Full transcript, 777,852 characters — every turn. Summarised passages are
highlighted: 741 passages across 99 turns, covering
15.2% of what was said. The rest is the record itself.
Open on 742 sentences (15.2%
of the characters). 5,354 sentences in 954 stretches are folded
inline — tap a [+N sentences] to read them where they sit.
2 further highlights held back as procedure or repetition (2 restatement) — collapsed, not removed. Every topic below is closed until you open it.
[+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.
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)]
Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill›Second Reading Bills50 turns · 31,428w
· 252 highlighted
bill-818
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Minister for Transport.
The Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport)2927 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Transport, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The proposed amendments aim to keep our land transport regulations relevant and effective. The Bill cuts across multiple land transport areas and reflects two complementary principles that have consistently guided our approach: one, strengthening public safety where risks have grown or evolved; and two, streamlining rules where we can responsibly reduce regulatory burden on individuals and businesses. I will now go through the five key areas of amendments. First, we will strengthen our efforts to stem unlawful use of deregistered vehicles. Deregistered vehicles pose a risk to road safety as they are no longer covered by insurance or subject to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) periodic inspections. It is thus illegal to keep or use deregistered vehicles on our roads. More than 99% of deregistered vehicles are properly disposed of. However, a small number of vehicles, about 1,900 over the past five years, have not been properly disposed of and may still be in circulation. A small number of these vehicles have been used for serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, with 245 detected in 2025.[+1 sentence] To address this problem, earlier this year, we stiffened penalties for keeping or using deregistered vehicles. First-time offenders now face fines of up to $20,000, imprisonment of up to two years, or both.[+8 sentences] LTA and the Traffic Police have been working closely together to conduct joint enforcement operations. The current Bill will amend the Road Traffic Act to strengthen LTA's enforcement powers: first, to ensure timely and proper disposal of deregistered vehicles to reduce the flow of new deregistered vehicles on our roads; and second, to remove the remaining pool of undisposed deregistered vehicles and prevent their circulation. Allow me to elaborate. First, we will introduce the new Authorised Exporter Scheme. Today, the export process involves multiple intermediaries. This makes it more difficult to hold anyone accountable when something goes wrong. The new scheme will require deregistered vehicles intended for export to be disposed of only through LTA-authorised exporters, who will be subject to compliance requirements. This reduces the risk of deregistered vehicles remaining in Singapore despite being declared as exported. LTA aims to implement this scheme in the fourth quarter of 2027, after consulting the industry.[+1 sentence] For avoidance of doubt, vehicle owners who are not intending to immediately export their deregistered vehicle may also hand them over to LTA-authorised scrapyards or export processing zone operators. Second, we will shorten the grace period for owners of deregistered vehicles to fulfil the disposal requirements from the current one month to 14 days.[+30 sentences] With the new Authorised Exporter Scheme, the disposal process for vehicle owners will be simplified. Vehicle owners no longer have to submit disposal documents to LTA themselves. Instead, they have 14 days to hand over their deregistered vehicles to an LTA-authorised exporter, scrapyard or export processing zone operator, who will then be responsible for document submission. This shortened grace period also lowers the risk of deregistered vehicles being misused before they are properly disposed of. Third, the amendments ensure offenders remain liable for prosecution for as long as they fail to fulfil the disposal requirements after conviction. They will face a daily fine of up to $500 until the vehicle is properly disposed of. Fourth, we will have the powers to prevent new or used vehicles from being registered by or transferred to individuals with precedents or are at high risk of misusing deregistered vehicles. This includes those who have previously kept deregistered vehicles or juveniles under 18 years old who may be exploited by bad actors. We also need to deal with the remaining pool of deregistered vehicles already circulating illegally. The amendments allow us to criminalise the sale or supply of deregistered vehicles by persons who are aware that such vehicles will be illegally kept or used on our roads. This targets supply chain and holds bad actors accountable for circulating deregistered vehicles. Offenders will face fines of up to $20,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both, with penalties doubled for repeat offenders. The Government takes a serious view of the use, keeping, sale or purchase of deregistered vehicles. They put public safety at risk. Taken together, the tightened laws will help to keep deregistered vehicles off our roads and keep our roads safer. Mr Speaker, the second area of amendments in this Bill is on active mobility. Earlier this year, this House passed amendments to address misuse of personal mobility aids (PMDs). As the market evolves, we will update our rules in five ways to keep active mobility devices (AMDs) and our paths safe. First, we will extend retailer rules in the Active Mobility Act to also cover online sales and advertising. Our rules today were largely designed for physical retailers. As online sales become common, consumers should likewise have confidence that their online purchases are compliant. It will be an offence to sell or advertise non-compliant AMDs online and sellers must display warning notices on device listings, informing buyers of device and usage rules. The rules will apply to online sale listings and advertisements that: one, originate in Singapore; or two, are made by a Singapore-connected person and accessible here. The rules will not be able to apply to foreign-based sellers with no Singapore presence who fall outside our jurisdiction. Import controls will continue to mitigate this risk. As online content can spread quickly, LTA will be empowered to direct sellers to amend or remove offending online listings or advertisements promoting non-compliant devices. Second, we will tighten advertising restrictions to protect consumers from unknowingly purchasing non-compliant devices. It will be an offence to make false or misleading representations of an AMD or battery, for example, to misrepresent a non-compliant device as compliant. We will also prohibit advertisements for illegal modification services. Third, to reduce the fire risks arising from batteries in AMDs, we will introduce new battery safety rules. Fires caused by AMDs can have devastating consequences. There were 55 such fires in 2023, 67 in 2024 and 49 in 2025.[+4 sentences] One cause is the use of non-compatible batteries, which can compromise safety even when fitted onto compliant power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and motorised PMDs. We will therefore prohibit the fitting and using of non-compatible batteries in PABs, motorised PMDs and mobility vehicles. To help users identify suitable batteries, sellers must display specification notices on the battery’s compatibility, voltage and capacity. Sellers are also prohibited from selling a battery knowing that it will be fitted to a non-compatible device or advertising a battery for use with a non-compatible device. This approach places responsibilities on both the seller and the user. We intend to commence the new rules on online sales, advertising and battery safety in the second quarter of 2027, giving affected parties time to prepare.[+1 sentence] Fourth, to strengthen deterrence against illegal imports, starting later this year, we will increase the penalties for illegally importing PABs and motorised PMDs. For individuals, the maximum penalty will be doubled from a fine of $5,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, to a fine of $10,000, imprisonment of 12 months, or both.[+2 sentences] If the illegal import is made by a corporation or any other type of entity, the maximum fine will increase from $10,000 to $40,000. This aligns with penalties for severe offences involving the sale and illegal modification of non-compliant devices. Fifth, from 1 January 2028 onwards, we will phase out the remaining Blue Seal PABs, which pre-date our current PAB safety standard.[+8 sentences] Blue Seal PABs were approved before the more comprehensive EN15194 safety standard became mandatory in 2016. Existing Blue Seal PABs are now at least 10 years old, and suitable original replacement parts for older models may be harder to obtain. It is therefore prudent to retire these older generation of PABs, as ageing electrical components may increase fire risk. As such, existing Blue Seal PABs can no longer be kept or used legally from 1 January 2028. We are giving existing users more than one year to transition to a compliant device, and working with ALBA, the national e-waste recycler, to step up collection drives for safe disposal. I will now move on to the third area on illegal point-to-point transport services. Such services pose safety risks to passengers and undermine the livelihoods of licensed point-to-point drivers. Therefore, we will strengthen deterrence and bolster our ability to enforce against such illegal services. First, we will increase the maximum fine for the use of unlicensed public service vehicles to provide point-to-point services from $3,000 to $10,000.[+22 sentences] Second, we will make it an offence to publish advertisements that promote such illegal services, including the forwarding and sharing of such advertisements via online messaging platforms. Third, LTA will be empowered to direct advertisers to take down such advertisements and require platforms to provide information on the advertisers. Non-compliance with any LTA direction will be an offence. Commuters should not engage these services as they often lack valid insurance coverage. We have not introduced specific penalties against commuters for the use of illegal point-to-point services for now, but we may do so in future. LTA has stepped up enforcement efforts and impounded around 240 vehicles since July 2025. Investigations take around three to four months, exceeding the current one-month period before a seized unlicensed public service vehicles must be released in the absence of prosecution. Therefore, we will lengthen this mandatory release timeline to three months. This will give LTA sufficient time to investigate and build a complete case. Mr Speaker, this Bill is not just about tightening rules. We are also streamlining requirements to reduce regulatory burden and facilitate innovation. This brings me to the fourth area – autonomous vehicles (AVs). AVs have the potential to enhance our operational efficiency and overcome manpower constraints in the transport sector. We are deploying AVs in different ways, on roads and public paths. The existing sandbox under the Road Traffic Act for deploying AVs on roads has worked well, and we will extend it till end-2028. We are developing a new piece of legislation to govern AVs used on roads more holistically. We target to introduce the AV Act in a year's time. The sandbox extension will allow ongoing deployments to continue until the new Act is in force. We are also introducing a new sandbox under the Active Mobility Act to streamline regulatory processes and facilitate the progressive scale-up of autonomous mobile robots deployed on public paths (AVPPs). Modelled after the existing sandbox, it will commence in early-2027 and is valid for an initial period of five years. We may consider extending the new sandbox closer to 2031, if found useful. The current approach of individual exemption order for each AVPP is onerous, hard to scale and challenging to enforce safety requirements. Under the new sandbox, LTA can impose targeted regulatory measures like fines for non-compliance.[+3 sentences] We will also take a risk-calibrated approach with three pathways. First, public authorities can apply to designate areas under their purview as AVPP testbeds, which allows them to nimbly deploy AVs for various demand use cases. An example is the Punggol Digital District testbed that is managed by JTC. Second, lower-risk AVPPs within the specified speed, weight and dimension limits will be subject to lighter-touch regulations and can be deployed quickly.[+5 sentences] An example is the robot by Delta Electronics that delivers groceries and medicine to seniors across three blocks in Bendemeer. All other AVPPs, such as larger robo-sweepers, will go through the standard pathway where LTA would test and authorise them for safe operations. Lastly, the fifth area of key amendments is on electric vehicle (EV) charging. Since the Electric Vehicles Charging Act was introduced in 2023, EV adoption and the charging ecosystem have grown significantly. We are updating EV charging regulations to manage compliance burden while ensuring safety. First, we will remove the mandatory two-yearly inspections for EV chargers installed in landed homes.[+11 sentences] These chargers pose lower public safety risks, because they have restricted access and tend to have a lower utilisation rate, as they serve a single household. With this change, we can reduce recurring compliance costs on these EV charger owners. Owners of chargers will remain responsible for maintenance and LTA still has the powers to require inspections of the charger where specific safety concerns arise. Second, we will make it easier to enforce against illegal charging of an EV, such as using an unregistered charger, using chargers at banned locations or in non-permissible ways. Illegal charging of an EV poses safety risks. For example, even where a charger is type-approved, there are safety risks if it is unregistered, as LTA will not have sight of unregistered chargers if it needs to be recalled due to safety concerns. Moving forward, if proven that a person connected a charger, it will be presumed that the person has charged the EV using the charger, unless proven otherwise. This presumption is necessary as it is often difficult to ascertain that electricity was actually transferred from a charger to a vehicle, especially for chargers located within private premises. Mr Speaker, I will now say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): To improve road safety, the Government will further strengthen enforcement to prevent deregistered vehicles from being driven on public roads. First, we will introduce the Authorised Exporter Scheme to ensure deregistered vehicles are disposed of promptly and properly. Second, the grace period for vehicle owners to dispose of deregistered vehicles will be shortened from the current one month to 14 days.[+17 sentences] Third, if a vehicle owner fails to fulfil the relevant disposal requirements, after conviction, the owner will face an additional fine for each day of delay until valid proof of disposal is submitted. Fourth, we will prevent high-risk individuals from registering new vehicles or taking ownership of a used vehicle to prevent them from misusing deregistered vehicles. Fifth, it will be a criminal offence for anyone to sell or supply a deregistered vehicle while knowing that it will be illegally kept or driven on public roads. The Government takes a zero-tolerance approach towards the use, possession, sale or purchase of deregistered vehicles. We will deal severely with anyone who knowingly breaks the law, in accordance with the law. Let us now turn to the safety of AMDs. Today, more consumers are purchasing active mobility devices and batteries online. Whether they buy from physical stores or online platforms, their consumer interest should receive equal protection. We will therefore expand the existing regulatory framework so that online sellers are regulated in the same way as physical retailers. They must not advertise or sell non-compliant active mobility devices online or provide false or misleading information. At the same time, we will strengthen battery safety regulations. In recent years, there have been dozens of fires involving active mobility devices each year. Prohibiting the use of incompatible batteries will help reduce this risk. We will require sellers to state key information, such as the device models for which the battery is suitable, as well as voltage and capacity. Sellers must not misrepresent incompatible batteries as suitable for use with the devices concerned. Users must also not install or use batteries that are incompatible with their devices. LTA would also strengthen public education to help users understand battery safety and learn how to select compatible batteries. LTA expects to implement these new regulations from the second quarter of next year.[+6 sentences] We will give sellers and users sufficient time to prepare and comply with the new requirements. We hope these measures will give consumers clearer and more accurate information when purchasing online or replacing batteries, so that they can buy and use these products with greater confidence. In addition, the Government will continue to take firm action against illegal point-to-point passenger transport services to safeguard passenger safety and the livelihoods of licensed drivers. These illegal operators and drivers often lack valid insurance coverage. If an accident occurs, the consequences could be severe. We therefore urge members of the public not to use such illegal services for their own safety. The Government has stepped up day-to-day enforcement and this Bill will further strengthen our enforcement powers to deter such illegal services. This includes increasing the maximum fine for providing unlicensed passenger transport services. In addition, publishing, forwarding or sharing advertisements for such illegal services would also be an offence.[+2 sentences] This includes forwarding or sharing these advertisements through personal accounts or online messaging platforms. Such acts facilitate illegal point-to-point passenger transport services and make it easier for more consumers to encounter and mistakenly use them. (In English): Sir, finally, I would like to highlight that the Ministry of Transport (MOT) will be moving a Notice of Amendments during the Committee stage to address clerical errors in clauses 51, 74 and 80 of the Bill. The amendment to clause 51 corrects a cross-reference error, the amendment to clause 74 corrects a formatting error, and the amendment to clause 80 reinstates a cross-reference that was accidentally deleted.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, the amendments in this Bill reflect a regulatory approach that is responsive, calibrated and forward-looking. This Bill gives us stronger tools to act against deregistered vehicles, unsafe AMDs and batteries and illegal point-to-point services.[+5 sentences] At the same time, where possible, we streamline rules and foster innovation, as we have done for AV deployments and EV charging. Ultimately, the Government cannot do this alone. Individuals should make responsible choices and businesses must uphold their obligations. We need to work together to make the difference. Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights)1328 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Our land transport system has been evolving, with new devices on our paths, new technology on our roads and new risks in our neighbourhoods. The law must keep pace. Before I speak further, I want to take the opportunity to thank our Transport Government Parliamentary Committee's (GPC's) resource panel who took time to give us feedback and insights ahead of the debate. I will speak on three areas: one, the disposal of deregistered vehicles; two, the regulation of sales, advertising, batteries and alterations of AMDs; and three, AVs. My fellow GPC colleagues as well as other colleagues will speak on other areas as well. First, on deregistered vehicles. The Bill introduces tighter controls to ensure that a vehicle, once deregistered, is properly disposed of.[+24 sentences] I support this, because we must stop wrongdoers from misusing such vehicles. Reported cases this year reinforce this. In February, the Straits Times reported that drug dealers and underage drivers were being caught using deregistered vehicles as cases surged. Another man was to be charged for evading a police roadblock, driving dangerously and other traffic offences. In April, nine men were investigated in one operation for driving and riding deregistered vehicles. And in August, a man was charged with driving a deregistered vehicle without a licence and causing the death of a petrol station attendant. Behind every one of these cases are real people and in the last, a life was lost. So, the amendment is justified. But the challenge is enforcement. A deregistered vehicle has no road tax, no insurance and by design, no visibility to any agency. Its In-vehicle Unit (IU) would have been removed. There is no tracker. Once it is off the register, how do we know whose hands it is in, what state it is in and whether it is still on the road somewhere? In addition, the journey from deregistration to final disposal passes through several hands. The vehicle goes from the owner to a scrapyard, an authorised exporter or an authorised operator of a designated area and from there to final disposal. The Bill sets out duties for each of them. I would like to ask what checks are in place to verify that each actor does their part. For example, an owner hands his car to a scrapyard, but the scrapyard is the rogue party. It resells the vehicle quietly, or strips it and lets the shell go back onto the road. Later, the car is caught in an offence. How will the Ministry establish that the owner did his part, so that he is not wrongly blamed and that the scrapyard which failed in its duty is held accountable? What records will be kept at each handover? Will transfers be logged in real time with the Registrar? What penalties can be expected for the rogue party? Separately, going forward, the period allowed for disposal is being shortened from one month to 14 days.[+4 sentences] Some of our resource panelists shared that some owners and companies may wish to find a buyer, arrange an export or sell the vehicle for parts during this period. They are concerned that 14 days may not be sufficient and if there are unexpected circumstances, what recourse do these owners and companies have? Let me now turn to the regulation of sales and advertising and to batteries and alterations for AMDs. I support these measures. In MacPherson, we have seen fires break out at homes and along common corridors because PMDs were charged with incompatible batteries.[+3 sentences] We have also seen collisions on shared paths and in some cases, involving devices travelling at high speeds, suggesting alterations done. In mature estates, like ours, where it is densely built up and home to many seniors and young children, a single fire or collision can have tragic consequences. Hence, I am inclined to err on the side of caution. Regulating sales and advertising tackles the supply side of the problem.[+26 sentences] That is necessary, even as we continue to educate our population and work on the demand side. First, online marketplaces. Much of this trade happens online, including by individual sellers and across borders. How will LTA find non-compliant listings? Will it rely on active monitoring, public reports or marketplace cooperation? How will LTA deal with overseas sellers who ship into Singapore – although I acknowledge that there were mention of import controls in place as well. Second, private and second-hand sellers. The Bill rightly covers individuals and not only businesses. But many casual sellers do not know the rules. What outreach will there be and how will the warning and specification notices be made simple enough for an individual seller to understand and comply with? Third, consumers. How will an ordinary buyer know whether a battery is compatible with a particular device? Will there be a clear, accessible list of approved models and compatible batteries, for example through a QR code or a searchable online register, so that the buyer does not have to try making sense of technical specifications? Fourth, repair and alteration workshops. How will they be informed, trained and checked? I would imagine workshops having to shoulder some responsibility in such cases as well. Adding on, there are non-compliant batteries already in circulation at present. Some of the users could be using the devices, with non-compliant batteries, for their livelihood or daily living. Hence, putting in place new rules alone may not help very much. More support to help these users transition is needed. Therefore, how will the Ministry facilitate this transition and support these users in the process? Even as these measures take effect, we must keep educating the public. There are too many options out there, many with strong marketing and consumers cannot be expected to sort out the standards and permitted models on their own. We need sustained efforts on the safe use of AMDs and on gracious sharing of common paths. Rules may stop the worst behaviour, but education can change habits. Finally, let me turn to AVs. The Bill creates a framework for trials, special uses and testbeds, with regulations that can modify existing road and path rules and a sunset in 2031.[+5 sentences] I support this approach. It lets us experiment safely and learn. But as we move into an increasingly digital and autonomous era, everything becomes connected, and connectivity opens us to attack and manipulation. I have two questions. First, on data and privacy. AVs collect enormous amounts of data, from sensors, cameras and video footage, and the regulations will require operators to keep records and share information with LTA.[+3 sentences] We need data for meaningful analysis, to understand incidents, improve safety and drive new innovations. But it also captures the movements and images of ordinary people on our paths. How will the Ministry balance the two? Who may access this data, how long will it be kept and how will it be protected?[+1 sentence] Second, on cybersecurity. What guardrails are in place to protect against cyberattacks on these vehicles?[+2 sentences] A compromised vehicle is not simply one broken machine. A coordinated attack on many vehicles at once could cause widespread harm on our roads. Will operators be required to meet minimum cybersecurity standards and undergo independent testing before approval? How is the Ministry working with stakeholders to ensure that we are ready to respond if something goes wrong at scale?[+5 sentences] Lastly, related to this is, as we move into the digital era, with agentic AI being more coming to the forefront, autonomous is becoming something that we must view with great importance. In most recent discussions, whether it is in Singapore or internationally, we talk about AI safety. I think we will also have to consider this in totality as we look at AVs. And hence, I would appreciate if the Ministry could shed more light in the measures that will be put in place to safeguard this in this aspect. Notwithstanding my questions, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang)2662 words
[+17 sentences]Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to improve safety in active mobility, strengthen controls over deregistered vehicles and support Singapore's transition towards EVs. I will focus on four areas: AMDs and online sales, battery fire risk, deregistered vehicles and EV charging infrastructure. Active mobility safety begins before the device reaches the rider. Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments to strengthen regulation over the sale, advertisement and modification of AMDs. Over the years, Parliament has spent much time discussing enforcement against riders who use non-compliant devices, especially during the 13th Parliament. But many unsafe devices do not originate with riders. They begin upstream with importers, retailers, modifiers, online sellers and advertisers. In that regard, I welcome this Bill's stronger focus on the supply chain. These concerns are not new. Since 2016, I have repeatedly raised the need to tackle non-compliant devices before they reach users. During the Committee of Supply debate in 2016, when the Government was developing its active mobility framework, I pointed out that unauthorised e-bikes remain available for sale, and that many e-bikes in use were not authorised models. I had asked the Ministry to consider allowing only authorised e-bikes to be sold in Singapore. During the 2018 debate, on the Second Reading of the Land Transport Enforcement Measures Bill, I spoke of my concerns about the burden of technical compliance, primarily on device owners, if they had purchased their devices from errant sellers who had misrepresented the specifications and asked about consumers' recourse in such cases, as well as whether consumers will have reliable means of verifying compliance before making a purchase. In November 2019, I asked in a Parliamentary Question what measures were in place to deter the sale and supply of non-compliant PMDs by online suppliers, and whether Singapore customs have been asked to help detect and prevent non-compliant PMDs from being brought into Singapore by suppliers or individuals. During the Second Reading of the Small Motorised Vehicle Safety Bill in 2020, I welcomed the introduction of import controls, but question why it had taken so long to restrict the import of illegal e-scooters and e-bikes. I also stressed that the most effective solution was to stop non-compliant devices from entering Singapore in the first place, and that control should extend beyond importers to shipping lines, logistics operators and online suppliers. Subsequently, an import control regime was introduced in 2021, and in response to my Parliamentary Question in 2024, the Government confirmed that LTA was working with customs and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) against illegal imports, including devices purchased online. The present Bill moves the framework further in that direction. It extends powers and restrictions that previously applied largely to physical retail premises to online sales and advertising platforms. Online sellers will be required to display warning notices, while the advertising and sale of non-compliant devices, forced or misleading representations leading to compliance and advertisement for illegal modification services will be prohibited. It also widens liability for those who sell, alter, fit or promote non-compliant devices and bans the display of such offending vehicles at any premises or place, subject to exceptions.[+7 sentences] Mr Speaker, these are sensible measures. The law should not allow a situation where selling an unsafe device to a physical shop attracts liability, but selling or promoting the same product online avoids scrutiny. However, I am interested to know how these provisions will be enforced in practice. The Singapore retailer can be investigated and prosecuted. However, online sales frequently involve sellers operating outside Singapore. The Bill rightly strengthens the regulatory framework for online sales and advertising. Nevertheless, practical enforcement against overseas sellers may understandably present different challenges, particularly where such sellers have no assets, operations or personnel in Singapore. Can the Minister of State share what actions can be taken against persistent overseas sellers?[+10 sentences] Can the Minister of State update the House on what arrangements currently exists or will be put in place with major online marketplaces, payment providers, logistics companies, Singapore customs and overseas regulators to prevent such non-compliant products from reaching Singapore consumers? Will online marketplaces accessible in Singapore be expected to conduct proactive screenings of listings, or only to act after a direction has been issued by LTA? Can the Minister of State also clarify the rationale for the exception to the display ban at clause 9 or the amended section 30(2), which allows a seller to show a non-compliant mobility vehicle merely because a consumer request to view it. I am concerned that a seller found displaying a non-compliant mobility vehicle could simply claim that a customer requested to view it. Does the Minister of State consider that this risks undermining the effectiveness of the display ban? Ultimately, Mr Speaker, success should not be measured by how many listings are taken down after the event, but by how many unsafe devices are prevented from reaching users in the first place. Next, addressing battery fires through prevention. Mr Speaker, closely related to this issue is battery safety. Battery fires involving mobility devices have been a long-standing concern for residents. When such incidents occur in high-rise residential environments, the consequences extend well beyond the owner of the device. Neighbours, families and first responders may all be put at risk. I therefore welcome the introduction of batteries specification notices and the creation of offences relating to the sale, fitting and advertisement of incompatible batteries under this Bill.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, this issue has been a long-standing concern of mine too. During the February 2020 debate on amendments to the Active Mobility Act and the Shared Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Bill, I specifically ask whether the Government would regulate PMD aftermarket batteries, including their testing and supply, so that access to batteries which do not conform to the requisite safety standards could be cut off completely, thereby reducing the risk of battery fires.[+3 sentences] I also suggested that the Ministry work with the Singapore Customs to prevent the import of off-specification batteries, including batteries purchased directly from overseas online sellers. The Government addressed inspections, illegal modifications and retailer offences during that debate, but did not specifically address my proposals concerning aftermarket batteries and controls at the point of import. The present Bill reflects a stronger upstream approach. Instead of focusing only on the user after a battery has been installed or a fire that has occurred, it targets the supply chain by requiring battery specification notices and by creating offences relating to the sale, fitting and advertisement of incompatible batteries.[+11 sentences] This is a sensible development because prevention is always preferable to enforcement after the fact. Compatibility matters too. A battery that appears suitable may not actually have been designed for a particular device. Modifications intended to increase performance may create significant fire hazards. The Bill recognises this reality and places greater responsibility on suppliers, retailers and battery sellers. However, I would appreciate further information from the Minister of State on the causes of battery-related incidents. Has the Ministry analysed the different factors contributing to the recent battery fires? What proportion of the fires involve incompatible batteries, illegal modifications, unauthorised charging arrangements or other causes? I believe this will help Parliament to assess whether the proposed measures are targeting the principal sources of risk and what else we need to do. Mr Speaker, this also brings me back to a point I raised during the debate on the Land Transport Enforcement Bill in 2018. At that time, I had asked whether consumers will have a reliable means of verifying compliance before making a purchase. This question is also relevant to the issue of batteries, besides devices. I am glad that this Bill requires seller to display battery specification notices containing information on battery specifications and compatibility.[+1 sentence] However, many consumers may still lack the technical knowledge to determine whether a particular battery is genuinely suitable for a particular device. Could the Minister of State consider whether LTA should maintain a publicly accessible and easily searchable database of approved batteries and compatible devices, so that consumers can independently verify compatibility before making a purchase?[+10 sentences] Such a resource will complement the new regulatory requirements by empowering consumers to make informed decisions, reducing the likelihood of incompatible batteries being purchased, fitted or used in the first place. Mr Speaker, legislation is important, but legislation alone will not eliminate battery fires. Public education remains equally important. Consumers need to understand that safety is not determined by price alone and that a cheaper replacement battery purchased online may carry significant safety risks if it is incompatible with the device for which it is intended. Next, I speak on strengthening controls over the registered vehicles. Mr Speaker, I also welcome the amendments to deregistered vehicles, the establishment of a formal authorised exporter framework and clearer statutory rules governing disposal address long-standing gaps in the existing framework, given an increase in reported cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads, including in some instances, being linked to hit-and-run cases and criminal activities, it is understandable that the Government wishes to strengthen a framework governing their disposal. The amendments should make it harder for deregistered vehicles to remain in circulation or fall into regulatory grey areas. I particularly support the offence of knowingly or recklessly selling or supplying a deregistered or unregistered vehicle for unlawful road use. Those who facilitate illegal road use should bear responsibility as well. These amendments do not represent a fundamental shift in policy, but rather formalise and strengthen a process that was previously less comprehensively reflected in legislation. They should hopefully improve accountability and reduce opportunities for abuse. I would, however, appreciate clarification regarding the reduction of the disposal grace period from one month to 14 days.[+15 sentences] The Government explained that under the proposed framework, vehicle owners will only need to hand over deregistered vehicles to authorised exporters, authorised scrapyards or authorised export processing zone operators and will no longer be required to separately submit disposal documents to LTA. I understand the rationale that this may simplify the disposal process. However, what assessment was made in determining that 14 days would be sufficient? Were industry stakeholders consulted in arriving at this timeframe? I also appreciate clarification on what safeguards or extensions, if any, are available where compliance within 14 days is impracticable due to circumstances beyond the owner's control, such as estate administration or ownership disputes? Mr Speaker, the success of this new framework will depend significantly on the integrity and effectiveness of the proposed authorised exporters scheme. Could the Minister of State elaborate on how LTA intends to ensure that authorised exporters are properly scrutinised before authorisation is granted and remain compliant after authorisation? Beyond the penalties provided under the legislation, what forms of supervision, auditing, inspection and ongoing compliance monitoring will be imposed on Authorised Exporters? What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of the scheme, including situations where deregistered vehicles are improperly handled, insufficiently accounted for, or re-enter circulation instead of being properly exported or disposed of? Each Authorised Exporter or operator also carries notification storage, scrapping, export and tamper-reporting duties. Will operators file periodic reports and will LTA audit them against export and scrapping records? Mr Speaker, the Bill also presumes that the last recorded owner continues to keep or use a deregistered vehicle, unless the authorised operator has properly notified the registrar that he has taken over the vehicle. It protects the owner who hands over promptly, but only once the operator gives notice. In the meantime, the owner has no control over when or whether the operator notifies the registrar. I would also appreciate clarification on the transfer of responsibility under the new framework. If a vehicle owner hands over deregistered vehicle to an authorised exporter, authorised scrapyard or authorised export processing zone operator within the prescribed 14-day period, has the owner's legal responsibility been fully discharged at that point or does the owner remain exposed to liability, if the authorised entity subsequently fails to fulfil its own obligations?[+6 sentences] Will proof of prompt handover be enough to display the presumption of continuing to use the vehicle when the operator fails or has yet to notify the Registrar? Put another way, at what point does responsibility transfer from the vehicle owner to the authorised disposal entity? Greater clarity on this point would help ensure that vehicle owners understand precisely what is required of them under the new regime. I next speak on supporting EV adoption through practical implementation. Mr Speaker, I turn now to the amendments relating to EV chargers. I do welcome many of these amendments. The grouping of EV chargers as the same model for approval purposes, the introduction of accessible codes in place of certain physical marks, the streamlined approval framework for charger installations and the regulatory sandbox for innovative charging technologies should hopefully reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, while maintaining regulatory oversight.[+6 sentences] These amendments should support innovation and facilitate the continued expansion of Singapore's EV-charging network. However, the more significant challenge to Singapore's EV transition is no longer legislation, it is implementation. The Bill introduces a new framework under which developers and building owners remain responsible for providing EV charging infrastructure. Our plans will now be certified by qualified persons and electrical workers, instead of requiring prior approval of LTA. I understand the rationale for streamlining the process. However, I would appreciate clarification on how compliance will be monitored under this new model. What forms of audit inspection or post-certification checks will be conducted by LTA, to ensure that safety standards remain high?[+9 sentences] Mr Speaker, I am particularly concerned about the implications for older developments. Many existing condominiums, strata title developments and commercial buildings were designed and constructed long before widespread EV adoption was even contemplated. Unlike newer developments, some may not have sufficient electrical capacity to support significant EV-charging demand without substantial upgrading works. Class 45 contemplates a formula for determining the required minimum electrical load and minimum active electrical load for EV charging infrastructure. Could the Minister of State elaborate on the factors that will be considered in developing this formula? Will different requirements apply to different classes of developments, such as residential, commercial and industrial properties? Will allowance be made for the practical realities faced by older developments where upgrading electrical infrastructure may involve substantial cost and technical complexity? More importantly, what assistance, incentives or transitional support will be available for older developments that need to undertake major upgrading works in order to comply. I would also appreciate clarification regarding the amendments to the inspection regime. The Ministry's factsheet states that landed home chargers will no longer be subject to mandatory two-year periodic inspections.[+3 sentences] Could the Minister of State explain the criteria that will be used to determine which chargers remain subject to periodic inspections? Beyond landed home chargers, are other categories of chargers being considered for exclusion from routine inspection in future, and if so, what risk-based considerations will guide such decisions? Finally, I welcome the EV charger sandbox provisions, which will allow innovative charging technologies to be tested in a controlled environment. Could the Minister of State share what types of charging technologies the Government envisages being tested under the sandbox, and how safety will be assessed where alternative technical standards, designs or operating requirements are permitted?[+7 sentences] Mr Speaker, the transition to EVs should be practical, affordable and inclusive. Regulatory streamlining is important, but success will ultimately depend on whether charging infrastructure can be deployed at sufficient scale, at reasonable cost and in a manner that remains workable for both new and existing developments. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the objectives of this Bill are sound and many of its provisions are sensible and necessary. My questions are directed not at the policy objectives, but at their implementation. Whether in relation to overseas online sellers, battery safety, authorised exporters or EV charging infrastructure, the success of this framework will depend on how effectively these new powers exercise in practice. I look forward to the Minister of State's clarifications. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol)2271 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Speaker, I rise to speak about what this Bill means for the workers who keep our land transport system moving – our taxi and private-hire drivers, delivery riders, bus captains and other transport workers. As technology changes, consumers need enough information to make informed choices. But workers too need enough information to make informed choices about their livelihoods. And as we introduce new technology into our transport system, our workers must continue to have a seat at the table and a place in the future we are building. Mr Speaker, I support the stronger action in this Bill against the advertising and sale of non-compliant AMDs and incompatible batteries. As an adviser to the National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA), my concern is also for delivery riders who may themselves be victims – workers who spend their hard-earned money on a device or battery without realising that what they have bought is non-compliant and unsafe. They have not only wasted their money, but an unsafe battery can pose a fire hazard to themselves, their families and their neighbours. I therefore welcome stronger deterrence and enforcement against irresponsible sellers.[+3 sentences] However, enforcement must go together with education. Can LTA work closely with NDCA, platform operators and community partners to help riders and members of the public recognise unsafe listings, know what information to verify before purchasing and easily report suspicious products? If we can intervene before the purchase is made, that is better for consumers, workers and of course, public safety. As the adviser to the National Taxi Association (NTA) and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), I also strongly welcome the measures to strengthen enforcement against illegal point-to-point transport services.[+32 sentences] This is an issue which NTA and NPHVA have raised repeatedly with MOT and LTA. Drivers who follow our regulations, bear the costs of operating legitimately and play by the rules should not find their livelihoods eroded by illegal operators. There is a passenger safety dimension too because illegal services operate outside our licensing, insurance and safety framework. I thank MOT and LTA for listening to our associations and acting on this. This partnership has not only been about protecting what our drivers already have. Together with the updates to the cross-border point-to-point regime, we have also been able to open up new opportunities for our drivers and grow both the economic and jobs pie. This is what good partnership, tripartism, should look like – protecting legitimate livelihoods while finding ways for workers to benefit from new opportunities. Technology changes, business models will change, regulation must keep pace, but workers must also be heard, because they are often the first to see what is changing on the ground. When the Government, industry and unions work together, we can protect our workers, create new opportunities and grow the overall pie. I hope we bring precisely this approach into the next major transformation facing land transport – AVs. Let me say this clearly. Our transport workers are not against technology. Neither are our unions. During the debate on "An AI Transition with No Jobless Growth" in May, I said that when you involve workers early and genuinely, they do not resist change. They drive it. Our workers know jobs will change. What they are asking for is a seat at the table to ensure that change translates into better lives and livelihoods. Take Chye Thiam Maintenance, a homegrown environmental services company that has been working with WeRide on deploying robo-sweepers in Singapore since 2024, with no major safety incidents publicly reported. For context, WeRide is also one of the technology providers involved in the Punggol AV trials. There is a genuine manpower challenge in this sector, including an ageing pool of mechanical sweeper drivers. If autonomous technology can fill manpower gaps, take workers away from repetitive tasks and improve productivity, then I think we should use this. These are areas where we can accelerate the use of AVs. This illustrates an important principle. The technology itself is not the issue. The use case matters. When an autonomous sweeper fills a manpower gap, technology can augment our workforce. When an autonomous taxi competes for the same passenger trip and the same fare as an existing taxi or private hire driver, the labour market consequences may be quite different. We should recognise this when deciding where, how quickly and at what scale we deploy autonomous technology. I want to acknowledge that Singapore's approach to passenger AVs so far has been careful and measured. We started in controlled environments and moved to fixed-route trials. Operators had to demonstrate safety and accumulate operating experience. As a Member of Parliament for Punggol, I have watched residents experience these vehicles first-hand. The AVs in Punggol have travelled more than 160,000 kilometres as part of the trials.[+9 sentences] Safety first, test carefully, learn, build public confidence, then expand progressively. I give MOT and LTA credit for that. The companies involved, including ComfortDelgro and Grab, have also taken a careful and safety-conscious approach to these trials. At the same time, when I speak to taxi and private hire drivers today, I do hear anxiety. Our drivers are joining the dots. They see the Punggol trials moving toward point-to-point services. They hear about deployment expanding to other parts of Singapore and international AV operators starting to enter the market. They hear discussions about career conversions and new jobs in an AV ecosystem. Naturally, our drivers will ask – what does all this eventually mean for me? Today, the number of AVs remain very small compared with the more than 70,000 taxi and private-hire drivers on our roads.[+2 sentences] But drivers are also hearing plans which point towards several hundred AVs potentially operating within the next couple of years. So, while the numbers today are small, they can see the direction of travel. One driver said something to me recently and that stayed with me. He heard that close to 10,000 people had already taken the autonomous shuttles in Punggol.[+16 sentences] He said to me very simply, "10,000 riders. Does that eventually mean 10,000 fewer jobs for us?" Of course, the answer today is no. These are trials and those rides are not equivalent to 10,000 displaced commercial taxi or private hire vehicle trips. But I understood what he was trying to tell me. To a driver, this is not a theoretical discussion about technology. One more trip taken by a robo-taxi could eventually mean one less trip for him. When you earn your living trip by trip, that really matters. So, the question behind his question is one we have to answer – when AVs eventually operate commercially and at scale, will there still be enough trips for our drivers to earn a decent living? Mr Speaker, there is another reason why we must approach this transition carefully. Driving has traditionally been what we sometimes call a job of last resort. Perhaps a better way of understanding its role in our economy is this – driving has been an important employment buffer for generations of Singaporeans. Many of us grew up knowing an uncle, an aunt or even a neighbour who drove taxis. In fact, many of us sitting in this Chamber today grew up with a parent who proudly made driving a living. This was honest work that put food on the table, paid school fees, raised families and sent children to university. When other livelihood doors closed, this was one door that remained open. This function has not disappeared. In 2025, the number of resident regular platform workers increased, driven in particular by an increase in private hire car drivers from 31,800 to 36,000.[+2 sentences] People are still choosing this job. People are still relying on this work. In the recent Labour Market Report, retrenchments increased in the second quarter of 2026, with more retrenched residents taking longer to find a job.[+18 sentences] Behind these statistics are real workers who need to find their next livelihood. As we plan for an AV future, we must think not only about how today's drivers transition. We must also ask what happens to the employment buffer in our labour market. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): In Singapore, driving a taxi holds special significance for many families. It provides an important fallback option. When someone loses their job and is unable to find another immediately, they can drive a taxi. When someone needs to change jobs or seek new opportunities, they can drive a taxi. When they need to care for young children or elderly parents, they can drive a taxi, using the flexibility of the job to work while still caring for their family. Generations after generations, taxi drivers have relied on their own hard work to support their families, put their children through school and lead lives of dignity and self-reliance. When all other doors are closed, the door to driving a taxi remains open. Today, autonomous driving is gradually becoming a reality. We cannot, of course, resist change, but we must ask ourselves if this door narrows or closes one day, where is the next door that we will open for our workers? (In English): Mr Speaker, that is the bigger question. If driving gradually becomes less available as an accessible and flexible livelihood, and as an employment buffer, what will take its place? This is not simply a transport question. It is a labour market and social question. We now have overseas experience which tells us to take these concerns seriously. Earlier this year, researchers studying Baidu's Apollo Go robo-taxis in Wuhan, using more than 200,000 daily observations, estimated a 10.9% short-run reduction in the average daily income of traditional taxis in the district studied. Drivers also worked longer hours and reported greater job stress and lower job satisfaction.[+9 sentences] Well, Wuhan is not Singapore. The market and regulatory environment are different. I am not suggesting that AVs in Singapore will produce an 11% reduction in our drivers' incomes, but neither should we assume that there will be no impact. Displacement may not look like thousands of drivers suddenly losing their jobs. It may happen quietly. Fewer trips, longer waits between bookings, lower utilisation and gradually, greater pressure on earnings. So, as we move from trials towards wider commercial deployment, I believe our drivers need three things from us. First, clarity. Clarity on the deployment pathway. Clause 58 extends the road AV regulatory sandbox to 31 December 2028 while a more holistic legislative framework is being developed.[+14 sentences] What are the stages between today's controlled deployments and wider commercial deployment? What indicators will determine when we move from one stage to the next? When do we consider AVs to have moved from experimentation and supplementation into something capable of materially affecting the existing point-to-point market? Our drivers need enough information to make those informed choices about their livelihoods. Second, measure the impact on workers. Safety, reliability and commuter acceptance must obviously matter, but will worker impact also be a measure? Can we establish a baseline now and monitor drivers' trips, utilisation, waiting times and most importantly, net earnings? If material livelihood impact emerges before alternative pathways are ready, will that be taken into account when determining the pace and scale of further deployment? Third, workers need a meaningful seat at the table before decisions are made. I ask that NTA and NPHVA continue to be closely consulted as deployment progresses. Drivers can tell us what is happening to waiting times, trips, earnings and commuter behaviour long before these effects become obvious in aggregate statistics. Our drivers' experience are important data points too. I welcome the Government's commitment to preparing workers for new opportunities and these are in fleet operations, remote operations, maintenance, safety assurance and other supporting functions. Some drivers will successfully make these transitions, some may not. But a successful transition cannot mean that only an upskilling course is offered. We need to ask – transit into what job, at what income and how many of those jobs actually exist? We also cannot assume that every taxi and private hire vehicle driver can or want to become an AV engineer.[+2 sentences] Some will move into new occupations and some may take on new roles in the AV ecosystem. Others may want or need to continue driving for many more good years. A good transition must start from the worker rather than expecting the worker to fit a prescribed transition programme.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, the Bill also allows controlled trials, special uses and testbeds for AVs on public paths. I support creating room for innovation, but our very busy public paths are shared by pedestrians, seniors, persons with disabilities, cyclists and of course, our delivery riders. Can the Minister of State explain how suitable locations will be determined and whether LTA will consult local residents, our delivery workers and other regular users before trials begin in heavily used public spaces?[+3 sentences] Early engagement can help technology succeed rather than become a source of unnecessary friction. Mr Speaker, embracing technology and protecting workers are not opposing choices. Our experience in the Labour Movement tells us that we can do both. Let us accelerate in areas where autonomous technology helps our workers do more, where technology fills manpower shortages and improves workplace safety. But where the same technology can compete directly with an existing pool of workers for their core incomes, our considerations must be broader, not necessarily slower forever, but more deliberate, more transparent and with workers sitting at the table as we decide the pace.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, I support this Bill and I hope that as technology moves forward, our workers will move forward with it as well.
