operator which has already met its license requirements is not later told by another agency that it has fallen short of something else? And third, will the Codes of Practice under clauses 16 and 37 draw on the lessons of past incidents, including standards for lithium ion battery storage safety, redundant cooling switchover and physical isolation between plant rooms?[+5 sentences] Mr Speaker, these are questions about implementation rather than intent of the Bill. No serious operator or service provider would object to being held to a standard. But what would wear them down is being held to varying standards that have not been reconciled. Clarity is not a concession to business, it is the condition on which compliance will happen. Notwithstanding my clarification, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member)942 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Digital Infrastructure Bill. Digital infrastructure is foundational to Singapore's economy and society. I intend to keep my speech short and therefore, there are five areas of concerns for the Ministry to consider or clarify. The first area is the licence types, grants and a renewal duration. The Bill states two categories: foundation digital infrastructure that is 10 megawatts or above; and a data centre that is between three and 20 megawatts.[+2 sentences] Can the Senior Minister of State clarify that if a foundation digital infrastructure requires two licences, and if so, if it is possible for an foundation digital infrastructure to submit using one licence rather than have a duplication, or if there are other concerns which result in two applications of licences? The second area is the change of control. Clause 30 defines a change of "5% controller" to be notified within seven days.[+4 sentences] We know that the equity structures of data centres could be cross-holdings and could be many possible options, where people invest with different equity structures. So, there might be situations where equity engagements might be complex due to different crossholdings. Can the notification period be extended by the licensee through formal request rather than the strict seven days? One important issue is the Code of Practice. The Bill mandates heavy penalties, up to $1 million or 10% of the annual total turnover for non-compliance with the Code of Practice.[+7 sentences] While that is good, however, under section 14, IMDA will issue the Code of Practice subsequently. The industry licensees, the operators and engineers are being asked to navigate in this architecture where the destination is very clear, we need to regulate and have the licence, but the Code of Practice is not clear, because it is only going to come soon. So, the Code of Practice defines the precise performance standards, which is a work in progress. I would like to request more clarity into the composition of the panel that defines the Code of Practice. Does it include representation from the industry, besides the authority? How will the industry's perspectives and viewpoints be included? Area four of concern is balancing sustainability with innovation. The Bill introduces the Data Centre Operator Licence for facilities of three megawatts and above.[+20 sentences] To enforce environmental sustainability, we know that our green electricity is currently in short supply. However, we cannot allow the code of practice to be so rigid such that we cannot move for the current operators. Moving PUE from 1.3 to a strict 1.25 creates big obligation for at least the current operators to invest in their current legacy facilities. I think this needs to be taken into consideration, and taking the equipment's amortisation lifetimes and usage lifetime into concern, rather than fix it very tightly in a certain regulatory period. If done too quickly, the rush to hit these sustainability metrics could threaten the very operational resiliences we are trying to protect. We do have new standards that we pioneer on liquid-to-air cooling prototype based on Singapore Standards SS726 for high-density AI clusters. Well, air cools. So, lesser water, no water, this will spike the PUE. And maybe a balance between the PUE and the water usage effectiveness might be considered in this case. This can be considered in a "sandbox" way that we can balance and experiment what are the good usage of innovations and technology. Our Code of Practice must be there for dynamic, outcomes-based and adaptive to the physical realities of developing technologies. The last area is area five – the professional framework for technicians, engineers and technologists involved in digital infrastructure. We can build the most secure, greenest digital fortresses in the world, but we still need the people to operate it. These high-performance data centres of today are no longer simple real estates with just things like racks and servers being plugged in, with heavy air-conditioning systems. They are hyper-complex, mission-critical infrastructure combining advanced power telemetry, mechanical engineering, AI workload distribution and cybersecurity. If we are thinking of structural resilience as a legal mandate, we must therefore treat the competencies of our engineering workforce as a regulated, strategic national priority. To achieve this, we should not just upskill the top tier, the engineering group, but also the technician or the operations unit. I note that the Institute of Technical Education also has certificates, or Nitec and Work-Study Diplomas that are related to data centre operations. We should create a register for the entire engineering stack – from technician, technologists or engineers to internationally recognised professional standards. I highly recommend that we start exploring skills accreditation for chartered engineering status and registry for digital infrastructure engineers, technologists and technicians. In light of that, would the Ministry support the development of a Singapore Data Centre Body of Knowledge which will consolidate all the knowledge and experiences of the industry, including the various Singapore Standards such as the SS564, the sustainable data centre; SS697, tropical data centre standards; SS715, energy efficiency of data centre for IT equipment; and SS726, liquid cooling in tropical data centre.[+2 sentences] By embedding all these specific professional registries into our ecosystem, we ensure that every person touching our digital infrastructure is bound by clear professional accountability, continuous professional development and rigorous ethical standards. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Singapore's competitive edge means that we always have to rely on stable, trusted and yet highly agile business environment. Of course, the digital infrastructures provide much of that currently. I would urge the Ministry and IMDA to adopt a highly collaborative, consultative enforcement posture during this transition period.[+1 sentence] Sir, with these concerns and clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh)1553 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which introduces licensing and regulatory frameworks for crucial digital infrastructure and data centre operators. In Singapore today, digital infrastructure is the invisible bedrock of our economy. It enables PayNow and Community Development Council Voucher payments, Singpass services, cloud storage and workplace software. The global AI revolution is now driving unprecedented demand for such infrastructure. This Bill is a timely and necessary step to keep our "digital gateways" resilient, secure and sustainable, just as earlier generations did for our airport and seaport. But we must ensure that resilience and sustainability do not erode competitiveness, impose undue burdens on local enterprises or leave our workforce behind. I will address five areas in my Bill speech. The Bill introduces a security and resilience licensing regime for major co-location and cloud data centres with a critical IT load of at least 10 megawatts, and major cloud service providers earning at least $100 million in average annual revenue from Singapore users.[+5 sentences] It covers operational risks including technical failures, power outages and fires, complementing cyber-risk management under the Cybersecurity Act. In practice, however, the line between an operational failure and a cyber incident can be blurred. A cooling system failure may be a hardware malfunction or a cyber-intrusion into a facility's Operational Technology network. How will IMDA coordinate with the CSA in such dual-faceted incidents? The Government's consultation response says MDDI, CSA and IMDA will streamline both regimes. Where reporting requirements overlap, licensees need report only to IMDA, which will share relevant information with CSA.[+20 sentences] Could IMDA simply be the single port of call for digital infrastructure operators, leaving CSA to obtain what it needs from IMDA? During a crisis, operators should focus on recovery and mitigation, not navigate duplicative reporting. Compliance also has a cost. Licensees must implement rigorous security risk management measures and business continuity plans. Major MNCs may readily absorb these costs, but how will the Ministry keep the burden proportionate? Detailed requirements will be set through Codes of Practice after industry consultation. What is the expected implementation timeline and have the proposed standards been benchmarked against other jurisdictions to keep Singapore attractive for global tech investment? Second, impact on local enterprises and SMEs. Sir, I turn to the downstream impact on local enterprises and SMEs. I have emphasised in this House that supporting local SMEs and attracting global MNCs are not competing choices. Major cloud providers and data centres form the foundation for thousands of local businesses, from e-commerce hosting to enterprise resource-planning software. Compliance costs may flow down the value chain. Has the Ministry assessed how the Bill could affect the pricing of cloud and co-location services in Singapore? If digital-infrastructure costs rise, SMEs already facing tight margins and higher operating costs may bear the brunt. Are support mechanisms or grants planned to help local enterprises absorb possible price increases and keep digitalisation affordable for heartland businesses? Third, synergising green digital infrastructure initiatives. The Bill rightly addresses environmental sustainability, especially important given data centres' high energy and water use in resource-scarce Singapore. I am concerned about constraints such as green-power availability and grid readiness, even as AI and digital workloads surge beyond our critical sectors. How will regulation under this Bill and physical-infrastructure planning be aligned with Singapore's digital economy and Net Zero goals, including IMDA's Green Data Centre Roadmap and the EDB's and JTC's sustainable-energy initiatives on Jurong Island? Could the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry update the House on the implementation of Jurong Island's 700 megawatts low-carbon data centre park and the lessons learnt so far? All data centres with a critical IT load of at least three megawatts must be licensed and meet facility-level energy-efficiency requirements, including PUE standards.[+1 sentence] New facilities can incorporate advanced water-cooling and energy efficient designs, but legacy centres face substantial physical and financial retrofit challenges. The consultation response says clean-energy and economic commitments will apply only to new applicants, while PUE, IT-equipment and water efficiency requirements will be set at practical levels after consultation.[+8 sentences] The question I have is how will the Government address the gap between the efficiency requirements for new and legacy data centres? How many data centres operate today and how many were established after the three-year moratorium on state-land development ended in 2022? And what proportion will fall under the new licensing regime? Do we have their current energy and water efficiency metrics, and how far are they from the "ideal" levels envisaged under the framework? Will the Government also provide support or co-funding for operators to upgrade legacy infrastructure and adopt alternatives such as microgrids and low-carbon hydrogen or ammonia? Fourth, on sovereign compute and assured access. I turn to sovereign compute now, Singapore's ability to secure sufficient computing resources, with enough control to keep essential digital services running during external disruptions. This should combine domestic capability with trusted international partnerships. Location alone is insufficient; we must know who controls operations, what external dependencies exist and whether critical services can continue if access to a major technology provider is disrupted. I welcome the expansion of national research computing through ASPIRE 2B.[+5 sentences] How do we assess the minimum assured capacity needed for essential public services and critical sectors, covering hardware, software, operational expertise and the AI applications on which these services increasingly rely? The other question I have is: could MDDI, sector regulators and infrastructure providers regularly stress-test a prolonged loss of access to a major cloud or AI provider, including from changes in overseas rules? For critical systems, these exercises should test how quickly an alternative can take over and whether it shares the same dependencies. A back-up helps only if it works when needed. There is also an economic dimension. The Bill allows commitments made to secure new data centre capacity to become licence conditions.[+13 sentences] Could future allocations, where appropriate, support commercially agreed arrangements giving Singapore researchers, start-ups and SMEs more predictable access to compute? These should build on existing schemes and recognise the distinct roles of data centre operators and compute providers. Given our land and energy constraints, such arrangements must focus on essential needs and measurable benefits. Scarce capacity should strengthen critical services, useful innovation and local capability. Finally, Mr Speaker, I turn to our workforce. The Bill's success rests on Singapore's human infrastructure: the engineers, architects and operators who execute even the best technical blueprints. Singapore faces a global data centre talent crunch just as the Bill will increase demand for compliance auditors, PUE-literate sustainability engineers and operational risk managers able to bridge physical and digital security. The question I have is: do we have a sufficient local pipeline? These lean operations cannot rely on plug-and-play hiring after short courses. Engineers need expertise in high-voltage power, cooling architecture, cybersecurity, uptime protocols, incident response and high-density AI racks – judgement largely gained in live, mission-critical environments. Shortages already span site-reliability engineers, GPU-cluster and liquid cooling specialists and cybersecurity experts. The question I have is, how are MDDI, the Ministry of Manpower and our institutes of higher learning adapting education and workforce training so Singaporeans can take up these high value roles? Meanwhile, entry-level pathways are narrowing. Entry-level tech-engineer recruitment reportedly fell by 25% to 60% in 2024 to 2025, as hyperscalers and highly automated sites adopted leaner staffing.[+3 sentences] AI-driven predictive maintenance and advanced management tools as well caused this. Junior engineers therefore have fewer opportunities to build the experience held by their seniors. Has the Government studied the requirements and gaps in this specialised workforce, and are immediate interventions planned? What safeguards or assessments will ensure prospective operators have enough high-quality engineering and operational talent to meet Part 4's standards, without over-relying on transient foreign labour or stretching local teams too thin?[+7 sentences] Aerospace and maritime offer useful precedents. When engineering shortages threatened Singapore's hub status, the Government responded through Industry and Jobs Transformation Maps and tripartite frameworks. So, will MDDI work with the Asia Pacific Data Centre Association, for example, to create a local training framework or a shared technical emergency pool that operators can draw on during compliance shocks? As next-generation, AI-ready and sustainable facilities offer roles paying well above national average, can we systematically move Singaporeans into a higher-value tier of tech professionals? The Bill's resource-efficiency standards can build expertise in liquid cooling, real-time energy tracking and high-density AI-rack architecture. How will higher regulatory standards be translated into structured local capabilities? This is important. Building on the Green Skills Committee's work, will the Government consider a dedicated Data Centre Green Skills Academy, with fast-tracked conversion pathways for mid-career mechanical and electrical engineers to become green data centre specialists?[+2 sentences] Other mid-career professionals will likewise need structured competencies for next-generation facilities. As Singapore seeks to anchor ASEAN's interdependent digital infrastructure ecosystem, can we develop and base here the senior managers, cloud architects and sustainability consultants who support the region? How will Singaporeans remain the primary beneficiaries of these careers?[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a necessary shield for the foundations of our digital economy and our digital sovereignty. It also allows Singapore to set strong security and sustainability standards, develop world leading infrastructure operators and become the talent capital of the digital-infrastructure boom in the region and hopefully, globally as well.[+1 sentence] Sir, I support the Bill and I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar)1026 words
[+20 sentences]Mr Speaker, we have been in Parliament for nine hours and we are fast running out of capacity. So, I will keep my speech quite short. I support the Digital Infrastructure Bill. Singapore helped to kickstart the data centre industry in this region. We built an early lead through reliable infrastructure, strong connectivity and trusted institutions. I saw the strength first-hand of that position during my two years at EDB. Demand for data-centre capacity was insatiable. Companies were prepared to invest copious amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars in a single project. This was an easy way to hit our investment key performance indictor (KPI). But unfortunately, even the most attractive KPI cannot generate more land, power or water. So, we did not close many deals. Some felt that Singapore was leaving money on the table. Perhaps we were. But in Singapore, even the table itself needs to be reviewed given our resource constraints. And the resource footprint of a data centre is easy to see. The "cloud" nowadays is different. This cloud takes up land. You cannot get water from this cloud. Instead, it needs a lot of water. And instead of producing lightning, this cloud consumes a great deal of electricity. In 2020, data centres accounted for about 7% of Singapore's electricity consumption, when we had around one gigawatt of capacity.[+1 sentence] Today, we have around 1.6 gigawatts. I hope the Government can clarify whether growing demand from data centres has affected electricity prices for retail consumers or the stability of our power grid.[+24 sentences] Overall, the Government has set out the right strategic ambition. If I may suggest a simple way to think about this: we must look for value over volume; capability on top of capacity. I will make three points about how we can do so. First, data centres should not only train AI models. They should also train Singaporeans in new frontier capabilities. Data centres are highly capital-intensive and create relatively few jobs directly. That is simply their nature. But we do not have to accept this. Data centres can help build stronger capabilities across our digital economy. Beyond that entry level exposure, the next step is for data centre operators to work with cloud providers, educational institutions and local firms to give Singaporeans greater exposure to the higher value work surrounding these facilities. This could include design, research and regional projects. And as the industry moves up the value chain, Singaporeans should be able to move up with it. Second, we should move from hosting digital infrastructure to developing solutions that we can export. Apart from capability development, we should also look at how Singapore can mix and match our areas of strength, so that we can develop and export technologies that are uniquely ours. Singapore's constraints are real. But constraints can also drive innovation. If we can solve the difficult problems of cooling, energy efficiency and grid integration in a dense tropical city, those solutions should have value well beyond Singapore. We are already beginning to test such ideas. Some examples are at the intersection of digital infrastructure and energy infrastructure. This can get slightly technical. But let us power through it. Most of our electricity is generated using natural gas. Liquefied natural gas is stored at extremely low temperatures. When it is converted back into gas, it releases "cold energy" that would normally be discharged. Singapore organisations are already studying whether that cold energy could instead be used to cool data centres.[+2 sentences] We can take a similar approach to grid resilience. Instead of treating data centres and their supporting energy infrastructure as separate systems, we can design them together. The planned low-carbon Data Centre Park on Jurong Island offers an opportunity to test microgrids that are not connected to our main power grid.[+8 sentences] We can also test batteries and low-carbon energy systems in an integrated way. If such projects are successful, the expertise developed here could help Singapore serve other regions facing similar constraints. The tighter our constraints, the more valuable that expertise becomes. Third, look not only at the development of new data centres, but consider the redevelopment of existing capacity. Data centres may operate for decades, but technologies and computing needs will not stand still. We cannot afford infrastructure that consumes a great deal of electrical current but is no longer current itself. It is quite like housing: we do not just think of new greenfield developments, but we think about redeveloping that existing housing stock. Operators should have strong incentives, as well as clear and timely pathways to upgrade their facilities ahead of time. Where redevelopment, consolidation or even voluntary retirement can release scarce land and power for higher value uses, the Government should consider how operators can share in the value that they help to create.[+14 sentences] This must be balanced with investment certainty. Operators need clear expectations, reasonable transition periods and confidence that genuine improvements will be recognised. Mr Speaker, taking a step back, the Government already considers strategic value, innovation, talent development and ecosystem partnerships when allocating new capacity. That is the right approach. I suggest that the Government also report periodically, in aggregate, on what successful projects eventually deliver. We should measure not only how much capacity Singapore has added, but what that capacity has added to Singapore and Singaporeans. In conclusion, digital infrastructure may be a new utility, but the next step in our strategy is a familiar one. Singapore helped establish this industry in the region. The task ahead is to move up the value chain. That means capturing more value from the infrastructure we already host, continually renewing the capacity we already have and developing solutions to help the region grow together. With this framework in place, future EDB officers, like I was, will have an easier job to close good deals. Singapore does not need to be the region's largest digital infrastructure market. We may be short of capacity, but we should never be short of capability. I am confident that we can remain the region's most trusted, capable and strategically valuable digital-infrastructure hub. On that basis and before anyone's capacity is exhausted, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok)1242 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. To some, digital infrastructure may sound intangible. But in reality, it rests on the foundation that are physical in nature – the servers, the data centres, the electricity, the cooling system, the water, the network and other infrastructure. As our reliance on digital services grows, we therefore need to consider both how resilient the infrastructure is when something goes wrong, and how efficiently it uses finite resources needed to keep it running. So, I will focus broadly on two areas. First, on resilience. We need to look beyond individual operators to common dependency across the system. Clause 15 requires major foundational digital infrastructure service provider to minimise unexpected interruption and maintain business continuity and disaster recovery plans.[+2 sentences] A cloud or data centre operator can have very strong internal system and still depend on external providers for hardware, software, telecommunication networks, electricity infrastructure and other third party services. More importantly, several cloud and data centre operators may ultimately rely on the same upstream infrastructure and external provider. What may appear to look like diversification across companies may therefore still be concentration at the system level. So, could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether the eventual resilience requirement will require licensee to identify material third party and common dependency risk? Beyond what the individual licensee can see, how will IMDA identify concentration risks, where several major providers depend on the same power, same network and same infrastructure?[+16 sentences] This is also increasingly interesting because of the cross-border dimension of this Bill. The Bill itself recognises that major foundational digital infrastructure may be provided from outside of Singapore for users in Singapore. This can be increasingly relevant with the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone as it develops, including through the data centres and other digital infrastructure operating models spanning across Singapore and Johor. This is also a related question on jurisdiction dependency, where major cloud service rely upon in Singapore is owned, controlled or operationally managed from another jurisdiction, will IMDA resilience assessment consider whether foreign laws, regulatory direction or external actions could affect Singapore's continued access to that service? For especially critical workload, does the Government see a role for a sovereign cloud capability where that infrastructure and operational control legal accountability are sufficiently anchored in Singapore? Second, incident reporting should help us identify disruption before it cascades. The Bill provides for prescribed service disruptions to be reported to the authority, with the detailed thresholds and timelines to be set subsequently. Could the Senior Minister of State explain the principles that will determine when an incident is reportable and the timelines under our framework? Will this consider how long a disruption lasts but also the scale, the criticality of the services affected and its potential cascading impact? There is also a practical balance we have to strike. The Government needs early situational awareness, especially when separate incidents may share a common cause. But operators may still be diagnosing the problem while working urgently to resolve this issue. How will IMDA balance the needs? More broadly, beyond regulatory compliance, how does IMDA intend to use these incident reports? How does IMDA hope to that these data points would be used to strengthen the resilience of the wider ecosystem? I now turn to resource discipline, starting with how energy and water efficiency standards will be set and balanced. Clause 35 requires minimum facility-level energy efficiency, equipment-level energy efficiency and minimum facility-level water efficiency.[+9 sentences] The Bill understandably leaves the actual thresholds to subsequent regulation. But could the Senior Minister of State elaborate how these principles will guide these minimum standards and how they will be updated as technology improves? This matters because demanding standards today might be commonplace several years from now. I also ask how these three requirements will work together. Energy and water efficiency should not be treated entirely in isolation. Depending on the cooling system and facility design, improving one may have implications on the other. Will IMDA therefore assess the three separate requirements or as a holistic sustainability framework? When trade-offs arise, in my view, the aim should be to improve overall resource efficiency of the facility rather than simply shifting consumption from one resource to another. At the same time, responsibility should be matched with a degree of control that an operator can reasonably exercise. Clause 35(b) applies equipment-level efficiency requirements to even IT equipment installed by customers of the data centre operator.[+10 sentences] The operator may control the building, cooling and power infrastructure, while customers own and operate the servers housed within it. I understand that the mandatory equipment-level requirements are not intended to be imposed at the outset. But if they are to be introduced subsequently, how would these responsibilities be divided between operators and customers? Because this also affects compliance. Clause 36 requires regular reporting and IMDA can require an audit. But where an operator houses equipment belonging to many different customers, how will compliance with equipment-level requirements be measured and verified, and when would independent audit be required? Clear accountability will make eventual standards easier both to comply with and to enforce. Third, still on resource discipline. What might the transition pathway for existing facilities look like? New facilities can be designed around current standards from the outset. Older facilities may require substantial changes to cooling systems, power architecture or other infrastructure.[+2 sentences] I understand from the Senior Minister of State earlier that existing operators will be given transition time. But could he explain how would this work in practice? Because this framework should recognise genuine technical constraints and reasonable retrofit timelines while still ensuring meaningful improvements over time.[+1 sentence] Finally, we should be clear about how efficiency, cleaner electricity and carbon measures fit together. This Bill allows us the authority to consider three things: first, the renewability and carbon intensity of electricity used by data centres; second, imported electricity; and third, the impact of their energy consumption on Singapore's emissions commitments.[+8 sentences] Could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether there is an intended hierarchy among these measures? For example, should the first step be to reduce electricity demand through efficiency, followed by using low-carbon electricity where practical, and finally, carbon credits addressing remaining emissions? Because these approaches do different things. Efficiency reduces pressure on the electricity system itself. Cleaner electricity reduces the emissions associated with demand. Carbon credits address residual emissions through another mechanism. Where international carbon credits are used, I would also welcome clarification on the standards that will ensure their environmental integrity. More broadly, as the sector grows, individual data centres may become more efficient while total electricity and water usage would still rise in absolute terms. Since clause 36 will give IMDA regular information from operators, would the Government consider publishing aggregated sector-level indicators over time, including distribution or trajectory of the PUE, alongside water efficiency and carbon profile of electricity used, where commercial confidentiality can be protected?[+3 sentences] Why is this important? Because this would help us assess not only whether individual facilities are improving, but whether the sector as a whole is using resources more efficiently as computing demand expands. Mr Speaker, digital infrastructure is increasingly an essential infrastructure. My two broad concerns are therefore straightforward: first, resilience must extend beyond individual operators to the dependencies and disruptions that can affect the system as a whole; second, growth in computing capacity must be accompanied by clear, progressive, stronger discipline over electricity, water and carbon.[+1 sentence] With these clarifications, I support the Bill.
[+1 sentence]Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade).
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Trade))483 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of Mr Gan Kim Yong, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Trade), in his capacity as the Minister-in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), I move, "That the Financial Services and Markets (Amendment) Bill 2026 be now read a Second time." Sir, MAS' regulatory regime aims to preserve the resilience and soundness of Singapore's financial system. This includes ensuring that distressed financial institutions can be resolved in a manner that preserves financial stability and maintains confidence in our financial system. MAS is currently able to exercise resolution powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 to secure such outcomes, including bailing in subordinated creditors of a distressed FI to restore its solvency. To complement these powers, the Bill will allow MAS to impose Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements. Under this TLAC framework, Domestic Systemically Important Banks (D-SIBs) in Singapore will be required to hold additional eligible loss-absorbing instruments and other financial resources.[+6 sentences] MAS has consulted the industry and public on key details of the TLAC framework, such as the level of TLAC that D-SIBs must maintain; the types of eligible instruments that qualify as loss-absorbing instruments and the types of financial resources that may be treated as TLAC; also, the information on its TLAC that D-SIBs must disclose to the public; and the TLAC implementation timeline. Sir, our D-SIBs remain well-capitalised, well-managed and continue to serve as strong anchors of Singapore's financial system. The introduction of the TLAC framework forms part of MAS' ongoing efforts to enhance Singapore's resolution regime, so that in the unlikely event of a distressed D-SIB, MAS will be able to act decisively to maintain financial stability. Sir, the Bill also includes technical amendments to align Singapore's framework on counter-proliferation financing with the updated Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Standards in this area. Currently, MAS' anti-money laundering regime already requires financial institutions to put in place measures to mitigate the risks of financing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, MAS' supervisory programme over financial institutions similarly covers such risks. Nonetheless, to ensure technical alignment with updates to the FATF Standards and to sharpen clarity, the amendments will specifically provide that MAS' supervision covers proliferation financing risks in addition to money laundering risks and terrorism financing risks; and that MAS may render assistance to domestic authorities and its counterpart foreign authorities in their supervision of proliferation financing risks.[+2 sentences] In addition, arising from these changes, the Bill makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts administered by MAS. Sir, the amendments in this Bill will strengthen Singapore's resolution framework and ensure our laws are better aligned with international standards relating to countering proliferation financing. Together, they will enhance the resilience of our financial system and support Singapore's position as a trusted international financial centre.[+1 sentence] Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar)997 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Financial Services and Markets (Amendment) Bill. Today, I will focus on the portion of the Bill that allows MAS to impose TLAC requirements on systemically important financial institutions. Such banks must hold a minimum buffer of shares and eligible debt.[+10 sentences] If a bank is failing, MAS can write down this debt, or convert it into shares. The owners of the debt and shares will take a financial loss, before the taxpayer needs to intervene. And our deposits, payments and loans can carry on. In short, a bail-in from private owners of debt and equity, and not a bail-out from the public tax dollar. Our banks came through the Global Financial Crisis well. Yet even then, in October 2008, the Government guaranteed all bank deposits of individuals and companies, backed by $150 billion of our reserves. I remember this news vividly, when I was a student in university studying economics and finance. No claims were eventually made. But our reserves were the backstop of last resort. TLAC would have helped to reduce the risk that we need to draw on our reserves. MAS intends to apply TLAC requirements to seven D-SIBs.[+17 sentences] This includes our three local banks. We should be clear: TLAC is not a free lunch. Investors demand a higher return for debt that can be written down. As the amount a bank must hold, grows with every loan it makes, that cost is borne across the entire banking group. So, I will make four points about the concept of this lunch, inspired by the lunch break that we just had. First, this is not a free lunch, and it could mean the lunch for others may get more expensive. Let me explain. Could MAS share about whether TLAC will add to our banks' funding costs, and whether it would then increase lending rates to our local companies, including our small and medium enterprises (SMEs)? If it is not yet clear, I suggest that MAS could commit to monitoring this impact. Second, this is not a free lunch, and if we are overzealous, other people will eat our lunch. This is because TLAC will be implemented across the banking group of D-SIBs, including their overseas operations. And their competitors in those markets may not be subject to the same requirements. Take Indonesia, where all three of our local banks have subsidiaries. When they compete for a corporate loan in Jakarta, our local banks carry the cost of TLAC. As far as I understand, their local competitors do not face a similar requirement. Only a handful of jurisdictions in Asia, such as Hong Kong, Japan and China, have such requirements. And in the case of China and Japan, I believe they apply mainly to Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) and not their domestic ones. The higher the TLAC requirement, the less competitive our banks will be in the region. So, I am glad that MAS has proposed a TLAC requirement of 14% of risk weighted assets (RWA) for D-SIBs, below the 18% required of G-SIBs.[+6 sentences] Third, this is not a free lunch, and we must give our banks enough time to digest this lunch. So, I welcome the five-year transition period and the proposal not to add a separate leverage-based requirement, which MAS has noted would only add complexity and compliance costs. Fourth, this is not a free lunch, and we must make sure those that eat this lunch understand its nutritional value and health risks. In other words, we must protect investors who may not fully understand what they are buying. Loss-absorbing instruments pay a higher return for a reason. They can be written down at the worst possible moment. When Credit Suisse collapsed in 2023, its Additional Tier 1 bonds, which are TLAC instruments, were wiped out.[+24 sentences] This included a $750 million bond issued here in Singapore dollars. I understand that MAS will not allow TLAC instruments to be sold to retail investors. I strongly support this. When we debated the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill earlier this year, I said that the uncle and aunty in our heartlands should not be the exit liquidity for private capital. I would add today that they should also not be the shock absorbers of our banking system. But "not retail" does not automatically mean "sophisticated". Today, Additional Tier 1 bonds in Singapore can be sold to institutional and accredited investors, or in lots of at least $200,000. Accredited investor status depends on wealth or income. Not understanding. An accredited investor may well be an uncle or aunty who has done well in property. And a retiree putting their life savings of $200,000 into one bank bond may simply be hoping for higher returns than a fixed deposit. Can MAS clarify how the restriction on retail sales will work in practice, including for such large-ticket transactions? I hope banks will be required to take extra care with individuals, especially seniors, checking that they understand these are risky investments and not deposits, and that they carry the risk of being written down to zero at the worst possible time. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. We want a financial system that is stable, sound and thriving. Our banks are a rightful source of national pride. But when things go badly, as they will from time to time, those who shared more in the upside must also have skin in the game on the downside. A system where profits are private, but losses are public is not a fair deal for Singaporeans. The taxpayer should never be left carrying the can alone – and this Bill helps to ensure that. So, we have rightfully introduced legislation to provide for TLAC. For the last time in my speech, this is not a free lunch. In its implementation, I hope the MAS can take my comments into account. So that, in the words of our younger generation, we will not be "cooked". I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied)2294 words
[+7 sentences]Deputy Speaker, half of this Bill deals with what happens if one of our big banks fail. A bank's first cushion against losses is its capital, mostly shareholders' money. If losses ever used that up, the Government will have to choose between letting the bank collapse, taking deposits and payments with it, and rescuing it with public money. This Bill lets MAS require our banks to hold a second cushion called the Total Loss Absorbing Capacity, special debt that can be written down or turned into shares if a bank fails, so that its own investors rescue it rather than the public. It is called a bail-in, which MAS already has the power to do. The second cushion is meant to ensure that there is enough such debt to give a failed bank fresh capital and to keep it serving customers while it is restructured. The Financial Stability Board wrote this Standard in 2015 for the world's largest banks. MAS proposes that capital and this debt, together, come to at least 14% of RWA, and our three local banks already meet it.[+7 sentences] The Bill also writes proliferation financing, the funding of weapons mass destruction into the Act alongside money laundering and terrorism financing. Sir, I have five questions and one proposal. The first concern is the measure. The Standard is the Financial Stability Board's but the measure it uses is the Basel Committee's. That Committee is where bank supervisors from 28 jurisdictions, MAS among them, agree how much capital banks must hold. MAS' own consultation says the Board developed the Standard in consultation with the Basel Committee. The cushion is 14% of RWA, which is a Basel number, so any disagreement over Basel bears on this Bill, and there is a disagreement. The United States (US) Federal Reserve's Vice Chair for Supervision describes America's approach as tailoring, "requirements to the US financial system, rather than adopting international standards wholesale." America's proposed version of the final Basel reforms would lower its largest banks core capital requirements by about 5%.[+15 sentences] Britain has delayed them to 2027 and the European Union has put a temporary multiplier on its trading book rules to protect its banks. Singapore implemented the final reforms in July 2024, ahead of Europe, Britain and America. By the Basel Committee's latest figures, they raise required capital by 3.6% outside Europe and the Americas, against about 1% in each of them. At DBS, the floor in those reforms would add about $50 billion of RWA by 2029, largely, the bank says, because of its lending to companies. I am not arguing for leaving the club. A small financial centre lives on its reputation and a clean Basel grade lets foreign supervisors rely on ours. But when the rule's authors step back, we should say which course we are on: the text on the Committee's timetable, or what the largest members are actually practising. So, my first question: what is Singapore's Basel strategy now that the largest members are departing from the text? The second concerns what that measure leaves out. The cushion is 14% of RWA. Think of RWA as a measuring tape that counts each asset by how risky the rules say it is. On that tape, government bonds rated AA minus or better count as zero, or close to it, however many a bank holds, US Treasuries included. Nearly all of Silicon Valley Bank's loss sat in bonds the rules counted at zero or one-fifth. MAS' consultation points to "the failure of several US banks in 2023", Silicon Valley Bank among them. It had put its deposits into long-dated government-backed bonds, booked at the price it paid. When rates rose, as rates are rising now, those bonds lost about US$15 billion, and none of its ratios showed it: its capital ratios were above every minimum, and its leverage ratio, capital against everything it held, was 8.1% against a floor of four.[+14 sentences] When its depositors, nearly all uninsured, pulled out US$42 billion in a single day, the loss could no longer wait. Nor was it alone. At the end of 2022, American banks carried about US$620 billion of paper losses on their bonds and in the end the Federal Reserve lent against those bonds at face value. The loss no ratio counted ended up as public risk. Our banks are better placed than Silicon Valley Bank was, and MAS already makes them publish what a rate shock would do: at DBS, a rise of around two points costs $1.7 billion, or 2.8% of its core capital. The banks' accounts say how much of their government bonds they carry at cost: about $86 billion across the three. But they do not say what those bonds are worth today, which governments issued them, or what the system would lose on them together. And this is a question of systemic concern. My second question: will MAS require our systemically important banks to publish every half year, on a common template, their government bond holdings country by country and the market value of the bonds they carry at cost? And will MAS publish the same for the whole system? The third concerns whether the cushion would work when needed. The answer depends on things beyond this Bill. The Financial Stability Board's own report in January says challenges persist in "funding in resolution and effective bail-in execution, particularly in cross-border contexts". Credit Suisse shows what that means. In March 2023, Switzerland arranged UBS' takeover of Credit Suisse, backed by public guarantees, and its regulator wrote off about CHF16.5 billion of the bank's Additional Tier 1 bonds, designed to absorb losses, while shareholders were paid.[+1 sentence] The order rested partly on an emergency ordinance, not on Switzerland's resolution regime, its law for handling a failing bank in an orderly way, which the Financial Stability Board later said offered "an executable alternative". The same week, the Bank of England did use its resolution powers on Silicon Valley Bank's British arm. It sold the bank to HSBC for one pound, protected depositors, used no public money and wrote its loss-absorbing bonds down to nothing.[+1 sentence] The Swiss write-off came undone at home. In October 2025, a Swiss court revoked the order, finding the bonds' own trigger had not been met and no statute authorised it; the ruling is under appeal and the bonds are still worthless. Abroad, bondholders lost in New York, where courts held Switzerland immune, and investors from Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore have turned to investment treaties. And the doubt spread to all such bonds: within three days, regulators in the EU, Britain, Hong Kong and Singapore had to say publicly that, under their own rules, shareholders would take losses first.[+12 sentences] My colleague Jamus Lim will ask whether bonds like these should still count towards the cushion. I draw three lessons. First, the legal basis must be clear. The bail-in power is in statute, and this Bill adds the cushion. Second, recognition must be agreed in advance, and it runs both ways. Part of this cushion will probably be sold abroad. DBS raised US$2 billion in March, and MAS allows the debt to be governed by foreign law, so a bail-in of it would rest on contract clauses and if challenged, on a foreign court. Our own law is rightly careful here: section 103 lets MAS recognise another country's resolution only if that would not harm our financial system, treat our creditors unfairly, go against the public interest, or cost Singapore money. Every other country is entitled to the same care, since we are a host as well as a home. MAS proposes that foreign banks' Singapore subsidiaries hold 75% to 90% of their requirements, a figure the Financial Stability Board says should be set "in consultation with the home authority". Clear, published criteria on our side make it easier for others to agree theirs. Third, who holds the new layer affects whether it will be used. DBS carries almost no Additional Tier 1, about $1 million, and OCBC and UOB about $1.7 billion and $3.4 billion.[+40 sentences] The new layer will be mostly new debt, and its holders are not yet known. MAS will keep bail-in debt sold to retail investors in Singapore out of the new layer, because concern over imposing losses on them "may delay decisions relating to bail-in". But such bonds can still be sold here to accredited investors, including individuals who meet an asset or income test, and to retail investors abroad. So, my third question: has MAS' resolution planning for DBS, OCBC and UOB been tested for legal recognition wherever it would need to be enforced? And has the Government assessed whether writing down foreign holders could be challenged under Singapore's investment treaties? The fourth concerns the Bill's other half, which answers the Financial Action Task Force. Its evaluation of Singapore in May rated us "moderate" on proliferation-financing sanctions. It also found that information on who owns companies is largely not verified beyond the checks firms make on their own customers, and that Singapore "prosecutes few legal persons, local directors and professional intermediaries", which is "not in line with its risk and context". Its roadmap sets Singapore 12 key actions, none of them a new law. My colleague Sylvia Lim will speak to the three on proliferation financing. Two others bear on the companies our banks lend to: verifying ownership in the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's registries, and pursuing the directors and intermediaries who facilitate money laundering here. My fourth question: how, and by when, will the Government meet those two? Finally, a proposal. This Bill prepares for a bank that fails. After 1997, the International Monetary Fund found that our region's banks had "relied on collateral rather than credit assessment and cash flow analysis", and that connected lending made it worse. Cleaning up cost Indonesia's government more than half a year's output. There are those who would answer Asia's banking risks with an Asian Basel: softer capital ratios for Asian conditions. But I think Asian banking requires different advances. It requires better lending. Asia's problem is often the allocation of credit, not its quantity: bank lending to the private sector is about 118% of gross domestic product (GDP) in Malaysia, 112% in Thailand and 125% in Vietnam. Yet only about one firm in three in Malaysia and Vietnam, and one in seven in Thailand, uses a bank loan to finance investment. A bank in our region will readily lend against another building, and turn away an exporter who has orders in hand but little property to pledge. Our own SMEs face the same preference: in 2013, 55% of their loans were secured on property; by June this year, about 70% were. Cutting capital requirements across the board would simply finance more buildings. Better borrower information, enforceable claims and guarantees aimed at identifiable risks change where the credit goes. For the same reason, a regional approach should sometimes be tougher, on connected lending, hidden losses and implicit state guarantees. Singapore chairs the Association for Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) next year. The Prime Minister has said of the region that "there are regulatory restrictions and there are ways in which we can make things more seamless". Credit is one of those ways. Here are three considerations to advance. First, a firm's repayment record that crosses a border. Take a supplier in Johor that has served Singapore factories for 10 years and never missed a repayment to its Malaysian bank. A Singapore bank cannot easily see that record, so it will tend to ask for property collateral. If credit bureaus in the region shared such records, with the firm's consent and a common way of identifying it, that supplier could show its history here instead of starting from nothing, and our firms could do the same there. In Hong Kong, banks that make more use of firms' shared records charge lower rates and ask for less collateral. Second, a supervisory view of one corporate group across several countries, for supervisors only. Three borrowers in three countries can turn out to depend on one property group and today, no single supervisor sees the combined exposure. The euro area already does this: its central banks collect data on individual bank loans to companies above €25,000, so supervisors can see a company's borrowing across banks and borders. Enforcement at home, against powerful interests, remains the hard part. Third, verified trade records, so the same invoice or shipment cannot be financed twice. In 2020, Hin Leong left 23 banks owed about US$3.5 billion, and some of its cargoes had been financed more than once.[+1 sentence] Our banks have already built such a registry. The Association of Banks in Singapore launched its Trade Finance Registry in June 2023; more than 40 institutions now use it and the ASEAN Secretariat has expressed interest. We could start with a two-year pilot involving Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, covering one trade corridor and one cross-border banking group, and publish the results.[+1 sentence] It would have to be reciprocal: useful information flowing both ways and credible assurances about how each other's banks would be treated in a crisis. My fifth question: will the Government put such a pilot on the agenda for its ASEAN chairmanship?[+6 sentences] Mr Speaker, this Bill makes our banks safer if they fail. The larger work is to make them more useful while they stand. The Basel rules were rebuilt after 2008 around the failures of wholesale-funded, trading-heavy banks, and Asian banks like ours, which lend out their customers' deposits, are not that kind of bank. I hope future legislative energy in banking will focus on rules better suited to an Asian context – rules aimed at how our banks actually lend, and how they would actually fail. Thank you, Sir. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah)1127 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to seek clarifications on several aspects of the Financial Services and Markets (Amendment) Bill. The Bill has two principal limbs. First, it expressly incorporates proliferation financing into our existing anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing framework. Second, and more substantively, it gives MAS the power to impose TLAC requirements on specified financial institutions.[+7 sentences] I will focus primarily on TLAC. The principle behind TLAC is straightforward. If a systemically important bank reaches the point where, without intervention, it may fail, there should already be sufficient capital and eligible liabilities available to absorb losses and recapitalise the bank, allowing an orderly resolution while preserving financial stability. However, the Bill itself does not prescribe either the TLAC ratio or the implementation period. Instead, section 57(B) empowers MAS to determine by written notice the level of TLAC, its method of calculation, the instruments that qualify and the classes of investors to whom these instruments may be issued. Given the significance of these parameters, I would first ask the Minister of State to state clearly the TLAC ratio that MAS intends to impose on our local D-SIBs and the implementation period envisaged. More importantly, I would like to understand how these parameters have been derived. Internationally, the Financial Stability Board standard for G-SIBs is a minimum TLAC of 18% of RWA.[+13 sentences] Our three local banks are D-SIBs rather than G-SIBs, so a Singapore-specific calibration is understandable. But Parliament should understand what our chosen level is designed to withstand. What broad stress scenarios and assumptions has MAS applied? How much loss absorption does MAS judge necessary before a D-SIB can be successfully recapitalised while maintaining its critical functions? And how frequently will MAS review the calibration? Our banks' balance sheets, regional exposures and systemic importance will evolve. External risks and international regulatory standards will also change. Will MAS conduct a regular review or are there defined developments that would trigger a reassessment of the TLAC requirement? My second point concerns regional competitiveness. Our three local banks increasingly operate and compete across the region. A stronger loss-absorption regime enhances their resilience and strengthens confidence in Singapore's financial system. But greater resilience may also come with higher funding costs, particularly if banks need to issue or maintain additional eligible liabilities. This matters because our local banks increasingly compete against institutions in regional markets where equivalent TLAC requirements may not yet apply. Has MAS assessed the incremental funding cost arising from the proposed TLAC requirement and its implications for the regional competitiveness of our local banks?[+17 sentences] How does MAS balance being appropriately ahead of the regulatory curve in strengthening resilience, without moving so far ahead that our banks face a material competitive disadvantage as they expand in the region? There may also be other offsetting benefits. Greater resolution credibility could strengthen investor confidence and reduce the risk premium demanded by markets. How has MAS considered both sides of this equation when determining the appropriate calibration? My third point concerns the implementation period. I understand that the transition period is intended to allow the TLAC investor base and market to develop in an orderly manner, while avoiding concentrated issuance and pricing pressures. Could the Minister of State explain why the proposed implementation period is considered appropriate for this purpose? The transition should reflect not merely the ability of banks to eventually meet the requirement, but also the capacity of markets to absorb the necessary issuance in an orderly manner. First, how will existing capital and debt instruments be treated? Where existing instruments already meet the necessary loss-absorbing characteristics, will they continue to be recognised towards TLAC during the transition? Second, will MAS expect banks to follow a progressive glide path towards the final requirement? Even with a relatively long implementation period, issuance could become concentrated towards the deadline. That could increase funding costs and several years later, create a corresponding concentration of maturities and refinancing requirements. How will MAS avoid unnecessary issuance concentration and future refinancing cliffs? My fourth point concerns retail investors. The Bill allows MAS to prescribe the classes of investors to whom eligible TLAC instruments may be issued. This is important because these instruments are deliberately structured to absorb losses when a bank is in serious distress. Could the Minister of State clarify how the restriction on direct retail participation will operate in practice, including in relation to the subsequent secondary market transactions and investment products or bond indices referencing TLAC instruments?[+6 sentences] I understand there may be a distinction between a retail investor directly purchasing an individual loss-absorbing instrument and obtaining diversified exposure through a bond index or collective investment product. Could the Minister of State explain the policy basis for this distinction and the safeguards that will apply where retail investors have indirect exposure to TLAC instruments? There is also a transitional question. How will existing instruments involving retail participation be treated when determining whether they qualify towards TLAC? My fifth point concerns banking groups with insurance businesses and the future scope of this framework. TLAC internationally has principally applied to banks rather than insurers. For banking groups that also contain significant insurance operations, could the Minister of State clarify how MAS will separate the banking entity's resolution needs from the liabilities and risks of the insurance business when calibrating TLAC?[+1 sentence] More broadly, section 57B gives MAS considerable flexibility over the institutions and requirements covered by the framework. If MAS subsequently exercises this broader power to extend TLAC requirements materially beyond the banking institutions presently contemplated, would MAS undertake a fresh public consultation before doing so?[+3 sentences] Finally, I have a point on transparency and regulatory predictability. Section 57B allows MAS to impose different requirements on different classes of institutions and to vary requirements for an individual institution. It also provides that such notices need not be published in the Gazette. I understand why institution-specific prudence information may need to remain confidential. But where requirements apply generally to a class of institutions, can the Minister of State confirm that the applicable framework, including the broad calibration methodology, implementation principles and requirements applying across that class, will be made publicly available?[+2 sentences] Regulatory flexibility is important, but consistency and predictability are also strengths of Singapore as an international financial centre. Mr Deputy Speaker, the principle behind TLAC is sound. A systemically important institution should have sufficient resources before a crisis occurs so that losses can be absorbed, the institution can be recapitalised and the critical financial services can continue.[+2 sentences] The key questions are therefore what level is sufficient, how that level has been derived and will be reviewed and how quickly our banks should reach it, and how we ensure that greater resilience does not unnecessarily compromise their ability to compete regionally. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang)1344 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act seeks to confer to MAS two new powers: the ability to impose on financial institutions a minimum level of TLAC and to allow the authority to contain proliferation financing for weapons of mass destruction. I will confine my remarks to the first of these two elements. The amendments build on a series of financial stability measures that MAS has enacted in concert with the Basel III banking reforms, which emerged in the wake of the 2007/2008 Financial Crisis. In Singapore, the final reforms – the so-called Basel Endgame – culminated with MAS Notice 637 late last year and is expected to be fully phased in by 2029.[+5 sentences] The latest TLAC requirements, however, appear to be distinct, focused on D-SIBs. In particular, the standards were established by the Financial Stability Board for Global Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs), and MAS' TLAC requirements appear to build on this framework. Sir, in pursuing these regulations, the goal is to ensure financial stability in our economy, while not imposing excessively onerous burdens on the banking system. On its face, I fully subscribe to these objectives. Even so, I have certain reservations about some of the parameters chosen for TLACs, which I hope to have further clarity from the Government. First, I will note that MAS has chosen an external TLAC set at 14% of RWA. This is 4% lower than the 18% stipulated by the Financial Stability Board, which MAS has justified by appealing to how our D-SIBs are, "smaller in size and have different risk profiles." But while this claim may ring true for our local large banks – DBS, OCBC, and UOB – at first glance, this is not actually applied to the other D-SIBs with a presence here, including HSBC and Citigroup.[+11 sentences] I understand that these foreign banks may already be subject to more stringent TLAC requirements, based on their home regulator, and especially if they are also designated as a material subgroup of their parent institution. Hence, they may well already be required to adhere to a higher percentage holding of RWA than this 14%. Still, this does not fully absolve us from requiring an equivalent higher standard for our local D-SIBs. Let me explain why. After all, DBS' market capitalisation is not that much smaller than that of Citigroup's, and larger than that of other globally systemically important institutions. And OCBC's size is close to twice that of Standard Chartered's. Given the range of financial market activities our local banks already engage in, it seems hard to reconcile the notion that our banks are really smaller and less risky than their global counterparts. Second, MAS spells out a list of criteria for what qualifies as a TLAC instrument – 11 conditions, by my count. These include Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. While this is not the place to question the appropriateness of what the industry has chosen to classify as high-quality capital, I wish to add a note of caution, based on two recent developments. The first concerns how Contingent Convertible bonds (CoCos) failed to act as Additional Tier 1 capital during the resolution process for investment bank Credit Suisse. Notably, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority announced, as part of the emergency package put together at the time, that CoCos would be written down to the tune of $17 billion.[+17 sentences] Setting aside whether this constituted a violation of the seniority of claims between debt and equity, the point remains that an instrument that had hitherto been widely regarded as Tier 1 capital failed to fulfill its function in a moment of crisis, the time when it is most needed. It would be helpful to clarify MAS' own position on the matter, especially with regard to whether it could envision a situation where it, too, might choose to write down CoCos. And if so, does it still adjudge such instruments as legitimate constituents of a bank's TLAC? Second has to do with how the dollar and US Treasuries – long regarded as the quintessential risk-free asset – are increasingly confronting questions about their credibility. The dollar, along with dollar-denominated assets, have long retained a privileged position in international finance and financial markets. Consequently, few questioned the safe-asset status of such instruments and undoubtedly, such holdings would comprise a nontrivial share of our D-SIB's TLAC capital. Yet the eroding status of the dollar as a safe asset, especially for global liquidity purposes, must surely prompt us to ask whether it is time for a re-examination of weight of dollar-denominated holdings that we require in TLAC buffers. My third question has to do with the current status of our local D-SIBs. Observers have suggested, previously, that our big three local banks have substantial capital buffers and should have no issues with taking on board the fully loaded set of Basel Endgame rules. Analysts have, similarly, pointed out how the current global interest rate environment appears to be favourable for banks' balance sheets and overall performance. Keeping in mind the market sensitivity of revealing the full extent of each institution's holdings of TLAC assets, it would nevertheless be useful to understand the MAS' view of their overall balance sheet health. Will the Government be able to share whether these institutions have, historically, been well-capitalised, or at least sufficiently capitalised and that this step is mainly a precautionary measure, to align them with international macro-prudential standards? Sir, let me take a step back and speak on the more general problem that the Bill is attempting to solve. Ultimately, policy-makers pursuing financial stability must recognise that they are able to do so alongside only either financial policies that are determined nationally or continued financial integration with the rest of the world. This amounts to a trilemma: we can choose two of these three laudable objectives, but ultimately one must give. Ensuring financial stability is, of course, unobjectionable, especially given the size of the financial sector in our economy. Continued financial integration is also, by and large, to be expected, especially for an international financial centre, such as ours. So long as these two goals remain immutable, this leaves us with the need to constantly be willing to compromise on national financial policy, to best align with global standards. This may mean adopting standards that may not always seem suitable for our national context, such as an 18% TLAC buffer, rather than the proposed 14%, or limiting the type of instruments that can be applied to the TLAC, as MAS appears to have concluded, in disallowing instruments held by retail investors. It could also mean being willing to expose our local big three banks to greater winds of global competition.[+8 sentences] We will undoubtedly face future choices of this nature, where we will be called to compromise our sovereign financial policies, in favour of our continued status as a global financial centre in good standing. So, perhaps the relevant question we should be asking is: is this sacrifice worthwhile? It could well be. But we must be clear-eyed, as policy-makers, about the trade-offs we are making in fulfilling our aspirations as a leading global financial centre, as today's Bill amply illustrates. Mr Deputy Speaker, some may claim that there is an essential trade-off between the pursuit of financial stability through stringent regulation, versus sustaining a competitive financial system through regulatory laxity. In my view, this is a false dichotomy, and this is where I depart from the arguments made by the hon Member Shawn Loh. More often than not, the unmitigated short-term pursuit of profit by banks can end up endangering their long run solvency and viability, as well as that of the financial system as a whole. We should not yield to such red herrings and instead, continue to hold our domestic banks to the standards required of an international financial centre. The stipulations provided for in these proposed amendments make headway in that regard, and for that reason, there is no reason to object to them. Notwithstanding my clarifications, therefore, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied)883 words
[+8 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill amends the Financial Services and Markets Act in two areas. My -arty colleagues, Kenneth Tiong and Jamus Lim, have focused on the proposed TLAC requirements. For my part, I would speak on the amendments relating to countering proliferation financing. Sir, these amendments are short and simple. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 expand MAS' current powers to issue directions for the prevention of money laundering and terrorism financing as well as to provide assistance to foreign and domestic agencies by permitting MAS to do the same for proliferation financing. These amendments are supportable in so far as they make it explicit that countering proliferation financing is as important as countering money laundering and terrorism financing. However, I have three queries that I would like to seek the Ministry's clarifications on. First, on the definition of proliferation financing. Clause 2 of the Bill simply states that proliferation financing means the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This definition appears to be different from the definitions used in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions on the subject, such as Resolution 1540. Such resolutions talk about proliferation to refer to not just the weapons themselves, but their means of delivery, such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, strategic aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles.[+24 sentences] Clearly, weapons would be useless if they cannot be effectively delivered, which makes the control of such means of delivery equally important. Could the Minister of State clarify why the definition of proliferation financing omits the mention of means of delivery? Is the Government's intention to also curtail financing of such means of delivery? Sir, while I have just queried whether the definition of proliferation financing is incomplete, a second observation I would make is that it is, in another sense, very broad. To that end, it is useful to clarify what the scope of our obligations towards countering proliferation financing is. The FATF's Recommendation 7 on this issue merely requires countries to implement proliferation financing related targeted financial sanctions made under UNSC Resolutions. Currently, the UNSC resolutions from proliferation are focused on North Korea and Iran. However, there are other established nuclear powers which do not come under UNSC sanctions. By leaving the definition broad without scoping it to UN-sanctioned countries, is the intention to possibly impose on the financial sector obligations beyond the UNSC-sanctioned countries? The third query is an overarching one. What is the real impact of the counter proliferation amendments in the Bill? Put another way, does it change anything? At first glance, the amendments may give the impression that this Bill is needed because the MAS did not have regulatory powers to prevent proliferation financing, unlike for money laundering or terrorism financing. However, after some research, I realise that MAS had previously issued directions on proliferation financing, by defining it as a subset of money laundering. For example, in MAS Notice 626 and Notice PSN02, banks and digital payment token service providers would have observed footnotes stating that references to money laundering would include proliferation financing. I am therefore unsure why the Bill's counter-proliferation financing provisions are before the House today, given that MAS has been issuing directions to that effect already. Could the Minister of State please elaborate on what additional powers it grants that the MAS does not already have? Or are the amendments simply send a signal that the Government is as serious about countering proliferation financing as it is about curtailing money laundering and terrorism financing? Lastly, Sir, I would like to conclude my speech by reflecting on the FATF's latest mutual evaluation report issued this year regarding Singapore's counter-proliferation efforts. I had filed a Parliamentary Question in July on this subject. FATF was quick to point out that Singapore was vulnerable to proliferation financing due to several factors: its geographical position, its status as an international financial centre, and the fact that it was a hub for trade, transport, maritime and virtual assets. Among FATF's observations was that even among the "Competent Authorities" in Singapore, there was an uneven understanding of the risks of breaches and evasion of proliferation financing sanction obligations; it was observed that the MAS, the Commercial Affairs Department and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs appeared more au fait with the subject than other agencies. FATF's overall conclusion was that Singapore had a strong legal framework for targeted financial sanctions relating to proliferation financing. Where we fell short, however, was in terms of supervisory coverage, or in other words, how the agencies used the supervisory and enforcement powers they already have. The report also highlighted the risk posed by the maritime sector: representation offices of some foreign flag states had low awareness of the counter-proliferation financing risk obligations, while Singapore's own risk assessment acknowledges that ship-to-ship transfers are a key risk. There was a further observation that the penalties for failing to comply with these obligations are, quote, "relatively low and cannot be considered proportionate and dissuasive in all cases", unquote.[+3 sentences] Sir, it is my impression that many of FATF's concerns about proliferation financing in Singapore are not addressed by the Bill and remain work in progress. I do not dismiss the size of the task ahead. That said, the Bill does signal the criticality of tackling proliferation financing, and I support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West)741 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Financial Services and Markets (Amendment) Bill. Singapore's success as an international financial centre rests on trust: trust that our institutions are sound, that our regulatory framework keeps pace with emerging risks, and that when problems arise, we can contain them before they threaten the wider economy.[+5 sentences] For most Singaporeans, this trust is rarely noticed. It is simply the confidence that their savings are safe, that their payments go through and that their bank will be there tomorrow. I would like to raise three points, all concerning one idea: resilience before crisis. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns the new requirements on TLAC. The concept may be technical, but the principle is straightforward. If a systemically important financial institution runs into serious difficulty, it should hold enough resources of its own to absorb losses and be re-capitalised in an orderly way.[+1 sentence] This matters because a major financial institution does not fail like an ordinary company. Its failure can spread to depositors, businesses, other financial institutions, payment systems and ultimately, the wider economy. I therefore support the MAS having the power to require these institutions to build such buffers before a crisis hits them, not during one.[+5 sentences] I would, however, seek clarification on how the requirements will be calibrated. There is a balance to strike. Too little loss-absorbing capacity exposes our financial system to unnecessary risk. Yet requirements set well above what is needed could raise funding costs for institutions. These may eventually be passed on to households and businesses, through higher rates on home and business loans, or other charges. Can the Minister of State elaborate on the principles MAS will apply in setting TLAC requirements, how our approach compares with other major international financial centres and whether the requirements will be phased to give institutions time to adjust?[+25 sentences] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns transparency. The Bill allows MAS to require institutions to disclose the level and composition of their loss-absorbing capacity and how the relevant instruments would rank in a winding-up. I welcome this. Financial stability depends not only on sufficient capital, but also on market participants understanding who bears losses, in what order and in what circumstances. This matters all the more if such instruments are available to individual investors. To many of them, a product issued by a familiar bank can feel as safe as a deposit, even when it is not meant to be. The Bill also allows MAS to specify the classes of investors to whom such instruments may be issued. Could the Minister of State clarify whether MAS intends to use this power to limit retail access? And where retail investors may still hold these instruments, will there be additional safeguards to ensure they understand that loss-absorbing instruments carry very different risks from ordinary deposits? We should avoid a situation where an instrument performs exactly as designed in a crisis, but its investors had never fully appreciated that they were expected to absorb those losses. My final point, Mr Deputy Speaker, concerns the Bill's explicit provision for countering proliferation financing. I strongly support this. As one of the world's most connected financial and trading centres, Singapore is inevitably exposed to financial flows that cross jurisdictions and supply chains. Our responsibilities therefore extend beyond conventional money laundering and terrorism financing. Keeping our financial system from being used to finance the development or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a national security responsibility and an important part of Singapore's reputation as a trusted financial centre. But compliance is growing more complex, particularly for smaller financial institutions. Will MAS provide sufficient guidance, information-sharing and capability-building, including practical examples of warning signs, so that institutions can identify proliferation financing risks effectively, rather than treat this as another compliance exercise? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the common thread in these amendments is resilience before crisis. We want financial institutions to have the resources to absorb their own losses before difficulties spread. We want investors to understand the risks they take on. And we want our institutions to detect emerging threats before our financial system can be exploited. These safeguards work largely out of public view. Most Singaporeans will never notice them – and that is the point. These are what allow Singaporeans and international investors to keep their confidence in our financial system when circumstances turn difficult. With these clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh)1166 words
[+10 sentences]First, I would like to declare that I am employed by a bank designated by MAS to be a D-SIB in Singapore. As Singapore continues to anchor its position as a leading global financial centre, our regulatory frameworks must evolve in tandem with international standards and emerging systemic risks. This Bill makes important updates to the Financial Services and Markets Act passed in 2022. By empowering MAS to impose TLAC requirements, and explicitly addressing the prevention of proliferation financing, we are taking further steps to safeguard the resilience and integrity of our financial system. I support both thrusts of the Bill. My questions are mainly about calibration and implementation, how we strengthen the resilience and financial integrity without introducing unnecessary friction into the financial system and the real economy. Let me first address the introduction of TLAC requirements for Division 6 Financial Institutions, including our D-SIBs. Following the Global Financial Crisis, G-SIBs have been required to maintain TLAC of at least 18% of their total RWA. TLAC provides an additional layer of loss-absorbing capacity so that, if a systemically important institution fails, sufficient resources are available to support its orderly resolution and recapitalisation, while minimising the need for taxpayer support. My first question concerns the timing and calibration of the framework. Could the Minister of State explain why MAS considers this the appropriate juncture to introduce the TLAC requirements for our D-SIBs and what developments have informed the timing? I also note that MAS' May 2026 consultation paper proposes a TLAC requirement of 14% of a D-SIB's RWA. Could the Minister of State explain the considerations behind the 14% calibration – I heard different Members earlier talking about this – but the question I have is how MAS assesses that this provides sufficient loss-absorbing capacity given the size, complexity and cross-border activities of our D-SIBs?[+10 sentences] Second, I would like to ask about the potential impact on funding costs and the real economy. Implementing TLAC requirements will inevitably affect banks' funding and capital structures. If institutions need to issue additional loss-absorbing instruments, there is a possibility that some of these costs could ultimately be transmitted to borrowers. How will MAS monitor this to ensure that our SMEs, many of which rely significantly on bank financing, do not face an undue tightening of credit or materially higher borrowing costs, in the worst case scenario? Relatedly, has MAS assessed whether Singapore's capital markets have sufficient depth and investor capacity to absorb additional TLAC issuance by our D-SIBs without materially increasing funding costs or creating concentration risks? As we strengthen the resilience of our financial system, we should also be mindful that the transition itself does not create unintended pressures elsewhere in the system. Third, I would like to clarify the potential future scope of these powers. The legislative amendments confer broad powers and do not limit the imposition of TLAC requirements to D-SIBs. Beyond D-SIBs, does MAS envisage these TLAC powers being applied in future to other systemically important financial institutions, including insurers? If so, what criteria would MAS consider before extending the framework to another category of institution? Fourth, on implementation, MAS' May 2026 consultation paper proposes to give D-SIBs five years from receiving notification to meet their TLAC requirements.[+7 sentences] Could the Minister of State provide more colour on the milestones and transition arrangements during this period? A phased and carefully calibrated timeline would allow institutions to adjust their balance sheets without causing unnecessary disruption to domestic credit conditions. Finally, systemically important banks operate globally. How will MAS coordinate the activation of bail-in powers and TLAC requirements with foreign regulatory authorities? Regulatory fragmentation during a crisis can exacerbate uncertainty. Effective coordination between home and host authorities will therefore be critical to achieving an orderly resolution. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the second major pillar of this Bill, explicitly providing for the prevention of proliferation financing. Singapore is a member of FATF and is assessed against FATF Standards. These standards were updated in 2020 to explicitly require financial institutions and non-financial institutions to identify and mitigate proliferation-financing risks.[+12 sentences] Singapore's reputation as a trusted and clean financial hub is a valuable asset. Aligning our legislative framework with evolving international standards is therefore important. At the same time, we should recognise the operational complexities involved. Tracing proliferation financing can be particularly difficult. Bad actors may use opaque corporate structures and transactions involving dual use goods, items with both civilian and military applications. As a major global trade and transshipment hub, Singapore and our financial institutions are inevitably exposed to such risks. This raises two issues. First, while larger financial institutions may have the resources to deploy sophisticated surveillance and analytical systems, smaller institutions and local firms may face proportionately higher compliance costs. What targeted guidance, capacity-building measures or other support will MAS provide to help the broader industry adapt? We should ensure that firms can meet these important obligations without facing disproportionate compliance burdens. Second, there is the question of how technology and information sharing can strengthen detection. In 2023, Parliament passed legislation establishing the Collaborative Sharing of Money Laundering/Terrorism Financing Information and Cases (COSMIC) platform, to facilitate the sharing of customer information between financial institutions to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Could the Minister of State clarify whether the existing COSMIC framework, or similar information sharing arrangements, could eventually support the identification of proliferation financing typologies and red flags, while maintaining appropriate legal safeguards? More broadly, does MAS see scope for greater use of shared analytics, AI and network analysis across financial institutions to identify proliferation financing patterns that may not be visible to an individual institution?[+4 sentences] Given the increasingly sophisticated and cross-border nature of such networks, there may be value in looking beyond institution-by-institution surveillance towards system-level detection capabilities. Finally, as we update our definitions and regulatory reach across multiple Acts, including the Variable Capital Companies Act, will MAS provide consolidated guidance to help the industry navigate the interaction between money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing requirements? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, safeguarding our financial system is not a static goal. The nature of financial risks will continue to evolve and our regulatory architecture must evolve with them. The amendments before us strengthen Singapore's ability both to deal with the failure of systemically important institutions and to prevent our financial system from being exploited for proliferation financing.[+3 sentences] The key, in my view, is calibration. We should ensure that our financial institutions have sufficient capacity to absorb losses without placing taxpayers at undue risk. At the same time, implementation should avoid unnecessary consequences for credit availability, market functioning and legitimate economic activity. Similarly, we must maintain high standards against financial crime and proliferation financing while ensuring that the compliance framework remains proportionate, technologically capable and responsive to emerging risks.[+2 sentences] If we get this balance right, Singapore can continue to be not only a resilient financial centre, but also a trusted and sustainably competitive one. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my queries, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker5 words
[+1 sentence]Minister of State Alvin Tan.