Mr Speaker62 words
[+8 sentences]Order. We have been in the Chambers for close to five hours. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm. Order. Order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied)721 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, my speech today will focus on the amendments concerning AMDs and the extension of the existing regulatory sandbox for AV deployments on roads to 31 December 2028. I support the Government's efforts to reduce the fire risk posed by AMDs. Fire safety is a paramount public concern. Last year, Singapore recorded 49 AMD fires. A welcome decline from 67 fires in 2024 and 55 in 2023.[+5 sentences] Every fire is a serious threat to lives, property and community safety. Measures targeting non-compliant AMDs and unsafe batteries are necessary and timely. However, as we tighten standards, we must ensure these safety requirements do not inadvertently place an unsustainable financial burden on ordinary Singaporeans. Previous regulatory changes on AMDs have resulted in price increases. For example, since 1 June 2026, only LTA-approved AMD models can be displayed or sold. Following this change, retailers reported raising prices by $100 to $150 per device due to registration fees, mandatory inspections, compliance logistics and rising factory costs.[+1 sentence] While these changes ensure standards, the cost of regulatory compliance does ultimately get passed down to end users. During the Second Reading debate on the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill on 3 February 2026, I said that many lower-income Singaporeans and platform workers rely on mobility devices to earn a living by making food and parcel deliveries.[+14 sentences] These devices are essential tools of the trade, not toys or luxury items. If the cost of regulatory compliance drives up prices for AMDs and batteries, the take-home income of these workers will be reduced. I hope the Government will keep cost of regulatory compliance manageable and send a clear message to retailers of authorised batteries and compliant devices not to take this regulatory shift as an opportunity to inflate prices or profiteer. I turn next to clause 23 of the Bill, which empowers LTA to issue written directions to individuals and businesses involved in advertising, selling or modifying public path vehicles and mobility device batteries. LTA can mandate compliance within a specified timeframe, direct the cessation of sales, require the removal of non-compliant online listings or order corrective actions such as publishing accurate notices. Crucially, if non-compliant sales or advertising takes place on an e-commerce platform, LTA may direct the marketplace operator to disclose information about the seller or publisher. While these legal powers are clear on paper, how will they translate to practical enforcement? Major e-commerce platforms, such as Shopee or Pinduoduo, host numerous third-party merchants offering AMD replacement parts and batteries. A great many listings could be posted, modified or re-uploaded daily on these platforms under varying merchant names. How does LTA plan to monitor compliance across these platforms in real time? Does LTA currently possess the internal capacity data tracking systems and enforcement personnel required to effectively audit e-commerce platforms, or will enforcement rely largely on complaints or feedback from the public? Does LTA have any plans to increase its own technical capabilities or work with other agencies that currently have the technical capabilities to ensure that e-commerce platforms comply with the new rules? Finally, I wish to address Part 3 of the Bill, which extends the existing regulatory sandbox under the Road Traffic Act 1961, for AV deployments on roads to 31 December 2028. During the debate on the Motion to reinforce Singapore's position as a global transport hub in July, I suggested that LTA should consider deploying self-driving public buses to build a network of night bus services by first running such self-driving buses along existing Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines when these lines are closed during the overnight hours. In response, Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling said, and I quote, "We agree that there are good use cases for autonomous buses, such as night bus services, and we will consider it when the technology is more mature." With the regulatory sandbox for road deployments now extended through to the end of 2028, we will have more time to pilot operational users for AVs.[+2 sentences] I hope LTA will use this extended sandbox period to actively trial self-driving night buses along rail corridors after operational train hours. Bringing a network of self-driving night bus services to reality would improve public transport connectivity for late-night workers, while showcasing practical AV integration on our roads. Notwithstanding my clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Melvin Yong
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas)1556 words
[+13 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill covers a wide range of areas from the online sale and safe use of AMDs and batteries, EV charging to AVs and the disposal of deregistered vehicles. These may appear to be quite different issues, but there is a common thread. As our transport landscape evolves, our regulations must keep pace with changes in technology, business models and consumer behaviour, while keeping our roads and public spaces safe. At the same time, regulation should be practical and fair. Consumers should be able to understand what is safe and legal, while both workers and businesses that comply with the rules should not be disadvantaged by those who seek to circumvent them. I have five areas which I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State. First, on the online sale of AMDs and batteries. I welcome stronger regulation of online sales and misleading claims. Consumers increasingly purchase PMDs, PABs and replacement batteries from sellers whom they may not know and cannot readily verify. Unsafe products can therefore reach our consumers quickly, while the same seller may reappear under a different account. Enforcement must address these risks upstream and clarify the responsibilities of sellers and platforms. Online marketplaces are better placed than individual consumers to detect prohibited products, repeat sellers and suspicious listing patterns. Will major marketplaces be required to remove prohibited listings promptly and take reasonable steps to prevent sellers from relisting them through the use of another account?[+1 sentence] The scope of enforcement must also reflect how our online commerce now operates. Will the provisions cover sales through social media, messaging applications and closed groups, as well as overseas sellers without a meaningful Singapore presence?[+3 sentences] Retailers may also repeat technical specifications or safety claims supplied by manufacturers or overseas suppliers. What due diligence must they undertake before making such representations and would reliance on upstream information alone be sufficient? For products posing significant safety risks, the safe choice should be the easy and default choice. Consumers should not bear the primary burden of identifying prohibited listings.[+1 sentence] My second point concerns replacement batteries. This Bill regulates compatible batteries and makes it an offence to fit or use an incompatible battery.[+4 sentences] This is an important safety measure: a battery that does not match the device or its charging system can create serious fire risks, affecting not only the owner but also neighbours and the wider public. I therefore support the safety rationale. However, if consumers are to be held responsible, they must have a practical and reliable means of determining compatibility. Product labels may be technical, incomplete, or difficult to compare, particularly for older devices. Will LTA provide an authoritative, searchable list for consumers to verify battery compatibility, especially for the older devices?[+20 sentences] How will enforcement treat consumers who act in good faith but are misled about compatibility? There may also be cases where an older device remains serviceable, but its original battery is no longer produced. What practical options will owners have if no compliant replacement exists? Clear guidance is therefore needed to avoid leaving consumers with no realistic route to comply. There is also a livelihood issue. Many delivery riders depend on their PABs as essential work tools. Safety standards are important and must remain firm, but information on compliant batteries and approved installers should be clear, accessible and reliable. Riders should be able to comply without unnecessary downtime or loss of income. My third point concerns illegal point-to-point transport services, particularly cross-border services. I support strong enforcement. Passengers who book a point-to-point service should be able to expect that the vehicle and the driver meet our safety and licensing requirements, and that the necessary insurance and regulatory protections are in place. However, ilegal cross-border services may not provide the same safeguards. At the same time, commuters may not always know whether a service advertised online is authorised, particularly where bookings are arranged through informal channels or made to resemble legitimate services. The Ministry has indicated that commuters may eventually be penalised for using illegal services. If so, culpability must be clear. Must a passenger knowingly engage an illegal service and how will good-faith bookings be treated by the authorities? Before penalties are imposed, will passengers have a simple official way to verify authorised vehicles, operators and booking services, without having to navigate complex licensing arrangements? Singapore taxi and private-hire car drivers incur licensing, insurance and other compliance costs to operate legally. Effective enforcement should protect their livelihoods from unfair competition. But as we know, illegal transport services may be coordinated through organisers, booking channels and commercial networks that recruit drivers, arrange for the rides and profit from these activities. Can the Minister of State share how will LTA target these upstream actors and not just focus on the individual drivers?[+8 sentences] This will require timely information-sharing and coordinated action across not just within LTA but also with the online platforms and the relevant enforcement agencies, particularly where operators use multiple channels or operate across borders. My fourth point concerns AVs. The Bill extends the AV regulatory sandbox and establishes a framework for AVs on public paths. I support controlled testing and development. AVs can improve mobility, productivity and road safety. But wider deployment must be supported by clear evidence that the technology can operate safely in Singapore's dense and complex transport environment. As AV technology matures, the question is how the testing regime will evolve from time-limited trials to wider deployment. The public should understand the thresholds that must be met and how performance in real-world conditions will be assessed. What safety, cybersecurity and operational evidence will be required before AVs progress from limited trials to wider or fully driverless deployment?[+2 sentences] Will LTA publish appropriate safety indicators, including incidents and safety operator interventions, to support public confidence? AV systems may involve vehicle owners, fleet operators, software developers and technology providers. How will responsibility be allocated, and what minimum insurance and claims arrangements will ensure that persons who suffer injury or property damage can obtain timely compensation?[+15 sentences] Taxi, private-hire car and other professional drivers may be affected as AV deployment expands. I welcome the Government’s assurance that deployment will not outpace support and retraining, but this commitment should be translated into measurable transition outcomes. The key question is this: how will this be measured? Will readiness indicators include and cover training, successful job transitions and the availability of suitable jobs? These transition plans should be developed early together with unions and employers, before actual displacement occurs. Training must be linked to actual jobs, with appropriate support for workers who may require more time or more assistance to move into their new roles. As I understand, these new roles may be in areas such as safety operations, remote monitoring and fleet management. These roles should be assessed not only by number, but also by whether they offer sustainable wages, relevant skills and more importantly, meaningful career progression. Technological progress and worker transition must move together to sustain our social compact. My fifth point concerns deregistered vehicles. I support stronger action against illegally kept or driven deregistered vehicles. Once a vehicle is deregistered, it should be exported, scrapped or otherwise disposed of lawfully. A vehicle that remains on the road may be uninsured or unroadworthy, posing serious risks not only to the user but to other road users. The Bill strengthens requirements for timely disposal. However, rules on disposal must be matched by effective detection, especially where a deregistered vehicle continues to be driven or is moved around to avoid enforcement. Can registration, road-monitoring and Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 data be used to identify promptly deregistered vehicles and trigger timely enforcement?[+2 sentences] Of course, these must be subject to proportionate safeguards governing access, retention and use of the data. Enforcement must also include procedural safeguards. The Bill allows restrictions on vehicle registration or transfer for persons assessed as being at higher risk of failing to dispose of deregistered vehicles properly.[+9 sentences] What factors will LTA consider when assessing such risks? Will affected persons be informed of the basis and duration of any restriction and have access to a transparent review process if their circumstances change? Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the different parts of this Bill deal with very different technologies and transport activities, but there are three principles that should guide us. First, make the safe and legal choice easy for consumers. Whether someone is buying a replacement battery online or booking a transport service, we should provide clear information and straightforward ways for consumers to check what is safe and legal. Second, deal with the risks upstream. Where possible, we should act promptly and firmly against unsafe sellers, repeat online listings, illegal transport networks and deregistered vehicles before harm occurs, rather than relying primarily on consumers or individual enforcement after something has gone wrong. Third, work with our unions to bring workers along as our transport system changes. Our workers must have a stake in a future shaped by advanced technologies. Where technology transforms jobs, the Government should engage our unions early and put in clear transition plans, timely reskilling support, and viable employment pathways, so that both workers and businesses can benefit from technological progress.[+2 sentences] I hope the Minister of State will address the five areas raised. With these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Muhaimin Malik.
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang)1405 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill comes at an important time. From 2030, all new car registrations must be cleaner energy models and pure petrol cars can no longer be registered.[+1 sentence] EV adoption is accelerating. In the first eight months of this year, EVs made up 63% of new car registrations and our EV population has reached about 82,100. We now have about 34,700 charging points, a little over halfway to our target of 60,000 by 2030. Yet, only about one in nine cars on the roads today is fully electric and around 436,800 cars still run on petrol alone.[+53 sentences] As these cars are replaced, demand for charging will grow sharply. Charging must be safe, reliable and convenient, whether at home, in Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks or in condominiums. My speech will focus on part two of the Bill, which amends the Electric Vehicles Charging Act. I will make three points. First, on bringing all chargers under one framework; second, on the lighter inspection regime for landed homes and; third, on moving beyond slow charging. First, one framework for all chargers. Sir, before the Electric Vehicles Charging Act came into force in December 2023, chargers in Singapore fell into a patchwork. Some were approved, some had a Letter of No Objection, an administrative clearances under Technical Reference 25. Others had neither and were installed as general electrical installations under the oversight of a Licensed Electrical Worker. Many of these were installed in good faith by early adopters, commercial operators and fleet owners at a time when the Government was actively encouraging EV adoption. This Bill tidies up how chargers installed before the Act are treated. It sets out clear categories for these early installed chargers, whether they were approved, issued a Letter of No Objection or neither, and allows LTA to require their owners to affix approval labels or a new charger identification label. It replaces physical registration marks with registration codes that can be checked in a prescribed manner. It also strengthens enforcement. Where a person is shown to have connected a charger to a vehicle, the law will presume that the person used it to charge the vehicle, making it easier to act against the use of unregistered chargers. I support these changes. As we ramp up charging installation across HDB estates, condominiums and workplaces, a clear and consistent regime gives Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs), landlords and EV owners certainty. I have two clarifications for the Minister of State. One, failing to affix a label when required is an offence. Many early chargers were installed years ago and some owners may not realise they are responsible for one. At present, does LTA or the Energy Market Authority (EMA) have a database of all chargers that have been installed in Singapore? How much time will owners be given to affix the new labels? Will the labels be provided free of charge? And how will LTA reach owners of older chargers so that no one commits and offence unknowingly? Next, with registration marks replaced by codes, how will residents, car park operators and enforcement officers check on the spot whether a charger is registered? Second, lighter inspections backed by evidence. Sir, the Bill changes the inspection regime so that periodic inspections apply only to prescribed chargers while giving LTA a new power to order ad hoc inspections of any charger. I understand this will allow chargers at landed homes to be exempted from the current two-yearly inspection. I support this. Our chargers are already protected by several layers of safety – type approval by LTA, built-in circuit protection and automatic shutoffs under our national standard, and installation and certification by a licensed electrical worker. With these safeguards in place, a mandatory inspection every two years adds cost for home owners without adding much safety. But a lighter regime should still be backed by evidence. The Bill allows LTA to order an ad hoc inspection where it has reason to believe that a charger is unfit, dangerous or has been used in an offence, but also more broadly, simply to ensure the charger's continued fitness for charging. This last ground does not require any suspected problem. I ask the Minister of State how LTA intends to use it? Will it be applied to specific charger models, older installations or chargers with a history of faults? How much time will homeowners be given to comply? Third, moving beyond slow charging. Sir, this Bill also tightens the requirements on developers of new buildings and on owners of developments undergoing electrical work to provide a minimum electrical load for EV charging and charging points that draw a minimum active electrical load. Both will be set by a formula prescribed by the Minister. I welcome this, but how this formula is set will decide whether charging is truly convenient. And I am concerned that our network today relies too heavily on slow charging. As my colleague Mr Louis Chua pointed out at this year's Committee of Supply debate, it is typical for an HDB MSCP to have only three slow chargers. In Sengkang, my residents have been calling for more chargers in their car parks and for fast chargers closer to home. A slow charger of 7.4 kilowatts needs about eight hours to fully charge a car with a typical 60-kilowatt-hour battery. That works for a resident who can leave the car parked overnight but not for a shift worker, a private hire driver or a family that needs the car first thing in the morning. With only three chargers per car park, residents must queue, move their cars in the middle of the night or look elsewhere. As more residents switch to EVs ahead of 2030, this pressure will only grow. Other cities with similarities to Singapore have moved faster. In Hong Kong, where most people also live in high-rise flats, about one in five public chargers is a quick or fast charger. Here, about 88% of our chargers are AC chargers and about half of these are rated 7.4 kilowatts or below. Only about 11% are direct current chargers. We do not publish the share of our public chargers that are fast chargers – and I think we should. In her reply, the Senior Minister of State shared that there were 150 fast charging points at 70 car parks in HDB town centres and JTC premises, and that every HDB town will have at least one fast charging hub, with at least six fast charging points by the end of 2027.[+2 sentences] I welcome this, but one hub per town may not be enough for towns with high EV uptake. I therefore have three questions for the Minister of State. First, will the formula under this Bill account for fast charging, not just slow chargers?[+1 sentence] Will it be reviewed as EV adoption grows and will similar standards apply to HDB car parks? Second, will the Government set a target for and regularly publish the share of public chargers that are fast chargers and the total charging capacity available per EV, so that this House and the public can track whether charging keeps pace with EV growth? Third, in the same debate, the Senior Minister of State acknowledged that our real constraint is electrical infrastructure and that the first phase of upgrades will benefit around 450 HDB MSCPs by around 2029. What is the timeline for the remaining car parks, and will high-demand car parks be prioritised so that they can go beyond three chargers?[+1 sentence] Finally, as we add more chargers in MSCPs and condominium basements, more EVs will be parked and charging together in enclosed spaces where a fire, however rare, can spread quickly and is harder to reach. I urge the Ministry to work with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to review the fire safety requirements at these shared charging locations to ensure that there is adequate equipment and safety infrastructure in place.[+3 sentences] Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill puts in place a clearer, more consistent framework for EV charging and I support it. As we ask residents, MCSTs and operators to adopt it, let us ensure that safety assurance is backed by data, that the transition is supported so that no one bears cost unfairly for having adopted early, and that our charging network is fast and dense enough for the EV future we are building towards. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang)1162 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to focus on how this Bill responds to technological changes in batteries and EV charging. I would also like to declare my interest as a business owner of a battery company. In particular, I will speak about the Bill's stronger regulation of batteries used in AMDs and the practical pathway for manufacturers, suppliers and technicians to comply with these requirements. I will then make a brief point on how new charging models, such as mobile charging, could complement our EV charging infrastructure.[+1 sentence] Sir, I support stronger standards for batteries used in AMDs. We know that non-compliant lithium ion batteries are serious fire risks, especially when they are poorly manufactured, modified or paired with incompatible devices.[+4 sentences] However, as we strengthen battery safety requirements, we should also ensure that responsible businesses have a practical pathway to comply. Manufacturers, suppliers and technicians must not only know what standards apply, they must also be able to access the testing and certification necessary to demonstrate compliance. As these requirements are operationalised, could LTA clarify how manufacturers and suppliers can demonstrate that a battery meets the prescribed requirements and is recognised as compatible with a particular device, particularly for batteries developed or supplied locally? There is another consideration. The way a compatible battery is defined under the Bill places considerable weight on whether the battery has been tested together with a particular device; and for mobility vehicles, whether it was installed or endorsed by the original manufacturer.[+1 sentence] I can understand the safety rationale behind this, but this has an unintended consequence that we should guard against. If in practice, the main route to demonstrating compatibility runs through the original equipment manufacturer, independent battery manufacturers capable of meeting the same safety standards could find themselves effectively shut out of the replacement market.[+13 sentences] Over time, this would then have the result of consolidating the replacement battery market within original equipment manufacturer supply chains into oligopolies, reducing consumer choice and potentially increasing replacement costs. We should be particularly mindful of users who depend on these devices for their mobility or livelihood, for whom the affordability and availability of replacement batteries can have a direct impact on their daily lives. Could LTA therefore clarify whether independent battery manufacturers will have a pathway to demonstrate compatibility with a particular device, provided their batteries undergo the necessary testing and meet the same prescribed safety standards? These pathways could be secured by regulations that ensure accountability amongst independent battery manufacturers. Legitimate manufacturers, importers and suppliers should be identifiable and accountable for the batteries they place on the market. Could LTA therefore also consider whether greater traceability from manufacturer or importer to seller would help identify the source of non-compliant batteries and strengthen enforcement against illicit sellers, including those operating online? We should not have to choose between an open market and a safe market. We should aim for an open but accountable market, where responsible players can participate if they can prove that their batteries are safe and compatible. This then brings me to the practical question of testing and certification. If independent manufacturers are to demonstrate that their batteries are safe and compatible, how can they access the necessary testing and certification? This can be particularly challenging for smaller companies. Today, if I were to send a battery for UL testing and certification, the process would typically look like this. We may have to supply about eight to 10 batteries and ship them overseas, to an overseas laboratory, including laboratories in Taiwan, where destructive tests are conducted. If the batteries meet the required standards, certification can then be issued. Such testing is expensive, in the tens of thousands, and the entire process takes around three months.[+6 sentences] I believe there could be an easier way forward. Singapore has capabilities across the battery value chain. The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), for example, has a battery test facility capable of performance, lifetime and destructive safety testing, including vibration, thermal abuse, overcharge, short-circuit and propagation tests. Our institutes of higher learning also possess relevant engineering and testing capabilities. At the same time, international testing and certification bodies, such as UL Solutions, already have a presence in Singapore. In short, there is nothing stopping Singapore from being a testing laboratory. Could LTA therefore work with Enterprise Singapore, A*STAR, our institutes of higher learning and accredited certification bodies to develop a clearer pathway for local battery testing and certification?[+7 sentences] Where the necessary equipment and technical capabilities already exist locally, could certification bodies recognise, supervise or leverage testing conducted at these facilities rather than requiring batteries to be sent overseas for specialised testing? This would then lower the cost and time required for compliance while keeping with our high safety standards. More broadly, if Singapore wants to develop capabilities in batteries, electrification and energy storage, testing and certification should form part of that ecosystem. We should build not only the capability to design and manufacture products here, but where practicable, the capability to test and certify them here too. This would then allow our companies to leverage Singapore's trust premium when they venture overseas. Our objective should be one of safety. But this cannot be achieved only by keeping unsafe batteries out. Good and effective regulation should set the standard and allow businesses to strive toward that standard.[+1 sentence] Sir, another model worth exploring is mobile charging. I had earlier asked the Ministry about its mobile charging sandbox, which is expected to conclude in the second quarter of 2028.[+1 sentence] Mobile charging can complement fixed charging infrastructure, particularly where a vehicle has insufficient charge to reach another charging point or where existing charging points are temporarily unavailable. Could LTA consider expanding the sandbox to systematically test mobile charging as a supplementary charging option within our MSCPs?[+2 sentences] Instead of always bringing the vehicle to the charger, we should also explore having to bring the charger to the vehicle. If mobile charging proves technically and commercially viable, it could also change the way we think about charging provisions in our MSCPs. Instead of permanently reserving more lots for fixed chargers, mobile charging could potentially allow charging to be brought to vehicles parked in ordinary lots.[+4 sentences] This brings peace of mind to EV users and will have a positive impact on adoption. I hope the sandbox can examine this use case as EV adoption grows. Sir, whether we are regulating batteries or building our EV charging network, I believe the underlying principle should be the same. Regulation must keep pace with technology, but it should also create pathways for responsible businesses to participate. For batteries, that means maintaining high safety standards while making compliance and certification more accessible. For EV charging, it means allowing new charging models, such as mobile charging, to evolve alongside our vehicle population.[+2 sentences] We should regulate firmly for safety while making it easier for businesses that want to do the right thing to innovate and comply. With these comments, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member)336 words
[+15 sentences]Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. I have only two concerns to raise. First is on the removal of the mandatory two-year inspection. We all know EV charging is actually quite high voltage and high-power intensive, and they can actually go up from single-phase of 230 volts to all the way to three-phase 400 volts, and about 100-amps per phase. My concern is that with the removal of this mandatory two-year inspection, how does the owner detect such, if there is any fault or incidents, such as micro cracks or damage to the cable? So, the current standards have made it quite “usable”, but really, we cannot depend on people with no experience or training to identify any possible cracks to the charging cable. So, if that is the case, how would the Government ensure that the charging cable that they have already installed is safe for charging? Secondly, I would like to turn to the Active Mobility Act allowing for the expanded regulatory sandboxes, especially for the foot path. I am a strong advocate for sandboxes, especially for innovation and experimentation, but this Bill's proposal is on public paths, and therefore, I have couple of questions that is related to mixing AVs in a public environment. The specific questions will be, whether the public will be clearly notified that there is an active sandbox testing zone, so is there any notifications about that, where they can identify? Will there be physical segregation during peak hours or street speed caps or third-party liability insurance imposed on operators conducting these trials? Will there be any physical onsite human supervision for these autonomous devices? If residents are injured by such experimental autonomous devices, what will be the legal and financial liability of the operator? So, in the end, I would like to say that I actually support sandboxes for innovation experimentation, but those are the concerns that I have for the Minister of State to address. With these concerns addressed, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar)667 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Deputy Speaker, it is alarming to learn that cases of crimes and traffic violations involving deregistered vehicles have increased more than threefold between 2024 and 2025. In the last three years, 43% of such cases involved repeat offenders, suggesting that there are gaps in enforcement and deterrence that urgently need to be addressed.[+6 sentences] Separately, the growth of e-commerce in recent years has changed how mobility devices and batteries are sold. As shopfronts shift online, so must the associated consumer protections. I support the proposed measures, but have a few clarifications to make. First, on the Authorised Exporter Scheme. While a complete system overhaul is a difficult choice to make, it is often necessary when the dangers posed are significant. Most of all, it is an opportunity to revamp our way of doing things. In light of the centralised oversight introduced through this scheme, will the Ministry consider how it can dovetail frameworks and workflows with the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment to align Singapore's new vehicle disposal framework with advanced global circular economy standards, such as the European Union's End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation? Will the Ministry consider updating regulations for LTA-authorised scrapyards and processing facilities to require the safe pre-dismantling, segregation and domestic recycling of critical-mineral-rich electronics, such as electronic control units, drivetrains and infotainment units, from vehicles slated for scrapping prior to export or crushing?[+8 sentences] Second, on promoting safer active mobility vehicles. To ensure that displayed warning labels are accessible and understandable to all consumers, could the Minister of State share what the minimum requirements are for these warning labels? I would like to propose that these requirements include a sufficiently large font size, visible placement and be in our four official languages. Furthermore, to encourage public responsibility and participation, will the Ministry consider opening a reporting channel for members of the public to notify authorities of breaches by sellers and suppliers in cases of misleading representation of device compliance and insufficient warning labels? Sir, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): To ensure that all consumers can see and understand the warning labels on personal mobility devices, I propose that the labels feature a sufficiently large font, be prominently placed and use the country's four official languages. Furthermore, will the Ministry consider establishing a reporting channel for the public to report vendors and suppliers who engage in violations, such as misleading advertising or the use of non-compliant warning labels? (in English): Third, the Bill expands a sandbox model for AVs that already has years of operational track record. Could the Ministry share the safety and incident data from the existing AV sandbox to date, given that the new Active Mobility Act sandbox is expressly modelled on it?[+6 sentences] While operational experience is essential to mapping a safe deployment roadmap, I would also like to ask: what specific safety requirements must be met before autonomous mobility solutions are scaled up within this five-year window? Is there a mechanism to pause or roll back deployment if safety concerns emerge? Will the Ministry consider a public information channel that notifies residents as new categories of AVs are introduced on public paths near them? Finally, the Bill removes the mandatory two-yearly inspections of landed-home EV chargers. Could the Ministry share the evidence that this proposed change is based on – the incident or fault rates – and share what would specifically trigger an ad hoc inspection under the new framework? Without a clear and proactive trigger mechanism, it will always be a risk that unsafe installations go undetected until an accident occurs. Would the Ministry consider increasing the period in between inspections, for example, to four to five years instead, so that we maintain a minimum standard of safety while collecting more data to determine if this should be eased further?[+2 sentences] As our world evolves, so do the challenges that arise and opportunities that present to us. The Bill is a meaningful step forward as we transform Singapore into a city of the future where mobility is inclusive, accessible, sustainable and highly intelligent.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied)1081 words
[+5 sentences]Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. My short speech is about chargers for PMDs, PABs and mobility scooters. The Bill does not explicitly cover these chargers, and in the spirit of fire prevention I believe it should. My colleague, Mr Abdul Muhaimin, has spoken on the electric-car chargers in Part 2. An 18-year-old student who did delivery work part-time bought a second-hand electric scooter from a stranger, which was unregistered and non-compliant, and came without a battery. He bought one from an online marketplace seller, choosing the cheapest, and borrowed a charger from a friend. That charger was made for a higher-voltage battery and carried no SAFETY Mark, the mark that shows that an electrical product has been tested and registered for sale in Singapore. On 9 March 2022, the first time he charged the battery, it overcharged and caught fire in a flat in New Upper Changi Road.[+1 sentence] A woman aged 26 died. In January, he pleaded guilty to causing death by a negligent act and was jailed for seven months.[+7 sentences] So, the Court has dealt with that part. But this case raises questions about what our rules say about the charger. The fire safety guide that LTA and SCDF publish describes another fire in Bedok North Road. The owner of a power-assisted bicycle had left its battery charging unattended. He was woken by the sound of an explosion and saw smoke coming from the battery. A fire broke out and attempts to put it out failed. Investigations found that the fire started at the battery while a non-original charger, bought from an online marketplace seller and again without the SAFETY Mark, was in use. The guide adds that, on SCDF and LTA's investigations, most fires involving these devices started while a device with non-original parts was charging.[+20 sentences] So, Part 1 regulates batteries for these devices for the first time. A battery is compatible if it was fitted in and tested together with the device, or is the same brand and model as one that was. Before sale, the seller must display or publish a specification notice naming the compatible devices, the battery's brand and model, and its voltage and capacity. Selling a battery knowing the buyer means to fit it into an incompatible device becomes an offence, as does riding a device powered by such a battery. I support these provisions. A battery sold online, as in the one in the New Upper Changi Road case was, will now come with a notice saying which devices it fits. But it says nothing explicit about battery chargers. The Ministry may say that regulating the battery is enough, because a compliant battery's management system stops charging when it is full, even on the wrong charger. So, a good battery is the main protection and I agree the Bill should start with it. But it is not enough on its own. The safety standards treat the battery and charger as one system. UL2272, which LTA requires for PMDs, tests them together and checks that the device stays safe if one part of its charging control fails. A wrong charger is one possible failure. So, if the battery's own protection then fails too, nothing stops the overcharge. UL tells users to use only the listed charger, and Britain's Office for Product Safety and Standards warns that "not all e-bike and e-scooter batteries and chargers are safe when used together". Of the seven fires in the Government's guide, the Bedok North fire is the one where the non-original part was actually the charger. So, rules on batteries alone would not have stopped that charger from being used. Our rules already require a charger to be tested with its device, but only for one kind of device. The Consumer Product Safety Office, under the Competition and Consumer Commission, registers a charger for a PMD under the SAFETY Mark scheme, only if it is the model tested with that device under UL2272. But there are no such rules for the chargers of PABs or mobility scooters, which are registered on their own. Yet, EN15194, the European standard LTA applies to power-assisted bicycles, already tests the original charger with the bicycle, and the Bedok North fire involved a power-assisted bicycle. So, my first question: will the Government, with the Competition and Consumer Commission, require the charger for a power-assisted bicycle or mobility scooter to be the model tested with it, as it already does for PMDs?[+11 sentences] In July 2025, the Consumer Product Safety Office tightened its rules for the tap-off unit, the socket that plugs into a power track. It must now be tested with its track in every position, and one that lets live and neutral swap places can no longer be registered. The same approach can apply to batteries. Since clause 7 defines a compatible battery and allows a criterion to be prescribed for it, those criteria could require the battery to prevent unsafe charging with an incompatible charger. They should set that outcome and test it, and leave the method to manufacturers. The methods already exist. Under EnergyBus, a communication standard for light electric vehicles, the battery sends the charger its voltage, current and temperature limits before the charger switches on. Connectors can also be designed to prevent incompatible connections. The Consumer Product Safety Office already lists both as options for high-power adaptors. So, my second question: will the prescribed criteria for a compatible battery require it to prevent unsafe charging with an incompatible charger, set as an outcome to be tested rather than a single method? The duty to register a charger falls on an importer or manufacturer in Singapore with an Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority certificate, so one shipped straight to a home by a seller overseas has no registered supplier here. The Consumer Product Safety Office warns that products from overseas may not meet our safety requirements, and that buyers may have limited recourse. Clause 7 defines an online marketplace by what is sold on it: devices, its components and batteries, but not explicitly chargers. My colleagues, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Fadli Fawzi, have asked how LTA will enforce the online provisions against overseas sellers and large platforms.[+1 sentence] My question is similar. My third question is: will chargers for these devices be brought within the Bill's provisions on online marketplaces? If not, which agency will act on a charger listed by a seller overseas and under which law?[+1 sentence] Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications on chargers, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Hazlina Halim.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast)1122 words
[+6 sentences]Deputy Speaker, the Bill addresses several concerns, but raise one common question: how to keep rules effective as technology and the way we move continue to change? On one hand, we must act against those who deliberately put others at risk. On the other, we must help people understand and meet their obligations. The Bill moves us in this direction and I support its intent. I will focus on three areas: first, safer mobility devices and safer batteries; second, the cost of compliance; third, AVs on public paths. First, Deputy Speaker, safer mobility devices and batteries. The Bill strengthens controls over online sales and misleading compliance claims. Sellers will also need to provide clearer battery information, including compatible device models.[+5 sentences] But information only helps if the buyer too, can understand it. I echo my hon friend earlier Ms Yeo Wan Ling who called on the intentional approach to educate more Singaporeans to understand the displays; also, the hon Ms Joan Pereira who mentioned having displays in vernacular languages so more people are aware. For example, take a delivery rider who needs to replace a battery for his PAB. The seller may say the battery is suitable, the price is affordable and it fits the device. But physical fit does not mean technical compatibility. Most consumers will rely on what the seller tells them.[+1 sentence] So, how can we make this simpler? I suggest a standardised battery compatibility label, similar in concept to an energy efficiency label, showing which device models or categories the battery is compatible with, the relevant specifications and any limitations.[+24 sentences] The aim is simple. A buyer should be able to identify a safe and compatible battery without needing technical expertise. There is also the issue of older devices. A PAB may still be working well, but its original battery may no longer be available because the supplier has stopped operating or the model is no longer supported. For someone who depends on the device for work, replacing the entire device can be expensive. We should therefore have a clearer pathway for safe replacement including verified replacement options, reliable suppliers and clear guidance on disposal. I also urge the Government to monitor the impact of these compliant costs. Second, the cost of compliance. The Bill introduces stronger requirements for online sellers of AMDs and batteries. These safeguards are sensible. But compliance should not become a barrier for small businesses, sole proprietors or individual operators who are trying to do the right thing. A large company may have compliance teams. A small business may have one person handling sales, stock and administration. Can the Government provide a simple compliance guide for smaller businesses, covering product specifications, battery information, advertising requirements and record keeping? I also believe enforcement should distinguish between a genuine first-time mistake and deliberate or repeated misconduct. A genuine first-time error could be given a clear period to rectify. Repeated breaches should face stronger action. Deliberate evasion should be dealt with firmly. The same issue applies to online marketplaces. An unsafe or misleading listing can reach many consumers before it is removed. A seller who is taken down may also attempt to return under another account. How will the Government work with online platforms to identify repeat offenders and to prevent known unsafe products from simply being relisted under another account? Make it easy for responsible businesses to comply and difficult for irresponsible sellers to evade the rules. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, third, AVs on public paths. The Bill extends the regulatory sandbox for AVs and introduces a framework for their deployment on public paths.[+15 sentences] I support controlled trials. AVs could have useful applications, particularly for cleaning, deliveries and other services. Trials allow us to understand what these vehicles can do, where they struggle and what safeguards are needed before wider deployment. We are already seeing this move beyond the experimental stage like in East Coast Park and Sembawang Park under a controlled regulatory exemption. The purpose of the sandbox is to allow us to learn what works, identify what does not and use that experience to set the conditions for safe scaling up. For example, a child may suddenly turn back. An elderly person may stop in front of the vehicle. A wheelchair user may not be able to move aside easily. A visually impaired person may not know that the vehicle is approaching. We need clear operating conditions. When must the vehicle stop or give way? What happens if connectivity is lost? How quickly can a human intervene? What happens when the system cannot confidently interpret the situation? I believe earlier my hon friend Mr Melvin Yong also raised these questions. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would suggest minimum operating standards covering speed, operating hours, connectivity, human intervention and emergency stopping before these deployments are expanded first.[+10 sentences] And the route matters. A path may behave very differently during school dismissal, morning peak periods or weekends. Residents, caregivers, persons with disabilities and regular path users may notice problems that an operator does not. Their feedback matters. We should also measure more than collisions. If a vehicle repeatedly blocks a ramp, causes pedestrians to step onto the road, or creates an obstruction without causing an injury, that is still a safety and accessibility issue. Can the Government therefore publish regular summaries of significant incidents, near misses, complaints, emergency interventions and corrective actions arising from these trials? And importantly, what thresholds would trigger a deployment being paused or its operating conditions being changed? We should not wait for a serious accident before deciding that a safeguard was necessary. Sir, in Malay. (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, overall, we need to ensure that our laws not only address emerging risks but are also easy for the public and businesses to understand and comply. We need to make PABs and batteries safer, help small businesses comply with new guidelines and ensure that AV trials are conducted with proper oversight. Furthermore, Mr Deputy Speaker, when laws are updated, costs often rise as well. I therefore urge the Government to monitor the impact of the amendments in this Bill and provide appropriate support.[+5 sentences] Through a balanced approach, we can reap the benefits of new technologies without compromising public safety and confidence. (In English): Our transport system will continue to change. New technologies will bring opportunities, but new risks will emerge. Our rules must keep up. And when experience shows that they need to change, we must be prepared to uplift them. If owners understand their obligations, buyers can verify safety claims and residents see that their concerns are taken seriously, the measures will work better.[+2 sentences] That is how we can embrace new technology while keeping our roads, paths and homes safe. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West)903 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the morning of 8 October 2021, I stood before the charred, blackened remains of a flat in Nanyang. In the dead of night, a fire sparked by a non-compatible PMD battery pack had ripped through the home. A young life was lost. A family was shattered. That heartbreak never leaves you. This tragedy was not an isolated incident. Between 2021 and 2025, Singapore recorded 276 fires involving AMDs, whether it is PMDs, PABs or PMAs.[+1 sentence] That is 276 ticking time bombs in our HDB blocks, threatening innocent neighbours asleep in their beds. We must tackle this fire threat at its root. I strongly welcome the new ban on advertising non-compatible batteries under sections 32(1)(d) and 32(9)(d) of the Bill.[+9 sentences] Yet the enforcement challenge is formidable. Under sections 29(A) and 54(A), LTA can direct online platforms to remove non-compliant listings and reveal seller identities. But what about shady overseas sellers and foreign platforms shipping deadly, unregulated batteries straight to Singaporean doorsteps by courier? How will MOT dismantle this cross-border pipeline? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just days ago, while walking in my neighbourhood, a single device zoomed past me at high speed. On it, were two adults and two young children, four persons were riding on one mobility device. Such raw power on the road points straight to an illegally modified motor or an uncertified battery. Section 34(A) rightly makes riding or using such devices an offence. However, we face an immediate practical dilemma: where do these dangerous batteries go now if this Bill is passed? If residents fear severe penalties, they will hide them at home, leave them charging behind closed doors, or dump them down rubbish chutes.[+1 sentence] That is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Thus, I would like the Minister of State to consider asking MOT to introduce a safe, penalty-free voluntary surrender scheme for residents to hand over illegal devices and hazardous batteries before another fire breaks out.[+4 sentences] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me move on to the topic of cross-border taxi service. Before I continue, I would like to declare my interest as the chief executive officer of Strides Premier. We lease taxis and private hire cars amongst other business lines, and our parent company, SMRT, is involved in the operation of the upcoming Johor Bahru (JB)-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link. Every day, thousands cross the Causeway for work, leisure and family. For many, cross-border taxis are not a luxury.[+1 sentence] They are a necessity. We welcomed the enhanced scheme on 4 May 2026 raising the cross-border taxi quota from 200 to 300 for both sides.[+4 sentences] It was a vital step. Yet the reality on the ground tells a different story. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether both sides have actually maximised this quota of 300? If not, what is the exact take-up rate in JB and Singapore respectively? Cross-Border Taxi Fares have spiked by 33%, from $60 to $80 now that door-to-door service is allowed.[+32 sentences] To see if supply truly meets demand, I would like to ask the Minister of State what is the average daily cross-border taxi ridership before and after 4 May 2026? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this brings me to a critical issue of fairness and safety. If the daily cross-border taxi ridership has grown and there is sufficient supply, we must clamp down hard on illegal cross-border services. Our licensed cross-border taxi drivers play by the rules. Illegal syndicates rob these honest drivers of their livelihoods and put customer safety at risk. With the RTS opening next February, our licensed drivers face even greater pressure. We must protect them now. I seek three clarifications. First, section 101(A) makes advertising of unlawful ride-hailing an offence in Singapore. But the Internet is borderless. What happens to ads hosted in Malaysia or on overseas platforms targeting Singaporeans? How will MOT close this very glaring loophole? Second, under section 101(B), sharing these illegal ads, even in chat groups like WhatsApp or Telegram, is a criminal offence. But ordinary citizens need clear guidance, not just warnings. If a commuter receives an illicit flyer on the street or a spam message on their phone, how exactly should they report it? Must they go through the daunting process of filing a formal Police report, or will MOT set up a direct, frictionless channel to empower the public to report? Third, legal cross-border taxis bear clear livery and decals. Anyone paying for an unmarked car for cross-border service knows it is illegal. Are these passengers guilty of abetting an offence under section 101(1) of the Bill? We want to encourage people-to-people exchange, especially with the impending Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone. But it must be safe, it must be legal. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I now turn to AVs. In Singapore, we struggle to find locals willing to take up cleaning jobs on the road. Relying heavily on foreign labour is simply not sustainable. Therefore, I strongly support the regulatory sandbox for AI-driven robo-sweepers. However, I have practical concerns. Under section 23(P) of the Active Mobility (Amendment) Bill, obstructing an AV on a public path is an offence. Does this mean a pedestrian is criminalised for blocking a robo-sweeper on a pavement? What happens during heavy foot traffic? Will the robosweeper cause unnecessary congestions? How exactly will MOT regulate their deployment in crowded places? Notwithstanding the above clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Valerie Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi)1157 words
[+11 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill covers several aspects of our land transport system, but there is a common thread. And for me, the question is not only whether we have the right rules. It is whether those rules work when they reach the ground, when they meet residents, building owners, businesses and the agencies implementing them. So, today, I would like to focus on three areas where I see a common challenge – the last mile of implementation: first, unwanted bicycles, which is not discussed much in the Chamber today, but I assure you it is part of the amendment Bill; second, EV charging; and third, deregistered vehicles. Let me start with unwanted bicycles, because this is something I have seen directly on the ground. I would first like to thank the Pasir Ris-Changi Town Council for responding to residents' feedback and clearing more than 100 abandoned bicycles within a couple of months earlier this year. This may sound like a housekeeping issue, but bicycles left along corridors, walkways and void decks can obstruct access, create trip hazards and interfere with cleaning and maintenance. And this is not just a Pasir Ris issue. LTA has reportedly removed 186 bicycles and other devices from bicycle parking areas islandwide since January this year. When I posted about our clean-up online, I soon had residents from across the island asking, "Can you come to my estate next?" Some even even left photos on my post, of abandoned bicycles all the way in Tuas. It was clear to me that there is a broader need for a clear and workable process to deal with unwanted bicycles. This is where I welcome the amendment in clause 22, which shortens the period bicycles can remain in LTA's holding yards from 30 days to seven days.[+11 sentences] This should allow LTA to deal with unclaimed bicycles more decisively and free up capacity at the holding yards. But as we shorten the window, could we also make the recovery process more straightforward? For example, how can owners have a simple way to check whether their bicycle has been removed and where it can be recovered? This also raises whether a light touch or voluntary bicycle registry could help establish ownership when bicycles are removed. I recognise the concerns around mandatory registration, so I am not suggesting that every bicycle must be registered. But a voluntary system could serve a different purpose – helping to reunite genuine owners with bicycles that have been removed. Finally, as a member of the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment, I also think about what happens to these bicycles once they are genuinely unclaimed. Could those that remain usable be refurbished, donated or otherwise reused, with recycling as the next step where appropriate? For me, the objective is not simply to clear bicycles faster, but to have a process that is efficient, gives owners a fair opportunity to recover their property and makes good use of what can still be reused. Mr Deputy Speaker, my second point is on EV charging. I recognise that the amendments here are targeted. The Bill removes the mandatory two-yearly inspection requirement for EV chargers at landed homes, while retaining LTA's power to require an ad-hoc inspection where there are safety concerns.[+12 sentences] It also allows LTA to presume that a charger is in use when it is connected to an EV or EV battery. I support the move towards a more risk-based approach. But I would like to ask how we can make this approach work well on the ground. I recently visited Carrissa Park condominium for a durian party and on the sidelines, officiated the launch of their EV chargers. I would like to commend the MCST for forging ahead with the installation and for sharing some of the practical issues they encountered with me, including that of telecommunications connectivity, which I have asked a Parliamentary Question today. For many property owners and MCSTs, EV charging is still relatively new. So, as we move away from a blanket periodic inspection regime, could LTA provide clearer guidance on what circumstances may trigger an ad hoc inspection and what responsibilities remain with the registered responsible person? Also, if an EV charger is connected to a vehicle but is no longer actively charging, how will the presumption that it is "in use" apply? A simple, practical guide for homeowners and MCSTs would help them understand their responsibilities under this more risk-based framework. As EV adoption grows, this clarity will help us maintain safety while keeping compliance proportionate. Mr Deputy Speaker, my last point is on deregistered vehicles. The numbers are concerning. LTA reported 75 cases in 2024 and 245 in 2025, with 122 cases in the first five months of 2026. More recently, 91 deregistered vehicles were impounded in September alone.[+1 sentence] The Bill therefore rightfully looks beyond the person found using the vehicle, to the chain that allows a deregistered vehicle to remain in circulation. The Authorised Exporter Scheme is an important step.[+13 sentences] But this creates an important implementation question. If the owner no longer has to submit disposal documents, can there be a digital chain-of-custody record between the owner, the authorised party and LTA, with a clear point at which the vehicle is verified as having left Singapore or been properly disposed of? And could owners receive confirmation that the process has been completed? This would give everyone clarity – the owner knows that his responsibility has been discharged, the authorised operator has a clear obligation, and LTA has a reliable record. I also note that the Government intends to address the existing pool of undisposed deregistered vehicles. I would welcome greater clarity on how progress against this pool will be measured and when we can expect it to be substantially cleared. Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are talking about a bicycle abandoned in a common corridor, an EV charger in a condominium, or a deregistered vehicle that should no longer be on our roads, the legislation is only the beginning. The real test is what happens after the rule is made. Can residents understand what they are supposed to do? Do the different parties know clearly who is responsible? And can we trace the process all the way through to its conclusion? For bicycles, that means clearing our common spaces while giving owners a fair opportunity to recover their property and finding ways to reuse what can still be put to good use. For EV charging, it means ensuring that a more risk-based inspection regime remains clear to users and effective in keeping our chargers safe. For deregistered vehicles, it means closing the chain between deregistration and verified export or disposal. These are the last-mile gaps I hope the Ministry will continue to address as we build a land transport system that is not only safer by design, but also works better in the everyday lives of our residents.[+1 sentence] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Gabriel Lam.
Mr Gabriel Lam (Sembawang)942 words
[+14 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a fairly wide-ranging Bill. It deals with deregistered vehicles, AMDs and batteries, electric vehicle charging, AVs and illegal point-to-point transport services. I would like to focus on three areas, looking at them from the perspective of my residents in Canberra. Canberra is a growing neighbourhood. Families, seniors and residents from different walks of life share the same paths and common spaces with cyclists, delivery riders and users of different mobility devices. So, when we discuss active mobility, the issue is not simply about devices. It is about how we share these spaces safely. For many residents, bicycles, power-assisted bicycles and mobility devices are part of daily life. Delivery riders depend on them for work. Others use them to get to the MRT station, the market, or simply around the neighbourhood. Increasingly, these devices, batteries and replacement parts can also be purchased online. A resident looking for a replacement battery may see several options on an online platform. They may look similar. They may make similar claims. But how does an ordinary consumer know which battery is compliant and compatible with his device? I therefore support the provisions in this Bill dealing with online sales, misleading claims and illegal modification services.[+9 sentences] I also welcome the requirements for sellers to provide information on compatible device models, voltage and capacity. But I would like to ask the Minister of State whether we can make this even simpler for consumers. Could there eventually be a straightforward way for residents to verify that a battery is compatible with their device before making a purchase, perhaps using the device model or through an online verification tool? We want residents to make the right choices. We should make it as easy as possible for them to identify the right product. This is particularly important because the consequences of getting it wrong can be serious. We have seen fires involving AMDs and lithium-ion batteries. In an HDB environment, a fire does not affect only the owner of the device. It can put neighbours and an entire block at risk. So, while enforcement against non-compliant products is important, giving consumers clear and practical information before they make a purchase is equally important.[+2 sentences] My second point is on deregistered vehicles. The increase in detected cases is concerning. There were 75 detected cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads in 2024.[+2 sentences] In 2025, that rose to 245. For any resident using our roads, there is a basic expectation that the vehicle beside them is roadworthy, properly registered and properly insured. I therefore support stronger action against the misuse of deregistered vehicles. I also welcome the proposed Authorised Exporter Scheme and the shortening of the disposal grace period from one month to 14 days.[+4 sentences] These measures should give the authorities better oversight over what happens to vehicles after deregistration and reduce the opportunity for them to be misused. At the same time, there is a practical consideration. Most vehicle owners who deregister their vehicles simply want to dispose of or export them properly. I understand that the industry will have a transition period before the Authorised Exporter Scheme takes effect. Could the Minister of State assure the House that there will be sufficient authorised exporters and convenient disposal options when the new system begins?[+9 sentences] We should close the loopholes firmly, while making it straightforward for residents and responsible businesses to comply. My third point is on AVs. I support giving this technology room to develop. AVs have the potential to improve our transport system, but public confidence will be important as trials expand into more parts of Singapore. The environment in a residential neighbourhood can be very different from a controlled testing environment. On any evening in Canberra, we have children walking with their parents, seniors, residents using wheelchairs or mobility devices, cyclists and delivery riders, all sharing the same neighbourhood. A child may move unexpectedly. A senior may need more time to cross. Someone using a mobility device may require more space. This is simply what everyday life in a neighbourhood looks like. I note that the Bill provides safeguards for AV trials, including insurance, operating conditions and requirements to publicise where and when trials take place.[+14 sentences] I would like to ask how residents living near a trial area will be informed. Will information simply be made available online, or will residents who are directly affected be informed in a more direct and accessible way? And as trials eventually move closer to residential estates, I hope residents and grassroots organisations can be engaged early. They can provide useful feedback about how particular roads, crossings and common spaces are actually used throughout the day. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I look at this Bill through the eyes of my residents in Canberra, the questions are quite straightforward. If I buy a replacement battery online, can I easily tell that it is safe and compatible with my device? When my family uses our roads, can I trust that the vehicles around us are properly registered, roadworthy and insured? And as AVs become part of our transport system, can residents have confidence that they have been tested for the realities of everyday neighbourhood life? These are reasonable expectations. As our transport system changes, our laws must keep pace. We should be firm with those who knowingly circumvent the rules. But for ordinary residents and responsible businesses trying to comply, we should make doing the right thing as straightforward as possible. And as we introduce new technology into our shared spaces, we should bring our residents along with us. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with these questions, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang)1400 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 4 November last year, a PMA caught fire in the eighth-floor lift lobby of Block 641 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4 in Yio Chu Kang. About 200 residents were evacuated. Four were taken to hospital for smoke inhalation.[+31 sentences] The cause remained under investigation. But for the families who left their homes that night, the first question was not technical, it was human: how could a danger they neither saw nor created end up at their very doorsteps, in the place where they should feel safest? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the ultimate test of this Bill lies in how effectively it answers that question. Transport technology can give Singaporeans greater confidence, mobility and choice. It can give an older person independence. It can give a worker a quicker journey. It can give a business new ways to serve the public. But when technology fails, the cost is often borne by the person with the least power to prevent it: a resident in a lift lobby, a passenger in a car, a pedestrian on a path. If power sits upstream, responsibility cannot be pushed downstream. This Bill deals with deregistered vehicles, unlawful point-to-point services, AMDs, EV charging and AVs. These are not merely separate technical amendments. They represent a fundamental policy choice about where responsibility should ultimately lie: those who design, sell, operate, certify and profit from a system, or with the ordinary Singaporean who must live with its failures. A deregistered vehicle that is neither roadworthy nor insured should not return to our roads. A passenger should not discover after an accident that an unlawful ride carried no valid insurance. And residents should not have to become battery experts just to be sure that the devices parked along their common corridors and lift lobbies are safe. I support this Bill. I seek three clarifications on how we ensure that responsibility follows control. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill extends the regulatory sandbox for AVs on roads and introduces one for public paths. This is sensible. Autonomous mobility may improve safety, widen options for an ageing population and raise productivity in areas such as municipal services. The question is not whether autonomous mobility will come. It is whether accountability will leave at the same time as the driver. When a human driver causes an accident, determining fault is relatively straightforward. But when an autonomous system fails, liability can easily fracture across software developers, sensor vendors, mapping providers, fleet operators and maintenance contractors. The public cannot be left to watch those parties point at one another while the facts remain unclear. A sandbox should be a place to learn, not a place in which responsibility disappears. The Bill provides for insurance and operational safeguards. As deployments scale, will the Government establish an independent review process for serious AV incidents? It should determine plainly whether the failure lay in software, hardware or operations; publish the lessons; and require corrective action across the industry. When autonomy comes, accountability must stay. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill strengthens controls over AMD batteries. Sellers must provide specification information, and it will be an offence to sell, fit or use an incompatible battery in any AMD, including e-bikes and motorised mobility aids. It also extends restrictions on advertising and retail displays from physical shops to online marketplaces and digital advertising platforms.[+21 sentences] These are important steps. But if we are serious about preventing fires, safety must begin at the point of sale, not at the point of fire. I have previously in speeches and Parliamentary Questions pressed for decisive action against vendors and distributors peddling uncertified, third party knockoffs and non-compliant batteries and for clearer ways for consumers to identify safe and certified batteries. The fire at Block 641 makes this concern intensely personal. Whatever the formal investigation ultimately concludes, the lives of those 200 residents were disrupted in a single night and neighbours were left with the lingering fear that it could happen again. Families should not have to live with that anxiety, nor should they have to unravel an opaque supply chain only after an inferno erupts outside their doors. Could Singapore introduce a risk-based "battery passport" for regulated AMD batteries? Every regulated battery should carry a tamper-resistant identifier linked to its manufacturer, technical specifications, batch, importer and certified compatibility. A consumer should be able to verify what he or she is buying. The authority should be able to identify high-risk supply chains and recall defective batches. Responsible retailers should not be undercut by rogue merchants selling substandard grey-market imports. Every regulated battery should have a history before it has an owner. The same principle must apply to the digital marketplace. A digital shopfront can distribute non-compliant devices and dangerous batteries at a scale a physical shop never could. By the time an illicit listing is taken down, the product may already be on its way to a household. Takedown powers are necessary. Prevention is better. Can the Ministry work with major e-commerce platforms on three practical duties: verification of sellers of regulated AMDs and accessories; automated pre-listing screening for prohibited products and terms; and intelligence-sharing on repeat offenders? A platform that can recommend a product to a consumer in seconds should be able to do more to stop an unlawful product from reaching that consumer in the first place. The point is not to make platforms guarantors of every transaction. It is to make them responsible for risks that their systems can identify and prevent, at scale. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Electric Vehicles Charging Act amendments strike a practical balance. They remove mandatory two-yearly inspections for landed home EV chargers while retaining the Authority’s power to require inspections where safety concerns arise. They continue to rely on competent persons, Qualified Persons and electrical workers to inspect installations and certify technical compliance.[+7 sentences] This is a pragmatic and realistic regulatory approach. As charging infrastructure grows across thousands of sites, public officers cannot inspect every cable, breaker and charger. Professional judgment must carry more of the load. But delegation is sensible. Abdication is not. Professionals engaged by developers or building owners can face commercial pressures. A lax inspection or unsupported certificate may quietly compromise the safety of residents and vehicle owners. The Bill rightly penalises false or misleading certification.[+1 sentence] Yet, discovery after a fire or infrastructure failure is too late. Will the authority subject these certifications to systematic quality assurance, through risk-based random audits, independent peer reviews, and the regular publication of compliance findings?[+4 sentences] A certificate must not be a mere paper-clearing exercise. It must assure residents that the infrastructure they rely on every day is genuinely safe. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I began my speech with the fire at Block 641 because it captures a simple truth about public safety. Emergency response begins when danger is discovered. Public protection must begin much earlier: from the moment a device is imported and listed online, to when it is fitted, inspected and certified.[+1 sentence] That is why this Bill matters. It keeps deregistered vehicles that are neither roadworthy nor insured off our roads.[+1 sentence] It strengthens enforcement against unlawful point-to-point services. It tightens controls over AMDs and EV charging.[+13 sentences] It enables AV deployment within safeguards. But the Bill’s success should not be measured only by the number of offences detected or directions issued. It will be measured by whether danger is prevented before it reaches the ordinary person. That means independent review when autonomous systems fail, traceable batteries before they harm, platforms that prevent unlawful products from reaching homes and certification that the public can trust. These are not calls for residents to be less careful. They are a refusal to make residents carry burdens that belong to manufacturers, sellers, digital platforms, fleet operators and certifiers. At Block 641, the alarm sounded after the fire was discovered. Our task is to build a system in which safety begins long before the alarm. A truly effective safety system works quietly in the background. Its true measure of success is the danger that never reaches an estate, and the crisis that never happens. Above all, it ensures that ordinary Singaporeans are never forced to play the role of safety inspectors, battery experts, or legal detectives just to protect their own doorstep. That expertise belongs to the system, and that is where the duty must stay. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi)1621 words
[+7 sentences]Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. It strengthens road safety, response to the changing way mobility devices are bought and sold, and importantly, creates regulatory space for technologies that may fundamentally change how people and goods move around Singapore. But good regulation requires us to do three things at the same time: we must be firm where there is real risk, we must be proportionate when the overwhelming majority are legitimate users and business, and we must leave enough room for innovation where tomorrow's possibilities may be very different from today's. I therefore have three points of clarification for the Minister of State. Firstly, I support the intent behind the Government's stronger action against deregistered vehicles. The numbers warrant attention. Reported cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads increased from 14 in 2022 to 39 in 2023 to 75 in 2024 and 245 in 2025. In just the first five months of 2026, LTA investigated another 122 cases.[+4 sentences] Some deregistered vehicles have also been associated with hit-and-run accidents which have caused serious injuries and deaths and criminal activity. These are not risks that we should dismiss. But there is another number that we must put beside that. Singapore deregisters tens of thousands of vehicles every year. In 2024 alone, around 55,000 vehicles were deregistered.[+3 sentences] So, while 245 cases of illegal road use in 2025 represents a sharp and concerning increase, they remain a small number relative to the overall volume of vehicles passing through our deregistration ecosystem. That brings me to the amendments to the Road Traffic Act, particularly clauses 67 to 74, which restructure the requirements surrounding deregistration and disposal, including the legislative framework supporting the new Authorised Exporter Scheme. The Government intends to require deregistered vehicles destined for export to pass through LTA authorised exporters operating from approved and secured premises. The disposal grace period will also be reduced from one month to 14 days.[+5 sentences] My question is about proportionality. There is a legitimate international market for Singapore's used vehicles. Some of our deregistered cars are exported and subsequently sold in markets such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Has the Ministry studied the impact that the Authorised Exporter Scheme will have on this legitimate export ecosystem? Can the Ministry share how many deregistered vehicles are exported annually, what our major destination markets are, and if available, the approximate value of this trade? More importantly, has the Ministry assessed whether restricting this trade to authorised exporters could reduce the competition, increase transaction cost, or ultimately reduce the residual value received by Singapore vehicle owners who are already dealing with the high price of car ownership.[+36 sentences] I note that LTA intends to provide the industry with at least one year to transition into the scheme. That is welcome, but perhaps we should also establish a baseline against which we can judge its impact. How many exporters operate today? How many LTA expect will qualify under the new scheme and what proportion of the legitimate export trade could be affected? And importantly, how large is the pool of improperly undisposed vehicles that this intervention seeks to address? Enforcement should be targeted at the risk, rather than allowing the risk, created by the minority, to impose disproportionate costs on the majority who comply. I therefore ask whether the Ministry could consider committing to reviewing the impact of the Authorised Exporter Scheme after implementation, including its impact on competition, export volumes and most importantly, value returned to vehicle owners. My second point is about AVs. Here, I would encourage us to think and aspire further. Clause 3 introduces definitions for automated vehicle technology, autonomous motor vehicle and autonomous systems. More significantly, clause 6 inserts the new division 2C and sections 23M to 23P into the Active Mobility Act. Section 23N enables regulations for approved trials, approved special users and approved testbeds involving AVs on public paths. That is important. We are no longer talking about autonomous cars travelling along our roads, but rather AVs on our public paths. The legislative architecture potentially accommodates autonomous machines operating amongst people on our paths. Robo-sweepers today, but perhaps delivery robots, maintenance robots, security robots and other forms of embodied AI tomorrow. This could become much more significant than it first appears. Singapore has several natural advantages in this area. We are dense. We have high-quality infrastructure. We have excellent connectivity. We are strong regulatory institutions. And in cleaning, logistics, security and many other sectors, we face genuine manpower constraints. So, perhaps, our ambition should not merely be to permit some robots onto our paths. Our ambition is to make Singapore one of the safest and easiest places in the world to develop, test and responsibly deploy urban autonomous systems. But innovation would only scale if the public trust it. That requires clarity on safety. Section 23N gives the Minister of State substantial powers to prescribe conditions concerning AVs, including their secret and equipment, monitoring sensor data, video recording, insurance and mechanisms for human intervention. I there have several questions. First, what must a robot be capable of detecting? A pedestrian environment is fundamentally different from a road. There are children who may suddenly run across the path, seniors who may move unpredictably, wheelchair users, cyclists, pets. Would there therefore be a minimum performance requirement for obstacle and pedestrian detection, stopping distance, failsafe braking and safe operation when the sensor fails? Second, how fast and how heavy should these machines be allowed to become? A small 20-kilogramme delivery robot travelling at walking speed presents a very different risk from a 200-kilogramme AV travelling at 15 kilometres per hour. The momentum they carry varies greatly. Instead of treating all AVs alike, could we consider a risk-based framework where permissible speed, weight and operating environment determine the level of certification, insurance and supervision required?[+5 sentences] Third, who is responsible when there is no driver. Section 23N allows regulations requiring liability insurance. That is important. But insurance answers the questions of who pays. It does not necessarily answer the more fundamental question of who is responsible. If a robot injures a pedestrian because its camera failed, its software made the wrong decision, or an AI misidentified an option, is the responsibility primarily with the operator, vehicle owner, software provider or manufacturer?[+2 sentences] As autonomy increases, our legal concept of the driver becomes increasingly inadequate. Fourth, I would appreciate clarification on the boundaries of the definition itself. Could this framework cover not only will wheeled robo-sweepers and delivery vehicles, but eventually cover bipedal or humanoid robots walking autonomously along pedestrian paths?[+6 sentences] Technology may well reach that point before 2031. We should therefore try not to write rules around what a robot looks like today. We should regulate according to what it does and more importantly, the risk it carries. There is one further issue, which is on privacy. The Bill expressly contemplates the collection and retention of sensor data and video footage from AVs. Imagine hundreds, eventually thousands of autonomous machines operating around our housing estates, parks and town centres. Collectively, they could become a very extensive network of mobile cameras and sensors, What safeguards will govern what they can record, what long information can be retained, who may access it, whether it can be used for purposes beyond safe operation, and how these systems will be protected from cyber intrusion?[+25 sentences] Mr Deputy Speaker, this question should not become reason to slow innovation. They should be the foundation that allows us to accelerate innovation safely. The machines must see the vulnerable user. It must stop safely. It must yield to people. Its owner and operator must be identifiable, and when something goes wrong, there must be sufficient information to establish what happened. Get these fundamentals right and our footpaths can become more than transport industry. It can become innovation infrastructure. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two points to raise. First, on deregistered vehicles. We must be firm with those who misuse these vehicles. But every year, tens of thousands of vehicles are deregistered, and some are legally exported overseas. So, we need to ensure that the new rules do not make things difficult for businesses that comply with the law or reduce the value of the cars received by our vehicle owners. Second, on autonomous vehicles and robots. Today, it may be cleaning robots. Tomorrow, it may be delivery robots, security robots, or robots that we have not yet imagined. I want Singapore to be one of the safest places in the world for pedestrians, but at the same time, one of the best places to test and develop these new technologies. The principle is simple – be firm on risks, protect safety, but do not let regulations restrict innovation and opportunities. That is the balance we need to achieve. (In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these two issues may appear quite different. One concerns cars at the end of their useful life in Singapore, one concerns robots that may define the future of mobility. But there is a common principle running through all two – good regulation must distinguish between risk and activity. We should not suppress legitimate activity simply because some participants create risk. We should regulate the risk itself. For deregistered vehicles, that means strong action against illegal retention and use while preserving a competitive, legitimate export market.[+4 sentences] For autonomous mobility, it means setting clear safety outcomes while giving innovators room to experiment. If we achieve that balance, regulation does more than prohibit. It protects where it must, enables where it can and anticipates where technology is taking us next. With these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Charlene Chen.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines)1089 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill. I will focus on its extension of safety rules to online sales of AMDs and their batteries. In March 2022, a fire in a New Upper Changi Road flat killed a 26-year-old woman. This January, the owner of the e-scooter, who was 18 at the time of the fire, was sentenced to seven months' jail.[+6 sentences] He had obtained the second-hand e-scooter from an unknown seller. He bought a battery from an online marketplace because it was the cheapest listing and borrowed a charger from a friend. The Court heard that he made no checks on whether these components were compatible. This tragedy exposed three points of failure in the online market: first, components obtained from different sources may not be compatible; second, price and online presentation can drive the purchase despite the safety risk; and third, an anonymous seller may be difficult to trace after something goes wrong. These are the three implementation issues I wish to examine: whether sellers must substantiate compatibility claims; whether platforms must act on warning signs; and whether LTA can enforce the rules against sellers who disappear and reappear online. The Bill addresses an important part of this problem. Online sellers will have to provide warning and specification notices, identify compatible device models and state the battery's voltage and capacity. They will also be prohibited from advertising non-compliant devices or incompatible batteries.[+36 sentences] Importantly, these duties apply whether or not the seller is carrying on a business. They therefore extend to individual resellers, including those selling second-hand devices. From my vantage point as a marketing professor, however, providing information is only the starting point. Online marketplaces are not neutral catalogues. Prices, photographs, promotional claims, search rankings and recommendations influence what consumers notice, trust and ultimately buy. Consumers should make reasonable checks, but sellers know more about their products while platforms control how those products are presented and promoted. I therefore have three concerns. First, how will compatibility claims be substantiated? The Bill requires a seller to list every device model with which a battery is compatible. A false or misleading specification notice is an offence where the seller knows or ought reasonably to know that it is false or misleading. But what evidence must support such a claim before it is published? Will sellers be required to possess and retain test reports, manufacturer confirmation or other prescribed evidence for every device model they list as compatible? In the Changi case, the e-scooter, battery and charger came from three different sources. A compatibility notice must therefore represent a properly verified assessment, not simply a seller's own assertion. I recognise that the relevant safety standards and testing requirements will be prescribed in regulations. Could the Ministry explain what evidence will be required before a seller may represent that a battery is compatible with a particular device model and how LTA will audit such claims? Second, what responsibility will online marketplaces bear? As I read the Bill, marketplace operators do not bear a separate general duty to screen every listing before it is published. They may be liable for taking part in publishing an unlawful advertisement. However, a business that publishes advertisements has a defence if it neither knew nor had reason to suspect that publication was unlawful. Is that the intended design? More importantly, what would give a platform reason to suspect? I suggest that certain warning signs should trigger a duty to investigate. These could include a seller reposting a product that was previously removed, multiple accounts using substantially identical photographs or coded phrases, such as "unlock full power" and "extended range", that may advertise illegal modifications without saying so explicitly. The Bill also treats online material as published again on each day that a further step is taken to amplify access to it. Does the Ministry intend algorithmic recommendations, sponsored placement or preferential search ranking to constitute such a further step? This matters because the battery in the Changi case was selected because it was the cheapest listing. If a platform's systems repeatedly recommend or prominently promote an offending product, the platform is doing more than passively hosting the listing. It is actively increasing the product's reach and influencing demand. When LTA directs a seller to remove a listing, I also suggest that the marketplace should be notified. Once notified, the platform should have reason to suspect substantially similar listings from the same seller or linked accounts. Third, how will these requirements be enforced at scale? The Bill covers certain online sales originating outside Singapore where the required connection to Singapore is established. But legal coverage is not the same as practical enforceability. LTA may issue compliance and removal directions and require marketplace operators to provide information about sellers. But when overseas or anonymous seller cannot be reached, will LTA have a direct and sufficiently broad power to require the operator to disable access to the offending product listing in Singapore? Removing one listing may also achieve little if the seller can create a new account and repost the same product the next day.[+1 sentence] Will marketplaces be required to collect and retain sufficiently reliable information to identify sellers and link related accounts? What measures will address sellers who repeatedly reappear using different names, photographs or product descriptions?[+1 sentence] Enforcement effectiveness should also be measurable. I ask the Ministry to consider publishing aggregate indicators such as the average time taken to remove an offending listing, the number of products that reappear after removal, and the number of repeat sellers detected. This will help Parliament assess whether the new powers are changing conduct, rather than merely generating removal directions.[+3 sentences] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Changi case was not caused by one failure alone. It involved components from different sources, a purchase driven by the cheapest available listing and an unknown seller. The Bill establishes important duties for sellers. Its effectiveness will now depend on whether compatibility claims can be verified, whether platforms respond when warning signs emerge and whether enforcement can keep pace with sellers who operate anonymously or repeatedly change accounts.[+2 sentences] Consumers have a responsibility to make reasonable choices. But they cannot be expected to conduct technical testing or simply trust an anonymous seller's claims. The principle should be clear: safety information must be accurate and verifiable; platforms must act when they have reason to suspect a breach; and unsafe listings must be removed before a dangerous product reaches someone's home. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon)1186 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, safer devices, safer paths, safer roads; these must be the non-negotiable foundations of our evolving transport system. This should also be the promise at the heart of this Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill. Technology is expanding how we travel, work and move goods. But with every new device, every new service or every new AV also introduces new risks for the people who share our roads and paths. The law must therefore keep pace, not just to permit innovation, but to govern it responsibly. I rise in support of the Bill but would like to seek clarification on three areas: first, the role of online platforms in regulating PMA sales; second, the impact of extending the regulatory sandbox for autonomous road sweepers and carts; and third, the implications of the authorised exporter scheme for deregistered vehicles.[+2 sentences] First, safer devices. Earlier this year, in my speech on the first Land Transport Bill, I spoke about the importance of effective enforcement. Since 1 June 2026, LTA has also enforced legislation on the physical sale of PMAs.[+11 sentences] This includes mandatory registration of whitelisted models, user registration to obtain the Certification of Medical Need and banning the fitting or modification using non-compliant parts. I am glad to see LTA continue to strengthen enforcement by extending these regulations to online sales. Otherwise, our sales could be bypassed by retailers moving online, reducing our protection and being unfair to physical retailers. But with the challenges of enforcement and accountability of online transactions, our rules must not only target individual retailers but also include the cooperation of online platforms. The new Bill states that online sellers must display warning notices on the requirements for using PMAs before purchase. But there is no guarantee that users would even see the notice or take it seriously. Unlike a physical store, online sellers also would not validate if they were selling their compliant vehicles to eligible users. Instead of only displaying the notices, we should require platform level interventions such as a compulsory user acknowledgement of the warning notices before checkout or using Singpass Verification to check Certification of Medical Need status, which has been used by e-commerce platforms for tickets or property listings. Can MOT consider applying this compulsory verification? This narrows the accountability gap between online and physical transactions. Second, safer paths. The Bill introduces a five-year regulatory sandbox for autonomous robo-sweepers and driverless delivery carts on public paths until 2031.[+13 sentences] While these trials are small and localised, a future influx of AVs could lead to congestion on our footpaths and shared paths during peak hours. What safeguards will MOT require to mitigate the risk of injury or congestion between the different users: pedestrians, cyclists, PMA and PMD users, and these driverless fleets? Will we implement a standardised protocol for the operation of AVs so that pedestrians will be able to predict their behaviour? Is there a requirement for a human in the loop? Who will bear responsibility if an autonomous delivery cart hurts a person? Additionally, there could be fewer delivery workers and cleaners required. How does the Ministry envision the change in delivery worker and cleaner roles? What are some support measures that the Ministry is considering to help affected workers through this transition and what is the implementation timeline given the roll-out of these driverless fleets by end 2031? Lastly, safer roads. I wish to touch on the new regulations for handling deregistered vehicles. With the increased numbers of deregistered vehicles, LTA intends to criminalise the supply or sale of deregistered vehicles. Vehicle owners have 14 days to dispose of their vehicles either through scrapyard or exporting. Has LTA considered if we have sufficient infrastructure in place to smoothly manage the export of deregistered vehicles? Due to our Certificate of Entitlement system, many deregistered vehicles may still be in working condition when deregistered and it would be a waste to scrap them rather than export. However, the number of deregistered Category A and B vehicles has grown by 50% from Q2 2025 to Q2 2026. These vehicles, if exported, have to go through LTA-authorised exporters or be stored in one of the five approved Export Processing Zones, with no option to directly use freight services.[+10 sentences] These additional vehicles will cause a strain on the storage capacities of authorised exporters, adding onto the reported shipment delays and additional storage costs due to conflict in the Middle East. Has LTA studied if the new rules may create a backlog of cars for export, and will LTA consider approving more Export Processing Zones (EPZs) or authorised exporters if shipment delays arise? With only five EPZs in Singapore at the moment, will LTA consider approving additional EPZs during this one-year transition period? This will help to mitigate the increased supply and backlog of cars waiting to be exported. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): Our transport system must be guided by three “safer” priorities to give Singaporeans greater peace of mind: safer devices, safer paths and safer roads. Technology is expanding the ways in which we travel, work and transport goods. However, every new device, service or autonomous vehicle also introduces new risks for members of the public who use our roads and paths. The law must therefore keep pace, allowing innovation while ensuring that appropriate regulation is in place. The Bill introduces a five-year “regulatory sandbox”, allowing autonomous road sweepers and driverless delivery vehicles to be tested on public paths until 2031. Although the current trials are small-scale and confined to specific locations, a future influx of autonomous vehicles could cause congestion on our footpaths and shared paths during peak hours. In this regard, I would like to ask: What safeguards will the Ministry of Transport (MOT) require to reduce the risk of collisions, injuries or congestion involving pedestrians, cyclists, users of personal mobility aids and personal mobility devices, and these driverless fleets?[+2 sentences] Will we establish a standard operating protocol for autonomous vehicles so that pedestrians can predict how they will behave? Will the regulations require a human-in-the-loop arrangement? If a driverless delivery vehicle injures someone, who will bear responsibility?[+2 sentences] In addition, fewer delivery workers and cleaners may be needed in future. How does MOT envisage these roles changing? Given that these driverless fleets will be rolled out by the end of 2031, what measures are the Ministry considering to support affected workers during the transition? Can the authorities also provide a specific implementation timeline?[+5 sentences] This Bill recognises a simple reality – pedestrians, drivers, active mobility users and driverless fleets are increasingly sharing the same limited spaces. Its purpose must therefore be not merely to provide new transport options, but also to ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of public safety. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill recognises a simple reality: pedestrians, drivers, activity mobility users and driverless fleets increasingly share the limited space we have. Its purpose must therefore not be only to enable new transport options, but to ensure that innovation does not come at the expense of public safety or certainty. Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West)909 words
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill.[+18 sentences] This is a wide-ranging Bill. It tightens controls on deregistered vehicles, which is an important and welcome step, and it also covers AMDs, EV charging, AVs and illegal point-to-point transport services. What connects many of these amendments is a common challenge. Transport technology and consumer behaviour are changing rapidly and therefore, regulation must keep pace without unnecessarily constraining innovation. My three points share one connected idea, that safety must follow the user. It must follow them to where they shop, it must follow them onto the paths they share and it must follow them into the vehicles that they board. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns AMDs and battery safety. Like several Members before me, I welcome the Bill's extension of existing controls from physical retailers to online sellers. Regulation should follow the product to where consumers actually buy them. If strong controls apply in a physical shop, but unsafe devices remain easily available on the online platform, we clearly have not solved the problem. We have simply moved it. Many Members, including myself, have previously raised concerns in this House about fires involving AMD and the need for clearer guidance on safe charging practices. The risk does not stay on the path. It follows the device home, to the flat or to the corridor where devices are charged. Compatibility is therefore only part of the equation. How a battery is charged, maintained, modified and eventually replaced matters just as much. Could the Ministry complement these rules with a stronger emphasis on public education on battery and charging safety? Could safety information also be required at the point of sale, online or offline, so that buyers understand not only which battery is compatible, but also how to charge and maintain these batteries safely? The objective should be a complete safety chain: from importer to the seller, to the device, to the battery and ultimately, to the user behaviour.[+1 sentence] Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns AVs. I support extending the road sandbox to the end of 2028 and introducing a new sandbox for AVs on public paths until September 2031.[+2 sentences] Technologies, such as AVs and road sweepers, need room to be tested in real-world environments so that we learn before we write permanent rules. This is timely. Waymo has announced plans to launch a fully autonomous ride-hailing service in Singapore in 2028, the same year the road sandbox is due to end.[+17 sentences] As these systems become more common, we should address a fundamental question early, similar to what hon Member Ms Lee Hui Ying mentioned previously: when an autonomous system causes harm, who is then responsible? With a conventional vehicle, responsibility normally begins with the driver. But with an AV, the chain is far more complex and complicated. Was it the owner, the operator, the manufacturer, the sensor, the software provider or an algorithmic decision or a failure simply to install an update on the systems? These questions matter most when autonomous systems share public paths with pedestrians, cyclists and other users who may be vulnerable. The Ministry has indicated that the sandbox extension will allow deployments to continue until more holistic legislation is in place. Could the Ministry also clarify whether data from these sandboxes will inform not only the technical safety standards, but also a clear framework for liability, insurance and accountability, and whether this framework will be settled before commercial autonomous services begin and expand? Innovation works best when the public knows that if something goes wrong, responsibility does not disappear with an algorithm. Mr Speaker, Sir, my final point concerns illegal point-to-point transport services. I support stronger enforcement against unlicensed ride-hailing and taxi services. This is, first and foremost, a passenger safety issue. Unlicensed vehicles may not carry valid insurance for the service that they provide. A passenger may only be able to discover what that means after an accident. It also is a question of fairness. Legitimate taxi and private hire drivers meet licensing, insurance and regulatory requirements. They should not have to compete with operators who circumvent these rules. Stronger enforcement protects their livelihoods too. But enforcement works best when people have a practical, legal alternative. So, I welcome the increase in the Singapore-Malaysia Cross-Border Taxi Scheme quota increase from 200 to 300 taxis, and the Government's intention to raise it to 500 taxis from each country eventually. But as enforcement tightens, particularly if penalties are eventually extended to passengers themselves, who knowingly use illegal services, then legitimate cross-border options must be available, convenient and affordable.[+6 sentences] Otherwise, we may be suppressing an illegal market without actually addressing the demand that created it in the first place. Could the Ministry monitor not only enforcement outcomes, but also the waiting times, fares and availability of these cross-border transport services as these measures slowly take effect? Mr Speaker, Sir, good transport regulation should protect without unnecessarily restricting, enable innovation without compromising safety, and enforce rules without losing sight of why people sometimes circumvent them. That is why I mentioned that safety must follow the user. To the online store, to the home where a battery is charged, onto the path that is shared with AVs, and into the vehicle a commuter boards, with a safe and legal option within reach. Notwithstanding these observations and clarifications, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Alex Yeo.
Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir)1174 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, I will speak with a focus only on the proposed amendments to the Active Mobility Act 2017. Sir, AMDs have fast become a regular part of our transport landscape. They are used for point-to-point deliveries, as mobility aids, for short travels or even just to get around the neighbourhood. As AMDs become more commonly used, there is a more urgent need to ensure that devices sold in Singapore are safe for use and comply with regulatory requirements. The usage of non-compliant batteries, for example, poses fire risks. We had one such unfortunate PMD-related fire last year in Potong Pasir which resulted in injury to a resident and significant damage to the home. At the same time, the way in which such devices and their components, including batteries, are bought and sold has increasingly shifted online. Our regulatory framework must evolve to keep pace with these developments. These amendments, which tighten regulation around online sales and advertising and strengthen battery safety requirements, are therefore important and timely.[+5 sentences] Let me address each of these in turn. Sir, I welcome the decision to extend the powers and restrictions imposed on physical retail premises to online sales and advertising platforms. The new section 54A recognises that if our rules on AMDs are to be effective, enforcement must follow the marketplace online. But, as I understand the provision, where an offending listing is posted by a third-party seller on an online marketplace, LTA may direct the seller to stop the sale and remove the listing. LTA may also direct the marketplace operator to provide information about the seller. What appears to be absent, however, is a power for LTA to direct the marketplace operator itself to disable access to the offending listing where the seller cannot or will not comply.[+6 sentences] I wonder if this leaves a practical gap in enforcement. Suppose an overseas seller is offering a non-compliant device or incompatible battery online to consumers in Singapore. What happens if the seller cannot be identified, cannot be contacted, ignores LTA's direction or simply removes the listing and puts up substantially the same product again under another account? In such cases, the online marketplace operator may be the party best placed to stop that harm quickly. I ask if the Ministry would consider a tiered approach to Section 54A, giving LTA further powers to plug this gap. The first step should remain enforcement against the seller. As a second step, where the seller cannot reasonably be reached, fails to comply, repeatedly re-lists the product or where there is an immediate safety risk, LTA could then be empowered to direct the marketplace operator itself to disable access in Singapore to that listing so that it is no longer accessible to consumers.[+10 sentences] Such a direct intervention against the online marketplace operator would be the backstop, rather than the first resort. There is some precedent for this approach elsewhere in our legislation. Under the Online Criminal Harms Act, a Disabling Direction can be issued to an online service provider requiring it to disable access in Singapore to specified harmful online material. We have already recognised, in this context, that effective regulation of online harms may sometimes require us to act not only against the person who puts up the content, but also through the platform which hosts and disseminates it. Sir, to be clear, I accept that scams and breaches of our active mobility laws are different and distinct in nature and seriousness. Any corresponding powers and safeguards should therefore be calibrated proportionately. This is why a tiered approach may be more appropriate. The purpose is not to impose a general obligation on online marketplaces to police every active mobility product sold on their platforms. Nor should we make platforms automatically responsible for every unlawful listing put up by a third-party seller. The objective is narrower. Once LTA has identified an unlawful listing, there should be an effective last mile of enforcement which stops that listing from reaching Singapore consumers, particularly where the seller cannot or will not comply. I therefore ask the Minister of State whether the Government will consider enacting stronger powers enabling LTA, in appropriate cases, to direct a marketplace operator to disable access in Singapore to such offending listings or the reasons why the powers presently proposed are considered sufficient.[+15 sentences] Sir, I turn next to the provisions on battery compatibility. I support the standards set in the new section 34A. Considering the risks and dangers involved, we must take battery safety seriously. However, section 34A places obligations not only on those who fit or cause an incompatible battery to be fitted, but also directly on the user. It makes it an offence for a person to ride or use an AMD powered by a battery that is not compatible with that device. This places a significant responsibility on the user. Sir, for batteries purchased after these amendments take effect, identifying compatibility should become more straightforward, as the Bill requires sellers to provide prescribed information about the battery and the devices with which it is compatible. My concern is with existing users and existing batteries. For example, a user may have been using the same device for many years. When the original battery failed, the user would have brought the device to a repair shop and relied on the repairer to install a suitable replacement. How is the user to know whether the battery already fitted to his device is compatible with that device? He or she may not have kept the receipt and may not know the make or model of the replacement battery. The repair shop may no longer be around. Brands and manufacturers could have left the market. And even if he or she could identify the battery, determining whether it is compatible with their device may depend on technical information that an ordinary user could find challenging to verify. To this end, I wish to ask the Minister of State whether there will be any transitional arrangements for users who already have replacement batteries fitted to their devices before Section 34A comes into force, so that they have a reasonable opportunity to verify compatibility and where necessary, comply with the new requirements. It would also be useful if LTA could provide an accessible means for such users to verify whether their existing batteries are compatible with their devices. Further, in calibrating enforcement during the transition, would the Ministry distinguish between users who knowingly use incompatible batteries and existing users who had reasonably relied on the representations of sellers or repairers before these new requirements came into force?[+1 sentence] Sir, the objective of my suggestions is not to dilute the safety standard, but to give existing users a clear and practical path to meet it. More broadly, as our active mobility landscape continues to evolve, effective regulation must work both online and on the ground, ensuring that unlawful sales can be stopped and that legitimate users can easily understand and comply with the safety regulation we impose.[+1 sentence] With these observations, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Jackson Lam.
Mr Jackson Lam (Nee Soon)1252 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I would like to approach this Bill from a slightly different angle. I want to focus on what happens behind the scenes after a vehicle is deregistered and after an active mobility battery has already been sold. Because passing stronger rules is one thing, making sure they work on the ground is another. Sometimes, the biggest risk is not at the point where the transaction takes place. It is what happens afterwards. Let me start with deregistered vehicles. The number of detected cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads increased from 75 in 2024 to 245 in 2025. And in 2025, there were more than 80 cases of crimes and traffic violations involving such vehicles.[+3 sentences] This is concerning. Once a vehicle has been deregistered, it should no longer be driven on our roads. Such vehicles may not have valid insurance and some have been linked to hit-and-run accidents and other criminal activities. These are real road safety and enforcement consequences. This is why I welcome the Authorised Exporter Scheme introduced under this Bill.[+28 sentences] Under the new system, deregistered vehicles meant for export must go through LTA-authorised exporters. This moves us closer to a system where we can verify what actually happens to the physical vehicle. But the effectiveness of the scheme will ultimately depend on enforcement. We can have strict conditions for becoming an Authorised Exporter, secured premises and proper records. But if there is insufficient checking after an exporter has been authorised, then over time, the same gaps could appear again. So, I have few questions for the Minister of State. First, how will LTA inspect and audit these Authorised Exporters? Will there be both scheduled and surprise inspections? Will LTA also check the number of deregistered vehicles received by an exporter against the number processed or exported? And where breaches are detected, what action can LTA take? Second, the industry will be given a transition period of at least one year before the scheme takes effect. I understand why businesses need time to adjust. They may need to secure suitable premises, change their processes and comply with the new requirements. But given the significant increase in detected cases, I hope enforcement under the existing framework will remain strong during this transition period. We should not allow the transition period itself to become another window for abuse. So, can the Minister of State share how LTA intends to strengthen monitoring during this period? Mr Speaker, Sir, I also support shortening the disposal period from one month to 14 days. But whether it is 30 days or 14 days, the key question remains: can we verify where the vehicle actually went? That is ultimately what will determine whether we have truly closed the loophole. And as the new system settles in, I hope LTA will also monitor whether there are attempts to circumvent the rules. When we tighten one part of a system, some may simply look for another weak point. So, enforcement needs to evolve together with the regulations. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns active mobility batteries. I support the new battery safety requirements in this Bill. Sellers will have to provide important information, such as the compatible device models, voltage and capacity of the battery. There will also be restrictions against selling, fitting or using incompatible batteries. These help consumers make better decisions. And importantly, they put greater responsibility on those who sell and install these batteries. SCDF reported that fires involving AMDs fell by 26.9% in 2025.[+18 sentences] It shows that the measures taken over the years are having an effect. But we should not become complacent. And in our HDB environment, even one serious fire can affect not only one household, but neighbouring residents as well. A battery may look perfectly normal from the outside. An owner may also assume that because a replacement battery fits into his device, it is safe to use. But physical fit does not necessarily mean technical compatibility. The voltage may be wrong and the specifications may not match the device. Or the battery may have come from an unknown source. This is particularly relevant today because consumers can buy replacement batteries through many different channels. Some may be bought online second hand or fitted by third parties. And the owner may not have the technical knowledge to know whether the battery is actually suitable. That brings me to my main concern. This Bill will strengthen the rules for batteries sold after the new requirements take effect. But what about those incompatible batteries that are already in circulation today? These batteries do not disappear when we pass this Bill. Some may already be installed in devices and sitting inside homes. And the owners may not even realise that there is a potential safety issue. So, I have two questions for the Minister of State. First question, would the LTA consider a structured trade-in or exchange programme for incompatible batteries?[+8 sentences] We should make it easy for people to do the right thing. If an owner discovers that his battery is incompatible, simply telling him not to use it, may not be enough. He now has to dispose the old battery properly and also have to spend money buying a replacement. For some residents, especially those who rely on their devices for work and daily mobility, that additional cost may matter. We can perhaps consider giving owners a practical incentive to surrender an incompatible battery and replace it with a compliant and compatible one. For example, this could be introduced for a limited period as the new requirements come into effect. The objective is simple: get potentially unsafe batteries out of circulation faster. Second question, can we make it easier for existing owners to check their batteries? For example, could LTA provide a simple online lookup tool where an owner can check whether his device and battery are compatible?[+3 sentences] It should be simple enough that an ordinary consumer does not need to understand technical battery specifications. Ideally, he should be able to enter or scan the relevant model information and receive a straightforward answer. And for residents who may not be digitally confident, perhaps retailers or other appropriate touchpoints could help them conduct the check. The new disclosure requirements will help someone buying a battery tomorrow. But we should also help someone who already has a battery at home today.[+2 sentences] We should explain not only that incompatible batteries are dangerous, but also how residents can identify them and what they should do next. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a common principle behind these two issues. For deregistered vehicles, we should not stop at the paperwork – we should know where the vehicle actually goes.[+11 sentences] For active mobility batteries, we should not stop at regulating future sales – we should also deal with potentially unsafe batteries already in circulation. In both cases, the challenge is the same. There is a difference between having a rule and achieving the outcome that the rule was designed to achieve. An exporter can comply on paper. But we still need to know what happened to the vehicle. A seller can comply with the new battery requirements tomorrow. But that does not address an incompatible battery already sitting in someone's home today. Good regulation must close the loop. It must not only prevent the next problem. Where possible, it should also help us deal with the risks that already exist. With the above clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Gho Sze Kee.
Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten)876 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. I especially commend MOT for the focus on mobility device batteries. They have been a major cause of fires involving mobility devices. This is a step in the right direction. But I would like to share some observations. First of all, what exactly is a compatible battery for an approved mobility device? The Bill describes a compatible battery as the same brand and model as the one which the device was tested and certified with.[+2 sentences] In other words, to be square with the law, you can only buy and use the original stock battery model. Fair enough, since mobility devices are tested and certified as a system, not as individual components. But how do you know the make and model of your battery is actually the one that was tested and certified with your device? It turns out, that LTA does maintain a list of approved e-bike models, together with the compatible make and model of the battery for each.[+1 sentence] For PMDs though, the picture is different. There is a non-exhaustive list of UL2272 compliant models available, but it does not list down the make and model of the batteries for each model.[+14 sentences] Sir, the Bill places clear legal obligations on both online sellers and the consumers. Online sellers of batteries will have to put up a list of compatible mobility devices with their listings. And consumers commit an offence if they buy and fit an incompatible battery to their mobility device. But without a ready reference, how can consumers easily verify independently an online seller's assertion that the battery is compatible with their device? More importantly, how can consumers know that the authorities are using the same reference? A battery that is compatible with one model, will be illegal and possibly dangerous if fitted onto another model. So, how do the authorities know that a particular battery sold online will be actually used with a mobility device with which it is compatible? How can we deal with this? And how do we police the online platforms and prevent devices and batteries that are non-compliant and fire hazards from being sold here, especially by overseas sellers? I know the answer for the first question. We actually cannot. But this is precisely why we place a legal obligation on consumers with this Bill. And I am glad there are provisions in this Bill, such as clauses 7 and 8, which attempts to address the second problem. But I cannot help but feel that we are missing an elephant in the room. The LTA relies on a notice-and-take-down approach towards offending listings.[+25 sentences] LTA detects an offending listing, it notifies the online platform to take it down. This part of the Bill merely formalises what has been the operating procedure into law to give it teeth. But this still remains an ex-post approach, and the onus of detection and policing still falls on the authorities. LTA still has to find the offending listings before action can be taken. This is resource consuming and quite inefficient. LTA may never get all of them, or perhaps even most of them. We must bear in mind, the platforms are the owners of the marketplace. They are the gatekeepers between the sellers and the consumers. They decide what can be listed, they have visibility over the listings on their platforms and they have the ability to put systems in place to detect and prevent illegal listings. No other party is in quite the same position to do so. Sir, we place clear legal responsibilities on device users and sellers and we require them to proactively comply with the law, but strangely for the platforms that enables and facilitates such offending listings and profits from it, we are happy to accept only reactive compliance. And we only require them to act if the authorities detect a problem. I do not think this is enough. Contrast this to how we ask online platforms to act when it comes to scams. Sir, under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA), we specifically placed an onus on online platforms to adopt an ex-ante approach. We made a requirement of them to proactively detect and filter out scams before they ever reach our people. OCHA also has more teeth. Where an online platform does not comply with directions, the Competent Authority can issue an order to restrict access to the platform. This is especially crucial, as some online platforms are based entirely overseas. Sir, mobility device fires have destroyed homes and caused death in our communities. If non-compliant batteries and devices can potentially burn down an HDB flat, destroy homes and endanger human lives, why should we treat this hazard with any less urgency than a financial scam? Back in February this year, during the Second Reading of the first Land Transport and Related Matters Bill, I raised the point, that it is time we hold delivery platforms more responsible. I make the same call today for the online platforms. If we can require online platforms to be more responsible and proactive in our fight against online scams, then we should ask ourselves too, why can we not demand the same in our fight for safer paths and communities? I think we should.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Cassandra Lee.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West)1537 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. I wish to speak on the provisions concerning AVs. The Bill extends the existing sandbox for AVs on our roads and creates a new sandbox for AVs on public paths.[+11 sentences] I support this approach. We should give new technologies room to develop, while putting in place the safeguards needed as they become part of our daily lives. How we regulate the technology matters. The law sets the standards expected of operators and technology providers. It influences how they design their systems, manage risks, respond to something when something goes wrong and take responsibility for those affected. These experiences will, in turn, shape how Singaporeans view AVs, and more broadly, their confidence in AI and emerging technologies as they become more present in our everyday lives. The sandbox, therefore, gives us an important opportunity to get the regulatory framework right. I will focus on three areas: accountability and compensation when accidents occur; safety for pedestrians on public paths; and how we support our drivers as the technology develops. First, accountability and compensation. Earlier this year, LTA published its findings on the minor collision involving a ComfortDelGro AV and a road divider at Edgedale Plains. Our existing framework already requires AV operators to report accidents and incidents, including near misses and to provide information on what happened, possible causes, corrective action and lessons learnt. As deployments increase, could MOT consider regularly publishing aggregated safety information on AV deployments – for example, distance travelled, accidents and significant incidents, the conditions in which they occurred, and the significant corrective actions taken?[+10 sentences] This would allow the public to understand the performance of AVs in context. It would also allow us to understand what the sandbox is teaching us, and use that evidence to inform subsequent legislation and regulation. There is then the question of compensation. I welcome MOT's consultation on this. The consultation recognises that timely compensation is important for public assurance. This is particularly important for AV accidents because responsibility may involve several parties. Was the operator responsible? Was there a problem with the software, sensors or the vehicle itself? Was the technology provider responsible? Resolving these questions may take time. Whatever the complexity in determining liability between the parties, an injured member of the public should be able to obtain compensation promptly. I therefore ask whether our eventual framework could adopt a principle of compensating the victim first, while allowing responsibility between the relevant operators, technology providers and insurers to resolve subsequently.[+8 sentences] What mechanism is MOT considering to ensure that a member of the public is not left waiting for compensation while liability between these parties remains disputed? Second, AVs on our public paths. This requires particular care because AVs will be sharing space directly with our pedestrians. On our paths, we have seniors who may walk more slowly or may be unable to step aside quickly. We have young children who may suddenly change direction. We have persons with disabilities or mobility difficulties. We also have pedestrians who may be distracted or simply unaware of the AV approaching them. The technology, therefore, has to deal safely with the full range of ordinary pedestrian behaviour, including behaviour that may be sudden or unpredictable. Existing assessments already look at matters, such as stopping distance, pedestrian safety, speed and responses to moving obstacles. I ask that we go further and expressly assess how these vehicles respond to seniors, young children and persons with mobility or other special needs.[+23 sentences] Our experience with PMDs also provides useful lessons. Once devices share paths with pedestrians at-scale, their speed, weight, dimensions and where they are permitted to operate all affect safety. Could the Minister of State share which lessons from our experience with PMDs will inform the AV framework? For example, will there be clear limits on speed, size and weight? Will there be restrictions on deployment along particularly narrow or heavily pedestrianised paths? Where there is insufficient space to pass safely, will an AV be required to slow down or stop and give way? Our framework should place the responsibility on AV operators to ensure that their technology can operate safely around pedestrians, particularly those who may require more time or space to respond. There is one further practical issue I hope the sandbox will examine: where these AVs will be parked, stored and charged when they are not in use. This becomes important if autonomous deliveries or service vehicles are eventually deployed at-scale in our neighbourhoods. They may be privately operated, but their parking and charging could create costs and risks in common spaces. We have seen a version of this issue with PMDs. Where devices are kept along HDB corridors, at void decks or other common areas, concerns can arise over obstruction and, particularly where batteries are involved, fire safety. For commercial AV deployments, we should address this early. Will operators be required to provide appropriate parking and charging arrangements as part of an approved deployment? Will the regulatory framework ensure that the costs and risks associated with storing, charging and maintaining these vehicles are appropriately borne by the operators? We should avoid a situation where the commercial benefits of deployment accrue to the operator, while the associated costs, whether the use of common space, management requirements or safety risks, are transferred to residents, Town Councils or the wider public. I hope these considerations can be built into the sandbox requirements before deployments reach significant scale. I also have a question about the new offence of hindering or obstructing an approved AV trial or deployment. I understand the need to protect approved deployments from deliberate interference. The Bill provides safeguards where there is a reasonable excuse, or where a person did not know and could not have reasonably known that his activity would cause obstruction. On a public path, however, the distinction between deliberate interference and ordinary pedestrian behaviour will be important. A senior may stop unexpectedly. A child may run in front of a robot. Someone may simply be unsure how to respond when encountering one for the first time. I therefore ask how MOT intends to distinguish deliberate interference from ordinary, sometimes unpredictable, pedestrian behaviour when this provision is implemented.[+1 sentence] My final point is about drivers. Waymo will be joining ComfortDelGro and Grab in Singapore, with commercial autonomous ride-hailing services targeted for 2028.[+5 sentences] This is an important development in our transport system. For taxi and private hire car drivers, it also raises understandable questions about their livelihood. For someone who has spent many years driving for a living, the immediate concern may be: how much longer can I depend on driving to support my family? I welcome the Manpower Transition Package announced in July, including career conversion programmes, training incentives and career guidance. I also welcome the Government's assurance that the AV deployment will not run ahead of our ability to retrain and support affected drivers. As deployment develops, I ask how the Government intends to assess whether we are succeeding in that commitment.[+5 sentences] Our drivers are a diverse group. A younger driver may be prepared to retrain and enter another industry. An older driver who is approaching retirement may find a major career switch considerably more difficult. He may prefer to continue driving and earning a sustainable income for the remaining years of his working life. There will also be drivers for whom roles, such as AV technicians or remote operators, may not be suitable. The effectiveness of the transition should therefore be measured by outcomes: whether drivers find work, whether their incomes remain sustainable and whether the working arrangements remain compatible with their family and caregiving responsibilities.[+12 sentences] I ask that the Government also give drivers as much visibility as possible on the expected pace of AV deployment, so that they have sufficient time to plan. For older drivers or others where a major career switch, may not be practical. How will the Government help them continue earning a decent livelihood as AV deployment expands? There may remain areas where human drivers continue to have an important role, including cross-border taxi services and routes, or periods that are less well served. I hope the Government will continue to explore these opportunities, particularly for drivers who may find it harder to pivot into another field. Mr Speaker, I support the controlled deployment of AVs. The sandbox gives us the opportunity to learn from actual deployment and to develop the regulatory framework alongside technology. We should use this period to establish how safety performance will be measured and made transparent; how an injured person can obtain compensation promptly; how AVs on public paths will safely accommodate our seniors, children and persons with mobility needs; and how our drivers, whose livelihoods are affected, will be supported through the transition. These are practical issues that will increasingly arise as AVs become part of everyday life. How we address them will shape public confidence in AVs and more broadly, how Singaporeans experience the increasing use of AI and emerging technologies in our society. We should continue to innovate and adopt technologies that can improve our transport system, with clear rules, strong safeguards and proper accountability for their impact on people. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Deputy Leader.