Mr Alvin Tan2226 words
[+12 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for supporting the Bill. Let me first address their questions on TLAC, followed by the comments on amendments on counter-proliferation financing. On the TLAC amendments, please allow me to first clarify details about the TLAC framework, such as why MAS is doing this now, which entities will be subject to TLAC requirements, and how it will be implemented. I will also address technical points that Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Edward Chia raised. Mr Deputy Speaker, MAS' decision to implement TLAC now is part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen our resolution regime. Our banks are well-capitalised, well-managed and form strong anchors of Singapore's financial system. G-SIBs have complex global operations and their failure will impact many jurisdictions across the world. D-SIBs' impact is more limited, given they have less complex domestic or regional operations. When the Financial Stability Board first developed TLAC in 2015, it targeted G-SIBs and not D-SIBs. MAS decided to first study the impact of such a measure and the implementation experiences of peer jurisdictions that allowed us to better calibrate the TLAC requirements that is most appropriate to Singapore and our Singaporean context. The Bill empowers MAS to impose TLAC requirements on "Division 6 Financial Institutions". This term is defined in Regulation 27 of the Financial Services and Markets (Resolution of Financial Institutions) Regulations 2024 to include banks and insurers incorporated in Singapore, including their financial holding companies. MAS intends to implement TLAC requirements only for banks, more specifically D-SIBs, at this time.[+13 sentences] And there are currently no plans to extend the TLAC framework to insurers. Although, should future circumstances change, MAS will consult before imposing TLAC on insurers. Where banking groups have insurance subsidiaries, these insurance subsidiaries are already subject to separate capital requirements. Within the five-year implementation period, there is no interim or yearly TLAC milestones that banks must meet. This gives banks flexibility to plan their TLAC issuances over these five years. MAS will monitor that the banks do not backload the implementation and crowd issuances in the last year. Banks' existing capital instruments that already meet all eligibility criteria will be recognised as TLAC even during this implementation period. D-SIBs must, however, start reporting and disclosing their TLAC issuances earlier, as this information will be important and relevant to investors. MAS will specify how we expect D-SIBs to comply with these mandatory reporting and disclosure requirements in the Notice. This Notice will also clearly detail how MAS will apply TLAC requirements to the D-SIBs, and this will be subject to public consultation and published on MAS' website. Any review of the TLAC framework, be it as part of MAS' regular review or arising from developments in international regulatory standards, will also be subject to public consultation. This speaks to Mr Edward Chia's point on importance of transparency. Let me next address questions by Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Edward Chia and Dr Hamid Razak on the cost and competitiveness implications of TLAC implementation. I will also address concerns raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, who had asked why we had not gone with an 18% TLAC and also concerns over concentration in the USD and the TLAC instruments, including Contingent Convertible bonds.[+1 sentence] Sir, even as we ensure banks are not under-insured, we should also equally ensure they are not over-insured. This is why MAS proposed a TLAC requirement at 14% of banks' RWA and this is lower than the 18% requirement for G-SIBs and for D-SIBs in peer jurisdictions, like the EU, Australia and Canada.[+4 sentences] How did we come to 14%, and not 18%? Well, MAS struck this balance after carefully studying the impact on funding cost, which is a point that many Members have raised. At 14%, the value of new TLAC instruments to be issued is manageable. And at 14%, we expect our local banks will have sufficient capacity to withstand severe losses in stressed scenarios while not being burdened with excessive increases in funding costs that are not commensurate with their size, risk profiles or business models. Our D-SIBs which are subsidiaries of G-SIBs will also be subject to TLAC requirements of at least 75% of the 18% TLAC requirements that they would have been required to hold if they were standalone G-SIBs, which is 13.5%.[+11 sentences] It will help our D-SIBs remain competitive and mitigate against increases in credit costs while not compromising on financial stability. Sir, let me next address concerns that Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Edward Chia and Dr Hamid Razak raised on retail investment in TLAC instruments. TLAC instruments are inherently complex and risky, which makes them generally unsuitable for retail investors. While these are effectively debt instruments issued by our banks that contain "bail-in" clauses, allowing a write-down if MAS has assessed that the bank has failed or is likely to fail, these instruments differ from traditional investment products because they are designed to primarily absorb losses during bad times. This means it is extremely difficult to predict the circumstances where investors of TLAC instruments may be required to suffer losses. One instance is the failure of Credit Suisse in 2023, that Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Kenneth Tiong and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim raised. Sir, excessive retail investment in a bank's TLAC instruments can prevent decisive intervention. Where a substantial portion of a bank's TLAC instruments is held by retail investors, the need to quantify and consider the impact on these retail investors suffering full losses could delay MAS' bail-in decisions to the detriment of the broader financial system and the public. So, in taking this into consideration, it is desirable to restrict retail investment in TLAC instruments. In fact, MAS has already implemented three sets of measures to restrict retail investments in banks, Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments, which can be bailed in and count towards a bank's TLAC, across both the primary and the secondary markets. MAS will apply the same measures to banks' TLAC instruments. First, MAS will not allow any TLAC instruments that are issued directly to retail investors to count towards a bank's TLAC.[+1 sentence] This creates a straightforward disincentive for banks to issue these instruments to retail investors in the primary market. Second, MAS will make it clear to financial institutions in Singapore that they should not distribute TLAC instruments issued by banks incorporated in Singapore, or investment products that reference these TLAC instruments to Singapore retail investors or facilitate their access to these products.[+13 sentences] And then, third, the Fair Dealing Guidelines that apply across the financial sector require all financial institutions to treat all customers fairly in the design, marketing, sale and servicing of products and services. MAS expects financial institutions to only market or offer financial products or services they have assessed to be suitable for their target customers. Together, these measures aim to restrict the purchase of TLAC instruments to investors who are able to fully understand the risks of investing in them. This means understanding that these instruments can be potentially fully written down. There are no additional restrictions on retail investors obtaining diversified exposure to TLAC instruments, for example, through funds. These funds are generally well diversified and professionally managed with ongoing portfolio and risk monitoring. MAS will continue to monitor the situation and make adjustments as and when necessary. Sir, let me next address concerns that Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Kenneth Tiong raised on cross-border recognition and cooperation as they relate to bail-in. There are regular, well-established communication channels between MAS and our foreign regulatory counterparts to discuss supervisory and crisis management matters for each D-SIB. Should a D-SIB show signs of distress, there will be increased communication and discussions on what actions to take, be it bail-in or otherwise. MAS will coordinate this action with all relevant regulators of the D-SIB. Mr Kenneth Tiong mentioned that part of these TLAC instruments issued by our D-SIBs will likely be sold abroad and governed by foreign law. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked if Additional Tier 1 bonds should still count towards TLAC, given legal uncertainties as evidenced by the Credit Suisse Additional Tier 1 lawsuits. MAS requires all TLAC contracts to include a clause stating that these instruments remain subject to MAS' bail-in powers, regardless of their governing law.[+2 sentences] This will address legal uncertainties on whether such instruments can be effectively bailed in. MAS intends to abide by the creditor hierarchy when exercising its bail-in powers during a resolution. All creditors who receive less in a resolution compared to what they would have received in a liquidation will also be entitled to compensation and MAS will make no distinction between local and foreign investors or between foreign investors of different countries.[+6 sentences] Mr Kenneth Tiong also raised questions on Singapore's approach towards international standards, disclosure of Government bond holdings by D-SIBs, and suggested proposals on trade corridors and cross-border information sharing during Singapore's ASEAN chairmanship next year. While these are important points, they fall outside the ambit of this Bill. I therefore invite Mr Tiong to file separate Parliamentary Questions if he wishes to explore these topics in greater detail. In the meantime, I assure him that, as with our approach to TLAC, MAS will continue to participate actively in international fora and implement Basel standards locally, but in a manner that is pragmatic and is suitable and appropriate for Singapore. MAS will also supplement such standards with prudent supervision of credit, liquidity and interest rate risks so our banks remain resilient and at the same time, also remain competitive. Sir, I now turn to questions related to the second part, which is the amendments to counter proliferation financing raised by Ms Sylvia Lim, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Saktiandi Supaat. On queries relating to the definition of "proliferation financing" that Ms Sylvia Lim raised, I would like to clarify that it would cover the financing of proliferation of the means of delivery of weapons of mass destruction under the relevant UNSC Resolutions relating to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran.[+9 sentences] There are also existing guidelines that MAS has provided to make this clear to our financial institutions. There is also no impact on existing practices, as MAS' supervision of financial institutions already covers proliferation financing risks. Financial institutions already also have measures in place to address proliferation financing risks through MAS' guidance and engagements in this area over the years. MAS has also partnered industry bodies like the Association of Banks in Singapore and the Singapore FinTech Association to conduct industry outreach and issue best practice papers to support implementation across financial institutions. MAS also provides financial institutions with practical tips to adopt technology to sharpen risk detection capability. MAS and the Singapore Police Force's Commercial Affairs Department also regularly engage banks via platforms, such as the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Industry Partnership to discuss management of money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing risks. MAS will continue to engage and provide guidance as necessary to the financial institutions to sustain their awareness of proliferation financing risks and effective implementation of robust risk-proportionate controls. As Mr Saktiandi Supaat observed, technology and information sharing can strengthen the detection of proliferation financing risks. And COSMIC, as he raised it, is a platform for the six participating banks to securely share with one another information on customers that may be engaging in illicit activities including those relating to proliferation financing. Where useful, MAS will synthesise information from COSMIC and share it with the broader industry. We have seen early signs of success with COSMIC, with more suspicious transaction reports filed and over 1,000 suspicious customer accounts closed. We will expand COSMIC to include other participating banks to build on this progress and success.[+7 sentences] Sir, Mr Kenneth Tiong and Ms Sylvia Lim also spoke about FATF's recently completed evaluation of Singapore's Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism and countering proliferation financing framework. I would like to share that the intended amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act before the House today are unrelated to the outcomes of Singapore's FATF evaluation. They have been planned for a while to technically align our approach with earlier changes to the FATF Standards. While the outcomes of and follow-ups from the FATF evaluation are not subject to today's debate, I would like to emphasise what Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai said in Parliament in July – that Singapore had performed well in that assessment. And that in the areas where FATF has made recommendations to strengthen specific aspects of Singapore's framework, we are carefully studying them and we will develop plans that are also both risk-proportionate and suited to Singapore's context. As Minister Chee Hong Tat also clarified in the House in July, FATF's specific observations in that context related to overseas representative offices or foreign ship registries operating in Singapore. Minister Chee then also made clear that these entities remain fully bound by Singapore law, including our UN sanctions regulations. The amendments before us complement that whole-of-Government posture and ensure that our financial institutions remain vigilant against trade and maritime financing abuse.[+1 sentence] Sir, I will conclude by thanking Members again for their support of the Bill. Their support reflects the desire to ensure Singapore remains a trusted and resilient international financial centre, supplemented by a strong resolution framework.[+1 sentence] Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim72 words
[+1 sentence]Thank you, Sir. I have one clarification for the Minister of State. I just wanted him to confirm that what he meant in his round-up speech was that there is actually no intention, on the Government's part, to impose on financial institutions proliferation financing-related obligations beyond the UN-sanctioned countries – is that what he was saying?[+1 sentence] We are going to track closely to what the UN has recommended or the UN resolutions?
Mr Alvin Tan8 words
Sorry, could the Member repeat her question, please?
Ms Sylvia Lim84 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, just to explain, in my speech, I had mentioned that the definition in clause 2 was quite wide, meaning that the definition of proliferation financing was not explicitly linked to only those that were required by UNSC resolutions. So, I just wanted him to confirm that it is the intention of the Government that the obligations on the financial sector in Singapore track closely to only what the UNSC has required and we are not intending to go beyond that on our own?
Mr Alvin Tan14 words
[+2 sentences]Sir, Ms Sylvia Lim is correct in that regard. We are not going beyond.
Mr Deputy Speaker67 words
[+2 sentences]No further clarifications. . (proc text)]
[+2 sentences][(proc text) presented by the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (Dr Tan See Leng) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill›Bills Introduced1 turns · 60w
· 0 highlighted
bill-intro-699
Speaker not recorded60 words
[+2 sentences][(proc text) presented by the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill›Bills Introduced1 turns · 70w
· 0 highlighted
bill-intro-700
Speaker not recorded70 words
[+2 sentences][(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Murali Pillai) (on behalf of the Minister for Transport) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
Clarification by Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs›Clarification2 turns · 68w
· 0 highlighted
clarification-3039
The Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam)60 words
[+3 sentences]Sir, earlier in my answer to Mr Christopher de Souza, I had said, and I quote, "We further expanded the jurisdiction of the Youth Court from youths aged below 17, to youths aged below 18." I misspoke. I should have said, "We further expanded the jurisdiction of the Youth Court from youths aged below 16, to youths aged below 18."
Mr Speaker8 words
[+1 sentence]Before I call on Mr Alex Yam, Leader.
Saving Our Local Food and Beverage Businesses›Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion8 turns · 4,728w
· 36 highlighted
matter-adj-3046
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah)15 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, I move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang)3029 words
[+28 sentences]Many, if not most, of us think of local food as a defining part of our national identity and one of the things we crave most when we venture abroad. Unlike much of the world that eats to live, Singaporeans often live to eat. We routinely stand in line for hours if a place has a reputation for good food. We have even elevated our hawker culture to world heritage status. It is clear that food and beverage (F&B) has a unique place in our hearts as well as our stomachs. For this reason, I believe it is also worthy of a special place in our economy. Moreover, the sector warrants consideration based on its unique and challenging economics alone. Unlike manufacturing or other tradeable services, like finance or software, productivity gains are generally much lower for non-tradable services like F&B. Think about how much cheaper it is to produce a highly sophisticated computer or washing machine today, compared to 50 years ago; and contrast that to how little a concert or college experience has changed relative to a half century past, even as prices have consistently crept up. This is inherently the case with F&B, too. After all, the last thing we want when we pay for a fancy meal is to feel like we are being herded through and rushed to pay, just so that the restaurant may turn the table over – all in the name of efficiency. Nor is it easy to defray costs by either relocating preparation to cheaper locales or simply scaling up operations. Most ingredients must be freshly prepared daily and do not suffer travel well. And any Singaporean will tell you that franchised businesses, or those reliant on central kitchens for supply, often sacrifice quality when they expand their footprint. Furthermore, the sector is almost entirely comprised of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), many of which are wholly Singaporean-owned. This has, historically, also been a source of innovation and pride. Think about our adaptation of Hainanese chicken rice, Katong-style laksa, chilli or black pepper crab and the world-famous Singapore Sling. Yet, the sector's already razor-thin margins have been forced to confront the double whammy of rising rent and costly labour more directly than most. And finally, it has probably not escaped this Government that many, many Singaporeans are essentially coping with nosebleed housing prices and the planet's dearest private transportation costs by relying on affordable local food, especially from coffee shops and hawker centers. Protecting local F&B amounts to keeping one of the remaining few outlets where we can credibly claim we are not among the most expensive in the world. Sir, the ingredients – pardon the pun – that any F&B operator must deal with are well known. To price competitively enough while eking out a profit after accounting for the costs of ingredients, workers and rent. As a country, we are almost entirely price-takers when it comes to importing all our raw materials. But land and labour are amenable to policy direction and that is what I will focus the rest of the speech on. Manpower is the most common pain point faced by F&B operators. In my conversations with those in the sector, I repeatedly heard about how costly it is to hire cooks, dishwashers and wait staff. This is unsurprising, given how expensive average wages are in Singapore, which is significantly higher than most other neighbouring countries. Operators also share that it is difficult to attract and retain locals in the sector. This is the case even when salaries are reasonably attractive. I have been told of positions at $4,000 or $5,000 that can go unfilled and how, even after hiring, retention is a constant headache, with many choosing to quit after just a few weeks on the job.[+2 sentences] To meet these local needs, many turn to foreign staff. But even this faces problems. Hiring is constrained by the dependency ratio ceiling (DRC), set at a ceiling of 35% foreigners, with an additional requirement of nine locals for every one S Pass, which is the most restrictive of any sector. Atop this is layered the Local Qualifying Salary and minimum wages in the sector's Progressive Wage Model, along with a foreign worker levy – all of which further push up the wage bill.[+8 sentences] Let me declare I fully understand the motivation behind the local quotas and minimum wages for locals. I have, after all, previously argued for such very policies in this House and in general, I remain in favour of them. That said, the constraints faced by the F&B sector appear to be very binding, despite the best efforts of our establishments to recruit Singaporeans. This has led to perverse outcomes, with reports of how certain operators have resorted to paying the Central Provident Fund share of friends and family, just to register them into their local quotas. Or how restaurants may hire on an Employment Pass, which is not subject to the same quota, only to claw back excess salary thereafter. While I am uncertain of how pervasive such practices are, the sense that F&B operators need to skirt the edges of the law just to keep their business running helps nobody. One wonders, therefore, if the Government has any plans to review DRCs in the sector. After all, the principle of sector-specific quotas is not novel. Indeed, while manufacturing and services are bound by DRCs of 60% and 35%, respectively, those in the construction and process sectors have a higher ratio of 83%, as do marine shipyards, at 75 %.[+1 sentence] Backbenchers from the ruling party have also asked the very same question: has the Ministry conducted any investigations as to how pervasive contorted reporting or creative accounting, just to ensure paper compliance, actually is? In hawker centers, where foreigners are almost entirely shut out, the Government has also relaxed its rules to allow Long-term Visit Pass (LTVP) and LTVP+ holders to work as stall assistants. And there are currently around, by the Government's reporting, 300 such individuals.[+26 sentences] While I agree with the premise that only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) be allowed to operate stalls, a helpful step would be to allow operators to hire Malaysians, who clearly share a similar hawker culture, as stall assistants. In exchange for this targeted flexibility, operators could commit to certain targets, such as productivity improvements, workforce deployment and fair employment practises. This ensures that the sector remains sensitive to local manpower objective pursued by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in the absence of a blanket relaxation of rules. In my consultations with representatives from the F&B sector, I also heard of other manpower problems which appear more systemic than idiosyncratic. More than a few lamented about how difficult it was to send employees for SkillsFuture training. They shared that the typical training window of one to two days was hardly sufficient to adequately prepare new workers for the sector. This is exacerbated by how those that have undergone more formal training at, say, our Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) or SHATEC Institutes tend to gravitate toward hotels and western cuisine, rather than local ones. Some have questioned why subsidised SkillsFuture courses are not made available to their staff on a Work Permit, given how the Skills Development Levy is paid per worker, whether local or foreign. Given how cash strapped the typical reimbursement model for grants is, they hope that this model is revised with invoicing directly between the training provider and the SkillsFuture office. The other major challenge for F&B operators has to do with escalating rents. The Government often appeals to the free market, insofar as rents are concerned. Yet this stands in curious contrast to how the same Government approaches manpower issues, where constraints and regulations abound. There are two major classes of landlords in the F&B rental scene. The first is, of course, the Government itself, agencies, such as National Environment Agency (NEA) for hawker centres, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for coffee shops, JTC for canteens in industrial estates, and the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for restaurants in conservation sites. The second are technically private, although many have close links to the state, CapitaLand and Mapletree, which are owned by Temasek, operate commercial food spaces in malls, business parks and offices, and the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) owns or operates food courts, like Kopitiam and Food Republic. The bottom line is that the arm of the state already runs through the beating heart of most landlords in F&B. By extension, it would be naive to believe that the Government has little influence on the evolution of rents in the sector. These public agencies and Government affiliates can take the first step in bringing alternative tenancy arrangements, such as adopting tender criteria that place a greater weight on food offerings, business quality, innovation and productivity plans, rather than raw bid prices alone. I had previously explained in this House why the current model of land pricing, which infers its value from transacted prices in HDB resale markets, may potentially give rise to excessive valuations. Without more proactive policy to contain price increases, unabated price appreciation in that market will inexorably pass through to land valuations, which in turn, will pass through to rental prices, including those in the F&B sector. I had also previously explained why we need not be bound by the "straitjacket" of having land valuations tied to those handed down by the Chief Valuer, because we already depart from market pricing for transport infrastructure, community facilities and places of worship. But if we believe that hawker centres constitute essential infrastructure, we can impose valuation discounts on land that subsequently enable the rationalisation of lower rental rates. This will be an important step, but not the only one. Landlords presently have strong incentives to inflate rents, also for valuation reasons, since property values depend not just on land prices, but also the expected stream of rental income. Landlords may choose to set rent at an unsustainably high price, perhaps even going as far as to leave storefronts empty, as anecdotal evidence suggests, because the potential capital gains outweigh any short-term foregone rental. To short-circuit this pathology, we can target the rate of rent increases directly, by capping the maximum quantum that may increase every single year. As I had suggested in this House previously, such controls on rental rate increases is practised in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany and many states within the United States.[+1 sentence] The specific percentage increase can be calibrated for our own local markets based on average historical rate increases, and possibly further adjusted by property location and lease duration. Doing so will avoid situations, such as those widely reported in the press, where landlords hike rents as much as 30% to 50% in a single year.[+4 sentences] This will allow tenants time to react to a rental rate increase, but in a manner that does not inhibit rents from eventually reaching their long-run market rate. It will also have the additional benefit of dampening rental volatility, where landlords that overstretch a given contract are forced to sharply slash rates thereafter, which contributes to the health of the overall market too. It is also a structural solution, as opposed to the ad hoc corporate tax rebates that while undeniably appreciated, are inherently temporary in nature. In fact, the Ministry of National Development (MND) has implicitly recognised that rental rates set by private landlords are not always justified. In response to a Parliamentary Question filed two years ago, then-Senior Minister of State Sim Ann explained that HDB strives to keep rents stable in its role as a landlord by not increasing the rent for virtually all of its coffee shops in recent years, and by ceiling the sale of coffee shops to private owners since 1998, it is also conceded that a purely privately-owned coffee shop landscape is inherently undesirable.[+6 sentences] I am therefore unconvinced by claims, sometimes made by this Government, that rental costs are secondary to the F&B business, just because they are a small and falling share of total business costs and do not directly affect food prices. After all, rents, which are signed for contractual terms of several years, represent a clear fixed cost. Even if they constitute a small part of overall cost, they remain a real and present hurdle that must be overcome, month after month, regardless of economic conditions. This is even more so for small single-store operators, who are unable themselves to make ends meet, but cannot bear the brunt of a non-negotiable spike in rent. That said, capping rents would in and of itself likely be inadequate if not matched by corresponding legislation that better protects against abuse. A recalcitrant landlord may simply choose to terminate the lease and secure a new tenant, if it cannot increase it as much as they would like. Tenants are then told to "suck up the rent hike or vacate", as there are other potential tenants in line. But we can learn from jurisdictions, like Australia, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom, which offers statutory renewal rights for leases held by small commercial tenants, although the conditions to ensure extension vary.[+9 sentences] This has often been the case of late, as chain concepts from foreign shores, especially China, have barged into the local market. These brands have deep pockets, which not only allow them to offer low and possibly predatory rental bids. Some enjoy subsidies from their home states, which allow them to bid very aggressively. In extreme cases, they may even be willing to treat a Singapore-based operation as a loss leader to establish the brand in the Southeast Asian market. When these operators fail to gain traction, they simply close, which is not an issue, given their motivations and loss absorbing capacity. But they leave in their wake, an otherwise sustainable local restaurant, who may have been the mainstay of the neighbourhood for years and years. To be fair, not all hawker centre and mall operators subscribe blindly to just profit. Many make a reasonable attempt to curate a tenant mix and apply price quality methods to place weight on non-price elements in their tenders, but the bottom line almost always end up dominating the decision and the proof is in the pudding. Look around hawker centres and malls, and it is clear that the deck is stacked in favour of the larger chain vendors rather than new start-ups. I believe that we cannot allow our local F&B scene to be a guinea pig for the market share aspirations of such foreign chain restaurants, lest we inevitably surrender a core part of our intangible cultural heritage. We should hold more coffee shop and hawker centre operators to a tenant mix that explicitly includes a minimum share of halal nusantara options and local cuisine, failing which, an additional tax can be applied to non-conforming operators.[+10 sentences] This will serve as a break on the speed of absorption of foreign tenants in F&B without imposing a hard quota. Sir, I open with a vision of how we can transform our SME sector. Let me close with another thought experiment. Imagine how we want our F&B landscape to look like in a decade or two. We will walk into the food section of a mall in the future. What do we want to see? Big-box stores and large chains, peddling foreign brands and cuisines? Row upon row of only McDonald's, Subways, Jollibees, Haidilaos and Genki Sushis? Or do we also want to see local brands and local foods, our Ya Kuns, Old Chang Kees and Paradise proudly alongside? Do we hope to enjoy the serendipity of stumbling into a niche restaurant run by a local couple, based on recipes passed down from their grandparents? Or do we want our meals to always be the result of reheated food prepared by anonymous cooks, solely from central kitchens? This is why the time is right to adopt F&B as a pilot for widescale reform of our SME landscape.[+7 sentences] Such businesses are an excellent case study, because the pressures they face are so familiar across SMEs – rising rent, labour shortages, increasing input costs and intense competition. Some have argued that what is dragging down our F&B is anaemic productivity. I hope I have made it clear that the end game to the pursuit of scale and efficiency will be a narrower menu and a diminished experience, which is the last thing folks hope for when they take their lunch breaks or head out for a family dinner. And even the most cautious realist can must acknowledge that productivity alone cannot outrun structural increases in business costs. The sector's thin margins offer little room for experimentation or investment, because errors are costly. That is a strong case for policy intervention. F&B also reveals both sides of Singapore's SME challenge. Existing operators struggle with business costs, yet, would-be entrepreneurs struggle to enter the formal market altogether, since the scaling up of home-based efforts to commercial operations is often insurmountable without deep pockets.[+1 sentence] Successful interventions in F&B will not only help existing operators become more productive, it will also create a more graduated pathway for new entrepreneurs to enter the market, test ideas and grow, without taking excessive fixed costs on from the start. To be clear, there are already existing initiatives that have been rolled out to provide explicit support to the sector, including FoodEx, the F&B Process Optimisation Programme and the Food Services Industry Digital Plan.[+1 sentence] These programmes are undeniably valuable, but they do not fully address the structural challenges that smaller operators face. A dedicated F&B transformation pilot, bringing together these productivity improvement programmes, but also seriously tackling business costs will offer the best opportunity for a real-world test of a more integrated approach.[+1 sentence] I am ending. A business-as-usual approach to policy in the F&B sector will all but guarantee that otherwise viable businesses will no longer be able to conduct business as usual. We must be more proactive in tackling business costs for our beleaguered hawkers, "zichar" and small restaurant owners, or risk losing the soul of our delicious and precious local food.
Mr Speaker5 words
[+1 sentence]Senior Minister of State Low.
The Senior Minister of State for Energy, Trade and Industry (Ms Low Yen Ling)1466 words
[+17 sentences]Mr Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for raising this topic. Food has always been close to the hearts of Singaporeans. It forms part of our social fabric. So, keeping our F&B sector vibrant and thriving is key to our unique local food culture and our way of life. It is therefore more than just about businesses. We have an important stake in supporting our local F&B enterprises, and we are dedicated to ensuring that they have every opportunity to thrive, to transform, especially amid rising challenges. The F&B industry has always been highly competitive and the pressure has intensified. Today, consumers have more choices than ever. Consumers' preferences are changing rapidly. They have become more discerning, demand quality, convenience and even unique experiences. Digital platforms have also transformed how customers discover, order and enjoy food. Social media has hastened the speed and the pressure for eateries to constantly thrill with new dining concepts and offerings. This is true not only in Singapore, but in every major city in the world. Furthermore, like their counterparts globally, Singapore's restaurants are contending with persistent inflation and rising costs, intense competition, changing post pandemic dining habits, and the urgency to adapt to technology and automation. We are determined to ensure that our local F&B businesses can adapt successfully to all these changes. Our F&B industry has long shown its dynamism and resilience, continually adapting and finding new ways to thrive. Despite thin margins and operating challenges, new businesses continue to enter the market even as others exit. For example, between 2015 and 2025, the number of F&B entities grew by a net of 42%, with more businesses opening than closing in most years.[+6 sentences] Let me assure the Member that more than 90% of the registered F&B entities in Singapore continue to be Singapore-owned. This reflects the strong presence of local businesses in our Singapore F&B landscape. We are heartened that many of our F&B businesses are pursuing transformation with determination. They are redesigning their operations, embracing technology, centralising food preparation – and it does not mean the taste is being compromised – adopting AI, improving productivity to serve their customers better. And we not only in the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry (METI), the Enterprise Singapore, but whole-of-Government, are supporting these efforts with practical assistance to helping our businesses and local F&B companies to raise productivity, stay competitive and build resilience. Against this backdrop, the Member earlier raised concerns about rentals and manpower that the sector is grappling with. He has suggested measures such as limiting rental increase.[+1 sentence] We understand the concerns behind the suggestions. However, imposing rental controls is not straightforward and could have far-reaching consequences.[+20 sentences] Allow me to explain very quickly. First, commercial properties operate under different market conditions. Businesses also vary widely in their operating models, locations and customer profiles. Imposing rental caps would require the Government to intervene directly in private commercial lease negotiations. This could distort market pricing and prevent rents from reflecting actual demand and supply conditions. Rental controls could also discourage landlords from making space available for F&B businesses. So, then, over time, landlords may choose to put their premises to other uses. And over time, it could well mean that it reduces the supply of F&B space and creating further market distortions. In addition, rent control weakens the incentive for landlords to maintain their properties, potentially leading to poorer building conditions. Furthermore, during our regular engagements with the F&B businesses, several of them have told me that they value greater certainty over occupancy costs and lease arrangements that allow them to plan for the longer term. With all these factors in mind, the Government has focused our efforts on improving the overall leasing environment and fostering fairer landlord-tenant relationships. For example, HDB allows their tenants to renew their leases every three years at market rents assessed by a valuer based on comparable properties, without having to go through a re-tender. This has provided greater rent stability for existing tenants. HDB does not seek to maximise rental revenue or maintain high rental benchmarks. In fact, tenders are not always awarded to the highest bidder. HDB adopts the Price-Quality Method (PQM). For example, for coffee shops, where 60% of the evaluation score is based on factors such as affordability, good track record and community-centric initiatives. And I want to assure the Member where the Government has direct oversight, other than HDB, JTC premises and hawker centres, we will continue to review the framework to keep the rent fair and competitive. In addition, the Member will remember the Government has also worked with the industry to develop the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee's (FTIC's) Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore. And the 13 key leasing principles promote fair and balanced lease negotiations between tenants and landlords. In fact, since 2024, when the law came into effect, all qualifying retail lease agreements must comply with the Code. I want to assure the Member that we will continue to monitor the rental landscape closely and work with industry stakeholders to promote a fair and transparent leasing environment through the FTIC's Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises.[+9 sentences] Many F&B businesses have shared with us their manpower challenges. And we, together with the trade associations and chambers, like Restaurant Association of Singapore, together with the business advisers in the 10 SME centres, together with Enterprise Singapore, we engage our local F&B establishments very regularly. And they understand that with a fast-ageing population, manpower will continue to be limited. So, we must find ways to get around this constraint. Some businesses have been able to adapt and find new ways to grow despite the constraints faced. For example, they have shown very good proof points, successful stories of redesigning job, leveraging technology to increase productivity, reduce their reliance on manpower, redesigning such that their older workers can have better jobs and better wages. And we have many success stories. I had shared that two months ago in this House. We want to assure the Member and the House that where there is a clear need, the Government does provide targeted manpower flexibilities. For example, MOM currently allows businesses to hire Work Permit holders from Non-Traditional Sources for selected roles on the Non-Traditional Sources Occupation List, such as Cooks, which the Member raised earlier.[+4 sentences] Mr Mark Lee is not in the House. I remember two years ago, both Mr Mark Lee and myself, we co-chaired the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness, and we engaged the trade associations and chambers widely, especially our F&B and the retail sectors. We heard this feedback from them. This is one of the key recommendations that was submitted to the Government. And during the MOM Committee of Supply, this was announced.[+1 sentence] I am happy to share with the House. I think you would know that from September this year, that means last month, MOM have expanded this list to include four more F&B roles, including kitchen assistants and waiters.[+1 sentence] The Member mentioned cooks and waiters. So, all these now, our local F&B companies can now tap on the Non-Traditional Sources for five of these F&B roles.[+8 sentences] This certainly will help our local F&B address manpower needs in roles with low take-up by locals. Earlier, the Member has suggested introducing a higher DRC for F&B. This may not be sustainable because being a small country with finite land and resources, Singapore has infrastructure constraints. We have to continue to manage the size of our foreign workforce carefully. I think we all recall, as Prime Minister highlighted in the recent National Day Rally, Work Permit holders are the largest group of foreign pass holders. We cannot successfully compete by relying on ever more manpower, whether foreign or local. Really, our long-term competitiveness must come from creating better jobs, boosting higher productivity and gaining stronger business capabilities. We understand that rising business costs, such as rent and manpower are real concerns. The Government will continue to provide support where needed to help our businesses manage these immediate challenges. That is why, three months ago, we announced a second tranche of support measures of close to $300 million to provide relief to our SMEs facing immediate cost and cash flow pressures due to the impact of the Middle East crisis.[+2 sentences] Besides financial support, Enterprise Singapore has also rolled out targeted programmes that the Member has talked about. I am happy that he remembers that for the F&B sector, over the last 18 months, METI as well as Enterprise Singapore, we curated sector-specific programmes like F&B Process Automation Programme, FoodX, as well as more recently, the F&B AI and Digital Integration Programme, to support our F&B sector to raise productivity, redesign the workflow so that they can do more with less.
Mr Speaker17 words
Senior Minister of State Low, you might want to quickly round up.[+1 sentence] Your time is coming up.
Ms Low Yen Ling165 words
[+2 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, our culinary heritage, distinct food culture and local F&B businesses that contribute to our F&B scene, form part of our Singapore Story. I want to assure the Member and the House, across the entire Government, it is not just only METI and Enterprise Singapore, but including other agencies, such as National Heritage Board, through the Organisation Transformation Grant, the National Arts Council, the Ministry of National Development, HDB and MOM and many others are working hand in hand with the trade associations and chambers, with the F&B sector, to support our local F&B companies. From targeted programmes that I talked about to broad-based funding, from capability building to work redesign and more. We will spare no effort to continue finding ways to support and future-proof our local F&B businesses to adapt, to gain new capabilities and to compete successfully.
Mr Speaker27 words
[+4 sentences]Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 10.30 am. Order. Order. Adjourned accordingly at 8.09 pm.
Revision of Question Time›Motions3 turns · 205w
· 0 highlighted
motion-3040
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah)114 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, we do have a batch of questions from Question Nos 18 to 27 which deal with the issue of a recent study suggesting that some public officers had disproportionately purchased properties next to Mass Rapid Transit stations. We only have five minutes left for Question Time. But as this is a matter that we think should be addressed, I would therefore like to seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable the questions for oral answer to continue until the completion of Question Nos 18 to 27.
Mr Speaker26 words
[+2 sentences]I give my consent. Does the Leader have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
Mr Speaker65 words
[+2 sentences]Leader, please proceed. [(proc text) Resolved, that notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Question Time at this day's Sitting continue until the completion of Question Nos 18 to 27, including relevant supplementary questions thereon. – . (proc text)]
Simultaneous Debate on Motions›Motions2 turns · 250w
· 2 highlighted
motion-3041
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad)234 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, I move, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on "Civil List", "Remuneration of Speaker" and "Remuneration of Deputy Speakers" be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto, be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion. Mr Speaker, these three Motions give effect to the recommendation of the independent review Committee concerning the salary packages of the President, Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and the Government has accepted these recommendations. Given that the issues are related, I am moving this Business Motion for simultaneous debate on the three Motions so that Members can address all three Motions in a single speech.[+2 sentences] This will allow the issues raised to be considered holistically. Mr Speaker, to be clear and for the avoidance of doubt, the Business Motion only seeks that the debate be concurrent. The Motions remain as three separate Motions and at the end of the debate, the votes on the three Motions will be taken separately.[+2 sentences] [(proc text) Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Motions on "Civil List", "Remuneration of Speaker" and "Remuneration of Deputy Speakers" be taken together, and the debate on these Motions and on any amendment proposed thereto be proceeded with simultaneously as though the debate were on a single Motion." – . (proc text)]
Mr Speaker16 words
[+1 sentence]The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notices of Motions and Orders of the Day.
Civil List, Remuneration of Speaker and Remuneration of Deputy Speakers›Motions5 turns · 1,106w
· 9 highlighted
motion-3042
The Second Minister for Finance and Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah)62 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, there are three Motions standing in my name on today's Order Paper. May I have your permission to move them together in succession? And as this House had earlier approved Deputy Leader's Motion to have my three Motions debated together, my opening speech and reply, should one be needed, at the end of the debate, would cover all three Motions.