Land Transport and Related Matters (No 2) Bill›Second Reading Bills13 turns · 5,274w
· 35 highlighted
bill-819
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang)644 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, first, on deregistered vehicles. While I fully support the proposed measures, we also need to make sure the system can account for all vehicles. For every vehicle, there should be a record tied to its chassis number – when it was received, dismantled and exported. LTA should be able to pull up the record of any vehicle, conduct risk-based audits and act when the records do not add up.[+20 sentences] If we require a vehicle to leave the system, we should be able to account for it until it does. The industry will also have at least one year to prepare. I would, therefore, like to know what safeguards will apply during this transition period. Second, AMDs and batteries. I would like to ask the Minister: how will the law treat someone who has acted in good faith and relied on wrong information provided by the seller? Imagine a delivery rider whose battery stops working. He needs a replacement for work the next morning. He searches online and finds one advertised as compatible with his device and he buys it. If that information is wrong, he may have bought the wrong product without knowing it. I am not asking for unsafe products to be tolerated. I am asking how we make it possible for an ordinary person who wants to comply to actually know what is safe. One practical solution would be a simple Government tool. One page, one search box. Enter the device model and it tells you which batteries are compatible. Make the safe choice the easy choice. There is also a role for online platforms. For higher-risk products, could platforms act within a clear timeframe when LTA flags an unsafe listing, retain enough information to trace the seller and help notify purchasers where an unsafe product has already been sold? Because a takedown after a complaint is useful, prevention before the sale is better and a recall that reaches the purchaser is better still. Taking down an advertisement does not take the battery out of the home where it may already be charging. Third, AVs on public paths. The Bill creates a new framework for AVs on public paths, including a sandbox until 30 September 2031.[+23 sentences] I support having a sandbox. We should give useful technology room to be tested. But a public path is not a laboratory. A person with a visual impairment may not see a machine approaching. A wheelchair user may have very little room to move aside. A machine can avoid a collision and still create a problem. It can block a wheelchair at a narrow point or force someone using a walking frame to step around it. For some people, what looks like a small inconvenience can become a fall. So, before these machines are deployed widely, I hope we can establish three things. First, a clear and published safety bar. What must a machine demonstrate before it goes onto a public path? A robo-sweeper is not a car. Our standard should reflect the realities of shared public paths. Second, clear accountability. If something goes wrong, the person using the path should know who is responsible. Third, listen to the people who actually use the path. Before a testbed is designated, speak to wheelchair users, persons with visual impairment, seniors and parents with young children, and test the technology on the actual path where it will operate. Because a robot can perform perfectly in a controlled test and still make a public path difficult to use. The Bill gives the Government powers to monitor deployments and obtain information about them. I hope we use that information not just to enforce, but also to learn. A sandbox should not only tell us whether a technology works. It should tell us what we need to change before we scale it up. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah)1131 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, this Bill updates our land transport laws in several important areas. I will focus on three: deregistered vehicles, AVs and illegal point-to-point transport services. First, deregistered vehicles. Detected cases of deregistered vehicles being used on our roads rose from 75 in 2024, to 245 in 2025. This Bill therefore tightens the disposal regime, including a new Authorised Exporter Scheme and a shorter disposal period from one month to 14 days.[+21 sentences] I understand the need to shorten the window in which a deregistered vehicle can be misused. But will 14 days work equally well for every type of vehicle? What about vehicles that retain economic value and are meant for re-export? EVs are one example. Re-conditioning takes time. Sourcing replacement parts can take even longer. There is also a sustainability consideration. If a vehicle can be safely re-conditioned, retrofitted and reused, we should preserve that value before moving towards dismantling and recycling. Importantly, while the Bill prescribes a disposal period, it also gives the registrar discretion to allow a longer period where appropriate. Could the Minister of State clarify when such extensions would be granted? Could LTA take into account genuine export arrangements, reconditioning needs, parts availability and other supply chain constraints? I would also like clarification on the new Authorised Exporter Scheme. First, how will authorised exporters be audited? Second, how will LTA verify the chain of custody from the vehicle owner through to export or final disposal? And third, will there be enough authorised exporters to provide meaningful choice and keep disposal costs competitive? As we shorten the disposal window, we should ensure that the bottleneck does not simply move from the vehicle owners to authorised exporters. Beyond tightening the disposal process, we should also strengthen our ability to detect deregistered vehicles that already made their way onto our roads. Bad actors may use false or substituted number plates, so number-plate recognition alone may not be enough. I therefore welcome LTA's announcement that ERP 2.0 can strengthen the detection of deregistered vehicles. Could the Minister of State clarify how this capability will work in practice, particularly for vehicles travelling without a valid On-Board Unit (OBU)? How will ERP 2.0 alerts be integrated with the Traffic Police's existing surveillance systems, including camera networks and other roadside tools, so that suspicious vehicles can be identified, tracked and intercepted quickly? More broadly, how will LTA and the Traffic Police scale these capabilities across our road network?[+1 sentence] Second, on AVs. This Bill creates a regulatory sandbox for AVs on public paths. It also makes it an offence, without reasonable excuse, to hinder or obstruct an approved AV deployment.[+33 sentences] But before we decide what amounts to obstruction, there is a more basic question. On a shared public path, who has the right of way? The human path user or the AV? If a pedestrian continues walking normally and an AV approaches, who gives way? Should the pedestrian move aside or should the AV slow down, stop and give way? This matters especially for seniors, children and persons with disabilities. As far as reasonably practicable, the technology should anticipate normal human behaviour and we should not require pedestrians to adapt to the machine. Once the hierarchy of right of way is clear, it will also be easier to determine what genuinely amounts to obstruction. There is also the question of evidence and data. AV operators are likely to have onboard sensor data and video footages. The Bill allows regulations requiring such information to be captured, stored and provided to the authorities. Where such evidence exists, will it be first reviewed before an ordinary path user is required to establish the statutory defence? At the same time, what safeguards govern this data? How long may identifiable footage be retained? Who may access it? When should it be anonymised or deleted? And if deployments capture audio, including nearby conversations, what additional safeguards will apply? There is also the question of liability when an accident occurs. The Bill provides for insurance coverage covering death, injury and property damage. Could the Minister of State clarify how responsibility will be allocated between the vehicle owner, operator and technology provider? More importantly, will an injured member of the public have a clear and straightforward route to compensation? Could the Minister of State also clarify what benchmarks will determine when an AV is ready to move from controlled environments to more complex operating conditions? What safety and performance benchmarks will apply at each stage of the public path sandbox? I turn now to the wider roll-out of AVs on our roads. From my perspective, AVs are intended to complement public transport and add capacity to our taxis and private hire vehicle fleet, including where transport options are limited. If AVs are meant to fill transport gaps, then we should be deliberate not only about where they are deployed, but also when. Beyond geographical fencing, we should consider time-based deployment as part of a phased roll-out. For example, late at night, public transport may no longer be operating, and taxis and private hire vehicles supply may be thinner while demand remains from shift workers and the night-time economy. AVs could supplement existing capacity during these periods. There may also be a safety advantage. On selected routes, lighter traffic at certain hours may provide a less complex environment for testing, learning and improving safety before deployment is expanded. Importantly, if AVs first complement existing transport options where and when taxis and private hire vehicle supply is limited rather than immediately substituting for existing drivers, this could help ease livelihood concerns as the sector adjusts to the technology. Finally, illegal point-to-point transport services. The Bill treats forwarding or sharing an electronic advertisement as publication. But criminal liability also requires the person to know or be reckless as to whether the vehicle is being used unlawfully.[+1 sentence] Could the Minister of State clarify how this threshold works in practice, especially in private messaging groups? How will enforcement distinguish an organiser or an active promoter from an ordinary person who forwards a message without knowing that the service is unlawful?[+1 sentence] We should also address the demand that makes illegal services attractive. Under the enhanced Cross-Border Taxi Scheme, the taxi quota has increased from 200 to 300 from each country.[+6 sentences] As enforcement is strengthened, could LTA also regularly review whether the number and location of authorised cross-border pick-up hubs adequately meet commuter demand? Where there are gaps in convenience or accessibility, expanding legitimate pick-up points could reduce the demand that makes illegal point-to-point transfers attractive in the first place. Ultimately, enforcement and accessibility must go hand in hand. We should make illegal services harder to provide while making legal services easier to use. Mr Speaker, I look forward to the Minister's clarifications. Notwithstanding them, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker6 words
[+1 sentence]Minister of State Baey Yam Keng.
Mr Baey Yam Keng3056 words
[+6 sentences]Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support and thoughtful suggestions for this Bill. I seek Members' understanding that I am unable to address every single suggestion and question raised today. Issues like the mix between slow and fast EV chargers go beyond the scope of the Bill, so I invite Members to file Parliamentary Questions on these issues instead. I will round up by responding to the key points raised. First, on deregistered vehicles. These vehicles are inherently difficult to locate as they may be acquired through multiple intermediaries, and such transactions are not reported to the authorities. Since 2024, about 14% of the cases LTA investigated for using deregistered vehicles involved vehicles that have already been handed over to dealers or exporters.[+7 sentences] Bad actors are using more sophisticated methods to acquire and use them. They increasingly exploit juveniles and use online platforms, such as Telegram, to acquire deregistered vehicles while evading detection. But the increase in detections also reflects stronger enforcement efforts to detect them. LTA and Traffic Police have been enhancing joint operations such as the enforcement blitz last month. This is the main reason for the rising number of detections. Mr Edward Chia, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked how we can improve detection of deregistered vehicles, including by leveraging on ERP 2.0. We intend to do so. Going forward, we can use ERP 2.0 Global Navigation Satellite System technology to detect the locations of deregistered vehicles, provided the OBU has not been tampered with or removed.[+2 sentences] Roadside surveillance camera systems can continue to detect deregistered vehicles without OBU. Some Members like Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Melvin Yong asked about the new restrictions preventing high-risk individuals from obtaining a new or used vehicle. For now, there are two categories of high-risk individuals – individuals with a track record of failing to dispose deregistered vehicles and juveniles under 18 years old.[+11 sentences] For those with precedents, we will regularly review their status to ensure the restrictions remain justified. For juveniles, there have been several cases where vehicles close to COE expiry are transferred to their names before being misused after deregistration. Juveniles do not meet the minimum age to drive and hence would not be obtaining vehicles for their own use. These rules protect them from exploitation. Members like Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Gabriel Lam, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Dennis Tan also raised clarifications on the new Authorised Exporter Scheme, such as the 14-day grace period to fulfil disposal requirements, the efficiency of disposal options under the new scheme and how LTA will ensure accountability of Authorised Exporters. The Authorised Exporter Scheme is intended to simplify the vehicle disposal process while improving the accountability of exporters and maintaining meaningful consumer choice. During the grace period, owners will only need to hand their vehicles over to an authorised person listed on LTA's OneMotoring website. The disposal responsibility will now lie with the LTA-authorised person instead of the owner. That said, owners can check the disposal status through their own OneMotoring account. Extensions to the grace period may be granted on a case-by-case basis. Vehicle owners will continue to have a range of disposal options, and disposal costs for motorists will depend on the market. Preliminarily, LTA expects around 20 to 50 authorised exporters to come onboard.[+28 sentences] While some exporters may face additional compliance costs, others may already be meeting the new requirements and could benefit from economies of scale arising from a more structured operating environment. At the same time, we cannot afford to lose sight of public safety. LTA will strengthen accountability throughout the chain of custody, from the vehicle owner to final export. Deregistered vehicles must be stored and processed within approved and secured premises before being transported to the port or checkpoints. Authorised exporters will also be subject to LTA's regulatory oversight, including requirements to maintain and submit records of vehicle disposal within specific timelines. LTA will conduct risk-based audits and revoke the licences of those who breach requirements. To Ms Joan Pereira’s question, authorised exporters and scrapyards will continue to be subject to NEA's vehicle disposal and recycling framework to ensure resource recovery from end-of-life vehicles. Turning to active mobility, I thank Members for supporting the extension of rules to online sellers. Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Sharael Taha asked about enforcement and the responsibilities of online marketplaces. Foreign-based sellers who are not Singapore-connected persons are generally beyond the reach of our laws. Where sellers are within our jurisdiction, LTA can direct them to remove offending content or disable access to users in Singapore. The Bill is calibrated to manage the compliance burden on online marketplace operators. Primary responsibility for compliant sales listings and advertisements rests with sellers. Platforms need not pre-screen listings but must not knowingly participate in publishing unlawful advertisements. The Bill also allows LTA to require platforms to provide information on sellers. It does not provide a general power to direct platforms to take down listings. Ms Gho Sze Kee and Mr Alex Yeo asked why we do not impose stronger duties similar to those under OCHA. OCHA addresses serious criminal offences affecting national security, national harmony or individual safety, with an online nexus. For non-compliant AMDs, we will rely on other levers, including continuing to work with platforms to remove non-compliant listings and advertisements. To Mr Ang Wei Neng's and Mr Gabriel Lam's questions on other measures to curb non-compliant devices, existing import controls will remain the main safeguard against access to and use of such devices in Singapore. I thank Members including Mr Kenneth Tiong and Dr Charlene Chen for their support of the battery safety rules. Mr Melvin Yong asked how users can determine if a battery is compatible with their device. Compatibility is not simply what a seller declares. For PMDs and PABs, a compatible battery is one that was fitted into and tested with that device model to meet the prescribed safety standards, or another battery of the same brand and model. Testing is conducted by independent bodies to certify compliance with standards. For mobility scooters and motorised wheelchairs, the battery must be installed or endorsed by the manufacturer as suitable for the device. Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked whether this could unduly restrict the replacement battery market. For PMDs and PABs, third-party batteries can be recognised as compatible if tested together with the relevant device model to meet the prescribed safety standards. Such testing may involve cost and effort, but safety is our key consideration here. There were 49 AMD fires in 2025 alone.[+6 sentences] A battery that is safe on its own is not necessarily safe when used with a particular device. We must establish that the battery and device can operate safely together. Retailers are responsible for the accuracy of specification notices, and must substantiate their claims if investigated by LTA, such as with information from device or battery manufacturers. As suggested by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Dr Hamid Razak, regulation must be complemented by education. LTA will accompany the new battery rules with public education on battery safety, building on efforts, such as the Be Device Safe campaign with SCDF. Ms Gho Sze Kee and Ms Hazlina Halim suggested a simple way for users to check if a battery is compatible with a device. LTA already publishes an online list of compatible batteries for approved PAB models and intends to publish similar lists for whitelisted e-scooter and mobility scooter models before the new rules commence.[+2 sentences] This will provide consumers and retailers with a common reference. Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Jackson Lam asked about batteries already fitted to devices. PABs and motorised PMDs must already meet applicable safety standards today, and using a non-compatible battery already invalidates the device's safety standard certification. We therefore do not intend to subsidise replacements or offer trade-ins.[+4 sentences] LTA's published lists will help existing users check their batteries and comply. Batteries should be disposed through e-waste collection drives, which will be stepped up. Ms Valerie Lee spoke about shortened claims and disposal notice periods for indiscriminately parked bicycles moved to a holding yard. LTA will put up banners ahead of enforcement to warn against indiscriminate parking and explain the claims process. Owners will have seven days to claim a removed bicycle, and LTA will give a further seven days' notice before disposal.[+19 sentences] This balances owners' interests with the need to keep our paths clear and safe. As we strengthen enforcement against illegal point-to-point transport services, we need to ensure that commuters' transport needs are met through safe and regulated services. Mr Edward Chia, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Ang Wei Neng also raised this point. That is why we enhanced the Cross-Border Taxi Scheme in May this year. We increased the quota on each side from 200 to 300 taxis, enabled cross ride-hail bookings and allowed both countries' taxis to drop off in Singapore and most parts of Johor. Since the enhancement, average daily cross-border taxi trips have risen by around 20%. Grab has also reduced the minimum advance booking lead time from 12 hours at launch to 75 minutes from 6 August 2026. Singapore's cross-border taxi quota has been fully utilised, while Malaysia has utilised more than half of its quota. We are discussing with the Malaysians to increase the quota of licensed taxis to meet the cross-border transport needs of our commuters. Beyond enforcement and service enhancements, commuters should use regulated services and avoid unlicensed operators to ensure their safety. Although regulated services may cost more, proper licensing of drivers and vehicles ensures the safety of passengers. Commuters can refer to LTA's website for the list of licensed operators offering cross-border point-to-point transport services. Mr Edward Chia also asked how the advertising offence will apply to messages shared in private messaging groups. An offence arises if the person forwarding such advertisements knew the service was unlawful, or proceeded despite signs that it might be unlawful. LTA will assess each case based on the facts. Turning to AVs, the extended sandbox and the upcoming AV Act will support progressive deployment on our roads. As shared by the Minister for Transport on previous occasions, AVs would add to the range of mobility options that Singaporeans already have and complement public transport. They can fill demand gaps in places where drivers are less keen to go and provide service after hours when public transport is not operating. We thank Mr Edward Chia and Dr Hamid Razak for supporting this. To Mr Fadli Fawzi's suggestion on running trials for autonomous night buses, we want to take an even more gradual and calibrated approach relative to autonomous passenger cars. This is because our public bus operating environment is complex, our bus passenger profile is very diverse, and autonomous bus capacities are much lower than the capacity of our double deckers.[+29 sentences] Hence, we are currently exploring narrower use cases for autonomous buses, including employee shuttles. On the new regulatory sandbox for autonomous mobile robots on public paths (AVPP), LTA will maintain oversight and ensure that they are safe for other path users. For the testbed pathway, LTA will review the public authority's application, including its proposed framework for validating, monitoring and governing the AVPPs deployed. The prospective testbed must also be under its management. For the light-touch pathway, LTA will check that the AVPPs comply with the speed, weight and dimension limits, and screen the deploying companies for their legal registration and AV track record. For the standard authorisation pathway, LTA will test the AVPPs in a closed-circuit setting, before moving on to their intended operating environments. AVPPs need to operate reliably, avoid obstacles and stop when required. LTA may also require safeguards, such as on-site safety operator or speed limit. All AV deployments must also have liability insurance coverage and a sound incident management framework. This ensures that affected parties are adequately protected and compensated in the event of accidents. We recognise the value of sharing key safety and operational information with the public and are studying how to do so. LTA will also partner operators on public engagement, to help the local community understand how to interact safely with AVPPs. I hope these provide reassurance to Members, like Mr Gabriel Lam, Dr Choo Pei Ling, Dr Neo Kok Beng, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Cassandra Lee. Next, Mr Edward Chia, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Ms Hazlina Halim asked about the interactions between AVPPs and other human path users. Operators need to demonstrate that AVPPs can share paths safely with other users, including giving way to pedestrians. LTA will consider the proposed operating environment, such as path characteristics and user behaviour. Narrower paths may require operators to adjust their plans, such as take alternative routes and reduce speed. Mr Edward Chia, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Sharael Taha also asked about the use of data and how responsibilities would be attributed among various AV actors. Ms Tin Pei Ling similarly asked about data privacy and cybersecurity, while Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Choo Pei Ling asked about accountability. Data collection through cameras and sensors is necessary for AVs to accurately perceive their environment and operate safely. Such data would also be used to improve performance, support incident response, or reconstruct incidents for investigation. Operators must also put in place cybersecurity safeguards, and comply with Personal Data Protection Act to safeguard individual privacy. Members have rightly pointed out the complexity of AV operations, which involve multiple actors. Given the rapid evolution of AV technology, regulatory sandboxes help us deepen understanding and expertise needed across different operating environments, while facilitating innovation. Regulatory frameworks are refined with these learning points. The upcoming AV Act will provide greater clarity on the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of AV actors involved in on-road deployments. I thank Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Cassandra Lee, Mr Melvin Yong and Ms Lee Hui Ying for raising the workforce angle. New technology will create good jobs and new opportunities for Singaporeans. For the growing AV industry, they range from safety drivers and remote operators to software developers and cybersecurity engineers. Taxi and private hire car drivers who drive for a living are our priority in this transition. We do not expect immediate impact on their livelihood, given the small numbers of AVs, several hundred by end 2028 relative to the 72,000 taxi and private hire car drivers today.[+1 sentence] The majority of point-to-point transport will be provided by human drivers for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, to support drivers interested to explore opportunities in AV or other sectors early, we have introduced flexible courses, career conversion programmes, training incentives and up to 90% salary support in partnership with industry and union partners.[+8 sentences] For delivery and cleaning workers, we do not expect significant impact in the near-to-medium term. The cleaning sector faces persistent manpower shortage, while the scale of delivery AVPPs remains small today. Technological readiness, cost viability and ability to integrate with existing infrastructure would all affect their pace and extent of adoption. The Government will continue to monitor industry developments and the potential impact on workers. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked about charging technologies that could be facilitated through the sandboxes, such as mobile charging and how they can be scaled more widely. The amendments in this Bill allow LTA to impose customised technical conditions directly for each trial, instead of having to gazette specific subsidiary legislation. Insights from sandbox trials also feed into our national standards. For example, the technical requirements for the safe deployment of mobile charging systems were recently incorporated into our national EV charging standard, Singapore Standard 722, published in April this year. Businesses who wish to scale up mobile charging can apply for LTA's type approval for broader commercial deployment.[+3 sentences] We will continue to use such sandboxes to support innovation. Members such as Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Neo Kok Beng, Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Joan Pereira asked about how LTA's EV charging regulatory regime ensures safety and reliability. In determining which chargers should be subject to inspections, LTA considers the charger's location, which indicates utilisation frequency. Publicly accessible chargers are more heavily used than landed home chargers and are thus required to undergo mandatory periodic inspections once every six months.[+2 sentences] LTA will continue to conduct risk-based audits to ensure compliance with EV charging regulations, including reviewing certification submitted by charger equipment specialists and licensed electrical workers. EV charging operators should comply with the EV Charging Act and licensing conditions, such as responding to downtime incidents promptly for publicly accessible chargers and maintaining their chargers in a safe and serviceable condition. For landed home EV charger owners, LTA will publish maintenance guidelines on its website, to cover basic maintenance and safety checks, signs of deterioration or damage and recommended servicing practices to ensure chargers remain safe.[+1 sentence] Ms Valerie Lee has also asked about enforcing against illegal EV charging, where a charger is connected to a vehicle but may not be actively charging. When LTA collects evidence to show that an accused had connected the charger to an EV or its battery, it will be presumed that the accused had charged the EV using the charger.[+12 sentences] The accused person can then provide evidence to show that no charging occurred. For example, the charger was powered off or faulty. They will not be convicted in such cases. Some Members such as Mr Muhaimin Malik asked about the formula for the minimum required electrical load for EV charging infrastructure. We would like to clarify that the formula is not being amended by the Bill. The Bill will only streamline the submission process for developers. Mr Speaker, this Bill covers significant ground to respond to evolving industry trends and keep our rules updated. Members' thoughtful contributions today will inform how we refine and implement these measures. Land transport touches the daily lives of every Singaporean. The Government will continue to act decisively where safety is at stake, streamline where we can, and work closely with industry and the community. Let us all do our part for a safe and forward-looking land transport ecosystem. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker103 words
[+3 sentences]Are there any clarifications for Senior Minister of State Baey? Many speakers today but looks like Minister of State your replies are very convincing. . (proc text)] Clause 51 –
The Chairman5 words
[+2 sentences]Clause 51. Minister for Transport.
Mr Baey Yam Keng102 words
Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 51 standing in the name of the Minister as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.[+2 sentences] The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech. Clause 74 –
The Chairman5 words
[+2 sentences]Clause 74. Minister for Transport.
Mr Baey Yam Keng100 words
Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 74 standing in the name of the Minister as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.[+2 sentences] The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech. Clause 80 –
The Chairman5 words
[+2 sentences]Clause 80. Minister for Transport.
Mr Baey Yam Keng110 words
Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 80 standing in the name of the Minister as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.[+1 sentence] The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.
Putting Children First: Early Action Against Parental Alienation and Gatekeeping›Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion5 turns · 4,000w
· 28 highlighted
matter-adj-3050
Ms Indranee Rajah28 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." PUTTING CHILDREN FIRST: EARLY ACTION AGAINST PARENTAL ALIENATION AND GATEKEEPING
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Diana Pang.
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights)2893 words
[+42 sentences]Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask for an urgent review of how our family justice system responds when one parent removes or withholds a child, or persistently prevents contact with the other parent, without proper justification. As a mother, I find it painful to imagine a child trying to call a parent and not being able to get through. Or a parent going to bed each night wondering – is my child alright? Does my child think I have stopped caring? These are the fears behind the cases brought to me. And they are why I am asking for a review of how quickly our family justice system can respond. When a marriage breaks down, the adults may have deep disagreements. There may be hurt, anger on both sides. But a child should not have to carry that anger or feel that loving one parent meaning betraying the other. Where it is safe, a child should be able to keep a loving relationship with both parents. When that relationship is being disrupted, help must come early enough to make a difference. Let me share a resident's account. She told me that she has an existing Court order which provides for shared care and control of her child with regular communication during the other parent's care period. Yet, she says, her daughter's calling watch repeatedly becomes unreachable when the child is with her father. Her written requests to the father have not resolved the problem and several consecutive days have passed without proper telephone or video contact. She has no other immediate family here in Singapore. She is seeking legal advice and has prepared evidence in terms of the messages, call records and chronicle of events. According to her, her daughter becomes distressed when she cannot contact her mother. Her email to me made an emotional plea. She asked me who can help her daughter now, while the legal process takes its course. Mr Speaker, this is one parent's account. The father must also be heard, and this House cannot decide their dispute. But we can ask whether our system responds quickly enough when a child may be losing contact with a parent. For the parent, there is the anguish of waiting. For the child, there may be confusion about why someone who was part of their daily life has suddenly become absent. A few weeks may seem short in a Court timetable. For a young child, they can mean many missed bedtimes, unanswered phone calls and days of wondering when they will see their parent again. We say that the child's welfare comes first. That must also shape how quickly we act. In the cases brought to me, the concern goes beyond an occasional missed visit. Parents describe repeated blocked calls, withheld visits or agreed arrangements that do not happen. Sometimes, they also describe a child being told that the other parent does not care or being made to feel guilty for wanting to see them. This is the conduct I am concerned about when I speak of harmful gatekeeping and parental alienation. We must examine the facts carefully. A child's reluctance to see a parent can have different causes, including genuine fear or harmful experiences. But we should never assume that one explanation fits every family. But when contact is being deliberately obstructed without proper justification, waiting can allow the damage to deepen. I have been encountering these complaints more frequently. That does not by itself establish a national trend, but it does tell me that we need better information and a timely response to the families seeking help. There are two situations I would like the Government to address. The first is where a Court order already exists. If one parent breaches the order, the law already provides the remedies. Section 126A of the Women's Charter permits the Court to order a child's return to the person granted custody or care and control and to direct the bailiff to carry out that return. Section 126B provides measures to enforce access, including make-up access, expenses, programmes and compliance bonds, with fines or imprisonment also available.[+2 sentences] Contempt proceedings, including applications for committal, may be another option. My concern is how quickly these remedies translate into actual contact with the child. In cases that are brought to my attention, parents have described waits up to six months for a substantive hearing. Once the application is taken out in Court, there may be several case conferences where time can be given for a party to engage a lawyer or apply for legal aid, file reply affidavits, file cross applications and take hearing dates, at which further hearing dates on the same issue can be given one to two months away due to the Judge's schedule.[+18 sentences] These steps serve legitimate purposes. Both parents must have a fair opportunity to be heard. Judges need evidence before making difficult decisions. Legal aid applicants need representation. Disputed facts need examination. But taken as a whole, this causes delay. The cumulative effect of these Court processes can lead to months of separation. What safeguards the child's interests during those months? While those steps are taking place, what is happening to the child? If an existing order allows contact and there is no safety reason to stop it, how do we prevent that contact from being blocked while enforcement is pending? Even if a Court finds that an Order was breached, it is of limited comfort to the parent because, by then, the child could have become more distant, anxious or resistant to meeting the other parent. By then, no amount of make-up access can make up for the lost time and repair the lasting damage. It cannot give the child back a missed birthday or all the ordinary moments through which a parent and a child stay close. The second situation is much more difficult. This is when there is no existing Court Order in place. One parent may leave with the child, refuse to disclose arrangements or stop contact all together. The other parent must then initiate Court proceedings. In some cases, the legal dispute over access can become entangled with divorce and personal protection order (PPO) proceedings and become further delayed if the Court directs for a custody evaluation report. Some cases have taken nine months to one year before resolution. Due to privacy reasons, I can only provide the case data privately to the Ministry if requested.[+15 sentences] Those matters may need careful investigation. But the child's relationship with a parent also needs attention during this time. We should guard against a situation where one parent creates a prolonged separation and the distance that develops is then used to argue against restoring contact. Therefore, early Court intervention can help prevent families from reaching that painful point. Mr Speaker, I have raised these concerns before. In October 2025, I have asked whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) tracks cases where one parent unilaterally withheld or removed a child, whether studies would be commissioned, and whether an expedited process would be considered. The Minister referred to mediation, counselling, co-parenting programmes and the enforcement measures introduced in January 2025. He said there were no immediate plans for further changes. Those measures have value but respectfully, the answer did not resolve the practical problem I am raising. It described what parents could apply for without explaining how quickly they could obtain effective and immediate relief. The Minister's reply did mention that parents can apply for access or apply to enforce an access order if it is breached. But this answer does not answer what happens during the intervening months before the case is formally heard by a Court. A parent whose child has just been taken away needs better answers and avenues. At this year's Committee of Supply debate, the Minister again referred to mediation, access applications and enforcement, and encouraged couples to seek help early. I support that encouragement. But seeking help early must lead to help also arriving early. I recognise that the Family Justice Courts already have a general process to deal with urgent hearings. But to my understanding, when one child has been taken away from the other parent in domestic cases, the Courts have no established rules for placing such abduction cases on an urgent hearing track. I am therefore asking for an urgent hearing track to exist for such cases.[+12 sentences] For example, this already exists under the personal protection order regime, where a Court can issue an expedited order, including before the respondent has been heard if the Court is satisfied there is imminent risk of family violence. This provides interim protection pending the main hearing of the PPO matter. This shows that where family violence is involved, the Court is prepared to act quickly, sometimes on the same day of the application. However, this same urgency is not given to cases of domestic child abduction. To give another example, Singapore's Hague Convention framework for international child abduction requires proceedings in the Family Court to be expedited. However, this does not apply to domestic child abduction cases. Here lies the inconsistency. We need to prevent a child's separation from the other parent being entrenched, whether or not the abduction is domestic or overseas. A child can lose contact with a loving parent without crossing a border and the emotional harm can be just as real. Why should we not have a comparably clear framework for urgent domestic child abduction relief? I propose six areas for consideration. First, it can be legislated that the Court should establish a dedicated and urgent track for cases involving domestic child abduction. This will include cases involving unilateral removal or retention, concealment or a substantial interruption of an established relationship between a child and the other parent without apparent lawful justification. I propose that an initial judicial screening takes place within two working days, and where an urgent case is brought to the Court's attention, there should ordinarily be a hearing on interim arrangements within seven days of the filing.[+5 sentences] The Court should consider what can safely happen during the interim hearing, such as the return of the child where appropriate, disclosure of the child's whereabouts to the Court, supervised contact or supported telephone and video calls. The initial hearing should produce a decision on interim protection and contact or clear reasons why that decision must await a further hearing or further evidence. It should not lead to a series of case conferences while the central issue remains unattended to. Where safe contact with a parent cannot be allowed, the Court should still fix a review date and activate the social service agencies early to make recommendations. Second, make sure that applications for legal aid do not unnecessarily delay urgent decisions about a child. Section 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act provides for a 14-day stay after the relevant notification is filed.[+9 sentences] It also allows the Court to order otherwise, shorten the period and make certain urgent orders. I ask the Government to review whether these existing policies to ensure access to justice can potentially be abused by a non-compliant parent to entrench the status quo and to ringfence any attempts by the other parent to urgently restore contact with the child. Legal aid is essential. A parent who cannot afford a lawyer must have a fair chance to put their case. At the same time, the child's immediate needs should still be considered promptly while legal aid representation is being arranged. Third, to consider involving the Government or social agencies early on in the proceedings, as soon as possible, after the initial application is being filed, as opposed to calling for these only at the hearing stage. Families involved in such cases will benefit from having early intervention and support from social agencies whilst proceedings continue in Court. A social worker could be empowered early on to coordinate referrals, such as to therapists or counsellors, counsel the parents, and arrange support for the child and distressed parent. The value of having a social worker's involvement in the early stages is that he or she could write interim neutral reports for the Court's consideration so that by the time the Court conducts the first hearing, it will already have a neutral and professional set of recommendations before it to help in its decision for the child. Fourth, to review and consider whether deliberate and wrongful removal or retention of a child by one parent should be a specifically defined criminal offence.[+2 sentences] We should be prepared to consider criminalising serious conduct intended to deprive the other parent of a lawful relationship with the child. The fact that the person responsible is a parent should not by itself place the conduct beyond criminal scrutiny. To this end, section 361 of the Penal Code can be amended to make clear that the law specifically will also apply to parents who remove a child from the other lawful guardian and that unless otherwise by a Court, both the child's parents shall be presumed to be his or her lawful guardian under this section.[+15 sentences] That said, criminal proceedings would not themselves restore a relationship quickly. But the threat of criminal proceedings is a very important signal that should be sent to parents thinking of cutting off the other parent from the child. I, therefore, urge the Government to undertake this review to give holistic protection to both the parents and the child. Fifth, provide stronger safeguards against parents who knowingly fabricate allegations to justify obstructive behaviours. Sexual abuse and family violence allegations must, at all times, be taken seriously. Where protection is needed, it must be provided. At the same time, deliberately inventing such allegations to exclude a parent can cause profound harm. In a particular Court of Appeal case, the Court found that there was a deliberate action by one parent to damage a child's relationship with the other parent, involving unfounded allegations of abuse and neglect. These allegations were later held to be unfounded. However, by the time of the hearing, the child's relationship with the other parent had already been damaged. When such an allegation is raised, there is a need for a clear assessment process by the Court or social workers on an urgent basis so that such information can be shared between authorised agencies and the Court. If the allegations are true and one parent is indeed posing danger to the child, the Court should rightly impose restricted or supervised access for the child's safety. However, an unresolved allegation should not become an indefinite barrier for one parent to see the child without regular and timely scrutiny by the Court. If the Court finds that one parent is fabricating allegations, it needs to promptly consider how to restore contact and access with the other parent, making the appropriate costs orders and even referring these matters to the Police for investigation – for providing false information to a public servant. Therefore, parents reporting genuine concerns in good faith need not have anything to fear. Sixth, to collect and publish data that measures, for cases with and cases without existing Court Orders, how many of such cases involve one parent removing the child from the other parent or matrimonial home and how long it takes from the time of first application to the time the first order is made. I note that the Minister has said in a September 2026 reply to a Parliamentary Question that there are 53 applications under section 126B as at 31 July 2026, since the enforcement access regime began.[+3 sentences] So, some data does exist. But why are applications for enforcement of custody or care and control orders not being counted? And more importantly, do we know how long each of these 53 parents had to wait before they got to see their children again? Whilst the Minister has previously explained that the Government does not track data on how many parental alienation cases there are in Singapore due to the difficulties in defining such cases, it certainly should not be a problem for the authorities to count the number of removal cases before any Court orders are made. I wish to suggest for MSF to work with the Judiciary and relevant agencies to report the time from application to first interim decision, the duration of substantial loss of contact, delays in assessments, repeated breaches and whether safe contact is actually being restored.[+6 sentences] Mr Speaker, I realise this is a difficult problem faced by our Family Court Judges and the social service team that is supporting them. If the problem is one of manpower, we can consider expanding hiring for the relevant roles. If the problem is systemic, then this is my call to equip the system to act at the pace that these cases require. The parent waiting for a call and the child wondering why a parent has disappeared from his daily life, cannot recover that time later. We need prompt decisions, careful protection and effective enforcement on whether or not proceedings have already begun. As a mother and as a Member of Parliament, I ask the Government to close this practical gap – help families protect, safeguard parent-child relationships while proceedings continue, before the distance becomes harder to repair. Putting children first must also mean acting in time for them.
Mr Speaker6 words
[+1 sentence]Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Eric Chua.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua)1070 words
[+7 sentences]Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for raising this important issue and for giving voice to the concerns of children and parents who may be navigating painful and difficult experiences in their lives. First, we agree with the Member's fundamental point that children should not be caught in conflicts between parents. Where it is safe and appropriate, they should be able to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents. Where one parent unjustifiably prevents a child from having contact with the other parent, the consequences can be distressing for everyone involved. We recognise the Member's concern that sustained parental conflict and prolonged loss of contact can potentially damage the parent-child relationship. Our priority has been to intervene early in the divorce process before conflict escalates to persistent withholding of access. We have progressively strengthened support in line with therapeutic justice principles, to help parents better manage their conflicts, reduce acrimony and focus on their children's best interests. Since July 2024, parents with minor children filing for divorce have been required to attend a Mandatory Co-Parenting Programme to help them understand the impact of divorce on their children and work towards cooperative co-parenting.[+3 sentences] Where arrangements relating to children remain disputed, divorcing parties undergo mandatory mediation and counselling in the Family Justice Courts. Most families can move forward without such serious disputes, but some highly acrimonious cases remain particularly difficult for the children involved. There are already remedies and processes for such situations, including recent legislative enhancements to strengthen the enforcement of child access orders. First, where a child access order has been breached, we strengthened the law from January 2025 by introducing a simpler process for commencing enforcement proceedings and broadening the measures available to the Court.[+19 sentences] These include make-up access, mediation, counselling, family support programmes and compliance bonds. Second, where there is no child access order, and one parent unilaterally withholds or removes a child from the other, the affected parent may apply to the Family Justice Courts for orders concerning the child, including access. Third, the Court process already allows urgent child issues to be brought forward. A party can request an urgent hearing before the Duty Judge, including in cases of extreme urgency and, where necessary, before the underlying application has formally been filed. For complex cases, the Court may also call for an early child assessment or deal with urgent child issues ahead of the other matters in the case. Nevertheless, we recognise the Member's core concern. There may be difficult cases where disruption to the parent-child relationship continues while proceedings are ongoing. These cases are often not so straightforward. Parents may give conflicting accounts and allegations of violence or abuse must be taken seriously. The consequences of getting this wrong can be serious in either direction. If intervention comes too late and there is prolonged and unjustified loss of contact, the child's relationship with the parent may deteriorate. But directing the immediate return of a child or resumption of access without properly assessing a genuine safety concern might also expose the child to harm. The Member referred to expedited orders in family violence cases and also the Hague Convention Framework for International Child Abduction. These regimes serve different purposes. An expedited order in a family violence case protects someone from an immediate risk of violence while the main case is being heard. It protects the applicant in the interim before the Court hearing, and the Court hearing will determine longer-term care or access arrangements. The Hague Convention deals with children wrongfully taken across international borders and whether they should be returned to the country where custody issues should be decided. In a domestic dispute, our Courts may themselves have to decide what arrangements are in the child's best interests. The situations are therefore different. The Member's concerns are important, and she has put forward a number of suggestions, including improving timeliness of proceedings, changes to legal aid procedures, criminalising certain conduct and further data collection.[+1 sentence] We agree that timely action is important. We will study these suggestions with the relevant partners, including the Family Justice Courts, to see whether the current process can be improved, especially in identifying serious cases that need earlier intervention, keeping in mind the need to always safeguard the interest of the child.[+6 sentences] The Member also raised the 14-day pause that may apply in ongoing Court proceedings when a party applies for legal aid. The Court can shorten this period. It can also make any order it considers necessary to prevent an injustice that cannot later be put right. We also note the Member’s concern about “child abduction”. We should be careful about automatically treating disputes between parents over contact with the child as “child abduction”, especially where there is no existing order governing the child’s care arrangements. The circumstances of each case can be very different. Deliberate and unjustified obstruction of a child's relationship with the other parent can have serious consequences. But criminalising such conduct is not necessarily the most effective way to restore that relationship.[+4 sentences] Criminal proceedings could in itself, deepen parental conflict and make it harder to rebuild cooperation around the child. The Member also raised concerns about fabricated allegations. Genuine concerns about abuse or family violence must always be taken seriously and properly assessed. At the same time, we should distinguish between an allegation that cannot be ultimately substantiated versus one that is knowingly fabricated. The Courts can take a party's conduct and credibility into account, and existing criminal laws may apply where false information is knowingly given, and the relevant legal requirements are met. On data, we understand the Member’s interest in knowing not only how many applications are made, but whether intervention is timely and effective. We will consider with the Family Justice Courts what useful information can practicably be drawn from existing Court data. Ultimately, the Member, the Government and the Courts share the same goal – and that is to protect children from prolonged parental conflict, and to ensure that serious access difficulties are dealt with in a timely fashion, with the child's welfare at the centre.[+1 sentence] Parents themselves also have the responsibility to put their children’s interests ahead of their own differences. After all, the end of a marriage should not mean that a child must lose a parent.[+1 sentence] Adjourned accordingly at 7.56 pm.
Time Limit for Senior Minister of State's Speech›Motions2 turns · 142w
· 0 highlighted
motion-3047
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah)50 words
[+1 sentence]Mr 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 48(8), to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How's reply speech?
Mr Speaker92 words
[+2 sentences]I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of Members in the House? [(proc text) Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8), to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How's reply speech. – (proc text)]
Collaborating with New Epidemic Preparedness Centre to Advance Singapore's Vaccine Research and Development›Oral Answers to Questions5 turns · 199w
· 1 highlighted
oral-answer-4228
Ms Poh Li San69 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health how will the Ministry (i) further collaborate with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to advance Singapore as a centre of excellence for vaccine research and development (ii) establish a global network of trusted national regulators and production facilities and (iii) safeguard Singapore’s priority access to vaccines supply at a favourable price level during peacetime and pandemics.
Dr Neo Kok Beng60 words
asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health as regards the Government's national strategy to prepare for future pandemics (a) what is the role of mRNA technology compared with other vaccine technologies; and (b) what is the budget allocated for the Programme for Research in Epidemic Preparedness and REsponse (PREPARE) and PrepVax programmes to maintain pandemic preparedness.
Mr Speaker5 words
[+2 sentences]Order. Questions for oral answer.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West)3 words
[+1 sentence]Question No 1.
Mr Speaker62 words
[+3 sentences]Who is answering for Question No 1? [Please refer to "Collaborating with New Epidemic Preparedness Centre to Advance Singapore's Vaccine Research and Development", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] Let me move on. I believe the first two questions are for the same Ministry.
Distance, School Affiliation and Social Mixing Considerations in New Revisions to Primary 1 Registration Framework›Oral Answers to Questions25 turns · 4,074w
· 26 highlighted
oral-answer-4229
Ms Gho Sze Kee63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education whether, in designing the revised Primary 1 Registration Framework, the Ministry has assessed (i) the extent to which priority accorded to children living within specified distances of a school contributes to differences in residential property values around popular primary schools and (ii) the potential impact of the revised framework on social mixing among pupils in the affected schools.
Ms Gho Sze Kee44 words
asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider providing a transition period of about three years for the revised Primary 1 Registration Framework, given that some families may have made residential, childcare and schooling arrangements based on the existing home-school distance criteria.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre59 words
asked the Minister for Education in respect of the 12 schools implementing the Phase 2C Two-Track Scheme from the 2027 Primary 1 Registration Exercise (a) what baseline and outcome indicators will be used to assess access and socio-economic mixing; and (b) whether the Ministry will publish annually, by school and track, statistics on applicants, vacancies, balloting, and admissions outcomes.
Mr Fadli Fawzi64 words
asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the plans to ensure that students living beyond two kilometres of the 12 schools with a two-track scheme for Phase 2C of Primary 1 registration will have easy access to the schools by school bus or public transport; and (b) whether there are any plans to expand the eligibility for school bus subsidies for such students.
Dr Hamid Razak41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) whether MOE Kindergarten pupils who are not successfully admitted to the primary schools co-located with their kindergartens represent a significant number; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider strengthening the priority accorded to such pupils.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh67 words
asked the Minister for Education regarding the recent changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework aimed at broadening access and social mixing, how will the Ministry assess (i) whether greater social mixing translates into meaningful integration and (ii) whether students from different backgrounds have comparable opportunities in CCAs, enrichment and leadership, without being disadvantaged by programme costs, distance from school, or access to external tuition or coaching.
The Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee)19 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address oral Question Nos 3 to 8 on today’s Order Paper?
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Please proceed.
Mr Desmond Lee714 words
[+3 sentences]My answer will also include responses to questions for written answer as well as for subsequent Sittings. Mr Speaker, our schools are important common spaces where children from different backgrounds interact and learn together, in turn appreciating different perspectives and developing mutual understanding. This helps to lay the foundations for a cohesive and inclusive Singapore. To enable our schools to remain open and accessible, the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced two changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework on 10 September 2026. One, we will increase the number of reserved places in Phase 2C from 40 to 60 in all schools, except for schools with a smaller intake. Two, we will introduce a Two-Track Scheme in Phase 2C for schools located in neighbourhoods where the proportion of public housing is significantly lower than the national average.[+18 sentences] The two changes seek to improve access for children regardless of prior connections to a school and encourage more mixing among students from different backgrounds. As part of our review, we consulted widely and carefully considered the many views and suggestions that had been raised. We decided to focus on Phase 2C and not make structural changes to Phases 2A and 2B for now. This balances our objective of improving open access while continuing to recognise the contributions of alumni, school partners and community volunteers who contribute to the school and larger community. There are no changes to the Parent Volunteer Scheme, which provides an opportunity for parents who wish to contribute to and get to know the school. Schools decide whether and how to implement the scheme, based on their specific needs. There is also no change to the Phase 2A priority for MOE Kindergarten children. MOE Kindergarten children who did not get a place under Phase 2A can still apply for subsequent phases, including Phase 2C. Most of our MOE Kindergarten children have been able to secure a place in their preferred school. Some Members had questions on the design of our Two-Track Scheme in Phase 2C for selected schools. We had considered different parameters, and decided to base it on the proportion of public housing as it is simple and easier to implement, and also gives greater certainty to parents given that housing make-up does not change frequently. We used the distance of within two kilometres, as it strikes a balance between maintaining access for children living near the school, while opening access to families living beyond the schools’ immediate neighbourhood. As our objective is to broaden opportunities for access, rather than to reserve places for specific socio-economic groups, we have not introduced priority for particular socio-economic groups including those living in rental flats. The criteria for the Two-Track Scheme are consistently applied to schools where public housing accounts for less than 40% of dwelling units within two kilometres, including CHIJ (Katong) Primary School and Ngee Ann Primary School. Many of the 12 schools under the Two-Track Scheme are accessible by the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and/or major bus routes. School bus operators will also determine school bus routes and pick-up points based on students' demand. In addition, MOE will provide financial assistance to Singapore Citizen students in need, including subsidies to reduce the cost of public transport and school bus fares if required. All our school leaders, including those of the 12 schools under the Two-Track Scheme, endeavour to create a conducive and inclusive school environment to cater to all their students’ needs and circumstances. The two changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework will be implemented from the 2027 Primary 1 Registration Exercise.[+6 sentences] On implementation timing, we recognise that on one hand, some families have made residential arrangements based on the existing framework. But on the other hand, more families would benefit the sooner we implement the changes. In fact, some have asked why we did not make these changes earlier, for the 2026 Primary 1 Registration Exercise. Finally, I would like to add that the two changes to the Primary 1 Registration Framework do not by themselves lead to a more diverse socio-economic mix in our schools. Many other factors, including parents’ preferences and eventual school choices, matter too. We will thus monitor the implementation of the two changes, continually review our Primary 1 Registration Framework and make further refinements as needed.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Ms Gho.
Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten)518 words
[+23 sentences]Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Education for his answer. I think that the goals and intent behind the new changes are laudable, but I want to focus on the outcome and the impact here. I have four supplementary questions to pose to the Minister. First, I think it is unconscionable that a child living a stone's throw away from a school, should be forced to travel to another primary school further away simply because the school next door is very popular. We should never disadvantage or handicap a child because his or her address, or due to his or her socio-economic circumstances. So, my first supplementary question is this: whether the Ministry accepts that a child living right next to a school should not be systematically disadvantaged in accessing that school for whatever reason? My next supplementary question matters particularly to Mountbatten residents. Ultimately, displaced demand has to go somewhere else. Sir, I have many upset parents here, because the only primary school in Mountbatten is Kong Hwa School. And this school is already routinely oversubscribed; many Mountbatten kids are already having to consider enrolment at neighbouring schools. Not one, but four of these nearest schools are on the 12 schools list: Tanjong Katong Primary School, Tao Nan School, CHIJ (Katong) Primary and Ngee Ann Primary. So, my second supplementary question is this: has the Ministry assessed where the children who may no longer secure a place at the 12 schools under the new Two-Track arrangement, are likely to go, and what distance and travel time they are facing, and the resulting impact on application patterns and enrolment pressure at the neighbouring schools? My third supplementary question is about ultimate outcomes: how would we know that this actually works at the end of the day? I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to assess whether greater social mixing has actually been achieved? Is bringing children from different socio-economic circumstances from further away neighbourhoods an end to itself, or will MOE have specific indicators to determine whether this has resulted in the greater social mixing, and most importantly, better outcomes for the children and the pupils? And my last supplementary question: Sir, there are Housing and Development Board (HDB) and private properties within the two kilometres of many of these 12 schools. With this new framework, we are simply drawing a circle around a school and handicapping every children living within that circle. Worse, this framework makes the assumption that children living outside of that circle would be from different socio-economic backgrounds. But I feel that this is clearly wrong. Neighbourhoods more than two kilometres away may have similar profile to the neighbourhoods nearby these 12 schools. Right at the top of my head, I can point out examples from these 12 schools. Ngee Ann Primary is one, Tao Nan School is another. So, my very last supplementary question: does the Ministry regard distance from the school as a reliable proxy for socio-economic diversity, given that children living beyond two kilometres may not necessarily come from different socio-economic circumstances from those living within two kilometres?
Mr Desmond Lee483 words
[+9 sentences]I agree with the Member on her first point that school-home distance is important. For Primary 1 children, given their age, it is better to go to a school near to your home. But ultimately, Primary 1 admissions, we let parents make a decision where they would like to place their children and parents will have different considerations. Because home-school distance is important and we recognise the frustrations of parents who will come to us and say, "Well, I live opposite the school. But that is a popular school; and alumni go in, there are siblings in there and I don't get to go there." There are only finite places in a school and in that regard, we are both aligned in that in this round of moves, we have increased the Phase 2C ring-fencing. And that tilts in favour of those who are living near to a school. The Member spoke about Kong Hwa. Precisely the point. When we raised the Phase 2C allocation from 40 places for Phase 2C, to 60, it would increase the opportunity for parents who are living within two kilometres of Kong Hwa to be able to apply.[+1 sentence] Whether the Two-Track system works or not, as we said, the objective of the Two-Track scheme and indeed of the Phase 2C enhancement is to widen access. Because when you rely on home-school distance and the make-up or composition of a neighbourhood around the school is predominantly of one housing type, for example, private housing, then the home-school distance in and of itself does not necessarily widen access to families of different socio-economic backgrounds. And that is why the Two-Track scheme is put in this round in order to do two things: one, maintain access for children living close to the school, so half the places for Phase 2C; and two, the other half, for children living beyond two kilometres, and that would be a wider circle and a wider mix of children.[+1 sentence] Ultimately, whether or not that leads to better social mix depends on parents' choices, but you will now broaden access to those families. All schools or most schools, including the 12 schools, will have some public housing within two kilometres. But because it is significantly lower than the national norm – and in this case, we are starting with 40% of dwelling units within the two kilometre radius of a school being public housing – therefore, you will see that in these schools, they tend to reflect that mix. For the 12 schools, on average, for Phase 2C successful applicants, about 15% are from public housing – which is very low.[+3 sentences] So, ultimately, whether this works will depend, as I said, on parental decisions, but at least now, we widen the circle and give opportunities. And for those living within zero to two kilometres, we are preserving access for those. We are not taking it away.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member)362 words
[+16 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister for the response. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, I think on average, we will see a more diverse school composition. That is a good thing. But I want to add that a more diverse composition may not translate into better integration within the schools. So, my question is whether MOE will deliberately and intentionally be monitoring the degree of mixing within the schools? For example, they could look at the breakdown of participation in different co-curricular activities (CCAs), leadership positions and so on, by factors like socio-economic status (SES). My second question relates to the indicators of alumni engagement. I note that Minister has said that no changes have been made to Phases 2A and 2B. But I think by virtue of reserving spots for Phase 2C, it comes at the expense of the other groups. Sir, alumni play an important role within schools and preserving the culture, heritage and also providing a lot of support in various forms for schools. So, my question is whether MOE has been studying or tracking indicators of alumni engagement, whether through volunteerism, mentoring or fundraising support for schools as a result of some of the changes that have taken place and whether they will continue to monitor these indicators as well? And my third supplementary question builds on this point in that I observe that the changes largely seem to be taking spots from one group and giving it to another. I was wondering if we could also think about a different approach; when you have demand for spots that exceed supply, one response is to increase the overall supply. And I think in this situation, one way of doing that is by increasing the number of spots available for some of these schools that are consistently or persistently oversubscribed; and that may mean allowing some of these more popular schools to expand their physical footprint and maybe to open new locations in other areas that will also provide greater access of the advantages, the resources and the heritage of the school to groups of Singaporeans that may live outside of that two-kilometre radius?
Mr Desmond Lee634 words
[+1 sentence]On the Member's first question, we certainly want to ensure, even with the diverse mix of students in the school, that we give every student an opportunity to develop himself or herself to the fullest. For students from lower SES backgrounds, there are mechanisms within the school, there are funds, including the Opportunity Fund, bursaries and other schemes, to ensure that these students do not miss out on opportunities that students from better-off families are able to enjoy.[+8 sentences] And so, within the school, programmes, CCAs, these are things that we look out for. For alumni, we value the contribution of alumni over the years – supporting the school, cheering the school on, bringing tangible resources to the school, helping lower-income students, strengthening culture. Because the school is not just a physical infrastructure nor a programme. It is a place of memories, where people connect and it adds to our identity here in Singapore as well. And therefore, we continue to value and support the contributions of alumni. Having said that, we need to continue to strike that balance between the needs and aspirations of different groups of Singaporeans with regard to school access. So, proximity, living nearby, parents hope to send their children to that school; there are those who say I want to send my children to that school, even though I may live further away, because of my historic ties with the school and my emotional ties to the school and so on. And so, that is continually revisited over the years. And then thirdly, when it comes to popular schools, whether nationally popular or locally popular schools, one common recommendation is to just increase the school intake.[+1 sentence] Viewed on its own, it sounds sensible. But actually, if you look at it in totality, we also have to balance that against other considerations.[+5 sentences] Firstly, even within the school, if the cohort gets larger and larger, you will run up against infrastructure constraints – the number of classrooms, the number of spaces that you want to cannibalise to turn into additional classrooms at the expense of space that could be used for other forms of learning and other meaningful activities within the school. And you know that some of our school campuses, particularly if the surroundings are entirely built up – and most of Singapore is as such – there is limited room to further expand, build wider, build taller, build deeper. There are such challenges. And if you do so, then what happens is that those schools will attract more students. It may not help in terms of improving the social mix of the school, and it may result in other nearby schools' enrolment falling. Because ultimately, there are only so many students and our cohort sizes are shrinking. When surrounding schools have smaller intake over the years, if you increase these popular schools' intake, then that will accelerate, and that may result in the merger or closure of some of these schools.[+5 sentences] The impact is on the ability for us to provide a good geographical spread of schools across the island, including in the neighbourhood surrounding some of these so-called popular schools and affect geographical proximity access for some parents who would prefer that. There is another proposal to say, well, if it is a popular school, let them set up new schools. I think that is a challenge, given falling cohort sizes, and it will have exactly the same impact. Some people say why not just take another school that is less popular, cannibalise the school's name, take it away, and then let the popular school's name take over the school. Some of the alumni of the so-called less popular schools, I think, have a very strong view about that, and so do the existing school population and school community.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied)112 words
[+4 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. The Straits Times has reported that several of these 12 schools, including Nanyang Primary School and Raffles Girls' Primary School, are a longer walk away from their nearest public transport nodes compared to the average Singaporean primary school. Has the Ministry consulted with parents or families living further away from these 12 schools to understand whether these transportation needs can be adequately met by public transport, should their children attend these 12 schools? And if not, will the Ministry study this issue and consider whether we need to provide greater assistance to help more of such families' access to these 12 schools, such as through expanded school bus subsidies?
Mr Desmond Lee24 words
[+1 sentence]Indeed, as I said, majority of the 12 schools have got public transport access, and the option of school bus arrangements is also there.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member)148 words
[+5 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. My first supplementary question is really to just re-emphasise my Parliamentary Question, which I do not think was directly answered. I was asking for what baseline outcome indicators would be used to access the socio-economic mixing metrics, and whether there would then be a benchmark that we will use to determine whether this scheme can be further expanded to other schools. I also wanted to ask, I do not think the Ministry has elucidated if there will be any kind of maximum bound in terms of distance; it is just more than two kilometres. I would ask if the Minister shares the view that I have that it would be an unwelcome outcome if there are many six- or seven-year-olds that are forced to wake up at 5.00 am to make a one-hour or more commute to a popular school very far from their home.
Mr Desmond Lee506 words
[+17 sentences]Firstly, I will deal with the second question first. Already, even before this Two-Track Scheme, there is no distance limit. If you have to ballot, then you go based on zero to one kilometre, one to two, and two and beyond – already. And in some schools, there are parents who choose to send their children with appropriate arrangements to a school further away for a variety of reasons. Maybe it is nearer to the workplace. Maybe it is some family issue that they have to contend with. Maybe it is a school that they went to as alumni. Or they find that this is a school that provides a programme that resonates with them and so on. So, that is first. Then, when it comes to the Two-Track system, what we are saying is that we are now making sure that those beyond two kilometres for these 12 schools, because of the housing mix in the immediate vicinity of the school, we want to make sure that we preserve and widen access for those families. Otherwise, for some of these schools – zero to one, one to two – all the places are taken up, and the school-home distance then does not conduce towards broadening access to children of different socio-economic backgrounds. Then, going back to the Member's first question, is there a baseline? Basically, the Member is saying, is there a construct, is there some thing that you measure all the schools against and say, well, this school meets the ideal socio-economic mix. There is no such construct, strictly speaking. Because no two schools are identical and no two neighbourhoods are the same. And the school mix is a function of many things. The school mix is a function of the legacy of the school, a function of the so-called popularity of the school, a function of the make-up of its neighbourhood and so on. And therefore, we certainly look at the socio-economic mix of our schools, we look at the neighbourhoods, we look at certain trends and then, we decide whether or not we need to apply this Two-Track system. And today, what we are doing is holding it at 40% and below. If the number of dwelling units within the zero- to two-kilometre radius falls below 40% in terms of public housing, then we apply this Two-Track system.[+1 sentence] Having said that, we preserve access for those within zero to two kilometres, and create access for those two kilometres and beyond. If for some reason, for two kilometres and beyond, the application rates are lower, below the allocation, then that flows back to zero to two kilometres.[+2 sentences] It is a porous system. It goes both ways. And so, as I have said earlier, for the 12 schools, an average of 15% of the students are successful Phase 2C applicants coming from public housing.[+2 sentences] And that is something we want to keep an eye on. Whether or not this Two-Track system results in a different mix, ultimately depends on parental choice and other factors.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West)103 words
[+5 sentences]Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for answering my Parliamentary Question on the MOE Kindergarten students. I ask this question because in Westwood Primary, my constituency, has an MOE Kindergarten. It is an oversubscribed school. With the changes to the Phase 2A, from 2027, there will be materially less places available for students who are already currently enrolled in MOE Kindergartens. I would like to ask if the Ministry has projected how the new changes will materially affect these students, because such data and projection will obviously affect parents' decisions in the future to send their kids to these schools which are oversubscribed.
Mr Desmond Lee83 words
[restates an earlier point]As I mentioned in my response earlier, most children in our MOE Kindergartens are able to enter a school of their choice, including the school where their MOE Kindergarten is in, either at Phases 2A or 2C. And with this bigger carve-out for Phase 2C, we recognise that this may come at expense of Phases 2A and 2B.[+1 sentence] Having said that, we will keep a close eye and those who do not get in through Phase 2A can still apply under Phase 2C.
Mr Speaker13 words
[+2 sentences]I am sorry, Mr David Hoe, I am moving on. Dr Hamid Razak.
Nudging Employers to Offer Progressive Medical Benefits such as Reimbursement Beyond Consultation Fees or Paid Sick Leave Without Medical Certificate›Oral Answers to Questions5 turns · 445w
· 9 highlighted
oral-answer-4230
Dr Hamid Razak38 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider mandating or further encouraging employers to offer progressive medical benefits, such as reimbursement beyond consultation fees or paid sick leave without the need for a medical certificate.
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Ms Jasmin Lau)191 words
As part of the ongoing Employment Act review, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and our tripartite partners are actively considering measures to improve workplace healthcare practices. This includes studying how to encourage employers to offer progressive healthcare benefits that go beyond baseline statutory requirements, such as reimbursement of medical expenses beyond consultation fees and paid sick leave without requiring a medical certificate.[+1 sentence] Many employers already offer such benefits today. In 2024, MOM's Conditions of Employment Survey found that about 30% of the respondent employers offered paid sick leave without requiring a medical certificate. This was an increase from the previous year of about 27% in 2023.[+1 sentence] Many employers also reimburse employees’ medical expenses beyond consultation fees. Beyond these benefits, MOM strongly encourages employers to support employees in managing their health proactively. This includes giving employees time-off for annual Healthier SG check-ins and preventive care appointments and providing portable medical benefits that allow employees to retain healthcare coverage when they change employers.[+2 sentences] MOM will continue working with tripartite partners to encourage wider adoption of progressive health practices across all employer segments. We will update on the Employment Act review in due course.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West)118 words
[+4 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for her reply. Some employers, after I had posted this Parliamentary Question that I am going to ask on social media, reached out to me and said that their main hesitancy in offering such progressive benefits come because of the cost that they are worried about, on top of the statutory paid leave obligations that some of these employers may have. So, beyond encouragement, how will the Ministry give due credit to such employers and also, consider how the statutory framework itself can be strengthened so that we do not add on cost to some of these employers that are being progressive in giving these benefits to their employees?
Ms Jasmin Lau95 words
[+1 sentence]I thank the Member for his question. Our objective is not to increase the financial obligations of employers, but rather for employers to be able to offer more flexibility for their employees to use their medical benefits.[+1 sentence] So, for example, if employers wish to give a fixed allowance for medical expenses, then employees can use this for consultations, medications and treatments, and so on. So, not too fixed, but hopefully the flexibility helps. Therefore, we aim to encourage voluntary adoption of these progressive healthcare practices rather than just adjusting the statutory baseline obligations for employers.
Ensuring Safety of Frontier AI Models Deployed in Singapore, and Setting Up Framework for Tracking and Reporting Serious AI Incidents›Oral Answers to Questions19 turns · 2,964w
· 21 highlighted
oral-answer-4231
Dr Charlene Chen58 words
asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Singapore AI Safety Institute's ability to independently evaluate advanced AI models has been constrained by insufficient access from developers; (b) how risks are assessed where such access is unavailable; and (c) whether independent safety testing will be required for AI systems assessed to pose sufficiently high risks.
Dr Charlene Chen43 words
asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government has assessed whether existing sectoral incident-reporting requirements adequately capture serious incidents involving AI systems; and (b) where gaps remain, whether a cross-sector reporting framework for serious AI incidents will be considered.
Mr Alex Yam64 words
asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the recent unauthorised access of the Australian government's systems by an autonomous AI agent (a) whether Singapore has assessed the resilience of Government digital systems against similar agentic AI behaviour; and (b) whether existing cybersecurity and incident-reporting frameworks adequately address autonomous actions by AI systems that were not specifically directed by human operators.
Dr Choo Pei Ling55 words
asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government will introduce mandatory safety requirements for frontier AI models deployed in Singapore, including pre-deployment risk assessments, independent safety testing, safeguards against misuse and reporting of serious incidents; and (b) if so, how will these requirements be enforced and updated as AI capabilities evolve.
Mr Yip Hon Weng57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information following Singapore’s support for international oversight of frontier AI (a) how the Ministry determines whether overseas models are sufficiently safe for deployment in essential services when independent testing access is unavailable; and (b) which considerations would justify requiring verifiable safety evidence before deployment, rather than relying on developers' assurances.
Dr Choo Pei Ling53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government has set thresholds or indicators for when rapid AI model advancements will require additional safeguards beyond existing cybersecurity requirements; and (b) whether Singapore has contingency arrangements with foreign governments, major AI developers, and international cybersecurity bodies for cross-border AI-enabled cyber incidents.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information)75 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, for the Question Nos 10 to 15 on the Order Paper today, these questions have been addressed in the reply to Question Nos 45 to 51 and Question No 33 for written reply at yesterday's Parliamentary Sitting. [Please refer to "Assessment of Singapore's Digital Systems' Resilience Against Agentic AI Behaviours", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Chen.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines)185 words
[+9 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. In her reply yesterday, the Minister mentioned the importance of learning from both incidents and near misses. Could the Senior Minister of State clarify what threshold would make an artificial intelligence (AI) incident reportable, and whether significant near misses should also be reported even when human intervention prevents actual harm? My second supplementary question is, much of the Ministry's response has focused on Government systems and essential services. But AI systems are also increasingly being deployed by private organisations. For an ordinary citizen who may be seriously affected by an unintended action of an AI system, for example, involving their personal or financial information, what protections and avenues for redress are in place? And would they have a right to be informed that an AI-related incident has affected them? My last supplementary question. If an AI system already deployed in Singapore is found to pose an immediate and serious risk to the public, do our regulators currently have the power to require its use to be suspended or restricted while the risk is investigated, including if the underlying model comes from overseas?
Mr Tan Kiat How432 words
[+4 sentences]Sir, I thank the Member for her three supplementary questions. They are broadly aligned to the same theme, around how we are thinking about risks and what the responses are. So, let me take all her three supplementary questions together. First, let me say that we recognise that AI, and increasingly, agentic and autonomous AI systems, presents new opportunities and risks. The difference for agentic systems is that these systems can execute actions, interact with external systems and adapt their behaviour to reduce human oversight.[+6 sentences] So, our response focuses on two areas. First, we should recognise that many risks arising from agentic AI and some of the autonomous systems that the Member has alluded to are extensions of existing challenges. So, whether the impact is on the individual or the impact is on a critical information infrastructure system or another essential digital service, these are extensions of the same challenges that we face today. Therefore, existing guidelines and regulations, including risk management processes and oversight also apply to agentic AI systems. The principle of maintaining human accountability and putting in place sufficient controls and guardrails also applies. In addition, our longstanding efforts into strengthening data protection, cybersecurity and resilience help protect the systems that AI agents interact with. Of course, we are reviewing how to adapt and strengthen these frameworks and systems to account for the increased autonomy of agentic systems, while also monitoring international developments in this emerging field.[+9 sentences] So, the first point that I would like to emphasise is that these risks are already with us. Yes, there might be some new dimensions to it, but these are existing risks, and existing frameworks apply and we are reviewing how to strengthen them. Second, we have to also develop our own internal capabilities. We are developing capabilities to go beyond existing frameworks and approaches. We are running trials and experiments to stay abreast of the evolving technology and to understand what it takes to implement agentic systems responsibly. We certainly do so within the Government – the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) does it and many other agencies within the Government are already doing it with the right safeguards and doing so responsibly. I encourage all private sector organisations, even those who are not running critical information infrastructure or essential digital services, to also take appropriate care and responsibility when deploying AI agents and systems within their operations. But we are developing capabilities and this is a new area, emerging area, and rapidly evolving. We will continue to keep track of it and update our frameworks and regulations where needed.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee)244 words
[+4 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response and the Minister's reply yesterday. I want to focus on a particular aspect of the Open AI case in Australia, which I think is particularly important for us. The Australian government was made aware of the unauthorised access only three months after the incident, because the developer eventually identified and disclosed it to the Australian government. So, in our local example, our legislation requires CII and critical infrastructure companies to report incidents. But is there a clear obligation today for developers, especially those who are overseas, to notify our authorities promptly and early so that we can take the appropriate measures?[+4 sentences] The second question is about testing. I am quite certain that our local agencies, including the Cyber Security Agency and our agencies under the Ministry of Digital Development and Information do quite robust testings of systems and agents, and develop and models. While I support stronger independent testing, the examples that we have seen recently were within bounds of the developers' work and even those testing have gone out of hand. There is nothing nefarious that is going on. It is just a developer testing their model and those have also gone out of hand. So, what other safeguards can we put in place to ensure that even in our own testing capabilities, to discover dangers that we do not in itself create risk for other third parties as well?
Mr Tan Kiat How676 words
[+3 sentences]Sir, let me address the Member's question in turn. The first is around the ongoing matter; it is still a live issue. I have read publicly that the frontier AI company the Member mentioned is in correspondence with the Australian government. So, it is a live issue and we are monitoring it. I would say that we certainly welcome frontier AI companies to take greater responsibility in understanding and managing the risk arising from the systems that they develop, and this includes identifying emerging capabilities and risk early, and putting in place safeguards before these systems are widely deployed.[+3 sentences] Where these systems or the AI frontier models' capabilities have caused harm or have caused impact on others, we certainly welcome that they take responsibility and to rectify the issue as soon as possible. At the same time, I think the landscape has changed drastically over the last few months. We look at the threat landscape arrayed against us – and we have different cyber risk, digital risk that are arrayed against us – from cyber criminals, cyber hackers, advanced persistent threat (APT), which are state-sponsored, state-supported actors, or just individuals who, for the thrill of it, adopt digital solutions to hack into another system. The risk arrayed against any organisation, any economy is very different compared to a few months ago. It is no longer just about the most frontier AI models being used to detect vulnerabilities or being able to exploit vulnerabilities by autonomously chaining actions together, but there are many open AI models out there online that is freely downloadable.[+3 sentences] Bad actors can use those capabilities to create cyber threats against organisations or for criminal enterprise. So, the threat landscape is very different. It is not just about developers of frontier AI models being a risk, but there are many, many actors out there who can download open-weight models, adapt them, create their own harness, create their own contexts and use them for bad purposes. So, we cannot just wait for other people to tell us that they are hacking us. It is the onus on Singapore and our organisations, especially those running critical information infrastructure, to take the necessary safeguards.[+17 sentences] There are many things that we can do, many things that the organisations running these essential services can do. Firstly, making sure basic cyber hygiene is put in place. I often use an analogy: when you build information technology systems, it is like building new rooms and new wings or new annexes to your building. Sometimes, you may not know whether you have locked all your doors or secured all your windows. The agents or bad actors exploit the same vulnerabilities – an unlocked door or the unsecured window – to enter our systems, whether through AI means or more traditional conventional means. So, first and foremost, take the necessary precaution: improve cyber hygiene, close down our vulnerabilities and continue an active monitoring of anomalous behaviour within our system. These are things – basic hygiene – things that we can do. Second, even as bad actors use AI capabilities, we should as well be able to deploy those AI capabilities within our own system to make sure that we detect our vulnerabilities earlier, and we should have an advantage because we know our own system. We know the layout, the blueprint of our building. We know where the annexes are. We know where the critical services are in that building. So, we use AI to our own advantage. And that is the second thing I think we should do. Thirdly, more importantly, is that we should not allow fear or anxiety about those risks to prevent us from making full use of the technology. So, we should use the technology to create value, new products, new services, create new opportunities for our people. But you do so responsibly, putting the right safeguards, learning along the way and adapting. To the Member’s point, these are practical things we can do, without waiting for someone else to tell us that they have been hacking us.
Mr Speaker4 words
[+1 sentence]Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang)150 words
[+2 sentences]Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarifications and response. I have a few supplementary questions. One, based on what the Senior Minister of State has shared, could he further elaborate what would trigger the Government to move from guidance to mandatory safeguards before deployment of a frontier AI system?[+3 sentences] For example, when it demonstrates substantially greater autonomy, the ability to act across external systems or risks that existing safeguards cannot adequately contain. The second supplementary question, if such a trigger is reached, how quickly can these stronger safeguards or in the Senior Minister of State’s previous terms, “AI capabilities” be applied, including where the model is developed overseas? And lastly, have we had cross-border contingency arrangements that have been tested through joint exercises with foreign counterparts and major AI developers, and do they establish clear responsibilities for early warning, information sharing and containment?
Mr Tan Kiat How429 words
[+22 sentences]Sir, let me address Dr Choo’s questions in turn. She asked whether there are any thresholds that turn the guidelines into mandatory requirements. This is something that we have to continue monitoring and reviewing. But let me say that the risk that we are dealing with and the steps that we can take to mitigate those risks are actually not new risks. These are existing risks – whether there is a cyberattack on our critical information infrastructure, or there is a service disruption caused by using AI bots or agents within an essential digital service, for example, in the financial services or other utilities. These are existing risks. From a cybersecurity point of view, the sectoral regulators would have to work closely with the operators of those critical information infrastructure services to look at the safeguards that need to be put in place. So, whether it is a voluntary safeguard, for example, on the use of agentic AI in certain use cases or whatever kind of safeguards that needs to be put in place for certain deployment, those will have to be discussed between the sectoral regulators and the essential services operators. And certainly, we do so for different services within the Public Service. For example, within the Government, GovTech works very closely with the different service owners of the public services to see how we use AI responsibly. On international engagements, this is a very nascent, emerging area. We read the headlines. We welcome, for example, greater conversation and dialogue on AI safety. For Singapore, we try to play a constructive role, for instance through technical and scientific conferences, which we host. And there are a number of these conferences that we hold in Singapore with luminaries and very technically credible, frontier professionals in this space who are coming to Singapore, to not just have a conversation among themselves, but also interact with us and share their perspectives with us. We have been also working very closely with different AI safety institutes. Our AI Safety Institute in Singapore has been working very closely with other international counterparts to share best practices. So, we are deeply plugged into the scientific and engineering conversations that are happening. But this is a new area, something that is still being discussed. More recently, at multilateral fora, like the United Nations, we welcome more like-minded countries to work together. Singapore has recently signed a statement of support with like-minded countries to have greater international collaboration on AI safety. This is something we will continue to work on very closely with our international counterparts.
Mr Speaker7 words
[+1 sentence]Last supplementary question, Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang)84 words
[+6 sentences]Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Just a very short supplementary question. It is really to respond to the issue of the speed of development of AI. As frontier models and their capabilities change rapidly after deployment, will the Ministry consider requiring periodic re-evaluation and clear incident reporting arrangements for essential service use, rather than treating pre-deployment assurance as a once-off exercise? I ask this because this would help preserve public trust when systems evolve rapidly.
Mr Tan Kiat How343 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, I thank the Member for his question. The existing regulations and rules do have incident reporting frameworks. We will continue to review those frameworks to see whether they need to be updated, given the different threat landscape and operating environment. But those incident reporting frameworks thresholds are already in place.[+3 sentences] For example, under the Personal Data Protection Act. Regardless whether there are AI tools being used, organisations remain subject to those existing obligations. This includes putting in place reasonable security arrangements to protect personal data, and appropriate policies and practices to meet their data protection obligations. Some Members will have seen in the news that there was a recent incident that occurred due to personal use of a GenAI tool by an organisation's employee who developed an email distribution script for sending marketing emails, but did so incorrectly, resulting in personal data being revealed.[+7 sentences] This case underscores the need for organisations to manage the risk associated with widespread personal use of AI tools, which is another risk that many organisations face – so, not just frontier AI models, but what, in the industry, they call “shadow AI”. Which means that organisations may not know that your employee may be bringing AI tools into your organisation’s system and these are not sanctioned or approved by the organisation. But it is so easily accessible; you download it on your phone, use it for yourself in the workplace, without the necessary safeguards. So, as AI tools become more accessible, employees may use them on their own initiative, which is something commendable – we should not discourage such productive use of AI. But organisations need to be aware of how these tools are being used, and put appropriate policies and safeguards in place. So, those reporting thresholds and frameworks are in place. Importantly, it is for organisations to build a culture while encouraging employees to use AI tools to have the right safeguards and to be mindful that new risks are introduced because it is so much easier to bring AI tools into any organisation today.
Impact of Rising US Treasury Yields on Singapore's Economy and Additional Support Measures›Oral Answers to Questions5 turns · 1,074w
· 9 highlighted
oral-answer-4232
Mr Saktiandi Supaat58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding sustained increases in US Treasury yields (a) how Singapore's borrowing costs and credit availability could change; (b) which households and businesses are most exposed; (c) whether additional support is needed; and (d) how public-sector Treasury holdings' value, income and risks could change, including those managed by MAS and GIC.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat)464 words
[+4 sentences]Mr Speaker, interest rates in Singapore are market-determined and generally track the interest rates in the major economies. They have not risen as much compared to other jurisdictions. This reflects, among other factors, Singapore's strong fiscal fundamentals, which have supported continued healthy demand for Singapore Government Securities (SGS). Singapore's borrowing costs have remained broadly in line with historical levels. The prevailing 10-year SGS yield stands at 2.5%, compared to its 10-year average of around 2.2%. The discount of 10-year SGS to 10-year US Treasury yields has widened, from about 170 basis points in January 2025 to about 250 basis points in September 2026.[+1 sentence] Broader domestic credit conditions remain conducive. The three-month compounded Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA), which is an important benchmark for domestic loans, is around 1.2%, below its 10-year average of 1.5%.[+14 sentences] Credit growth remains firm, credit quality is sound and banks are well capitalised. The stress tests conducted by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) indicate that businesses and households generally remain in a sound financial position to manage higher borrowing costs. Businesses and households, particularly those who are more vulnerable, should exercise financial prudence by borrowing within their means, maintain adequate liquidity buffers and factor in the possibility of higher interest rates going forward. MAS has safeguards to ensure that households do not over-extend themselves when taking out housing loans. The Total Debt Servicing Ratio framework caps a borrower's total monthly debt repayments at 55% of monthly income. For specified public housing purchases, the Mortgage Servicing Ratio also caps mortgage repayments at 30% of monthly income. Importantly, banks assess whether borrowers can afford a housing loan at an interest rate of 4%, even when prevailing mortgage rates are lower. So, there is some buffer against increases in interest rates. In addition, about 60% of Housing and Development Board (HDB) households with outstanding loans have concessionary HDB loans. The impact of rising interest rates is mitigated by the peg of the HDB mortgage loan to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Ordinary Account interest rate, which provides greater stability against movements in market mortgage rates. Sir, MAS works closely with financial institutions to monitor borrowers' repayment performance and facilitate early engagement if signs of financial stress emerge. Banks may offer assistance tailored to the individual circumstances. Borrowers who anticipate difficulty servicing their loans should approach their lenders early to discuss options. The Government stands ready to provide appropriate and targeted support if necessary. In September 2026, we raised our risk-share for eligible Enterprise Financing Scheme loans from 50% to 70%, improving access to working capital and project financing.[+2 sentences] Singapore's reserves are managed over a long-term investment horizon and diversified across asset classes. A gradual adjustment of yield increases will be manageable in a diversified portfolio that is held for the long term.
Mr Speaker3 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh)196 words
[+9 sentences]Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answers to almost all of my Parliamentary Questions. But I have got two supplementary questions. My first supplementary question is in relation to whether the Minister or MAS sees any shifts in global investor demand for Singapore dollar bonds as US Treasury yields remain elevated. Could such shifts create opportunities or constraints in our efforts to deepen our bond market and widen longer-term financing options for Singapore businesses? Secondly, we are aware that US Treasury yields have risen more than 100 basis points since end of last year or beginning of this year. The Minister has assuaged concerns that our rates have actually remained quite low. But I think with US Treasury yields being elevated and at risk of going a bit slightly higher, the potential of it affecting our longer-term rates here in Singapore, from what the Minister has highlighted is somewhat mitigated for now. Can the Minister share what is potentially the short- to medium-term outlook that MAS has now? I think Minister has already mentioned about the mitigating measures, but the outlook for the risk and outlook for mortgage rates in Singapore.
Mr Chee Hong Tat353 words
[+3 sentences]Mr Speaker, I will address the second question first. If I heard it correctly, I think Mr Saktiandi is asking if the US Treasury yields remain elevated, what is the impact on the SGS, our bond market and also, our cost of borrowing. Sir, if you look at the situation in Singapore, we are not detached from what is happening in the US and other major markets. If the rates in the US were to rise, there will be an impact on the borrowing cost here in Singapore.[+2 sentences] What I mentioned in my main reply is that because of the strong fiscal position of the Singapore Government, the SGS, when we issue the demand for these securities, and in the case of the Singapore dollar bond market, the demand remains strong. And beyond SGS, if you look at the Singapore dollar corporate bond issuances, even though there is heightened volatility in the global markets, the issuances in Singapore remain very well-received. The issuances amounted to $28 billion year-to-date and they are on track to surpass the issuance from last year.[+1 sentence] The Singapore dollar bond market also provides an avenue for funding infrastructure projects, including in Singapore and the region. And today, some part of it is being allocated already for these projects. So, overall, I would say that Singapore remains very focused on closely monitoring what is happening in the US and other major markets, because there is an impact on the borrowing cost, our interest rates here in Singapore. But because of our strong fiscal position, and the trust and confidence that investors have in Singapore's market, in our bond market, I think overall we are alright.[+5 sentences] Mr Saktiandi also asked about the impact, if there is a rise, if I understood the Member correctly, what will happen to MAS' portfolio. Sir, for MAS, we have a very diversified portfolio where we invest our official foreign reserves. And these are across different asset classes and currencies. We are able to tap different sources of liquidity if individual markets are stressed. And I think this is something that we will continue to do.
Reviewing Migrant Domestic Worker Employment Model to Reduce Excessive Employer Liability and Strengthen Employment Agency Accountability›Oral Answers to Questions2 turns · 248w
· 5 highlighted
oral-answer-4233
Speaker not recorded65 words
[+1 sentence]The following question stood in the name of Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo – 17 To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will review the Migrant Domestic Worker (MDW) employment model to reduce excessive employer liability, strengthen employment agency accountability and address agencies' operational challenges, while enhancing safeguards for MDWs so that responsibilities and risks are more fairly shared across all parties.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Acting Minister for Manpower)183 words
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regularly reviews our policies to ensure that the migrant domestic worker (MDW) employment model supports households' needs while safeguarding the well-being of MDWs. We balance the well-being of MDWs and liabilities of employers.[+2 sentences] Employers are responsible for the basic upkeep and medical treatment of MDWs. MOM supports employers in meeting these responsibilities. For example, the minimum annual claim limit for MDW medical insurance was raised from $15,000 to $60,000 in 2023, which will protect employers from high medical bills. We have also strengthened safeguards for MDWs over time, such as having at least one rest day per month that cannot be compensated away.[+1 sentence] MOM also works with stakeholders, such as employment agencies and non-governmental organisations, to build an ecosystem that supports the hiring, retention and well-being of MDWs. To ensure that employment agencies are incentivised to facilitate a good match between MDWs and employers, we require employment agencies to refund employers at least 50% of the service fees paid if the MDW's contract is terminated within the first six months of employment and there is no suitable replacement.
Proposal to Require Government Agencies to Procure Commercial Cyber Insurance›Oral Answers to Questions5 turns · 545w
· 9 highlighted
oral-answer-4234
Mr Yip Hon Weng60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether public sector agencies and statutory boards are required to procure commercial cyber insurance; (b) whether MAS tracks industry cyber insurance claims and payout trends; and (c) how the Government ensures dispute resolution avenues like the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) have the capability to handle cyber insurance claim disputes.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance)133 words
[+3 sentences]Sir, while public sector agencies, including Statutory Boards, are not required to procure commercial cyber insurance, we adopt a multi-pronged approach to managing cyber risks. This includes investments in prevention, detection, response and recovery capabilities. Cyber insurance has grown in acceptance as a risk management tool by companies in Singapore and the region. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) follows developments in cyber insurance through our engagements with the industry.[+1 sentence] This helps MAS support the sound development of the market. The Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre's (FIDReC's) adjudicators have the skills and expertise to handle dispute resolution for consumers and small businesses in the financial sector.[+1 sentence] This includes undergoing regular training to keep abreast of emerging issues and developments in the industry. FIDReC has experience in handling cyber insurance disputes in recent years.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Yip.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang)108 words
[+6 sentences]I thank the Minister of State for his reply. As cyber insurance becomes more important to businesses, will MAS consider publishing suitably aggregated indicators on claims frequencies, claim settlement times, common grounds for dispute and payout ratios? How would such transparency help for smaller firms judge whether such policies offer meaningful protection, while preserving commercially sensitive information? My second supplementary question is on FIDReC. FIDReC can now hear eligible disputes involving small businesses, but cyber insurance claims can turn on technical evidence, incident timelines and policy exclusions. So, what is being done to ensure that its processors have sufficient cyber insurance expertise and can resolve suitable cases promptly?
Mr Alvin Tan242 words
[+2 sentences]Sir, on the Member's first question, MAS' supervisory focus is on the overall soundness of insurers' cyber insurance portfolio and cyber insurance currently remains a relatively small component of the overall insurance market in Singapore. Therefore, cyber insurance is reported within a broader business line. So, it is not any different from other growing specialised business lines. However, MAS does collect the breakdown of gross written premiums for cyber insurance separately – and the amount in 2024 is about $106.3 million and in 2025 is about $103.9 million. That is gross written premiums for cyber liability.[+4 sentences] But beyond these statutory returns, MAS supplements its data collection through regular supervisory engagements with insurers. And that includes information on claims experience. This gives MAS visibility into market trends and developments, particularly related to cyber insurance. On his second point on FIDReC, I had mentioned in my reply that FIDReC has experience handling cyber insurance disputes in recent years. FIDReC provides training for its adjudicators on cybersecurity and cyber insurance issues. I will just share with the Member also that over the last five years, FIDReC has handled two claims brought by individual consumers involving cyber insurance policies. And having considered the facts and merits of the case, one claim was dismissed at adjudication, while the other was concluded at mediation without settlement.[+1 sentence] So, FIDReC has the experience to do so, and they are continually training the adjudicators to manage such risks and such cases.
Verifying Identities of Public Service Officers Given Removal of Contact Information from Online Singapore Government Directory›Oral Answers to Questions5 turns · 540w
· 8 highlighted
oral-answer-4235
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with the removal of contact details for public officers from the Singapore Government Directory (SGDI), how can the public (i) corroborate the identity of an officer if they are in doubt of communication, including by contacting the officer directly if necessary and (ii) access the contact information of an officer for relevant and legitimate business.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Jasmin Lau) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information)233 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Speaker, my reply will address the oral question raised by Mr Louis Chua and the written question raised by Mr Dennis Tan in today's Order Paper, as they relate to the streamlining of contact details on the Singapore Government Directory (SGDI). The SGDI was streamlined on 1 July 2026 to reduce the risk of scammers misusing Government officers' names and contact details to carry out impersonation scams.[+1 sentence] SGDI serves as a public directory of Government officers and agency contact information. Members of the public who wish to confirm that a public officer is attempting to reach them should contact the relevant Government agency directly through its official channels, such as the agency's website or the Quality Service Manager (QSM). To facilitate this, QSM contact details have been made more prominent on SGDI, providing clearer avenues for the public to reach Government agencies for enquiries and feedback.[+3 sentences] For follow-ups on existing issues, members of the public may also use the contact details provided in earlier official correspondence with the agency. The Government will continue to strengthen safeguards against impersonation scams, while ensuring that Government agencies remain accessible to members of the public. We are developing measures to help the public identify legitimate phone calls from the Government. Later this year, we will introduce a common phone number prefix for calls from Government agencies, followed by a recognisable caller name displayed on recipients' phones.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang)138 words
[+7 sentences]Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Just two quick supplementary questions. First, in terms of the impersonation scams that we have seen so far, is there a sense of what proportion are impersonating the senior management teams of the respective Ministries and political office holders, versus the so-called more rank and file or middle management? I think if I recall correctly, there is a scam advisory by the Police earlier this year. I think there were some impersonations of Ministers and the like. The second question is, in terms of the response times or service standards for the QSMs, I would imagine that there will be a much higher volume of request now. So, has the Ministry monitored or taken a look at how the response times have been since July?
Ms Jasmin Lau104 words
[+1 sentence]I thank the Member for his question. I do not have on hand the differences in numbers between impersonation of political office holders or senior civil servants, compared to those who are more junior.[+1 sentence] But I would also say that protecting the public from such scams require the combined efforts across Government, so this move on SGDI is one of the many moves that we have to reduce the scams. On response times, agencies will continue to direct the public enquiries that come through their official channels. They are fully expected to maintain their existing service standards, including timely responses and escalation where necessary.
Public Access on Investment Schemes Promoters' Directorships, Bankruptcy and Regulatory Alerts›Oral Answers to Questions9 turns · 1,169w
· 11 highlighted
oral-answer-4236
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat69 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for promoters of investment schemes (a) whether ScamShield will let the public check, for free, a promoter's directorships, bankruptcy, involvement in wound up companies and foreign regulators' alerts before investing; and (b) whether the Government will warn the public of promoters that its registers show as undischarged bankrupts or directors of companies wound up with unpaid debts, before victims report losses.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance)106 words
[+2 sentences]Sir, ScamShield is not a suitable tool for consumers to perform due diligence on persons offering investment schemes. Rather, it serves as an anti-scam tool for consumers to check, block and report messages, websites and phone numbers suspected to be scam related. An information on a person's directorships and other business involvements, as well as bankruptcy status, is publicly available for a fee on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's (ACRA's) Bizfile website and the Ministry of Law Insolvency Office's website.[+1 sentence] Consumers should approach every investment opportunity with caution and deal only with entities licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), and their appointed representatives.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied)321 words
[+14 sentences]Thank you, Sir. Four supplementary questions. Supplementary question one: of the 11,582 undischarged bankrupts at the end of July, how many are listed today as directors of active companies? If the Ministry does not know today, will it provide the figure to the House? Supplementary question two: I am concerned with a type of corporate scheme whose losses can be prevented with information we already have on national registers. It was reported in June that a Singapore company borrowed from individuals at 16% per year and paid interest for years. A lender who wanted their principal repaid had to sue and won, and around the same time, a bankruptcy order was made against the director. In June 2026, nine months on, the director was still listed on 15 active companies. ACRA's own guidance tells the public to "avoid dealing with anyone who is bankrupt but still appears to be involved in running a business". Since the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) sends its records to ACRA directly, but the Official Assignee does not, will the Government do so and provide bankruptcy information for free in the spirit of protecting our local investors? Supplementary question three: another type of scheme was reported in August, about self-styled wealth gurus who have been declared bankrupt with investors' money tied up in schemes promising returns of up to 15% a year. Schemes of this type are sold at wealth seminars and on social media. Will the Government, on receiving a pattern of such reports about possible investment fraud, proactively put up public information, so as to prevent other investors from falling into the same trap? Supplementary question four: in cases like these – some would call them "schemes", but I would call them "scams" – is warning the prospective investor being pitched as any agency's job, or does the Government see its duty to local investors as beginning mainly when they make a police report?
Mr Alvin Tan447 words
[+4 sentences]Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I think on the first one, on bankruptcy figures, and on the third one on ICA, passport investment fraud, I would ask that he file separate Parliamentary Questions for the relevant agencies. The relevant agencies can go into those details. He also mentioned about bankruptcy information for free. That is on the ACRA website, and I have a response from ACRA. It says that the fee for an ACRA business profile currently has been kept at $5.50 per copy for the past 14 years. But ACRA periodically reviews its fees to ensure that they remain appropriate, taking into account factors, such as cost recovery service provision and accessibility.[+5 sentences] But I wanted to zoom out a little bit. I understand where the Member is coming from in terms of helping to address scams and investment schemes that might be detrimental, of course, to consumers. There are a few things we can do collectively and where Government can also play an important part. If a consumer comes across an investment opportunity that could be a potential scam or if you do not know if it is a potential scam, please do call the ScamShield hotline because it has the latest information on scam trends, including fraudulent investment schemes. You have that agency and onus to do so. Second, if you are also unsure, please verify licensed entities and appointed representatives by checking the Financial Institutions Directory and the Financial Institution Representatives Register on the MAS website.[+9 sentences] So, that is what you can immediately do if you are a potential investor that have some concerns or want to find out about whether an investment opportunity is too good to be true. At the same time, MAS and the Government also have a lot of initiatives to push through and to raise awareness about investment scams. For example, MoneySense, which is MAS' national financial education programme, reminds consumers of the importance of understanding the features and the risks of products and opportunities that potential investors might consider. And specific to investment scams, the MAS works with the police force and the financial industry to educate customers and consumers on red flags. What kind of red flags? For example, the promise of high return with very low or no risk, pressure tactics, unverifiable track records. And it also teaches consumers how to verify if an entity or person is regulated by MAS. So, yes, Government has its role to play. We also raise awareness. And I also ask for potential investors and consumers to also take that agency to find out and to exercise due caution when entering into investment products or services.
Mr Speaker5 words
[+2 sentences]Mr Tiong. Last supplementary question.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat83 words
[+2 sentences]Thank you. I understand the principle of caveat emptor. But for the two cases these investment schemes were advertised at about 5% to 16% a year; especially in the first case, it was advertised at 16% per year. That is why I would ask the Minister of State whether he would not agree that there is actually much more that can be done in terms of making information more widely available so that our investors can do their due diligence much more easily.
Mr Alvin Tan118 words
[+2 sentences]So, in these kinds of schemes where there could be outsized returns, if you are unsure, please call ScamShield, the scam hotline. If you still want to go check and see whether these companies are verified and they are licensed by MAS, please go to the website. And if you are unsure, also, please make a police report. So, yes, there is caveat emptor, but the Government also provides platforms for those who are potential investors to go find out more. At the same time, I think all of us can raise our resilience against investment scams by being even more alert to many of these too "good to be true" scams or schemes that are out there.
Mr Speaker18 words
[+1 sentence]As everyone says, when it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true.
Proposal to Make Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Intimate Partner An Arrestable Offence without Prior Protection Order›Oral Answers to Questions5 turns · 1,074w
· 8 highlighted
oral-answer-4237
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat73 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why the 2019 Penal Code amendments, which doubled penalties for offences against domestic workers, vulnerable persons and intimate partners, made every offence against the first two arrestable but not the third; and (b) whether voluntarily causing hurt to an intimate partner will be made arrestable without a prior protection order, or the Police empowered to issue protection notices.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann)554 words
[+2 sentences]Sir, the 2019 amendments to the Penal Code were introduced to strengthen the legal protection of vulnerable victims. This comprises domestic workers, vulnerable persons due to mental or physical disabilities, and children below 14 years old. Penalties for Penal Code offences committed against such victims were enhanced and all Penal Code offences committed against such vulnerable victims were made arrestable.[+1 sentence] This is in recognition of these vulnerable victims' inability to protect themselves against the offenders, and to allow the Police to intervene quickly. The 2019 Penal Code amendments did not make every offence against intimate or close partners arrestable, although they also enhanced the maximum penalties for specific offences, such as hurt and sexual offences – most of which were already arrestable.[+2 sentences] This is because relative to domestic workers, mentally or physically vulnerable persons and children who are in an inherently vulnerable position in society, adults who encounter intimate partner violence, may be better placed to seek help and access protection with appropriate support from social services and through legal remedies, which have all been strengthened. The Women's Charter was amended in 2023 to empower victim-survivors of domestic violence to better protect themselves and strengthen the Government's ability to intervene in such cases. Today, the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) 24-hour Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT) is empowered to issue Emergency Orders onsite in high-risk cases to restrain perpetrators from committing further violence against a family member.[+13 sentences] A breach of the Emergency Order, including any Domestic Exclusion, Stay Away or No Contact Order imposed under it is an arrestable offence. The Police is not empowered to issue protection orders. Nevertheless, Police officers respond jointly with DVERT officers in such high-risk cases and handle cases with law-and-order issues. The Police set up the Sexual Crime and Family Violence Command in 2023 to better manage sexual crime and domestic violence cases. Since 2022, the Police have trained and deployed Family Violence Community Policing Officers to handle and monitor cases of domestic violence. This includes making referrals to Protection Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres where necessary. We believe that the above approach embodies a strong stance against domestic violence while accounting for the fact that it can take various forms and vary in severity, and the appropriate response will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The offence of voluntarily causing hurt against victims in intimate or close relationships with the offender is not automatically arrestable. However, the Police already makes arrests where there are grounds to do so, such as where offences like voluntarily causing grievous hurt or criminal intimidation have been committed. This approach strikes a balance because there are cases where parties come to the Police to say that they do not want to proceed with the complaint. This is because, on reflection, they realise that both parties were at fault and both may have been violent too, and that they would like to repair the relationship, which could be difficult if a party is arrested and the matter escalated. Nevertheless, if there are clear grounds to do so, offenders can still be prosecuted when it is assessed to be the most appropriate action to take. The Government will continue to review and strengthen our whole of society approach to protect and support victims survivors of domestic violence.