Mr Speaker38 words
[chair housekeeping]In view of the earlier decision of this House to have all three Motions taken together and the debate to proceed simultaneously on all three Motions, I will allow the Motions to be so moved.[+1 sentence] Minister, please proceed.
Ms Indranee Rajah617 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, I move the following Motions standing in my name on today's Order Paper: first, the Motion titled "Civil List"; second, the Motion titled "Remuneration of Speaker"; third, the Motion titled "Remuneration of Deputy Speakers". Sir, the Government has accepted the recommendation of the independent Review Committee to adjust the salary packages of the President, Speaker and Deputy Speakers in line with the current pegs. These three Motions seek the resolution of Parliament to implement these recommendations. The Civil List Motion gives effect to the salary adjustment for the President.[+6 sentences] Article 22J of the Constitution states that the Legislature shall by law provide a Civil List for the maintenance of the President and his Office. The law which provides for this is the Civil List and Gratuity Act 1970 (CLGA) and the relevant amounts are set out in the Schedule thereto. The Civil List comprises four classes: class 1 which deals with the President's remuneration, among other things and classes 2, 3 and 4 which deal with the salaries of his personal staff, expenses of household and special services respectively. Parliament had earlier this year made provision for increases in classes 2, 3 and 4, to enable the President's office to meet its expenditure needs, as operating costs had risen. There is therefore no change proposed for classes 2, 3 and 4 expenditures. Today's Motion concerns only the class 1 line item on the privy purse, which is used to meet the President's salary. To give effect to the revised President's salary and medical benefits as recommended by the 2026 Salary Review Committee, it is proposed to amend the Schedule of the CLGA to increase the privy purse sum from $1,568,900 to $2,568,200. The President's salary is pegged to the reference monthly salary of the Prime Minister. It consists of a monthly base salary of $180,000, 13th month bonus and an Annual Variable Component (AVC) pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service.[+9 sentences] For budgeting purposes, the proposed privy purse sum budgets for an AVC of 1.25 months, consistent with our budgeting practice for the privy purse in past years. The actual number of months of AVC that the President receives each year will be calculated on the same basis as the AVC paid out to all civil servants and may vary accordingly. The proposed privy purse sum also includes provision for medical benefits of $3,200. The actual amount of medical benefits paid to the President may be less than $3,200, depending on the claims. The second and third Motions standing in my name give effect to the salary and allowance adjustments for the Speaker and Deputy Speakers respectively. Article 41 of the Constitution states that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine. Article 42(3) of the Constitution states that a Deputy Speaker shall be paid such salary or allowance as Parliament may from time to time determine. The annual salary of the Speaker, if it were a full-time post, is pegged to the MR4 Minister reference annual salary as at 15 October 2026. It comprises a monthly base salary, 13th month bonus and an AVC pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service. As it is a part-time post, the Speaker will receive 50% of the MR4 reference annual salary as at 15 October 2026. That amounts to $900,000 a year, assuming an AVC of one month.[+1 sentence] The Deputy Speaker position is also a part-time post. As such, the annual allowance of a Deputy Speaker is pegged at 15% of the Speaker's part-time annual salary.[+2 sentences] That amounts to $135,000 a year, assuming a Variable Component of one month. Sir, I move the Motions.
Mr Speaker132 words
[+7 sentences]The first question is as moved by the Second Minister for Finance on the Motion titled "Civil List". The second question is as moved by the Leader of the House and the Motion titled "Remuneration of Speaker". The third question is as moved by the Leader of the House on the Motion titled "Remuneration of Deputy Speakers". In accordance with the decision of this House to have a simultaneous debate on all three Motions, I will now call on Members to make their speeches. Members are allowed to consider all three Motions in a single speech. And at the end of the debate I will put the questions on the Motion separately, so that the House can express its vote on each Motion. Second Minister for Finance and Leader of the House.
Ms Indranee Rajah257 words
[+4 sentences]Sir, as I believe no Members have spoken on these Motions, I will move for the Motions to be put to the House. [(proc text) Resolved, "That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Gratuity Act 1970, resolves that the Schedule to the Act be varied by deleting the figure $1,568,900 in the second column and substituting for it the figure $2,568,200." (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolved, "That this Parliament, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, determines that the Speaker shall be paid with effect from 15 October 2026: (1) a monthly salary equal to half of one-fourteenth, or 7.14% of the Ministerial Range 4 (MR4) norm annual salary as at 15 October 2026; (2) a 13th-month bonus pegged at one month of the monthly salary; and (3) an Annual Variable Component pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service." (proc text)] [(proc text) The Question is, "That this Parliament, pursuant to Article 42(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, determines that each Deputy Speaker shall be paid with effect from 15 October 2026: (1) a monthly allowance equal to 15% of the Speaker's monthly salary; (2) a 13th-month bonus pegged at one month of the monthly allowance; and (3) an Annual Variable Component pegged at the rates received by the general Civil Service." (proc text)]
Time Limit for Senior Minister of State's Speech›Motions2 turns · 138w
· 0 highlighted
motion-3043
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad)50 words
[+1 sentence]Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How's speech?
Mr Deputy Speaker88 words
[+3 sentences]I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move? [(proc text) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) in respect of Senior Minister of State Tan's speech. ‒ . (proc text)]
Adjournment of Debate›Motions4 turns · 42w
· 0 highlighted
motion-3045
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How)26 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned. . (proc text)]
Mr Speaker10 words
[+1 sentence]Senior Minister of State Tan, resumption of debate what day?
Mr Tan Kiat How2 words
[+1 sentence]Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+2 sentences]So be it. Leader.
Analysing Retrenchment and Re-employment Data, and Enhancing Employment Support In Light Of Latest Labour Market Report›Oral Answers to Questions47 turns · 6,386w
· 28 highlighted
oral-answer-4224
Ms Yeo Wan Ling70 words
asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether an update can be provided on the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment's (TAMEM's) effectiveness in getting employers to pay retrenchment benefits; and (b) of employers who have submitted the Mandatory Retrenchment Notification and did not pay retrenchment benefits in 2025, whether data is available on the proportion who were unwilling to pay as opposed to unable to pay.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye58 words
asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what were the profiles of retrenched workers who were least likely to receive retrenchment benefits or other retrenchment-related financial support from their employers in 2025; (b) what were the main reasons why they did not receive such support; and (c) whether the Ministry is considering additional measures to support these workers.
Mr David Hoe61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) for workers affected by retrenchment, what psychosocial or counselling support is available at the point of job loss; (b) how many retrenched workers have used such support over the past three years; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider strengthening referral mechanisms to such support at the point when workers are notified of retrenchment.
Ms Valerie Lee60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given that mature employees who are retrenched may take longer to secure new employment (a) how does the Ministry assess whether Career Conversion Programmes lead to sustained employment for mature workers following programme completion; and (b) what further measures are being considered to support their long-term employment and reduce the risk of repeated displacement.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower which sectors have consistently recorded the lowest six-month re-entry rates for retrenched resident Professionals, Managers, Executives, and Technicians (PMETs) in the last 14 quarters, up to and including the first and second quarters of 2026.
Dr Wan Rizal48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given the weaker re-employment outcomes among retrenched workers, (a) how employment facilitation and job-matching support are differentiated according to the needs of various worker profiles; and (b) how the Ministry assesses the effectiveness of such interventions in improving their re-entry into employment.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan39 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry identifies disguised retrenchments proactively; (b) if so, how; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider publishing clearer guidance to prevent the mislabelling and potential under-reporting of retrenchments by employers.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of the Ministry's latest quarterly Labour Market Report which indicated that most of the job losses are from outward-oriented sectors, whether the Ministry and its related job agencies have targeted measures to assist workers in these affected sectors to find employment and to shorten the time to find work.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given that the Ministry has recently highlighted that unemployment indicators among older resident workers aged 50 and above warranted closer monitoring (a) whether it will track earnings and employment stability for this group of workers over the next two years; and (b) what targeted measures will support these workers' employment.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim62 words
asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of Singapore's retrenchment rate hitting its highest level since 2020 (a) how do re-employment rates and time taken to secure work differ for retrenched persons with disabilities, and those with secondary education and below; and (b) whether these workers will receive dedicated placement support and additional financial assistance if still unemployed after six months.
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Ms Jasmin Lau)18 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 1 to 10 in today's Order Paper?
Mr Speaker4 words
[+2 sentences]Yes, you may. Proceed.
Ms Jasmin Lau2185 words
[+9 sentences]My response will also address questions for written answer from Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Patrick Tay, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Alex Yeo in today's Order Paper; and questions from Mr Shawn Loh and Mr Patrick Tay for the Sitting tomorrow. Where Members consider that their questions have been covered in this combined response, they may wish to withdraw them accordingly. Mr Speaker, the recent increase in retrenchments has understandably caused anxiety. Each retrenchment causes significant disruption to the lives of a worker and his or her family. I will first outline the overall labour market situation before addressing how we are supporting retrenched workers during this period. We are monitoring the labour market situation closely. Overall, the labour market continued to expand in the second quarter of 2026, and the number of job vacancies remains greater than the number of unemployed persons. At the same time, we are seeing signs of softening in sectors such as Information and Communications, and Financial Services, where job vacancies have declined and retrenchment numbers have risen. The primary driver of retrenchments continues to be business restructuring. Of the 4,620 workers retrenched in the second quarter of 2026, over three in four were retrenched due to business re-organisation or restructuring.[+15 sentences] The proportion of retrenchments due to a cyclical downturn remained low at 4.9%. Ms He Ting Ru asked if such retrenchments were driven by AI adoption. This is not clear at present, as it is difficult to isolate the specific impact of AI adoption from broader business transformation and re-organisation. That said, the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) surveys indicate that only a small minority of firms adopting AI have reduced headcount, while more are creating new roles or redesigning jobs. We will continue to refine our surveys and market-sensing mechanisms to better understand the impact of AI on jobs. Let me now speak on the profile of workers who have been retrenched. To address Mr Shawn Loh's question, the age and educational profiles of the retrenched cohort have remained broadly stable over the past five years. Those in their 40s and their 50s account for over half of retrenched residents. In terms of educational level, degree holders remained the largest group, with their share increasing from 51% in 2021 to 66.4% in 2025 among retrenched residents. Broadly similar trends were observed among long-term unemployed residents. To Ms He Ting Ru's question, about one in four retrenched workers were non-residents, comparable with recent quarters. Residents account for most retrenchments as they are disproportionately represented in professional, manager, executive and technician (PMET) roles which are more impacted by restructuring. Among PMETs, the likelihood of retrenchment was similar for residents and non-residents, at 3.2 in every 1,000 employees in each group in the second quarter of 2026. Retrenchments are part of business restructuring. The key is how soon retrenched workers return to employment. Re-entry outcomes have softened, with the proportion of retrenched residents returning to employment within six months declining from 60.7% in the first quarter, to 54.9% in the second quarter of this year.[+11 sentences] While seasonal hiring patterns partly explain the decline, the re-entry rate is lower than in previous years and shows a broader downtrend. The decline in the re-entry rate was most pronounced among clerical, sales and service workers, tertiary-educated residents and those aged below 30. The decline was also broad-based across industries, with larger decreases among those previously employed in Manufacturing, Information and Communications, Financial Services, and Professional Services. This reflects softer hiring demand in these sectors, which could contribute to longer re-entry. Transitioning to other sectors takes more time and effort. Across sectors, the sector with the lowest six-month re-entry rate for retrenched resident PMETs varied from quarter to quarter. Over the last 14 quarters, Financial Services recorded the lowest rate most often, followed by Wholesale Trade. To Ms Hazlina Halim's question, the six-month re-entry rate for those with secondary education and below was higher compared to the overall rate and their mean time taken to re-enter employment was correspondingly shorter. We do not collect information on the disability status of retrenched workers. To Ms He Ting Ru's question, we also do not track the re-entry of non-residents, as they may leave Singapore after retrenchment to return home or seek work elsewhere. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about longer-term re-entry outcomes. About seven in 10 PMET residents re-entered employment within 12 months of retrenchment, and about eight in 10 re-entered employment within 24 months, which is comparable to the re-entry rate in the previous quarter.[+16 sentences] Some may choose to exit the labour force. Older retrenched PMETs had lower re-entry rates at both the 12-month and 24-month time marks. Among those who re-entered, about six in 10 earned more than before retrenchment both at the 12-month and 24-month mark. Among those earning less, the median wage reduction was around 25% of pre-retrenchment wages. Mr Speaker, these figures show that there is no single experience of retrenchment. Some workers are able to move into new jobs relatively quickly, while others may face greater difficulties because of their age, skills, occupation or the sector they were previously working in. Some are able to find new jobs with the same or higher wages but others may experience pay reduction. Our approach therefore has two parts. First, we want to ensure that employers conduct retrenchments responsibly and treat affected workers fairly. Second, we support affected workers to navigate the transition and regain employment. To guide employers, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment (TAMEM) sets out tripartite partners' expectations of employers during workforce transitions, to ensure that workers are treated fairly. To Ms He Ting Ru's question, all firms receiving government grants are expected to abide by the spirit of responsible retrenchment as set out in TAMEM. MOM is working with the relevant agencies to explore ways to strengthen grant recipients' commitments to responsible employment practices and workforce transformation outcomes. Where there are signs of unfair displacement, MOM will investigate and take appropriate action. Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the effectiveness of TAMEM in getting employers to provide retrenchment benefits and which workers are least likely to receive retrenchment benefits. Thus far, TAMEM has been effective in encouraging most employers to provide retrenchment benefits. Based on Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN) data for 2025, around 88% of employers paid retrenchment benefits to employees.[+3 sentences] Of the remaining 12% of employers who did not pay retrenchment benefits, about one in five indicated that they had financial difficulties. The rest said they did not pay due to other reasons, including the lack of an obligation to do so, or because the employee was given other forms of support, such as keeping them on payroll for an extended period, or employment assistance payments. As shared previously, MOM and our tripartite partners are considering the issue of retrenchment benefits as part of the ongoing Employment Act review, including whether stronger obligations on employers are warranted. Regarding the profile of retrenched workers who did not receive retrenchment benefits, close to 80% were from companies with less than 200 employees.[+4 sentences] To Mr Patrick Tay's question about whether MOM identifies disguised retrenchments, tripartite partners provide advisory services that help employees identify whether a termination might constitute retrenchment. Where there are complaints of disguised retrenchments, MOM will investigate for signs such as a spike in contractual terminations within the company and engage the employer concerned. We agree that clearer guidance would help prevent mislabelling and under-reporting. MOM will work with tripartite partners to provide clearer guidance on what constitutes a retrenchment and the obligations that follow. To address questions from Mr David Hoe, Mr Alex Yeo and Mr Patrick Tay, as part of the on-going Employment Act review, tripartite partners are exploring measures to strengthen support for retrenched workers, including on the payment of retrenchment benefits and bringing forward the MRN notification period so that employment services can be offered to retrenched workers at the earliest feasible time.[+15 sentences] To Mr Patrick Tay's question, we have received Employment and Employability Institute's (e2i's) feedback regarding challenges in reaching retrenched workers directly when the MRN is submitted after they have left the company, as e2i may not have the contact details of affected employees. We are exploring how we can address this while protecting the privacy and personal preferences of retrenched workers. The Government is also working with tripartite partners to support retrenched workers to re-enter employment. Companies with 10 or more employees are required to submit an MRN to MOM when retrenching any employee. Upon receiving the MRNs or early retrenchment alert, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, consisting of MOM, the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA), the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and e2i, reaches out to all affected employees to offer employment facilitation support. This includes career guidance and coaching, job matching and skills upgrading advice tailored to workers' needs. We agree with Mr David Hoe that timely emotional support is important to help retrenched workers bounce back. This is why career coaches are trained to provide emotional support where needed, to help workers cope with job losses and manage career transitions. To Mr David Hoe's question, SWDA does not separately track the number of retrenched workers who have received psychosocial or counselling support through our career coaches as such support is provided when needed as part of career coaching. The initial job search can be difficult, especially for lower- to middle-income workers, if they have heavy financial responsibilities. The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme provides temporary financial support to involuntarily unemployed individuals while they actively seek employment and participate in job search and career-related activities. As businesses restructure and jobs transform, jobseekers may need to consider career switches which require more substantial reskilling. They can participate in Career Conversion Programmes, the Mid-Career Pathways Programme and the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programmes. To Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question about targeted measures in outward-oriented sectors such as Financial Services, and Information and Communications, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) have sectoral jobs and skills initiatives such as the Company-Led Training programme and Technology in Finance Immersion Programme to equip Singaporeans with skills to take on jobs in these sectors. To Dr Wan Rizal's question on how we ensure effectiveness of our interventions, we track programme take-up and employment outcomes, including how quickly jobseekers on these programmes secure re-employment. About six in 10 jobseekers who received career matching services found employment within six months, and nine in 10 Career Conversion Programme participants remained employed 24 months after embarking on the programme.[+8 sentences] We will continue to refine our support to improve these outcomes. We understand that some groups may require more targeted support after job loss, as highlighted by Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Jessica Tan. Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked about support for persons with disabilities. The Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities has recently released its recommendations, which include enhancing employment support and funding to support persons with disabilities in finding and sustaining employment. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Valerie Lee asked about support for older workers. We closely monitor their employment outcomes, including employment and unemployment rates, income and job mobility. Older workers have lower re-entry rates following retrenchment and may face greater barriers in returning to employment. This is also why, in response to Mr Shawn Loh's question, we provide enhanced support for Singaporeans aged 40 and above as part of our jobs and skills programmes like the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs). To Ms Valerie Lee's question, close to nine in 10 mature CCP participants remained employed 12 months after programme completion.[+6 sentences] This is encouraging. But reskilling alone cannot insulate older workers from future displacement, particularly in sectors undergoing rapid transformation. We therefore need to look beyond support at the point of retrenchment and at how we can help older workers remain employable throughout their careers. This is why MOM, NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) are studying broader measures under the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment to support older workers across their career journey and to enable longer, more sustainable careers. Mr Speaker, the labour market remains resilient, but there are signs of softening. We are therefore comprehensively reviewing our measures to see how we can strengthen support for workers. Specifically, tripartite partners are studying measures to ensure workers are treated fairly when retrenchments occur, including on the payment of retrenchment benefits and earlier access to employment facilitation services so that workers are supported at the earliest opportunity.[+3 sentences] We are also looking at how to support workers who face longer transitions back into employment, including older workers and those in sectors undergoing significant restructuring. This work is being taken forward through various reviews, including the ongoing Employment Act review and the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment. We will provide an update when these reviews are completed.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol)113 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, the Acting Minister mentioned that only about one in five employers who did not pay retrenchment benefits were unable to do so because of financial difficulties, and that in some other cases, employers felt that they were just not obliged to pay. Given that MOM had previously found that unionised companies were more likely to pay retrenchment benefits, what kind of safeguards are there for workers in non-unionised companies to ensure that the tripartite advisory is meaningfully adhered to, particularly as we wait for the changes to the Employment Act? And this is specifically for employers who have financial means to pay, but they are not legally obliged to do so.
Ms Jasmin Lau152 words
[+3 sentences]I thank the Member for her question. As mentioned, the tripartite partners are studying ways to strengthen support for retrenched workers as part of the review of the Employment Act. This includes studying how to strengthen compliance with TAMEM. One option we are considering is to take administrative action against employers who do not pay retrenchment benefits in egregious cases where an employer has the financial ability to pay, but refuses to, despite repeated engagements and warnings.[+3 sentences] The tripartite partners are aware of the need to balance strengthening worker protections with maintaining reasonable business costs. We will need to consider how to strengthen compliance with TAMEM carefully, as some employers conducting retrenchments face genuine financial difficulties and we do not want to inadvertently place more jobs at risk by imposing a rigid obligation on employers, regardless of their situation. We will provide an update on the Employment Act review in due course.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas)117 words
[+4 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for her response. My questions also pertain to retrenchment benefits. Given that retrenchment benefits are not mandatory, does the Ministry see a case for strengthening the prevailing norm, particularly for workers who are most vulnerable? Can the Acting Minister also clarify what proportion of retrenched workers who do not receive retrenchment benefits from their employers are also ineligible for the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme and whether MOM is concerned about a potential support gap for this group of retrenched workers?[+1 sentence] Can the Acting Minister also share what specific criteria would the Ministry use in deciding whether additional support measures are warranted for this vulnerable group of retrenched workers?
Ms Jasmin Lau102 words
[+5 sentences]I thank the Member for his questions. On the first question, we will update on the Employment Act review in due course. For the second question on combining the data between retrenched workers who do not receive benefits and those who also do not qualify for our schemes, we thank the Member for the question. We will have to get back to him on the data. And on the third question on deciding additional support, we are taking a comprehensive look across all of our schemes to determine which ones need to be strengthened to provide additional support across the labour force.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok)202 words
[+6 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for her response. I am specifically heartened to know that the career coaches do journey with the retrenched workers to provide emotional support. But specifically for retrenched workers who in their late 40s to 50s, the challenge is not about acquiring new skills, but multiple times, when we meet residents in Meet-the-People Sessions, they face multiple rejections. At the same time, some of them would then transit to a role that might not be a skill that they have acquired. Some even take on a lower salary job. I would like to ask on how the employment support system help our retrenched workers to: number one, build confidence; number two, navigate transition transitions; and more importantly, preserve their dignity in this entire process? My second question is that I understand that the entry-level PMET vacancy has decreased from 32,800 to 31,700.[+2 sentences] I would like to ask whether fresh graduates take a longer time in finding full-time employment and is it specific in any particular industry? If so, does the employment support system help them to navigate this journey in trying to find a full-time job, even though it takes a longer time?
Ms Jasmin Lau493 words
[+6 sentences]I thank the Member for raising these important points. He is right that for many workers beyond acquiring skills, there is a psychological toll of repeated rejection and having to deal with very difficult trade-offs – whether to accept lower pay, a less senior role or a very different kind of work from what they have spend their careers building. Our employment support needs to be guided by two principles to help workers navigate these decisions. The first is that we respect the individual's situation and the circumstances of every worker. There is no single formula for when to persist, when to pivot or when to consider a very different role. The right answer would depend on the individual's financial situation, the family circumstances, his or her health and their personal aspirations. Our career coaches at the e2i and SWDA are therefore trained to work with every worker as an individual, providing not just job-matching services and advice on skills upgrading, but emotional support to walk with them, to process the experience of the job loss and to rebuild their confidence.[+9 sentences] We want to make sure that career decisions are made on their own terms, in a way that preserves their dignity and their confidence. The second principle is that workers are best served by full and honest information about the job market. This means being detailed and transparent to all workers about which sectors are growing, where hiring demand is strong and also where it has softened, so that workers can make informed decisions rather than searching in the dark by themselves. Our career coaches help the workers assess realistic demand for their existing skills, identify possibly transferable skills that could open doors in adjacent fields and then, think through the trade-offs honestly, including the possibility of lateral moves that draw on their experience without requiring them to start over completely. Beyond individual coaching, we are also working with employers to encourage more age-inclusive hiring practices. And the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment is studying broader measures to support older workers across their career journey. Ultimately, we want to ensure that the dignity and contributions of these workers are recognised and that our support system reflects that. On fresh graduates, fresh graduates are taking longer to secure their first full-time job, compared to a few years ago, and this reflects the softer hiring conditions in certain sectors. We are monitoring this closely, especially for the 2026 graduating cohort, and we will know their six-month employment outcomes pretty soon. For fresh graduates who are struggling to find employment, we do have the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) Programme, which provides our graduates with the opportunity to gain industry relevant experience and build their professional networks.[+1 sentence] SWDA's career services are also available to fresh graduates and we will continue working with the universities and polytechnics to ensure that career support is available to graduates from the point of graduation, and not just during their studies.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Valerie Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi)107 words
[+6 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister. I am glad to know that nine out of 10 of our mature workers remain employed 12 months after the CCP. I would like to ask how does MOM determine or measure success for these CCPs? For example, does MOM currently consider a worker to have successfully transitioned if they remain employed? Do they look at wage progression, or whether they are subsequently retrenched again? My second supplementary question would be given that mature retrenched workers may take longer to secure employment, is MOM considering additional support beyond SkillsFuture support during the period between retrenchment and re-employment?
Ms Jasmin Lau156 words
[+1 sentence]I thank the Member for her questions. In terms of success for CCPs, yes, we do monitor the employment outcomes, but also the wages that the participants in the Programme continue to earn.[+4 sentences] At the same time, we also design the programmes to fill existing skills gaps in certain industries. So, we must also take a look at whether or not the programmes meet and fill the skills gaps that the employers seek to fill up. Over time, we will review the effectiveness of the CCPs to relook at not just more sectors where the programmes can be applied to, but also specific occupations and roles in the sectors that they are already currently in and to see whether we can expand the scope of the programmes more. In terms of additional support, like I mentioned just now, we are in the process of reviewing our job support measures and we will update in due course.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer)309 words
[+14 sentences]I thank the Acting Minister for the response and answering some of the questions that we have posed. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, with our shrinking local workforce, which is imminent, can I suggest for MOM to pay a closer look at and monitor, in particular, under-employment? Not the time-based kind, but the non-time-based kind, and where it is involuntary. Because as we help people re-enter the workforce, and they may already have very good skills and certifications, but are doing a much lesser job, and that might affect their morale and frustrations. The second one is I am glad to hear from the Acting Minister that we are relooking at and reviewing the CCP. I think we can do more, in terms of broader scope of CCPs available, because different people have different abilities, appetite, skills and preferences. I thought that would be very, very good. More importantly, the third supplementary question is how can we better support the well-being of all these individuals or workers who enter into employment – through the CCP, through GRIT, through the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme? Earlier, the Acting Minister shared they stay on, on average, two years for the CCPs. I suppose that is because there is a bond for two years, so they have no choice and most of them have to stay for two years. But I am thinking more of their well-being, and their coaching and mentoring. I think we can do more in that aspect. Because the human resources (HR), human capital practitioner may be very, very good, the employer may be very, very progressive, but sometimes the line supervisor, co-workers, particularly in our multi-generational workforce, they may be exacting pressures on them because they are going through something very new, sometimes even adjacent sectors, I have handled retrenched workers before when they move to —
Mr Speaker12 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Tay, you may want to ask your supplementary question directly, please.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan14 words
[+2 sentences]Thank you. So, basically, can we do more to support these workers in employment?
Ms Jasmin Lau15 words
[+2 sentences]Can I clarify what was the second question? I heard the first and third ones.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan30 words
[+2 sentences]The second question was about expanding CCPs and workers' well-being. The final one was on coaching and mentoring of workers already in the job to help them stay in it.
Ms Jasmin Lau174 words
[+6 sentences]I thank the Member for his questions. My answer is short. Yes, noted on the suggestions. We will pay close attention to under-employment. We may call it under-employment at this point, but this is really a question about whether workers or graduates who have trained for many years in a certain skills-set or programme, whether they feel that when they come out to work, they are able to apply the skills they have learnt. While today, we call it "under-employment"; tomorrow, there is a different term but we will have to look at the relevance of the skills they have learnt and how these are applied in their future careers. To the rest of the questions, I think, well noted, we will review CCPs, the scope of these programmes in the sectors they are applied in, and also how to support the workers along the way and to understand what their experience is like moving into a different sector and into a different company, where the profile of their colleagues could be very different.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar)109 words
[+5 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for sharing the current landscape of unemployment and retrenchment here in Singapore. Among retrenched workers, the mature PMETs often face longer unemployment and re-entry in that aspect. Does the Ministry track outcomes significantly or separately for this group and what further measures are being considered to support the sustainable employment of these mature PMEs? In assessing effectiveness, which is a continuation of my Parliamentary Question, does the Ministry look beyond just the job placement rates to indicators such as wage recovery, occupational downgrading and whether the next employment is a fixed term, a contract, a permanent offer, or even self-employment?
Ms Jasmin Lau196 words
[+1 sentence]I thank the Member for his questions. From my Parliamentary Question reply, you would have noticed that we do monitor much of what the Member has suggested – mature PMETs by age categories, their re-entry rates at the six-, 12-, 24-month marks; some of it, I have already mentioned in the reply.[+1 sentence] And also, as a response to the earlier supplementary questions, I did say that we are in the process of reviewing our schemes to look at how to better support our workers in the transition of our economy today. In terms of measuring effectiveness, yes, we measure placement rate, we do look at the wages.[+4 sentences] In my earlier Parliamentary Question reply, I also gave a sense of the wage differences when they move into different roles. Some do move into roles with higher wages and some are not able to do so. We will take note of the point around models of employment, which are rapidly changing – whether they are moving from full-time jobs into contract roles or contract for service. That is something quite important because the benefits and support that they may receive through contracts of service may be quite different.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang)96 words
[+3 sentences]Sir, in the Ministry's latest quarterly labour market report, it was indicated that most of the job losses are from the outward-oriented sectors. Can I further ask the Acting Minister whether this job losses that were observed, have they affected the Singapore Citizens workforce and the foreign workforce – particularly the Employment Pass (EPs) and Special Pass (S Pass) holders – differently? My second question is whether MOM envisages the need to review and recalibrate the number of EPs and S Passes given the changes to the economy and the softening of the labour market environment?
Ms Jasmin Lau156 words
[+1 sentence]I thank the Member for his questions. [restates an earlier point]As mentioned in my earlier reply, the likelihood of retrenchment was similar for residents PMETs and non-resident PMETs, at 3.2 in every 1,000 employees in each group in the second quarter of 2026.[+1 sentence] Non-resident PMETs typically comprise of EPs and S Pass holders. In addition, the total number of EP and S Pass holders each declined by 900 in the second quarter of 2026.[+4 sentences] This decline was concentrated in outward-oriented sectors such as Professional Services, Financial Services, and Information and Communications, while residents employment in these sectors actually increased. We will continue to monitor labour market conditions including employment outcomes for Singaporeans and the foreign workforce. MOM does constantly review our policies to ensure that our foreign workforce complements locals. We constantly review them not just during a period of increased retrenchments and we do this to ensure that Singaporeans will continue to have access to good job opportunities.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh)216 words
[+8 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Acting Minister for answering my Parliamentary Question. I have two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker. One is in relation to the workers aged 50 and above. The background to this is that I met a few residents just recently – one of them 50-plus years old, worked more than 25 years in the Information and Communications industry, just got retrenched, he has children. The first question I have is whether MOM is assessing those aged 50 and above face increased risk of prolonged unemployment, particularly in sectors that are facing global retrenching, and does the Acting Minister see further changes in some of those sectors, such as Information and Communications, and other such sectors, or maybe new sectors? Maybe the Acting Minister can share on that. The second supplementary question is beyond the measures that some Members have asked about – extending measures for support beyond six months to help them as they search for jobs, as the Acting Minister mentioned, some of them taking maybe up to 12 months and above – whether we can take a more proactive engagement in some sectors that we possibly expect some uncertainty, and whether we can take take proactive engagement in workers of those sectors, before they get retrenched?
Ms Jasmin Lau248 words
[+7 sentences]I thank the Member for his questions. I think the trend that he has observed is similar to what many of us have experienced on the ground where workers aged 50 and above who have worked for many years, do experience difficulties in moving into their next role. Information and Communications is one of the sectors where this often happens. But overall, I think it is too early to tell whether or not the retrenchments will persist and also how long it will persist. The retrenchment pressures have so far been concentrated in these particular sectors that I mentioned: Manufacturing, Information and Communications, and Financial Services. I think we will monitor for a while more before signalling that these sectors are going to be highly at risk, as this will create even more anxieties for the workers in these sectors. Beyond support measures when workers are already out of employment, we are engaging workers and employers in these sectors proactively to help them transition their workers into roles and jobs that have more promising growth opportunities. For example, in Information and Communications, we are seeing companies transition their workers from software developers into cybersecurity experts, and there are Government schemes that help companies through that transition so that they can provide training for workers already with them, and then, there, hopefully, is no need for such retrenchments.[+1 sentence] We will look at whether this can be done for other sectors or for more occupations and roles within each sector.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast)147 words
[+6 sentences]Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister. I note the Acting Minister's response on the Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons With Disabilities which touched on more workplace support for persons with disabilities, particularly, the cliff of 18 years old. And I refer also to the announcement that MOM had made, which is on the Enabling Employment Credit review, which will be seeing an increase. My question is on two fronts. First, is beyond the hard improvements, how else would MOM consider working with social service agencies to reshape the culture of the workplace beyond support for the intended persons with disabilities or persons from a lower educational background? Second is, will the Ministry consider what we would call an Enabling Workplace Credit, which would also support fellow colleagues in shaping the culture that is more welcoming and more inclusive for differently abled persons?
Ms Jasmin Lau143 words
[+5 sentences]I thank the Member for her questions and for also noting that we are enhancing our Enabling Employment Credit. Funding aside, we will work with the new Employment Support Office that will be set up by SG Enable. It will be able to provide employment services, specifically for persons with disabilities, as well as their caregivers, and that provides us an organisation for MOM to work more closely with, so that persons with disabilities are able to find employment opportunities suitable for them. Enabling employment support will also be provided to employers through the Enabling Employment Grant by the Ministry of Social and Family Development. This grant will support employers in designing and improving their workplace practices so that colleagues, the physical infrastructure, HR practices and so on, are designed in a way that are more inclusive for all persons, regardless of ability.
[+3 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. In a dynamic economy, some retrenchments are unavoidable. But what can be avoided is the negative impact on the confidence and dignity of the workers affected. The best way to do so is to provide the support to those who find themselves in unemployment, to then allow them to find employment faster. So, I was most alarmed by the data that showed that the re-entry rate of many of our workers has gotten poorer, including workers aged 30 and below. I have one question, which is that, notwithstanding the Acting Minister's reply about the age 40 cut-off to decide how much support to give firms to hire workers, whether we could instead consider giving support to firms to hire workers, based on how long the workers have been unemployed for.
Ms Jasmin Lau150 words
[+1 sentence]I thank the Member for his question. I think employers need to decide who they hire based on the skills gaps they have in their companies and not based on how long workers have been unemployed for.[+4 sentences] For a functioning company – and we want all companies in Singapore to be well positioned for growth and for success – we want to make sure that the labour market measures we have, support them in those efforts. We want to make sure that it is a flexible and mobile market where they are able to select workers best fit for their companies, best able to support growth. And separately, we will do our best to support workers in acquiring those skills, regardless of how long they have been unemployed for. I think that is a better way of ensuring that both companies and workers can succeed in this rapidly changing economy.
Strengthening Legislative Measures for Youths Involved in Scam-related Offences›Oral Answers to Questions9 turns · 3,023w
· 16 highlighted
oral-answer-4225
Mr Christopher de Souza36 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider introducing additional legislative amendments or measures with regard to sentencing provisions for youth involved in scam-related offences.
Mr Speaker161 words
[+1 sentence]Order. [chair housekeeping]Before I call on the Minister to reply to Question No 11, I wish to highlight to Members that the Parliamentary Question may be related to a case, Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, which may be pending before the Courts. I have allowed the question to stand on today's Order Paper because I am satisfied that it does not require answers that venture into legal issues before the Courts nor impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance maintained between this House and the Judiciary.[+3 sentences] I would like to, therefore, advise Members to exercise caution in making any statement or asking any supplementary questions discussing or reflecting the details of the case as it could have the potential to concern matters that are sub judice or may prejudice the legal proceedings and the interests of the parties to the matter. Following Standing Order 21(1)(h), I will rule such statements and supplementary questions out of order. Minister.
The Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam)1782 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, my response to Mr Christopher de Souza will also address a related question on young offenders committing scams, related offences filed by Ms Cassandra Lee for today's Sitting, as well as by Dr Wan Rizal1 for a subsequent Sitting. If Dr Wan Rizal is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw his question. Members of this House would be aware that scams are now the most prevalent crime type in Singapore. In the first half of 2026, the Police received, on average, about 90 reported scam cases every single day, which involved about $2 million lost every single day.[+1 sentence] My Ministry is particularly concerned that many young people are getting involved in scams-related offences. In 2025, more than 1,000 young persons were investigated in connection with scam reports.[+2 sentences] Each time we have such a case, it is understandable that we look at the age of the offender and feel sympathetic. But spare a thought also for the victims, including elderly victims. In 2025, there were more than 5,000 elderly victims of scams.[+1 sentence] The majority were retired and unemployed. Losses from these cases amounted to around $200 million.[+44 sentences] So, think of senior citizens losing their life savings and not knowing how they can eke out a living for the rest of their lives. Members would have come across these elderly couples, who bring their bank statements and show the withdrawals made by scammers – sometimes, a few hundred thousand dollars, or even more. They have worked hard, they have saved carefully. Then, one day, a scammer takes it all away. The couple will be in distress because they have lost their life savings – and stressed, because they have no money for their future expenses. Who is responsible? The scammers. Who helped them? The person who gave up his or her bank account, including young persons who do it to earn a few hundred dollars. Let me give you a couple of actual examples. In March 2024, the Police received a report from a 68-year-old victim who had been scammed. He had transferred more than $217,000 to a bank account belonging to a 16-year-old. This 16-year-old young person had allowed the use of his account for the purpose of getting some quick cash – $1,000. In another scam case in February 2024, an 18-year-old gave up her Singpass account after being offered at least $1,000. The Singpass account was used to open three bank accounts, which were used to launder more than $217,000 from seven scam victims – two of these victims were above 65 years old; the oldest victim was 74 years old. So, you can see the consequences that can flow from the actions of a money mule, regardless of how young or old the mule is. I had considered showing you the photos and names of some of these victims. But the victims were concerned. They did not want the stigma of being identified as a scam victim, naturally. So, being a scam victim carries more than just financial consequences. Our task is to decide how best we can prevent these offences from being perpetrated. I have previously said, in general, as a matter of criminal philosophy, penal philosophy, our approach for the penalties to be imposed for an offence has four aspects: one, deterrence; two, prevention; three, retribution; and four, rehabilitation of the offender. Which aspect is the predominant consideration would depend on the facts, though generally, we have placed weight on rehabilitation, primary; deterrence, very important; and prevention, very important. In the context of scams, to me, the most important principle is, however, deterrence. There are two aspects to this: first, to deter the person from doing it again; and second, to deter everyone else from doing it. Then, fewer people will lose their life savings. Young people do deserve sympathy in general. Over the years, we have changed our legislation to bring in rehabilitative justice, including through community-based sentences, probation and reformative training. Young people are generally dealt with within that framework. In 2025, we further expanded the jurisdiction of the Youth Court from youths below 17 to youths aged below 18. The Youth Court mainly dispenses rehabilitative sentences. Generally, young offenders who require more intensive and structured rehabilitation are sent by the Courts to the Reformative Training Centres (RTC). At RTC, they are engaged in various psychology-based correctional programmes, and these are complemented where necessary by education, skills training, family programmes and re-integration support. We take rehabilitation very seriously. We accept young people should be given guidance, and we should try and rehabilitate them as much as possible, rather than immediately treat them as hardened criminals. But for scam-related offences, the Government has made a deliberate policy judgement that deterrence and prevention must carry far greater weight. This is because rehabilitation of the individual offender has to be balanced against the need to deter others from facilitating scams and thereby prevent many more people from becoming victims. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had therefore put before this House new legislation over the last three years to tighten the penalties for scams-related offences, including through the introduction of caning. When these laws were debated, Parliament deliberately made no distinction between young and not-so-young offenders. We then worked with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to develop sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Advisory Panel includes members from the Judiciary – its then-Chairman when we developed these guidelines for scams was Justice of the Court of Appeal, Mr Tay Yong Kwang – and it includes other Judges as well as members from the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Public Defender's Office, the Bar and my Ministry. The Sentencing Advisory Panel worked intensively on the sentencing guidelines for scam offences. The Guidelines recommend imprisonment or reformative training when sentencing scams-related offenders, including those below the age of 21, except those who are dealt with in the Youth Court. Of course, on the actual sentence to be imposed on any individual case, the Courts will retain the final discretion. The total figure lost to scams reached a peak of $1.1 billion in 2024.[+3 sentences] After we put in place these measures progressively over the three years, scam losses have decreased slightly. But scammers have continued to adapt and attempt to overcome our measures. So, this is certainly not the time to go soft. On 10 September 2026, last month, a three-judge quorum of the High Court decided, in Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, the three-Judge Court decided to allow several Magistrate's Appeals by youth offenders who were involved in scams-related offences.[+26 sentences] The Court sentenced them to probation and community sentences instead of more deterrent sentences. One of the appeals, for example, relates to one Seyfqan. At the age of 18, he was offered $800 to open and give up a bank account. The account was then used to open a second bank account. A 66-year-old victim transferred almost $200,000 to this second account after being scammed. The High Court decided, for a number of reasons, that probation was appropriate for this person, Seyfqan. This was, among other things, because, and I quote, "the primary sentencing consideration for young offenders will generally, or presumptively, be rehabilitation". This rationale by the High Court contradicts the approach set out in the Sentencing Advisory Guidelines. The guidelines say, and I quote, "Fines, probation and community sentences are generally not appropriate. Imprisonment or reformative training, whichever is more appropriate, should be considered given the need for deterrence and the public interest in suppressing scams." It is understandable for the Court, which comprised two Court of Appeal Judges here, including the Chief Justice, looking at the individual young offenders in front of them, to feel sympathy for those individuals and be inclined to impose rehabilitative sentences on youth offenders. However, the Court did not have before it the policy perspectives that I have just laid out nor the data on the scale of the problem of scams and scammers, the huge amount of losses through scams and the full human cost of such scams. But the Government has to consider the wider consequences. If we are lenient towards scammers and those who facilitate scams, many more Singaporeans will fall victim, including senior citizens who may lose their entire life savings. And if young offenders are being treated more leniently simply because of their age, you can be sure that scam syndicates will have every incentive to recruit more young people as mules. We cannot and will not allow this to happen. This was why Parliament took a tough approach in our recent rounds of amendments to the relevant legislation. We wanted this message to go out that every offender, young or old, will be very seriously dealt with. If a number of cases are dealt with in this way, seriously, many other would-be offenders would take reference. Word will get around and people, including young people, will be much more careful. That will make it harder for scammers to operate and help to reduce the number of victims and the losses they suffer. The High Court said that legislation must be clear. We had proceeded on the basis that the legislation was clear. The guidelines were also clear. They are clear. I have quoted them. However, the Court has expressed a different view on the legislation. We respect the Court's views, but we will give effect to the policy position I have outlined and we will table legislation in Parliament soon. It will be quite express and will make clear that the position in Erzan is not to be followed. We will reinforce through the law the approach of imposing deterrent sentences on all scammers and those who facilitate scams, including those who are young.[+9 sentences] Young people may be attracted by the promise of quick money. They may be misled by purported job offers. They may be influenced by peers, or they may be approached through social media. Some may not fully appreciate that their actions can enable serious criminal activity. Criminal syndicates exploit precisely this combination of inexperience, financial temptation and digital exposure. That is why education is another key strategy to prevent youth offending. To Dr Wan Rizal's question, the Police work with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to conduct crime prevention talks in schools and to disseminate anti-scam advisories through the Parents Gateway platform. In April 2026, we launched a youth-centric anti-scam campaign to warn young people against selling or providing access to their bank accounts, SIM cards and Singpass credentials. We will also study Ms Cassandra Lee's suggestion, including whether structured scam-awareness and financial-literacy training would be appropriate and effective for youths who are issued with conditional warnings.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar)146 words
[+9 sentences]Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing our approach towards scams in Singapore. I agree on the importance of deterrence. And I also agree on the importance of the strategy of going through education. I do believe that going to school is the right way, and getting parents informed is another. But my worry is this – the youths are being tempted through other means. In this case, I believe it is social media as one of the options. Could we do more in cutting down this load of information coming to them? And at the same time, our education should also be a bit more open. We should probably push out this information to social media, where the youths have constant access to and are able to know what is really happening, because I do believe that we need more ways to get them engaged.
Mr K Shanmugam366 words
[+22 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the young people that we pick up and investigate know precisely what they were doing. They were offered an amount of money. They knew that they should not be doing it. But they were tempted by the $800 or $1,000 that they were offered. They thought it was a quick way of getting money. So, I think in all of these questions, let us start with individual responsibility. Age is relevant but let us not understate the importance of holding individuals responsible when they knew what they were doing; and many of them know what they are doing. We take age into account, youthfulness into account, so as not to treat them as hardened criminals and so as to give them an approach which would better rehabilitate them so that they would not repeat the mistake. But as I have explained at some length, why we need to take a different approach in the case of scams. So, let us start with individual responsibility. The boys and girls who do this know what they are doing primarily. What are we doing about it? I have talked about education. We have gone to the schools. We worked with MOE. We have gone to the institutes of higher learning (IHLs). We put out measures there. We also have major initiatives. Like last year, we did a major initiative, through the Internet, a challenge for young people to come and see what happens when scams take place and how they should stay away. It is difficult to police the Internet in the way that Dr Wan Rizal may be suggesting, but I think what is certainly possible and what we are seeking to do, and we will continue to do, is to use both the online media channels as well as the physical media, as I said, personal visits to schools and IHLs and posters and other means, to bring across the importance of not being involved in scams. But the necessary part of it will also have to be deterrence. I think people have to know, whether young or old, that they will face very stiff penalties if they do commit these offences.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Cassandra Lee.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West)118 words
[+4 sentences]I thank the Minister for his clarification and for taking my suggestion. I have seen parents and their children at my Meet-the-People Sessions, where they come together and tell me that they have been deceived and manipulated into becoming money mules or becoming involved in scams. I recognise the fact that these may be limited, but there may be some cases where we have two sets of victims. We ask the Minister whether, in the tabling of the new Bill, we will consider what deterrence would be most effective for youths, including whether or not they have the ability to report themselves and receive lighter sentences if they come out and tell the Police what has been happening.
Mr K Shanmugam408 words
[+5 sentences]Thank you, Sir. In working on these issues, as a matter of public policy, we have to design it to cover a broad range of circumstances but also allow for some discretion to be exercised in individual cases. For every one case that the Member might meet, where parents bring their young persons around and say that they were deceived, the Member will also see – and many Members of Parliament have seen and I have seen – several senior citizens who come and say they have lost their life savings. This is why I said it is always a balance. And the key must be to protect people from losing their money – people in their 40s, 50s and 60s – these are significant amount of monies. As I said, every day, $2 million being lost.[+1 sentence] We need to help them. So, when it comes to this, to me, deterrence is the primary factor to stop it from happening.[+2 sentences] If they know, just like in Singapore, people know that in many other cases, if you commit an offence, you are likely to be found out and caught; and if you are caught, you are likely to be found guilty, and that is a very significant influence on conduct. We need to bring that same attitude towards scams, because otherwise people think, "Well, I get a bit of money and I get maybe a rap on the knuckles". Having said that, I recognise that there will be some young people who were genuinely misled, which is why the legislation and the Sentencing Advisory Guidelines, too, took into account the possibility that if the person did not know what he was doing or was genuinely misled, it is possible for the person to face a different sentence, even probation.[+5 sentences] So, the reformative training by way of detention or a custodial sentence is not mandatory. We are not mandating custodial sentences. The Courts do have a discretion in terms of looking at the facts and saying this young person was genuinely misled, it was not his or her fault. But there are some fairly clear criteria on assessing this. So, there are exceptions possible; but subject to that, I think we ought to go with the approach of deterrence and we ought to go with the approach of a massive public education so that people understand, young people understand. [restates an earlier point]As I said, this is not an occasion to go soft.
Elaboration on Challenges and Assistance for Residents, Commuters and Businesses Affected by North-South Corridor's Delayed Completion›Oral Answers to Questions27 turns · 3,155w
· 19 highlighted
oral-answer-4226
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport in light of LTA's announcement of unexpected new challenges in the construction of the North-South Corridor in September 2026, what impact are these challenges expected to have on residents and commuters affected by the ongoing construction.
Mr Yip Hon Weng60 words
asked the Minister for Transport regarding the two-year delay to the North-South Corridor (a) why affected stakeholders were not alerted earlier to emerging ground condition risks and potential delays; (b) what accountability frameworks, cost-overrun liabilities, and contractual penalties apply to the project teams and contractors; and (c) what measures will prevent further delays beyond the revised 2029 and 2031 milestones.
Ms Poh Li San65 words
asked the Minister for Transport as the completion of the expressway for the North-South Corridor will be delayed by two years (a) how will affected residents and business owners along the Lentor Avenue to Admiralty Road West viaduct section be supported with the longer periods of road closures and noise disturbances; and (b) how will construction safety be stepped up given the harder-than-expected site conditions.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis63 words
asked the Minister for Transport regarding delays to the North-South Corridor (a) whether engineering complexities and geological, groundwater and subsurface risks encountered were identified in pre-construction site investigations; (b) if so, why were they not adequately addressed as part of construction plans; and (c) whether the LTA can publish the ground information provided to tenderers and the actual conditions encountered at affected sites.
Ms Lee Hui Ying54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the assessment of the additional impact of the delayed completion of the North-South Corridor on Nee Soon South residents and businesses near the construction sites, including prolonged noise and dust exposure and disruption to access; and (b) what are the measures taken to mitigate the impact.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye47 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport in view of the revised completion timeline for the North-South Corridor and LTA's plans to expedite works where feasible, what additional workplace safety safeguards will be implemented to ensure that increased schedule pressures on contractors and subcontractors do not compromise worker safety.
The Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow)25 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 12 to 17 together, as well as related questions filed for subsequent Sittings?
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Please go ahead.