Mr Speaker2 words
[+1 sentence]Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied)150 words
[+9 sentences]Thank you, Sir. Domestic violence is unacceptable. Yet, while an employer who assaults a domestic worker can be arrested on the spot, the same person who assaults their spouse cannot be arrested unless a protection order is already in force. My question is, why? Second supplementary question. The 2021 Taskforce on Family Violence suggested making hurt and family violence arrestable and the Police undertook to review it. So, the Government accepted that in principle. What did the review conclude and when? Third supplementary question. MSF reported last December that new spousal abuse cases rose from 2,008 in 2023, to 2,136 in 2024 and were higher again in the first half of 2025.[+2 sentences] In 2019, the House was told that the Government was moving incrementally. Is leaving hurt to a partner non-arrestable a fundamental design principle of the Government's legal framework or is it something that the Government will consider changing?
Ms Sim Ann295 words
[+4 sentences]Sir, I have provided the reason why in my main reply just now, but I will elaborate. Sir, the Government takes violence in intimate relationships seriously. We should not conflate the issue of seriousness with the issue of arrestability. Domestic violence is a serious matter. The Government takes a strong stance against it and this is reflected in the enhanced penalties for offences against intimate partners, as well as the significant strengthening of our domestic violence framework in recent years. Victims of intimate partner violence are already protected by Police powers of arrest, where an arrestable offence, such as voluntarily causing grievous hurt, has been committed.[+1 sentence] The specific issue here is voluntarily causing hurt, which is a non-arrestable offence. The policy question is whether every instance of voluntarily causing hurt should automatically attract an arrest power, or whether intervention should be calibrated according to the risks and circumstances of each case, as per the framework we have against domestic violence today.[+4 sentences] The 2019 amendments created exceptions to the general position for offences against specified categories of persons, recognising particular concerns about their capacity to protect themselves, given their inherently vulnerable position in society. And these concerns justify additional safeguards across these categories. The amendments did not create an equivalent category wide exception for intimate partners, but this does not mean that intimate partner violence is less serious. The classification of voluntarily causing hurt as a non-arrestable offence does not make such conduct lawful or place an offender beyond prosecution, nor does it prevent protective intervention. As I have explained in the main reply, MSF's DVERT is able to issue Emergency Orders onsite in high-risk cases; Emergency Orders can impose immediate restrictions; breaches are arrestable; and the Police can arrest where other arrestable offences are disclosed.
Allowing Senior Policyholders to Access Life Insurance Death Benefits Early to Meet Nursing Home, Caregiving and Assisted Living Expenses›Oral Answers to Questions3 turns · 282w
· 7 highlighted
oral-answer-4238
Speaker not recorded68 words
[+1 sentence]The following question stood in the name of Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry – 22 To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will work with the insurance industry to enable senior policyholders to access part of their life insurance death benefits early to meet nursing home, caregiving and assisted living expenses, with a corresponding reduction in the eventual benefits payable to their beneficiaries.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok)3 words
[+1 sentence]Question No 22.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance)211 words
Speaker, Sir, the primary purpose of life insurance is to provide financial protection for beneficiaries when insured events occur, most commonly the death of the insured person.[+1 sentence] Insurers underwrite and price these policies on the basis that the death benefit will be paid only when the insured event occurs. Allowing policyholders to routinely access death benefits earlier would fundamentally change the nature of the insurance coverage and how such policies are priced.[+1 sentence] There are other insurance products designed to meet expenses during one's lifetime. For example, some insurance policies provide monthly income during retirement and some others provide financial support for long-term care needs upon disability.[+1 sentence] Some whole life and endowment policies also accumulate cash value over time. Subject to policy terms, policyholders may access the cash value during their lifetime through policy loans or withdrawal. This provides a degree of flexibility for policyholders who need funds during their lifetime, although doing so will reduce the amount ultimately payable to beneficiaries and may be subject to charges. The insurance industry already offers a range of products to meet different protection, retirement, healthcare and long-term care needs. The Monetary Authority of Singapore will continue to work closely with the insurance industry to support product innovation to meet the evolving needs of Singaporeans.
Timelines for Investigation of Outrage of Modesty Cases›Oral Answers to Questions3 turns · 349w
· 7 highlighted
oral-answer-4239
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there are benchmarks for investigation timelines in outrage of modesty cases; (b) what safeguards ensure evidence such as closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage is secured before deletion in such cases; and (c) what channels are available for victims to obtain progress updates and escalate concerns about investigative delays.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann)223 words
[+1 sentence]Sir, the Police have internal controls in place to ensure that cases under police investigation, including outrage of modesty cases are followed up promptly and thoroughly. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) does not have fixed investigative timelines, as the investigations required for each case depend on the facts and complexity of the case. There are many factors that can affect the length of an investigation of an outrage of modesty case, such as the number of witnesses involved or the need to secure and process the different types of evidence.[+1 sentence] It is important that investigation officers (IOs) undertake robust investigation to establish the facts in every case. The IO will provide the victim with periodic updates throughout the course of investigation. Victims who require further information on their case may contact the IO via email or phone, or through the Investigation Branch Call Centre. The Police will take prompt steps to secure closed circuit television footage and other evidence as part of the investigation process. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Police may issue a written order requiring a person in possession of such footage to produce it by a stipulated date and time. Failure to comply with the order is an offence.[+1 sentence] As with all Police investigations, timely reporting of offences is critical to enable the Police to secure the relevant evidence.
Mr Speaker62 words
[+3 sentences]Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day. [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.]
Identifying and Supporting Lower-income HDB Borrowers at Risk of Negative Cash Flow Through Loan Restructuring, Employment and Temporary Financial Support›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 360w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25113
Mr Yip Hon Weng70 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given MAS' finding that one percent of borrowers, mainly lower income, middle-aged HDB residents, could face negative cash flow with savings below six months of the stress-tested income shortfall (a) how many households does this represent; and (b) how will MAS work with banks and agencies to identify them early and provide loan restructuring, employment and temporary financial support before arrears arise.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister)290 words
[+12 sentences]The Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') latest financial sector stability stress test estimates that the vast majority of borrower households with housing loans from financial institutions (FIs) would remain resilient under a severe adverse scenario involving a significant rise in mortgage rates, and a sharp reduction in income. The results also indicate that under the severe shock scenario, around 1% of these borrowers could face cash shortfalls, whereby their overall monthly expenditures exceed income, and they are unlikely to have sufficient savings to cover these monthly shortfalls. This vulnerable group is estimated at around 4,000 households. The share of these vulnerable households has remained relatively stable across the annual stress test exercises. These numbers are not estimates of households currently under stress, but of those who could come under stress if a severe adverse shock scenario were to come to pass. MAS and other agencies have established several avenues to support borrowers facing or at risk of repayment difficulties. FIs monitor borrowers' repayment performance and engage those showing signs of financial stress early, offering assistance tailored to borrowers' circumstances. Borrowers who anticipate difficulty making repayments should approach their lenders early. For Housing and Development Board (HDB) homeowners who fall behind on repayments, they can approach HDB if they obtained HDB financing, or banks if they obtained bank financing, to discuss loan restructuring. HDB may also be able to assist with referrals to appropriate social service agencies. Borrowers already in debt repayment difficulties may also approach the Credit Counselling Singapore, which provides financial counselling and debt management guidance. Given that the macroeconomic outlook remains highly uncertain, including for global and domestic interest rates, households should continue to exercise prudence in taking on debt and maintain adequate savings buffers against economic uncertainties.
Appointment Timeline of Equity Market Development Programme Manager, Reasons for Delay and Consistency of Award Terms and Performance Indicators›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 145w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25114
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there has been any delay to the award of the next batch of Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) managers, which was expected to be appointed around mid-2026; (b) if so, why; and (c) whether the terms of the award and performance indicators are set to be consistent across all EQDP managers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister)84 words
[+3 sentences]The Monetary Authority of Singapore has appointed the third batch of five asset managers under the Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) and will place S$1.45 billion with these managers. Minister Chee Hong Tat announced this on 29 September 2026. The terms of the award and performance indicators for each manager are guided by a consistent framework that takes into account its alignment with the EQDP's objectives to strengthen the local asset management and research ecosystem, and crowd in investor interest in Singapore's equities market.
Temasek Holdings Founding Terms of Reference, Charter Revision Approval Process and Reasons for Discontinuation of Industry Cluster Nurturing Role›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 275w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25115
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether Temasek Holdings was issued terms of reference on incorporation in 1974, and whether they will be (i) published and (ii) deposited with the National Archives; (b) how the Government as sole shareholder approves Charter revisions; and (c) when and by whose decision the 2002 Charter's role of nurturing new industry clusters in Singapore ended, and why it was removed in 2009.
Mr Jeffrey Siow204 words
[+10 sentences]The history and purpose of Temasek is well documented. There were no terms of reference issued to Temasek when it was first incorporated. But it has been clear since its early years that Temasek would operate independently and be commercially driven. The Temasek Charter was introduced in 2002 to articulate Temasek's role and approach as an investment company. It is a living document which Temasek reviews periodically, in consultation with the Government as its shareholder. The 2002 Charter referred, among other things, to Temasek investing in new businesses and new industry clusters, as well as divesting businesses which were no longer relevant and lacked international growth potential. These references described aspects of how Temasek invested and managed its portfolio; they were not in themselves fundamental to Temasek's mandate. In subsequent updates to the Charter, these specific references were therefore no longer considered necessary as part of the Charter. Their removal did not signify a change in Temasek's mandate, nor a decision to stop investing in new businesses or promising sectors in Singapore. Temasek continues to invest and recycle capital into new opportunities, in Singapore and globally, where these are commercially attractive and consistent with its mandate to deliver sustainable returns over the long term.
Usage of Residential Fire Incident Trends to Identify High-risk Estates and Household Groups for Targeted Fire Prevention Measures›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 118w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25116
Dr Choo Pei Ling48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether SCDF will consider using trends in residential fire incidents to identify estates or household groups requiring more targeted fire-prevention efforts and to work with relevant agencies and community partners to provide such interventions.
Mr K Shanmugam70 words
[+2 sentences]The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) analyses residential fire trends and shares relevant statistics with Government agencies and other key partners working to strengthen fire safety awareness on the ground, including People's Association, Town Councils and the National Fire and Emergency Preparedness Council. Following fire incidents, SCDF also conducts post-fire visits with community partners to engage nearby residents, raise awareness of common fire causes and share tips on fire prevention.
Data on Fatalities and Injuries for Accidents Involving Foreign-registered Motorcycles in Past Three Years›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 43w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25117
Dr Hamid Razak32 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in each of the past three years, how many accidents involving foreign-registered motorcycles resulted in fatalities or injuries.
Mr K Shanmugam11 words
[+1 sentence]The data requested by the Member is in Table 1 below.
SGSecure's Next Phase Assessment Framework for Terrorism Vigilance and Preparedness, and Radicalisation Reporting Targets›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 201w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25118
Mr Jackson Lam67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what measurable outcomes will be used to assess the effectiveness of the next phase of the SGSecure movement in improving Singaporeans' vigilance and preparedness against terrorism; and (b) whether targets will be set for the proportion of residents who are able to identify and report signs of possible radicalisation or suspicious activity.
Mr K Shanmugam134 words
[+6 sentences]The Ministry tracks the effectiveness of the SGSecure movement through a range of indicators. These include tracking public awareness and attitudes towards vigilance, resilience and cohesion against potential terror threats through national level surveys, the results of which are published annually in the Singapore Terrorism Threat Assessment Report. We also track participation in relevant skills training and awareness programmes and the engagement with the SGSecure movement, including in schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods. In 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) conducted social experiments to gauge the level of public vigilance to terror threats. These complement our survey findings by providing an indication of actual behaviour. At this point, we do not intend to set targets for the proportion of residents who are able to identify and report signs of suspicious activity or possible radicalisation.
Tracking Scam Network Reappearance and Recurrence to Assess Effectiveness of Platform Disruption Measures›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 101w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25119
Mr Gabriel Lam59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Police track the extent to which scam networks that were disrupted through the removal of social media accounts, pages or advertisements subsequently reappear through newly created accounts; and (b) whether recurrence rates are used to assess the effectiveness of platform disruption measures.
Mr K Shanmugam42 words
[+2 sentences]The Police do not track whether disrupted scam networks reappear through newly created accounts, pages or advertisements. There are significant challenges to establish conclusively that newly created accounts, pages or advertisements are operated by the same scam network that was previously disrupted.
Appeal Process and Restoration Rates of Removed Social Media Accounts of Scam-linked Entities›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 89w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25120
Mr Alex Yeo75 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs arising out of the SPF report on 22 September 2026 of their collaboration with Meta against scam-linked entities, pages and accounts on Facebook and Instagram (a) whether the SPF or Meta received any appeals against the removals of these entities, accounts or pages; and (b) if so, how many appeals were received and how many entities, accounts or pages were restored.
Mr K Shanmugam14 words
[+1 sentence]The Police did not directly receive any appeals arising from this collaboration with Meta.
Post-intervention Outcomes for Suspected Scam Victims Including Transfer Cessation, Resumption and Re-victimisation Rates›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 63w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25121
Mr Gabriel Lam56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether, following proactive intervention with suspected scam victims, the Police track what proportion of these persons (i) cease money transfers upon intervention, (ii) subsequently resume transfers to the same suspected scam network and (iii) become victims of another scam within 12 months.
Mr K Shanmugam7 words
[+1 sentence]The Police do not track such statistics.
Qualifications and Language Assessments for Ad Hoc Police Foreign Language Interpreters, Criminal Procedure Code Training and Engagement Statistics by Language›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 224w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25122
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the framework assessing the suitability of foreign language interpreters engaged ad hoc by the Police (a) what qualifications and language assessments are required under the framework; (b) whether such interpreters receive training on statement recording under the Criminal Procedure Code; and (c) how many were engaged in the past five years with a breakdown by language.
Mr K Shanmugam153 words
[+9 sentences]Under the framework to assess the suitability of foreign language interpreters, the language proficiency of potential interpreters is assessed against the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Interpreters are expected to be able to understand and converse fluently in the relevant foreign language. The Police also take into account factors, such as the interpreter's relevant qualifications and certifications, and prior interpretation experience. Foreign language interpreters do not receive training on statement recording under the Criminal Procedure Code. Their role is limited to interpreting what is said between the Police and the interviewee. The Police remain responsible for conducting the interview and recording the statement in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The Police do not track the number of cases which require an interpreter. The Police currently have a panel of 119 interpreters who can be called upon as necessary. They are collectively proficient in 39 foreign languages, excluding our official languages.
Police Instruction to Law Society on Withholding Audit Committee Report, Legal Basis and Binding Effect, and Members' Entitlement to Report Access›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 191w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25123
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Police instructed the Law Society to withhold its Audit Committee Report from members, and if so, under what legal provision; (b) whether this instruction is binding on the Law Society; and (c) whether Law Society members are entitled as of right to receive the said report.
Mr K Shanmugam128 words
[+5 sentences]The Police received a report with allegations that certain matters disclosed in the report by the Law Society of Singapore's Audit Committee may disclose possible offences. Investigations are ongoing. The Police have requested that the Law Society hold back distributing the report by the Audit Committee until further notice, as Police investigations are ongoing. The Police will inform the relevant parties when it is assessed that the distribution of the report would not jeopardise or prejudice the ongoing investigation or any proceedings, if initiated. The disclosure of the report by the Law Society to its members is a matter for the Law Society to consider, having regard to proper governance and the gravity of the matters raised in the complaint as well as the findings in the report.
Conflicting Accounts of Singapore's Meeting with Israeli Officials and Scope of Discussions, and Whether POFMA Correction Should Have Been Issued Against Haaretz›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 446w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25124
Mr Fadli Fawzi79 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether Singapore discussed with Israeli officials on addressing illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank during a recent meeting, and if not, why not; and (b) whether Singapore requested that the meeting be secret, and (i) if so, why and (ii) if not, why a correction order under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act was not issued against Haaretz's reporting.
Mr K Shanmugam367 words
[+17 sentences]Singapore regularly holds discussions with international counterparts on security and law enforcement matters. These engagements are vital for the exchange of information and intelligence between agencies, and have enabled us to identify potential threats, intervene early and keep Singapore safe. It is in our national interest to maintain these channels of cooperation, including with countries in the Middle East. The meeting with the Israeli delegation was one such engagement. The discussions focused on operational and security-related issues and did not extend to broader foreign policy matters. Singapore's positions on such matters are addressed through the appropriate foreign policy channels, including by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The contents of the exchanges undertaken by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) are confidential and generally not publicised, given the security concerns. Since January 2025, MHA has had 11 officials-level bilateral exchanges with foreign counterparts, including several with partners from the Middle East. Of these, a press release was issued for only one, at the request of the counterpart concerned. MHA responded to the Haaretz article because the article's claims concerning the meeting with Israeli security officials were categorically false. At the time of the article's publication, the assessment, based on legal advice, was that the public interest grounds for issuing a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Direction were not met. This does not, however, preclude the subsequent issuance of a POFMA Direction should circumstances materially change and warrant a different assessment. That is the approach MHA takes to discussions with its bilateral counterparts on matters of shared operational and security concern. If the Member believes that MHA should use such engagements to raise broader concerns about the policies or conduct of the country concerned, then he should say so clearly. He should also clarify whether he believes this principle should apply only to Israel or consistently to all countries with which MHA engages. For example, when MHA holds operational discussions with other Middle Eastern or Asian countries, should we also raise the concerns Singapore may have with their conduct or policies? If that is the Member's position, the Government would be interested to understand how he proposes that such an approach would serve Singapore's overall interests.
Feasibility Study Timeline, Decision Criteria and Regional Collaboration for Singapore's National Paediatric Heart Transplant Programme›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 156w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25125
Mr Victor Lye56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) when does the Ministry expect to complete its study on the feasibility of a national paediatric heart transplant programme; (b) what patient volume, clinical capability and sustainability criteria will guide the decision; and (c) whether regional collaboration is being considered to improve programme viability.
Mr Ong Ye Kung100 words
[+5 sentences]The Ministry of Health is reviewing the need and feasibility of a national paediatric heart transplant programme. We will have to consider the projected patient volumes, the ability to maintain the necessary clinical and multidisciplinary expertise for good patient outcomes, and the measures required to ensure the long-term sustainability of the programme. International and regional cooperation is one way to address the challenge of small volume of patients. In this regard, our Public Healthcare Institutions have begun establishing relationships with leading international heart transplantation centres for training and knowledge exchange. We should be able to complete the review by mid-2027.
Assignment Process and Criteria for Oncologists at Public Cancer Institutions to Patients with Rare Cancers›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 108w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25126
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding oncologist assignments for rare cancers at public cancer institutions (a) what is the process for the assignment of patients to oncologists; and (b) whether patients with a specific rare cancer diagnosis are assigned to oncologists with the highest recorded case volume or declared sub-specialty interest in that cancer.
Mr Ong Ye Kung48 words
[+2 sentences]Patients seen at public healthcare institutions are generally assigned to an oncologist based on the type of cancer diagnosed, their clinical needs and the expertise required. Patients may also be supported by multidisciplinary teams comprising medical, surgical and radiation oncologists, as well as other relevant specialists, where appropriate.
Assessment on Capacity Utilisation, Same-day Consultation Availability and Expansion Plans for Sengkang Polyclinic›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 158w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25127
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how close is Sengkang Polyclinic to its physical and manpower capacity; (b) whether capacity constraints affect residents' ability to obtain same-day consultations; and (c) whether the Ministry plans to increase the polyclinic's capacity in the near future.
Mr Ong Ye Kung109 words
[+5 sentences]Sengkang Polyclinic has been experiencing high demand. It expanded its capacity through on-site renovations in end-2024 and developed a purpose-built facility at the fourth level of Sengkang Community Club in August 2026. In times of high demand, online appointments for same-day consultations may be less readily available. Nevertheless, Sengkang Polyclinic accommodates walk-in patients, particularly those who are assessed to require urgent medical care, or frail seniors facing mobility difficulties. We will continue to explore options to expand the capacity of the Polyclinic and also work with the general practitioner clinics, which are an important and accessible option for community-based primary care for minor acute illnesses and chronic medical conditions.
Early Intervention for Seniors at Risk of Social Isolation Outside Active Ageing Centres and Formal Care Services›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 212w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25128
Mr Gabriel Lam48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what more can be done to provide early intervention for seniors at-risk of social isolation, who are neither regularly engaged by an Active Ageing Centre nor receiving formal community care services, when their health or mobility deteriorates.
Mr Ong Ye Kung164 words
[+6 sentences]This reply will also address a similar Parliamentary Question raised by the same Member for a subsequent Sitting. The Government will implement national policies and programmes, such as Age Well SG and outreach by the Silver Generation Office, while the community provides the social support network for at-risk seniors through its services and volunteer network to help at-risk seniors stay connected and healthy. For instance, community befrienders from Active Ageing Centres (AACs) visit such seniors at least once a month and encourage them to head out of their homes for activities. These include meals in the community and active ageing programmes at AACs, which also conduct activities, such as music, games and sports, that align with the interests of male seniors. But ultimately, families and individuals have to do their part and agree to receive support and help. Members of the public can also play a role by contacting the Agency for Integrated Care Hotline if they encounter a senior who may need help.
Lung Cancer Trends Among Never-smokers Over Past 10 Years, Assessment of Long-term PM2.5 and Haze Exposure, and Environmental Data Collection by Singapore Cancer Registry›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 194w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25130
Mr Cai Yinzhou70 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the trend in lung cancer incidence among never smokers in Singapore over the past 10 years; (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the contribution of long-term PM2.5 exposure, including from transboundary haze, to such incidence; and (c) whether the Singapore Cancer Registry will collect environmental exposure data such as residential air quality to support such assessment.
Mr Ong Ye Kung124 words
[+6 sentences]A 2026 modelling study based on local data indicates an increasing lung cancer incidence in never smokers in both males and females. Based on international studies, PM2.5 is associated with a higher risk of lung cancer. That said, this is often after long term exposure, and the effect of our periodic haze exposure will only be known much later when studies are done to correlate environment factors and disease prevalence. Environmental exposure is multifactorial and may be influenced by the mitigating measures taken by an individual and time spent in environments beyond the individual's residence. Smoking remains the top risk factor for lung cancer. Overall cancer risk can also be reduced, such as by smoking cessation, limiting alcohol consumption and maintaining a healthy diet.
Uptake of Inland Ash Scattering and Sea Scattering in Past Three Years, and Cross-agency Efforts in Strengthening Public Acceptance on Alternative Cremation Options›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 244w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25132
Mr David Hoe63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the annual take-up rates of inland ash scattering and sea scattering over the past three years, including their respective shares of total cremation cases; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider strengthening public education and engagement with the Ministry of Health and relevant agencies to improve understanding and acceptance of these options.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien181 words
[+9 sentences]The National Environment Agency (NEA) has been offering inland ash scattering as an option for cremated ashes since May 2021. Since its introduction, demand has grown steadily, with the number of scatterings rising from about 2,000 in 2023 to about 2,200 in 2024, and about 2,500 in 2025. These figures represent approximately 9%, 10% and 12% of total cremations in each respective year. Scattering of ashes at sea is currently offered by funeral service providers at a designated site about 3.2 kilometres east of the Raffles Lighthouse. NEA currently does not track the take-up rates of sea scattering. Nonetheless, NEA is exploring ways to encourage sea scattering. More information will be shared in due course. NEA works actively with other agencies, religious leaders and community stakeholders to raise awareness of ash scattering as a post-cremation option, while respecting the preferences and religious practices of the deceased and their families. More information on post-death matters, including ash scattering options, can be found on NEA's website and My Legacy@LifeSG, a one-stop Government portal for information on end-of-life planning, estate settlement and funeral arrangements.
Defining and Measuring Affordable Hawker Food Options Using Meal Price, Household Income and Proximity Indicators for Lower-income Households and Seniors›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 325w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25133
Mr Victor Lye69 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how does the Government define and measure "affordable food" in fulfilling the mission of hawker centres to provide affordable food options; and (b) what is the extent that affordability should be assessed with reference to (i) prices of representative basic meals, (ii) household income, particularly of lower-income households and seniors and (iii) the reasonable proximity and availability of such meals.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien256 words
[+13 sentences]Food affordability is influenced by a range of factors and can differ from household to household. The Government therefore does not define “affordable food” by a single price threshold. Instead, we consider affordability in terms of whether residents have access to a range of affordable food options in their neighbourhoods. The Government does not regulate the prices of cooked food sold at hawker centres. Instead, we seek to provide hawkers with a conducive operating environment that enables them to keep their prices affordable while sustaining their livelihoods. The Government bears the upfront cost of building hawker centres and does not recover this cost from stallholders. The National Environment Agency also has policies in place to keep rents at hawker centres stable, including not setting reserve rents for stall tenders and disallowing subletting. Hawker centres are generally regarded as important places for affordable food options. For example, a RySense survey from 2023 found that three in four respondents supported keeping hawker culture alive because hawker centres provide good food at affordable prices. Affordable food options should also be reasonably accessible to residents where they live. The Government has therefore built over 120 hawker centres across Singapore to keep affordable food options within the reach of Singaporeans and has plans to build more. The Government also works closely with the community to provide targeted support for lower-income households and seniors that need it. For example, some neighbourhoods have community initiatives, such as affordable food vending machines and free warm meals provided through food lockers near rental flat residents.
Access Controls for SAFER Unit Data Sharing and Ensuring AI Risk Algorithms Avoid Unfair Profiling or Privacy Infringements Against Vulnerable Families›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 183w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25134
Mr Yip Hon Weng67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development regarding the use of data analytics and data sharing in the Sensemaking Alerts for Frontline Engagement and Response (SAFER) unit (a) what strict access controls govern the sharing of highly-sensitive client records between public agencies and non-government Social Service Agencies; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure AI risk algorithms avoid unfair profiling or privacy infringements against vulnerable families.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M116 words
[+5 sentences]The Sensemaking Alerts for Frontline Engagement and Response (SAFER) brings together relevant data from different agencies to sense make and identify cases with child safety concerns for further assessment and follow-up by child protection practitioners. Where needed, SAFER escalates cases by providing the specific Social Service Agency (SSA) with relevant case information to support their assessment and determine the right level of support for families. Any information sharing, be it between Government agencies or SSAs, is governed by existing legal and policy safeguards against misuse. The current risk algorithm does not utilise any AI. Any future expansion in the use of data analytics or AI will continue to be subject to rigorous safeguards and human oversight.
Proportion and Reasons for Unanswered Outbound Calls from Government Agencies, and Measures to Improve Outreach to Residents Requiring Assistance›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 197w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25135
Ms Valerie Lee60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government tracks the proportion and reasons for unanswered outbound calls from Government agencies, including whether concerns about scams are a factor; and (b) what measures can be taken to improve the reachability of residents requiring assistance and to enable them to confidently identify and respond to legitimate Government communications.
Mrs Josephine Teo137 words
[+5 sentences]The Government recognises that as members of the public become more vigilant against scams, particularly Government Official Impersonation Scams, some may be cautious about answering calls from unfamiliar numbers, including legitimate calls from Government agencies. The Government does not centrally track the proportion of unanswered outbound calls across Government agencies or the reasons why such calls are unanswered. As previously shared at the Committee of Supply 2026, to help members of the public more readily recognise legitimate Government calls and answer these calls, Government agencies will make calls using numbers that start with a common Government prefix, and these calls will display a recognisable Government caller name. The Singapore Police Force will pilot the use of the common prefix later this year before we roll out these measures across Government. More details will be shared when ready.
Verifying Identity of Government Officers and Accessing Contact Details Following Changes to Singapore Government Directory Listing›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 326w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25136
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information following the removal of many public officers' contact details from the Singapore Government Directory, how can the public (i) verify the identity of an officer who contacts them when authenticity is in doubt; and (ii) obtain the contact details of a specific officer for legitimate business or follow-up with the Government, where necessary.
Mrs Josephine Teo265 words
[+9 sentences]My reply will address the Oral Parliamentary Question raised by Mr Louis Chua and the Written Parliamentary Question raised by Mr Dennis Tan in today's Order Paper, as they relate to the streamlining of contact details on the Singapore Government Directory (SGDI). [Please refer to "Verifying Identities of Public Service Officers Given Removal of Contact Information from Online Singapore Government Directory", Official Report, 7 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 39, Oral Answers to Questions section.] The SGDI was streamlined on 1 July 2026 to reduce the risk of scammers misusing Government officers' names and contact details to carry out impersonation scams. SGDI serves as a public directory of Government officers and agency contact information. However, it should not be used to prove that a person is a public officer with a legitimate reason for calling or e-mailing them. Members of the public who wish to confirm that a public officer is attempting to reach them should contact the relevant Government agency directly through its official channels, such as the agency's website or its Quality Service Manager (QSM). To facilitate this, QSM contact details have been made more prominent on SGDI, providing clearer avenues for the public to reach Government agencies for enquiries and feedback. The Government will continue to strengthen safeguards against impersonation scams while ensuring that Government agencies remain accessible to the public. We are developing measures to help the public identify legitimate phone calls from the Government. Later this year, we will introduce a common phone number prefix for calls from Government agencies, followed by a recognisable caller name displayed on recipients' phones.
Reasons for Reports Deemed Ineligible for Action by Online Safety Commission›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 148w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25137
Ms Gho Sze Kee48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in respect of the more than 500 reports received by the Online Safety Commission since its commencement on 29 June 2026 (a) how many were assessed to be ineligible for action; and (b) what were the reasons for such assessments.
Mrs Josephine Teo100 words
[+5 sentences]From its commencement on 29 June 2026 until 31 August 2026 (both dates inclusive), the Online Safety Commission (OSC) received more than 500 reports alleging online harms. Around 200 of these were assessed to be ineligible reports. Ineligible reports include duplicate reports made by the same victim and reports made by someone other than the victim, who is neither authorised by the victim nor is a parent or guardian of a child victim. They also include reports that fall outside the five online harms currently prioritised by OSC. In such cases, the victims were referred to community partners for assistance.
Evaluating Impact of ReadSG Challenge in Cultivating Long-term Reading Habits Beyond Reward-driven Participation›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 193w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25138
Ms He Ting Ru49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what metrics will be used to evaluate the ReadSG Challenge's effectiveness in cultivating long-term reading habits; (b) whether the metrics distinguish book reading from other logged content; and (c) whether reading behaviour will be tracked after participants stop receiving rewards.
Mrs Josephine Teo144 words
[+6 sentences]Launched in September 2026, ReadSG is the National Library Board's (NLB's) five-year national movement to encourage Singaporeans to rediscover the joy of reading and build reading into their everyday lives. It builds on the reach, participation and partnerships established through NLB's past efforts to promote reading, while placing a stronger focus on building sustained reading habits. The ReadSG Challenge aims to help Singaporeans kickstart a regular reading habit by reading for at least 15 minutes a day. Beyond participation in the Challenge, the longer-term effectiveness of ReadSG will be assessed by changes in Singaporeans' reading habits and their attitudes towards reading, as measured through the National Reading Habits Study (NRHS). Specific metrics include whether more Singaporeans read daily or almost daily, and whether more Singaporeans see reading as an enjoyable, meaningful and worthwhile activity. The NRHS will distinguish between books and other reading formats.
Breakdown of Autonomous University Admissions by Polytechnic Diploma, JC "A" Levels and Private Candidate "A" Levels over Past Five Cohorts›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 107w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25139
Ms Elysa Chen57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education for each of the past five cohorts, whether the Ministry has data on the proportion of applicants admitted to the autonomous universities, broken down by whether the applicant held (i) a polytechnic diploma, (ii) "A" Level qualifications obtained through a junior college or (iii) "A" Level qualifications obtained as a private candidate.
Mr Desmond Lee50 words
[+2 sentences]In recent Autonomous University (AU) intake cohorts, "A" Level holders and polytechnic diploma holders each constitute around 45% of the local students admitted to full-time undergraduate programmes. The proportion of those admitted with "A" Level qualifications obtained as a private candidate has remained small, at less than 1% of intake.
Reasons for Decrease in Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund Disbursements Under "Placements" Category in FY2025›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 145w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25140
Ms Gho Sze Kee57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education in respect of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund Annual Report for the Financial Year ended 31 March 2026 (a) what specific programmes and programme managers accounted for the disbursements under the "Placements" category in FY2025; and (b) what accounts for the decrease from $145.3 million in FY2024 to $5.9 million in FY2025.
Mr Desmond Lee88 words
[+3 sentences]The disbursements reported under the "Placements" category in FY2025 related to employment and placement support programmes administered by the former Workforce Singapore, now known as the Skills and Workforce Development Agency. These included programmes that support jobseekers and facilitate employment and placement. The decrease in expenditure under the "Placements" category from $145.3 million in FY2024 to $5.9 million in FY2025 was due to a broader review leading to some placement-related programmes being no longer funded through the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund in FY2025, but through other funding sources.
Measures to Assess Students' Ability to Perform Key Learning Tasks without AI Assistance›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 169w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25141
Mr Jackson Lam31 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry intends to develop measures to assess students' ability to perform key learning tasks without AI assistance, particularly in writing, research and problem solving.
Mr Desmond Lee138 words
[+6 sentences]The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises the importance of ensuring that students continue to develop strong foundational knowledge and skills, while learning to use AI appropriately and responsibly. Our assessments are designed according to their intended purpose, including assessing what students can do independently. National and school-based examinations are typically proctored and disallow the use of AI, so that students' independent abilities can be assessed. For assessments where some AI use is appropriate to the task, such as in certain research or coursework, students must state how AI is used and they remain responsible for their own work. While AI is permitted, assessments are designed to require students to demonstrate their own thinking, judgement and understanding. MOE will continue to review our assessment approaches as AI capabilities evolve, ensuring they reflect what students have learnt and can do.
School Board Matching Programme Update, and Feedback and Outcomes from Initial Pilot Schools›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 171w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25142
Dr Neo Kok Beng61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the status of the School Board Matching Programme, including the current number of corporate executives and family office leaders successfully matched to neighbourhood School Advisory Committees; and (b) what are the key feedback and outcomes from the initial pilot schools, particularly regarding the expansion of industry networks and career development opportunities for students.
Mr Desmond Lee110 words
[+6 sentences]The Ministry of Education (MOE) is collaborating with local charity, ImpactSG, through its School Board Match Programme to identify and introduce suitable volunteers, including corporate executives and family office leaders, to our School Advisory Committees (SACs). We piloted the programme with four schools in the initial phase and have successfully matched four such volunteers to these schools by April 2026. As the partnership is still in its early stages, it is premature to assess its outcomes. MOE also collaborates with other organisations to match volunteers to SACs. Since 2021, some 170 volunteers have been matched. We will continue to monitor their contributions and match more volunteers to schools where suitable.
Data on Students Referred to Health Sciences Authority for E-vaporiser Possession and Use, and Ongoing Prevalence of Vaping in Schools›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 178w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25143
Dr Neo Kok Beng50 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past 12 months, how many students from primary schools, secondary schools, and Institutes of Higher Learning have been referred to the Health Sciences Authority for e-vaporiser possession or use; and (b) whether vaping is still a major issue for schools to manage.
Mr Desmond Lee128 words
[+5 sentences]Since the stepped-up measures against vaping were implemented on 1 September 2025, the average number of students referred to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) monthly for vaping offences has dropped from 181 students (September 2024 to August 2025) to 62 students (September 2025 to August 2026). The reduction in the average number of students referred to HSA suggests that the multi-agency efforts in detection, reporting and enforcement in Singapore are making a meaningful difference. Schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) will continue to maintain high vigilance and zero tolerance towards vaping. Students caught vaping are subjected to school- or institution-based disciplinary measures, in addition to national penalties. More importantly, offenders receive rehabilitation and counselling support to help them in breaking the habit and making better choices.
Student Care Centre Access and Referral Pathways for Children with Special Educational Needs Attending Mainstream Schools›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 119w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25144
Mr Cai Yinzhou49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) how many children with special educational needs attending mainstream schools have been unable to secure or retain places in school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs); and (b) what referral pathways and school coordination exist where an SCC cannot meet a child's special educational needs.
Mr Desmond Lee70 words
[+3 sentences]The Ministry of Education does not track the number of students with special educational needs who have been unable to secure or retain places in school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs). In cases where SCC staff find it challenging to meet the students' special educational needs, schools work with the SCC operators and parents to support the students. School personnel also guide SCC staff by sharing strategies to support these students.
Quality and Reliability of Freelance Court Interpretation Services, and Complaints on Accuracy›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 118w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25145
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Law for each year from 2021 to 2025, whether the Ministry can provide data on (i) how many court hearings required freelance interpreters, broken down by language (ii) how many complaints or objections concerning interpretation accuracy by such interpreters were raised by parties or the court and (iii) how many resulted in re-interpretation, adjournment or a change of interpreter.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai55 words
[+1 sentence]This Parliamentary Question has been addressed by the Ministry of Law's answer to written Parliamentary Question No 102 on 6 October 2026. [Please refer to "Qualifications and Accreditation, Court Procedure Training and Quality Assessment for Freelance Interpreters Engaged by Singapore Courts", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Price Tracking of Common Cooked Meals Across Public and Private Food Establishments, and Median Prices and Differences Across Categories›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 130w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25146
Mr Victor Lye67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether the Government tracks the prices of comparable common cooked meals across (i) NEA-managed hawker centres (ii) Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (iii) HDB rental coffeeshops (iv) privately owned HDB coffeeshops and (v) private food courts; and (b) if so, what are the median prices and price differences across these categories over the past five years.
Dr Tan See Leng63 words
[+2 sentences]The Department of Statistics (DOS) publishes the average prices of selected cooked food items, such as coffee, chicken rice, mee rebus and roti prata, sold at hawker centres, food courts and coffee shops on a monthly basis. The data can be found on DOS' website.1 Comparative data on the prices of these cooked food items across types of food establishments are not available.
Reassessing Food and Beverage Sector's Economic Contribution Following Food and Beverage Sales Index Rebasing and Policy Implications of Revised Scale›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 294w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25147
Mr Shawn Loh76 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) following the rebasing of the Food and Beverage Sales Index in 2026, which led to a significant increase in monthly reported estimated food and beverage (F&B) sales from $1 billion in July 2025 to $1.6 billion in July 2026 (a) how does this change the Government's view of F&B's contribution to the economy; and (b) what are the policy implications given the industry's great heft.
Dr Tan See Leng218 words
[+9 sentences]In March 2026, the Department of Statistics (DOS) conducted a one-time review of the coverage of food and beverage (F&B) firms to better reflect the overall F&B business landscape. Separately, DOS also completed its rebasing of the F&B Sales Index (FSI) from base year 2017 to 2025. Together, these led to upward revisions in the historical F&B business statistics, including the monthly F&B sales estimates, from 2010 onwards. Based on the revised data, F&B sales in July 2025 was S$1,637 million, higher than the S$1,607 million recorded for July 2026. The F&B sector's share of nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2025 remained stable at around 1%. (The revised data are available on SingStat Table Builder.1) This revision does not change the Government's policy approach towards the sector. The F&B sector is an important domestic-facing sector that serves our residents and provides employment opportunities. We will continue to help our F&B businesses raise productivity and strengthen their capabilities to meet their growth needs, through support schemes, such as the F&B Process Optimisation Programme, the FoodX Programme and EnterpriseSG's EDGE grant. For businesses which require support through transitions and restructuring of their operations, the Government will work closely with relevant stakeholders, including our Trade Associations and Chambers, to help them assess their options early and pursue new growth opportunities.
Modelling and Balancing Additional Electricity and Water Demand Arising from AI Computing and Data Centre Growth with Singapore's Energy and Sustainability Objectives›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 202w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25148
Mr Jackson Lam55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether the Government has modelled the additional electricity and water demand arising from AI computing and data centre growth over the next five to 10 years; and (b) how will such demands be balanced against Singapore's energy security, water security and emissions objectives.
Dr Tan See Leng147 words
[+8 sentences]The Government aims to support the sustainable growth of Singapore's data centre (DC) sector while managing its resource footprint. Projected electricity and water demand from DCs, including AI computing, is factored into our national infrastructure planning. Since the 2019 to 2022 moratorium on DC sector growth, Singapore has calibrated the pace of DC growth, taking into account our energy security, water security, decarbonisation and other objectives. New DC capacity is now primarily allocated through the Data Centre-Call for Application (DC-CFA) exercise. In the recently concluded second DC-CFA exercise, applicants were required to power at least 50% of their DC capacity from green energy sources. We are also improving the resource efficiency of the DC sector. The recently introduced Digital Infrastructure Bill will require existing and new DCs to meet facility-level Power Usage Effectiveness requirements. The framework also allows for water efficiency requirements to be introduced where necessary.
Projected Cost Savings from Assessment of Economic Viability of Nuclear Energy›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 118w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25149
Ms Lee Hui Ying56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) regarding the study on the viability of nuclear energy (a) whether the Government currently has projections on the cost savings that Singapore and Singaporeans can expect as part of its assessment on the economic viability of nuclear energy; and (b) if so, what are they.
Dr Tan See Leng62 words
[+3 sentences]The projected price of electricity and cost savings arising from adopting nuclear power depend on a range of factors, including the type of reactor technology deployed, financing model, manpower and fuel costs. Singapore has not made any decision on deploying nuclear energy as we are still studying the viability of a nuclear power programme. Therefore, it is premature to discuss cost implications.
Impact of Sustained Increases in Essential Household Expenses on Consumption Patterns among Lower- and Middle-income Households›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 163w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25150
Mr Gabriel Lam48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) whether the Government tracks how sustained increases in essential household expenses affect consumption patterns among lower- and middle-income households, including whether households reduce expenditure on healthcare, insurance, enrichment or other longer-term needs to meet immediate living expenses.
Dr Tan See Leng115 words
[+4 sentences]What constitutes essential household expenses would differ across households in Singapore. For food, utilities and public transport, the Household Expenditure Survey showed that between 2017/2018 and 2023, the proportion of total household expenditure spent on these items remained broadly unchanged for lower-income households in the first to 20th income percentiles, as well as middle-income households in the 21st to 80th income percentiles . Over the same period, the share of total household expenditure spent on healthcare and insurance increased for both lower- and middle-income households. As for private tuition and other educational courses, their share of total household expenditure fell slightly for lower-income households, while remaining stable for middle-income households .
Park Development as Green Lung on Vacant Public Housing Plot in Boon Keng to Address Urban Heat Findings›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 91w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25151
Mr Shawn Loh60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in view of the findings in 2024 that Boon Keng disproportionately suffers from urban heat, whether the HDB could consider building a park that could act as a green lung on the vacant plot of land bounded by Towner Road, McNair Road and Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, which is currently zoned for public housing.
Mr Chee Hong Tat31 words
[+2 sentences]The site is zoned largely for residential use in the Master Plan 2025. Agencies are reviewing the plans for the site and will consider the Member's suggestion to introduce a park.
Pausing HDB Construction Works in Vicinity of Schools during National Examination Days›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 76w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25152
Mr Shawn Loh42 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider pausing HDB construction works in the vicinity of schools during national examination days, particularly listening and oral examinations, similar to how the Ministry of Defence pauses RSAF exercises during those periods.
Mr Chee Hong Tat34 words
[+1 sentence]The Housing and Development Board coordinates with the Ministry of Education and the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board on the dates of national examinations and requires contractors to suspend high-noise activities during these examinations.
Fruit Quality Evaluation and Conservation of Superior Durian Trees on Pulau Ubin, Nature Parks and Military Training Areas›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 102w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25153
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether and when NParks will evaluate the fruit quality of durian trees surviving on Pulau Ubin, nature parks and military training areas; (b) whether superior trees will be conserved by grafting, given that durian seeds are unbankable; and (c) whether any selection will be registered under the Plant Varieties Protection Act 2004.
Mr Chee Hong Tat43 words
[+2 sentences]Durian trees found in Pulau Ubin and other areas managed by the National Parks Board (NParks) are not native to Singapore and are not a threatened species. NParks does not evaluate their fruit quality, and its conservation efforts do not include these trees.
Successful Appeals to Waive EIP Limits and Revising Buyback Assistance Criteria for Families with Extenuating Circumstances›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 159w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25155
Mr Alex Yeo74 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) over the past two years, how many appeals have there been to waive Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) limits for owners who have fulfilled the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) but owned the flat for less than 10 years; (b) how many of these appeals were successful; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider revising the criteria of 10-year ownership for the buyback assistance for families with extenuating circumstances.
Mr Chee Hong Tat85 words
[+4 sentences]Over the past two years, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received around 460 appeals to waive the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) limits from flat owners who have fulfilled the minimum occupation period for their flat but have owned it for less than 10 years. Of these, HDB acceded to around 110 appeals. The 10-year ownership condition ensures that the EIP buyback assistance benefits households who need it most. Families with extenuating circumstances can approach HDB, who will assess each case on its own merits.
Impact of Nearby Developments on Tomb of Pioneer Seah Eu Chin at Toa Payoh and Measures for Long-term Protection and Preservation›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 97w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25156
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the potential impact of nearby developments, including the construction of the North-South Corridor, on the tomb of pioneer Seah Eu Chin at Toa Payoh; and (b) what specific measures are being taken to ensure the long-term protection and preservation of the historical burial site.
Mr Chee Hong Tat41 words
[+2 sentences]The North-South Corridor works will not affect the grave of Seah Eu Chin. The Government recognises the heritage value of the grave, and our agencies have been studying how it can be retained when developing land use plans for the area.
Ensuring Environmental Studies for Proposed Western Island Evaluate Alternatives, Identify Ecological Thresholds and Undergo Independent Review and Public Consultation›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 134w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25159
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen51 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether environmental studies for the proposed western island will (i) assess alternatives involving no reclamation or substantially smaller reclamation footprints (ii) identify ecological findings that would warrant abandoning or reducing reclamation and (iii) undergo independent scientific review and public consultation while these alternatives remain open.
Mr Chee Hong Tat83 words
[+1 sentence]This Parliamentary Question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development’s reply to the Parliamentary 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.]
Independent Verification of Sand Legality and Extraction Locations and Suspending Purchases Upon Evidence of Environmental Harm or Unlawful Extraction›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 127w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25160
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether sand tender contracts for public reclamation projects permit (i) independent checks to verify the legality and extraction locations of imported reclamation sand and (ii) the contractual right to suspend purchases where credible evidence of unlawful extraction or serious environmental harm emerges.
Mr Chee Hong Tat79 words
[+3 sentences]Sand used for land reclamation projects is sourced on a commercial basis and from countries where it is legally permissible to do so. Contracts for reclamation sand include clauses requiring contractors to comply with the laws and regulations of the source countries, and contractors are required to submit export documentation and permits before imports commence. Credible reports of illegal extraction or other breaches of these requirements will be investigated by the relevant agencies, with appropriate action taken as necessary.
Addressing Telecommunications Coverage Gaps in Private Estates Limiting Electric Vehicle Charger Deployment and Measures to Address Connectivity Gaps›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 140w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25161
Ms Valerie Lee55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether inadequate telecommunications coverage in some private estates, particularly condominiums, is limiting the deployment or reliable operation of EV chargers; and (b) how is the Ministry working with relevant Government agencies and telecommunications operators to identify and address such connectivity gaps as Singapore scales up the EV charging infrastructure.
Mr Jeffrey Siow85 words
[+4 sentences]Electric Vehicle Charging Operators (EVCOs) consider various factors in the deployment of EV chargers, including telecommunications network coverage. Where there are connectivity issues, EVCOs address them by relocating the deployment of EV chargers to areas with stronger network coverage and/or installing network signal enhancement equipment. Mobile operators are required by the Infocomm Media Development Authority to provide network coverage of at least 85% within buildings. If mobile operators' overall network coverage for a building falls below 85%, they are required to take action to improve.