Mr Jeffrey Siow1391 words
[+25 sentences]Thank you, Sir. I thank the Members for their questions on the North-South Corridor. Mr Speaker, I know the revised timeline for the North-South Corridor has caused significant unhappiness, particularly amongst those who have already been living with the construction for some time. For residents, it means more noise, more dust and general inconvenience at home. For businesses, it has affected customer traffic. And for commuters and motorists, road diversions have meant congestion and longer journeys. This is not the first time that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has revised the timelines for the North-South Corridor. So, I fully understand the frustration. I would like to explain three key aspects of the delay in my response today. First, why LTA has concluded that more time is necessary; second, what we are doing to improve conditions for residents and businesses in the meantime; and third, how LTA will complete the remaining works safely. Mr Speaker, the North-South Corridor is one of the most complex road projects we have undertaken in Singapore. It passes through densely built-up areas, including homes and older buildings, and bypasses major utilities, heavily used roads and even Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines. In some spaces or places, we had to tunnel less than one-metre away from the North-South Line and Circle Line. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua asked if soil investigations had surfaced sufficient information on underground conditions and engineering risks, and whether such information is shared with tenderers. The answer is yes. LTA already shares its soil investigation results publicly through the Integrated Land Information Service web portal. This includes both pre-construction information and actual ground conditions as the information is uncovered. But soil investigations are not exhaustive. They are done on a sampling basis, using both scanning tools as well as physical drilling in key areas. There are limits to what we can detect, especially when ground conditions are variable. As excavation progressed, it turned out that the actual conditions at several locations were different and in fact, more difficult than the soil investigations had earlier indicated. For example, at Gambas Avenue and Woodlands Avenue 8, harder rock was found at shallower depths than expected. And at Novena, the rock was fractured and groundwater was seeping through the cracks. After encountering these obstacles, LTA and its contractors tried various ways to resolve the problems. They deployed additional manpower and equipment, adjusted construction methods and changed the sequence of works where possible. After going through all possible options, LTA's engineers have assessed that trying to compress the programme further would introduce significant additional safety risks.[+4 sentences] Mr Speaker, this is not a trade-off that we should make. As I shared, these works are taking place beside people's homes, roads that remain in use and in some places, operational MRT infrastructure. We will move as quickly as we safely can. But we will not rush the work, if doing so puts workers, residents or commuters at risk. The revised plan is therefore for the viaduct from Admiralty Road West to Lentor Avenue to open in phases from 2029, and the tunnel from Lentor Avenue to the East Coast Parkway to open in phases from 2031.[+5 sentences] Mr Jackson Lam, Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the cost of this delay. The delay will likely result in a higher project cost. But as LTA is still assessing the extent of permissible claims by contract, we are unable to provide an updated project cost at this point, and we will do so later. Ms Denise Phua, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms Joan Pereira as well as Ms Elysa Chen asked what can be done for residents and businesses. While we have revised the opening dates, the current conditions will improve as we get closer to completion. Residents' concerns about noise, dust and disamenities are generally due to construction works and activities on the surface. I have asked LTA to prioritise the completion of surface works, so that surface conditions start to improve from next year onwards.[+27 sentences] We should be able to complete most of the major structural works that create the most noise and dust by the end of 2027. Thereafter, LTA will begin reinstating roads, footpaths and other affected spaces from 2028 onwards. For example, by mid-2028, the surface for Lentor Avenue and Sembawang Road should be fully restored. I have also asked LTA to pay particular attention to businesses along the construction route. For neighbourhood businesses, changes to pedestrian routes or road access affect customer traffic. We know that. LTA has installed signs and banners to help guide customers to the affected businesses. When surface works have completed, many access routes for pedestrians will be restored, as a priority. In the meantime, LTA will also try to introduce more direct walking routes to shops and food and beverage establishments, to make it easier for customers to reach these businesses. The circumstances differ from location to location. LTA will work closely with advisers to engage residents and businesses on the ground as the works progress. Where there are practical things that can be done to improve conditions, we will consider them seriously. Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Ms Joan Pereira also asked if additional financial support could be given to affected businesses and residents. Several businesses in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental shops most affected by the construction works have been receiving rental rebates on a case-by-case basis. HDB will continue to extend these rebates where there are grounds to do so. But as a general principle, the Government does not compensate stakeholders for project delays. Doing so would add significant costs upfront to these projects, because we would have to insure against multiple unknown scenarios. But that does not mean we are leaving businesses and residents to fend for themselves. As I emphasised, we will do whatever we can to complete the project as soon as possible, and work with the advisers to improve the conditions as quickly as we can. Sir, let me now briefly speak about how LTA will complete the remaining works safely and efficiently. I am glad that several Members have emphasised the importance of safety. Many Singaporeans have also written to me in the aftermath of the announcement expressing the same sentiment – that it is better to build safely than to rush the work. I agree completely. I want to assure Members that LTA is on top fully, of the safety agenda. Safety checks are built into every stage. I recently visited one of the North-South Corridor worksites and the LTA engineers showed me all that they are doing. Before works begin, professional engineers review the design and work procedures, and contingency plans are also put in place. During the works, LTA monitors the ground, groundwater, nearby buildings and structures using an array of instruments, including sensors, to monitor the slightest vibrations, cracks or tilts.[+2 sentences] These sensors issue early warning alerts if there are any anomalies, like ground displacement. The teams take all necessary precautions. If they detect anything that requires further investigations, the works will be paused until engineers determine that it is safe to continue.[+1 sentence] If ground conditions differ from what was expected, LTA will adjust construction methods accordingly. For example, due to ground conditions at Novena, LTA switched to excavating in smaller sections, so that each section could be strengthened before workers move to the next.[+8 sentences] And if any feedback from residents and businesses is received in the vicinity, LTA responds very quickly. Mr Speaker, the North-South Corridor is needed to improve connectivity between the north and the city, while giving us more space above the ground for public transport, walking and cycling. These connections are important to support new towns, such as in Sembawang, Woodlands and Yishun. It will also alleviate some of the peak-hour congestion on existing roads, like the Central Expressway. I know these benefits are still some years away and therefore, cold comfort to the families and business owners living with the construction today. We will do everything in our power to ease the friction on the ground. At the same time, I ask for your understanding to give our engineers and workers the time and space required to complete the remaining works safely. I thank everyone for your continued patience and support.
Mr Speaker44 words
[+2 sentences]I am trying to get to the next block of questions during today's Question Time, so I ask Members who have supplementary questions to raise them in a very succinct manner; and likewise, for Minister to respond in a similar way. Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar)53 words
[+3 sentences]I thank the Minister for his assurance. I first want to express my deep appreciation for the LTA teams, especially for N103, 105 and 106 project teams who have been working very, very closely with the ground. The issues at Thomson-Novena are actually very, very challenging because the residences are very small projects.
Mr Speaker7 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Phua, please raise your supplementary question.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng160 words
But as the Minister has said, different constituents are affected differently on a daily basis. So, I would want to ask Minister if LTA can invest more heavily in the communications, besides the usual memos and telephone phones, in full, one location-specific timeline, because they are quite different and everybody has a view that it is like two years back, but it is more than that.[+4 sentences] So, location-specific timelines, in terms of road restorations, when the road diversions can be restored to normal and so on. Two, in terms of location-specific support measures for the businesses and the residents because they are all affected differently. My final supplementary question is that technologies have advanced a lot and projects of this size and nature are going to continue. How does the Ministry of Transport (MOT) or LTA going to prevent such incidents from happening so that the impact on the environment, the impact on our residents and businesses can be minimised?
Mr Jeffrey Siow185 words
[+10 sentences]Mr Speaker, I will reply succinctly. First of all, I agree with Ms Phua that we will indeed try to beef up the communications on the ground. LTA has a very strong community partners network. They work with the advisers closely. And we will make sure that the communications that we provide are timely, they are accurate and they are relevant to the stakeholders affected, whether businesses or residents. As for how to prevent the situation from happening again, I think one of the lessons we learnt from this is that we have to continue investing in good technology. I explained that soil investigation is not exhaustive, but the technology has improved over time. Compared to 15 years ago, the level of soil profile that we can understand and obtain from our sensors has improved. And over time, as we accumulate this information, the situation below the ground should not change and we should have a better understanding of what is below the ground. So, we will continue to do that and hopefully, variances like that do not surprise us as often in the future.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang)73 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. I appreciate that the full two-year impact of the delay only became clearer progressively. But Singaporeans working and living along the corridor certainly need to plan their schedules and their businesses. Could the Minister explain what considerations led LTA to wait until the overall delay can be quantified before informing stakeholders, rather than alerting them earlier that the existing timeline was at material risk?
Mr Jeffrey Siow129 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Speaker, to answer the question really quickly, again, I think LTA made the announcement as soon as possible and as soon as practicable. The impact had to be ascertained by the engineers. As I explained earlier in my reply, they were focused on finding solutions. And when we discovered these difficult conditions, their priority was to see how we could continue to do the project, recover the time and do it safely. However, as the works progressed, it became apparent that the risks were too great and so, therefore, we made the decision to have the delay, and therefore to inform the relevant stakeholder. So, there is a process for this and we tried our best to get the information out to affected stakeholders as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang)97 words
[+4 sentences]Speaker, just one supplementary question for the Minister. In 2008, then Minister for Transport Raymond Lim shared that the project is expected to cost about $7 billion to $8 billion and completed by 2020. I believe this is also in line with a CNA article from last month that said that the project is expected to cost $7.47 billion. Given the current situation, can the Minister share what is the current estimated budget amount for the project as well as the estimated final revised project expenditure, putting aside the cost allocation, which is yet to be determined?
Mr Jeffrey Siow58 words
[+1 sentence]Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I shared in my reply, LTA is still at the moment in the process of ascertaining claims that are being made by the contractors to ascertain what the impact on the cost will be.[+1 sentence] I do not have a cost estimate at this juncture, but we will provide that as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon)95 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, I just have two supplementary questions. I wanted to ask what indicators will MOT use to assess effectiveness of existing mitigating efforts in minimising impact to residents, especially in terms of pedestrian safety and noise. Second, any delay will always have a chain effect from the contractors to subcontractors. So, has the Ministry assessed the impact on this on main contractors and subcontractors, and also what measures are in place to make sure that valid costs arising from this delay are resolved fairly and also do not result in undue cash flow problems?
Mr Jeffrey Siow221 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, on indicators, there are, of course, objective indicators, such as noise measurements, and I suppose business impact. But actually, the most relevant indicator is the feedback from the residents and the businesses on the ground. And to that end, we will work very closely with them and the advisers to take in the feedback and make the adjustments as necessary and specific to the location. On the effect on the main contractors and subcontractors, LTA has established a governance framework to manage the cost overruns for large project infrastructure such as this.[+1 sentence] On the one hand, the contractors are expected to price in the risks that are known. On the other hand, when the risks and the impact on their projects are affected due to reasons that are could not be known to them beforehand, LTA will then assess these and see how to make the adjustments on payments.[+3 sentences] We are still in the process of making all these adjustments. For subcontractors that need to incur higher costs, they may, of course, work with their main contractors, as part of the usual commercial settlement process, and the main contractor will then surface these concerns to LTA. LTA works with these main contractors and subcontractors very closely, and we will make sure that these adjudications are done fairly and responsibly.
[+3 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker, my questions pertain to safety. As contractors seek to make up time, will LTA specifically monitor working hours, overtime and rest periods to ensure that the workers are not exposed to increased fatigue-related safety risks? And given that the complex construction works involves not just main contractors, but possibly multiple layers of subcontractors, how will LTA ensure that the same safety standards are maintained throughout the contracting chain, particularly among subcontractors who may face greater pressure to meet accelerated work schedules with limited resources?
Mr Jeffrey Siow170 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for speaking about this very important point about safety. He has always been advocating workplace safety and I am very glad that he has raised this. And he is absolutely right, our focus is on making sure that the project is executed safely and we have no intention to rush the work unnecessarily. This is why we took the very difficult decision to delay the project.[+7 sentences] LTA will work very closely with its contractors and subcontractors, many of whom have been working with us for a long time on this project. They are not unknown to us. We have worked with them very closely on making sure the safety aspects are very much taken care of. I visited the project myself and I know they pay a lot of attention to this. It is a very important project. It is a very difficult project. But it is a project where we know that safety issues are paramount and we are very focused on this.
Mr Speaker9 words
[+1 sentence]Minister Shanmugam, do you have a clarification to make?
Response to Working Paper Which Claimed Public Officers Purchased Properties near MRT Stations before Locations were Announced›Oral Answers to Questions29 turns · 3,336w
· 21 highlighted
oral-answer-4227
Mr Alex Yam64 words
asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Public Service has reviewed the findings of a recent study suggesting that, prior to 2011 to 2012, some public officers disproportionately purchased properties near future MRT stations before their locations were publicly announced; (b) whether the Government will independently examine or validate these findings; and (c) what actions will be taken in response.
Mr Alex Yam57 words
asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what safeguards are currently in place to prevent and detect public officers from using non-public Government information for private financial gain, including through related persons; and (b) whether these safeguards are periodically reviewed for officers with access to market-sensitive information concerning infrastructure, land use and other Government decisions.
Ms Joan Pereira61 words
asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Public Service Division (PSD) has completed its review of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper regarding private property purchases by civil servants near unannounced MRT stations; (b) what initial findings or anomalies, if any, have been identified; and (c) whether further investigations and enforcement measures will be required.
Mr Yip Hon Weng58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how the effectiveness of safeguards against public officers using confidential MRT and land-use information for property purchases is assessed; (b) whether officers' property declarations are systematically cross-checked against their access to such information; and (c) what the considerations are for requiring prior transaction clearance in addition to property declarations.
Ms Elysa Chen54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether public officers, contractors, consultants or other key personnel in and commissioned by agencies that plan rail and other infrastructure are subject to declaration or transaction rules that differ from those applying to the wider Public Service; and (b) if so, how do these differ.
Mr Azhar Othman61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of recent reports of civil servants acquiring properties in or near areas earmarked for future development, where such development plans have not been made public (a) whether there is a regulatory framework to ensure that such actions are curbed; and (b) if so, what safeguards and enforcement measures are in place.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government assesses that there is a need to strengthen safeguards, including rules, penalties, preventive measures and detection or enforcement methods, to ensure that public officers do not use privileged information for material gain for themselves or their family members.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether public officials' purchasing property based on non-public land-use information constitutes a breach of statutory duties or civil service rules; (b) whether public officials' asset declaration rules will be expanded to cover immediate family members and co-habitants; and (c) whether retrospective checks for anomalies will be conducted on past property transactions near unannounced infrastructure projects.
Ms Lee Hui Ying44 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the review of the research paper that civil servants allegedly disproportionately bought homes near unannounced MRT stations has been completed; and (b) what safeguards are in place to govern the access to non-public information.
Ms He Ting Ru41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether civil servants are required to declare property purchases that may relate to non-public information on future transport infrastructure; and (b) how such declarations are cross-checked against officers' access to planning information.
The Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (Mr Chan Chun Sing)72 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Question Nos 18 to 27 in today's Order Paper together? My response will also address a question for written answer today, questions scheduled for 7 October and questions scheduled for 8 October.[+1 sentence] If satisfied with the response, Dr Choo Pei Ling1, Miss Rachel Ong2,3,4, Mr Fadli Fawzi5 and Ms Gho Sze Kee6 may wish to withdraw their questions for subsequent Sittings.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Please proceed.
Mr Chan Chun Sing1406 words
[+8 sentences]The Government set out our preliminary response to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper in Public Service Division's (PSD's) media release of 25 September. I will briefly recap the key points and update the House on our review. The NBER working paper reported a statistical association between individuals whom the authors classified as civil servants working in agencies connected to rail planning and property purchases near planned Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations before their locations were announced. The statistical association concerned announcements in or before 2011 and was not observed after 2011. As we said earlier, this statistical association is a matter of concern and we take it seriously. But it does not, by itself, establish misconduct by any individual officer. There are also limitations to what we can independently establish about the paper's underlying data, including the source and representativeness of its proprietary dataset and how individuals in the different datasets were matched. We have therefore carried out our own checks, using Government records. While the NBER working paper identified the period of concern as between 2007 and 2011, PSD extended the review to 2014 as a matter of prudence, as many new MRT station locations continued to be announced in the years after 2011.[+3 sentences] Based on our administrative records, PSD identified officers who were in agencies involved in rail planning and who made property purchases between 2007 and 2014 that were close to locations subsequently announced as MRT stations. For each transaction, we examined the available records. This included the officer's role at the time, whether the officer had access to relevant non-public information, the timing and circumstances of the transaction, and other relevant information available to us. Through this process, we reviewed property transactions made by 191 officers.[+1 sentence] Further checks are still ongoing. Based on the available information at this stage, we have identified eight officers whose cases warrant further examination. This could be due to the specific circumstances surrounding the purchase or that we currently do not have adequate information to exclude the cases from further review. We have referred these cases to the Police.[+31 sentences] Let me emphasise that a referral does not mean that wrongdoing has been established. The Police will look into the facts independently and due process will be followed. Members have also asked about the safeguards against misuse of non-public Government information. The fundamental principle is clear, public officers must never use information obtained through their official duties to advance their own private interest or those of others. This is set out in the Public Service Code of Conduct, depending on the circumstances, unauthorised use or disclosure of official information may also constitute an offence under the law. There are thorough layers of safeguards. First, access to sensitive information is controlled. Officers are given access on a need-to-know basis. Such information is subject to security classification and handling requirements, system and physical access controls and where appropriate, audit monitoring and project-specific safeguards. Second, there are declaration and approval requirements governing officers' personal interests and transactions. Since the 1990s, all officers have been required to declare purchases of private property and annually, any non-owner-occupied properties they hold. These requirements have been progressively tightened over the years. Today, when officers possesses non-public information relevant to a transaction that he or she proposes to undertake, the officer must seek approval from the head of agency before proceeding. This is not confined to property transactions; it applies to other personal transactions where the officer possesses relevant non-public information. These requirements also extend to transactions involving officers' spouses and financially-dependent children. More broadly, an officer must not pass non-public information to a relative, friend, or any other person for private gain. Doing so would breach the applicable rules and may constitute an offence under the law, including the Official Secrets Act. Third, agencies handling particularly sensitive information may put in place additional requirements according to the risks involved. For example, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) had an additional requirement for officers in the relevant department to declare to human resources (HR) any sale of property or land by themselves, their spouses, or financially-dependent children. This supplemented the existing requirement for all public officers to declare purchases of private property. Agencies also have safeguards covering persons outside the Public Service who are given access to sensitive Government information. Contractors, consultants and other personnel are subject to appropriate confidentiality, conflict of interest and information handling requirements. Agencies may also impose additional requirements on them, depending on the nature and sensitivity of the work involved. Fourth, agencies have channels to allow officers to report suspected wrongdoing to their supervisors, HR, or heads of the agencies. This provide an additional means of bringing possible misconduct to attention. Several Members have asked whether we should go further, for example, through more systematic cross checking, widen declaration requirements to other family members or co-habitants, or other measures. The Public Service regularly reviews our rules and has strengthened them over time. We will continue what the present review tells us about the effectiveness and whether there are gaps to address. Any further measures should be proportionate to the risk and practical to implement, while allowing legitimate personal transactions to proceed with appropriate oversight. Even with strong safeguards, no system can eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing entirely. We must therefore continue to reduce the opportunities for abuse, maintain effective means of detection and act firmly where evidence of wrongdoing emerges. Members have also asked whether checks should extend to other infrastructure projects and property transactions, including schools or land use decisions, as well as property disposals before the announcement of the 15-month wait out period in September 2022. We have not undertaken such a review at this point in time.[+6 sentences] The present exercise arose from specific assertions in the NBER working paper concerning rail planning and property purchases over a particular period, and our checks have therefore focused on these assertions. Sir, we should not assume that officers with access to non-public information have misused it. However, where specific information gives reasonable grounds for concern in another context, we will look into it. Ms Ong has asked how the Government will avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest in deciding what matters arising from this review should be referred for further investigation. PSD's present exercise is an administrative review to establish the relevant facts. PSD does not determine criminal culpability. Where the facts disclose grounds for concern, the matter will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency, whether the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), depending on the circumstances.[+7 sentences] The relevant law enforcement agencies will look into the matter independently and determine the appropriate course of action. Ms Goh has asked about the ability to link publicly available information about officers with information on property transactions and whether such additional safeguards are needed to protect officers' confidentiality. There are different considerations involved. Certain information on property transactions and ownership is already publicly accessible for legitimate reasons. Separately, some information about civil servant's appointments and responsibilities also need to be made available in the public domain. We should not restrict access to such information simply because it may be linked across different sources. At the same time, the Government will continue to ensure that personal information about public officers, which does not need to be made public, is appropriately protected. Ms Ong also asked about the funding of the NBER research. We do not have information about its sources of funding.[+7 sentences] More fundamentally, our approach is to assess the substantive claims in the paper on their merits by examining the methodology, the available evidence and most importantly, the underlying facts. Mr Speaker, Sir, the integrity of the Public Service and the public's trust in it are fundamental. We therefore take allegations of misuse of official information seriously, but we must also proceed on the basis of evidence and due process. This is why we have examined the actual officers' transactions and available records. Where the facts disclose grounds for concern, we will refer them to the appropriate authorities. Where wrongdoing is established, we will act firmly. We will also learn from this episode. If the review or subsequent investigation reveal gaps in our safeguards, we will strengthen them.[+1 sentence] This is how we will continue to uphold the high standards of integrity expected of our Singapore Public Service and maintain the trust that Singaporeans place on us.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee)111 words
[+6 sentences]I thank the Coordinating Minister for his response. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, could the Minister share how long the complete review will take and if the Government will be releasing its full report? Secondly, the Minister has indicated that 191 officers' transactions were reviewed under the current exercise. Thus, can the Coordinating Minister also share what is the total number that could be covered with the extension of the review period to 2014? Lastly, given that the paper indicates that patterns appear to disappear after 2011, has PSD examined what changed around that period and whether that tells us something about the safeguards that have been effective?
Mr Chan Chun Sing86 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, Sir, we will complete the review as soon as possible and if there are findings that are relevant, we will publish them in full. The second supplementary question, we have reviewed 191 cases so far, and if there is information that requires us to review more, we will do so.[+1 sentence] The third supplementary question, we, at this point in time, do not have reasons to believe that something fundamentally has changed post 2011, but we will certainly do this as part of our review.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang)72 words
[+5 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Declarations and prior approval are important safeguards, given that property transactions and access to sensitive planning information can leave records. Has the Government considered risk-based retrospective checks for officers, in particular, information-sensitive roles so the unusual patterns can be identified independently of self declaration? I raise this because this could strengthen public confidence while avoiding intrusive checks on every public officer.
Mr Chan Chun Sing27 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. Beyond individual declarations, we do checks retrospectively if there are reasons for us to suspect that there may be wrongdoing.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh)109 words
[+5 sentences]As Singaporeans, we have prided ourselves on our incorruptible Public Service; and the notion that public servants acted on sensitive information for their own personal gain is potentially a serious lapse against our ethos. Beyond property purchases, has the Government identified other avenues for public officers to make other investments related to sensitive Government information? And what measures do we have in place to check for the existence of such breaches? Given the importance of integrity here, it will also be critical not to take a reactive stance and only investigate after researchers have pointed out lapses. Will the frequency and intensity of these checks be increased going forward?
Mr Chan Chun Sing164 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make two points in response to Ms Elysa Chen's comment. First, be it property or any other transactions that pertain to or may involve sensitive information, we take them all in the same spirit – which is that no officers should use any non-public information for their personal gain.[+3 sentences] Whether is it financial transactions, property transactions or otherwise, the same rules apply. And I have explained the different layers of checks required. Second, I will be careful not to jump to a conclusion, because the working paper has made certain assertions based on a statistical association. At this point in time, we have not concluded whether any wrongdoing, or especially any criminal offences have been committed.[+1 sentence] So, we want to get to the bottom of this precisely because of the reasons that Ms Elysa Chen says: that the integrity of the Singapore Public Service and the faith of Singaporeans in our Public Service are of utmost importance to us.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Azhar Othman.
Mr Azhar Othman (Nominated Member)132 words
[+11 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Coordinating Minister. I have three questions. Number one, the Minister did mention about information to be confidential and not to be shared with other relatives. To that extent, typically where they are associated to companies as well, does the civil servants have shares in companies that purchased the properties? This is just an extension of what I think is in question. Number two is the extent ai which civil servants have properties. Whether it is one, two, three, four, five – I think that is a red flag. Something that we need to understand as well. Number three on putting in place a prevention position, whether the civil servant should be limited in the number of properties that they can own? So, these are my questions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing197 words
[+12 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, can I respond to the three questions by making two points? First, if a public officer reveals sensitive non-public information to anyone, be it individuals or companies, we apply the same rules to them. It should not be done and we will take to task anybody who does it. It is not relevant to us whether the information is revealed to a relative, a family member, a partner or a company, the same rules apply. Second, we also have to be fair to the public officers. All of them are fellow Singaporeans, they have legitimate housing needs, they have legitimate needs to make investments and manage their own finances. The fact that they buy properties itself is not a red flag. The question is whether they have misused any public information. The fact that they can have more than one property is not necessarily a red flag. The red flag is when you have assets that are way beyond what your financial means or income allow you to have. That itself is a red flag. But if you husband your resources well and you make judicious investment, that itself is not a red flag.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied)117 words
[+4 sentences]Sir, beyond standard declarations by public officers which may not cover all conflicts of interest, will the Government leverage technology to identify anomalous transactions, including property and companies' share purchases and disposals, where there are potential conflicts of interest? Secondly, I understand declarations apply to properties acquired by the public officer's spouse or financially-dependent children. Has PSD considered requiring such declarations to extend to properties acquired by the public officer's parents and financially-independent children, since these are also immediate relatives whose financial gains indirectly benefit the public officer? And lastly, what specific training is provided across agencies to educate officers on their legal, administrative and ethical obligations to prevent the exploitation of non-public information for personal gain?
Mr Chan Chun Sing219 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first supplementary question, we will use whatever information that is available to us, including any technology for us to cross-reference any suspicious case, especially if there is a whistle-blowing information that allows us to dive into a case. On the second supplementary question, I think we have to find a balance as to what an officer needs to declare. I think, today we have classified the need to declare as for yourself, for your immediate family, which includes your spouse and your financially-dependent children. As to whether we want to keep enlarging the association to parents or relatives, I think we need to find a balance. But the key point is this. The key point is not how many people are associated with your extended family. The key point is whether anyone has used non-public information for personal gain. If anyone has used non-public information for personal gain, it does not matter whether it is your immediate spouse, immediate family members or your extended family, it is still wrong. On the third supplementary question, how do we educate our officers, they all go through their milestone programmes and embedded in all our milestone programmes are rules and ethics expected of all public officers in their standard of behaviour in the service of our country.
Mr Speaker54 words
[+3 sentences]Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. [Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
Guidelines on Volunteering at Meet-the-People Sessions for Civil Servants and Statutory Board Officers›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 160w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25021
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat70 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether volunteering at a Meet-the-People Session is a political activity under the rules for public officers, as MOE treats students' attendance as exposure to community issues; (b) whether officers of the Civil Service and statutory boards may volunteer at any Member's session regardless of party without seeking permission; and (c) whether the Public Service Division will inform officers accordingly in writing.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister)90 words
[+4 sentences]The Public Service is politically impartial. Public officers are expected to uphold this impartiality in activities they undertake outside their official duties. In considering whether to take part in outside activities, including Meet-the-People Sessions, public officers should avoid situations where their involvement could raise questions about the political impartiality of the Public Service or give rise to the perception that their official position or public resources are being used for political purposes. Officers who are unsure how these principles apply to their specific circumstances can seek guidance from their agencies.
Data on Grant Scope Change Approvals and Proportion of Investigator-led Funding under RIE2025, and Plans for Flexible Domain-based Research under RIE2030›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 165w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25022
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat73 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many requests to change the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025) grant's scope were approved and refused annually since 2021; (b) what proportion of its academic research funding was investigator-led, which the plan undertook to increase; and (c) whether RIE2030 will fund investigators and teams for a programme of research in a domain, free to change direction, rather than a fixed proposal.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister)92 words
[+4 sentences]In the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan, investigator-led projects, which are research proposals initiated by individuals on an individual project basis rather than as part of a larger research programme, accounted for approximately 14% of academic research funding. Grant recipients may propose changes to their project scopes where these are warranted due to scientific developments or other operational reasons. Such requests are generally considered favourably when the proposed changes remain aligned with the grant objectives. We do not track the exact number of requests for variations as this is not meaningful.
Data on Gap Between Desired and Actual Number of Children Among Singaporeans over Past Five Years, and Key Driving Factors›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 184w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25023
Mr Gabriel Lam48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether available data indicates if the gap between Singaporeans' desired and actual number of children has widened or narrowed over the past five years; and (b) what is the Government's assessment on the primary factors behind such a trend.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister)136 words
[+8 sentences]Data on Singaporeans' desired and actual number of children is collected through a Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Survey conducted every four to five years. Based on the most recent findings from the 2021 M&P Survey, the vast majority (92%) of married respondents indicated a preference to have two or more children. In practice, about half of married respondents (51%) had fewer than two children. The 2026 M&P Survey is currently underway. The cited barriers to fully realising parenthood aspirations are multifaceted. Most common ones include financial cost, stress of raising children as well as difficulty managing work and family demands. The current M&P Reset Workgroup is studying these barriers and will share its recommendations in early 2027. The recommendations will go beyond Government action to the role played by employers, community organisations and the wider society.
Review of National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper on Civil Servants' Alleged Property Purchases near Future MRT Stations›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 128w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25024
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what steps are being taken to review the recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a US-based non-profit organisation, on the alleged property purchases by civil servants near future MRT stations; and (b) how will the Government assess the validity of its claims and ensure safeguards over non-public planning information.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister)65 words
[+1 sentence]The Member may refer to my response to the Parliamentary Questions on the working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research during the Parliamentary Sitting on 6 October 2026. [Please refer to "Response to Working Paper Which Claimed Public Officers Purchased Properties near MRT Stations before Locations were Announced", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Data on Highest and Lowest Total Remuneration of Political Officeholders from 2016 to 2025›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 296w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25025
Ms He Ting Ru65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) for each year from 2016 to 2025, what was the highest and lowest total dollar remuneration, of (i) Ministers (ii) Senior Ministers of State and Ministers of State and (iii) Senior Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries, inclusive of fixed pay, all bonuses and allowances; and (b) whether the Government will publish such figures annually going forward.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister)231 words
[+12 sentences]The annual remuneration of all Political Appointment Holders (PAHs) comprises the fixed monthly pay, the 13th month Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance (NPAA), the Annual Variable Component (AVC), the National Bonus and the individual performance bonus. Data on many of these components are available in the public domain. For example, over the period in question, the reference monthly salary for an MR4 Minister was $55,000. The minimum and maximum salary points was set at 85% and 110% of this monthly salary in accordance with the salary framework. The minimum and maximum monthly salary of PAHs at other grades can similarly be derived from the 2012 White Paper on "Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government". The NPAA is one month of salary. The AVC is typically about one month and follows the amount received by the general Civil Service. The National Bonus is determined by national socioeconomic outcomes and can range from zero to six months. The individual Performance Bonus depends on the Prime Minister's assessment of each appointment holder's performance. Over the period from 2016 and 2025, the National Bonus ranged from 0.75 to 5.63 months, while the individual Performance Bonus actually awarded ranged from 2.5 to six months. Taken together, this information provides a clear indication of the remuneration levels and ranges of PAHs. Going forward, the Government will consider how best to disclose more information on the remuneration of PAHs.
Data on Newly-appointed Political Officeholders with Private Sector Background and Trend of Appointments since 1994 Salary Benchmarking›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 189w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25026
Mr Pritam Singh68 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) for each General Election since 1965, whether data is available on the proportion of newly appointed political office holders who spent more than half of their pre-political careers in the private sector, and if so, what are they; and (b) whether this proportion of appointments has increased significantly since Ministerial salaries were benchmarked against private sector professions in 1994.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister)121 words
[+6 sentences]The career backgrounds of all political appointment holders since 1965 are publicly available. The Government has always sought to bring into political service capable Singaporeans from a diverse range of backgrounds, including both the public and private sectors. That was the case before the introduction of the salary benchmark in 1994 and remains the case today. The salary framework helps to ensure that financial considerations do not unduly narrow the pool of Singaporeans who are prepared to enter political service, especially those who are already established in their careers. But remuneration is only one consideration. What matters first is whether individuals have the character and conviction to serve and are prepared to take on the responsibilities and sacrifices of political office.
Data on Annual Remuneration Changes of Newly-appointed Political Officeholders Across Last Three General Elections and Breakdown by Percentage Bands›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 197w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25027
Mr Pritam Singh73 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) for new political office holders appointed after each of the last three General Elections, whether data is available on the average percentage change in their annual salary, including variable bonuses, immediately before and after appointment, and if so, what are they; and (b) what is the breakdown of these salary changes across bands of (i) 25% (ii) 50% and (iii) 75% or more, respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister)124 words
[+6 sentences]The Government does not systematically collect or maintain the statistics requested. The remuneration of political appointment holders is determined within the prevailing salary framework. For a new appointment holder, where the individual is placed within the relevant salary range will take into account factors, such as the individual's experience, responsibilities and previous remuneration. The Government does not seek to attract individuals into politics by offering them higher salaries than they were previously earning. Where an individual is suitable for political office, our general approach is to appoint them to a role appropriate to their experience and capabilities and emplace them at a salary point broadly comparable to, or even below, their previous remuneration. Quite a few have taken pay reductions upon entering political office.
Mutual Agreement Procedure Support for Tax Residents Facing Competing Residency Claims from Double Taxation Agreement Partner Jurisdictions›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 137w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25028
Mr Victor Lye65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for Singapore tax residents facing competing residency claims from Double Taxation Agreement partner jurisdictions (a) what assistance does IRAS provide where a Certificate of Residence is insufficient; (b) whether such disputes are taken up under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP); and (c) how many such MAP requests were received and accepted annually over the last 10 years.
Mr Jeffrey Siow72 words
[+3 sentences]Taxpayers who face competing claims of tax residence under Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements (DTAs) may request assistance from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) provided for in the relevant DTA. This process allows IRAS to engage the competent authority of the other jurisdiction to resolve the issue. The IRAS does not track the number of MAP cases pertaining specifically to competing tax residence claims.
Tax Relief Support Equivalent to Working Mother's Child Relief for Working Fathers as Sole Caregivers›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 139w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25029
Ms Elysa Chen48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many current working fathers are the sole caregivers of a child following the death of, or divorce from the mother; and (b) what tax reliefs are available to them that are equivalent to the Working Mother's Child Relief.
Ms Indranee Rajah91 words
[+4 sentences]Based on the Department of Statistics' household survey estimates between 2023 and 2025, there were about 8,200 employed resident males on average per year who were widowed, divorced or separated, and living with dependent children1 in their household. We do not collect data on whether they were the sole caregivers of these children. The objective of the Working Mother's Child Relief is to encourage married women to remain in the workforce after having children. To support and encourage parenthood, working fathers are eligible for Qualifying Child Relief and Parenthood Tax Rebate.
Support Measures for Former Private Hire Car Drivers Who Reached Statutory Vocational Licence Age Limit›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 166w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25030
Ms Elysa Chen59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether former private hire car drivers who have reached the statutory vocational licence age limit of 75 and now drive only under social carpooling services, such as GrabHitch, are eligible for support measures, such as the $200 cash relief; and (b) if not, what economic support is available to them.
Ms Indranee Rajah107 words
[+4 sentences]The $200 cash relief is intended to help self-employed platform workers, taxi drivers and private hire car drivers whose incomes were affected by the increase in fuel prices. As those only driving under social carpooling services, such as GrabHitch, are not driving commercially, they would not be eligible for the $200 cash relief. The Government provides targeted support for seniors who had lower incomes during their working years through the Silver Support Scheme. We also brought forward the disbursement of the Community Development Council Vouchers and enhanced the Budget 2026 Cost-of-Living Special Payment to cushion the impact of the increase in fuel prices on Singaporeans, including seniors.
Mandatory Training on Scam Awareness, Financial Literacy and Consequences of Facilitating Scams for Youths on Conditional Warnings for Scam-related Offences›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 1,712w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25031
Ms Cassandra Lee62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether youths issued with conditional warnings for involvement in scam-related offences, particularly those assessed to have been unwitting or less culpable participants, should undergo mandatory structured training on scam awareness, financial literacy and the consequences of facilitating scams during the warning period, to reduce the risk of re-offending.
Mr K Shanmugam1650 words
[+93 sentences]My response will also address related questions on young offenders committing scams-related offences filed by Ms Cassandra Lee for today's Sitting and Dr Wan Rizal1 for a subsequent Sitting. If Dr Wan Rizal is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw his question. Members of this House would be aware that scams are now the most prevalent crime type in Singapore. In the first half of 2026, the Police received, on average, about 90 reported scam cases every day – involving about $2 million lost, every day. My Ministry is particularly concerned that many young people are getting involved in scams-related offences. In 2025, more than 1,000 youths were investigated in connection with scam reports. Each time we have such a case, it is understandable that we look at the age of the offender and feel sympathetic. But spare a thought also for the victims, including elderly victims. In 2025, there were more than 5,000 elderly victims of scams. The majority are retired and unemployed. Losses from these cases amounted to around $200 million. Think of senior citizens losing their life savings and not knowing how they can eke out a living for the rest of their lives. Members would have come across these elderly couples who bring their bank statements and show the withdrawals made by scammers – sometimes up to a few hundred thousand dollars, or even more. They have worked hard and saved carefully. Then one day, a scammer takes it all away. The couple will be in distress because they have lost their savings, and stressed, because they have no money for their future expenses. Who is responsible? The scammers. Who helped them? The person who gave up his or her bank account, including young persons who do it to earn a few hundred dollars. Let me give you one actual example. In March 2024, the Police received a report from a 68-year-old victim who had been scammed. He had transferred more than $217,000 to a bank account belonging to a 16-year-old. This 16-year-old young person had allowed the use of his account for the purpose of quick cash – for $1,000. In another scam case in February 2024, an 18-year-old gave up her SingPass account after being offered at least $1,000. The SingPass account was used to open three bank accounts, which were used to launder more than $217,000 from seven scam victims, two of whom were above 65 years old. The oldest victim was 74 years old. You can see the consequences that can flow from the actions of a money mule, regardless of how young or old the mule is. I had considered showing you the photos and names of some of these victims. But the victims were concerned – they did not want the stigma of being identified as a scam victim. Being a scam victim carries more than just financial consequences. Our task is to decide how best we can prevent these offences from being perpetrated. I have previously said our approach for the penalties to be imposed for an offence has four aspects: one, deterrence; two, prevention; three, retribution and four, rehabilitation of the offender. Which is the predominant consideration would depend on the facts, though generally we have placed weight on rehabilitation, deterrence and prevention. In the context of scams, to me, the most important principle is deterrence. There are two aspects to this – first, to deter the person from doing it again; and second, to deter everyone else from doing it. Then fewer people will lose their life savings. Young people do deserve sympathy in general. Over the years, we have changed our legislation to bring in rehabilitative justice, including through community-based sentences, probation and reformative training. Young people are generally dealt with within that framework. In 2025, we further expanded the jurisdiction of the Youth Court from youths aged below 16 to youths aged below 18. The Youth Court mainly dispenses rehabilitative sentences. Generally, young offenders who require more intensive and structured rehabilitation are sent by the Courts to the Reformative Training Centre, where they are engaged in various psychology-based correctional programmes, complemented where necessary by education, skills training, family programmes and reintegration support. We take rehabilitation seriously. Young people should be given guidance, and we should try and rehabilitate them as much as possible, rather than to immediately treat them as hardened criminals. But for scam-related offences, the Government has made a deliberate policy judgment that deterrence and prevention must carry greater weight. That is because rehabilitation of the individual offender has to be balanced against the need to deter others from facilitating scams, and thereby prevent many more people from becoming victims. The Ministry of Home Affairs had therefore put before this House new legislation in the last three years to tighten the penalties for scams-related offences, including through the introduction of caning. When these laws were debated, Parliament deliberately made no distinction between young and not-so-young offenders. We then worked with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to develop sentencing guidelines. The Panel includes members from the Judiciary, such as its then-Chairman, Justice of the Court of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang, and other Judges, as well as members from the Attorney-General's Chambers, Public Defender's Office, the Bar and my Ministry. The Sentencing Advisory Panel worked intensively on the sentencing guidelines for scam offences. The Guidelines recommend imprisonment or reformative training when sentencing scams-related offenders, including those below the age of 21, except those dealt with in the Youth Court. Of course, on the actual sentence to be imposed on any individual case, the Courts retain the final discretion. The total figure lost to scams reached a peak of $1.1 billion in 2024. After we put in place these measures, scam losses have decreased slightly. But scammers have continued to adapt and attempt to overcome our measures. This is not the time to go soft. On 10 September 2026, a three-judge coram of the High Court decided, in Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri v Public Prosecutor and other appeals SGHC 183 (Erzan), to allow several Magistrate's Appeals by youth offenders who were involved in scams-related offences. The Court sentenced them to probation and community sentences instead of more deterrent sentences. One of the appeals relates to one Seyfqan. At the age of 18, he was offered $800 to open and give up a bank account. This account was then used to open a second bank account. A 66-year-old victim transferred almost $200,000 to this second account after being scammed. The High Court decided, for a number of reasons, that probation was appropriate. This was, among other things, because "the primary sentencing consideration for young offenders will generally, or presumptively, be rehabilitation". This rationale contradicts the approach set out in the sentencing guidelines. The Guidelines say, "Fines, probation, and community sentences are generally not appropriate", and "Imprisonment or reformative training, whichever is more appropriate, should be considered given the need for deterrence and the public interest in suppressing scams." It is understandable for the Court looking at the individual young offenders in front of them to feel sympathy for those individuals and be inclined to impose rehabilitative sentences on youth offenders. However, the Court did not have before it the policy perspectives that I have just laid out, nor the data on the scale of the problem of scams and scammers – the huge amount of losses through scams and the full human cost of such scams. But the Government has to consider the wider consequences. If we are lenient towards scammers and those who facilitate scams, many more Singaporeans will fall victim, including senior citizens who may lose their entire life savings. And if young offenders are being treated more leniently simply because of their age, scam syndicates will have every incentive to recruit more young people as mules. We cannot allow this to happen. This was why Parliament took a tough approach in our recent rounds of amendments to the relevant legislation. We wanted this message to go out that every offender, young or old, will be very seriously dealt with. If a number of cases are dealt with in this way, many other would-be offenders would take reference. Word will get around and people, including young people, will be much more careful. That will make it harder for scammers to operate and help reduce the number of victims and the losses they suffer. The High Court said that legislation must be clear. We had proceeded on the basis that the legislation was clear. The Guidelines were also clear. However, the Court has expressed a different view on the legislation. We respect the Court's views. To give effect to the policy position I have outlined, we will table legislation in Parliament soon, which will be quite express and will make clear that the position in Erzan is not to be followed. We will reinforce through the law the approach of imposing deterrent sentences on all scammers and those who facilitate scams, including those who are young. Young people may be attracted by the promise of quick money, misled by purported job offers, influenced by peers or approached through social media. Some may not fully appreciate that their actions can enable serious criminal activity. Criminal syndicates exploit precisely this combination of inexperience, financial temptation and digital exposure. That is why education is another key strategy to prevent youth offending. To Dr Wan Rizal's question, the Police work with the Ministry of Education to conduct crime prevention talks in schools and to disseminate anti-scam advisories through the Parents Gateway platform. In April 2026, we launched a youth-centric anti-scam campaign to warn young people against selling or providing access to their bank accounts, SIM cards and SingPass credentials. We will also study Ms Cassandra Lee's suggestion, including whether structured scam-awareness and financial-literacy training would be appropriate and effective for youths who are issued with conditional warnings.
Breakdown of Road Accidents, Injuries and Fatalities Across Passenger Cars, Private Hire Cars and Taxis›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 133w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25032
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan52 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs for each year in the past five years, what were the number of (i) accidents reported (ii) accidents involving injuries and (iii) accidents involving fatalities reported for (i) passenger cars (ii) private hire cars and (iii) taxis, respectively.
Mr K Shanmugam81 words
[+3 sentences]From 2021 to 2025, the number of accidents that resulted in injuries on average annually was about 3,160 involving passenger cars1, 1,220 involving private hire cars (PHCs)2, and 670 involving taxis3. From 2021 to 2025, the number of accidents that resulted in fatalities on average annually was about 29 involving passenger cars, 12 involving PHCs and six involving taxis. The Traffic Police does not track accidents that do not involve injuries or fatalities, as these are not required to be reported.
Liquidation Strategy for Seized Properties Related to Money Laundering Case While Safeguarding Taxpayers' Interests›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 115w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25033
Mr Fadli Fawzi50 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs how will the liquidation of properties related to the $3 billion money laundering case proceed, in view that bids for multiple properties recently failed to meet the Government's reserve price at auction, while safeguarding taxpayers' interests.
Mr K Shanmugam65 words
[+2 sentences]The Police, Deloitte and the appointed vendors will review the outcome of the sales, and the unsold properties may be put up through auctions again or other suitable sales mechanisms, such as negotiations with bidders in the auction or expressions-of-interest. The approach for each property will be guided by commercial and market considerations to facilitate an orderly and transparent realisation of the real estate assets.
Adoption Rates and Effectiveness of SGSecure Mobile Application as Community Vigilance Tool›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 216w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25034
Dr Neo Kok Beng59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the current rates of community adoption and the number of active monthly users of the SGSecure mobile application; and (b) what is the targeted community adoption rate that will form a critical mass for effective public reporting of incidents or potential concerns.
Mr K Shanmugam157 words
[+6 sentences]The SGSecure app was downloaded more than 1.4 million times since the current version was released on 25 September 2023, and for 2026 to-date, an average of about 46,000 use it monthly. Besides reporting suspicious items or behaviour, users also receive timely security-related news and alerts, and app users who are SGSecure Responders are also alerted to minor fire and cardiac arrest cases nearby. While we want as many people as possible to download and use the app, we have not set a target for downloads or usage. Having the app is not a prerequisite for effective reporting. Beyond the app, members of the public may also call the Police or the Internal Security Department to report suspicious items or behaviour. What is more critical is public awareness, vigilance and willingness to report through various channels to the authorities, which we continue to foster through engagement touchpoints, such as SGSecure roadshows, grassroots events and social media communications.
Take-up and Completion Rates of SkillsFuture@National Service, and Measures to Increase Participation Among Full-time National Servicemen›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 269w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25035
Mr David Hoe71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what proportion of SAF Full-time National Servicemen have activated their accounts, enrolled in and completed courses under SkillsFuture@National Service, including those after their Operationally Ready Date; (b) whether the Ministry assesses that the current take-up and completion rates are satisfactory; and (c) what further measures the Ministry and its programme partners are exploring to increase participation and course completion.
Mr Chan Chun Sing198 words
[+7 sentences]The SkillsFuture@National Service Learning eXperience Platform (SF@NS LXP) provides Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) with unlimited access to over 50,000 online courses, resources from Government agencies, industry partners and Education Institutions, and a job and course portal. The platform is offered to all NSFs upon enlistment, as part of the Ministry of Defence's (MINDEF's) and the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) efforts to recognise NSFs' contributions and facilitate their transition to employment and further studies after full-time NS. SF@NS LXP accounts are valid for two years upon activation. As NSFs have military training and duties, the platform is intended for their self-directed learning and development. Most NSFs tap on the SF@NS LXP in their second year of NS, to support their post-Operationally Ready Date plans. Since its implementation in November 2022, 89% of all NSFs have registered for a SF@NS LXP account, 53% of all NSFs have started on at least one course on the platform, and 51% of all NSFs have completed at least one course. MINDEF and MHA continue to work closely with our partners to encourage more NSFs to maximise opportunities provided by the SF@NS LXP, and curate course content to better align with NSFs' interests.
Further Subsidising Shingrix Vaccine for Vulnerable Younger Seniors with Chronic Conditions›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 158w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25036
Mr Alex Yeo60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the debilitating nature of shingles particularly for vulnerable seniors with other chronic medical conditions, whether the Ministry will consider further subsidising the estimated co-payment cost of $300 for the Shingrix vaccine over two doses, for younger seniors who are not of the Pioneer or Merdeka Generation.
Mr Ong Ye Kung98 words
[+4 sentences]The cost of the Shingrix vaccine is highly subsidised – up to 75% for non-Pioneer or Merdeka Generation individuals, based on means-testing. In addition, eligible individuals, including all aged 60 and above, can use MediSave to pay for the remaining cost after subsidies – up to $500 or $700 under MediSave500/700, and for those aged 60 years or older, an additional $400 under Flexi-MediSave. After subsidies and MediSave, they may have zero out-of-pocket costs for the vaccination. The Ministry of Health will continue to ensure that recommended vaccinations remain affordable to patients through relevant subsidies and MediSave use.
Adequacy, Utilisation Demand and Co-funding of Senior-friendly Progressive Resistance Machines at Active Ageing Centres›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 181w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25037
Mr David Hoe61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many Active Ageing Centres (AACs) are currently equipped with senior-friendly progressive resistance machines, such as pneumatic resistance machines; (b) what their utilisation and waiting times are; and (c) whether the Ministry or Agency for Integrated Care will consider co-funding such equipment for AACs where there is demonstrated demand.
Mr Ong Ye Kung120 words
[+6 sentences]We do not collect data on progressive resistance machines at Active Ageing Centres (AACs). We recognise that resistance training is important to many seniors. Seniors do not need specialised machines for effective resistance training. Simple exercises using body weight and basic equipment, such as resistance bands and simple weights, can be effective. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) is exploring ways to support AACs in making such simple resistance workouts accessible to seniors in the community, including having trained laypersons support seniors when they are doing exercises. Seniors also have other options for safe strength training, such as HPB programmes conducted by trained fitness instructors, as well as Sport Singapore programmes at community nodes to improve muscle strength and prevent frailty.
Breakdown of New Referrals to COMIT by Employment Status and Age, and Proportion of Clients with Recent Psychiatric Admissions›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 137w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25038
Dr Hamid Razak83 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health for new referrals to the Community Intervention Team (COMIT) in 2024 and 2025 (a) what is the breakdown by employment status (i) employed (ii) unemployed and (iii) studying or in-training, and age groups (i) 18 to 25 (ii) 26 to 35 (iii) 36 to 50 (iv) 51 to 64 and (v) 65 and above; and (b) what proportion of current COMIT clients have had a psychiatric admission within the preceding 24 months.
Mr Ong Ye Kung54 words
[+2 sentences]The breakdown of new referrals to the Community Intervention Team (COMIT) in 2024 and 2025, by age group and employment status, is shown in Table 1. The Ministry of Health does not collect data on whether COMIT clients are studying or in-training, nor whether clients have had a psychiatric admission before receiving COMIT's intervention.
Improving Public Hospitals' Care Delivery Through Appointment Consolidation and Senior-friendly Waiting Spaces›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 211w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25039
Ms Valerie Lee62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what efforts are being made across public hospitals to provide more senior-friendly care practices through (i) coordinating and consolidating appointment dates for seniors who have multiple specialist follow-ups, so as to reduce repeated hospital visits and (ii) providing senior-friendly spaces where patients can rest and access refreshments while waiting between appointments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung149 words
[+7 sentences]Public healthcare institutions (PHIs) coordinate specialist outpatient appointments across specialties, consolidate investigations to be done on the same day and offer teleconsultations to reduce repeat visits, where clinically appropriate. PHIs are also progressively transforming care by having more patients receive care from multidisciplinary teams led by principal doctors who will coordinate and integrate care according to the patient's needs. However, consolidating appointments is not always clinically or operationally feasible. Some consultations, investigations and procedures may need to take place separately because of clinical requirements, preparation needs or specialist availability. Patients may also prefer having shorter visits over a few days instead of one long visit on a single day for all their appointments. PHIs do provide waiting and seating areas with access to refreshments through amenities, such as cafeterias, food courts or vending machines. Most hospitals also have outdoor gardens or open spaces, where patients can rest between appointments.
Outreach and Effectiveness of Project Silver Screen, and Hearing Aid Subsidies Disbursed under Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 121w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25040
Dr Charlene Chen57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health for each of the past three years (a) how many seniors underwent hearing screening through Project Silver Screen; (b) what proportion were identified as requiring further assessment or intervention; and (c) how many seniors received subsidies for hearing aids under the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund.
Mr Ong Ye Kung64 words
[+3 sentences]In 2023, 2024 and 2025, around 34,000, 38,000 and 36,000 seniors underwent hearing screening through Project Silver Screen respectively. About 60% of them were identified to require further assessment or intervention. Over the same period, more than 99% of subsidy applications under the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling fund were successful, with around 5,500, 6,200 and 7,200 seniors receiving means-tested subsidies for hearing aids respectively.
Sustainability of Rare Disease Fund and Availability of Donor-authorised Principal for Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 192w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25041
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what were the Rare Disease Fund's fund size, investment income, donations and expenditure for each of FY2023 to FY2025; (b) how many patient applications were received, approved, rejected or pending in each year; and (c) what donor-authorised principal is presently available for drawn down of donation for Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products.