Passenger Feedback on High Noise Levels Inside Thomson-East Coast Line Train Cabins and Improving Current Noise Reduction Measures›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 188w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25162
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA and the train operators have received recent feedback on high noise levels inside Thomson-East Coast Line train cabins along specific stretches while trains are moving; (b) what noise measurements have been recorded for these stretches relative to the 85-decibel threshold; and (c) what further measures are being taken to reduce such noise.
Mr Jeffrey Siow128 words
[+6 sentences]Our Mass Rapid Transit system is designed to maintain average noise levels within the train cabin to below 85 decibels. This is aligned with international practices and occupational safety limits. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has received feedback about specific stretches along the Thomson-East Coast Line where noise levels in the train cabin will momentarily exceed 85 decibels as the train traverses tight curves. LTA has moderated train speeds along these tight curves and increased frequency of rail maintenance works to reduce vibration and noise. As previously announced, LTA has been trialling the use of tuned mass dampers at select stretches to further reduce noise. The trials have yielded positive results, and LTA will progressively extend the use of tuned mass dampers to other stretches of the line.
Data on Fixed-gear Bicycle Accidents and Youth Ridership, and Adequacy of Current Handbrake Safety Requirements›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 143w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25163
Ms Yeo Wan Ling60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA tracks accidents involving fixed-gear bicycles, including the age profiles of these riders; (b) whether there has been an increase in the use of such bicycles among youths; and (c) whether the current requirement for at least one functioning handbrake remains adequate for fixed-gear bicycles or having additional safety requirements should be considered.
Mr Jeffrey Siow83 words
[+5 sentences]The Land Transport Authority (LTA) does not track accidents involving fixed-gear bicycles, nor the specific demographics that use fixed-gear bicycles. Since implementing the requirement for all bicycles ridden on public paths and roads to have at least one functioning handbrake from 1 September 2021, LTA has not observed additional safety concerns. The current requirement remains adequate. Fixed-gear bicycles found to be non-compliant and used on public paths have declined since 2024. LTA will continue to work with relevant agencies to enforce this requirement.
Bus Service Peak-Hour Performance Along Jurong East Avenue 1 and Jurong West Avenue 1 and Alternative Bus Priority Approaches Following Smart Bus Priority System Trial›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 144w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25164
Dr Hamid Razak49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the average peak-hour journey times and schedule adherence of bus services plying Jurong East Avenue 1 and Jurong West Avenue 1; and (b) what alternative bus priority approaches LTA is exploring following the Smart Bus Priority System trial along this corridor.
Mr Jeffrey Siow95 words
[+4 sentences]Of the nine bus services plying Jurong East Avenue 1 and Jurong West Avenue 1, six met their baseline performance standards in terms of excess wait times and on-time adherence. The remaining three services exceeded their respective baseline performance standards marginally, and the Land Transport Authority is working with the operators to improve their performance. Along Jurong East and West Avenue 1, yellow boxes and bus priority boxes are already in place for most bus stops. Based on latest measurements, bus travel times through these roads are comparable to that of private vehicles during peak.
Data on Loading Measurement and Capacity Denominators for City Direct Services 654, 671, 677 and 682 by Bus Type›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 120w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25165
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport with respect to the published figures on average loading of trips for City Direct Services 654, 671, 677 and 682 (a) how is loading measured; (b) what bus capacity is used as the denominator for each bus service; and (c) what capacity is adopted for (i) single-decker, (ii) double-decker and (iii) articulated buses, respectively.
Mr Jeffrey Siow61 words
[+2 sentences]Average loading for a City Direct Service is calculated by comparing average ridership based on ticketing data across all trips, against the passenger capacity of the buses deployed for each trip of that service. The passenger capacities range from 80 to 90 for single-deck buses, 120 to 139 for double-deck buses and 131 for articulated buses, depending on model and design.
Implementing New Bus Commuter Conduct Rules Through Enforcement Safeguards and CCTV Utilisation, and Metrics to Assess Behavioural Improvements›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 188w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25166
Dr Choo Pei Ling52 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport given the new bus commuter conduct rules (a) how will enforcement and safeguards operate for authorised staff and vulnerable commuters; (b) whether technology including Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) will be utilised; and (c) what metrics will the LTA use to assess improvements in commuter behaviour and bus environment.
Mr Jeffrey Siow136 words
[+6 sentences]We want to foster a caring and gracious commuting culture where commuters look out for one another and exercise social responsibility so as to minimise the need for enforcement. For egregious cases of misconduct, technological tools, such as Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV), will be used to support enforcement officers in the identification or tracing of offenders. All enforcement staff are trained to be consistent, measured and proportionate when enforcing the new regulations. Bus captains are also trained to look out for and assist commuters with disabilities, including those with invisible conditions. They will exercise discretion before requiring a commuter to alight, taking into account the circumstances of each case. The Land Transport Authority will continue to track the effectiveness of the new regulations through feedback received and annual surveys, such as the Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Survey.
Evaluating Wheelchair Bay Trial Against Disability Rights Obligations and Parameters for Restoring Priority or Redesigning Bus Spaces›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 237w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25167
Ms He Ting Ru68 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport regarding LTA's "First to Board, First to Use" wheelchair bay trial (a) whether it will be assessed against obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; (b) what parameters will govern whether to restore wheelchair users' priority or explore bus redesigns with separate convertible spaces as proposed by disability groups; and (c) by when a decision will be made.
Mr Jeffrey Siow169 words
[+8 sentences]The Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) intent for the trial is to address situations where passengers who are already using the wheelchair bay cannot practically give way to someone who is about to board the bus. The trial also enables us to get better feedback on how different commuter groups are impacted. As previously stated, the trial is expected to end on 26 October 2026. After the end of the trial, LTA will consider all feedback from disability groups and families with young children, and the implications for bus captains' operational duties, before deciding on the way forward. Our bus network will continue to comply with Singapore's commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Our newer buses are designed with two wheelchair bays. While these bays are equipped with foldable seats for other passengers when they are not in use, this still results in fewer overall seats compared to older buses. We will continue to explore designs that will best accommodate different commuter groups.
Assessing First-mile Travel Times and Connectivity Gaps for Sembawang and Canberra Residents Against Other Comparable Residential Towns›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 100w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25168
Mr Gabriel Lam54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has studied what proportion of Sembawang residents' longer commute times is attributable to first-mile travel, including waiting and transfer times to reach an MRT station; and (b) whether there are parts of Sembawang and Canberra where this component is significantly longer than in comparable residential towns.
Mr Jeffrey Siow46 words
[+2 sentences]Based on the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) data, first-and-last mile travel times to the nearest MRT station for Sembawang and Canberra residents are comparable to other residential towns. LTA will continue to make efforts to shorten public transport journey times, including reducing waiting and transfer times.
Non-resident Participation in Community Volunteer Scheme, Opportunities for Greater Responsibilities and Structured Pathways for Sustained Volunteers›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 214w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25169
Mr David Hoe60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the People's Association (PA) tracks participation by long-term non-residents in its Community Volunteer scheme; (b) what opportunities exist for those who volunteer regularly to take on greater responsibilities; and (c) whether PA will consider more structured pathways for sustained non-resident volunteers while retaining existing eligibility requirements for formal grassroots leadership.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai154 words
[+7 sentences]I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). Volunteers are integral to PA's mission. We have a range of volunteering opportunities where everyone, residents and non-residents, can care for and give back to the community. For individuals who may be looking for ad-hoc volunteering opportunities, the Community Volunteering scheme welcomes all, regardless of citizenship or residency status, to volunteer based on causes, skills or projects. In line with the objectives of the scheme, we do not track citizenship or residency status of our Community Volunteers. As Community Volunteers build their experience and readiness, we invite them to step up and take on greater responsibility, such as leading volunteer teams, mentoring new volunteers or coordinating community engagement activities. Community Volunteers who are ready for higher commitment and a more structured programme and are a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident, may apply to be grassroot leaders.
Personal Data Breach of SG Youth Forum Participants and Measures to Prevent Recurrence›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 235w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25170
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in respect of the recent disclosure of SG Youth Forum participants' personal data by the National Youth Council (a) how did the incident occur; (b) how many individuals were affected; (c) when were they notified; and (d) what measures are being taken to prevent recurrence across the Ministry's agencies.
Mr David Neo178 words
[+8 sentences]On 25 August 2026, due to a human error, a file containing the names and NRIC numbers of about 600 participants was sent by mistake to a private email address. The National Youth Council (NYC) discovered the error that day and subsequently requested the recipient to delete the information. After repeated attempts to contact the recipient were unsuccessful, NYC assessed that no further action could be reasonably taken. On 3 September 2026, NYC emailed all affected participants to notify them of the incident, disclosed what happened, apologised for the error and offered channels for them to connect with NYC on the incident. For participants who had further concerns or queries, NYC officers personally engaged them and addressed their concerns. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and NYC take the protection of personal data seriously. In response to this incident, NYC has taken immediate action to review its data transfer processes and address vulnerabilities that could result in similar scenarios. It is also reviewing other data handling processes in the organisation to strengthen them and institute additional safeguards.
Data on ActiveSG Booking Resale Violations Reported and Suspended Bookings, and Appeal Channels for Affected Users›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 177w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25171
Ms Lee Hui Ying64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth since the inclusion of "advertising any bookings or inciting others to on-sell over social platforms" as a violation of ActiveSG's Terms of Use (a) how many reports of alleged ActiveSG bookings through social media platforms have been received since 15 July 2026; (b) how many resulted in suspension; and (c) what are the appeal channels available.
Mr David Neo113 words
[+5 sentences]ActiveSG's Terms of Use prohibit the on-selling of court bookings and related activities that undermine fair access to ActiveSG facilities. In line with this, ActiveSG updated its Terms of Use on 15 July 2026 to make clear that advertising of any bookings or inciting others to on-sell over social media platforms would also constitute a contravention. Since then, we have received more than 230 cases of alleged on-selling. We investigate every case, and this has resulted in more than 50 accounts being suspended to date. Members are given an opportunity to provide explanations before any enforcement action is taken, and thereafter to submit appeals to Sport Singapore should there be additional mitigating evidence.
Workplace Harassment Complaints Without Independent Employer Investigations and Empowering TAFEP to Compel or Audit Investigations›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 201w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25172
Ms Elysa Chen60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) of the workplace harassment complaints received by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) in 2025, what proportion of employers did not carry out an independent investigation into the complaints; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider amending the relevant legislation to empower TAFEP to compel or audit such investigations.
Ms Jasmin Lau141 words
[+6 sentences]In 2025, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received 59 workplace harassment complaints. Upon receiving a complaint, TAFEP will engage the employers to request that they carry out independent investigations, in accordance with the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment. The vast majority of employers had complied, less than 5% of employers did not do so and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and TAFEP have issued advisories to these employers to remind them. To strengthen protections for employees against workplace harassment and discrimination, we had enacted the new Workplace Fairness Act (WFA), which will be implemented in end-2027. Under the WFA, employers will be required to put in place internal grievance handling processes and conduct investigations into workplace harassment and discrimination grievances raised. MOM will be empowered to take enforcement actions against employers who do not comply.
Measures to Support Working Adults in Accessing Preventive Health Screenings Through Dedicated Time Off and Employer Incentives›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 239w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25173
Ms Valerie Lee62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what measures can the Ministry take to encourage employers to provide employees with dedicated time off for preventive health screenings, separate from medical leave, particularly for working adults who may defer screenings due to work commitments; and (b) whether incentives or workplace health guidelines can be considered to encourage wider adoption of preventive health screenings.
Ms Jasmin Lau177 words
[+8 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) strongly encourages employers to support employees in managing their health proactively, including giving employees time-off for annual Healthier SG check-ins and preventive care appointments. In 2023, in support of Healthier SG, MOM and the Ministry of Health (MOH) worked with tripartite partners to issue a Tripartite Statement, encouraging employers to grant time off for annual check-ins and preventive care appointments (for example, nationally recommended vaccinations and screenings). MOM also directly supports employee access to preventive health screenings through the Total Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) programme, administered by the WSH Council. This free programme seeks to equip workers with knowledge and provide activity programmes to support their holistic well-being. Participating employers can select from different safety and health activity packages for workers, including health screening and coaching. Going forward, MOM and its tripartite partners are considering measures to improve workplace health practices. This includes studying how employers can be further encouraged to adopt progressive medical benefits as part of the ongoing Employment Act review. We will provide an update in due course.
Strengthening Employment Support for Older Resident Workers Aged 50 and Above›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 97w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25174
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan40 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, what further measures the Ministry is considering to support this group of workers.
Ms Jasmin Lau57 words
[+1 sentence]This Parliamentary Question has been addressed by the reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos 1 to 10 in the Order Paper for 6 October 2026. [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.]
Breakdown of Retrenched PMET Re-employment Outcomes by Industry and Wage Difference, and Enhancing Jobseeker Support Scheme›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 232w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25175
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) in the last three years, what proportion of retrenched professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) are re-employed into a different industry; (b) what proportion experience lower wages upon re-employment; (c) how these outcomes differ by previous industry and last-drawn salary band; and (d) whether the Jobseeker Support Scheme can be enhanced to support more PMETs.
Ms Jasmin Lau170 words
[+7 sentences]From 2023 to 2025, 67.4% of retrenched resident Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) who were re-employed switched to a different industry, of which 60.2% of them earned lower wages than their last-drawn salary. Retrenched resident PMETs who remained in the same industry were less likely to experience wage loss. Of those that switched to a different industry, retrenched resident PMETs from outward-oriented sectors (for example, Manufacturing, Transport and Storage) were more likely to experience wage decline upon re-employment. On the other hand, those from domestic-oriented sectors (for example, Food and Beverage services, Retail Trade) were less likely to experience wage decline upon re-employment into a different sector. Retrenched resident PMETs with previous earnings above the median PMET income were more likely to experience wage loss. The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme provides temporary financial support to involuntarily unemployed individuals who are actively seeking employment. The Ministry of Manpower is studying the impact of the JS scheme, which was launched in April 2025 and will assess if enhancements are needed.
Assessment of Jobseeker Support Scheme and Job Placement Outcomes›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 176w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25176
Mr Shawn Loh55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the Job Seeker Support Scheme (JSS) that has been implemented since April 2025; and (b) has the Ministry observed differences in the job placement outcomes between jobseekers receiving JSS payouts and those that do not, including the time taken to find employment.
Ms Jasmin Lau121 words
[+6 sentences]The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support (JS) scheme was launched in April 2025 to provide temporary financial support to involuntarily unemployed individuals while they actively search for a job. As at 31 July 2026, the JS scheme has provided support to 5,700 jobseekers, of which 66.5% found new job roles within six months of joining the scheme. On average, JS scheme beneficiaries take about four months to secure a job. It is still too early to draw firm conclusions on the impact of the JS scheme. We are studying if scheme beneficiaries have better employment outcomes compared to similar jobseekers who do not receive the support. We will use the findings to assess the scheme's effectiveness and how it can better support jobseekers.
Complimentary AI Tool Subscription Scheme Redemption Rates, Uptake Targets and Breakdown of Popular AI Tools Subscribed›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 130w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25177
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many Singaporeans have redeemed the complimentary six-month subscription to premium artificial intelligence (AI) tools since the scheme was launched; (b) what targets has the Ministry set for overall subscription take-up; (c) how do current redemption figures compare against these targets; and (d) what is the breakdown of the main AI tools subscribed to by beneficiaries.
Ms Jasmin Lau67 words
[+3 sentences]The complimentary six-month subscription to premium versions of AI tools was launched on 16 September 2026 and is intended to reach around 200,000 individuals over three years. It complements broader Government efforts to build AI capabilities among Singaporeans and support AI adoption by enterprises. As the initiative has been in operation for less than two weeks, it is too early to assess take-up against this three-year target.
Breakdown of Fatal and Major Workplace Injuries Across bizSAFE Certification Levels and Measures to Encourage Wider Uptake of bizSAFE Certification›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 221w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25178
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) in the past year, how many fatal or major workplace injuries involved companies without bizSAFE certification, compared with companies at each bizSAFE level; and (b) whether the ongoing review of the bizSAFE programme will consider these safety outcomes and measures to encourage more companies to attain bizSAFE certification.
Ms Jasmin Lau166 words
[+6 sentences]In 2025, there were 696 cases of fatal and major injuries. Of these, 47% involved non-bizSAFE firms, while the remaining 53% involved bizSAFE-certified firms across various levels – 30% from bizSAFE STAR firms, 18% from Level 3 firms, and 5% from Level 4 firms. This comparison should be interpreted with caution as the data does not take into account the industry profile of firms, particularly those at higher bizSAFE level, which tend to be from higher-risk sectors. While bizSAFE is designed to build Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) capabilities by evaluating companies' risk management knowledge, we recognise that bizSAFE certification alone does not translate into better safety outcomes being internalised. The Ministry of Manpower and the WSH Council are therefore reviewing the bizSAFE programme to strengthen the link between bizSAFE certification and actual WSH performance, and place greater emphasis on the adoption of progressive WSH practices. This will ensure that bizSAFE certification better reflects safety standards, so that service buyers can more confidently engage bizSAFE-certified contractors.
Adequacy of Occupational Disease Reporting Among Platform Workers, Barriers to Detection and Measures to Improve Occupational Health Surveillance›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 281w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25179
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given that only four occupational disease cases involving platform workers were reported in the first half of 2026 (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if this reflects the actual prevalence of work-related health conditions among platform workers; (b) what barriers exist to their detection and reporting; and (c) whether measures will be introduced to improve occupational health surveillance.
Ms Jasmin Lau217 words
[+9 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises the Member's concern on occupational diseases (ODs) among platform workers (PWs). The four OD cases involving PWs in the first half of 2026 were due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders and eye-related disorders. As OD reporting for PWs has only been in place since 1 January 2025, awareness of OD among PWs and OD reporting among platform operators (POs) and medical practitioners may be lower compared to regular employees. As a result, the lower number reported may not be indicative of the actual prevalence of ODs among PWs. Platform work poses particular challenges to OD detection and reporting. The flexible nature of work and the lack of a fixed workplace present difficulties for POs and medical practitioners to establish a clear causal link between work-related activities and personal health conditions. MOM is closely monitoring OD trends among PWs as the reporting framework matures and will assess whether additional surveillance measures are required as part of our regular reviews of the OD landscape. In the meantime, MOM will continue to remind POs and the medical community that they are obligated to report any ODs suffered by PWs under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. MOM also strongly encourages PWs to undergo regular health screenings so that any work-related conditions can be detected early.
Protecting Children and Youths from Caffeine Overconsumption Through Mandatory Labelling, Health Warnings and Published Consumption Guidelines›Written Answers to Questions3 turns · 368w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25180
Mr Alex Yeo74 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has data on how many children or youths have sought medical attention relating to caffeine consumption over the past two years; (b) whether the Ministry will consider studying and publishing the effects of the caffeine consumption by children and youths, including recommended guidelines; and (c) whether popular high-caffeine energy drinks should be labelled with suitable warnings of such effects.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of recent findings on possible caffeine overconsumption among youths, whether the Ministry will consider requiring beverages exceeding a specified caffeine threshold to (i) display their caffeine content in milligrams per serving and (ii) carry a standardised front-of-pack caffeine advisory, particularly on recommended caffeine intake for children and adolescents.
Mr Ong Ye Kung233 words
[+9 sentences]The Ministry of Health does not collect data on how many children or youths have sought medical attention relating to caffeine consumption. The Ministry has not conducted studies on the effects of caffeine consumption by children and youths as this is well documented in international studies. While there is currently no recognised health-based guidance for caffeine intake and no international standards on a safe level of caffeine allowed to be added to food, local paediatric advice is that children under 12 years of age should avoid caffeine, while adolescents aged 12 to 18 years should consume no more than 100 miligrams of caffeine per day (equivalent to around one cup of coffee per day). In Singapore, high-caffeine energy drinks have accounted for less than 1% of total sales of sugar-sweetened beverages since 2017. They are also not sold in schools because they do not meet the Healthier Choice Symbol endorsement criteria, due to potential health risk associated with high caffeine intake. We are closely monitoring local consumption, as well as international developments. We do not rule out implementing additional measures should the risk assessment change. The public can access information on caffeine and its effects on HealthHub to support informed consumption decisions. The Consumers Association of Singapore's recent consumer advisory on caffeine consumption among youths also further reinforces the importance of being mindful of total caffeine intake, including from commonly consumed caffeinated beverages.
Drivers of Local Demand for Illegally Traded Wildlife, Effectiveness of Public Education and Data on Detection of Illegal Wildlife Trade in Past Five Years›Written Answers to Questions3 turns · 344w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25181
Dr Charlene Chen49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development whether NParks has assessed (a) the key drivers of local consumer demand for illegally traded wildlife, particularly exotic pets; and (b) the effectiveness of existing public education efforts in reducing such demand and raising awareness of the biodiversity, biosecurity and animal welfare consequences.
Dr Charlene Chen54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development regarding the illegal trade and possession of live wildlife, for each of the past five years (a) how many cases and animals were detected; (b) how many cases arose from proactive enforcement or surveillance as compared with public reports; and (c) how many were detected at Singapore's borders.
Mr Chee Hong Tat241 words
[+10 sentences]As a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Singapore is committed to the global fight against illegal wildlife trade. The National Parks Board (NParks) adopts a multi-pronged approach to combat such activities. NParks works closely with international partners to share intelligence, collaborates with government agencies on border enforcement and monitors physical and online marketplaces and public reports. NParks also works with the World Wide Fund for Nature Singapore (WWF Singapore) to monitor and engage social media and messaging platforms to detect, flag and act against illegal wildlife trade. These efforts complement our enforcement actions. For example, NParks identified six individuals suspected of illegal sale and possession of wildlife through online posts and advertisements and seized 101 illegally kept wildlife during raids on the individuals' residential premises on 14 September 2026. Over the past five years, NParks investigated 68 cases involving the illegal import of live wildlife at the border, and 150 cases involving the illegal keeping of wildlife. We raise public awareness of illegal wildlife trade through media and digital outreach, school outreach, publicity on wildlife seizures and organising the annual World Wildlife Day Regional Youth Symposium. NParks also engages trade associations and importers to promote compliance with the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act and the Wildlife Act. NParks will continue to strengthen collaboration with our partners to raise awareness, disrupt illegal wildlife trade and take firm enforcement action against offenders.
Strengthening Controls of Property Purchases Made by Civil Servants Involved in Strategic Planning, Land Use and Infrastructure Decisions›Written Answers to Questions2 turns · 132w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-25291
Mr Fadli Fawzi67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how the Public Service Division (PSD) currently monitors property purchases by civil servants and their immediate relatives; (b) whether PSD intends to strengthen controls over property purchases by civil servants involved in strategic planning and land use decisions; and (c) whether PSD will investigate property purchases by civil servants around other types of infrastructure such as new schools.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister)65 words
[+1 sentence]The Members 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.]
Representation of Students from Lower Socio-economic Backgrounds among Singapore’s Highest-performing Students›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 134w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-24947
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education in light of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2025 finding that 10.7% of Singapore's socio-economically disadvantaged students reached the top national quarter in science performance (a) whether the Ministry tracks the representation of students from lower socio-economic status among Singapore's highest-performing students over time; and (b) if so, what trends it has observed.
Mr Desmond Lee74 words
[+2 sentences]Based on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, the proportion of Singapore's students from the lowest-25% social economic status (SES) homes who performed at the highest-25% nationally has remained stable between 2015 and 2025. PISA defines students who attain the top two proficiency levels as top performers.1 Compared to most other top-performing education systems in PISA 2025, Singapore has a higher proportion of top performers among students from the lowest-25% SES homes.
Adjusting Critical Illness Policy Definitions to Emphasis Underlying Disease Rather Than Specific Surgical Procedures›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 217w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25001
Dr Hamid Razak56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether MAS will engage the Life Insurance Association Singapore on moving critical illness policy definitions away from being anchored to a specific surgical procedure, and towards being anchored to the underlying disease and its severity, so that insurance cover is not lost solely due to differing treatment approaches.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister)161 words
[+7 sentences]For severe stage critical illness (CI) policies, the Life Insurance Association, Singapore (LIA) periodically reviews and updates the definitions in its Critical Illness Framework to reflect changes in how critical illnesses are diagnosed and treated. Severe stage CI policies provide a lump-sum payout to help policyholders cope with the financial impact of a serious illness, rather than reimburse the cost of medical treatment or procedures. Some CI definitions therefore use established treatment procedures as objective indicators of disease severity, lengthy recuperation and consequent financial impact. In its next review commencing in 2027, LIA will explore whether definitions for certain medical conditions and diseases can place less reliance on specified procedures, and more on the underlying disease and its severity. Any changes will require careful consideration as they affect the scope of coverage and claims experience. Premiums for such policies will also be affected as they are dependent on the probability of claims materialising. Updated definitions will apply to new products sold.
Lowering Eligibility of Senior Workers Employed under Part-Time Re-employment Grant to Age 50›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 163w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25183
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan42 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider lowering the eligibility of senior workers employed under the Part-Time Re-employment Grant from age 60 to age 50, with funding disbursed through a tiered approach, so that more workers can benefit.
Ms Jasmin Lau121 words
[+6 sentences]The Part-Time Re-employment Grant (PTRG) supports employers who offer part-time re-employment, flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and structured career planning to senior workers aged 60 years and above. Since its introduction in 2020, PTRG has supported over 66,000 senior workers and over 7,600 employers who employ these workers. The grant has been extended to end-2027. Convened by the Ministry of Manpower and tripartite partners, the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment is reviewing how we can better support senior workers, including younger seniors between 50 and 60 years old, to remain productive and employable, and promote age-friendly jobs and multi-generational workplace practices. This includes supporting FWAs and structured career planning, beyond the current PTRG. The Workgroup will release its recommendations later this year.
Reviewing Claims Limits at Employment Claims Tribunal for Non-Workplace Fairness Act Cases›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 92w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25184
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan34 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider reviewing and increasing the claims limits at the Employment Claims Tribunal for cases that are not related to the Workplace Fairness Act 2025.
Ms Jasmin Lau58 words
[+1 sentence]The Member may refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question No 92 for the Sitting on 8 September 2026. [Please refer to "Outcomes of Wrongful Dismissal Claims and Review of Statutory Compensation Ceiling in Light of Wage Growth and Higher Jurisdictional Limits for Claims", Official Report, 8 September 2026, Vol 96, Issue 35, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Availability and Affordability of Group Workplace Insurance for Employees Aged 65 and Above›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 295w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25186
Mr Ng Shi Xuan68 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has studied the availability, affordability and age limits of group medical, personal accident and other workplace insurance for employees aged 65 and above; (b) whether there is evidence that such factors have affected hiring or re-employment of older employees; and (c) whether measures will be introduced to ensure such insurance keeps pace with rising retirement and re-employment ages.
Ms Jasmin Lau227 words
[+11 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower recognises the importance of protecting workers from the costs of injuries at work. Under the Work Injury Compensation Act, employers are required to provide work injury compensation (WIC) for medical expenses arising from work injuries, regardless of the age of the worker. To provide for this, employers typically purchase WIC insurance on a group basis. Such insurance products cover employees of all ages, and insurers do not determine the premiums based on the age profile of the employees. We have not seen evidence that WIC insurance premiums affect employers' decisions to hire or retain senior workers. Employers are also required under the Employment Act to reimburse employees for medical consultation fees incurred when obtaining a medical certificate for paid sick leave. Some employers may choose to provide group medical insurance as a way to meet these statutory requirements, or as a form of additional employment benefit for talent attraction and retention purposes. The premiums of such insurance may increase with the ages of the insured workers. Under the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment convened last year, some employers have expressed concerns about the high cost and the limited coverage for older workers under such non-mandatory group medical insurance plans. The Workgroup is studying how employee medical benefits can evolve to remain sustainable. The Workgroup will share its findings and recommendations later this year.
Dedicated Track under Graduate Industry Traineeships Scheme for Graduates with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 331w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25187
Dr Neo Kok Beng72 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a permanent, dedicated track under the Graduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) scheme specifically tailored for graduates with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities; (b) if so, what structural enhancements will be introduced to provide permanent job-coaching support and workplace accommodations; and (c) how does the Ministry plan to incentivise host organisations to sustain this specialised track over the long term.
Ms Jasmin Lau259 words
[+8 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower recognises that graduates with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities may face additional barriers in transitioning into employment, and we are committed to ensuring they receive the support they need. The GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) scheme was designed as a temporary intervention to help graduates gain industry-relevant skills and experience amidst weak hiring conditions. As GRIT is not intended to be a permanent scheme, establishing a dedicated track within it may not be the most sustainable or effective way to support graduates with SEN and disabilities in the long term. Instead, we have put in place more comprehensive and sustained support structures across their education-to-employment journey. For example, the vocational education curriculum in special education schools equip those who can work with work-ready skills, while the Institute of Technical Education and polytechnics provide industry-relevant training as well as support for internships to provide valuable workplace exposure and prepare them for transition into employment. Beyond schooling years, persons with disabilities may receive dedicated disability employment support, such as sector-based training, job matching and job coaching, while employers can tap on support for job redesign, workplace adaptations and inclusive hiring practices. To further strengthen support for persons with disabilities to secure meaningful and sustained employment, the Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities recently released its recommendations. The recommendations include measures to provide more work exposure during schooling years, targeted education, career and planning guidance, more comprehensive and sustained employment support, as well as stronger support for employers to hire and retain persons with disabilities.
Changing Trends in Age and Qualification Profiles of Retrenched and Long-term Unemployed Groups›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 118w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25188
Mr Shawn Loh63 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of recent labour market reports that indicate an increase in number of retrenchments and an increase in the long-term unemployment rate (a) how have the age and qualifications profile of these groups changed over the past five years; and (b) what are the considerations behind lower employment support for those under the age of 40.
Ms Jasmin Lau55 words
[+1 sentence]This question has been addressed by the reply to Question Nos 1 to 10 in the Order Paper for 6 October 2026. [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.]
Stronger Heat Stress Protections for Platform Workers›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 286w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25189
Ms Yeo Wan Ling45 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower what are the Ministry's plans to engage with platform operators to provide more support to platform delivery workers so that they too can benefit from the stronger heat stress protections as required for outdoor workers from 1 December 2026.
Ms Jasmin Lau241 words
[+8 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regularly engages platform operators on the safety and health of platform workers, including heat stress protection. MOM recently announced enhanced heat stress measures for outdoor workers, such as requiring employers to provide cool drinking water near work areas and suitable clothing that protects workers from excessive heat. However, these measures may not be directly applicable to platform workers given the nature of their work. Instead, the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for Platform Services sets out heat stress measures focused on advising platform workers to take appropriate precautions that are similar to the enhanced measures, to safeguard their health in hot weather conditions. The ACOP requires platform operators to advise platform workers to stop work and seek medical attention if feeling unwell, remind them to stay hydrated and take shelter in shaded or indoor areas when possible, and encourage them to wear loose-fitting, light-coloured clothing. As a further good practice, some platform operators are also trialling cooling vests with built-in fans for their riders. In view of the heightened outdoor temperatures this year, MOM and the Workplace Safety and Health Council have issued reminders to platform operators on the importance of heat stress protection, and highlighted areas for improvement in this domain from MOM's engagements with individual platform operators on their ACOP compliance. We will continue to work with platform operators and platform work associations via appropriate channels to strengthen heat stress protections for platform workers.
Pregnancy-related Discrimination Reported to Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 312w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25190
Mr Fadli Fawzi64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower for each year since 2017 (a) what is the number of complaints made to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) in relation to pregnancy-related discrimination; (b) how many were escalated to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT); and (c) what percentage of TAFEP complaints and ECT cases, respectively, are resolved in favour of the employee.
Ms Jasmin Lau248 words
[+10 sentences]Between 2019 and 2025, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received 49 pregnancy-related discrimination complaints. Where there is evidence of discriminatory employment practices, TAFEP will refer the complaints to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for investigation. Depending on severity of the case, MOM could take enforcement action, such as requiring employers to rectify the lapses in their human resource processes or suspending their access to foreign workers. Separately, employees who are dismissed because of their pregnancy may also file a wrongful dismissal claim at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). About 387 claims for compensation or reinstatement for wrongful dismissal during pregnancy were filed at TADM between April 2019 and 2025. Of these, 301 (78%) were resolved at TADM, while the remaining 86 (22%) were issued with case referral certificates which allowed the claimants to file claims with the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT). ECT awarded compensation in favour of employees in 27 or 38% of the 72 claims filed. Under the new Workplace Fairness Act (WFA), which is scheduled to take effect by end-2027, it would be unlawful for employers to make adverse employment decisions based on protected characteristics, including pregnancy. WFA empowers MOM to take enforcement action against discriminatory employers, including issuing directions to rectify breaches and imposing administrative financial penalties. Additionally, under WFA, individuals who experience pregnancy-related discrimination, across all employment stages, such as hiring, promotion, training and dismissal resulting in adverse employment decisions, can file claims for compensation with TADM.
Measuring Impact of AI Adoption on Job Redesign, Workload and Working Hours›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 174w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25191
Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari52 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in relation to the Ministry's recent report on Adoption of AI Among Firms (a) whether the Ministry can regularly measure the effect of AI adoption and job redesign on workload and working hours; and (b) whether it can consider incorporating workload and task-volume measures into iWorkHealth.
Ms Jasmin Lau122 words
[+4 sentences]The Ministry of Manpower's artificial intelligence (AI) survey asks employers how AI adoption affects the redesign of job roles. This survey is conducted quarterly and will enable us to understand the effects of AI adoption on workload and working hours among employees in Singapore. iWorkHealth is a psychosocial health assessment tool that helps employers identify common workplace stressors and psychosocial risks. It already includes questions that assess employees' perception of their workload and task demands, which employers can use to monitor the impact of workplace initiatives, such as AI adoption and job redesign. As the usage of this tool is voluntary, the data will not be sufficiently representative to assess the overall impact of AI on workload and task demands in Singapore.
Effectiveness of Measures to Promote Flexible Work Arrangements›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 266w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25192
Mr Saktiandi Supaat54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether any other further measures have been introduced to promote flexible work arrangements (FWAs) since the launch of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests; (b) if so, what are they; and (c) how are their effectiveness and implementation by employers of these measures being assessed.
Ms Jasmin Lau212 words
[+9 sentences]The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR) was implemented in December 2024, to set out the process for employees to make formal requests for flexible work arrangements (FWAs), and for employers to consider these requests on business grounds. Tripartite partners, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices and the Institute of Human Resource Professionals have provided resources, such as sector-specific guides and workshops, to support employers with implementing the TG-FWAR. Since the TG-FWAR took effect, two new grants now offer employers more funding support to implement FWAs. The SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+), launched this year, supports workforce transformation projects to redesign roles and work processes, which can facilitate the implementation of FWAs. Employers can also tap on the new EDGE Grant to adopt digital solutions and equipment that facilitate FWAs. For example, tools that automate work processes, enable remote working or support more flexible shift scheduling. The Ministry of Manpower tracks the provision of FWAs by employers through surveys. In 2025, the year after the implementation of TG-FWAR, around seven in 10 firms offered scheduled FWAs to their employees. We will continue to work with tripartite partners to promote FWAs, as part of our broader efforts to build inclusive workplaces that support workers with diverse needs.
Migrant Domestic Workers Issued Stern Warnings from Law Enforcement Agencies and Impact on Their Future Employment›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 146w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25193
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister for Manpower for each year from 2021 to 2025 (a) how many migrant domestic workers were issued stern warnings from law enforcement agencies; (b) of these, how many were barred from future employment and how many were permitted to take up new employment; and (c) whether there is an avenue of appeal against such bars and, if not, why not.
Ms Jasmin Lau82 words
[+4 sentences]Over the past five years, an average of about 430 migrant domestic workers (MDWs) were issued stern warnings from law enforcement agencies each year. MDWs who have been issued warnings are barred from future employment in Singapore. Employers who wish to retain their MDW may appeal to the Ministry of Manpower, which will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Of those issued with warnings over the past five years, about 20% of them continue to be employed as MDWs by their employers.
Financial Safeguards Implemented at Madrasahs Following Governance Measures Announced in 2023›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 300w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25194
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik54 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether any further financial safeguards and system access controls have been implemented in madrasahs since the governance measures announced in 2023; (b) if so, what are these; and (c) whether controls over royalty payments and fund transfers between madrasahs and linked entities have since been strengthened.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad246 words
[+13 sentences]The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) has continued to strengthen financial safeguards and system access controls across all madrasahs under the Joint Madrasah System (JMS). As shared with this House in 2023, following the incident involving misappropriation of funds by a former madrasah executive director, MUIS had implemented several measures to improve financial governance of the JMS madrasahs, ranging from establishing shared financial services to requiring regular financial audits. More recently, in 2026, MUIS updated its guidelines covering finance, procurement and payments for the JMS madrasahs. MUIS has put in place financial controls in three areas. First, there must be clear segregation of duties across procurement and payment functions, with tiered approval limits and at least two authorised signatories for all payments. Authorised approvers are required to declare any potential conflict of interest and recuse themselves from the approval process where appropriate. Direct contracting with sole suppliers also requires prior approval by MUIS, providing an added layer of oversight. Second, stronger controls have been put in place before payments can be made. These include additional checks before vendor details are created or amended, supporting documentation for payments and monthly checks of transactions against bank records. Third, internet banking access has been restricted to authorised users with individual credentials and authentication tokens. Access rights are also regularly reviewed. JMS madrasahs currently do not receive royalties from external parties. They are also required to report transactions with related parties as part of their independently audited financial reports.
Outreach to Identify Isolated Informal Caregivers of Senior Citizens›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 266w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25195
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song72 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what proactive outreach mechanisms exist to identify isolated informal caregivers of senior citizens not connected to healthcare networks; and (b) given that Active Ageing Centres focus primarily on senior care recipients, whether the Ministry will set up dedicated caregiver touchpoints in every estate and establish a centralised national caregiver registry to systematically connect those caring for seniors to support services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung194 words
[+8 sentences]Our approach for strong caregiver support is to make the support easily accessible for caregivers, through various touchpoints, such as the Agency for Integrated Care Links, community care organisations and social service agencies. From 2027, we will introduce caregiver support touchpoints (CSTs) to further improve access. We welcome other community organisations to complement our work by conducting appropriate outreach to caregivers, to connect them to CSTs. The first CSTs will be set up at five aged care service centres and three enabling services hubs starting next year. These sites were chosen around places where care recipients are served to make it easier for caregivers to get help. CSTs will proactively identify caregivers' needs, explain the types of support available and connect them to appropriate support, including respite services, training and financial support. The most important support for caregivers is to strengthen the broader care ecosystem so that caregivers receive help and respite from caring for their loved ones. Through initiatives, such as Age Well SG, and the recommendations of the Taskforce on Assurance for Families with People with Disabilities, we are anchoring care in the community, and making care services more accessible and affordable.
Updated Statistics on Average Number of IVF Cycles Required for Successful Pregnancies›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 230w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25197
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin67 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what the present statistics, if any, reflect about the average number of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles required for a successful pregnancy; and (b) if the Government has plans to adjust the relevant subsidies based on the statistics, to allow flexibility beyond the present cap of three fresh and three frozen assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles.
Mr Ong Ye Kung163 words
[+8 sentences]The age of women and their underlying medical history is a more significant driver of the success rate for In-vitro fertilization (IVF) compared to the number of cycles. For example, for women between 35 and 39 years old, the success rate is 18.4%; at 40 years old, the success rate is 12.1%, at 42 it is 7.8%; at 44 it is 3.7%; and it drops further with age. Some couples who desire children will want to keep trying. It is totally understandable, but as the couple gets older, the number of cycles will have a diminishing marginal impact on the success rate. Notwithstanding, the Ministry of Health recognised the strong desire for some couples to want children. It is working with the National Population and Talent Division and is currently reviewing fertility health policies, including financing support for assisted conception procedures. The Ministry will take into consideration the latest clinical evidence as part of the review. More details will be shared when ready.
Tracking Incidence and Reasons for Disappearance of Traditional Hawker Trades or Culinary Practices›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 258w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25199
Mr Victor Lye61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether, following Singapore's UNESCO inscription of hawker culture, the Government tracks traditional hawker trades or culinary practices at risk of disappearing due to ageing practitioners, lack of successors or commercial viability; and (b) whether a formal mechanism should be established to identify such practices and support their transmission to the next generation.
Mr David Neo197 words
[+8 sentences]The Government does not maintain a list of individual hawker trades or culinary practices that are considered "at risk of disappearing". We recognise that whether hawkers want to retire and/or pass on their stalls to successors are ultimately personal decisions. Nonetheless, we have measures to support the transmission of hawker skills and knowledge for those who wish to do so. For example, the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Hawkers' Succession Scheme enables veteran hawkers to pass on their skills, recipes and hawker stalls to aspiring hawkers. NEA's Incubation Stall Programme supports aspiring hawkers by lowering barriers to entry through pre-fitted stalls and reduced rentals for 15 months. NEA also maintains a conducive environment for new entrants to the hawker trade, including measures to keep rents reasonable, such as not requiring a minimum bid price for hawker stall tenders. The National Heritage Board also supports the documentation and research of our hawker culture, as part of broader efforts to safeguard our intangible cultural heritage, and facilitate its transmission across generations. These efforts seek to sustain our hawker culture by supporting both the transmission of hawker skills and knowledge, as well as the entry of a new generation of hawkers.
Age Cut-off for SG Culture Pass and Curiosity Credits›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 234w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25201
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) why are Singapore Citizens born in 2008 ineligible for both the SG Culture Pass and Curiosity Credits despite narrowly missing the cut-off age for the respective schemes; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending these schemes to this cohort.
Mr David Neo185 words
[+9 sentences]The SG Culture Pass and Curiosity Credits are separate initiatives with different objectives and target groups. The SG Culture Pass was introduced as an SG60 initiative. Singapore Citizens who were aged 18 and above in 2025 received $100 in credits, which can be used until the end of 2028. It was not designed as an annual credit allocation. Curiosity Credits will be piloted with youths aged 13 to 17 receiving support from the Self-Help Groups, to empower them with additional means to explore new interests and hobbies. We will learn from the implementation of the pilot before deciding whether and how to scale the programme. There are many opportunities for young Singaporeans to explore their interests. For arts, primary to post-secondary students, including those in junior colleges and the Institute of Technical Education, have access to structured arts exposure through programmes, such as the Arts Education Programme and Artist-in-School Scheme. Through the SG Youth Plan, there are also opportunities listed on the National Youth Council's Discover portal for youths aged 15 to 35 to explore their interests in the arts, sports, wellness, culture and technology.
Requiring Online Platforms Accessible by Minors to Provide Age-calibrated Safeguards for Monetised Interactions›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 148w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25202
Mr Victor Lye41 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government will consider requiring online platforms which are accessible to minors to provide age-calibrated safeguards for monetised interactions, including parental controls, spending limits, cooling-off mechanisms and prominent disclosure of cumulative spending.
Mrs Josephine Teo107 words
[+6 sentences]The Government recognises that monetised online interactions can expose children to risks, including unintended or excessive spending. There are safeguards present today, such as parental and payment controls, within apps or platforms. Certain monetised features are also subject to regulated requirements. For example, loot boxes purchased in online games cannot contain money as regulated under the Class Licence for Remote Games of Chance of the Gambling Control Act. The Government will continue to assess the risks from monetised online interactions as part of our broader efforts to strengthen online safety. We will consider these risks holistically alongside other online harms in determining whether further safeguards are needed.
Requiring Retail Fibre Network Service Providers to Inform Affected Subscribers of Restitution and Avenues of Redress In Event of Disruption›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 284w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25203
Ms Elysa Chen56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information following the fibre service disruption affecting about 2,000 households in Bishan and Thomson on 15 September 2026 (a) whether IMDA requires retail service providers to proactively inform affected subscribers of the restitution and avenues of redress that they are entitled to; and (b) if so, what are they.
Mrs Josephine Teo228 words
[+9 sentences]On 15 September 2026, a third-party contractor performing road widening works damaged multiple NetLink Trust (NLT) and Singtel cables, disrupting about 2,000 end-user connections in parts of Bishan and Thomson. NLT and the affected Internet service providers (ISPs) issued updates through their respective channels to inform affected users of the disruption and subsequent restoration efforts. NLT subsequently confirmed that services were fully restored at 5.40 am on 16 September. Any specific refund, waiver or other service recovery offered to an affected subscriber would generally be dealt with by the subscriber's ISP in accordance with its customer terms and policies. Where a consumer has a dispute with an ISP that cannot be resolved directly, the consumer may also consider the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme, which covers eligible disputes relating to telecommunication services, including fibre connection services. The Scheme provides for mediation and where applicable, a binding determination, and can cover service recovery or compensation in kind or monetary terms, subject to the Scheme's criteria and exclusions. For this incident, IMDA is investigating the circumstances surrounding the cable damage. To reduce the risk of such incidents, IMDA's Earthworks Requirements set out a process that contractors must follow before commencing earthworks near underground telecommunications cables. IMDA will take appropriate action if its investigations find that any party has failed to discharge its regulatory or legal responsibilities.
Requiring Secondary Schools to Clearly Signpost Academic Criteria for Students to Progress to More Demanding Subject Proficiency Levels›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 153w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25210
Ms Gho Sze Kee53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider requiring secondary schools to clearly signpost in advance the academic criteria for students to progress to a more demanding subject level, and allowing students who meet those criteria to progress automatically instead of leaving the final decision to the discretion of individual schools.
Mr Desmond Lee100 words
[+2 sentences]We refer to the reply to a similar Parliamentary Question issued on 5 August 2026. [Please refer to "Criteria for Students Offered Progression from G1 to G2 and G2 to G3 under Full Subject-Based Banding", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] There are no plans to require secondary schools to provide the academic criteria for students to automatically progress to a more demanding level, as schools consider many factors including each student's interests, aptitude and ability to manage the overall curricular load.
Correlation between PSLE Stress Levels and Affiliation to Secondary Schools›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 112w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25211
Ms Cassandra Lee62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education as part of efforts to reduce the stakes and stress associated with the PSLE, whether the Ministry will (i) study whether pupils with access to an affiliated secondary school experience lower PSLE-related stress and (ii) consider how more pupils could benefit from greater continuity between primary and secondary school, including through additional affiliation or school partnership arrangements.
Mr Desmond Lee50 words
[+3 sentences]Students may experience stress for many reasons. It is therefore difficult to isolate the effect of access to an affiliated secondary school on students' stress. We thank the Member for her suggestion and will continue to study possible moves to manage the stakes associated with the Primary School Leaving Examination.
Training for Sports Coaches to Raise Their Awareness on Youth Development›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 160w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25214
Mr David Hoe56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education in respect of sports coaches engaged by Ministry of Education (MOE) schools, (a) what youth-specific training is required on child and adolescent growth, biological maturation, relative-age effects, early specialisation and age-appropriate training loads; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider requiring all such coaches to complete a recognised youth-development coaching module.
Mr Desmond Lee104 words
[+4 sentences]The requirements that the Ministry of Education (MOE) imposes for sports coaches engaged by schools are aligned with the requirements for membership in Sport Singapore's National Registry of Coaches (NROC). For full NROC membership, coaches must complete SG-coach theory, foundational sport science and SG-coach technical courses separately or as an integrated programme. These programmes cover topics relating to long-term athlete development, including growth and maturation, developmentally appropriate coaching practices and considerations relating to early specialisation. MOE will continue to review the requirements for coaches together with SportSG and relevant stakeholders, to strengthen coaches' competencies in supporting holistic and age-appropriate sports development of our students.
Additional Remuneration for Personnel under Scheme for Relief Educators Who Work Beyond 5.5 Hours a Day›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 191w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25215
Mr David Hoe60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) whether personnel under the Scheme for Relief Educators receive additional remuneration where assigned duties require work beyond 5.5 hours in a day; (b) how schools account for time spent on lesson preparation and marking; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the remuneration framework to ensure assigned work is contained within paid hours.
Mr Desmond Lee131 words
[+6 sentences]The Scheme for Relief Educators (SRE) is a casual employment scheme to support schools’ short-term manpower needs. Officers engaged under the SRE are not paid on an hourly basis. They are paid a daily wage if they work at least 5.5 hours per day or a half-daily wage if they work between 2.75 hours and 5.5 hours per day. As the remuneration is based on fixed daily or half-daily rates, no additional remuneration is paid where duties extend beyond 5.5 hours in a day. Schools are guided to ensure that SREs' duties, including lesson preparation and marking, are commensurate with the half-day or full-day remuneration. The Ministry of Education will continue to periodically review the remuneration of casual employment schemes such as the SRE to ensure they remain relevant and competitive.