Mr Ong Ye Kung127 words
[+5 sentences]As at end-Financial Year (FY) 2025, the Rare Disease Fund's (RDF's) fund size is $187 million – $155 million is held in endowment and $32 million is an expendable amount to support patients. Given that the number of applications is not big and fluctuates from year-to-year, we have provided aggregate figures for FY2023 to FY2025. Over this period, the RDF received $4.9 million in donations, $15.6 million in Government matching grants and $1.4 million in realised investment income; seven applications were received and six were approved, while $3,400,000 were used to support 14 patients. RDF was extended to support Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products (CTGTP) treatments in 2023. Following this recent expansion, about $4 million is currently available to support applications from patients requiring CTGTP treatments.
Establishing Independent Environmental Protection Agency to Assess Forest Preservation and Climate Resilience Against Development Needs›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 116w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25042
Miss Rachel Ong48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will consider establishing an independent Environmental Protection Agency to (i) assess forest preservation and climate resilience considerations against development needs, particularly for housing and (ii) provide environmental assessments and oversight independently of the Ministry of National Development.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien68 words
[+2 sentences]The Government currently has no plans to establish a separate independent Environmental Protection Agency to assess environmental and climate resilience considerations against development needs. The Ministry of National Development oversees land use planning in consultation with relevant agencies, including the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment, as well as its Statutory Boards, and takes into account the various considerations and trade-offs involved, including environmental protection and climate resilience.
Formaldehyde Surveillance on Cabbage Imports and Extending Testing of Food Products Subject to Similar Post-harvest Practices›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 152w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25043
Ms Joan Pereira73 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following reports of alleged use of formaldehyde on cabbage in China (a) whether an update can be provided on the recent stepped-up surveillance by the Singapore Food Agency on the (i) volume and proportion of cabbage imports tested, (ii) instances of non-compliance detected and (iii) actions taken; and (b) whether testing has been extended to other food products potentially subject to similar post-harvest preservation practices.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien79 words
[+3 sentences]The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has stepped up the surveillance and testing of cabbage and other vegetables, as well as related products, such as kimchi, following the reports of alleged use of formaldehyde on cabbages from China. So far, there has been no evidence to suggest that the products imported into Singapore are contaminated with formaldehyde. SFA will continue to monitor developments and conduct further sampling and testing where necessary, to ensure food in Singapore is safe for consumption.
Processing Refunds Through More Digital Platforms for Return Right Machines to Ensure Wider Accessibility›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 100w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25044
Mr Alex Yeo58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the full implementation of the Beverage Container Return Scheme on 1 October 2026, whether the Ministry will consider requiring Return Right machines to be capable of processing refunds through more digital platforms other than DBS PayLah and SimplyGo, such as PayNow, to ensure wider accessibility of use.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien42 words
[+2 sentences]The current set of payment methods was identified based on their general accessibility to all segments of the population and significantly lower transaction costs. The scheme operator, Beverage Container Return Scheme Ltd., is exploring additional cost-effective refund methods to enhance user convenience.
Enforcement Checks on Perishable Cold-chain Foods at Wet Markets and Retail Outlets, and Measures to Ensure Regulatory Compliance›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 147w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25045
Ms Joan Pereira57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) conducts routine temperature and compliance checks on perishable cold-chain foods displayed at wet markets and retail outlets; (b) what measures are in place to ensure retailers adhere to cold-chain storage regulations; and (c) what enforcement actions are taken against non-compliant food retailers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien90 words
[+3 sentences]The Singapore Food Agency inspects licensed wet market stalls and retail outlets to ensure that perishable foods, such as frozen meat and dairy products, are kept at the appropriate temperatures. The Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations prescribes the cold-chain and food storage requirements that licensed retail food businesses must adhere to, to ensure food safety, such as to install and properly maintain temperature gauges for all refrigerators and chillers. Failure to maintain proper cold-chain and food storage conditions may be subject to a fine not exceeding $2,000, upon conviction.
Bilateral Commitments and High-level Engagements with Indonesia to Reduce Transboundary Haze Recurrence›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 283w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25046
Ms Valerie Lee57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following the recent haze episode; (a) whether Singapore will seek further bilateral commitments with Indonesia to strengthen upstream prevention of fires and peatland management; and (b) what specific outcomes or measurable commitments does the Government hope to secure through these diplomatic engagements to reduce the recurrence of transboundary haze.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien226 words
[+5 sentences]The Member may wish to refer to the replies issued in Parliament on 12 February and 8 September 2026, which sets out the bilateral and regional haze mitigation measures that Singapore has in place with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states. [Please refer to "Assessment of Transboundary Haze Episodes, and Review of Bilateral and Regional Haze-mitigation Measures", Official Report, 12 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 17, Oral Answers to Questions section; and "Cross-border Intervention Arrangements for Forest Fire-suppression Efforts", Official Report, 8 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 35, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] Beyond bilateral cooperation, ASEAN member states also collaborate on upstream fire prevention measures and sustainable peatland management through regional mechanisms. The ASEAN Task Force on Peatlands (ATFP), established under the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, coordinates regional efforts to promote sustainable peatland management and prevent peat fires that contribute to transboundary haze. Under the ATFP's ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy, ASEAN member states undertake capacity building and technical cooperation on sustainable management of peatlands and other upstream fire prevention measures. The region continues to strive towards a collective goal of a transboundary haze-free ASEAN by 2030, guided by a structured framework with relevant strategies, targets and indicators for fire prevention, sustainable land and peatland management, enforcement, resource mobilisation and cross-sectoral cooperation.
Targeted Interventions for Children of Incarcerated Parents Based on INTRACS+ Study Findings›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 252w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25047
Mr Victor Lye56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what educational, employment, youth-risk and offending outcomes for children of incarcerated parents have been identified through the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Social Disadvantages Plus (INTRACS+) study; and (b) how are these findings translated into early intervention triggers, case management protocols or targeted programmes for affected children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M196 words
[+9 sentences]The Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Social Disadvantages Plus (INTRACS+) study found that children whose parents were incarcerated were more likely to offend, highlighting the need to do more to support children and families impacted by incarceration. The study did not examine educational and employment outcomes. Through the National Committee on Preventing Offending and Re-offending, the Singapore Prison Service and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) have strengthened inter-agency case coordination, so that Family Coaches of ComLink+ clients and Family Service Centre caseworkers will be notified when their clients, or their clients' family members, are incarcerated. This enables them to assess the family's needs and provide timely support for the family. Besides strengthening coordination protocols, MSF works closely with agencies and community partners to strengthen early intervention for youths. We recently enhanced the Youth GO! Programme, building upon the insights from INTRACS+ to design better intervention and case management approaches for youths who may benefit from additional support. The INTRACS+ study supports the need to do more to break the risk of intergenerational transmission of offending. MSF will work closely with agencies to build on these efforts to do more to prevent first-time offending.
Identifying and Addressing Utilisation Gaps in Family Support Schemes Among Eligible Households by Household Type and Income›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 219w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25048
Mr Gabriel Lam53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government routinely analyses significant differences in utilisation of family-support schemes among eligible households by household type and income; and (b) whether such differences trigger reviews to determine whether affordability, awareness or scheme design prevents some eligible families from receiving the intended benefit.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister)166 words
[+7 sentences]The Government regularly reviews family support schemes to assess whether they are meeting their objectives. Where relevant, these reviews examine differences in take-up and utilisation across household types and income groups. For example, the recent Ministry of Social and Family Development study on parental co-matching of the Child Development Account (CDA) monies across families of different incomes and sizes found that while most parents saved close to the Government co-matching caps for the first two birth orders, lower-income families tended to save below the caps from the third child onwards. In response, the Government has therefore decided to shift a significant share of its support from CDA co-matching to cash under the new SG Child Support Package. We will also set a uniform CDA co-matching cap of $5,000 across all birth orders. Lower-income families also receive targeted support, including higher means-tested subsidies for preschool, education and healthcare. We will continue to monitor how effectively family support schemes reach the intended families and adjust them where needed.
Estimated Costs and Manpower Requirements to Reduce Anchor Operator Preschool Staff-child Ratios and Reviewing Sector-wide Job Redesign›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 153w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25049
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are ECDA's estimates, if any, of the additional educators and annual costs required to lower Kindergarten 1 and 2 ratios in Anchor Operator preschools from 1:20 and 1:25 to 1:15 and 1:20 respectively; and (b) whether the sector-wide job redesign project will examine staff-child ratios.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M98 words
[+4 sentences]The staff-child ratio requirements are minimum requirements to ensure the safety and well-being of children. In practice, many operators operate at staff-child ratios below these minimum requirements in order to maintain operational flexibility and respond to the varied needs and demands on the ground. The focus of the sector-wide job redesign project is to strengthen the sector's long-term manpower resilience by enhancing the overall value proposition of an early childhood career and improving educators' daily work experience. This will include a review and analysis of current preschool operating models, including staffing norms, educator job scopes and work processes.
Expanding Student Care Fee Assistance Scheme to Include Middle-income Families to Support Families with Costs of Raising School-going Children›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 97w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25050
Ms Gho Sze Kee45 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider further expanding the Student Care Fee Assistance scheme to cover middle-income families, as part of the Government's broader efforts to support families with the costs of raising and caring for school-going children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M52 words
[+2 sentences]As announced at National Day Rally 2026, the Government will expand capacity, improve the quality of care and keep fees affordable at student care centres in primary schools and selected centres outside schools. We are reviewing the measures needed to keep fees affordable for parents and will share more details when ready.
Data on Call Volume, Assistance Types Requested and Referrals to Social Service Agency Received by MSF Consolidated Hotline (Family Assist) and ComCare Call Hotline›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 174w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25051
Ms Lee Hui Ying65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in each of the last two years (a) how many calls have been received by the MSF Consolidated Hotline (Family Assist) and ComCare Call hotline, respectively; (b) what have been the main types of assistance or support requested on each hotline; and (c) how many callers have been referred to a social service agency for further assistance.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M109 words
[+6 sentences]The Ministry of Social and Family Development Consolidated Hotline received about 1,700 calls on Family Assist services in 2024 and 1,200 in 2025. The ComCare Call hotline received about 38,400 calls in 2024 and 26,000 in 2025. The lower call volumes in 2025 reflected greater use of online channels, which allowed users to access information, submit applications and check their application status without calling hotlines. Family Assist enquiries mainly concerned the Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme, which are delivered by appointed social service agencies. ComCare Call enquiries mainly concerned application and renewal requirements for financial assistance, and existing applications. Callers who require further assistance are assisted by the Social Service Offices.
Prohibitions on Misuse of Identity Data Collected by Social Media Age Assurance Providers for Advertising, Profiling and Third-party Transfers›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 148w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25052
Mr Gabriel Lam50 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether providers conducting age assurance for social media services will be prohibited from (i) retaining identity information beyond what is necessary for verification (ii) using such information for advertising or profiling and (iii) transferring such information to third parties for unrelated purposes.
Mrs Josephine Teo98 words
[+3 sentences]We expect the designated social media services to implement age assurance methods in accordance with their obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA) and relevant guidelines issued by the Personal Data Protection Commission. Organisations that collect personal data for age assurance must stop retaining the data when it is no longer needed for age assurance and retention is no longer necessary for legal or business purposes. Any further use or disclosure for other purposes, such as advertising or profiling, or to third parties for unrelated purposes, must comply with the PDPA requirements on consent and notification.
Providing Predeployment Government Access to Frontier AI Models for Independent Evaluation of National Security Risks and Vulnerabilities›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 1,339w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25053
Mr Fadli Fawzi68 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether AI companies make their latest frontier model available to the National AI Council or any other Government agency before deployment for an independent evaluation of national security risks or hidden vulnerabilities; (b) if not, whether the Government will seek such access from AI companies as countries like the US and UK have; and (c) if not, why not.
Mrs Josephine Teo1271 words
[+58 sentences]My response will cover the questions raised by Ms Valerie Lee, Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Fadli Fawzi in today's Order Paper, and the related questions filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Saktiandi Supaat for subsequent Sittings. If the Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this exchange. [Please refer to "Adequacy of AI Computing Resources for Local Enterprises through Domestic Facilities and Overseas Cloud Services", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and "Ensuring Safety of Frontier AI Models Deployed in Singapore, and Setting Up Framework for Tracking and Reporting Serious AI Incidents", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Oral Answers to Questions section.] Singapore's approach to artificial intelligence (AI) has always been to enable innovation while managing the risks. But the risks are evolving as AI systems become more capable and autonomous. Such systems may act in unintended ways, be manipulated by malicious actors or have unexpected interactions with other systems. Capabilities are also advancing rapidly, sometimes faster than governments and external evaluators can fully assess. We therefore need a risk-based and multi-layered approach. First, in deploying AI, we must calibrate limits according to risk. We should consider the sensitivity of the data and systems involved, the degree of autonomy given to the AI system, and the severity and remediability of any potential harm. The greater the potential harm, the stronger the safeguards should be. This is how we approach the deployment of AI agents within the Public Service. We consider what systems and data an agent can access, what actions it is allowed to take and the consequences of unintended or unauthorised actions. These safeguards are complemented by policies and governance processes to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability. For the broader economy, the Infocomm Media Development Authority's Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI and the Starter Kit for Testing Large Language Model-based Applications provide guidance on managing risks and maintaining meaningful human accountability. In addition, the Global AI Assurance Sandbox facilitates the real-world testing of risks of generative and agentic AI, including the robustness of their safeguards. For essential services and other higher-risk applications, stronger safeguards are necessary. This could include more rigorous testing for risks, independently verifiable evidence that safeguards are effective, tighter deployment controls or tighter regulatory oversight. The Government will continue to study the need for new requirements especially in high-risk uses. Second, we must strengthen our defences against unintended AI actions and misuse. We cannot rely on simply telling AI agents what to do. We must also deliberately limit what they can access and do, conduct appropriate test suites, retain appropriate human oversight, monitor their behaviour and contain the consequences if something goes wrong. At the same time, we must presume that malicious actors will use AI to cause harm more cheaply, quickly and at scale. Given how deeply digital services are embedded across our economy and society, we must continually strengthen our cybersecurity and also make effective use of AI for cyber defence. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) are using AI to strengthen the security of Government systems and critical information infrastructure, including to identify vulnerabilities and detect potential threats more quickly. CSA has also strengthened cybersecurity requirements for critical information infrastructure operators, shared intelligence on active threats to help them take pre-emptive action, and issued practical guidance to help organisations strengthen their cyber defences and secure AI systems. Third, we need stronger capabilities to identify risks both before and after deployment. The Singapore AI Safety Institute (AISI) is building technical capabilities to evaluate advanced AI systems and develop practical methods for testing and assurance. We will focus on capabilities relevant to Singapore's needs while working with researchers, industry and overseas counterparts to draw on their expertise and findings. After AI systems are deployed, we must monitor their behaviours and learn from incidents and near-misses when they occur. In cybersecurity, for example, there are established channels through CSA, GovTech and the sector leads where cybersecurity incidents should be reported, including those that involve AI. We are looking into how these existing channels can be better leveraged to identify incidents involving AI, support remediation and improve safeguards, and whether further coordination or reporting arrangements are needed. To the question by Mr Fadli Fawzi, no agency has received a report of a cyberattack against its systems involving an unsupervised AI agent so far. We will continue to monitor developments, including incidents overseas, and apply relevant lessons to strengthen our safeguards and reporting arrangements. Fourth, we continue to work with international and industry partners. Frontier models are developed and deployed internationally, and no single country or company can fully assess or manage the risks on its own. This is why Singapore recently endorsed the international call for stronger safeguards around frontier AI. Some scenarios involving rogue AI envisage catastrophic or even extinction-level risks. We do not dismiss these risks. Neither do we assume that every scenario will materialise. Our approach is therefore to monitor the evidence closely, build the technical capabilities needed to understand advanced AI systems and work internationally on measures to address severe risks as the evidence develops. This work is part of our broader national approach to AI risk. The National AI Council provides strategic direction, while the relevant agencies develop and implement the necessary measures. We will continue to adjust our safeguards as AI capabilities and the evidence on risks evolve. We also engage frontier AI developers to obtain information and access to their models where appropriate. We currently do not make this a requirement because access to a model by itself does not necessarily give a complete picture of the risks. A rigid requirement could even be counterproductive if it leads companies to limit their cooperation or information-sharing. Our preference is therefore to build strong collaborative relationships with frontier AI labs that encourage substantive and timely information-sharing. At the same time, we continue to build our own technical capabilities and draw on a wider range of sources to identify risks of relevance to Singapore. This includes the developers' own assessments and testing, independent research and evaluations, as well as the work of other AI safety institutes and international partners. By drawing on these different sources, rather than relying on any single form of access or assessment, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of emerging risks and the safeguards needed to address them. We have stepped up efforts to engage these international counterparts. Our AISI was a founding member of the International Network of Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science. Since 2025, we have convened global experts through the International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety and developed the Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities. We have also hosted some of the world's most significant scientific conferences over the last two years. These have helped build international alignment on the most important gaps in AI safety science between researchers, governments and companies, creating networks and a common basis to coordinate this important work. In conclusion, as AI becomes more capable of acting on our behalf, we must correspondingly introduce more robust safeguards. We must be clear about what it is allowed to do, ensure that humans remain in control and accountable where it matters and continue strengthening our ability to understand emerging risks and respond when problems occur. This will help build trust in AI as a technology that serves the public good.
Update on Unresolved Mobile Connectivity Issues at Sentosa Condominium and Expected Timeline for Mobile Network Operator Coverage Enhancements›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 116w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25054
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information regarding the unresolved mobile connectivity issues at a Sentosa condominium reported in October 2025 (a) whether the issues have since been resolved; (b) if not, what are the reasons for the delay; and (c) when are the mobile network operators expected to complete the necessary coverage enhancements.
Mrs Josephine Teo61 words
[+4 sentences]Two condominiums in Sentosa had reported weak coverage issues to the mobile network operators. Enhancement work at one condominium has been completed. For the other condominium, the operators needed more time to address unique onsite issues and requirements of the building management. They have been liaising closely with the building management and expect to complete the enhancement work in early 2027.
Frequency of Public Feedback Received Regarding Mobile Connectivity Coverage Gaps on MRT Network and Main Causes Identified›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 178w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25055
Ms Lee Hui Ying53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) in each of the past three years, how many instances of public feedback have been received on mobile connectivity coverage gaps on the MRT network; and (b) what have been the main causes of those gaps identified through IMDA's Quality of Service standards checks.
Mrs Josephine Teo125 words
[+7 sentences]The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) conducts regular audits of mobile coverage provided by mobile network operators in Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) tunnels. Overall, these operators have met the Quality of Service standard of more than 99% mobile coverage in MRT tunnels. These results are published on IMDA's website. Over the past two to three years, IMDA received feedback from about 10 members of the public annually about pockets of poor coverage along MRT lines. For the North-South, East-West and Downtown Lines, mobile network operators are upgrading their mobile installations to replace aging equipment and cater to new train designs. These enhancement works are expected to be completed by the first half of 2027. IMDA will continue to monitor progress and service performance metrics closely.
Regulating Use of Smart Glasses and Wearable Recording Devices with Mandatory Recording Indicators to Prevent Surreptitious Recording in Public Spaces›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 171w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25056
Dr Neo Kok Beng61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in view of the ongoing Police investigations into a video of a man allegedly trailing female students while wearing smart glasses, whether the Ministry will reconsider new regulations requiring such wearable devices to be equipped with mandatory visual or sound indicators to alert the public and to prevent surreptitious recording in public spaces.
Mrs Josephine Teo110 words
[+3 sentences]As Police investigations are ongoing, the Government is unable to comment on the specific case. As set out in my reply to Mr Gerald Giam on 6 May 2026, non-consensual recording, sharing or other misuse of intimate or private content may constitute criminal offences under existing laws, including the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act. [Please refer to "Regulating Smart Glasses and AI Wearables to Prevent Covert Recording and Unconsented Data Collection", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions section.] The Government continues to monitor regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions, and will review our regulatory frameworks as technologies, risks and safeguards evolve.
Impact of Foreign AI Chip Export Controls and Remote Computing Access Restrictions on Singapore's Data Centre and Cloud Services Sectors and Mitigation Measures›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 111w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25057
Mr Saktiandi Supaat55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether tighter foreign export controls on AI chips and restrictions on remote access to overseas computing infrastructure will affect Singapore's data centre and cloud services sectors; (b) if so, how; and (c) what steps the Government is taking to mitigate any such impact on these sectors.
Mrs Josephine Teo56 words
[+3 sentences]We are monitoring developments on export controls on artificial intelligence (AI) chips and restrictions on remote access to computing resources. We are also engaging companies on the potential impact, if any, to Singapore's data centre and cloud services sectors. If necessary, we will consider appropriate measures to mitigate the impact of these developments on Singapore-based companies.
Impact of Reduced Phase 2A Places on Alumni-linked Enrolment and Preserving Intergenerational School Culture, Heritage and Alumni Support›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 91w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25058
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education given successive increases in places reserved for Phase 2C and fewer places available under Phase 2A for the Primary 1 registration exercise (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the cumulative impact on alumni-linked enrolment and engagement; and (b) how it will preserve the intergenerational continuity, culture, heritage and alumni support that contribute to affected schools' communities.
Mr Desmond Lee30 words
[+1 sentence]The Ministry of Education will provide an Oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs that have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity.
Complaints on School-related Traffic Disamenities and Requiring Schools in Residential Areas to Improve Traffic Management Plans›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 200w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25059
Ms Hany Soh56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past three years, what is the number of complaints on traffic disamenities caused by parents of school students; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring schools located in residential areas to improve traffic management plans, such as by deploying traffic marshals on residential streets during peak hours.
Mr Desmond Lee144 words
[+6 sentences]The Ministry of Education (MOE) does not track the number of complaints on traffic disamenities caused specifically by parents of school students. Schools have established protocols to manage vehicular movements within their premises, including designated pick-up and drop-off points. Schools deploy traffic marshals to guide vehicles, stagger school start and end times where necessary, and issue advisories to parents who drive their children to school to do so responsibly. Parents and students are also encouraged to use public transport where feasible. In addition, MOE works closely with agencies such as the Land Transport Authority, Traffic Police and Housing and Development Board to deploy enforcement officers near schools to deter motorists from obstructing traffic flow or posing road safety risks, where needed. MOE will continue to work with the relevant agencies, schools and the local communities to address traffic and road safety concerns around schools.
Special Education Teacher Workforce Growth, Attrition Rates and Reasons, and Measures to Improve Workload Sustainability and Retention›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 466w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25060
Dr Charlene Chen65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education in view of the planned expansion in special education (SPED) school capacity (a) how has the SPED teacher workforce grown relative to student enrolment over the past five years; (b) what have been the annual teacher attrition rates over this period and the main reasons for attrition; and (c) what measures are being taken to improve workload sustainability and retention.
Mr Desmond Lee401 words
[+14 sentences]Over the past five years (2021 to 2025), the special education (SPED) teacher workforce has grown from about 1,600 to 1,900, alongside student enrolment growth from about 7,000 to 9,000 with the addition of five more SPED schools. The average resignation rate over this five-year period is 10%, with the most commonly cited reasons being a desire to change job type, personal reasons and family commitments. To support SPED capacity expansion sustainably and meaningfully, Ministry of Education (MOE) has been working with Social Service Agencies (SSAs) to improve remuneration, recruitment and professional development efforts, in order to grow the teacher workforce in tandem with the growth in student population. One, MOE had updated salary guidelines for SPED teachers in 2024, after launching the SPED teacher career and competency frameworks and role profiles in 2020. MOE has worked with the SPED sector to adopt the recommended salary ranges and implement stronger performance-based remuneration. Two, to augment manpower in schools, a shared pool of relief teachers has been made available to SPED schools who can step in when SPED teachers need to be away for training or leave. Three, MOE has supported the sector with recruitment efforts by coordinating the SPED Teachers' Career Fair for SPED schools and facilitating the sector's participation in career fairs by universities. In terms of professional development, MOE introduced the School Staff Developer role in SPED schools in 2024 to foster a culture of continual learning and promoting well-being. Untrained and serving SPED teachers can access professional development opportunities via National Institute of Education and MOE-appointed trainers. Furthermore, MOE has partnered with various SPED schools to set up Communities of Practice (CoP) in areas such as Multiple Disabilities, Autism, and Intellectual Disability to deepen SPED teachers' expertise in these areas. MOE has also worked with the SSAs and SPED schools to identify and nurture performing teachers with school leadership potential by sending them to attend milestone programmes, such as the Management and Leadership in Schools and the Teacher Leader Programme. The Leadership Development Programme was also rolled out in 2025 to grow the leadership bench in the SPED sector. Most recently, to help reduce teachers' administrative burden, MOE has been onboarding SPED schools onto MOE's Parents Gateway system, so that they can provide information more readily to parents and caregivers of their students. Half of the schools are scheduled to be onboarded by the third quarter of 2027.
Assessing Effectiveness of Existing Prepayment Protection Measures, Sectors at Highest Risk of Prepayment Losses and Introducing Mandatory Prepayment Protection Regulations›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 203w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25062
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) given that only three percent of prepayment losses in the first half of 2026 involved CaseTrust-accredited businesses with prepayment protection (a) how effective are existing prepayment protection measures; (b) which sectors face the highest risks of significant prepayment losses; and (c) whether the Government will consider introducing regulations for mandatory prepayment protection for these sectors.
Dr Tan See Leng137 words
[+5 sentences]The Government works closely with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to promote fair trading practices and help consumers make informed purchasing decisions, including those that involve prepayment. For example, we encourage consumers to patronise CaseTrust accredited businesses where applicable, as they provide prepayment protection for consumers to claim a refund of the unused portion of their prepayments in the event of business cessation. Based on the feedback and complaints CASE received, the beauty and wellness, as well as the fitness sectors face the highest risks of significant prepayment losses. The Consumer Protection Review Panel has studied the key concerns raised by consumers, including the adequacy of prepayment protection in these sectors, and intends to publish its findings and recommendations later this year. The Government will consider the Panel's recommendations and follow up with the necessary measures.
Real Wage Growth, Quality Job Creation and Broad-based Worker Participation in AI-related Economic Gains›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 179w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25063
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in light of the strong growth in AI-related sectors, whether the Government has assessed (a) whether productivity gains in these sectors have translated into sustained real wage growth for workers; (b) the number and profile of new jobs created in these sectors; and (c) how the Government will ensure that AI-related economic growth benefits a broad base of Singapore workers.
Dr Tan See Leng108 words
[+1 sentence]This question has been addressed by Written reply to Parliamentary Question No 90, 91, 96 on the Order Paper for 9 September 2026. [Please refer to "Impact of Global AI Capital Expenditure and Expansion on Singapore's Economic, Wage and Jobs Growth", Official Report, 9 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 36, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section and "Sustainability of AI-led Economic Growth and Potential Risks in Event of Major Correction in Global AI Asset Valuations", Official Report, 9 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 36, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Conducting Marine Biodiversity and Hydrodynamic Studies to Assess Impacts on Reefs and Marine Connectivity, and Engaging Stakeholders Early for Proposed Western Island Reclamation›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 145w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25066
Miss Rachel Ong64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the proposed western island (a) what marine biodiversity and hydrodynamic baseline studies will precede selection of reclamation boundaries; (b) whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will assess cumulative impacts on reefs and marine connectivity; and (c) whether marine scientists, nature groups and affected sea users will be consulted early when scoping studies and evaluating alternatives.
Mr Chee Hong Tat81 words
[+1 sentence]This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development’s reply to the questions asked by Dr Charlene Chen, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, and Mr Sharael Taha on 8 September 2026. [Please refer to "Assessing and Mitigating Environmental, Heritage and Community Impacts of Reclamation for New Western Island and Southern Islands Projects", Official Report, 8 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 35, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Data on Unauthorised Incidents of Vegetation Clearance and Habitat Disturbances on State Land and Nature Areas, and Outcomes of Enforcement Measures Taken›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 123w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25067
Miss Rachel Ong58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the past five years, how many incidents involving the unauthorised felling of trees, vegetation clearance or habitat disturbance on State land, parks or nature areas have been recorded; (b) how many resulted in warnings, financial penalties or prosecutions; and (c) what were the principal causes of these incidents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat65 words
[+3 sentences]Over the past five years, National Parks Board investigated around two cases annually involving the unauthorised felling of trees or clearance of vegetation on State land, in parks or in nature areas. Most cases arose from a lack of awareness of the regulatory requirements governing vegetation clearance and tree felling. The penalties include warnings, financial penalties, and prosecution, depending on the severity of the case.
Maintaining Inventory of Underutilised Brownfield Sites for Residential Redevelopment and Publishing Framework and Criteria for Site Selection›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 113w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25069
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong39 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry maintains an inventory of underutilised brownfield sites suitable for residential redevelopment; and (b) whether it will publish the framework and criteria used when selecting greenfield sites over brownfield alternatives.
Mr Chee Hong Tat74 words
[+1 sentence]This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development’s reply to the questions asked by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, and Mr Cai Yinzhou on 8 September 2026. [Please refer to "Land Planning Assessment and Decision-making for Ecologically Significant Sites", Official Report, 8 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 35, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Assessing Qualitative Criteria in HDB Eating House Tenders and Improving Transparency Through Detailed Tender Assessment Information›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 174w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25070
Ms Gho Sze Kee56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in respect of HDB's price-quality method for eating house tenders (a) how are qualitative criteria assessed, including the benchmarks used, assessors involved and measures to ensure consistency across tenders; and (b) whether HDB will consider publishing more detailed tender assessment information, including the breakdown of scores awarded under each criterion.
Mr Chee Hong Tat118 words
[+5 sentences]Under the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) Price-Quality Method for eating house tenders, the quality component includes tenderers' business concept, operations, productivity, track record and community-centric initiatives. For each sub-component, the scoring weightage and criteria are published in the tender documents. To ensure consistency across tenders, a standing panel of HDB officers evaluates submissions against a common scoring rubric. HDB does not publish the breakdown of scores by criterion, to encourage tenderers to put forth their best proposals rather than focus narrowly on specific criteria. The quality component is intended to assess proposals holistically across multiple factors, and HDB therefore publishes the overall scores of all tenderers and anonymised tender prices received, rather than the detailed scoring breakdown.
Supporting Unsuccessful The Animal Lodge Tenants Through Tender Feedback, Extending Relocation Deadline and Responsible Animal Rehoming›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 130w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25071
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the eight commercial tenants at The Animal Lodge who were unsuccessful in their lease renewal bids can receive thorough feedback on their proposals; (b) whether the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) will consider extending the deadline for tenants to relocate; and (c) what plans are in place to support tenants to responsibly rehome animals impacted by the disruption.
Mr Chee Hong Tat64 words
[+3 sentences]The eight tenants whose bids for tenancy renewal were unsuccessful are required to vacate their premises by 5 December 2026. National Parks Board has provided the tenants with feedback on their proposals and has also been engaging them on transition plans, including arrangements for the continued care, relocation or rehoming of their animals. Requests for short-term extensions will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Impact of Removing 15-month Wait-out Period for Private Property Owners on HDB Resale Prices and Addressing Effects on Housing Affordability›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 137w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25074
Mr Shawn Loh66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development following the removal of the 15-month wait-out period for private property owners purchasing non-subsidised HDB resale flats, (a) whether there has been any discernible impact on resale and rental prices, including Cash-Over-Valuation; (b) what feedback the Ministry has received on such impact, particularly from first-time buyers; and (c) how the Ministry intends to address any unintended effects on housing affordability.
Mr Chee Hong Tat71 words
[+3 sentences]The 15-month wait-out period for private residential property owners (PPOs) and ex-PPOs to purchase a non-subsidised Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale flat was removed on 28 July 2026. Thus far, there has been no discernible impact on resale and HDB open market rental prices, including Cash-Over-Valuation. HDB's flash estimate of the third quarter of 2026 Resale Price Index showed that resale prices decreased by 0.2% from second quarter of 2026.
Update on Review of Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act on Management Corporations Strata Titles' Upgrading Capacity›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 125w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25075
Mr Alex Yeo77 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of the review of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act to better enable Management Corporations Strata Titles (MCSTs) to upgrade their developments, including plans for MCSTs to tap on the Building and Construction Authority's Accessibility Fund; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring MCSTs to set aside a proportion of monthly maintenance fees in the sinking fund for essential works, such as lift replacements.
Mr Chee Hong Tat48 words
[+2 sentences]The Building and Construction Authority has completed a public consultation on the ongoing review of the Building (Strata Management) Act. One area we are studying is how Management Corporations Strata Title can be better supported to plan for and accumulate sinking funds for essential maintenance and upgrading works.
Impact of Change of Residential Address on Cats Already Licensed under Cat Management Framework›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 108w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25076
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik39 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether a change of residential address will require owners to reduce the number of cats to two even though all the current cats are already licensed under the Cat Management Framework pre-September 2024.
Mr Chee Hong Tat69 words
[+3 sentences]The Cat Management Framework, which introduced cat licensing, came into effect on 1 September 2024. Cat owners who change their residential address must apply to the Animal and Veterinary Service to update their cat licences. They will not be required to reduce their number of cats if the cats were owned before 1 September 2024 and licensed during the transition period between 1 September 2024 and 31 August 2026.
Conditional Housing Grant Eligibility on Co-ownership Versus Essential Occupier Status, and Rationale for De-linking Ownership from Grant Eligibility›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 111w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25077
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in the case of married couples or the fiancé and fiancée scheme (a) whether CPF Housing Grants that are made available are conditional upon buyers being listed as co-owners rather than one buyer being the sole owner and the other being listed only as an essential occupier; and (b) if not, what is the rationale for de-linking ownership from grant eligibility.
Mr Chee Hong Tat44 words
[+1 sentence]The eligibility to purchase an Housing and Development Board flat or to receive Central Provident Board Housing Grants is assessed at the household level, regardless of whether both parties are listed as co-applicants, or one is an applicant and the other a core occupier.
Assessment of Visibility-related Incidents and Enforcement Actions Involving Removable Front Side Window Sunshades While Driving›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 122w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25078
Dr Hamid Razak54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past five years, how many traffic offences or enforcement actions have involved drivers using removable sunshades over the front side windows while driving; and (b) whether the Traffic Police has assessed the extent to which such use of removable sunshades has contributed to visibility-related traffic incidents.
Mr Jeffrey Siow68 words
[+2 sentences]I thank the Member for the question. We have received a related question for the Parliament sitting on 7 October 2026, and I will address both questions together at that Sitting. [Please refer to "Penalties for Use of Curtains or Sunshades on Driver-side Windows", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Impact of Reinstated Orchard ERP Charge on Essential Workers, Caregivers and Point-to-point Drivers, and Rational for Flat Rate Versus Dynamic Pricing›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 191w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25079
Mr Yip Hon Weng66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport regarding the reinstatement of the ERP charge in the Orchard cordon on weekdays from 11 am to 7 pm (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact on essential workers, caregivers and point-to-point drivers with limited flexibility to retime journeys; and (b) why a flat-rate charge across an eight-hour window is implemented instead of hourly dynamic pricing based on traffic fluctuations.
Mr Jeffrey Siow125 words
[+5 sentences]Traffic speeds for roads in the Orchard area have generally remained below optimal levels for some time. The current road speeds across the time intervals between 11 am to 7 pm, which range between 15 km/h to 20 km/h are too low for a meaningful differentiation in Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) rates. ERP operations for roads in the Orchard are also structured as a cordon to avoid diverting motorists to smaller roads, which would then become congested. Reducing road congestion will benefit those who are unable to adjust their travel time, route, or mode of travel, as travel times will be shorter and more predictable. Commuters can also consider using public transport as the Orchard area is well served by multiple bus and train options.
Publishing Real-time LRT Arrival Data via Public Apps and DataMall During Off-peak Hours and Weekends, and Technical Limitations on Data Release›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 89w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25080
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Land Transport Authority will publish real-time LRT arrival data via public apps or DataMall specifically during off-peak hours and weekends when train frequencies are lower; and (b) whether the Ministry can provide an update on any technical limitations preventing a time-restricted or line-specific data release.
Mr Jeffrey Siow36 words
[+1 sentence]The Land Transport Authority does not plan to provide real-time Light Rail Transit (LRT) arrival data through public applications or DataMall, as LRT trains operate at short and consistent intervals even during off-peak hours and weekends.
Assessing Late-night Transport Needs and Coordinating Transport Planning for Extended Entertainment Hours at Boat Quay and Clarke Quay›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 156w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25081
Mr Cai Yinzhou59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport following the formalisation of liquor trading hours until 4 am at Boat Quay and Clarke Quay (a) whether LTA has assessed late-night transport needs of patrons and workers in these precincts; (b) whether extended MRT or night bus services will be considered; and (c) how is transport planning coordinated with extended entertainment operating hours.
Mr Jeffrey Siow97 words
[+5 sentences]Currently, our public buses and trains run for about 18 hours daily, leaving only a few hours for maintenance work. Extending operating hours will reduce this essential maintenance time, further strain limited resources, and potentially affect the reliability of service during the day. Public bus services are also heavily subsidised. When night bus services were provided prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, ridership was low, at around 13% of capacity at its busiest. Apart from taxis and ride hail services, the Land Transport Authority is open to proposals from private bus operators to offer late night bus services.
Handling Refusal of Composition Fines for Bus Conduct Offences and Utilising Onboard CCTV Cameras to Identify and Trace Offenders›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 144w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25082
Mr Yip Hon Weng45 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport regarding the enforcement of bus conduct regulations (a) what standard approach, if any, does the Ministry take when suspected offenders refuse to pay composition fines; and (b) whether onboard closed-circuit television cameras will be utilised to identify and trace perpetrators.
Mr Jeffrey Siow99 words
[+5 sentences]Where an offence has been committed, the offender may be offered a composition sum in lieu of being charged in Court. Generally, if a composition sum is not paid within the stipulated period, an offender may be charged in Court. Depending on the type of offence, an offender would be liable upon conviction to a fine of up to $5,000. The Closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage on buses is primarily used to ensure public transport safety and security. CCTV footage can be used to support enforcement officers in the identification and tracing of offenders, especially in egregious cases of misconduct.
Data on Deployment of Single-deck Buses During Peak Periods and Declined Enhancement Requests, and Assessing Loading Against Actual Bus Capacity Deployed›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 139w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25083
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) how many bus services operate predominantly with single-deck buses during peak periods and how many cannot deploy double-deck buses due to route or infrastructure constraints; (b) how many requests for peak-period enhancements since 2024 were declined because loading was below LTA's threshold; and (c) whether loading is assessed against the capacity of buses actually deployed.
Mr Jeffrey Siow78 words
[+5 sentences]As of August 2026, 176 bus services use only single-deck buses during peak periods. Of these, 79 routes are constrained by height clearances and tight turns which prevent use of double-deck buses. All double decker buses are deployed during peak hours when available. Passenger loading is assessed against the capacity of the buses deployed. Besides passenger loading, Land Transport Authority considers resource availability, capacity on other adjacent services and alternative travel options when assessing requests for service enhancements.
Cost of Building and Maintaining Covered and High Covered Linkways and Coordinating Sheltered Walkway Planning and Accessibility Infrastructure Across Agencies›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 148w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25084
Mr Cai Yinzhou65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) for each of the past five years, what is the cost of building (i) covered linkways and (ii) high covered linkways; (b) what is the annual cost of maintaining them; and (c) whether LTA will coordinate the planning, building and maintenance of all sheltered walkways and accessibility infrastructure within towns, including those currently undertaken by HDB and Town Councils.
Mr Jeffrey Siow83 words
[+4 sentences]A covered linkway costs around $5 million per kilometre to build, while a single high covered linkway costs around $1.5 million each. These costs can vary depending on site-specific works, such as the diversion of underground utilities. Annual maintenance costs average about $5,000 per 100 metres. The Land Transport Authority coordinates with Town Councils and the Housing and Development Board to plan, build and maintain covered linkways that it is responsible for, which connect to transport infrastructure, pedestrian overhead bridges and nearby amenities.
Breakdown of Bus Operator Key Performance Indicators, Incentive Payments and Penalties since Introduction of Bus Contracting Model›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 174w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25085
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport in each year since the introduction of the bus contracting model (a) what is the breakdown by operator of the key performance indicators tracked including (i) excess wait time (ii) on time adherence and (iii) scheduled mileage and other quality indicators; and (b) what is the breakdown by operator of the annual incentive payments and penalties awarded.
Mr Jeffrey Siow112 words
[+5 sentences]From 2017 to 2025, most of the bus services met the required service standards, as shown in Table 1. The overall reliability incentives and penalties received by operators, as a proportion of contracted service fees to account for scheduled mileage, range from -0.1% to 5.9%. These correlate with individual operator's performance. As mentioned at the Member's Adjournment Motion on "Reaching 75%: Reforming Singapore's Public Transport System", the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is considering the release of disaggregated reliability data to provide the public with more granular information that reflects commuters' lived experience, so that appropriate measures can be taken to improve service delivery. LTA expects to complete the review in early 2027.
AI-detected Bus Lane Offence Accuracy Assessment, Officer Review Requirements and Motorist Appeal Process›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 244w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25086
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport regarding LTA's planned AI system using bus cameras to detect bus lane encroachments (a) how its reported 90% trial accuracy is calculated, including sample size and false-positive and false-negative rates by intended use; (b) whether every AI-detected traffic offence will be reviewed by an authorised officer before enforcement; and (c) how motorists can challenge an erroneous detection.
Mr Jeffrey Siow182 words
[+10 sentences]The artificial intelligence (AI) systems were trialled across a variety of use-cases, including to detect road defects, road works and bus lane encroachments. For bus lanes, the systems analysed over 800 hours of bus camera footage over three months, which captured more than 450 encroachments in total. The AI systems correctly detected 415 cases, or about 90% of encroachments. They also detected 257 cases which turned out to be false positives. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to work with the vendor to refine these tools, including to reduce the number of false positives. In time, we will reduce the need for human oversight. Meanwhile, bus lane violations detected by the AI system will still be manually reviewed before enforcement action is taken. Motorists can contest or appeal a notice, similar to any other traffic offence today. These contests and appeals will continue to be assessed by human officers. As the technology matures and accuracy improves, LTA will expand the use of bus cameras and AI across more public bus services to safeguard bus lanes and maintain bus speeds and reliability.
Platform Worker Safety Workgroup Study on Unsafe Incentive Structures and Delivery Targets, and Expected Timeline for Recommendations›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 294w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25088
Mr Jackson Lam65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower on the Platform Worker (PW) Safety Workgroup convened by the Ministry (a) what methodology, if any, is the Workgroup using to study if platform incentive structures inadvertently encourage unsafe riding or driving behaviour, including time-based bonuses, delivery targets and peak-hour incentives; and (b) what is the estimated timeline, if any, for the Workgroup to share its findings and recommendations.
Ms Jasmin Lau229 words
[+9 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shares the Member's concerns on the importance of strengthening platform worker (PW) safety. The Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for Platform Services states that platform operators (POs) should not set any limit, penalty, or bonus incentive for completing a job within a certain time. In monitoring compliance with the ACOP, MOM reviewed accidents involving PWs, cross-checking the POs' records of the PW's work history and remuneration, and obtaining information on their incentive structures. We have not found any evidence that these accidents were caused by unsafe riding or driving behaviour arising from platform incentive structures. Notwithstanding this, MOM has worked with POs, the National Trades Union Congress and platform work associations (PWAs) to address potential safety risks from incentives upstream. Beyond the existing requirements in the ACOP, POs and PWAs have jointly developed additional guardrails on payment and incentive schemes, including that incentives should not encourage PWs to work excessively long periods without adequate rest. This framework enables PWAs to raise safety concerns on incentive schemes to POs for bilateral discussion and mitigation. The PW Safety Workgroup, formed in March 2026, is discussing further measures to improve platform work safety and will continue to study the role of incentives and other potential causal factors for accidents involving PWs. The Workgroup expects to conclude its work by end-2026 and will share its recommendations when ready.
Mandatory Road Safety Outcomes in Platform Operator Algorithms, and Incentive Structures to Prevent Unsafe Rushing by Riders and Drivers›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 281w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25089
Mr Jackson Lam34 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Government will consider requiring platform operators to incorporate road-safety outcomes into their algorithms and incentive structures, including safeguards against incentives that may encourage riders to rush.
Ms Jasmin Lau247 words
[+10 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shares the Member's concerns on the need to strengthen platform worker (PW) safety. We have worked with platform operators (POs) and the labour movement to put in place safeguards against safety risks arising from POs' incentive structures. The Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for Platform Services states that POs should not set any limit, penalty, or bonus incentive for completing a job within a certain time. MOM will take action against POs who are found to have not complied with the ACOP. In our investigations of accidents involving PWs, MOM has thus far not found any evidence that these accidents were caused by unsafe riding or driving behaviour arising from platform incentive structures. In addition, MOM has worked with POs, the National Trades Union Congress and platform work associations (PWAs) to address potential safety risks from incentives upstream. Beyond the existing requirements in the ACOP, POs and PWAs have jointly developed additional guardrails on payment and incentive schemes, including that incentives should not encourage PWs to work excessively long periods without adequate rest. This framework enables PWAs to raise safety concerns on incentive schemes to POs for bilateral discussion and mitigation. The PW Safety Workgroup, formed in March 2026, is discussing further measures to improve platform work safety and will continue to study the role of incentives and other potential causal factors for accidents involving PWs. The Workgroup expects to conclude its work by end-2026 and will share its recommendations when ready.
Breakdown of Companies Receiving Senior Employment Credit in 2025 by Grouped Number of Eligible Workers›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 73w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25093
Dr Wan Rizal51 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower what is the breakdown of companies that received the Senior Employment Credit in 2025 by the number of eligible workers (i) up to 10 (ii) 11 to 20 (iii) 21 to 30 (iv) 31 to 40 (v) 41 to 50 and (vi) more than 50.
Ms Jasmin Lau22 words
[+2 sentences]In 2025, over 82,000 unique employers received the Senior Employment Credit. Table 1 below shows the breakdown by number of eligible employees.
Data on Eligible Beneficiaries under Intestacy Laws Accessing CPF Nomination Information of Deceased Members, and Prevailing Verification Process›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 176w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25095
Ms Sylvia Lim50 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) since February 2024, in how many cases of death of a CPF member have eligible beneficiaries under intestacy laws accessed information on nominations made by the deceased member; and (b) whether the prevailing access process automatically recognises eligible beneficiaries or requires case-by-case verification.
Ms Jasmin Lau126 words
[+6 sentences]To simplify post-death handling of Central Provident Fund (CPF) matters for families, CPF nominees and eligible individuals under intestacy and Muslim inheritance laws can access CPF account information of a deceased member including nominations. This is in line with established estate administration processes. While nominees can access the deceased member's CPF account information automatically, eligible beneficiaries who are non-nominees must submit a request to CPF Board for access, along with the required supporting information to establish their relationship with the deceased under the relevant intestacy laws. These safeguards for non-nominees serve to protect the member's CPF account information. Since 1 February 2024, the account information of around 2,500 deceased CPF members has been provided to eligible non-nominee family members. We do not track access by nominees.
Retrenchment Trends for Q2 2026, Attributions to AI, Employment Facilitation Gaps, Re-employment and Wage Outcomes, and Targeted Support Measures for Displaced Workers›Written Answers to Questions7 turns · 398w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25102
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how is the Ministry assessing the latest rise in retrenchments and fall in job vacancies; and (b) what targeted measures will support displaced workers and strengthen labour market resilience amid signs of economic softening.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has received any recent feedback from employment facilitation agencies regarding challenges in reaching affected employees to provide employment facilitation support when Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications are submitted after employees have left the company; and (b) what additional measures can the tripartite partners consider to address such challenges.
Ms He Ting Ru57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what proportion of the 4,620 job redundancies in the second quarter of 2026 were due to cyclical restructuring rather than AI adoption; (b) whether the Ministry will begin tracking AI-attributed retrenchments as a distinct category; and (c) how the Ministry verifies if firms receiving AI grants are unfairly displacing workers.
Ms He Ting Ru60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what proportion of the 4,620 workers retrenched in the second quarter of 2026 were non-residents; (b) how this compares with past non-resident retrenchments; (c) why the six-month re-entry rate for retrenched workers fell to 54.9% from 60.7%; and (d) what is the breakdown by residency status for the re-entry rate for retrenched workers.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) for the latest available cohort of retrenched resident professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), what proportions were re-employed at 12 and 24 months after retrenchment, with a breakdown by age group; and (b) among those re-employed (i) what proportions earned less than before retrenchment and (ii) what were the median percentage wage reductions for this group.
Mr Alex Yeo67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower regarding the Labour Market Report Second Quarter 2026 reporting an increase in retrenchments, whether the Ministry will (i) review the adequacy of advance notice and job transition assistance for affected employees and (ii) provide further support measures for retrenched employees, particularly for PMETs in information and communications, and financial services, where there has also been a reported drop in job vacancies.
Ms Jasmin Lau54 words
[+1 sentence]These questions have been addressed by the reply to Parliamentary Questions No 1 to 10 in the Order Paper for today. [Please refer to "Analysing Retrenchment and Re-employment Data, and Enhancing Employment Support In Light Of Latest Labour Market Report", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Assessing Statutory Consultation Process, Higher-density Housing Options and Gillman Forest Retention Area under Gillman Barracks Rezoning Plans›Written Answers to Questions4 turns · 218w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25103
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development regarding the Draft Master Plan 2025 proposal to rezone Gillman Barracks for residential use, whether (a) any objections were received during the statutory consultation process and how they were considered; (b) all requirements under the Planning Act 1998 have been complied with; (c) any hearing was convened to consider objections; and (d) if not, why not.
Miss Rachel Ong53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in light of plans for 60-storey BTO developments that can provide about 50% more flats, whether the Government will consider similarly higher-density housing within the Greater Southern Waterfront to enable Gillman Forest to be retained in its entirety while meeting both housing needs and environmental conservation objectives.
Miss Rachel Ong40 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development what are (i) the exact area and (ii) percentage of the existing Gillman Forest that will be retained under the proposed development plans, excluding other existing or proposed green spaces within the development site.
Mr Chee Hong Tat63 words
[+1 sentence]These questions were addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the questions asked by Miss Rachel Ong on 10 September 2026. [Please refer to "Adequacy of Ecological Corridor Width and Greater Forest Retention at Gillman Barracks Development in Light of Environmental Impact Assessment Recommendations and Biodiversity Considerations", Official Report, 10 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 37, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Introducing Larger BTO Flat Options and Flexible Plot Ratios in Non-prime Areas to Provide Affordable Housing Options for Large Families›Written Answers to Questions3 turns · 150w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25104
Mr Shawn Loh41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider introducing flats that are significantly larger than the largest BTO flats in non-prime areas, to provide buyers, especially those with large families, with more options for larger flats, while maintaining affordability.
Mr Shawn Loh48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether URA has considered providing HDB with more flexible plot ratios, particularly in non-prime locations, such that larger flats could be constructed on the same amount of land, whilst maintaining the same total number of occupants in keeping with the urban masterplan.
Mr Chee Hong Tat61 words
[+4 sentences]To support larger families, we are increasing the supply of 5-room flats. This includes building taller by increasing the Gross Plot Ratio for public housing sites where possible. We do not have plans to provide new flats that are significantly larger than the existing 5-room and 3Gen Build-To-Order flats. There are options on the resale market for those seeking larger flats.
Incorporating Outsourced Progressive Wage Model's New Minimum Annual Leave Standard in Government Contracts›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 205w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24906
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower following the increase in the Outsourced Progressive Wage Model workers' minimum annual leave from seven to 10 days progressively (a) whether the Government will require Government service buyers and encourage private buyers to ensure incoming providers recognise continuous service in the same role or worksite for leave progression; and (b) whether this requirement will be incorporated into standard Government service contracts.
Ms Jasmin Lau138 words
[+8 sentences]Service providers, regardless of whether they are public or private entities, are strongly encouraged to recognise the length of service of incumbent workers when determining leave benefits even though this is not a legal requirement. However, mandating such a requirement is administratively complex. For instance, this could require the sharing of employees' personal information across competing service providers when bidding for prospective contracts. Differentiated leave benefits across re-hired and new workers could also distort employers' hiring preferences. This may be detrimental to re-hired workers. Given the unique nature of employment arrangements for outsourced PWM workers, Tripartite Partners have decided to increase their minimum leave entitlement to 10 days. This is applicable to both public and private entities. The increase in the minimum leave entitlement will benefit all outsourced PWM workers and would be easier for employers to implement.
Extension of Tripartite Advisory on Reasonable Accommodations to Employees Recovering from Serious Illness or Managing Chronic Medical Conditions›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 125w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24907
Mr Victor Lye68 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given ongoing efforts to strengthen workplace fairness (a) will the Ministry extend its forthcoming Tripartite Advisory on Reasonable Accommodations beyond persons with disabilities, and include employees who are recovering from serious illness or injury, or managing chronic medical conditions; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring employers to reasonably consider medically supported workplace adjustments before rejecting such requests or terminating employment.
Ms Jasmin Lau57 words
[+1 sentence]This question has been addressed by the written response to Question No 47 on the Order Paper for 8 September 2026. [Please refer to "Protections for Workers Returning to Work After Major Illnesses", Official Report, 8 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 35, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Protections for Outdoor Workers When Air Quality Reaches Unhealthy Levels›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 236w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24910
Mr Jackson Lam38 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what protections employers are required to provide to outdoor workers when air quality reaches unhealthy levels; and (b) whether clearer thresholds should be introduced for reducing or suspending strenuous outdoor work.
Ms Jasmin Lau198 words
[+10 sentences]Under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, employers must assess haze-related risks and take appropriate measures to protect outdoor workers. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) haze guidelines set out clear precautionary measures based on the 24-hour Pollutant Standards Index (PSI). When the 24-hour PSI is within the unhealthy range of 101 to 200, employers should reduce prolonged or strenuous outdoor work. When it is within the very unhealthy range of 201 to 300, such work should be avoided. If it cannot be avoided, employers should provide employees with respirators, such as N95 masks. When the 24-hour PSI exceeds 300 and enters the hazardous range, employers should minimise all outdoor work. For employees who must continue working outdoors, N95 masks should be worn, and full face respirators should be worn when the PSI exceeds 400. Risk assessments for high-risk activities, such as lifting operations, should also take into account the effects of haze on visibility. More stringent precautions apply to susceptible workers, including older and pregnant workers, and those with chronic lung or heart disease. Employers should also reduce workers' exposure by adjusting work assignments or rotating jobs, providing sufficient indoor rest breaks, adequate hydration and deferring non-essential work.
Providing Employment-outcome Information to Help Workers Choose Relevant Training Pathways for Specific Skills›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 274w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24911
Mr David Hoe63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of the Ministry's emphasis on training workers for roles that employers need, (a) how workers can identify the skills associated with occupations experiencing sustained demand; and (b) whether the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) will provide employment-outcome information for relevant training pathways to help workers choose skills that strengthen their prospects of securing employment.
Ms Jasmin Lau211 words
[+9 sentences]The Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) supports individuals' career planning through digital self-discovery tools, like the CareersFinder and MyCareersPlan feature within the MyCareersFuture portal. These tools tap on job market data to highlight occupations and skills that are in strong demand, while offering personalised insights on career options, skills gaps and recommendations on relevant training programmes. Once individuals are clearer on their career goals, they can choose from relevant training offered on the MySkillsFuture portal. To help learners make more informed choices, courses carry a career impact rating which reflects feedback from past trainees on how the course has supported their employment prospects and job performance. In addition to standalone courses, learners can also upskill in Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs), where mid-career individuals are placed into growth job roles with good longer-term prospects. About nine in 10 CCP participants remain employed 24 months after placement. For those who prefer personalised, in-person support, individuals can visit SWDA's flagship careers and skills service touchpoint Connect by SWDA or NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute centres. These touchpoints are located nationwide and can help individuals identify in-demand skills and training pathways that will meet industry needs. Together, these provide various data points and support for individuals to make more informed career and training decisions.
Push for Platform Operators to Join Safety Time-out Given High Number of Fatal or Major Injuries amongst Platform Workers›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 280w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24917
Mr Cai Yinzhou65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given 44 fatal or major injuries to platform workers in the first half of 2026 (a) whether platform operators joined the June 2026 Safety Time-Out; (b) what thresholds trigger a Safety Time-Out; (c) whether platform injuries count towards these thresholds; and (d) whether the Ministry will mandate platform-specific Safety Time-Outs, such as pausing volume-based incentives, when thresholds are crossed.
Ms Jasmin Lau215 words
[+8 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) called for companies, including platform operators, to participate in a nationwide voluntary safety time-out from 26 June 2026 to 9 July 2026. This was to arrest the rise in fatalities, as seven workplace fatalities had occurred from end-May to June 2026 across different sectors and industries, including one platform worker. The safety time-out encouraged all companies to review their workplace safety processes and pay attention to vehicle-related activities and individual worker lapses. We understand that at least one platform operators participated in the voluntary safety time-out. In deciding whether to call for a safety time-out, MOM will consider the number of fatal injuries and whether there are any recurrent underlying causes that require the need to heighten vigilance by industry to stem further accidents. If there is evidence that platform incentives are the cause of platform work accidents, MOM is prepared to take action including through mandating targeted platform operator-specific safety time-outs, where applicable. To address the high injury rate among platform workers, the recently formed Platform Worker Safety Workgroup is studying further measures to improve platform work safety including the role of incentives and other potential causal factors for accidents involving platform workers. The Workgroup expects to conclude its work by end-2026 and will share its recommendations when ready.
Review of Operators' Setting of Streak-based Incentives and Acceptance-rate or Cancellation-rate Thresholds for Platform Service Work›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 209w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24918
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Approved Code of Practice for Platform Services applies to cumulative or streak-based incentives and acceptance-rate or cancellation-rate thresholds, beyond the existing provisions on per-job time limits; (b) whether changes to such schemes trigger a mandatory risk assessment review by platform operators; and (c) how many platform operators' risk assessments the Ministry has inspected since January 2025.
Ms Jasmin Lau144 words
[+5 sentences]The Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for Platform Services applies to the incentive schemes raised by the Member. ACOP requires platform operators to take practicable measures to mitigate and manage safety risks that may arise from how platform jobs are organised, assigned and carried out, including the design of incentive schemes. When platform operators adjust their incentive schemes, they should review their risk assessments to ensure that they remain relevant and compliant with ACOP, especially when the adjustments result in significant changes in work conditions. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has engaged 21 platform operators so far on their risk assessments and conveyed the identified areas for improvement to each of the platform operators. Going forward, MOM will continue to refine our inspections of platform operators' risk assessments, taking into account the findings from the ongoing Platform Worker Safety Workgroup when they are released.
Factors Contributing to Recent Increase in Influenza Cases›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 298w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24925
Mr Lee Hong Chuang67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what are the primary factors contributing to the increase in influenza cases as reported by the Communicable Diseases Agency on 1 September 2026; (b) whether the delay in the availability of Northern Hemisphere influenza vaccines will affect the situation; and (c) what are the current trends in the demand of influenza vaccines among vulnerable groups.
Mr Ong Ye Kung231 words
[+11 sentences]My response will also address a similar question raised by Mr Lee Hong Chuang filed for a subsequent Sitting. If the Member is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw the question from that Sitting. Influenza circulates throughout the year in Singapore, with higher activity typically observed from May to August and December to March. The timing of these increases may vary from year to year, influenced by factors, such as international travel, immunity levels and population mixing. The recent increase in Singapore has also occurred alongside higher influenza activity in the region. The 2026/2027 Northern Hemisphere (NH) influenza vaccine has arrived in Singapore and is being progressively offered to the public. Influenza vaccination uptake among residents aged 65 and above from June to August this year was broadly comparable to the same period last year. We will continue to monitor influenza activity and vaccine demand, particularly among seniors and other vulnerable groups, and encourage those who are recommended to receive influenza vaccination to do so. Under Healthier SG, doctors remind their enrollees to receive timely vaccinations through personalised health plans. Influenza vaccination is fully subsidised for eligible Healthier SG enrollees, when vaccinated at their enrolled Healthier SG clinic. For the general population, influenza vaccination booking can be made through HealthHub for polyclinics, and the Health Appointment System for participating general practitioner clinics under the Community Heath Assist Scheme.
Measures for Polyclinics and Public Healthcare Institutions to Cope With Potential Sharp Rise in Respiratory-related Illnesses Given Haze›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 177w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24926
Mr Lee Hong Chuang51 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the current haze situation (a) what contingency measures are in place to address any sharp increase in respiratory-related illnesses; and (b) whether polyclinics and public healthcare institutions are adequately prepared for a potential rise in respiratory-related admissions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung126 words
[+3 sentences]The Ministry works closely with the Whole of Government (WOG) Haze Task Force led by the National Environment Agency to monitor the haze situation and its impact on the capacity of public healthcare institutions (PHIs). The PHIs have put in place haze preparedness measures to manage a potential rise in respiratory-related visits, which include activating additional clinical resources and surge bed capacity in public hospitals, where necessary. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, pregnant women, children, and those with chronic lung or heart conditions, are advised to avoid or minimise prolonged or strenuous outdoor physical exertion when the 24-hour PSI levels are in the unhealthy range and to seek medical attention promptly if they are not feeling well or if symptoms do not improve with medication.
Using Findings of HEAT-MAP Study to Help Elderly Recognise Common Symptoms of Heat-related Illnesses and Seek Timely Medical Advice›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 244w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24927
Ms Joan Pereira55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the HEAT-MAP study of heat-related illnesses, how will the Ministry use the findings of this study to help our elderly, especially those suffering from multiple medical conditions, to (i) recognise common symptoms for heat-related illnesses and (ii) seek timely medical advice and assistance.
Mr Ong Ye Kung189 words
[+7 sentences]The HEAT-MAP study aims to provide a better understanding of current and future epidemiology of heat-related illnesses in Singapore, and their possible effects on vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, particularly those with multiple medical conditions. The study is being conducted across public hospital emergency departments and is funded under the Climate Impact Science Research Funding Initiative from 2026 to 2028. As the study findings become available, we will use them to better understand who is most at risk, how heat-related illnesses present in our local population and the circumstances in which patients seek medical attention. The findings may also inform our longer-term healthcare planning for the effects of rising temperatures. In the meantime, our priority is both prevention and early recognition. Members of the public can refer to the Heat Stress Advisory when planning outdoor activities and take the recommended precautions based on prevailing heat stress levels. Seniors and others who are more vulnerable to heat stress should exercise greater caution when heat stress levels are elevated, and caregivers and family members can also play an important role in looking out for signs that they may be unwell.
Adequacy of AI Computing Resources for Local Enterprises through Domestic Facilities and Overseas Cloud Services›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 198w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24934
Mr Saktiandi Supaat48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government assesses the adequacy of AI computing resources available to local enterprises through domestic facilities and overseas cloud services; (b) if so, how; and (c) whether any local shortfalls in AI computing resources are projected through 2030.
Mrs Josephine Teo150 words
[+6 sentences]Data centres (DCs) are a key enabler of our digital economy, supporting AI workloads and digital services that our enterprises and society rely on. The AI computing needs of our local enterprises are met through a combination of local and overseas DC capacities. Industry feedback on market availability and price indicators for compute suggest that there is sufficient supply to meet our current needs. Nonetheless, to meet the evolving demand for different AI workloads with varying needs for latency, resilience, security and data governance, we will continue to facilitate the sustainable growth of our local DC capacity, while maintaining access to diversified sources of compute overseas. Compute demand and supply conditions have not matured and are difficult to project. For the time being, we will focus on closely monitoring demand and market conditions, and keeping Singapore connected to multiple sources of compute to better support price competitiveness and supply resilience.
Profile of International Students Given MOE Tuition Grant›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 84w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24938
Ms Gho Sze Kee35 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education for each of the past five years, how many international students have been awarded the Ministry of Education (MOE) Tuition Grant, broken down by broad field of study and institution.
Mr Desmond Lee49 words
[+3 sentences]From 2021 to 2025, an average of about 1,100 international students per cohort at the polytechnics and arts institutions received the Ministry of Education Tuition Grant. The corresponding figure for the autonomous universities was about 1,700 international students. These students are enrolled in a range of fields of study.
Protecting Refunds to Parents and Employee Salaries when Student Care Centres Cease Operations›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 369w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24944
Mr Jackson Lam51 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) whether security deposits required of new Student Care Centre and Kindergarten Care operators will be sufficient to cover refunds owed to parents and outstanding employee salaries in the event of an operator's sudden failure; and (b) whether similar safeguards will eventually apply to existing operators.
Mr Desmond Lee318 words
[+13 sentences]My response will address oral question No 68 on today's Order Paper and the related oral question (PQ 3109) scheduled for the 7 October sitting, on the security deposit requirements for Student Care Centre (SCC) operators in our schools. [Please refer to "Impact of New Financial Deposits and Requirements on Student Care Operators Managing Multiple Centres", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] For new SCC contracts commencing December 2026, operators will be required to provide a new security deposit. This includes existing operators who are awarded new contracts. The security deposit is intended to mitigate financial losses incurred by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in the event of an operator's default or failure to meet its contractual obligations. MOE will support affected students as appropriate. The operators are responsible for outstanding employee salaries. MOE has sized the security deposit at about one month of the SCC's total fees to guard against potential losses, while avoiding excessive burden on operators. The security deposit is tiered by enrolment so that operators with lower revenue from a smaller enrolment provide a smaller deposit. The quantum is also pegged to the lower bound of each enrolment tier to ensure operators of centres with enrolment just above a threshold are not unduly burdened. To ensure operators have sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements, the estimated enrolment and security deposit computation for each SCC are stated upfront in the tender documents. Operators are required to fulfil this requirement through a letter of guarantee from a financial institution six months from the commencement of the contract. The requirements imposed by financial institutions, including whether collateral is required, will depend on commercial factors such as the operator's creditworthiness, financial standing, and existing relationship with the financial institution. MOE will monitor and review the implementation of this requirement.
Reports of Sexual Misconduct Allegations by Institutions under Private Education Act›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 200w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24946
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) whether institutions under the Private Education Act must report sexual misconduct allegations to the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA), and how many have SWDA and its predecessor entities received annually since 2021; (b) how many section 18 directions to cease deploying teachers followed; and (c) whether they will be required, like the universities, to have Victim Care Units, no-contact orders and codes of conduct.
Mr Desmond Lee129 words
[+5 sentences]Private Education Institutions (PEIs) are expected to provide a safe learning environment for their students and ensure that their teachers are fit and proper persons. PEIs are also expected to address any allegation of sexual misconduct seriously, including making a Police report if a criminal offence may be involved. The Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) has received six reports of sexual misconduct allegations involving PEIs since 2021, three of which involved teaching staff. No directions under section 18 of the Private Education Act (PEA), which requires a PEI to cease deploying a teacher, were issued, as the circumstances of these cases did not require such a direction. As commercial entities, PEIs independently manage their support measures and services, including the provision of care centres and codes of conduct.
Simplifying Music Permit Processes for Government-sponsored Programmes at Selected Venues›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 216w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24953
Dr Wan Rizal54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Law whether the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore can work with venue owners that are Government agencies to simplify the process and cost of obtaining permit for the use of licensed music to reduce impact on freelance coaches when conducting classes under programmes sponsored by Government agencies at these venues.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai162 words
[+7 sentences]Licences for the use of copyrighted music are issued by the Composers and Authors Society of Singapore (COMPASS) and Music Rights Singapore (MRSS). Both are collective management organisations that collect licensing fees for, and distribute royalties to, their members: COMPASS for songwriters and lyricists, and MRSS for recording musicians. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) regulates Singapore's collective management organisations, including COMPASS and MRSS, to ensure that they meet the standards of accountability, transparency, efficiency, and good governance. Licence fees are commercially negotiated matters and not regulated or prescribed by IPOS. Agencies have facilitated support for freelance coaches where appropriate. For instance, SportSG has worked out a special rate with COMPASS for freelance coaches conducting classes at its venues and is in ongoing discussions with MRSS on similar arrangements. IPOS has also provided information resources, such as a Guide to the collective management organisations Class Licensing Scheme, to help users navigate licensing issues and will continue to add to these resources.
Community Impact Assessments to Ensure Free Spaces are Preserved for Spontaneous Community and Youth Activities›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 219w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24955
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will establish Community Impact Assessments to evaluate the social value of unprogrammed open fields before redevelopment; and (b) what planning frameworks ensure these accessible, free spaces are preserved for spontaneous community and youth activities as housing density increases.
Mr Chee Hong Tat171 words
[+6 sentences]The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) works with other agencies to plan for a variety of community and recreational spaces to meet the needs of residents. URA also engages the public to better understand how spaces are used and valued by the community. For example, as part of the Master Plan 2025 review, URA engaged the public on the Recreation Master Plan, which seeks to provide more recreation nodes, accessible spaces near homes and workplaces for sports, arts, heritage and wellness uses, as well as avenues for more ground-up placemaking and co-creation of community spaces. Land for these uses are safeguarded in the Master Plan. To maximise the use of our limited land, the Singapore Land Authority also opens up suitable state land that is not required for immediate development for interim community use, including open fields. As such fields are intended for interim use and adequate community and recreational spaces have been safeguarded through the Master Plan, the Government has no plans to establish a formal Community Impact Assessment before redevelopment.
Key Lessons from and Extension of Pilot Community Disputes Management Framework in Tampines›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 333w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24956
Mr Ang Wei Neng58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) what key lessons have been learnt from the pilot Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF) in Tampines; (b) what is the projected timeline for implementing the CDMF nationwide; (c) what is the current staff strength for supporting the pilot in Tampines; and (d) what staff strength will be required for nationwide implementation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat275 words
[+10 sentences]The Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF) is an overarching framework established in 2014 to help residents resolve neighbourly disputes. It provides multiple avenues of resolution, ranging from informal mediation by grassroots leaders and formal sessions at the community mediation centre (CMC), to targeted enforcement and mediation directions and finally, legal recourse at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) as a last resort. Within this framework, the pilot in Tampines was specifically for the Community Relations Unit (CRU) and the mediation direction framework, which we have expanded nationwide since 1 September 2026, to provide stronger support for neighbours to resolve their disagreements early and amicably. CRU was set up to carry out targeted intervention for severe and recalcitrant cases, focusing on excessive neighbour noise nuisance and hoarding within residential units. With investigative powers, such as the ability to take statements and deploy noise monitoring sensors, and powers to issue abatement orders or mediation directions, CRU intervenes in a small minority of severe neighbour noise cases that cannot be addressed through community mediation and CDRT. The CRU pilot reinforced valuable operational lessons, particularly the importance of close inter-agency coordination among the Housing and Development Board, the People's Association, the Singapore Police Force and CMC. We have scaled our team to support the nationwide rollout, and we will continue to monitor caseloads and operational demands to adjust resourcing where necessary. Even as the Government puts these enforcement tools and support structures in place, statutory intervention cannot replace mutual consideration. Government agencies and legal mechanisms are meant for the most severe cases. Ultimately, building a harmonious neighbourhood requires neighbours to communicate early, exercise give-and-take and resolve disagreements among themselves.
HDB BTO Affordability on Per-square-foot Basis in Relation to Incomes›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 61w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24959
Mr Shawn Loh48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry measures HDB BTO affordability on a per-square-foot basis in relation to incomes; and (b) if so, how HDB BTO affordability has changed over the past 20 years for 4-room and 3-room flats, after factoring in smaller flat sizes.
Mr Chee Hong Tat13 words
[+1 sentence]The Housing and Development Board flat size norms have not changed since 1997.
Proposal for Early Exit from HDB Minimum Occupation Period Requirement with Appropriate Safeguards›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 105w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24960
Mr Shawn Loh52 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB has considered introducing a more graduated Minimum Occupation Period, under which households facing genuine changes in housing needs could exit earlier subject to appropriate safeguards, such as a proportionate clawback of housing subsidies or a graduated exit tax, rather than relying on case-by-case appeals.
Mr Chee Hong Tat53 words
[+2 sentences]The Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) for Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats is in place to prioritise our limited supply of public housing for households with genuine housing needs. As household circumstances vary, HDB assesses all appeals for MOP waivers holistically on a case-by-case basis, and exercises flexibility where there are genuine needs.
Charging on Household Basis for Rental Flat under Joint Singles Scheme›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 143w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24961
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether tenants of a Joint Singles Scheme flat are informed at allocation that rent is charged on a household basis; (b) what has the review on extending individual charging to Joint Singles Scheme households concluded; (c) whether the household's rental arrears affect a tenant's eligibility to buy a flat; and (d) if so, whether HDB will disregard a co-tenant's non-payment.
Mr Chee Hong Tat76 words
[+3 sentences]The Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental flat applicants under the Joint Singles Scheme are informed at the point of flat allocation that they are jointly responsible for the full rent amount. This provides tenants flexibility to decide amongst themselves how to split the rent. In considering a rental flat tenant's eligibility to purchase a flat, HDB will assess each case based on its own merits, including which party is responsible for the non-payment of rent.
Preventing Unauthorised Access to Sensitive Housing Records and Databases by HDB Officers›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 103w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24962
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are in place to prevent unauthorised or improper access to sensitive housing records and databases by HDB officers; and (b) whether these measures have been independently reviewed and found to be adequate.
Mr Chee Hong Tat62 words
[+4 sentences]The Housing and Development Board officers are granted access only to the systems and information required for the performance of their official duties. System access and activities are logged, allowing irregular patterns and unauthorised access to be detected and investigated. These controls comply with the Government Instruction Manuals on information technology security and data protection. Compliance is also checked through periodic audits.
Study on Demand for Community Care Apartments›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 118w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24963
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB or the Ministry of Health has (a) conducted any surveys, studies or reviews of demand for Community Care Apartments; (b) assessed the take-up and resident outcomes of Harmony Village @ Bukit Batok; and (c) whether and how any such findings informed the decision to lower the eligibility age for Community Care Apartments from 65 to 55.
Mr Chee Hong Tat54 words
[+3 sentences]Community Care Apartments are a relatively new typology. We will continue to observe and study demand trends and resident outcomes. The decision to lower the age eligibility for Community Care Apartments from 65 to 55 years old was intended to provide seniors with more housing options and give them more time to plan ahead.
Updating Criteria for Intervention in Severe Neighbour Noise Cases under Expanded Community Relations Unit Roll-out›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 166w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24966
Ms Lee Hui Ying63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the nationwide expansion of the Community Relations Unit (CRU) will provide updated eligibility criteria for intervention in severe neighbour-noise cases; (b) if so, what additional categories of cases will qualify; and (c) what are the steps to measure the effectiveness of the expanded CRU on its improved enforcement, resolution rates, and outcomes for affected residents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat103 words
[+4 sentences]The Community Relations Unit (CRU) was set up to address the most severe neighbour noise and hoarding within residential units. Most neighbour disputes can and should be resolved through dialogue and mediation. For neighbour noise cases, CRU will continue to focus on the small minority of cases involving excessive and prolonged noise disturbances that cause significant distress to multiple residents and cannot be addressed through community mediation or the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals. The Government will assess the effectiveness of CRU by the extent to which its intervention helps de-escalate severe neighbour noise cases, reduce recurrence and provide meaningful relief to affected residents.
BTO and SBF HDB Flats Sold to Single and Second-time Applicants›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 106w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24967
Ms Poh Li San48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in the past 10 years (a) how many new Build-to-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) HDB flats have been sold to single applicants as compared to family units; and (b) what is the proportion of flats sold to second-time applicants.
Mr Chee Hong Tat58 words
[+2 sentences]From 2016 to 2025, about 164,400 Build-To-Order (BTO) and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) flats were booked by families, comprising 160,800 three-room and larger flats and 3,600 two-room Flexi flats, while about 16,700 two-room Flexi flats were booked by single applicants. Over the same period, second-timer families accounted for about 12% of all BTO and SBF flats booked.
Expedited Pathway for Children under Age 16 With Serious Behavioural or Substance Abuse Issues to Receive Structured Residential Intervention›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 342w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24968
Ms Yeo Wan Ling61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there is an expedited pathway for children below the age of 16 with serious behavioural or substance abuse issues to receive structured residential intervention where community-based interventions have repeatedly failed; and (b) how will the Ministry coordinate with other agencies to ensure there are no gaps in supervision, care and rehabilitation.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M281 words
[+10 sentences]The Government and our community partners provide a range of community-based and residential interventions for children with behavioural challenges or substance abuse concerns. Community-based interventions are generally the first option, as they allow the children to remain in the care of their family and stay connected to school and the community while receiving structured supervision and support. Where there are serious or urgent concerns, there are expedited pathways for children to receive residential intervention, without first completing community-based programmes. For example, where parents face significant difficulties managing their child's behaviour, they may apply for a Family Guidance Order (FGO). If the case is assessed to be serious, for example, the youth pose a safety or moral risk or has caused serious physical harm to a family member, the case will be expedited, and the family will not be required to attend a pre-FGO intervention in the community. For such FGO cases, the Youth Court may order placement in a residential home if the youth is assessed to require a structured and secure environment. For youths below 16 years who continue to abuse etomidate despite prior community-based rehabilitation, they may be prosecuted in the Youth Court, which may then order them to residential rehabilitation in the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Youth Homes. The Government recognises that it may be challenging to navigate the range of interventions and service providers involved. Where families need assistance, we encourage them to approach their nearest Family Service Centre, which can assess their needs and refer them to the appropriate support. MSF will continue to work with our partners to strengthen support and look at ways to make access to help easier to navigate.
Proposed Trial for Lower Educator-child Ratios for Kindergarten 1 and 2 Classes in Anchor Operator Preschools›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 195w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24969
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the Ministry of Education's pilot of smaller classes in six schools from 2027 (a) whether the Ministry will pilot lower educator-child ratios for Kindergarten 1 and 2 classes in Anchor Operator preschools; and (b) whether it will assess educator workload, teacher-child interactions, classroom quality and children's developmental outcomes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M136 words
[+6 sentences]The staff-child ratio requirements for preschools are minimum requirements to ensure the safety and well-being of children. In practice, many operators operate at staff-child ratios below these minimum requirements in order to maintain operational flexibility and respond to the varied needs and demands on the ground. The Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will assess the outcomes of the Ministry of Education's pilot. However, findings would need to consider the impact on overall manpower demand in the sector. ECDA has several initiatives to support educators' well-being and strengthen the quality of early childhood care and education, including the ongoing sector-wide job redesign project and the newly launched Quality Teaching Tool. We will continue to uplift quality and standards across the sector, as part of the Quality Preschools 2030 plan.
Data on Risk Algorithm Used By Sensemaking Alerts for Frontline Engagement and Response›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 230w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24970
Dr Neo Kok Beng56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are any published papers or data on the risk algorithm used by the Sensemaking Alerts for Frontline Engagement and Response (SAFER) and its effectiveness; and (b) whether there are any plans to integrate additional Government or private databases into SAFER to make it more comprehensive.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M174 words
[+8 sentences]The risk algorithm used by the Sensemaking Alerts for Frontline Engagement and Response (SAFER) Unit was developed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) based on relevant Government datasets and profiles of actual child protection cases, and professional practice knowledge. It was designed to reflect risk factors and patterns observed in real-world cases and was not adapted from any published algorithm. MSF will regularly monitor, validate and refine the algorithm to ensure it continues to perform as intended and remains fit for purpose. This includes assessing its effectiveness in identifying cases of concern while appropriately balancing the risks of unnecessary alerts and missed cases. I want to emphasise that SAFER supports but does not replace professional judgement. Potential concerns surfaced by SAFER are reviewed by trained professionals against the available case information before any follow-up action is determined. MSF will continue to explore additional datasets that can enhance SAFER's effectiveness. Any inclusion of new datasets would be carefully assessed based on factors, such as child protection needs, proportionality and data governance safeguards.
Co-parenting for Foster Children›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 99w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24971
Dr Neo Kok Beng45 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has any plan to pilot an initiative to promote co-parenting for foster children; and (b) if so, what is the schedule, if any, is there to apply this initiative to existing foster families.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M54 words
[+2 sentences]The Ministry of Social and Family Development is still studying whether adding a co-parenting stage might be helpful in improving the process of reunifying a child with his or her biological parents. The considerations include whether this will meaningfully improve outcomes for the child, and if the time taken for reunification will be lengthened.
School-based Student Care Centres with Waiting Lists›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 248w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24972
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim65 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) how many primary schools have school-based Student Care Centres with waiting lists and how many pupils are affected; (b) whether school-level capacity, enrolment, vacancy and waiting list data will be published; and (c) whether the ability to secure an affordable student care place forms part of the ongoing sector review, and if so, when an update will be provided.
Mr Desmond Lee183 words
[+4 sentences]Similar questions on the accessibility of school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs) were answered in this House in March and May 2026. The Member may wish to refer to the Ministry of Education's reply to oral Question No 37 on the Order Paper for 3 March 2026 and the Ministry of Social and Family Development's reply to oral Question No 85 on the Order Paper for 6 May 2026. [Please refer to "Primary Students on Waitlists for Places in Student Care Centres", Official Report, 3 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 23, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section, and "Ensuring Student Care Centre Services Remain Affordable and Accessible for Lower- and Middle-income Families", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] As announced at National Day Rally 2026, the Government will expand capacity, improve the quality of care, and keep fees affordable at school-based SCCs to better support parents' caregiving needs. We will share more details when ready.
Rejection Rate for Eligible Containers under Beverage Container Return Scheme›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 294w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24973
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with regard to the Beverage Container Return Scheme and, to date (a) what is the reverse vending machine rejection rate for eligible containers; and (b) what recourse is available to consumers who are unable to obtain refunds for eligible containers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien246 words
[+13 sentences]The response to this question also addresses a related Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Abdul Muhaimin for the Sitting on or after 7 October 20261. The vast majority of eligible containers are successfully accepted by the Return Right Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) with the refund made on the spot. A small proportion of eligible containers are rejected due to improper deposit behaviour. For example, a crushed container would not be identified and accepted by the RVM. The container might also be rejected if the user does not place it properly on the conveyor belt. Occasionally, machine faults might cause eligible containers from being processed properly. Users who face difficulties returning eligible containers may reach out to BCRS Ltd for assistance. The proportion of successful transactions has been increasing, with around 98% of transactions refunded on the spot in September. For the unsuccessful transactions, a considerable proportion appears to be due to unfamiliarity with the refund process. BCRS Ltd has been improving the user interface for refunds by working on feedback obtained and stepping up public education efforts on the proper use of the machine. These have helped to bring down the proportion of unsuccessful returns over time, from 5% over the first five months to 2% in September. Members of the public who have failed in getting their refunds at RVMs may use the refund portal rolled out by BCRS Ltd. Alternatively, they may email BCRS Ltd with details of the failed transaction for further assistance.
Hawker Centres with AED Installed›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 140w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24974
Mr Cai Yinzhou55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many hawker centres currently have an automated external defibrillator (AED) installed; (b) what are the plans to expand AED installation to the remaining hawker centres; and (c) whether NEA will require AEDs at all hawker centres, including through its tenancy and management agreements with operators.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien85 words
[+4 sentences]There are currently 41 hawker centres that have an automated external defibrillator (AED) installed within the hawker centre. Hawker centres that do not have an AED installed are either co-located in a larger development or located within walking distance of buildings that have AEDs installed. For example, under the Save-A-Life initiative, AEDs are available at the lift lobby of every two Housing and Development Board blocks. Hawker centre patrons may find the locations of these AEDs via the Singapore Civil Defence Force's myResponder mobile application.
Proposal for "Quiet Hours" for Beverage Container Return Scheme Vending Machines Located at HDB Void Decks›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 122w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24975
Mr Pritam Singh61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the noise generated by individuals who deposit large quantities of recyclable cans and bottles at the Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) vending machines located at HDB void decks in particular, whether the Ministry would consider requiring recycling machines at these locations to be turned off during official HDB-mandated "quiet hours".
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien61 words
[+3 sentences]We have not received much feedback on noise generated from the Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs). Where individual cases do occur, BCRS Ltd will assess public feedback and usage patterns, and engage the relevant Town Councils to determine if the locations or operating hours of RVMs need to be adjusted. We encourage members of the public to be considerate when using RVMs.
Unhygienic Practices under Beverage Container Return Scheme›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 154w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24976
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what measures will prevent unhygienic practices under the Beverage Container Return Scheme, such as rummaging through rubbish bins and pouring leftover drinks onto public walkways; and (b) whether separate collection holders and facilities for the disposal of liquids will be provided at high-use locations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien101 words
[+5 sentences]Members of the public should do their part in keeping shared spaces clean. Rummaging through public refuse bins, removing items from them, and leaving or spilling waste on the ground are against the law. The National Environment Agency will take action against those who have committed these offences. As the Return Right Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) are designed for the return of empty beverage containers, users should ensure their containers are empty before returning them. Most users exercise responsible behaviour and return empty beverage containers, so there are no plans to provide dedicated facilities for the disposal of liquids at RVMs.
Impact of Jurong Island's Utility-scale Battery Energy Storage System Deployment on Load Hours Loss and Required Reserve Margin›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 284w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24977
Mr Ng Shi Xuan42 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) whether the Energy Market Authority has reviewed the utility-scale Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) deployment on Jurong Island and its impact on the Loss of Load Hours and Required Reserve Margin.
Dr Tan See Leng242 words
[+9 sentences]The Loss of Load Hours (LOLH) and the Required Reserve Margin (RRM) are system reliability metrics considered by the Energy Market Authority (EMA) in its generation planning. Today, EMA adopts a planning standard of no more than three LOLH per year, factoring both planned and unplanned prolonged outages in generating capacity, such as emergency maintenance or repair. This is one of the most stringent and commonly adopted standards internationally and translates to a RRM of 27%, where installed capacity of generating units must be at least 27% above peak electricity demand. In the last five years, Singapore's actual reserve margin was around 35% to 49%, with zero LOLH. Generating units, such as conventional power plants, count towards the RRM, as they have the capability to mitigate prolonged outages of generation capacity. However, the Jurong Island Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) does not count towards the RRM, due to its limited discharge duration of around one hour at its maximum power output of 200 megawatts. It is deployed to support grid stability over a shorter duration, by providing fast-response backup that can be activated within seconds when there is an unexpected loss of generation. As BESS technologies and prices improve, EMA is evaluating the role of BESS in our power system. This includes how to incorporate BESS in future generation planning assumptions as well as studying whether enhancements to infrastructure processes and market frameworks are needed to better harness the benefits of BESS.
Power Generation Capacity to Support Growth of Semiconductor Sector in Senoko›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 179w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24978
Mr Ng Shi Xuan44 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether there is adequate power generation capacity to support the growth of the semiconductor sector in Senoko; (b) whether there are plans to upgrade such capacity; and (c) if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng135 words
[+6 sentences]In Senoko, there is enough power generation capacity to support the growth of the semiconductor industry arising from projects that the Economic Development Board (EDB) has secured. The Energy Market Authority (EMA) monitors demand growth closely, incorporating forward projections from EDB and other agencies, and plans for the expansion of generation capacity accordingly. Between 2026 and 2031, five new power plants are being developed and expected to come online. This will increase Singapore's installed generation capacity by about 20% from 11.8 gigawatts to 14.2 gigawatts. Under EMA's latest Request for Proposal for the development of new power plants, more power plants may come online by 2032. In parallel, EMA is enhancing the transmission network and will continue to plan ahead for additional grid and generation capacity to accommodate future growth in electricity demand across Singapore.
Indicators Leading to Formalising of Extension of Liquor Trading Hours at Boat Quay and Clarke Quay›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 242w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24979
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in formalising the one-year pilot to extend liquor trading hours and allow more flexible uses at Boat Quay and Clarke Quay (a) what changes from before the pilot were recorded in (i) pedestrian footfall (ii) outlets actually using the extended hours and (iii) police incidents and noise or public-nuisance complaints; and (b) what indicators will be monitored following the formalisation.
Dr Tan See Leng171 words
[+10 sentences]The one-year pilot of the revitalisation measures at Boat Quay and Clarke Quay was introduced on 18 August 2025. Around 60 outlets were granted extended liquor trading hours. In the seven months following the launch of the pilot, 2.4 million tourists visited the Singapore River precinct. This is a 14% year-on-year increase. Businesses have also observed increased footfall since the launch of the pilot. The law-and-order situation in the precincts has also remained stable. During the one-year pilot, one noise complaint was received and subsequently amicably resolved. Following the formalisation of the revitalisation measures, agencies, including the Ministry of Home Affairs. Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry, will continue to work with local stakeholders on security measures to ensure law and order, as well as responsible management of the nightlife spaces and public areas at these locations. We will also continue to gather feedback from the public, industry and local stakeholders on how to inject vibrancy into the area, while ensuring public safety and security.
New Western Island as Potential Site for Future Large-scale Power Generation Facilities›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 137w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24980
Ms Cassandra Lee46 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether the proposed western island is being considered as a potential site for future large-scale power-generation facilities, including nuclear power generation; and (b) if so, what site selection and safety criteria will be applied.
Dr Tan See Leng91 words
[+4 sentences]The proposed western island is part of our long-term planning for future national needs in defence, energy and industry. As Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said in his National Day Rally 2026 speech, the island will support a new generation of industries including power generation and advanced manufacturing facilities and infrastructure for the Singapore Armed Forces. No decision has been made on deploying nuclear energy in Singapore. It is hence premature to discuss specific locations for any potential nuclear plant or set out planning parameters, such as site selection and safety criteria.
Impact of Saudi Arabia’s East-West Pipeline Shutdown on Singapore’s Energy Security›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 202w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24982
Ms Joan Pereira57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) what assessment has the Ministry made regarding the shutdown of Saudi Arabia's East-West Pipeline on Singapore's energy security; and (b) what mitigation measures are in place, including the utilisation of strategic petroleum reserves, to insulate local consumers and businesses from escalating fuel and energy costs.
Dr Tan See Leng145 words
[+7 sentences]The Government is closely monitoring developments affecting global energy markets, including the temporary shutdown of Saudi Arabia's East-West Pipeline on 11 September. The pipeline resumed operations on 22 September, albeit at reduced capacity. We have not observed any reduction in our crude and liquefied natural gas (LNG) inventories despite the temporary shutdown. Our refineries and oil traders source crude oil and petroleum products from diverse sources beyond the Middle East and have continued to meet local demand. Nevertheless, the East-West Pipeline is an important route for Saudi Arabia's crude oil exports that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz. A prolonged shutdown may reduce the availability of Saudi crude to an already tight global supply market thus leading to further price pressures. We will continue to monitor developments in the region and fuel prices closely, assess and put in place cost mitigating measures if they are required.
Proposal to Trial Acoustic Camera Deployment to Identify Vehicles with Illegally Modified Engines or Exhaust Systems›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 128w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24985
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has studied the use of acoustic cameras, as deployed in jurisdictions, such as France, to identify vehicles with illegally modified engines or exhaust systems; and (b) whether LTA will consider pilot trials in residential neighbourhoods with persistent vehicle noise complaints to strengthen enforcement and reduce disamenities to residents.
Mr Jeffrey Siow72 words
[+4 sentences]The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted a one-week trial of cameras equipped with acoustic sensors last year at West Coast and Bukit Panjang. The cameras tested had limited accuracy in identifying vehicles with illegally modified engines or exhaust systems. Of the close to 80 vehicles identified, only one was found to be illegally modified. LTA will continue to study the use of new technologies to enforce against illegally modified vehicles more effectively.
Prevalence of Deregistered Vehicles Being Used on Singapore Roads›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 110w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24986
Mr Jackson Lam45 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has studied how deregistered vehicles continue to be used on Singapore roads after deregistration; and (b) what proportion of cases investigated since 2024 involved vehicles that had been transferred to motor dealers, exporters, scrapyards or other intermediaries.
Mr Jeffrey Siow65 words
[+2 sentences]I thank the Member for his question. The Ministry of Transport MOT will be addressing the question as part of the Second Reading debate on the Land Transport and Related Matters (No. 2) Bill at the 7 October 2026 Parliamentary Sitting.
Licensing Regime and Road Traffic Regulations for Autonomous Vehicles Operating as Ride-hailing Vehicles from 2028›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 178w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24991
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) what will be the licensing regime and road traffic regulations that will apply to autonomous vehicles that operate as ride-hailing vehicles from 2028; (b) how will such regulations differ from what currently applies to human-driven private hire vehicles; and (c) whether the Ministry will be revising the relevant road transport legislation ahead of the fully driverless ride-hailing service.
Mr Jeffrey Siow114 words
[+5 sentences]The deployment of autonomous vehicles (AV) on roads today are regulated under the sandbox set out in Road Traffic (Autonomous Motor Vehicles) Rules 2017. Applicants who wish to provide revenue passenger services will need to obtain the Land Transport Authority's approval after their proposed deployments have undergone safety and operational assessments. We are currently developing a more holistic AV legislative framework, which will outline the applicable licensing regime and safety regulations for AVs. We will take reference from existing laws, such as the Road Traffic Act, and also similar acts in other jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom. We will table the Bill and consequential amendments to other legislations likely in second half of 2027.
Reviewing Safety Management of Contractors and Subcontractors at PSA’s Port Operations following Fatal Workplace Incident in September 2026›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 319w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24992
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower following the fatal workplace incident at Tuas Port on 22 September 2026, whether the Ministry will review (a) the safety management of contractors and subcontractors at PSA's port operations; and (b) whether additional safeguards are required for high-risk activities involving such workers.
Ms Jasmin Lau271 words
[+10 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shares the Member's concern over the recent workplace incident at Tuas Port, where two workers died after a work platform carrying them to a vessel for stevedoring works dislodged from the quay crane and fell into the sea. We extend our deepest condolences to the families of the two workers who lost their lives. MOM is investigating the cause of the incident. As an immediate safeguard, the operation of these work platforms at Tuas Port has been put on hold, until PSA completes a review of its use of work platforms to carry workers, including how the safety of contractors and subcontractors carrying out such high-risk activities is managed. PSA is also conducting its own investigations into the incident and has been directed by the Maritime and Port Authority to conduct a thorough review of its safety-related work procedures at all PSA premises. While we are not able to comment on the outcome of ongoing investigations, MOM will not hesitate to require additional safeguards for PSA or more broadly for port operations, if the investigations reveal gaps in existing safety measures. The loss of two lives is a tragedy that should not have happened. MOM holds employers and principal contractors fully accountable for the safety of all workers under their charge, including contractors and subcontractors carrying out high-risk activities. We will take firm action against any party found to have fallen short of their safety obligations. MOM will also ensure that the lessons from this incident are shared and applied across the industry, so that we do everything we can to prevent similar tragedies from occurring.
Evaluation of Bids for Tampines Bus Package›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 268w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24993
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport with regard to Go-Ahead Singapore's $646 million alternative bid for the Tampines bus package against the lowest base bid of about $596 million (a) what were the respective weightages for quality and price; (b) how each shortlisted bidder ranked on quality and on total score; and (c) what quality factors justified the price difference.
Mr Jeffrey Siow209 words
[+10 sentences]The quality-price weightage for the Tampines bus package was 60:40. The winning bid from Go-Ahead Singapore had the highest score in quality and the highest overall score. While SBS Transit's price bid of $596 million was the lowest, it had the second highest overall score after accounting for quality. The other bids by Tower Transit Singapore and SMRT Buses were higher priced and scored lower in quality than SBS Transit's bid. The Tampines package was the first tendered bus package involving large-scale electric bus deployment. Accordingly, greater emphasis was placed on the tenderers' plans to manage electric bus operations and maintenance at scale. Go-Ahead Singapore's proposal was strongest in this regard, based on detailed plans to transfer knowledge and operational experience from its sister company's electric bus operations in London to Singapore. Since the initial transition period, where Go-Ahead Singapore faced teething issues as it took over operations, the reliability performance for the Tampines package has improved. As of end-September 2026, the reliability of most of the bus services in the package have now matched or exceeded the performance under the previous incumbent. Nevertheless, we recognise that performance on some routes can be further improved and the Land Transport Authority is working with Go-Ahead Singapore to address these issues.
Extension of Loyang Bus Package Contract Versus Re-tendering›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 246w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24994
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport regarding Go-Ahead Singapore's contract for the Loyang bus package which provides a two-year extension option (a) what procurement rules govern extending contracts beyond contracted options; (b) on what basis was the contract extended from 2023 to 2026, and why it was not re-tendered then; (c) whether it has been extended again, until when; and (d) what is the fee for each extension.
Mr Jeffrey Siow179 words
[+10 sentences]The extension of bus contracts is governed by Government procurement rules and must be approved by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) Board. There are many reasons why bus contracts are extended. This includes spacing out the number of tenders each year to ensure competitive bids; timing the tender with the relocation to new depots; and other extenuating circumstances, like the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, LTA extended the Loyang bus package amidst significant COVID-19-related market uncertainty, as it could have resulted in operators pricing substantial risk premiums into their bids. Subsequently, developmental plans were finalised to relocate the Loyang bus package to the upcoming Lorong Halus bus depot in 2030. To avoid unnecessary relocation costs, LTA negotiated a further extension to 2030. Extensions are only offered if the incumbent operator's performance is satisfactory. Terms are re-negotiated with the operator and take into account prevailing operating costs and service fee benchmarks from comparable bus package contracts. Service standards for bus services in the package are typically also reviewed. We are unable to disclose the extension fees as they are commercially sensitive.
Number of Reports of Nuisance and Disruptive Behaviour by Bus Commuters›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 199w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24995
Ms Hany Soh64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the total number of nuisance and disruptive behaviour cases by bus commuters reported in the past three years; and (b) how will LTA ensure that staff from the public bus operators, who are empowered under the new regulations implemented on 23 September 2026, enforce these regulations at public buses, bus interchanges and terminals fairly and effectively.
Mr Jeffrey Siow135 words
[+6 sentences]The Land Transport Authority (LTA) receives around 15 reports per month involving nuisance or disruptive behaviour onboard buses, including playing loud audio and placing feet on seats and bus fixtures. Prior to the implementation of the new regulations, LTA and bus operators carried out training for their staff to help them enforce the regulations consistently, and in a measured and proportionate manner. When in doubt, enforcement officers can seek support from their respective bus operation control centres. Standard operating procedures have been promulgated to all staff empowered to carry out enforcement of the regulations. Our broader goal is to foster a gracious commuting culture where commuters look out for one another and exercise social responsibility without the need for enforcement action. The new enforcement powers will be used as a last resort for egregious cases.
Training for Staff to Recognise Disruptive Behaviour on Public Buses Associated with Autism, Dementia or Other Conditions›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 209w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24997
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport under the new rules against disruptive behaviour on public buses (a) what training will staff receive to recognise behaviour associated with autism, dementia or other conditions; and (b) what safeguards will apply before vulnerable commuters are required to alight, particularly if they are unaccompanied or unable to explain their condition.
Mr Jeffrey Siow154 words
[+6 sentences]Since 2016, as part of the mandatory Enhanced Vocational Licence Training Programme, all new bus captains undergo inclusivity training to support them in handling vulnerable commuters. The bus operators also conduct their own training programmes, developed in consultation with the various social service agencies, to train their staff to look out for and assist vulnerable commuters, including those with invisible conditions. Bus captains and enforcement staff will exercise discretion before requiring a commuter to alight or issuing an administrative Notification of Offence, taking into account the circumstances of each case and commuter. Where necessary, they may also seek assistance from the bus operations control centre to ensure the commuter receives the appropriate support. Our broader goal is to foster a gracious commuting culture where commuters look out for one another and exercise social responsibility without the need for enforcement action. The new enforcement powers will be used as a last resort for egregious cases.
Proposal for Partial Government-Paid Maternity Leave to be Granted Where Parents and Child Are Singapore Permanent Residents›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 110w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25000
Mr Lee Hong Chuang50 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government can consider providing Government-Paid Maternity Leave for the last four weeks out of the 12 weeks of maternity leave for parents who are both Singapore Permanent Residents (SPRs) and whose child is not a Singapore citizen but a SPR.
Ms Indranee Rajah60 words
[+3 sentences]We generally differentiate Government benefits and subsidies such that Singapore Citizens receive a higher level of support than Singapore Permanent Residents, including in areas such as parenthood, housing, healthcare and education. Such differentiation reflects the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship, and citizens' commitment to Singapore. Accordingly, eligibility for Government-Paid Leave schemes is contingent on the child being a Singapore Citizen.
Data on Singaporeans Who Have Been Posted Overseas for Work, and Country and Duration of Postings›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 133w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25008
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) since the launch of the International Postings Programme in 2016, what is the number of Singaporeans who have benefited from overseas postings under the programme on an annual basis; and (b) what is the breakdown of such postings by gender, country of posting, duration of posting, and age of participant at the time of posting.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister)69 words
[+4 sentences]Since its launch, the International Postings Programme (iPOST) has benefited more than 400 Singaporean financial sector professionals. iPOST supports postings of up to three years. Two-thirds of the supported postings were more than a year long, while the remainder of postings ranged from six months to a year. About 70% of the postings were to Asia. Data on gender and age is not collected as part of iPOST applications.
Requirement for Financial Institutions to Give Candidates Fit and Proper Reasons when Rejecting Their Job Applications›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 254w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25010
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS can consider requiring financial institutions to give job candidates a specific fit and proper reason when rejecting them following background checks; and (b) how does MAS ensure financial institutions genuinely assess the circumstances of past convictions in their hiring decisions, particularly those who have not been issued any prohibition order.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister)193 words
[+9 sentences]The Monetary Authority of Singapore requires financial institutions (FIs) to conduct fit and proper assessments for certain roles to ensure appointees are of good standing and integrity. This includes appointments of representatives who provide financial services to customers. FIs are expected to conduct these assessments with due care. Where adverse information on an individual emerges, FIs must consider the seriousness and circumstances of past conduct, time elapsed since the conduct, and the nature and responsibilities of the role to be assumed. FIs, like other employers, are subject to applicable employment laws and regulations, including those governing recruitment and communication with job applicants. Hiring decisions are based on a range of factors, including fit and proper standards, experience and skillsets. Hiring organisations are best placed to determine what to appropriately communicate for not proceeding with an applicant. However, it may not always be possible to provide specific reasons, as it can involve confidential information, including those obtained from third parties or deliberations, such as the relative performance of candidates. Individuals who believe they have been treated unfairly in the hiring process may approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices for assistance.