Verification of Primary 1 Registration Applications Made by Parents Undergoing Divorce›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 198w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25218
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education regarding Primary 1 registration for children whose parents are separated, undergoing divorce proceedings or divorced (a) what verification processes are in place to ensure that a parent who submits an application has obtained the other parent's consent; and (b) what recourse is available for parents whose consent was not sought, other than seeking a Court order.
Mr Desmond Lee137 words
[+6 sentences]For Primary 1 registration, the Ministry of Education (MOE) requires both parents of every child to give consent to the school choice as both would typically have legal responsibility for the child. The registering parent must declare that he or she has obtained the other parent's consent before submitting the registration. MOE takes this declaration as confirmation that both parents have agreed on the school choice. Where there is a dispute between the parents, MOE will first allow time for parents to discuss and agree on the schooling arrangement for their child. If both parents cannot agree, either parent may approach the Family Justice Courts or the Syariah Court to obtain a Court Order to authorise a particular parent to decide on the school choice. MOE will process the child's registration in accordance with the Court Order.
Impact of New Financial Deposits and Requirements on Student Care Operators Managing Multiple Centres›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 122w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25219
Mr Ng Shi Xuan64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has assessed (i) the cumulative impact of the new security deposit guarantee on student care operators managing multiple centres, including its effect on banking facilities and working capital (ii) whether financial institutions may require smaller operators to provide cash collateral and (iii) the cliff effect arising from the tiered multipliers when enrolment crosses each 50-student threshold.
Mr Desmond Lee58 words
[+1 sentence]This question has been addressed by the Written Answer to Oral Question No 68 on 6 October 2026. [Please refer to "Protecting Refunds to Parents and Employee Salaries when Student Care Centres Cease Operations", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Recognition of Polytechnic Diplomas Obtained from Part-time and Full-time Studies›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 204w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25220
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) for admission to the autonomous universities (AUs), whether the Government is aware of (i) any limitations placed on recognising part-time, as compared with full-time, diplomas from local polytechnics and (ii) the reasons for these limitations; (b) if so, what are they; and (c) whether the Government plans to work with the AUs to review these limitations.
Mr Desmond Lee142 words
[+7 sentences]Part-time polytechnic diploma programmes are designed to equip adult learners with industry-relevant skills for their intended job roles. Thus, such programmes may differ from full-time programmes in curriculum, academic breadth, learning outcomes and programme structure. A part-time diploma does not necessarily cover the same content, skills and experience as a full-time diploma. In determining whether a diploma is recognised for admission to a particular undergraduate programme, the autonomous universities (AUs) assess whether the content, rigour and relevance of the diploma provide the necessary foundation for the academic demands of that programme. This applies to both full-time and part-time diplomas. AUs will assess if the diploma, relevant work experience and other qualifications provide suitable preparation for the course of study applied for. Admissions requirements vary across AUs and programmes, with each AU having the discretion to determine which qualifications are recognised for admission.
Job Scope of Work of Special Educational Needs Officers in Mainstream Schools and Concerns Raised›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 199w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25222
Ms He Ting Ru56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) what policy specifies the primary scope of work for special educational needs (SEN) officers in mainstream schools; (b) what mechanism exists for SEN officers to formally raise concerns about their scope of duties; and (c) whether officers designated to supervise SEN officers are required to hold SEN-specific qualifications or training.
Mr Desmond Lee143 words
[+6 sentences]The role of special educational needs (SEN) officers is to support students with special educational needs by providing targeted interventions and by raising the capability of educators teaching these students. SEN officers who have concerns regarding their scope of duties can discuss these with their reporting officers (ROs) or school leaders. They can also provide feedback or raise concerns through the Ministry of Education's staff feedback and human resource channels. SEN Officers are supervised by ROs within their schools, who are typically key personnel or school leaders with experience in developing and supporting staff. While these ROs are not required to hold SEN-specific qualifications, they are briefed on the role of SEN Officers, how they can be deployed meaningfully and their professional development pathways. Additionally, SEN officers receive on-the-job coaching and mentoring from more experienced colleagues, such as lead and master SEN officers.
Decision on Introducing Free Premium AI Access for Students in Institutes of Higher Learning›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 188w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25223
Ms He Ting Ru58 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education (a) what oversight role the Ministry plays in institutes of higher learning's decisions to introduce free premium AI access for students; (b) what considerations, including risks of cognitive offloading and over-reliance, are made in assessing such plans; and (c) what safeguards will be put in place to prevent adverse effects on learning outcomes.
Mr Desmond Lee130 words
[+6 sentences]The Ministry of Education provides guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education and assessment to the institutes of higher learning (IHLs). In line with these guidelines, all IHLs have institutional policies to ensure that AI use support learning, with guardrails against misuse and adverse impact on learning. The IHLs safeguard learning outcomes by reviewing their curricula, pedagogy and assessment practices to address risks, such as cognitive offloading and overreliance arising from AI use. For example, AI use is prohibited where students are required to demonstrate independent mastery of concepts and understanding. Where AI use is allowed, assessments are redesigned to continue testing students' knowledge, judgement and application of learning, such as through presentations and projects. IHLs also train students to understand AI's limitations and use it discerningly.
Waiting Time and Support for Students Applying to Special Education Schools during Primary 1 Registration Exercise›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 409w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25226
Mr Cai Yinzhou60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education for children applying to Special Education schools for Primary 1 in each of the past three years (a) how many could not start on time due to insufficient places; (b) what support is provided while they await placement; and (c) whether the Ministry assesses the impact of delayed commencement on the children and their families.
Mr Desmond Lee349 words
[+14 sentences]Over the past three years, more than 90% of students across all special education (SPED) disability profiles, except those with Autism Spectrum Disorder with Intellectual Disability (ASD-ID), have been able to start school in January. Demand for ASD-ID places has risen sharply, with applications doubling between 2021 and 2025. This has placed increasing pressure on Primary 1 capacity. About 60% of students with ASD-ID were able to start school by June, and about 85% of these students commenced school by the end of their Primary 1 year. Planning capacity for students with ASD-ID is more challenging because their educational needs often become clearer only closer to school-going age. School placement assessments are best conducted when the child is around 6 to 7 years old, and their development is more stable. Depending on the child's needs, they may be better supported in a mainstream school or in one of the different types of SPED schools. To meet the growing demand for ASD-ID places, we are expanding capacity in the SPED sector. At the Committee of Supply debate this year, we announced expansion plans for ASD-ID schools that will be progressively implemented from the second half of this year to the early 2030s. These include converting available spaces into additional classrooms in existing SPED schools, developing additional campuses or relocating to larger interim campus for four existing MINDS schools, and establishing three new schools in partnership with APSN Education Services Ltd, Autism Association (Singapore) and St Andrew's Mission Hospital. Overall, these efforts will increase SPED capacity by about 30%, from 9,000 SPED places today to about 12,000 places in the early 2030s. In the interim, to support students waiting to start school, the Ministry of Education (MOE) coordinates with partner agencies, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency, to facilitate extension at preschool and/or early intervention centre, ensuring continued learning and access to support. Parents are also provided the MOE Home Learning Package to support learning at home, focusing on developing communication, daily living and social-emotional skills. MOE will continue to monitor the progress of these children throughout their schooling journey.
Release of Information on Students Sitting for Major Examinations to Opposition MPs›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 70w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25227
Mr Pritam Singh49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry would release to opposition Members of Parliament the details of students in their respective constituencies who are sitting for major examinations, such as the Primary School Leaving Examination, to facilitate outreach by opposition grassroots organisations to provide support to these students.
Mr Desmond Lee21 words
[+1 sentence]The Ministry of Education does not compile or release information on students sitting for national examinations by constituency for outreach purposes.
Letters Warning of Anti-competitive Behaviour Issued to Businesses for Attempts to Initiate Price Coordination›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 162w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25228
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong69 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) how many warning letters the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore has issued for unilateral anti-competitive invitations or attempts to initiate price coordination in the past five years; (b) whether the Government assesses that warning letters may not be an adequate deterrent against such conduct; and (c) whether the Government will consider further measures, including legislative changes.
Dr Tan See Leng93 words
[+4 sentences]The Competition Act 2004 prohibits anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices involving price-fixing and price coordination between businesses. In the past five years, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) has issued one warning letter for a unilateral attempt to initiate price coordination. In this particular case, there was no eventual anti-competitive agreement nor concerted practice that led to price-fixing and price coordination. Nonetheless, CCS issued a warning letter to make clear that businesses should determine their prices independently and that any anti-competitive attempt to fix or coordination prices will not be condoned.
Projected Number of Jobs in Next Five Years to Support Singapore's Space Capability Ecosystem›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 302w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25229
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether the National Space Agency of Singapore has projected the number of jobs expected to be created in Singapore's space capability ecosystem over the next five years; (b) whether it has identified manpower requirements or talent gaps in the sector; and (c) how these will be addressed.
Dr Tan See Leng243 words
[+8 sentences]Currently, Singapore has around 2,000 professionals working in the space sector. They are involved in activities ranging from designing and manufacturing space components to providing satellite-based services. As the sector is still nascent and evolving, a five-year projection of job growth is not meaningful at this stage. Our priority is to grow the sector and its capabilities, create good job opportunities and generate positive spillover effects for the ecosystem so that more Singaporeans and industries, such as maritime, aviation, finance and sustainability, can benefit from developments in the space sector. The space sector requires a mix of capabilities, including engineering, computer science and data-related skills. Many of these capabilities are already present in Singapore's workforce, in adjacent sectors, such as aerospace, microelectronics, precision engineering and artificial intelligence. The Government will continue to work with the industry and our education and training institutions to build the talent pipeline as the sector grows. These efforts have been set out in earlier Parliamentary replies on 26 February and 5 May 2026. [Please refer to "Role for Singapore in Global Space Economy and Developing Local Talent Pipeline for Space Systems and Satellite Operations", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Written Answers to Questions section; and "Initiatives to Facilitate Mid-career Transitions from Adjacent Fields to Accelerate Growth of Local Space Sector", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Expected Timelines for Study on Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies and Their Potential Suitability for Singapore›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 180w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25231
Ms Lee Hui Ying57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in relation to the ongoing studies on advanced nuclear energy technologies and their potential suitability for Singapore (a) what are the expected timelines of the studies; and (b) whether there are plans for public consultation before deciding on the suitability of nuclear energy deployment in Singapore.
Dr Tan See Leng123 words
[+5 sentences]We are embarking on Phase 1 of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) in 2027. The Phase 1 review assesses only our ability to make an informed decision on nuclear energy deployment, and not whether nuclear energy should be deployed in Singapore. The ongoing studies are part of our preparation for the INIR Phase 1 review mission. When the INIR Mission is complete which could be towards the end of 2027 or in 2028, we intend to share the IAEA’s independent findings and assessment of Singapore’s readiness in making an informed decision, and the public will have an opportunity to provide their views then. This will be in addition to ongoing efforts to strengthen Singaporeans’ understanding of nuclear energy.
Maritime Cultural Heritage Value of Sites Affected by Proposed Western Island Project›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 128w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25232
Ms Cassandra Lee47 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government recognises the waters and islands affected by the proposed western island project as having significance to the maritime cultural heritage of the Orang Laut; and (b) what steps will be taken to document and preserve this heritage.
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.]
Sale Numbers and Price Levels of Converted HDB Flats›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 160w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25233
Mr David Hoe55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the HDB Conversion Scheme, (a) how many converted flats have been resold in the past 10 years and at what median prices; and (b) whether HDB assesses if their resale prices remain within reach of larger households seeking more space while remaining in their existing estate.
Mr Chee Hong Tat105 words
[+5 sentences]The Conversion Scheme allows eligible owners of 3-room or smaller Housing and Development Board flats who require more living space to combine their flat with an adjoining 3-room or smaller unit, to form a larger flat. From 2016 to 2025, there were a total of 408 resale transactions of such converted flats. These flats transacted at a range of prices, depending on the prevailing market condition and the flat's location and attributes. In 2025, the median resale price was $910,000. To avoid overpaying for their flats, prospective buyers are strongly advised to do thorough research, evaluate their housing options carefully and plan their finances prudently.
Enforcement Leniency for Motorists Making Brief Drop-offs or Pick-ups at Childcare Centres, Active Ageing Centres and Kidney Dialysis Centres at HDB Estates›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 141w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25234
Ms Valerie Lee59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB can consider greater enforcement leniency for motorists who make brief drop-offs or pick-ups at childcare centres, Active Ageing Centres and kidney dialysis centres within HDB estates, particularly where they need to assist young children or elderly patients; and (b) whether adequate short-term stopping areas can be provided at such facilities.
Mr Chee Hong Tat82 words
[+4 sentences]The Housing and Development Board estates are planned with car parks and dedicated pick-up and drop-off points, near facilities, such as childcare centres, active ageing centres and kidney dialysis centres. Pick-up and drop-off points are only intended for brief stops. Motorists may use loading and unloading bays, where a reasonable grace period is provided before enforcement action is taken. Car parks should be used if motorists require more time, as loading and unloading bays have to cater for turnover of different users.
Reason for Position that Singapore Does Not Have Legally Protected Marine Areas under Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 14.5.1›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 149w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25235
Mr Ng Shi Xuan64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) why the Government takes the position that Singapore does not have legally protected marine areas for the purposes of Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 14.5.1, despite the legal protections afforded to certain marine parks under existing legislation; (b) whether the Government will introduce new legislation to plug gaps in the legal protections; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat85 words
[+3 sentences]Marine parks, like the Sisters' Islands Marine Park and the planned Lazarus South-Kusu Reef Marine Park, once gazetted, are legally protected under the Parks and Trees Act. For reporting purposes, we take a conservative approach by treating "protected areas" as limited to those designated as nature reserves, including for Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 14.5.1. Our existing laws already give the National Parks Board the powers needed to safeguard our marine biodiversity, and we will continue to review our legal frameworks to ensure they remain effective.
Appeals to Waive 30-month Wait-out Period for Former Private Home Owners to Buy Subsidised HDB Flat›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 181w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25236
Ms Lee Hui Ying59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development (a) for each year over the past three years, how many appeals were received by HDB to waive the 30-month wait-out period for former private homeowners before they can buy a subsidised HDB flat; and (b) how many appeals over the same periods were for the purchase of 5-room or larger HDB flats.
Mr Chee Hong Tat122 words
[+4 sentences]Private property owners must wait out a period of 30 months after the disposal of their private residential property before they are allowed to buy a new Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat, which comes with significant market discounts, buy a resale flat with the Central Provident Fund Housing Grant or take up an HDB housing loan. As these subsidies are funded by taxpayers, the wait-out period ensures a fair allocation of our limited subsidies and prioritises public housing for households that need them more. In the past three years, HDB received about 900 to 1,300 appeals per year for waiver of the 30-month wait-out period. HDB does not track the appeals by the flat type that the appellant seeks to purchase.
Projected Number of Professional Engineers Required to Support Upcoming Extensive Development and Infrastructure Activities›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 142w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25238
Dr Neo Kok Beng59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for National Development in view of the coming intensive and extensive development activities in the built environment industry, such as land reclamation, coastal protection and housing infrastructure, (a) how many more professional engineers are projected to be required; and (b) what are the Ministry's plans to increase student enrolment in the industry, to meet projected demand.
Mr Chee Hong Tat83 words
[+3 sentences]Over the next few years, the built environment engineering and architectural services would need to fill over 1,000 job vacancies for professionals, managers, executives, and technicians per annum. Following the recommendations of the Taskforce for Architectural and Engineering Consultants, we are partnering with industry and institutes of higher learning to improve the attractiveness of built environment careers. Key efforts include earlier and stronger talent outreach efforts, enhanced internship opportunities, such as the INSPIRE programme, and clearer pathways for career progression and professional development.
Proposed Study to Quantify Scale of "Hidden Adults" in Singapore›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 135w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25239
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry intends to conduct a national study to quantify the scale of "hidden adults" in Singapore, referring to individuals with prolonged social withdrawal; and (b) what resources are available for the community and families seeking support or intervention.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M86 words
[+4 sentences]Individuals who have withdrawn socially for a prolonged period, whether adult, youth or child, would generally be served by family service centres or community mental health teams. These are operated by social service agencies appointed by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Health or Agency for Integrated Care respectively. In addition, individuals and families may call the national mindline 1771 for advice and referral. MSF intends to leverage available internal data to track emerging trends, such as prolonged social withdrawal.
Impact of "Beyond the Label" Campaign in Reducing Mental Health Stigma›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 226w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25240
Ms He Ting Ru71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how the National Council of Social Service monitors uptake of the Beyond the Label Media Guide among newsrooms since its 2021 launch; (b) whether any assessment has been made of its impact on reducing stigmatising reporting; (c) how the public can flag any non-compliance; and (d) whether there are plans to update the Guide given developments since 2021, such as AI-generated content.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M155 words
[+8 sentences]The Beyond the Label (BTL) Media Guide was developed in consultation with representatives from the media, social service agencies and persons with lived experience. It was updated in 2024 to include reference to the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy launched in October 2023. Major media organisations, like SPH Media Trust and MediaCorp, have incorporated the Guide's reporting principles into their newsroom and editorial practices. The then-Ministry of Communications and Information also noted that mainstream media demonstrated a responsible and sensitive approach to reporting suicide and attempted suicide cases. Members of the public who have concerns about a specific report may raise them with the relevant media outlet. They may also provide feedback to the National Council of Social Service, which can inform its continuing engagement with media partners on responsible reporting. The Guide focuses on the principles of responsible reporting, regardless of how content is produced. The principles therefore remain relevant to AI-generated content.
Correlation between Preschool-home Distance and Attendance Rates›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 209w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25241
Mr Cai Yinzhou62 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the average distance between a child's home and that child's preschool; (b) whether Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has analysed the correlation between this distance and preschool attendance rates, including any variation by housing type; and (c) whether proximity of residence will be given priority in the allocation of preschool places.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M147 words
[+7 sentences]There is sufficient supply of preschool places today to meet demand at both the national and planning area levels, and more than nine in 10 children aged three to six are enrolled in preschools. There would be several preschools accessible to families living within each housing estate. Families have different needs, preferences and caregiving arrangements, and may choose to enrol their children in a preschool near home, near relatives, or near their workplaces. Hence, proximity-based priority may not serve all families well. Preschool operators generally manage enrolment on a first-come, first-served basis. Operators also have the flexibility to consider additional factors, such as whether the child has a sibling already enrolled in the centre and the distance from the child's home to the preschool. The Early Childhood Development Agency will continue to monitor enrolment trends to ensure that families in Singapore can access affordable and quality preschool.
Singapore's ASEAN Chairmanship as Opportunity to Advance Nuclear Adoption and Address High Cost Issues in the Region›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 270w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25244
Ms Poh Li San66 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how does Singapore, as Chairman of ASEAN in 2027, intend to (i) collaborate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and ASEAN on the peaceful and safe use of nuclear energy in the region (ii) leverage collective interest of Member States to address high infrastructure and technology costs and (iii) establish regulatory framework and ensure compliance to safety protocols.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien204 words
[+5 sentences]Earlier this year, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders collectively recognised the growing regional interest in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and have emphasised the need to strengthen regulatory readiness and institutional capabilities to ensure the safe and secure use of nuclear energy through partnerships with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other dialogue partners. ASEAN works closely with IAEA under the ASEAN–IAEA Practical Arrangements, which provides a framework for regional cooperation between ASEAN and IAEA on capacity building, projects and research activities in the applications of radiation and nuclear technologies. This is complemented by regional engagements through the ASEAN Network of Regulatory Bodies on Atomic Energy on regulatory activities and nuclear safety, security and safeguards, and the Nuclear Energy Cooperation Sub-Sector Network on capacity building. As Singapore assumes the Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2027, we will continue to work closely with IAEA and ASEAN member states to strengthen emergency preparedness and response, operationalise regional protocols, enhance regional radiation monitoring capability and information sharing arrangements, and conduct exercises to ensure readiness. These efforts build confidence, improve coordination and strengthen our region's ability to respond to a nuclear or radiological emergency and support peaceful use of nuclear energy safely and securely.
Penalties for Use of Curtains or Sunshades on Driver-side Windows›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 198w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25245
Ms Cassandra Lee61 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Traffic Police tracks offences involving the use of curtains or sunshades on driver-side windows while driving; (b) if so, whether there has been an upward trend of such offences; (c) what penalties apply; and (d) whether enforcement will be stepped up, in light of recent measures to strengthen enforcement against unsafe driving behaviours.
Mr Jeffrey Siow137 words
[+6 sentences]My response will also address Written Question No 58 in yesterday's Sitting. [Please refer to "Assessment of Visibility-related Incidents and Enforcement Actions Involving Removable Front Side Window Sunshades While Driving", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Written Answers to Questions section.] The use of curtains or sunshades on side windows while driving is not allowed as it obscures the driver's visibility of the roads and surroundings. Motorists found to be using such curtains or sunshades while driving will be issued warnings and asked to take them down. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police do not track the number of warnings issued. The maximum penalty for this offence is up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 6 months. LTA will continue to monitor the situation and step up enforcement efforts, where necessary.
Causes of Recurring Traffic Jams along Loyang Avenue and at Pasir Ris Drive 3 Intersections›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 159w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25248
Ms Valerie Lee59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether a comprehensive assessment of the causes of recurring long traffic jams along Loyang Avenue and at the intersections with Pasir Ris Drive 3, including traffic volumes, traffic origin, junction capacity and merging patterns has been conducted; and (b) what further measures are being considered beyond the current interventions to address these constraints.
Mr Jeffrey Siow100 words
[+5 sentences]The congestion along Loyang Avenue and at the intersections with Pasir Ris Drive 3 is due to the temporary road diversions needed for the safe construction of Loyang Viaduct and the Cross Island Line Loyang Station. The road diversions will be removed by the second-quarter of 2029. To mitigate the impact, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has widened the surrounding roads where possible, and adjusted traffic signal timings to facilitate smoother traffic flow. The frequency and capacity of bus services have also been increased. LTA is monitoring the traffic conditions along Loyang Avenue and will introduce additional measures where necessary.
Test Parameters and Safety Settings for Safe Launch of Driverless Ride-hailing Service in Singapore›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 158w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25250
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim53 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport with regard to Waymo’s driverless ride-hailing service targeted for 2028 (a) what intervention-free distance and maximum disengagement rate must be demonstrated under LTA's Deployment Readiness Assessment before driverless operations are approved; and (b) whether LTA will publish each operator's disengagement, incident and crash data before and after approval.
Mr Jeffrey Siow105 words
[+5 sentences]Under the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) Deployment Readiness Assessment framework, all autonomous vehicles (AV) operating on public roads must demonstrate that they can operate safely and reliably within their intended operating conditions before they are allowed to carry passengers with a safety operator on board. Beyond these considerations, we will also consider other factors, such as operating environments, and the level of public confidence and acceptance. AV operators are required to report incidents involving third parties or property damage. LTA and the Traffic Police will investigate each incident. The Ministry of Transport and LTA are looking into regularly publishing more data related to AV operations.
Improving Bus Captain Driving Standards Through Public Feedback and Telematics›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 149w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25253
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song50 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider requiring bus operators to (i) display QR codes on all public buses to enable immediate public feedback on driving performance of bus captains and (ii) introduce tiered incentives for bus captains tied to telematics-derived smooth driving scores and commuter feedback.
Mr Jeffrey Siow99 words
[+4 sentences]Each bus operator already has its own incentive framework to reward safe driving practices among bus captains. These incentive frameworks take into consideration commuter feedback as well as telematics data on harsh braking and acceleration, among other factors. Commuters are also already able to provide immediate feedback on safety concerns through multiple existing channels, both directly to bus operators and via the Land Transport Authority. Some operators already display QR codes that commuters can use to provide feedback on their journeys, and we will continue to encourage operators to find ways to solicit timely feedback to improve their services.
Evaluating Public Bus Passenger Capacity, Boarding Demand and Peak-hour Performance Metrics›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 121w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25255
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) how are passenger capacity and loading data for public bus routes evaluated during peak morning travel windows; (b) whether data collection accounts for unserved commuters who are unable to board because buses arrive at capacity; and (c) whether peak hour performance reviews evaluate critical micro-windows separately from broader hourly averages.
Mr Jeffrey Siow65 words
[+3 sentences]Loading data for buses is measured by farecard data against the capacity of the buses deployed. For routes with high peak hour loading over the heaviest 30-minute window, the Land Transport Authority will work with the respective operators to monitor bus stops along the route for unable-to-board situations using on-site surveys and commuter feedback. When frequent unable-to-board situations are observed, service adjustments will be made.
Accommodation of Larger Mobility Devices on Public Buses Priority Spaces and Exemptions to Specific Users›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 219w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25257
Mr Cai Yinzhou64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the dimensions of priority spaces on public buses in circulation, by bus model and year introduced; (b) whether newer models have smaller spaces than earlier ones; (c) whether mobility device size limits on public transport accommodate heavy-duty, bariatric or tilt-in-space wheelchairs and mobility aids; and (d) if not, whether exemptions can be granted to specific users.
Mr Jeffrey Siow155 words
[+6 sentences]The size limit for wheelchairs and personal mobility aids onboard buses is 120 centimetres in length and 70 centimetres in width. The combined weight of the device and the user must also not be more than 300 kilogrammes. In practice, the size of wheelchair bays on public buses can range from 130 centimetres to 205 centimetres in length and 75 centimetres to 90 centimetres in width, depending on the bus model. Newer models provide more space for wheelchair users, as there are two wheelchair bays, although each of the individual bays may be more compact. We are not able to grant exemptions for users of devices that do not comply with the size limits as this could compromise the safety of the user and other passengers, as well as sufficient space for passenger movement. Such users can apply for support, such as via the Taxi Subsidy Scheme, to defray the cost of specialised transport services.
Energy Price Thresholds for Additional Households and Small Businesses Support Measures›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 133w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25259
Ms Elysa Chen39 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what thresholds in fuel and electricity prices will trigger a third package of support measures for households and small businesses; and (b) whether these thresholds will be published in advance.
Mr Jeffrey Siow94 words
[+5 sentences]The Government had announced support packages in April and July to cushion households and businesses from higher energy prices. We do not used fixed fuel or electricity price thresholds to determine when further support should be provided. Hence, there are no fixed thresholds to publish in advance. At this juncture, there are measures from Budget 2026 and the July support package that are still being rolled out. We will monitor the impact of these measures, as well as the overall economic situation, before deciding whether further support is warranted before the Budget next year.
Data on Directors' Debarment, Unfit Conduct Reports and Insolvent Liquidation Since 2021›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 300w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25260
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the Companies Act 1967 (a) how many persons were disqualified or debarred as directors annually since 2021, by provision; (b) how many section 149 reports of unfit conduct were made to the Minister; and (c) whether section 155A, which disqualifies directors of three dormant companies struck off the register, will be extended to directors of companies that have gone into insolvent liquidation.
Ms Indranee Rajah229 words
[+11 sentences]From 2021 to 2025, an average of around 230 persons each year were disqualified or debarred from acting as directors as a result of regulatory action by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). Section 155A of the Companies Act disqualifies a person who had been a director of three or more companies that had been struck off by the Registrar within a five-year period. This provision disqualifies directors who demonstrate a repeated pattern of failing to ensure that their companies meet statutory obligations, such as filing Annual Returns with ACRA. Section 149 of the Companies Act provides for the disqualification of unfit directors of insolvent companies. No reports have been made to the Minister under this provision since 2021. A company may become insolvent for a range of reasons, including business conditions beyond a director's control. Insolvency does not, by itself, indicate misconduct or a director being unfit to hold the position. Hence, a director is not automatically disqualified solely on the basis that their company entered insolvent liquidation. Section 149 provides for disqualification where the director's conduct makes them unfit to manage a company. In such cases, the Court may, upon the application of the Minister or the Official Receiver, disqualify such a person from acting as a director for up to five years. This approach strikes a balance between entrepreneurial activity and protection of the public.
Regulations for Use of Smart Glasses with AI Capabilities by Public Service Officers›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 196w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25263
Ms Hany Soh48 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government considers it necessary to ban or restrict the usage of smart glasses with AI capabilities by public service officers during work in order to prevent or minimise the risk of breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1935.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister)148 words
[+8 sentences]The Government takes the protection of official information seriously. As the Ministry of Digital Development and Information has explained in response to Parliamentary Questions this year, existing laws and safeguards apply to the use of AI-enabled smart glasses, including rules governing photography and audio or video recording. In addition, for public officers, the Public Service Code of Conduct requires officers to safeguard the confidentiality of official information. Officers must comply with the Official Secrets Act and Government security requirements. Public officers are expected to exercise due care and must not improperly record, retain or disclose classified information. This applies irrespective of whether they are using smart glasses, mobile phones or any other electronic devices. Officers who fail to comply with the rules will be taken to task under the law or internal disciplinary proceedings. We will continue to review our safeguards as technologies and the associated risks evolve.
Enforcement Action against Users of Shared Bicycles for Non-compliance with Helmet-wearing Rules when Riding on Road›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 214w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25270
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong71 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what enforcement action has been taken against users of shared bicycles for non-compliance with the helmet-wearing rules when riding on a road; (b) how many summonses were issued to these users in each of the past three years; and (c) how authorities work with operators to inform users of this requirement before a bicycle is unlocked.
Mr K Shanmugam143 words
[+7 sentences]The Traffic Police (TP) conducts enforcement at accident hotspots and locations reported by members of the public, including against cyclists and e-bike users, for non-compliance with helmet-wearing rules when riding on roads. This applies to both privately owned and shared bicycles. Errant cyclists can be fined up to $1,000. TP does not track the number of summonses issued specific to shared bicycle users. Across all bicycle users, TP issued an average of 747 summonses annually between 2023 to 2025 for non-compliance with helmet-wearing rules when riding on roads. Bicycle sharing operators provide in-application notifications and user guides to remind users of the requirement to wear helmets when cycling on roads, and to comply with other active mobility rules. The Land Transport Authority will continue to work with operators to reinforce these safety-related messages and work with TP to educate cyclists on helmet requirements.
Number of Incarcerated Women Giving Birth in Custody and Care Arrangements for Their Newborns›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 281w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25271
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis69 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many incarcerated women have given birth while in custody in each of the past five years; (b) whether an incarcerated woman's spouse is permitted to accompany her during labour and delivery subject to appropriate security arrangements; (c) if not, why; and (d) what are the options for care arrangements for the newborn child.
Mr K Shanmugam212 words
[+10 sentences]From 2021 to 2025, an average of 13 women inmates gave birth while in custody per year. The treatment protocol for pregnant inmates is in line with practices of our public healthcare institutions. When the inmate is about to give birth, she will be escorted to KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) for the delivery. While the spouse is not permitted to accompany the inmate due to security reasons, he will be notified of the birth as soon as practical. Visits can be facilitated after the inmate is transferred to the secure ward in KKH, subject to the hospital's visit policy. As the prison is not a conducive environment for raising a child, care arrangements for the newborn baby will be made, in close consultation with the inmate and her family. Prisons will also work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development to make childcare arrangements for the baby in the community if needed. In cases where there are no other alternate caregiving options, the baby will be allowed to stay together with the mother in prison. For such cases, special provisions are made for the baby, including warm water for bathing, clothes, diapers, milk and other age-appropriate food. The mother and baby will also have access to appropriate medical care.
Annual Turnover and Retention Measures of Police Investigation Officers›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 348w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25276
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the past five years, what has been the annual turnover rate among Police investigation officers; (b) among departing officers interviewed, how many have cited long working hours or excessive workload as their primary reason for leaving; and (c) what measures are being taken to address workload and retention.
Mr K Shanmugam284 words
[+15 sentences]Policing is demanding work and the Singapore Police Force is a lean force. Police investigation officers face heavy workload and increasing public demands. The Police recognise these challenges and have put in place various measures to better support police officers including investigation officers. Over the past five years, the turnover rate of investigation officers averaged about 6%, while the annual turnover rate in 2025 was 3.8%, the lowest over the period. Departing officers generally cite a range of personal and professional considerations during exit interviews, and these factors may overlap. The Police leverage technology widely to automate and streamline investigation work processes. For example, the Police have launched a next-generation investigation case management system that automates manual tasks and enhances sense-making capabilities. The Police have also developed the Investigator Co-Pilot, a suite of artificial intelligence tools to assist investigation officers in managing cases more effectively. Beyond technological initiatives, the Police have been reviewing the structure, systems and processes in the investigation fraternity. The career development pathways of investigation officers have also been strengthened through the development of expert career tracks that allow them to deepen their technical competencies as they move up the ranks. This builds a broader pool of experienced officers who can take on complex cases and mentor less experienced officers. By providing a structured career pathway for officers who wish to remain in specialist investigation roles, the expert tracks also help retain critical expertise within the investigation function. Nevertheless, as has been stated previously in this House, the role of an investigation officer is demanding. They work under pressure. The manpower crunch means that the load on the investigation officers is significant and unless these conditions change, we must expect attrition.
Tracking and Limiting Excessive Screen Use among Seniors›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time3 turns · 343w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25278
Ms Lee Hui Ying49 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information to prevent unbalanced screen use among seniors (a) whether data on the amount and nature of screen use among seniors have been collected, including average daily screen time; and (b) if so, what does the data show for different age groups.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government collects data on the amount and nature of screen use among seniors, including average daily screen time and types of online activities; (b) if so, what are the findings across different age groups among seniors; and (c) if not, whether the Government intends to collect such data.
Mrs Josephine Teo235 words
[+11 sentences]My response will cover the questions raised by Ms Lee Hui Ying and Mr Melvin Yong in today's Order Paper relating to whether the Government collects data on screen use among seniors. The Ministry of Digital Development and Information collects survey data on seniors' use of digital devices for leisure. Among seniors aged 60 and above, 49% reported spending an average of one to two hours daily on leisure activities on their devices. A further 38% of seniors reported spending three to five hours daily. There were no notable differences in device use patterns between seniors of different ages. Around 79% of seniors felt that they spent the right amount of time on their devices. Slightly less than half, around 45%, felt that device use had negatively impacted their well-being. Among these seniors who reported negative impacts, 75% found effective ways to manage their device use, with spending time on other activities and taking regular breaks from device use being the most commonly cited methods. We recognise the importance of maintaining overall well-being as we equip seniors with digital skills for daily living through the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Digital Skills for Life framework. IMDA's SG Digital Office conducts lessons targeted at seniors on screen time management, including how to track their online usage and how to set daily screen time limits. IMDA's Digital for Life portal also provides resources on reducing device use.
Measurable Indicators in Smaller Class Size Pilot Study›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time3 turns · 511w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25280
Mr Yip Hon Weng56 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education regarding the 2027 smaller class size pilot (a) which measurable indicators will assess gains for disadvantaged students; (b) how changes in teachers' total student loads and working hours will be measured against pre-pilot levels; (c) when findings will be published; and (d) which benchmarks will determine expansion beyond the pilot schools.
Dr Charlene Chen55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Education in the Ministry's planned pilot on smaller class sizes, whether mainstream classes with higher levels of learning and support needs, including students with special educational needs (SEN), will be included to assess whether differentiated class sizes and additional in-class support improve teaching and learning outcomes in classrooms with greater complexity.
Mr Desmond Lee400 words
[+18 sentences]My response will address Question Nos 47 and 48 in today's Order Paper and related questions raised by Mr Kenneth Tiong, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms He Ting Ru in yesterday's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Expected Outcomes from Smaller Class Size Pilot Study", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] To strengthen holistic development and better prepare students for the future, the Ministry of Education (MOE) is embarking on a pilot with six schools to redesign classrooms, to enable us to reimagine learning. We want to explore how teaching and learning can be further strengthened by using more learner-centred pedagogies that support students' holistic development and the acquisition of important life skills. Our schools already use a range of learner-centred pedagogies today. We want to create more opportunities to deepen these practices. For example, our teachers can devote more time to facilitate collaborative learning, where students work together to tackle authentic problems, exchange perspectives and refine their thinking. Learner-centred approaches can be better supported by smaller classes, more flexible learning spaces, including the use of outdoor spaces and place-based learning, purposeful use of technology alongside hands-on activities, and better recalibration of teachers' work. On class sizes, MOE's approach has consistently been guided by the learning needs of our students. We already use smaller classes selectively where greater teacher attention is needed, such as for younger learners and students requiring learning support. The pilot builds on this approach, but goes beyond class sizes. Smaller classes create opportunities for more learner-centred approaches, but also require us to rethink how teaching and learning are organised. The pilot will study how factors, such as teaching loads, timetabling, teachers' responsibilities, technology and learning spaces, can work together to support these shifts. As these elements are closely interconnected, the pilot will allow us to test and refine different approaches before considering broader implementation. MOE will work with pilot schools to try out how these approaches can be effected in a sustainable manner in Singapore, taking into account different student profiles and operating contexts. This includes classes with higher learning support needs. We will also monitor student outcomes and teachers' workload, and ascertain the resources required accordingly. These findings will inform whether the approaches are viable, sustainable and applicable to more schools. We will share the findings when ready.
Collaborating with New Epidemic Preparedness Centre to Advance Singapore's Vaccine Research and Development›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time3 turns · 1,003w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25281
Ms Poh Li San69 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health how will the Ministry (i) further collaborate with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to advance Singapore as a centre of excellence for vaccine research and development (ii) establish a global network of trusted national regulators and production facilities and (iii) safeguard Singapore's priority access to vaccines supply at a favourable price level during peacetime and pandemics.
Dr Neo Kok Beng60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health as regards the Government's national strategy to prepare for future pandemics (a) what is the role of mRNA technology compared with other vaccine technologies; and (b) what is the budget allocated for the Programme for Research in Epidemic Preparedness and REsponse (PREPARE) and PrepVax programmes to maintain pandemic preparedness.
Mr Ong Ye Kung874 words
[+45 sentences]A next pandemic crisis is an evolutionary certainty. It will happen; we just do not know when. What we are doing is to take a step further to prepare for a Disease X pandemic crisis. This means a new and unknown virus, with fatality rates, like the severe acute respiratory syndrome or Ebola, and spread, like COVID-19 or influenza. In that scenario, contact tracing, quarantine, safe distancing measures, face masks, work-from-home and even a lockdown will be necessary. But the key to get us and the world out of such a crisis is an effective vaccine. COVID-19 vaccines took a record nine months to develop. The international scientific community coordinated by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which Singapore is part of, hope to do so in 100 days for the next pandemic crisis. To Ms Poh's question, no country, including Singapore, can be the centre of this research and development effort. It has to be a collective international effort, where each centre around the world works on one or a few prototypes against a possible virus. When the outbreak happens and we have learnt about the virus, we see which country or laboratory has the most promising prototype and then use it as the base to develop a vaccine. This is the basic concept of how CEPI works. To Dr Neo's question, because speed is of essence, as of now, it is likely to be an mRNA vaccine because of two key reasons. First, traditional vaccines are developed through a biological process of growing the weakened or inactivated virus or making its proteins, which takes time. Improving the vaccine requires iterations and hence, repeating the same time-consuming process multiple times. On the other hand, mRNA vaccines are developed through a chemical and digital process. The new pathogen is genetically sequenced and the mRNA vaccine is designed and coded to counter it. Iterations involve editing the genetic code of the vaccine, which is less time consuming especially with the use of Artificial Intelligence. Second, traditional vaccines require custom made production lines, whereas mRNA vaccines production lines can be configured to make different mRNA vaccines. As a result, the path to production is potentially faster and can be on a much larger scale. However, in a crisis, once a vaccine is discovered, there would be a mad scramble for it. To Ms Poh's question again, we will leverage our relationships with the producer to secure supplies. But we expect the competition for vaccines is going to be much more intense than during COVID-19. Recognising this, countries around the world are making preparations to develop their own vaccines. But it is not so simple. As mentioned, vaccine development for Disease X requires international collaboration and division of labour, so the likelihood of any country developing the most effective vaccine is not high. Even if a country has its own production line to make someone else's most effective vaccine, there is the uncertain process of licensing and technology transfer before production can begin. Further, outside of a crisis, the production line needs to be kept warm with peacetime production because it is not possible to turn on a dormant line during a crisis and expect it to work. Preparedness has to be a living capability. To build living preparedness capabilities in Singapore, the Government has committed about $190 million over the last five years to implement the PREPARE and PrepVax programmes. The budget does not include other efforts within the healthcare system, such as preparing our hospitals, building emergency stockpiles and anchoring state-of-the-art, flexible vaccine production lines in Singapore. One of the early investments in vaccine production is Hilleman Laboratories, a joint venture between MSD and Wellcome Trust. Sanofi opened its advanced production line called Modulus about a year ago. We are also working with Wellcome Leap's RNA Readiness and Response Global network, exploring continuous-flow RNA manufacturing. Through private sector participation, we hope to develop an ecosystem similar to the semiconductor industry, where there are companies that design the chips, and foundries that produce them. If we succeed, we will have flexible vaccine production lines in Singapore that can be configured to produce vaccines, especially mRNA, that others have discovered. We witnessed some of the possibilities recently. With the support of CEPI, Hilleman Laboratories in Singapore will be developing and producing a Bundibugyo ebolavirus vaccine candidate for clinical trials. Hilleman is using an existing Zaire ebolavirus vaccine as a base, improving it and secured the license to produce the vaccine candidate in its flexible production line in Singapore. If the vaccine is successful, it has made arrangements with a regional player to scale up production. This is a demonstration of what we hope to be able to do during a pandemic crisis. Regulatory preparedness is another critical enabler. The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) is strengthening Singapore's links with trusted regulators through its international networks and CEPI's Regulatory Advisory Group. These partnerships facilitate information-sharing, regulatory alignment and coordinated reviews, which can help safe and effective vaccines be assessed and deployed more quickly during a pandemic. As our local vaccine manufacturing production capabilities develop, HSA will aim to attain World Health Organization Listed Authority status as a vaccine-producing country, as it has done for drugs and medical devices.
Reviewing Specifications of Household Shelters in HDB Flats to Make Them Accessible for Wheelchair Users›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time3 turns · 300w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25282
Miss Rachel Ong64 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government will review the specifications for household shelters in HDB flats, including the current 700 mm door opening, to ensure accessibility for wheelchair users; (b) if so, whether this will apply to new flats; and (c) what options are available to wheelchair users living in existing flats.
Miss Rachel Ong57 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether SCDF has assessed if the current 700 mm door opening requirement for household shelters adequately accommodates wheelchair users; and (b) whether the technical requirements can be reviewed to provide a wider door opening while maintaining the necessary structural and blast-protection standards.
Mr K Shanmugam179 words
[+9 sentences]Every resident naturally wants their family to be safe at home. And for some households, particularly those caring for wheelchair users, the design of a household shelter can raise practical concerns. Household shelters are designed to protect occupants from blast effects and fragmentation. To ensure that they provide the necessary protection for occupants, the Singapore Civil Defence Force issues technical specifications for shelters, including the door dimensions. These requirements serve a single purpose: keeping the people who take shelter inside them safe. As shelter doors are the weakest part of the shelter, the 700 mm door opening requirement was set to ensure the shelter's structural integrity and protective effectiveness. While the 700 mm door opening is sufficient for most wheelchairs, the structural and protection requirements for shelters may limit the extent to which ideal barrier-free access measures can be incorporated. The raised door kerb, for example, is another necessary protection feature that restricts barrier-free access in the same way. As such, caregivers should help wheelchair users enter a household shelter when the Public Warning System's "Alarm" signal is sounded.
Support for Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers to Transition to New Careers with Waymo's Announced AV Ride-hail Service›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time5 turns · 725w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25284
Assoc Prof Terence Ho59 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) what have been the take-up rates of (i) Career Conversion Programmes and (ii) other SkillsFuture-supported training initiatives for full-time taxi and private hire car drivers over the past two years; and (b) whether there are targets for career conversion or training take-up rates under the recently launched manpower transition package for such drivers.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim55 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport given LTA's statement on 18 September 2026 that autonomous vehicle deployment will not outpace support for affected drivers (a) what indicators the Ministry monitors to assess the displacement of taxi and private hire drivers, including driver earnings; and (b) what changes in these indicators could result in deployment being slowed.
Ms Hany Soh51 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry anticipates progressive disruption to taxi and private hire drivers' livelihoods with the gradual expansion of autonomous vehicles for passenger service in Singapore; and (b) how may such drivers be supported in being reskilled or upskilled, or pivoting to careers in other industries.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling60 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport in view of Waymo's market entry into Singapore, whether the Ministry can provide (i) updated information on the timeline and milestones for operators of autonomous vehicles (AVs) (ii) safeguards, such as a cap on AVs, to pace the rollout and (iii) the measurable implementation targets for its plans to help point-to-point drivers find suitable work.
Mr Jeffrey Siow500 words
[+23 sentences]The deployment of autonomous vehicles in Singapore is at an early stage. Today, we have 15 vehicles in Punggol. Grab plans to have 50 vehicles in the next six months. Waymo will begin testing and preparations for their deployment in the western part of Singapore in 2027, with the aim of starting commercial service the year after. By end-2028, there may be several hundred autonomous passenger vehicles in Singapore. The vehicles will be deployed across a variety of constrained use cases as we are still in the phase of safety validation and establishing market demand and acceptance. The number of autonomous vehicles is a very small percentage of the total number of active taxi and private hire car drivers which currently stands at 72,000. Thus, we do not expect any immediate impact on driver jobs and livelihoods. Beyond the next two years, the pace of autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment depends on multiple factors, such as technology readiness, safety validation, operator growth, the level of public confidence and acceptance, and the impact on existing drivers. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in his National Day Rally had said that we will not let adoption run ahead of our ability to retrain and support affected drivers and help them move into new jobs. While it is not possible to predict how many AVs will be in Singapore in five years, it is almost certain that the majority of point-to-point transport will be provided by human drivers. Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked if we should cap the number of AVs. We should not do so as our transport needs are still growing. We are also facing challenges, such as an ageing workforce and more taxi drivers retiring in the coming years. I note that when ride hailing apps and private hire car drivers first came into the market and were seen as a competition to taxi drivers, we similarly did not cap the number of private hire car drivers. Although there is no immediate impact on drivers' livelihoods, we fully recognise and understand that some taxi and private hire car drivers are concerned. This is why the Government is proactively rolling out support and job transition packages, in partnership with industry and union partners to support drivers who wish to explore opportunities in the AV sector, or in other sectors. We have launched the new career conversion programme (CCP) for autonomous vehicle specialists, and the new point-to-point driver to bus captain pathway under the CCP for public transport professionals. Under these programmes, the Government provides up to 90% salary support to participating employers. For a start, we have catered about 350 placements for both CCPs, and we encourage interested drivers to explore these options. The Ministry of Manpower does not currently track the participation rate of platform workers in CCPs. The Government is fully prepared to scale up CCP capacity if demand is higher than expected. Drivers who are successfully placed on CCP will have a job and receive a salary from the participating employer.
Action against Service Provider that Did Not Respond to Community Care Apartment Resident's Activation of Emergency Call Button›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 126w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25287
Mr Fadli Fawzi70 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Government will take any regulatory action against Vanguard Healthcare in the case of an 85-year-old woman who allegedly did not receive help after pressing the emergency call button in her community care apartment; and (b) what actions will the Government take to ensure that community care apartment residents receive the services that they have subscribed for.
Mr Ong Ye Kung56 words
[+1 sentence]This question has been addressed in the response to Question No 37 from the Parliament Sitting on 6 October 2026. [Please refer to "Service Standards for Emergency Response at Community Care Apartments", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Monitoring Structural Integrity of North-South Corridor Given Scale of Construction Works›Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time2 turns · 97w
· 0 highlighted
written-answer-na-25296
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin45 words
[+1 sentence]asked the Minister for Transport regarding the developments along the North-South Corridor (a) what measures are in place to monitor the structural integrity of the Corridor, nearby ground and infrastructure given the scale of construction works; and (b) how frequently are these monitoring reviews conducted.
Mr Jeffrey Siow52 words
[+2 sentences]I thank the Member for the question. I have addressed them at the 6 October 2026 Parliamentary Sitting. [Please refer to "Elaboration on Challenges and Assistance for Residents, Commuters and Businesses Affected by North-South Corridor's Delayed Completion ", Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96, Issue 38, Oral Answers to Questions section.]