Transaction Volumes, and Import and GST Collections from Collectible Trading Cards›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 124w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25012
Mr Cai Yinzhou56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for each of the past three years (a) what is the value of collectible trading cards imported, and the import GST collected; (b) what is the value of GST and income tax collected from local trading of such cards; and (c) how many GST-registered businesses trade such cards.
Mr Jeffrey Siow68 words
[+3 sentences]We do not have the data requested by the Member, as the Government does not track the sale and importation of goods at this level of detail for tax administration purposes. Nonetheless, income tax applies to businesses that trade in such cards. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is payable on the import of such cards and is also applicable on local sales if the business is GST-registered.
Coordination of Inter-agency Support for Children and Families Affected by Incarceration of Parents›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 267w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25015
Mr Victor Lye53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) which agency has overall responsibility for coordinating support for dependent children and families when a parent is incarcerated; and (b) what outcome indicators are used to assess whether such families remain stable from admission through release and reintegration.
Mr K Shanmugam214 words
[+8 sentences]Supporting families and children affected by incarceration is a multi-agency effort, involving the Singapore Prison Service (SPS), the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Education (MOE). These agencies work in close partnership with one another and with community organisations to deliver coordinated support that seek to address the diverse needs of affected families. For example, inmates and their families may be referred to SPS's Family Resource Centres (FRCs), which will follow up on the needs of the inmates and their families. If an inmate's family is assessed to have complex needs or require longer-term follow up, a referral will be made by the FRC to Family Service Centres (FSCs) near the inmate's home for further assistance. MSF's Social Service Office Family Coaches and FSC caseworkers will also be notified when their clients, or their clients' family members, are incarcerated. This enables them to assess the family's needs and provide timely assistance to support the family. FSCs will monitor the families' progress and will be guided by outcomes, such as whether the family's basic and social-emotional needs are met. For incarcerated parents with school-going children, SPS also collaborates with MOE through “Project Hope”, which provides incarcerated parents with an avenue to connect with their children through quarterly video conferencing sessions.
Managing Teachers' Workload Despite New Plan to Train Them to Recognise Early Signs of Gang Association amongst Students›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 262w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25016
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik73 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in respect of the plan to train teachers to recognise early signs of gang association and given the heavy workload of teachers (a) whether the Ministry has consulted the Ministry of Education on the additional workload on teachers to detect signs of gang association among students; and (b) whether dedicated police officers could perform this function instead of teachers.
Mr K Shanmugam189 words
[+7 sentences]The National Committee on Preventing Offending and Re-offending (NCPR) had recommended training teachers and social workers to better detect early gang involvement among youth. The recommendation was jointly formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Education and took into account school and teacher workload. Teachers are better placed to engage students and identify those who may be at risk as compared to Police officers, given their frequent interactions and close rapport with their students. The Police also support this effort. They work closely with schools on initiatives, such as anti-gang talks, to educate students about the harms of gang involvement and have other efforts, such as Camp ACE (All Can Escape), which are designed to help youths at risk of gang involvement and guide them towards leading a life free from crime. As the Member will know, my Ministry has explained a number of times that the Police and the Home Team, as a whole, are under a lot of pressure on manpower (like many other parts of the Public Service). The Police have to prioritise very carefully how to use the limited manpower resources.
Strengthening ASEAN Cooperation to Combat Cross-border Scam Syndicates›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 288w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25017
Mr Christopher de Souza49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether, during Singapore's ASEAN Chairmanship in 2027, Singapore will be working with its ASEAN neighbours to explore stronger regional measures to dismantle scam syndicates, including coordinated intelligence-sharing, asset freezes, cross-border fund tracing and joint enforcement.
Mr K Shanmugam239 words
[+9 sentences]As the ASEAN Voluntary Lead Shepherd for Cybercrime and Online Scams and incoming ASEAN Chair, Singapore has proposed two new initiatives to strengthen ASEAN's response to scams in the coming year. First, the ASEAN Code of Practice to Combat Scams on Online Platforms will enhance scam prevention across the region. It establishes a set of voluntary baseline anti-scam safeguards that member states can adapt and apply to online platforms, to detect, prevent and disrupt scam activity. Examples include the timely escalation of detected scam activity to relevant authorities and the implementation of reasonable verification measures to prevent inauthentic accounts from being created and used for scams. These safeguards are intended to help online platforms better protect their users from scams. Second, the ASEAN Best Practices Guide will share best practices when conducting scam investigations, developing and implementing legislative measures, and strengthening public education and awareness against scams. These initiatives are in addition to the existing multilateral efforts, such as FRONTIER+, mooted by the Singapore Police Force, to strengthen intelligence sharing, joint enforcement and cross-border fund tracing and asset freezing, which Singapore will continue to support. Earlier this year, 10 member jurisdictions of FRONTIER+ conducted Operation FRONTIER+ III, resulting in more than 7,500 subjects investigated, 3,000 subjects arrested, and approximately S$207 million seized from over 101,000 frozen bank accounts. There are six ASEAN member states that are currently members of FRONTIER+, and we will continue to encourage more to join.
Data on Household Member Charged with Failing to Protect Child from Sexual Abuse and Adequacy of Laws Protecting Them›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 564w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25018
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik84 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs with reference to the existing offences under section 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 and sections 304C and 335A of the Penal Code 1871 (a) in the past five years, how many cases have involved a household member being charged with failing to protect a child from sexual abuse; and (b) whether these provisions are adequate, especially in cases where the abuse may persist undetected for years.
Mr K Shanmugam480 words
[+21 sentences]Where the family or household are involved in covering up child sexual abuse, it would be difficult for the offence to be picked up, and the sexual abuse could remain hidden for years. This situation is common in many countries. Abuse within a family context is not easy to detect. As a society, we ought to protect our children from predators. The Government has put in measures in place to strengthen early detection and reporting at various touch points. First, in schools, preschools and community settings, children learn about personal safety, boundaries and where to seek help. Second, professionals who work with children, including those in healthcare and education, are trained to use tools, such as the Sector Specific Screening Guide and Child Abuse Reporting Guide, to recognise signs of abuse. They are urged to report concerns to the National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment (NAVH) Helpline. Third, the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Sensemaking Alerts for Frontline Engagement and Response (SAFER) unit provides frontline professionals with relevant information to identify children and families who may need timely help and support. Fourth, for younger victims, multidisciplinary interviews are conducted in partnership with MSF and KK Women's and Children's Hospital. These interviews integrate forensic medical examinations, reducing the need for victims to recount their experiences multiple times and thereby minimising re-traumatisation. There are also severe penalties to deter such offences and to hold offenders accountable. Section 6 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (CYPA) makes it an offence for a person who has custody, charge or care of a child or young person to ill-treat the child or young person, or to cause, procure or knowingly permit another person to do so. Ill-treatment includes sexual abuse. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 8 years' imprisonment, or 14 years' imprisonment if death is caused. There are also offences which may be disclosed depending on the nature of the case. From 2021 to 2025, there were 36 reported cases under section 6 of the CYPA which resulted in prosecution. This figure includes cases reported under section 5 of the CYPA before amendments to the Act came into force on 31 December 2021. The Police do not separately track cases in which a person knowingly permitted a child or young person to be sexually abused. Offenders who commit serious violent or sexual offences, including rape or sexual penetration of minors, and who pose a substantial risk of re-offending may be sentenced under the recently commenced Sentence for Enhanced Public Protection (SEPP), where the offender will be detained for a minimum term of between five and 20 years, as determined by the Court. Under the SEPP, the offender's suitability for release will be reviewed regularly, and detention may continue as long as necessary, beyond 20 years, for public protection if the offender is assessed to remain a threat to the public.
Ways to Strengthen Public Confidence in Reporting Potentially Radicalised Individuals›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 373w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25019
Ms Hany Soh58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs with respect to reporting of potentially radicalised individuals (a) what are the root causes of reluctance by parties who notice the signs to seek intervention; and (b) how can the Ministry provide further assurance that such reporting is in the reported individuals' best interests.
Mr K Shanmugam315 words
[+15 sentences]People who interact regularly with a suspected self-radicalised individual, such as family, friends and colleagues, are best placed to notice possible indicators of radicalisation. Given that radicalisation can occur in a matter of weeks, public vigilance and early reporting can make a critical difference. Nevertheless, some may choose not to alert the authorities over concerns that their suspicions could be unfounded or that the signs they have observed in the individual may not be serious enough to warrant intervention. There may also be worries about the potential repercussions for the individual, especially if it concerns a loved one. These concerns are understandable. But intervening early allows us to ensure that the individual gets the timely help they need, before they progress further down the path of radicalisation and eventually resort to violence. At that point, the disruption to their lives and the harm caused to wider society would be much more serious compared to if the individual had received help earlier. Each report will be assessed, and investigations will be done to establish the facts. The identity of the informer will be kept confidential. No further action will be taken if the investigations do not find the person to be radicalised. If the individual is reported early enough and assessed to be in the early stages of radicalisation, they may be referred for counselling or other interventions, without the need to be dealt with under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Those who are issued with ISA orders undergo a holistic and intensive programme comprising ideological, psychological and social rehabilitation, customised to the individual's needs. More than 80% of Singaporeans issued with Orders of Detention under ISA for terrorism-related activities since 2002 have been released. Many are gainfully employed or pursuing their studies. The earlier they are reported, the higher the likelihood that they can be successfully rehabilitated and return to leading productive and fulfilling lives.
Assessment of Singapore's Digital Systems' Resilience Against Agentic AI Behaviours›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time5 turns · 1,487w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25101
Ms Valerie Lee66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what independent testing and evaluation capabilities the Singapore AI Safety Institute currently possesses; (b) how these compare with those of other leading AI Safety Institutes; and (c) what concrete deliverables and outcomes the Government expects from the Institute over the next two years, including whether its evaluations will influence the deployment of frontier AI systems in Singapore.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what steps will follow after Singapore's endorsement of the international call for control of frontier AI models; (b) how can the National AI Strategy 2.0 and initiatives to attract AI enterprises and encourage adoption of AI be refined in light of Singapore's endorsement; and (c) how can the Singapore AI Safety Institute's evaluation and testing support these efforts.
Mr Fadli Fawzi47 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether and how the National AI Council has assessed recent industry warnings on the extinction risks from AI; and (b) whether the Council itself has developed a strategy or adopted measures to mitigate AI safety and alignment risks.
Mr Fadli Fawzi53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of recent incidents of AI agents escaping containment (a) whether existing safeguards for agentic AI use by the Public Service are sufficiently robust to guard against breaches; and (b) whether any cyber-attacks involving unsupervised agentic AI have been reported to any Government agency.
Mrs Josephine Teo1254 words
[+62 sentences]My response will cover the questions raised by Ms Valerie Lee, Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Alex Yam and Mr Fadli Fawzi in today's Order Paper, and the related questions filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Saktiandi Supaat for subsequent Sittings. If the Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this exchange. [Please refer to "Ensuring Safety of Frontier AI Models Deployed in Singapore, and Setting Up Framework for Tracking and Reporting Serious AI Incidents", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Oral Answers to Questions section.] Singapore's approach to artificial intelligence (AI) has always been to enable innovation while managing the risks. But the risks are evolving as AI systems become more capable and autonomous. Such systems may act in unintended ways, be manipulated by malicious actors or have unexpected interactions with other systems. Capabilities are also advancing rapidly, sometimes faster than governments and external evaluators can fully assess. We therefore need a risk-based and multi-layered approach. Set limits based on risk. First, in deploying AI, we must calibrate limits according to risk. We should consider the sensitivity of the data and systems involved, the degree of autonomy given to the AI system and the severity and remediability of any potential harm. The greater the potential harm, the stronger the safeguards should be. This is how we approach the deployment of AI agents within the Public Service. We consider what systems and data an agent can access, what actions it is allowed to take, and the consequences of unintended or unauthorised actions. These safeguards are complemented by policies and governance processes to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability. For the broader economy, the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI and Starter Kit for Testing LLM-Based Applications provide guidance on managing risks and maintaining meaningful human accountability. In addition, the Global AI Assurance Sandbox facilitates the real-world testing of risks of generative and agentic AI, including the robustness of their safeguards. For essential services and other higher-risk applications, stronger safeguards are necessary. This could include more rigorous testing for risks, independently verifiable evidence that safeguards are effective, tighter deployment controls or tighter regulatory oversight. The Government will continue to study the need for new requirements especially in high-risk uses. Strengthening our defences against unintended actions and misuse. Second, we must strengthen our defences against unintended AI actions and misuse. We cannot rely on simply telling AI agents what to do. We must also deliberately limit what they can access and do, conduct appropriate test suites, retain appropriate human oversight, monitor their behaviour and contain the consequences if something goes wrong. At the same time, we must presume that malicious actors will use AI to cause harm more cheaply, quickly and at scale. Given how deeply digital services are embedded across our economy and society, we must continually strengthen our cybersecurity and also make effective use of AI for cyber defence. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) are using AI to strengthen the security of Government systems and critical information infrastructure, including to identify vulnerabilities and detect potential threats more quickly. CSA has also strengthened cybersecurity requirements for critical information infrastructure operators, shared intelligence on active threats to help them take preemptive action and issued practical guidance to help organisations strengthen their cyber defences and secure AI systems. Detecting risks and responding early. Third, we need stronger capabilities to identify risks both before and after deployment. The Singapore AI Safety Institute (AISI) is building technical capabilities to evaluate advanced AI systems and develop practical methods for testing and assurance. We will focus on capabilities relevant to Singapore's needs, while working with researchers, industry and overseas counterparts to draw on their expertise and findings. After AI systems are deployed, we must monitor their behaviours and learn from incidents and near-misses when they occur. In cybersecurity, for example, there are established channels through CSA, GovTech and the sector leads, where cybersecurity incidents should be reported, including those that involve AI. We are looking into how these existing channels can be better leveraged to identify incidents involving AI, support remediation and improve safeguards, and whether further coordination or reporting arrangements are needed. To the question by Mr Fadli Fawzi, no agency has received a report of a cyber attack against its systems involving an unsupervised AI agent so far. We will continue to monitor developments, including incidents overseas, and apply relevant lessons to strengthen our safeguards and reporting arrangements. Working with international and industry partners. Fourth, we continue to work with international and industry partners. Frontier models are developed and deployed internationally, and no single country or company can fully assess or manage the risks on its own. This is why Singapore recently endorsed the international call for stronger safeguards around frontier AI. Some scenarios involving rogue AI envisage catastrophic or even extinction-level risks. We do not dismiss these risks. Neither do we assume that every scenario will materialise. Our approach is therefore to monitor the evidence closely, build the technical capabilities needed to understand advanced AI systems and work internationally on measures to address severe risks as the evidence develops. This work is part of our broader national approach to AI risk. The National AI Council provides strategic direction while the relevant agencies develop and implement the necessary measures. We will continue to adjust our safeguards as AI capabilities and the evidence on risks evolve. We also engage frontier AI developers to obtain information and access to their models where appropriate. We currently do not make this a requirement because access to a model by itself does not necessarily give a complete picture of the risks. A rigid requirement could even be counterproductive if it leads companies to limit their cooperation or information-sharing. Our preference is therefore to build strong collaborative relationships with frontier AI labs that encourage substantive and timely information-sharing. At the same time, we continue to build our own technical capabilities and draw on a wider range of sources to identify risks of relevance to Singapore. This includes the developers' own assessments and testing, independent research and evaluations, as well as the work of other AI safety institutes and international partners. By drawing on these different sources, rather than relying on any single form of access or assessment, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of emerging risks and the safeguards needed to address them. We have stepped up efforts to engage these international counterparts. Our AISI was a founding member of the International Network of Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science. Since 2025, we have convened global experts through the International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety and developed the Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities. We have also hosted some of the world's most significant scientific conferences over the last two years. These have helped build international alignment on the most important gaps in AI safety science between researchers, governments and companies, creating networks and a common basis to coordinate this important work. In conclusion, as AI becomes more capable of acting on our behalf, we must correspondingly introduce more robust safeguards. We must be clear about what it is allowed to do, ensure that humans remain in control and accountable where it matters and continue strengthening our ability to understand emerging risks and respond when problems occur. This will help build trust in AI as a technology that serves the public good.
Expected Outcomes from Smaller Class Size Pilot Study›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time4 turns · 254w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25106
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education regarding the six-school pilot from 2027 (a) what the pilot will establish about implementing smaller classes, whose benefit the Ministry has accepted since 2018; (b) whether other schools may adopt smaller classes based on its findings before a system-wide decision; and (c) what additional teachers it requires, and whether recruitment for wider adoption will begin alongside it rather than after it.
Dr Wan Rizal57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education following the 2026 Schools Work Plan Seminar (a) how will the Ministry ensure that the Teacher Workspace roll-out and the classroom redesign pilot reduce, rather than add to, teachers' workload during the transition; and (b) whether the re-organisation of non-classroom duties in the six pilot schools will be extended to other schools.
Ms He Ting Ru66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education in relation to the 2027 pilot on classroom redesign in six schools (a) what criteria will determine which classes, levels or subjects receive smaller class sizes; (b) how streamlining of teachers' non-teaching duties will be assessed alongside class size changes; (c) what metrics will measure the pilot's success; and (d) whether findings will be made public before wider rollout is considered.
Mr Desmond Lee65 words
[+1 sentence]The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ), together with other PQs that have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to "Measurable Indicators in Smaller Class Size Pilot Study", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Reviewing Cost Effectiveness of Non-lethal Crow Management Strategies and Expansion of Crow Culling Operations›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time4 turns · 298w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25109
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks has tracked the long-term cost-effectiveness and comparative success metrics of non-lethal house crow management, such as food-source reduction, habitat modification and trapping, against lethal culling operations; and (b) how these findings inform the post-resumption balance between non-lethal population control and targeted culling in its pest bird management strategy.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks will expand targeted crow shooting operations to Hougang, Bedok Reservoir and Serangoon; (b) if so, when; (c) if not, what specific factors prevent expansion of such operations; and (d) whether NParks has received sufficient feedback regarding bird aggression in these areas to warrant inclusion.
Dr Charlene Chen56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in relation to persistent crow-related disamenities around Block 242 Tampines Street 21 including the nearby skate park and community plaza (a) whether NParks has assessed the feasibility of safely conducting crow-shooting operations in the area; and (b) where feasible, whether such operations can be carried out in the near term.
Mr Chee Hong Tat132 words
[+6 sentences]The National Parks Board (NParks) employs a multi-pronged, science-based approach to pest bird management. Depending on site-specific conditions, measures may include trapping, nest removal, habitat modification, food source reduction, active enforcement against illegal feeding and crow shooting operations. As these measures are complementary and are often implemented concurrently, NParks tracks key metrics, such as crow population trends and public feedback, to evaluate their collective effectiveness, rather than assessing individual measures in isolation. Since crow shooting resumed, NParks has progressively expanded operations to suitable areas, including Hougang, Tampines and Bedok North. In selecting locations, NParks takes into consideration factors, such as human traffic and proximity to buildings, with public safety as a priority. NParks will continue to calibrate the use of the various measures based on local conditions, population trends and operational practicality.
Timelines and Detailed Plans for New Western Island›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time3 turns · 186w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25110
Ms Cassandra Lee58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the present status of the Government's plans to create a new Western Island through the reclamation and merging of Pulau Semakau, Pulau Bukom, Pulau Sudong and other islands; and (b) whether the Government can provide an indicative timeline for the key stages of feasibility studies, planning, reclamation and development.
Ms Cassandra Lee47 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the Government's preliminary vision for the size, intended uses and development intensity of the proposed western island; and (b) what proportion of the reclaimed land is presently expected to be allocated for industrial, energy, defence and other uses.
Mr Chee Hong Tat81 words
[+1 sentence]These questions were addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the questions asked by Dr Charlene Chen, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, and Mr Sharael Taha on 8 September 2026. [Please refer to "Assessing and Mitigating Environmental, Heritage and Community Impacts of Reclamation for New Western Island and Southern Islands Projects", Official Report, 8 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 35, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Clarification by Acting Minister for Manpower›Correction by Written Statement3 turns · 163w
· 0 highlighted
written-statement-3051
Speaker not recorded37 words
[+1 sentence][(proc text) The following statement was in the reply was given by the Acting Minister for Manpower (Jasmin Lau) during Question Time for Question Nos 1 to 10 at the Sitting on 6 October 2026: (proc text)]
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Ms Jasmin Lau)104 words
[+3 sentences]Of the 4,620 workers retrenched in the second quarter of 2026, over three in four were retrenched due to business re-organisation or restructuring. [Please refer to "Analysing Retrenchment and Re-employment Data, and Enhancing Employment Support In Light Of Latest Labour Market Report", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Oral Answers to Questions section.] I wish to make the following factual correction to my statement made at the Sitting of 6 October 2026. My statement should read as follows:
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Jasmin Lau)22 words
[+1 sentence]Of the 4,620 workers retrenched in the second quarter of 2026, three in four were retrenched due to business re-organisation or restructuring.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok)1104 words
[+12 sentences]Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Digital Infrastructure Bill. Before I begin, I would like to declare for the 28 years before I was elected into the House, I worked in the information technology (IT) industry, including with major multinational corporations (MNCs), such as Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Kyndryl. For most of my professional life, I was on the other side of legislation like this. During those years, I managed and worked closely with teams responsible and that provide professional services for disaster recovery, crisis management, business continuity, data centre operation, resilience services, and other critical technology and infrastructure functions. I was involved in preparing organisations for disruptions, managing incidents when they occurred and ensuring that critical systems and services could continue operating under challenging circumstances. I have seen first-hand what it means when critical infrastructure is disrupted, the urgency of the situation, the operational decisions that have to be made and the real impact on businesses, organisations and the people who depend on these services and infrastructure. I am no longer with any of these MNCs but those years in the technology industry gave me valuable experience of the operational realities behind the systems and infrastructure we are discussing here today. Mr Speaker, many Members have spoken on energy, water and land. I would like to add a different perspective. I want to speak not about the operators whom the Ministry has consulted extensively, but about the people at the far end of the wire, whose experiences and concerns may not always be represented in the room. In recent years, we have seen three major disruptions. In February 2023, a power surge tripped cooling systems and took down a cloud service for hours. In October 2023, a cooling failure at one data centre disrupted online banking at our major banks for more than 12 hours, 810,000 failed logins, 2.5 million failed payment and automated teller machine (ATM) transactions.[+9 sentences] In September 2024, a fire at a data centre took cloud services down with it. Not one of these was a cyberattack. They were physical operational failures. And the Bill knows it. Clause 15B now requires licensees to minimise the likelihood of unexpected interruptions. Clause 15C requires plans to recover from them. Resilience before the event and after it. I welcome both. But the Bill's notification duties point in only one direction. Clause 15D requires a licensee to report cybersecurity incidents and service delivery disruptions to the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). Clause 17(3) lets IMDA direct a licensee to notify its users, but only of a prescribed cybersecurity threat or incident.[+22 sentences] Mr Speaker, put those clauses beside the earlier three examples I mentioned. If the October 2023 cooling failure happened again tomorrow, under this Act, the operator must tell IMDA. IMDA would have no power to make the operator inform anyone else. The Bill's power to inform the public stops exactly where the Bill's own evident rights. And the people never contract with the licensee. The chain runs from data centre, to bank or platform, to the people. The Bill regulates the first link and leaves the rest of the commercial terms. So, the operator has no duty to tell the bank, the bank cannot tell its customers anything useful and the people stand at the counter with a screen that says "Try again later". Mr Speaker, allow me to share a bit in Mandarin here. (In Mandarin): When there is a problem with the power or water supply, people usually know whom to contact for help. But when digital systems or online services are disrupted, many people do not know who to turn to or how long they will have to wait. For small businesses that rely on these systems for their day-to-day operations, the impact is often immediate. Customers may leave one by one, business may come to a standstill, and the business owner may not even be able to give customers a simple answer: how much longer will they have to wait before the service is restored? That is why when we discuss these infrastructure systems, we must also remember the real people whose lives, work and businesses depend on them. They are often the very last to know what has happened. This Bill requires operators to notify the authorities, and that is the right approach. But notifying the authorities is not the same as informing the public. If digital infrastructure is truly as essential as electricity and water, then when an interruption occurs, people should be told what has happened and when service is expected to be restored – just as they would be during an interruption to their power or water supply. I hope the Senior Minister of State can provide greater clarity on this point. (In English): Let me continue my speech in English. I have three requests here. First, a drafting alignment. Extend clause 17(3) so that the power to direct user notification also covers a "service delivery disruption", the phrase the Bill already uses in clause 15D.[+3 sentences] Thus, no new concept enters the Act, the Bill's powers simply catch up with the Bill's evidence. Second, a commitment on the Codes of Practice. Clause 16(1)(a)(iv) lets IMDA set how quickly a licensee must report to IMDA. Will the same code set minimum standards for what a licensee tells its own customers, such as scope, estimated time to restore and a named point of contact so that the bank in the middle of the chain has something concrete to pass on?[+7 sentences] Third, transparency after the fact. Will IMDA publish anonymised summaries of major disruptions? It lets the smaller operators who were not in the consultation room learn from the ones who were, and it tells the public that when their phone went dark, someone in the Government saw it and acted on it. I anticipate the reply that customer communication belongs to contracts and service agreements. With respect, Sir, this Bill has already crossed that line. Clause 17(3) asks Parliament to accept that IMDA may compel a licensee to speak to its users. The principle is settled today. The only question is why it stops at cyber when every incident the Ministry cited to us was not. If cloud and data centres are now the utilities of the digital economy, the person at the end of the wire deserves to know when they fail and when they will be back.[+1 sentence] This Bill has built the machinery. I ask the Senior Minister of State to let it reach all the way to the people who depend on this infrastructure and these services.[+1 sentence] With these requests, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah)1884 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Digital Infrastructure Bill. Digital infrastructure has become fundamental infrastructure for a modern economy. Cloud services and data centres support services that Singaporeans and businesses use every day, including digital payments, ride hailing, business management applications and generative artificial intelligence (AI) services. Singapore's digital economy accounted for 19.3% of our gross domestic product (GDP), or $144.1 billion, in 2025 – double its size since 2018. Singapore also has more than 1.6 gigawatts of data centre capacity.[+1 sentence] As our dependence on digital infrastructure grows, so do the consequences of disruption. At the same time, data centres draw on scarce resources, including electricity, water, land and our national carbon budget. This Bill therefore addresses two important objectives: one, strengthening the security and resilience of foundational digital infrastructure and two, progressively raising the energy and water efficiency of our data centres.[+27 sentences] I would like to raise four broad considerations. First, we should turn higher standards into a competitive advantage for Singapore. Singapore need not compete on price alone. Our competitive proposition should be to offer trusted, resilient, connected and resource efficient compute, supported by a predictable regulatory environment. Scarcity and resilience can themselves be economic advantages. Companies handling important workloads will value confidence that their digital infrastructure is subject to credible cybersecurity, operational resilience and business continuity requirements. Regulatory quality should be another part of our competitive proposition. For companies making substantial, long-term infrastructure commitments, regulatory consistency has real economic value. Clear rules, coordination between agencies, predictable implementation and visibility over the future direction of regulation all reduce investment uncertainty. Higher standards therefore do not necessarily make Singapore less competitive. If businesses understand the standards, how they will evolve and how they will be applied, our regulatory environment can itself become part of Singapore's competitive moat. There are, however, several areas where implementation guidance will be important. The first concerns the requirement for an applicant for a data centre licence to have at least one officer with the required connection to Singapore. The Bill defines an officer as a director or another person responsible for the management of the applicant. Global operators may rotate leadership and management responsibilities across jurisdictions. Companies therefore need practical guidance on which roles qualify, how ordinary residence will be assessed and how temporary vacancies or leadership transitions should be handled. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what roles will satisfy the local officer requirement and whether IMDA will provide a reasonable process for handling leadership transitions? The second issue concerns who is regarded as operating a data centre. Under clause 23, this turns on who controls the introduction and implementation of operating, maintenance or environmental policies. Where more than one person exercises such control, the person with the greatest authority is treated as the operator. That principle is understandable, but its application may be less straightforward in complex corporate structures. A global parent may determine group-wide environmental or operating policies while a Singapore subsidiary employs the site team and implements those policies locally. This distinction determines which entity must hold the licence. Clause 54 may also extend liability to officers or persons involved in management in specified circumstances, including where they knowingly participate in an offence or fail to take reasonable steps despite knowing that an offence would be committed. The regulatory guidance should therefore include working examples covering common parent company, subsidiary, owner, tenant and outsourced management arrangements. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify how IMDA will identify the operator where policy authority and day-to-day operational control are divided between different entities? A third issue is the time taken to decide on licence applications. The Bill gives existing operators six months after commencement to apply and allows them to continue operating while IMDA considers the application.[+4 sentences] This transitional protection is helpful, but companies must also plan capital expenditure, hiring, financing and contractual commitments. I recommend that IMDA publish indicative service standards for licence decisions, distinguishing straightforward applications from more complex cases. The guidance should explain when the assessment clock starts, when it may be paused for further information and how applicants will be kept informed of the progress. Regulatory streamlining will also be important. The Government has indicated where cybersecurity incident reporting requirements overlap, licensees will report to IMDA, which will then share the relevant information with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA).[+4 sentences] The same principle should be applied to sustainability reporting. Operators should, as far as possible, be able to use one underlying dataset for reporting under the Digital Infrastructure Act – existing carbon reporting frameworks, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA)-IMDA Green Mark scheme and other applicable sustainability requirements. Agencies may require different analyses, but companies should not have to recreate substantially the same information in several formats. Codes of Practice should also be accompanied by reasonable implementation lead time. Clause 37 requires notice of a new or amended code to be published, but it does not prescribe a minimum notice period.[+4 sentences] Except where urgent action is needed, operators should have the time to change systems, retrain staff and obtain any necessary equipment. Will the Ministry consider adopting a "report once, use many times" approach across agencies, together with a default advance notice period for new or materially amended Codes of Practice? Second, we need a fair and predictable transition for existing data centres. I support progressively raising sustainability standards, but implementation should recognise the practical differences between designing a new facility to meet standards and upgrading an existing facility. The Government has stated that existing data centres will receive sufficient transition time and that the industry will continue to be engaged on the transition arrangements.[+13 sentences] This should be translated into a published glide path, with milestones that give operators adequate visibility to plan their upgrades. Where practicable, the glide path should allow upgrades to be coordinated with planned equipment replacements and refurbishments. It should also take into account factors, such as the age and configuration of the facility, present efficiency, technological feasibility and the scale of investments required. Can the Senior Minister of State provide greater clarity on the principles that will determine the transition period and intermediate milestones for existing data centres? There is also a regional dimension. Singapore should work with regional partners toward greater comparability in data centre sustainability, resilience and reporting. A practical starting point would be common definitions, metrics, comparable disclosures, followed progressively by stronger standards where appropriate. This would support Singapore's position as a trusted digital infrastructure hub while encouraging higher standards across the wider regional ecosystem. Will the Government explore greater regional alignment of data centre metrics, definitions, reporting standards through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or other regional platforms? Third, we should address our resource constraints at a systems level. The question is not simply about how much additional data centre capacity Singapore can accommodate. We should consider what economic and societal value Singapore receives from every electron and every drop of water allocated to compute. The Bill allows licence conditions to reflect the strategic, economic and sustainability commitments made by operators. The Bill identifies potential contributions, such as fixed-asset investments, total business expenditure, employment, research and development (R&D), innovation, advanced computing for AI and broader ecosystem development.[+2 sentences] These considerations should form part of a transparent and consistent assessment of new data centre proposals. Importantly, as electricity demand grows, the associated generation, grid and infrastructure costs should also be allocated fairly. Large additional loads should not result in households and smaller consumers disproportionately bearing the cost of infrastructure built to serve these loads.[+14 sentences] Can the Senior Minister of State explain how the Government intends to allocate the additional electricity system costs associated with major data centre demand? How will this impact households? The same system-level approach should apply to cooling. Future data centre should be assessed for precinct level solutions, such as district cooling, thermal energy storage, shared water infrastructure and advanced liquid cooling. Such infrastructure may create efficiencies that are difficult to achieve if every operator is required to optimise its facilities independently. We should go further and explore industrial co-location, where waste heat from one facility becomes a resource for another activity. International guidance identifies potential applications in food processing and drying, and certain industrial cleaning or heating processes. The suitability of each use will depend on the temperature and the consistency of the heat, the distance between facilities and whether heat upgrading is required. This should therefore not become a blanket obligation. Instead, land use and infrastructure planning for future data centre precincts should identify nearby activities that could productively use recovered heat. The Government can help by mapping potential heat sources and uses, reserve spaces for shared infrastructure and enabling pilot projects. Will the Government study precinct-level cooling and industrial co-location for future data centre clusters, including opportunities to use recovered heat in compatible industries? Energy and water efficiency should also be considered together. An improvement in one metric should not be treated as an unqualified success if it causes disproportionate deterioration in another. The regulations and Codes of Practice should therefore establish clear measurement methodologies, adequate transition periods and a combined assessment of energy and water outcomes.[+3 sentences] Enforcement should remain proportionate and distinguish persistent or deliberate non-compliance from genuine technical constraints. Can the Senior Minister of State confirm that future energy and water efficiency requirements will be assessed together, and that operators will receive clear methodologies and sufficient transition time before new requirements become enforceable? Fourth, our constraints should become opportunities to build Singapore's capabilities. As operators invest in more efficient and resilient infrastructure, Singapore should use this demand to develop capabilities in advanced cooling, power management, cybersecurity, water recycling, carbon accounting, energy optimisation and low-carbon projects.[+1 sentence] We should look beyond an operator's direct capital investment and employment numbers to the broader ecosystem that projects create. Where appropriate, access to scarce data centre capacity should be accompanied by meaningful opportunities for Singapore enterprises, startups and research institutes to participate in trials, procurement and capability development. Will the Government incorporate local ecosystem development and opportunities for test-bedding into assessment of the broader value created by new data centre proposals?[+2 sentences] Finally, the framework should recognise enabling technologies where their benefits can be demonstrated. Energy storage is not automatically equivalent to low-carbon electricity. Its value depends on how and when it is charged and how it supports the electricity system. However, where an operator can demonstrate that battery or thermal storage increases the utilisation of quality low-carbon energy, reduces peak demand or strengthens operational resilience, those outcomes should receive appropriate recognition. Will the Government consider recognising energy storage and thermal storage where operators can demonstrate that they support qualifying lower carbon energy, reduce peak system demand or improve resilience?[+6 sentences] Mr Speaker, Singapore's objective should not simply be hosting more data centres. Our ambition should be to strengthen Singapore's position as a trusted, resilient, connected, resource-efficient and predictable digital infrastructure hub. Strong regulation is not merely a cost of doing business. If the rules are clear, coordinated and implemented predictably, regulation can be part of the reason companies choose to locate important digital infrastructure here. In a resource-constrained Singapore, we should ensure that every electron, every drop of water committed to compute, generates the greatest possible economic and societal value for Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang)841 words
[+16 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not think about digital infrastructure until it stops, like water and electricity, and we are a small country. There is no next state where the system is still running. So, this Bill is the right step. IMDA already has resilience guidelines and a Green Data Centre Roadmap. The Bill makes good practice the baseline. I will ask about three goals: resilience, sustainability and value. Firstly, on resilience. The Bill requires each major operator to have security and continuity plans. That is right. But my worry is what sits underneath. Think of five shops, each with its own fire plan, sharing one staircase. Each passes inspection. But if the staircase is blocked, nobody gets out. Banks, clinics and Government services can each comply and still depend on the same cloud provider, substation, cooling system or cable route. Engineers call this common mode failure, that is, a shared point of failure. The Bill defines a major service by whether its failure would disrupt many businesses and organisations. The schedule then applies thresholds: 10 megawatts for data centres, and $100 million in Singapore revenue for cloud providers.[+2 sentences] Thresholds give industry certainty, and I understand why that matters. But a smaller facility can carry something critical, for example, a hospital group's imaging archive. And a large provider can pose systemic risk because many essential users can depend on it, even if no single customer looks critical. Hence, how will IMDA assess criticality, looking at substitutability, concentration of users and cross-border dependence?[+10 sentences] In the European Union (EU), for example, quantitative screens are combined with qualitative assessments of systemic impact and substitutability. Regulators are expected to supervise their own sectors well. Would the Government consider a risk-based cross-sector exercise programme involving IMDA, CSA and sector regulators where the dependency involves critical infrastructure sectors? The test is not only whether the provider recovers, but whether critical sectors keep running while it does. In addition, will the Government publish a short anonymised annual review of incidents, root causes and recovery times? People trust what they can see being checked. The next part I am going to talk about is sustainability. The power usage effectiveness (PUE) shows how much energy goes to overhead for each unit that reaches the computers. It measures the efficiency of the building and cooling systems. A low score is good, but it does not show the efficiency or carbon intensity of the computing being done inside. Clause 35 establishes the statutory basis for sustainability duties.[+13 sentences] The Government proposes PUE requirements first, while IT equipment energy efficiency and water efficiency requirements will be developed subsequently. The Ministry will consult industry first, and I understand why. Operators do not control their customers' servers. My question is, when? Can the Senior Minister of State share the timetable and say how existing data centres will move towards the standard already asked of new capacity? I would also welcome a public scorecard, introduced progressively, covering what operators' control: PUE, water usage effectiveness and perhaps the share of low-carbon electricity. Carbon credits are a sensible safeguard, but they are a bridge, not a routine alternative, to low-carbon energy. Can the criteria be published before any licence condition relies on them? Can IMDA report each year how much has been met by clean energy delivered, and how much by carbon credits? Finally, on value. Every megawatt given to one operator is a megawatt another user cannot have. Land and power are limited. When we award capacity, Singaporeans are, in effect, the shareholders. In August, the Economic Development Board (EDB) and IMDA provisionally awarded 200 megawatts to four operators.[+2 sentences] They committed to green energy for over half the capacity, advanced compute for AI and research partnerships in Singapore. The Bill gives IMDA broad powers over the grant and conditions of data centre licences, while the Government has stated it may consider a data centre's economic and strategic importance. Where commitments on jobs, local investment, AI compute, research or green energy were material to the award of scarce capacity, would the Ministry be able to clarify which commitments will be incorporated into enforceable instruments, how they will be measured, and what consequences follow from material non-delivery?[+9 sentences] I would also like to request for greater transparency. Before licences are finalised, publish a standard framework on the types of commitment, how each is measured, when it is reported and what follows a material shortfall. No commercial terms need be disclosed. If an operator promises jobs, are they net new Singapore-based roles or training places? If it promises AI compute, how much, by when and for whom? An aggregate report should be published after each round, covering capacity awarded, commitments delivered, local investment, jobs, research partnerships and enforcement actions. That is how Singapore shows it is not merely hosting infrastructure, but converting scarce resources into opportunities for Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a digital economy, resilience and sustainability are part of national security and competitiveness. I support the Bill, which will keep Singapore a digital hub that is trusted, resilient and resource-responsible.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Victor Lye.
Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio)363 words
[+5 sentences]Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as an adviser to companies involved in data centre operations. Sir, in supporting the Digital Infrastructure Bill, I wish to highlight three considerations: one, concentration risk; two, value; and three, capabilities. First, concentration risk. In addressing concentration risk, we have to identify critical services and map structural concentration and common dependencies. For example, where banks, healthcare providers and Government systems depend on the same underlying infrastructure. The Bill provides for a critical IT load threshold of 10 megawatts. However, is it possible that data centres below the 10-megawatt critical IT load threshold may be systemically important? We must therefore ensure that our system monitoring can capture such concentration risks from the perspective of critical function and interconnectedness, rather than simply the scale of the IT load.[+4 sentences] The second consideration is value. Singapore has finite land, power, water and carbon budgets. New capacity should therefore generate broader economic and strategic value for Singapore. Hence, we should measure value outcomes, such as Singapore IT-created R&D, AI capabilities created here, anchored in Singapore and ultimately, productivity. The objective should not merely be value promise per megawatt, but the value actually realised per megawatt.[+7 sentences] Ultimately, the value must mean good jobs for Singaporeans. The third consideration would be capabilities. Singapore cannot and need not own every layer of the technology stack. Therefore, we should distinguish what digital capabilities Singapore must host, what we must have access to and what we can safely procure through diversified global networks. In particular, we need to help our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), who provide the most jobs for Singaporeans, to use the compute connectivity and intelligence available through Singapore to create products, participate in global networks and reach markets far beyond Singapore. Mr Speaker, in concluding, I seek three clarifications. First, how will we understand and how can we manage correlated dependencies across our digital infrastructure? Second, can we measure the economic and strategic value actually realised from every megawatt? And third, what are the economic and strategic capabilities Singapore aims to reap from the compute infrastructure that we are willing to support?[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang)1780 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, the digital world may seem weightless, yet the systems that support it use land, power and water. They also produce carbon emissions. I will raise three points on this Bill: first, data centre firms must keep investing after they set up in Singapore; second, data centres should help support our power grid where they can; third, their growth must lead to good jobs and new chances for our firms and our workers.[+9 sentences] My first point is about the need to keep pace with change. The Chinese phrase, "严进宽出", means being strict at the point of entry, but less strict after that. For data centres, our approach should be, "严进，更要严管" – we should be strict at entry, but just as firm in the years that follow. Data centres are built to last for many years, but the tech within them can change much faster. A data centre that is green and efficient today may fall behind in five or 10 years. The needs of our firms will also change as AI becomes more common. Approval should therefore not become a right to operate forever, based only on pledges made at the start. Operators should keep investing to use less power and water. They should also keep their sites safe, secure and up-to-date. Could the Senior Minister of State explain how an operator's past record will affect the renewal of its licence and its right to grow?[+3 sentences] If a firm falls behind in the new rules, what steps can IMDA take before its licence comes up for renewal? The Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions (REGE) administered by EDB may help firms make this shift. This Bill sets the basic rules, REGE can help firms invest in new tools that cut emissions. The Grant supports projects that cut at least 250 tonnes of carbon emissions each year.[+11 sentences] It can fund up to half of the cost that can be claimed. Data centres may use it for better cooling, more efficient uninterruptible power supply systems, smart controls, liquid cooling and lower emission cooling gases. Could the Senior Minister of State state whether REGE will fund work needed to meet these new rules, or will only fund works that go beyond them? For projects that deliver large and clear carbon cuts, will the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) work with the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry (METI) and EDB to consider a higher rate of support so that firms adopt better equipment sooner? Such support should favour projects that lead to direct and verified carbon cuts in Singapore. These projects create demand for equipment, design, installation, testing and long-term support. They can produce local investments, jobs and skills that may not arise when firms rely mainly on carbon credits or other forms of carbon accounting. Data centres are often called industry enablers. They give firms the computing power, cloud services and digital links they need, but they should also be industry developers. They should help grow new skills, firms and forms of works around them. My second point is about energy. Under the second data centre call for application, four projects were awarded – about 200 megawatts of new capacity.[+25 sentences] Each has pledged to obtain more than half of its power through eligible green energy routes. These routes may include solar power built into the site, biomethane, low-carbon hydrogen or ammonia, fuel cells and carbon capture. Many of these options are still new. Some may also cost much more than power from natural gas. This creates a chance for the four data centres to serve as anchor buyers. Their large and steady demand can give clean energy firms more reason to invest. It can also help form new supply chains, set clearer contract terms and bring down costs over time. But we need to know what the green energy pledge will achieve in practice. Could the Senior Minister of State explain how IMDA will test whether the energy is real, new and able to reach Singapore when it is needed, rather than relying mainly on carbon credits or accounting measures that do not add new clean energy supply? There is also the issue of cost. Some of these fuels may cost far more than natural gas, at least in the early years. The green premium may be borne by data centre firms passed on to their client or spread across the wider power system. Could MDDI track how these rules affect the cost of cloud hosting and AI services for our SMEs? If cost rise sharply, smaller firms may need help so that our green shift does not widen our digital gap. We should not only look at where power comes from, we should also look at when and how it is used. The Energy Market Authority's (EMA's) demand-side flexibility road map points to batteries, flexible loads and virtual power plants as ways to balance demand and supply. Data centres are well placed to help because they use large and steady amounts of power, while their batteries and backup systems may sit idle, except during tests or outages. Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) is not classified as renewable energy itself. A battery stores power. It does not decide how that power was made, but BESS can help us make better use of clean energy. It can store solar power for later, reduce the use of diesel backup sets and support the grid when demand is high. Data centre batteries could, therefore, serve two roles without putting the safety of the site at risk. Their first role must remain providing backup power. But when there is enough spare capacity, they could also take part in demand response, provide reserves and help the grid during times of stress. The cost of large-scale batteries is also falling fast. The Financial Times reports recently shared that battery pack costs for grid storage fell by 45% in 2025, while global storage capacity is now 11 times what it was five years ago.[+10 sentences] Could BESS qualify for REGE when it leads to clear and verified carbon cuts? In assessing such projects, EDB could also take into account the source of the power used to charge the battery, the power loss during use and the diesel used that it replaces. More broadly, will IMDA, EMA and EDB set up one clear framework for data centre BESS? Operator should be able to understand how the same battery will be treated under their licence, REGE, their green energy pledge and EMA's demand response plans. A data centre will still use more power than what a BESS can supply. But where it makes sense, they can also help the grid. Each new megawatt of computing power should support both digital growth and energy resilience. My final point is about jobs for Singaporeans. A recent article in The Economist found that America's AI build-up is creating work far beyond software jobs. Data centres need electricians, cooling experts, grid engineers and site staff who keep the system safe and running. The article found that job openings in America's data centre sector had more than doubled in two years, even as job ads as a whole fell. It also found that jobs to install and maintain data centre systems offered pay above 40% to similar work in other fields.[+10 sentences] Singapore is a much smaller market, and we should not assume that the same gains will arise here on their own. But the article gives us a useful view of where the jobs may come from. We should start preparing our workers before the new data centres open. There are three groups of jobs to consider. First, the jobs needed to build the data centres. These may grow fast, but some may end when the sites are completed. Second, long-term jobs needed to run, secure and maintain the sites. And third, the jobs created when firms use this computing power to build and apply AI. Our aim should be to secure more of the second and third groups. These jobs can give Singaporeans long careers, useful skills and a path to better pay. We should also help workers in the first group move into longer-term roles when the building work ends. I, therefore, ask MDDI to work with METI and our workforce agencies on the jobs and business roadmap for this sector.[+14 sentences] It should show which jobs will grow, which may fade, what skills firms may need and how Singaporeans can move into these roles. The roadmap should set out clear paths for workers with related skills. An electrician could move into data centre power systems or BESS work. An aircon technician could learn to work with liquid cooling. A site manager can move into smart energy control. Our cyber and software staff could gain the skills needed to run and protect AI systems. The shift to electric vehicles offers a useful lesson. As electric vehicle use grew, the Government, schools and firms had to train workers in battery safety, charging systems and high voltage equipment. Existing workers could not be expected to make the shift on their own. We should take the same approach for data centres. Training should begin before the new sites open. It should be tied to real jobs, known skill needs, on-the-job training and a clear path to better pay. Workers should also have their past skills recognised, so that they do not have to start again from zero. Large data centre firms can offer trainee roles, work-study places and mid-career entry paths. They can also help their SME vendors train staff, meet the new rules and move into work of higher value. Such plans should be considered when new data centre capacity is awarded.[+2 sentences] Projects backed by REGE can also serve as test sites for Singapore firms working on cooling, batteries, sensors and energy controls. Successful trials would give these SMEs a track record to win work overseas. Grant recipients and firms awarded scarce data centre capacity should therefore report on local trials, local purchases and the growth of their Singapore suppliers.[+6 sentences] Sir, our success should not be judged only by how many megawatts of data centre space we build. We should ask how well those megawatts are used, how much they help our power grid, how many Singaporeans move into better jobs and how many local firms gain new skills. If Singapore provides scarce land, power and firm rules, operators should keep improving, help our energy shift and create lasting value for our firms and workers. That is how data centres can be both an industry enabler and industry developer. It is also how each new megawatt can work harder for Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio)1930 words
[+9 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. One of the things which Singaporeans value is efficiency and immediacy – whether it is a transaction going through, a download to our phones or an answer from ChatGPT. The backend digital infrastructure which keeps all of these things running can feel almost invisible. However, the physical infrastructure required is very real. Data centres occupy land, draw electricity and require cooling. Within them is stored the data and functions on which our digital lives increasingly depend, forming the backbone of modern-day businesses. For Singapore, one of these constraints, in particular, feels familiar to us – land. In a time when access to compute is becoming increasingly important to economic competitiveness and national capability, how we grow matters as much as how much and how fast we grow. We have confronted this tension before. In 2019, Singapore paused new data centre development while considering how the sector could grow more sustainably.[+1 sentence] We subsequently resumed growth in a measured manner. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that global data centre electricity consumption will rise from 485 terawatt-hours in 2025 to about 950 terawatt-hours in 2030, almost doubling in five years.[+9 sentences] This makes the choices we take today about infrastructure, resources and resilience, especially consequential. This Bill is an important next chapter in that journey to enable sustainable growth, supporting our AI ambitions, connectivity and the wider digital economy. My speech will ask how do we provide a computing capacity that the digital economy requires without placing unsustainable demands on land, energy and water? As our dependence on digital infrastructure grows, how do we ensure that it remains secure and resilient during a crisis? Sir, I welcome the decision to make environmental sustainability a stronger part of the statutory framework for data centres. Our green data centre roadmap already looks beyond facility efficiency towards more efficient IT equipment, cooling, server utilisation and green energy. The question is how that broader conception of sustainability will eventually be translated into the environmental requirements under clause 35, reporting under clause 36 and Codes of Practice under clause 37, as well as the corresponding reporting requirements, penalties in the event of contravention and enforcement measures. PUE measures the energy used by the facility relative to its IT equipment. It does not tell us how much useful computing work that equipment performs, nor does it tell us the facilities' total demand for electricity, water or the emissions associated with that demand. While energy per AI task has been falling, while hardware and software become more efficient, globally, data centre electricity consumption still grew by 17% in 2025, while electricity consumption from AI focused data centres grew by 50%. For example, Ireland saw data centres account for 23% of its metered electricity in 2025.[+4 sentences] While our circumstances differ, the planning question is still relevant. How do we align the pace of data centre growth with the additional generation and grid infrastructure needed? I would also like to ask how the additional potential demand has been incorporated into Singapore's emissions trajectory and power sector decarbonisation plans towards our 2050 climate targets? Will facility level PUE targets be complemented by measures of total energy use, and Scopes 1 and 2 emissions? This is also reflected in the World Green Building Council's recent policy principles, which caution that relative indicators, such as PUE and water efficiency, do not, on their own, tell us the total impact on local electricity and water systems. I was glad to hear in the Senior Minister of State's speech that the Government will consider progressively developing a basket of indicators to complement PUE and water efficiency.[+21 sentences] I would like to ask whether total water consumption and water stress impacts will also be considered. There is also a practical opportunity under clause 36. Such licensees will already submit regular information to IMDA. Will the Government consider publishing an annual aggregated picture of the sector's environmental footprint, including overall capacity, electricity, water consumption and relevant indicators? Commercially sensitive operator level information can be protected, and there is a sample precedent in the EU. While green energy commitments can be enforced as licence conditions, how will the carbon accounting be handled? For example, how will additionality, lifecycle emissions, deliverability of supply be assessed and monitored? I also note that the Bill sets out that IMDA may require the transfer of eligible international carbon credits to the Government to offset resulting additional emissions, where a licensee uses more brown energy than committed because a green energy project has failed to deliver. Sir, quality international carbon credits may not be so easy to come by. They may address residual emissions but are ultimately not a substitute for delivery of the promised energy pathway. Will these remedies be a backstop after exhausting all efforts to secure replacement, low carbon supply? How will carbon credit quality limits and public disclosure be handled? My second point is that as data centres become larger and more concentrated, beyond efficiency, we must study how it fits into the wider precinct and systems around it. For example, in terms of security, the impact of energy consumption, heat and noise. As a small and densely built island city state, integrated planning has been one of our strengths. Unlike colder countries, Singapore cannot rely on district heating to make use of waste heat. As we confront the urban heat island effect, we are enhancing the digital urban climate twin to understand how urban form and heat affects temperatures. Data centres also reject substantial amounts of heat. As we contemplate larger concentrations, could their cumulative heat rejection be assessed through our urban climate modelling alongside local wind conditions, humidity and surrounding land uses? How will such findings inform siting and cooling choices? The electricity grid raises a similar question. The IEA has highlighted a mismatch between fast moving data centre investment and the longer lead times required for generation and grid infrastructure.[+8 sentences] Actual data centre load may initially reserve more grid capacity than is effectively used. As we allocate these new data centre capacity, how will the Government ensure that the corresponding demand for power and the infrastructure needed to support it does not affect costs or impose risks on other users? Beyond adding demand, is there potential for our next generation of data centres to contribute to power system resilience? For example, through storage, demand response or flexible load when operationally feasible. Beyond regulating what individual of operators can reasonably control, I would also like to ask how the Government plans to coordinate the overall needs and demands as considerations across different agencies. A new data centre is simultaneously a digital infrastructure decision, concerns land use, a major electricity load, significant water user and part of our longer-term emissions pathway. Third is about the value which Singapore receives from the capacity. We know there is no shortage of demand. In 2023, after Singapore announced the resumption of data centre capacity allocation after the earlier pause, our first pilot call attracted more than 20 proposals.[+2 sentences] Ultimately, four proposals were selected. Competition around us has also intensified, for example in Malaysia and Thailand. Our objective is not simply to host more data centres, but for greater economic and strategic value from what we choose to host here. Could the Government consider periodically publishing, at least in aggregate, how much capacity has been allocated against how much was actually built and utilised, and whether the material commitments and value associated with that capacity has been delivered?[+15 sentences] Resilience also extends beyond Singapore. I would like to ask where a major service used in Singapore depends materially on overseas services, how will the Government assess these dependencies at the point of application, ensure timely information is obtained during a disruption and set standards for recovery? We cannot mistake multiple providers for genuine redundancy. A business or public service may have a primary and backup provider, but both could ultimately depend on the same cloud control pain, network route or cooling infrastructure. For the people and businesses relying on these services, infrastructure resilience has a very practical consequence. Will the resilience codes therefore look at common points of failure and test scenarios in which several facilities or services are disrupted simultaneously beyond ensuring that individual providers have backup plans? Can the Codes of Practice encourage low carbon backup power and cooling options, while also ensuring that they remain reliable during grid stress or extreme weather considerations? How will companies be supported to implement these? My fourth and final point. Much of the substantive regime will appropriately sit in regulations, license conditions and Codes of Practice. I hope that the Codes of Practice will specify audit frequency, whether there is a need for independent verification, corrective action paths and consequences for repeated incidents of non-compliance. Singapore has also progressively been developing standards, such as SS 726:2026 for liquid cooling in tropical data centres. How does the Government envision existing SS interacting with the Codes of Practice and mandatory requirements? Clarity is important, just as is flexibility, to help operators plan more efficiently and support compliance. I therefore welcome the Government's commitment following the consultation to provide sufficient transition time and to continue consulting industry. I am behind being ambitious to raise our standards but believe we should be predictable about how we do so. I also seek clarification on the 5% ownership reporting threshold.[+14 sentences] As stakeholders noted during consultation, a passive institutional investor crossing 5% may not materially alter control. Conversely, contractual or voting arrangements can sometimes confer significant influence without a dramatic movement in headline shareholding. I note that the Bill already recognises indirect control. As reporting is streamlined for transactions that do not affect material control, could the Government provide practical examples of how passive investment holdings, voting arrangements and indirect influence will be treated. I would also like to ask the Government how it plans to address the structural relationship between the state and the firms operating this infrastructure. The Bill gives IMDA powers to impose conditions and take action when they are breached, but as a provider becomes more indispensable to services, suspending its licence or reducing its capacity could ultimately cause inconvenience or have a negative impact on users. IMDA will have a range of enforcement tool. I would like to ask how it would use this progressively, require independently verified remediation and ensure continuity for users if serious or persistent breaches eventually require a licence to be suspended? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the infrastructure underpinning the next chapter of our economy will increasingly include data centres, cloud and compute. Singapore was prepared to pause and ask what sustainable data centre growth should look like, and that discipline has served us well. As we enter another phase of growth, I hope the Bill's underlying Codes of Practices will embed that same discipline into our regulatory framework. Not just better PUE, but a better overall resource outcome, not simply greener individual buildings, but infrastructure planned with the energy, water and other systems around it. Capacity that is actually utilised and delivers lasting value for Singaporeans. For a small country where every megawatt, every drop of water and every hectare of land matters, we must be strategic about the partnerships that we forge and clear about the position we wish to occupy. If there is any nation which can do it, sensitively weighing Singaporeans needs, economic considerations and precious resources, I would like to think that it can be our little red dot.[+1 sentence] Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang)1348 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work for a global investment firm with investments in data centres. I am also the chairman of a non-profit organisation looking at digital defence. In October 2023, a cooling system malfunction at one data centre disrupted the banking and payment services of both DBS and Citibank. Recovery plans were activated, but problems at their back-up sites delayed recovery further. By the time services were fully restored, about 2.5 million payment and ATM transactions could not be completed.[+15 sentences] I raised this matter in Parliament then because the lesson was clear: two organisations can each have a recovery plan and still fail together when they depended on the same critical infrastructure. In Yio Chu Kang, this is not an abstract concern. Our coffee shops, minimarts, clinics, tuition centres and neighbourhood retailers receive payments, take orders, manage stock and arrange deliveries through digital systems. A customer is ready to pay. The goods are ready to go. But the payment cannot be processed. For the customer, it is an inconvenience. For the shopkeeper, it may mean a lost sale, a delayed delivery or a queue that does not move. The shopkeeper may never know what system failed or which provider was responsible. But the rent still has to be paid. Wages are still due. And the customer may not return. This Bill will not prevent every payment failure nor is it intended to. But where a major digital infrastructure service fails and disrupts a large number of businesses, the consequences spread far beyond any one shop. I support the Digital Infrastructure Bill. The Bill establishes licensing regimes for major foundational digital infrastructure services and data centre operators.[+5 sentences] It gives us the opportunity to establish a clear principle: where dependence is concentrated, accountability must be demonstrable. My central proposal is simple. Where providers depend on the same critical systems, they must prove that they can recover together. I have three proposals for the Bill. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, test shared recovery before businesses are disrupted. Clause 15 requires major foundational digital infrastructure licensees to minimise unexpected interruptions and maintain business continuity and disaster recovery plans.[+37 sentences] That is necessary. However, a plan on paper is not the same as recovery in practice. A provider may have a sound plan for its own systems, yet still depend on a shared facility, power supply, connectivity pathway or overseas operational team. If that dependency fails, several individually sound plans may fail simultaneously. So, the question is not only: can each provider recover? It is: can the services that our businesses rely on recover when a shared dependency fails? I ask IMDA to use the Bill's Codes of Practice and licensing powers to require regular, risk-based joint recovery exercises for major foundational digital infrastructure licensees with significant shared dependencies. These exercises should test whether essential services can resume within recovery timeframes appropriately to the likely harm caused by disruption. They should involve the relevant sector regulators and where necessary, critical upstream operators. These exercises must not simply conclude with just a written report. Every significant weakness found should have a responsible party, a deadline for correction and independent verification that the remedial action has worked. Restoring a service should close the outage and work towards preventing the next one. I ask the Senior Minister of State whether IMDA will issue the relevant Code within 12 months of the Bill's commencement, conduct the first sector-wide exercise thereafter and require independently verified remediation for serious weaknesses found. For the business owner, resilience is not a compliance report. It is being able to serve and deliver to the next customer. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, account publicly for promises made in return for scarce resources. Data centres are essential to Singapore's digital future. But they also draw on scarce national resources, including electricity capacity and water. When Singapore allocates these resources, we must be clear about the public value we expect in return. Clause 27 allows commitments made by data centre applicants, where they are economically or strategically important, to become licence conditions. Clause 36 requires compliance reporting, which IMDA may require to be audited. A compelling application must become a fulfilled promise. I propose an annual Digital Infrastructure Accountability Report. Within proper confidentiality limits, IMDA should report in aggregate on the material commitments attached to data centre licences: what was due, what was delivered, what remains overdue and what corrective or enforcement action has been taken. The report should distinguish a minor administrative delay from a significant unfulfilled commitment. It should also distinguish new economic benefits created specifically because Singapore allocated capacity, from routine business activities that the company would have carried out regardless. This is not about disclosing commercially sensitive information or creating a fresh reporting burden. It is about using the Bill's existing reporting and audit framework to give Singaporeans confidence that scarce resources are being right sited with discipline. Clause 35 also establishes minimum energy and water efficiency requirements. How will IMDA secure timely correction when a provider falls short, without causing a second disruption to businesses and consumers? Firm enforcement and service continuity must go together. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, ensure accountability survives borders. Singapore is deeply connected to the world. That is a strength. Our businesses benefit from global cloud services, global expertise and globally distributed infrastructure. We should not respond to every risk by insisting that every system be duplicated here. But where recovery depends on a decision made overseas, accountability cannot stop at the border. The Bill covers major foundational digital infrastructure services provided from outside Singapore to users here. Clause 10 requires an overseas major foundational digital infrastructure licensee to appoint a person in Singapore to accept notices, directions and orders.[+3 sentences] But a local mailbox is not the same as local accountability. When a critical service is disrupted, can the local representative secure the access, authorisation and cooperation needed to restore it? Can it obtain necessary information? Can it manage a conflict between a direction here and an obligation elsewhere? I ask IMDA to require major foundational digital infrastructure licensees, through continuity arrangements and licence conditions where appropriate, to demonstrate three things.[+19 sentences] First, who has the authority to make recovery decisions during a major disruption? Second, how access to the necessary people, systems and information will be secured? Third, how overseas legal or operational constraints will be anticipated and managed? These arrangements should be updated whenever material cross-border dependencies change. This is not a blanket call for data localisation. It is a call for clarity before a crisis, not improvisation during one. Singapore cannot control every system we depend on. But we can insist on knowing who is answerable, what they can do, and how their obligations will be enforced. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us return to that shop in Yio Chu Kang. A customer is at the counter. The goods are ready. The business owner has done everything advised and encouraged by our national digitalisation drives: he has digitalised, invested in the equipment and learnt new ways of serving his customers. Then the payment fails. He cannot see the data centre. He cannot inspect the cloud service. He cannot call the overseas team responsible for restoring it. But he bears the consequence nonetheless. That is why shared recovery must be tested before livelihoods are interrupted. That is why promises made in return for scarce national resources must be checked against delivery. And that is why responsibility must remain effective even when decisions are made overseas.[+1 sentence] No law can promise uninterrupted service. But this Bill can require providers to prove that recovery arrangements work, require the regulator to verify the evidence and require those who fall short to answer for it.[+2 sentences] When the next customer comes to that counter, the business owner should be able to do the straightforward thing he has worked so hard to do – serve the customer, receive payment and keep business moving. His reliance on these digital systems is a daily reality. The accountability behind those systems must be just as real.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information)6113 words
[+29 sentences]Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and for a thoughtful debate. Members raised practical questions about competitiveness, sustainability, scarce resources, jobs and skills, and whether our digital infrastructure will remain secure and resilient as our dependence on it grows. The debate has reinforced three broad principles behind the Bill. First, we should plan ahead. We should not wait for a serious disruption or acute resource pressures before putting the right framework in place. Second, we should grow in a disciplined way. Singapore needs more compute as our economy digitalises and AI becomes more widely used. But land, power, water and our carbon budget are finite. Our objective cannot simply be more capacity. It must be greater value from the capacity that we host. Third, clear and proportionate regulation is not the opposite of competitiveness. Predictable and credible regulation is part of competitiveness. I will respond to Members' remarks under seven broad themes: first, competitiveness; second, the value and growth of data centres; third, the transition for existing facilities; fourth, the impact on Singaporeans; fifth, sustainability; sixth, security and resilience; and finally, the international context. Before I turn to the main themes, let me acknowledge several broader points raised by Members, including questions on low-carbon energy supply, frontier AI models for cybersecurity, urban heat, e-waste, battery storage and the regional impacts of data centres and energy developments. These are important issues, but not all fall within the scope of this Bill. I will address those that are relevant to the Bill in my response today. For the others, I would encourage Members to pursue them with the relevant agencies and Ministries through the appropriate Parliamentary channels. Let me start with Singapore's competitiveness as a digital infrastructure hub. Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Sharael Taha asked whether higher standards and compliance costs could push investment elsewhere in the region. Cost matters. But Singapore does not compete by having the cheapest land or the cheapest electricity. Other markets have more of both. Furthermore, the future of compute infrastructure will increasingly be regional. Data centre operators and cloud service providers take a regional view when making investments. Some workloads will naturally locate where land and energy are more abundant. Singapore's role is different. It is a trusted, connected and high-value hub for workloads where reliability, security, resilience, connectivity and proximity to enterprise activities matter most. That means we do not need to host every megawatt. We need to host the right capacity and make the capacity we host work harder for Singapore. The recent Data Centre – Call for Application exercise for which we received more than 20 applications, shows that operators continue to see Singapore as a key part of their regional strategy.[+16 sentences] As Mr Edward Chia observed, regulatory quality can itself be part of Singapore's competitive moat. Good regulation is not about having the most rules. It is about having the right rules, applied predictably. Ms Eileen Chong noted that much of the technical detail and operational requirements will be set out in regulations and Codes of Practice, and asked how trade-offs between different requirements will be weighed. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked how we can avoid creeping regulation. Ms Nadia Samdin asked how existing Singapore standards will fit with the Codes of Practice and Dr Neo Kok Beng asked how industry's views will shape them. The approach is straightforward. We are setting a clear floor, and making sure those covered by the regime meet it and will raise that floor over time when it is practical and necessary. The Bill sets out the architecture and policy objectives. IMDA will develop the detailed requirements with industry, drawing on international standards and existing Singapore standards. New requirements will come with consultation and appropriate transition time. Codes of Practices are a regulatory tool used in many sectors, such as the telecommunications sector. IMDA and the industry players are familiar with this approach. Under this Bill, licensees will be required to comply with the Codes and IMDA can take enforcement action if they do not. Members also asked when the regime will take effect. After the Bill is passed, we will bring it into force in stages as the subsidiary legislation, Codes of Practice and licensing processes are finalised. These details will be developed with industry over the coming year, before the requirements are finalised. We expect the approved Act to come into force in 2027. Existing operators will then have six months from commencement to apply for a licence. They can continue operating while IMDA considers their application.[+4 sentences] Ms Chong also asked how the licensing process can be kept simple for operators who already deal with several regulators and made suggestions on minimising regulatory burden. Similar concerns were raised by respondents in the public consultation on the Bill. It is our intent to minimise administrative burden for service providers and operators. We will streamline operational processes for all data centre operators and foundational digital infrastructure services covered under the Bill and seek views from the industry to ensure that these are practical for licensees. Where possible, we will use existing industry-recognised audits and certifications for demonstration of compliance to minimise duplicative effort for licensees.[+6 sentences] Several Members asked a basic but important question: data centres use substantial land, power and water. What do Singapore and Singaporeans get in return? Let me be clear. We do not view data centres as a standalone industry sector to be grown for its own sake. They underpin many important sectors – financial services, digital payments, healthcare systems, logistics platforms and Government services. They are also important connectivity nodes linking domestic, regional and international networks. The digital economy that runs on this infrastructure contributed about 20% of our GDP in 2025.[+15 sentences] The value is not in the data centre itself. It is in what the data centre enables. Members have made similar points in their remarks. Mr Shawn Loh put it this way: he said Singapore should not pursue the greatest possible volume of digital infrastructure, but the greatest value from it. Mr Sharael put it another way – every megawatt must count. Mr Victor Lye further noted that the measure should not only be value promised per megawatt, but value realised per megawatt. I agree with them. However, we should be clear that infrastructure is an input, not the outcome. Members spoke about the need for digital infrastructure to support Singapore's AI ambition. Our ambition should not simply be to host the infrastructure of the AI economy, but to help Singapore enterprises create value on top of it. That informs our allocation of scarce data centre capacity. Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Sharael Taha asked what kind of workloads Singapore should be positioning for. We want to anchor high-value workloads where trust, security and continuity matter most. They fall broadly into two groups: one, workloads that need to sit close to the enterprise systems and users they serve, where speed matters, such as for banking and AI; and two, others that handle sensitive data that must be kept under the rules users trust. These include digital identity and healthcare applications. For these workloads, Singapore's position at the centre of regional, financial and enterprise infrastructure and the trust in our institutions are a real advantage. That is why it is not sensible to place an arbitrary cap on data centre capacity, as suggested by Mr Louis Chua, Ms Nadia, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Sharael.[+3 sentences] Doing so would mean constraining the growth of our broader economy and the use of digital technologies in society that benefit all Singaporeans. The whole-of-nation trade-offs need to be made, but not by narrowly viewing this matter through the lens of any one sector, albeit one as an important as the data centre sector. Let me also clarify the 1.6 gigawatts figure that a number of Members cited. The 1.6 gigawatts cited is the maximum IT load capacity of data centres in Singapore.[+5 sentences] It includes the 200 megawatts allocated under the second Data Centre – Call for Application. The Data Centre Park's 700 megawatts refer to total electricity consumption. This includes energy used for both IT equipment and other facility-level functions, such as cooling and lighting. The park will house the data centres allocated under the second Data Centre – Call for Application and future allocations. These data centres are therefore counted in both figures, which is why the two cannot simply be added together. In terms of actual electricity use, in 2024, data centres used about 6.5 terawatt-hours of electricity, slightly more than 10% of Singapore's total consumption.[+4 sentences] We take a whole-of-economy view of land, power, water and our carbon budget, alongside economic, security and environmental considerations. EMA's power system planning already takes growth in energy-intensive sectors, including data centres and semiconductors, into account. Data centres' electricity use today translates to less than 5% of Singapore's total carbon emissions. Our climate commitments are clear. Singapore has committed to reduce emissions to 45 to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035 and to reach net zero by 2050.[+34 sentences] Data centre growth must therefore be managed within these constraints, just like any other energy-intensive sector. The Bill's efficiency standards, together with green energy conditions for newly awarded capacity, are part of how we do this. That is the difference between maximising capacity and the stewardship capacity. We are not seeking maximum volume. We are seeking maximum value. Ms He Ting Ru asked whether Singapore is shifting the environmental and social costs of data centre growth to our neighbours. We are not seeking to push data centre capacity out of Singapore. We continue to allocate new capacity here, including through the Data Centre – Call for Application process and the Jurong Island Data Centre Park. What we are doing is being selective about the capacity we host, ensuring that it is efficient, sustainable and delivers broader value. Global compute demand will continue to grow across the region. Lowering our standards would not reduce that demand. It would simply mean less efficient data centres here. Our approach is therefore to hold the data centres we host to high standards for energy and resource efficiency. The objective should not be to shift the problem elsewhere, but to raise standards as the regional ecosystem grows. I have spoken to government officials from around the region and they have expressed interest in our approach here in Singapore. We will be happy to share our experience with them as they develop their own frameworks and to learn from their best practices. Dr Choo Pei Ling, Mr Victor Lye, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how operators will be held to the commitments made when they secure scarce capacity. New capacity is allocated selectively. We consider strategic value, broader economic contributions and sustainability. Where material commitments form part of the basis for awarding capacity, the Bill allows them to become licence conditions. The principle is simple. If scarce national capacity was awarded on the basis of a commitment, that commitment should be delivered. EDB will continue to negotiate and monitor these strategic and economic commitments. Economic contributions can include investment, business spending, jobs, talent development, innovation and ecosystem partnerships, and many others. For example, an operator may commit to R&D, product innovation or talent development that grows our digital economy, or partnerships with local ecosystem players. These go beyond running the data centre. They reflect a broader commitment to invest in Singapore. Where circumstances genuinely change, EDB and IMDA can work with operators on alternative actions that deliver equivalent value. Enforcement is not the first response to every lapse, but persistent non-delivery or bad faith cannot be cost-free. This is how we move from value promised to value realised. Ms Nadia and Mr Yip asked how firm enforcement can be squared with continuity of service for users. IMDA does consider the consequential impact of its regulatory actions. As I noted in my opening speech, the purpose of regulation is to fix the problem, not create a second problem for users. Mr Chia, Dr Choo, Mr David Hoe, Mr Kwek, Mr Shawn Loh, Dr Neo, Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Dennis Tan asked about existing data centres and the transition to higher standards. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Sharael asked how many data centres the Bill will cover. There are about 70 data centres in Singapore today, which will be required to meet the sustainability requirements. About two-thirds will also meet the 10-megawatt threshold that will require them to meet the security and resilience requirements. The baseline energy efficiency requirements will apply to all licensed data centres.[+16 sentences] Newer facilities can be designed to higher standards from the outset. We recognise that older facilities were built under different technical and commercial conditions and we will provide them reasonable time to improve. Our approach is progressive uplift – a common direction of travel, with transition calibrated to investment and technology realities. Mr Shawn Loh made a broader point. Stewardship is not only about deciding what new capacity to add; it is also about continually reviewing the capacity we already have. I agree with him. That is the approach that we are taking. Technology and workloads will not stand still. Existing facilities should therefore have pathways to upgrade, redevelop or, where commercially appropriate, retire over time, balanced with investment certainty, reasonable transition periods and continuity for customers. Operators can tap existing schemes to improve energy efficiency, such as the EDB's Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions, which offsets the cost of upgrading to more energy-efficient equipment; and IMDA's Energy Efficiency Grant, which supports data centre users to refresh their IT equipment to more efficient technology. Operators that find major redevelopment more practical can explore opportunities, such as the low-carbon Data Centre Park on Jurong Island. The destination is higher performance across the sector, and we want the transition path to be practical and orderly. Let me now turn to the impact of data centre growth on Singaporeans, which several Members spoke about. Mr Chia, Mr Chua, Ms He, Mr Loh and Ms Nadia were concerned that households may end up subsidising data centres' electricity costs, including the cost of grid upgrades to support growing data centre demand. That is unfortunately a challenge that many jurisdictions around the world are grappling with. The situation in Singapore is different. Data centres do not buy electricity at the regulated household tariff.[+36 sentences] Like other large industrial consumers, they buy electricity from retailers at commercial rates, or directly from the wholesale electricity market. They also pay for their own dedicated grid connections. The household tariff is driven mainly by fuel and electricity generation costs, and the growth of data centres is not expected to raise these costs. As overall electricity demand grows, the grid may need to be expanded or reinforced. These system-level upgrades benefit the reliability and resilience of the entire grid, and their costs are shared across users through the existing grid-charging framework. At the same time, it does not mean that large users of water and electricity resources are given a free pass. They must be held to high standards. For example, because data centres are major users of resources, we subject their growth to greater scrutiny and progressively higher efficiency expectations. Their projected electricity and water demand is factored into our national infrastructure planning, new capacity is allocated selectively, and their growth must remain within our climate and resource constraints This is not a new approach. We have done so for some time. In 2019, we paused new data centre capacity. Since 2022, new capacity has been allocated through the Data Centre – Call for Application exercises, to data centres that contribute to our strategic and economic priorities and adopt best-in-class sustainability practices. We also worked with industry on energy efficiency standards. This Bill takes this further by raising baseline energy efficiency standards across all data centres in Singapore, including existing ones. Several Members asked how we will prepare Singaporeans to take up the jobs that the data centre sector will create. Mr Shawn Loh noted that data centres are capital-intensive and create relatively few jobs directly. That is true. But few people working inside a facility does not mean that few people depend on it. Therefore, we should distinguish between the jobs inside a data centre and the jobs enabled by a data centre. Many sectors, such as the financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, logistics, software and AI, all depend on this infrastructure. At the same time, those direct jobs are increasingly specialised – data centre operations, mechanical and electrical engineering, cybersecurity, energy management and sustainability. These are good jobs with good prospects. We are building this pipeline together with industry and our institutions. For example, data centre operators have partnered the Institute of Technical Education and the Singapore Institute of Technology on Work-Study Programmes, which offer diplomas and specialised degrees in green data centres. Dr Neo also highlighted professional capability. Resilient infrastructure ultimately depends on capable people. As Mr Loh put it, our aim should not merely be to develop enough people to maintain the facilities located here, but to anchor the expertise needed to design, transform and manage the next generation of digital infrastructure. We agree with him. As the industry moves up the value chain, Singaporeans should be able to move up with it. The same applies to innovation. Singapore’s constraints in cooling, energy efficiency and grid integration are real. But constraints can also drive solutions with value beyond Singapore. Our constraints should push us to innovate, not hold us back. It is in this spirit that we worked with industry to develop Singapore Standards that push the boundaries of data centre efficiency. They cover operating data centres in a tropical climate, the use of energy-efficient IT equipment and liquid cooling. As Dr Neo suggested, these industry-led standards, alongside the industry’s practical experience, can be brought together, for example, by industry associations, like SGTech, to provide a useful reference for other data centres in the region. Talent development is also one of the contributions we assess when allocating new data centre capacity. Where such commitments formed part of the award, the Bill allows them to be captured as licence conditions.[+2 sentences] Mr Dennis Tan asked why Government data centres are exempt from sustainability requirements. Let me first clarify that today, more than 80% of the Government’s digital workloads are hosted in commercial data centres, which are subject to the sustainability requirements. The remaining workloads hosted on Government-owned data centres are typically for highly critical and essential needs like security. Such data centres are also held to sustainability standards under GreenGov.SG, which are on par with the requirements that will be imposed under the Bill.[+4 sentences] Data centres run by the autonomous universities, such as the National Supercomputing Centre, also report under GreenGov.SG. Other exempted data centres, such as those supporting utilities, for example, power plants, are highly specialised and comprise very different electronic equipment compared to commercial data centres. Therefore, commercial cooling and IT efficiency solutions do not fully apply to them. These facilities only account for a small proportion of our overall data centre capacity. The scope of the Digital Infrastructure Act is appropriate and will cover the vast majority of data centres that are consequential.[+30 sentences] We will review the scope in future if needed. Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Saktiandi asked whether compliance costs will be passed on to SMEs that rely on cloud and hosting services. We are mindful of compliance costs of any regulations and have calibrated the requirements accordingly. The specific security and resilience requirements will largely be aligned with international and industry standards that operators are familiar with, and many already implement them. On sustainability, better energy efficiency will also benefit operators and their customers through operational cost savings in the long run. The broader point is that regulation has costs, but poor resilience has costs too: downtime, lost transactions and disruption to businesses. The question is whether the standards create greater value and resilience than the costs that they impose. This matters especially for SMEs. Most do not negotiate directly with data centres or cloud operators. They depend on digital services built on top of this infrastructure and have less bargaining power when something goes wrong. Baseline resilience therefore benefits them too. Ms He was concerned that some data centres are located near residential neighbourhoods. Sir, land use for data centres in Singapore is centrally planned, and we work closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority and JTC on this. All data centres are sited in industrial estates. For instance, the latest development is a purpose-built Data Centre Park on Jurong Island. There are also requirements to have sufficient separation between industrial estates and residential communities. Data centres set up in Singapore are also required to adhere to prevailing requirements for industrial premises, such as noise, water and air pollution. Again, our situation is very different from that of many other jurisdictions around the world. Singapore’s future-oriented, systematic approach in urban planning provides us with levers to ensure that our industries, including data centres, address environmental concerns upfront. Members also raised a wide range of sustainability issues: PUE, IT efficiency, water, cleaner energy, storage, cooling technologies and absolute resource use. All these matter. As I said in my opening speech, PUE is a useful starting point, but it is not the endpoint. A facility can improve its efficiency even as its total demand rises. Efficiency matters, but so does total resource used. Our objective should be a better overall resource outcome, not simply a better number on one indicator. Detailed measurement and technical standards, including how PUE is measured, should therefore continue to evolve with industry experience and technology. IMDA will engage industry on these details. Mr Hoe asked whether there is an order of priority to use less electricity first, then cleaner electricity, then carbon credits. Mr Ng asked that green energy for data centres be "new, real, and able to reach Singapore". The Bill is structured to provide for both. New data centres awarded capacity under the latest Data Centre – Call for Applications exercise must source at least 50% of their energy from eligible green pathways.[+20 sentences] These pathways deliberately include emerging options, such as low-carbon hydrogen, ammonia and biomethane. Mr Chua and Ms He asked about the progress and certainty of the green pathways materialising. The new data centres were required to submit credible proposals to meet their low-carbon energy commitments. We expect data centres to deliver on these proposals, and the Bill will allow us to hold the data centres accountable if they do not do so. But there is a broader opportunity here. The Jurong Island Data Centre Park is not simply about adding more data centre capacity. It is about using the scale of data centre demand to help develop new low-carbon energy pathways for Singapore. The 50% requirement helps create demand for these emerging options, while Jurong Island also allows us to explore shared infrastructure, such as cooling and other utilities. In other words, we are not just greening data centres. We are using data centres as pathfinders and early demand drivers to green the energy system. Carbon credits come in only as a remedy, when a green energy project fails to deliver. They are not an alternative an operator can choose instead of the green energy it committed to. Members also suggested batteries, district cooling, using the waste heat generated, flexible demand and new cooling approaches. These ideas are useful. Operators are incentivised to explore such innovative approaches. The Government is happy to engage them on these ideas. At the same time, we should not wait until every technology is perfect before we begin, but neither should we lock ourselves too early into solutions that are not yet ready. Ms He, Mr Hoe, Ms Nadia, Ms Poh and Mr Dennis Tan noted that data centres are also large consumers of water, and asked whether water efficiency requirements will be introduced. Today, most of the water used by the data centre sector is NEWater, which is mainly supplied for industrial and cooling purposes. Our starting point is the existing standards and guidelines. For instance, PUB has introduced a Water Usage Effectiveness target of two cubic metres per megawatt-hour or lower for new and existing data centres, as part of the target set in the Green Data Centre Roadmap.[+1 sentence] Singapore is among the few jurisdictions in the world to set a water efficiency target for the data centre sector, and we will continue to monitor international and technological developments. Having said that, the Bill puts in place the legislative basis to impose water efficiency requirements on new and existing data centres in future.[+16 sentences] PUB's Industrial Water Solutions Innovation Ecosystem Alliance for Data Centres, which brings industry, academia and trade associations together to develop and validate practical water efficient cooling solutions for Singapore's tropical conditions, will inform any future water efficiency requirements. Several Members asked for more transparency on the sector's electricity and water use. Some data is already published. For example, EMA's Singapore Energy Statistics reports electricity consumption by sector, including the information and communication sector, which includes data centres. PUB publishes the water efficiency benchmark for data centres. The relevant agencies will consider what further sector level information can usefully be made available without disclosing commercially sensitive information. The relevant agencies will have to consider the reporting approach for various industry sectors, not just data centres. Under the Bill, licensees will report regularly to IMDA. This gives IMDA the information it needs to regulate the sector and supports the Government's planning for national energy and water needs. As we implement the Digital Infrastructure Act, IMDA will consider how to put out updates on the progress of the licensees in meeting the necessary requirements. Sir, let me now turn to the Bill's security and resilience aspects. Dr Choo, Mr Hoe, Mr Kwek, Ms Nadia, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip raised questions about shared dependencies, incident reporting, overseas providers and whether resilience plans will work in practice. Cyber threats matter, but major disruptions can also come from power or cooling failures, equipment faults, human error or misconfiguration. We therefore need to look at operational resilience more broadly. Several Members highlighted common points of failure – a bank, hospital and Government service may each have sound recovery plans, yet all depend on the same cloud provider, network or data centre. As Mr Victor Lye observed, individual resilience does not necessarily produce national resilience. The Bill, therefore, gives the Government visibility across major providers.[+15 sentences] A single operator sees its own incident. The regulator needs to see the whole system. This helps us identify common dependencies and patterns that no individual operator may be able to see. IMDA, as the sector regulator, works closely with the relevant national agencies, like the National Security Coordination Secretariat on these inter-dependencies matters. Mr Yip made the practical point that a plan on paper is not the same as recovery in practice. The Bill gives IMDA powers to set business continuity, disaster recovery and incident reporting requirements. The practices and measures for testing, assurance and remediation are better developed through the Codes of Practice with industry and sector regulators. In consultation with licensees, IMDA will establish the necessary regime to assess compliance with the proposed Act, regulations, licence conditions and Codes of Practice. Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked about communications with users during disruptions. The key is that accurate information should move quickly through the service chain to the people and businesses affected. We agree with him. There is, however, an important difference between cybersecurity incidents and service disruptions. In a cybersecurity incident, users may not know they have been affected and may need to take action to protect themselves. In a service disruption, users know when the service is down. What they need is timely information on restoration delivered through the platforms that serve them. Nonetheless, we could explore including such user notification requirements in subsequent regulations or Codes of Practice, if necessary, and in consultation with industry.[+5 sentences] Several Members also asked the Government to publish more information on incidents and whether operators deliver on their commitments. Much of what licensees report is commercially sensitive and the Bill protects it, but the information will be put to good use. We will review incidents, share key learnings with operators and incorporate them into Codes of Practice, where appropriate. Mr Chia and Mr Saktiandi were concerned about overlapping requirements between the Bill and the Cybersecurity Act, and Ms Chong called for a streamlined process for application, audit reporting and renewal. It is our intent to minimise administrative burden for service providers and operators. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we aim to streamline processes, such as using a single application form and licence documentation for all data centres and foundational digital infrastructure services covered under the Bill, and we will work with industry to ensure that these are practical for all licensees.[+4 sentences] Ms Nadia and Mr Chia asked about control and corporate structure, and which party will be issued the license. IMDA will provide greater clarity on how we assess which entity has control over the data centre and should be licensed. This is something that IMDA is familiar with, the concept of effective control and assessing different corporate structures. These are issues that IMDA deal with in other sectors that it regulates, such as the telecommunications sector, and assessment often depends on the specific corporate structure and details of the licensee. MDDI, CSA and IMDA will also streamline requirements and processes under both the Digital Infrastructure Act and Cybersecurity Act regimes. Where reporting requirements for cybersecurity incidents are similar, licensees will only need to report to IMDA, which will share the relevant information with CSA.[+37 sentences] In effect, IMDA will be the single port of call that Mr Saktiandi asked for. Mr Hoe, Mr Victor Lye and Mr Saktiandi also raised broader questions about sovereign compute and assured access to critical capabilities. This issue goes beyond the scope of the Bill and is still evolving rapidly. As this matter falls broadly under a remit of MDDI, let me just say a few words about it. As pointed out by Mr Victor Lye, Singapore cannot and does not need to own every layer of the technology stack. For some capabilities, domestic capacity may matter. For others, assured access through diversified international providers may be sufficient. For strategically important capabilities, we may need both. We also seek to maintain strong partnerships with leading companies across the tech stack and at the same time, build the capabilities to use different models and technology. Dr Choo and Mr Lye asked about services that fall below the thresholds, and whether several smaller providers could together become systemically important. The thresholds target providers whose disruption would be most widely felt and were developed through extensive surveying of the industry. We will review the scope of the Act and update it if needed. Mr Hoe, Ms Nadia and Mr Yip asked how we will ensure that services provided from overseas remain resilient, including whether overseas providers can act quickly in a disruption. Our focus is on the services nexus to Singapore, and not whether the service provider is a foreign or local entity. The Bill regulates major foundational digital infrastructure service providers that provide services to users in Singapore or from Singapore, where a disruption could cause widespread impact on users. Licensed overseas providers that provide their services to users in Singapore are therefore held to the same security and resilience requirements as local ones. They must put in place business continuity and disaster recovery plans that work in practice and notify IMDA of incidents within reporting timelines. Overseas providers must also appoint a person in Singapore to accept service of notices, directions and other documents under the Bill. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked whether IMDA should have step-in rights to put critical data centres under statutory trust or receivership, where an operator is unable or unwilling to act in the public interest. Under clause 18 of the Bill, where a threat to the continuous provision of a major foundational digital infrastructure service creates a serious and imminent threat to Singapore, the Minister may direct any person to take the measures needed to prevent, detect or counter the threat. That is an important instrument to deal with the risk that I spoke about in my opening speech. I had also explained the safeguards that have been put in place. Importantly, legal authority is not the same as operational capability. A modern data centre is highly specialised. The objective is to have the tools to protect and restore services effectively, not simply to maximise formal Government control. Finally, Mr Chua, Ms He, Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Dennis Tan referred to how other jurisdictions regulate data centres and asked how the Bill compares. I refer the Members to the handout I distributed as part of my opening speech. Around the world, governments are grappling with the same question: how do we keep data centres and cloud services – which are systemically important and resource-intensive – for them to be resilient, sustainable and accountable to the societies that host them? The tools differ, but the direction is broadly the same. Major jurisdictions are tightening resilience requirements for critical digital infrastructure, while others are raising energy and resource efficiency standards for data centres. Sir, the questions Singapore is addressing through this Bill are the same ones other governments now face about resilience, sustainability, resource allocation and economic development. The difference is that we started early, years before these pressures became urgent. That gave us room to work through the issues collaboratively with industry, and to build the framework that we have in front of us today. Sir, let me conclude and speak in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Members have raised many important issues today – how to ensure that our digital infrastructure is secure and resilient, and how to manage its demand for resources. Many Members and Singaporeans are concerned that the high electricity consumption of data centres may cause household electricity bills to rise. In fact, data centres purchase electricity differently from households. They buy electricity at commercial rates from electricity retailers or the wholesale market and bear the cost of their own grid connections. Therefore, the growth of data centres will not directly drive up household electricity bills. Of course, this does not mean that data centres can use electricity without restraint. We impose stringent requirements on them: one, all data centres, whether new or existing, must meet prescribed energy-efficiency standards; and two, newly approved data centres must source at least half of their energy from green energy sources.[+2 sentences] Our approach is neither to pursue growth at all costs nor to constrain growth indiscriminately. Instead, we plan ahead, grow responsibly and sustainably, and continually raise standards as technology advances and circumstances evolve. The Digital Infrastructure Bill provides the framework for us to achieve these objectives to ensure that critical digital infrastructure is secure and resilient, to provide businesses with clear and predictable rules, and to ensure that the benefits of growth accrue to Singapore and Singaporeans.[+14 sentences] (In English): Mr Speaker, today's debate has shown broad agreement on the destination, even if Members might have different suggestions or clarifications on certain details. Some Members want us to move faster in particular areas. Others are concerned about cost, implementation and competitiveness. These are legitimate concerns. Our responsibility is to balance them, to raise standards for security and sustainability, while supporting growth and keeping Singapore competitive. That is the approach behind the Bill. We will plan ahead, rather than wait for problems to become crises. We will grow digital infrastructure selectively, make scarce resources work harder for Singapore and Singaporeans, and set clear rules while retaining room for standards and technology to improve. We will focus on outcomes. Not simply megawatts allocated, but value realised. Not simply buildings and servers but capabilities, businesses and services enabled. Not simply resilience on paper, but resilience in practice. Most Singaporeans may never enter a data centre, but increasingly, much of everyday life depends on one. The real question is not how much capacity we need, but how good the infrastructure should be and what value Singapore gets in return. Our ambition is not maximum compute and megawatts; it is maximum value from these capabilities that we host. That is what this Bill is designed to secure: digital infrastructure that is reliable when we need it, sustainable over time and worthy of Singapore's trust.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker10 words
[+2 sentences]Clarifications for Senior Minister of State Tan? Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi)276 words
[+6 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I thank Senior Minister of State Tan for his comprehensive response to the points raised during the debate. I just have two further clarifications. First, on the cost of resilience. Senior Minister of State Tan made the point that while these requirements would impose additional costs, the value of greater resilience outweighs these costs. I agree with that principle, but ultimately resilience does have an economic price. Has the Ministry assessed, even if it is at an indicative level, the incremental cost of compliance arising from these requirements?[+1 sentence] Perhaps as a percentage of operating cost per megawatt, for example. Importantly, after incorporating this additional cost, how does Singapore's overall cost competitiveness compare with the other data centres' location in the region?[+4 sentences] My second clarification is a bit broader. The Bill before us is understandably relatively narrow and quite technical in scope, but what has become clear in today's debate is that the strategic considerations surrounding data centres are much broader. They touch on economic value creation, AI capability, access to right data, sustainability, energy security, even to jobs, trainings and how it affects our neighbourhoods. My question is therefore about stewardship. Who within the Government takes the whole of Government view of this resource and ensure that we are not merely allocating megawatts, but maximising the economic and strategic value that Singapore derives from it?[+2 sentences] And as this consideration cuts across energy, economic development, AI, manpower, sustainability, security, digital policy, data sovereignty, where does the overall strategic ownership lie? Will MDDI lead this stewardship and ensure that the decisions on data centres are constantly approached through this broader strategic lens?
Mr Tan Kiat How524 words
[+9 sentences]Sir, I will answer the second question first. The Member just named the whole Cabinet. I think there are many issues that we debate in Parliament that cuts across different agencies and Ministries, and that is why the instinct of agencies and Ministries is to adopt a whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation approach. And this Bill reflects that. Although MDDI is moving this Bill in Parliament and IMDA is the primary regulator for the licences that will be issued under the Bill, MDDI works very closely with IMDA and with many other Ministries. We talked about strategic and economic commitments, and the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry will have an important role. That is why the EDB's specific role is captured in this Bill. I want to reassure he Member that this is something that we work on closely together as a whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation, including working through the trade-offs and constraints when energy-intensive sectors like data centres need to be hosted in Singapore. So, this is a whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation effort. On resilience and cost of compliance, this is not something that can be so easily measured.[+20 sentences] I mentioned the benefits of resilience may very well outweigh the cost. This is not just in broad terms, but also addresses some of the questions by Members on SMEs that rely on digital services hosted by cloud services and data centres. For SMEs, in particular, as I mentioned earlier in my reply, they often are price-takers when it comes to digital services. They do not negotiate directly with the data centres or cloud service providers. But when disruptions happen for whatever reasons, cyber or non-cyber, they are the ones impacted. And that is why having a baseline standard for both security and resilience is important for SMEs in particular. On specific cost estimation, we have to work closely with the different data centre providers. There are many ways. Let me set the context. All the security and resilience requirements that we will impose through Codes of Practices that are empowered by this Bill, are not requirements that the operators are unfamiliar with. These are international and industry standards. Some of the standards may be more customised and contextualised for Singapore's operating environment, because we are a dense urban city, in the tropics. But these are not standards or practices that our industry players are unfamiliar with. And we have taken those considerations and factored those considerations into the Bill's development following extensive consultation with industry. And the second point I will make is that meeting the requirements is not one-size-fits-all. It requires IMDA to work very closely with the specific operators as there may be different ways to meet a particular required resilience requirement. They may have to change certain configurations in the data centre, or they may make additional investments to put in some safeguards when disruptions happen. There is no one-size-fits-all way of meeting all the requirements. It requires us to have an in-depth collaborative approach, but we want to hold them to high standards. I want to thank the Member for raising the point that resilience is important, and not just to look at the cost.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang)193 words
[+7 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. Just two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, in terms of the data centre capacity, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there will not be a hard cap per se. But in that sense, given that IMDA's Green Data Centre Route Map talks about adding about 300 megawatts of capacity in the near term and much more through wind energy deployment, is there any circumstances or timeline or how will the Ministry decide when will the additional capacity be released? The second clarification, I understand from the Senior Minister of State's speech, that is about 6.5 terawatt-hours of electricity was consumed by data centres in 2024. How much of that is currently being powered by green energy? For Data Centre – Call for Application 2 with the additional 200 megawatts coming on, how much additional electricity consumption is there expected to be? Because the question is, while we do expect the data centres to fulfil their green energy commitments on a system level, how much of that green energy will be available through the multiple pathways, since solar is the only one which is transparent right now?
Mr Tan Kiat How227 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, we will continue to review closely with other agencies on whether new capacity should be released for new data centres. We just had a Data Centre – Call for Application exercise, for 200 megawatts capacity, and we awarded that to four winning operators.[+7 sentences] We review this regularly. As I mentioned earlier, data centres and digital infrastructure supports the broader economy. As the economy digitalises and uses more AI services, the demand will be there. And we will have to review along the way. There is no fixed plan. But we have to be quite dynamic and look at some of the circumstances as things change. But we are very mindful of the overall constraint on electricity, water and carbon, and any growth needs to be constrained by overall cap. Mr Chua mentioned about the 50% – that is, in the recent Data Centre – Call for Application, where the awarded data centre operators have to bring in at least 50% of their electricity use through green energy pathways. [restates an earlier point]I mentioned in my reply that these are emerging areas, not solar.[+1 sentence] I mentioned ammonia, biomethane. It is precisely because we want them to be pathfinders and early demand drivers for creating new pathways.[+2 sentences] Will all this work? Well, we have to hold them to their commitments, but this is something we are working on together with them.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin169 words
[+6 sentences]Thank you, Speaker, and I also thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. Two supplementary questions: the first relating to carbon credits and the second relating to our longer-term climate targets. On carbon credits, I think the Senior Minister of State clarified that indeed this will be a backstop after exhausting all other efforts. I wanted to clarify how will the carbon credit quality limits and public disclosure of these carbon credits be handled? And the second question is really whether or not this additional potential demand has been incorporated into Singapore's emissions trajectory and power sector decarbonisation plans towards our 2050 Net Zero climate targets. I do recall the Senior Minister of State had said that some points will be out of scope from his reply. I could not catch whether decarbonisation is one of them – although if it is, then I think that goes some way towards explaining the intention behind some of the questions as to strategic ownership and totality of use.
Mr Tan Kiat How287 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, Ms Nadia's question on carbon credits needs to be seen in the context of this Bill. It is not the first solution that when operators cannot meet their green energy commitments, and they default to carbon credits.[+16 sentences] That is not the point. They have made commitments through the Data Centre – Call for Application exercise on green energy pathways, and we want to hold them to those commitments. That is why I mentioned to Mr Chua, these are important commitments. These are not easy commitments to make because we are asking them to make commitments on emerging green energy pathways. There is not a strong market today, and we are asking them to be the first demand driver and pathfinder. While the first instinct is to hold them to those commitments. And carbon credits come in only as a remedy, which we hope to not get to. But we cannot allow them a free pass. If you make commitments and do not comply with them, there must be a cost. So, that is the context when we talk about carbon credits. On climate targets, I already mentioned in my speech a number of times that we are resource-constrained. The data centre sector is one sector in the whole economy. We have to align with the commitments that nationally we have made around being Net Zero by 2050, and the different commitments we have made publicly and internationally. Any growth in the data centre sector will therefore have to come with trade-offs. These trade-offs will have to be made, and those trade-offs will have to be discussed internally within Government and with industry. So, the short answer is yes to the second question that Ms Nadia has.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong68 words
[+5 sentences]I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarifications so far. Just a quick follow-up to your last reply to Member Nadia Samdin on the carbon credit. I understand where he is coming from. So, if the companies are unable to fulfil the standards imposed on them, are they still allowed to fall back on carbon credits, and if so, what is this limit? Is it 5%?
Mr Tan Kiat How13 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, I have already explained that in both my opening and closing remarks.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member)111 words
[+3 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. I am quite heartened by Senior Minister of State reply on the participation of the industries in coming out with the Codes of Practice, but since the data centre is a critical infrastructure, especially the foundational digital infrastructure, I would like to clarify whether the body of knowledge that is encompassed in these systems, will the operator be required in the Code of Practice to have accredited professionals – that they not just have the knowledge but have the competencies and the practices to operate the digital infrastructure. An example will be like BCA requiring a resident engineer or resident technical officer to be onsite for building activities.
Mr Tan Kiat How308 words
[+2 sentences]Sir, I thank Dr Neo for his question. There are two parts to the question. The first part of question is what Dr Neo spoke about in his remarks – that a number of Members made mention of that as well – that new data centres are sophisticated set-ups, high value, technologically advanced.[+2 sentences] The profile of people working at these centres is very different. These are high value roles with good prospects. The numbers may not be large, but they are very good, specialised roles. We are working together with industry and our schools – I mentioned the Institute of Technical Education as well as Singapore Institute of Technology in my remarks earlier – to train Singaporeans to take on those opportunities.[+8 sentences] Not just for Singapore, but as data centres in the region become more sophisticated, much more advanced, those are good opportunities for our people. We are working closely with industry and our schools to make sure that Singaporeans, not just fresh graduates but also the mid-career workers to get those opportunities. So, that is one part of what Dr Neo talked about – highly technical, highly specialised professionals. The second part is whether as part of the Codes of Practice, we should have regulatory tools, where you require certain roles to be done by people with specific skills sets, competencies, knowledge and to demonstrate those competencies, skills sets and knowledge through certain certification or certain demonstration of their ability. That is something we will continue to work on with industry to see whether those roles require that demonstration. For example, when we talk about the built environment, Qualified Persons QPs) who submit their plans for approval, need to be of certain accreditation. We have to look into this, but we will not front-run industry. That is a separate matter compared to the first one I mentioned.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang)166 words
[+8 sentences]Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarification. I have one clarification in relation to where we build our data centres. I believe the Senior Minister of State mentioned that this is done from a central planning perspective and it is planned centrally. I mentioned in my speech that the Jurong West Data Centre Park owned by Google is one of the data centres that is located near a residential area. I believe it is just across the road from a residential neighbourhood. In my speech, I also mentioned that sometimes the excess heat generated from data centres can actually affect up to 500 metres away. If it is just across the street, I think it is logical to assume that there might be some disamenities. So, can I ask for more clarification on how the Government intends to address some of these concerns on the disamenities that are associated with the building of data centres, whether new or existing?
Mr Tan Kiat How179 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, first and foremost, let me reiterate what I said in my closing remarks. Data centres are zoned and built in industrial estates.[+4 sentences] That is the first point. A large concentration of those data centres is in industrial estates. I mentioned the purpose-sited Jurong Island Data Centre Park earlier. We are not building it within residential areas. Even in industrial estates, there are requirements for a buffer between these facilities and the residential areas.[+5 sentences] I have asked my colleagues to check. Even the one in Jurong – because Ms He mentioned it in her speech yesterday – it is within the buffer requirements, within the approved limits. Secondly, if there are specific issues that Ms He has on that particular data centre, I welcome her to share it separately with me, and my colleagues and I will take a look. But in the considerations of where we site data centres and the buffer zones, we have already considered the different disamenities that might occur, with different facilities, including data centres. That is why they are located in industrial estates.
Mr Speaker79 words
[+2 sentences]I believe all the clarifications have been addressed by Senior Minister of State Tan. . (proc text)]