Mr Speaker: Order. For the record, I have to inform hon Members that on 20 July 2026, Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim resigned from his seat in Parliament for the electoral division of Marine Parade-Braddell Heights. Members were informed of the resignation of Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim by me on the same day.
In accordance with clause (2)(c) of Article 46 of the Constitution, the seat of Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim became vacant on 20 July 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessments, Consultations and Consideration of Alternative Sites for Housing before Decisions on Clearance of Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for National Development given that HDB announced housing plans for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way on the same day consultation opened (a) which parameters remain open to change, including footprint, yield, retained areas, heritage and mitigation; (b) whether site clearance or tender awards will await feedback; and (c) whether HDB will publish its response before approving final plans or tenders.
2 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether alternative sites for housing were evaluated as alternatives to Gillman Barracks; (b) whether smaller-footprint or lower-density options on the Gillman Barracks site itself, with greater retention of forest cover and heritage buildings, were also assessed against the current conceptual plan; and (c) what planning considerations led to the proposed site and footprint being preferred.
3 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development whether, after the online feedback period for the Gillman Barracks Environmental Impact Assessment and Heritage Impact Assessment closes on 6 August 2026, the Government will hold dialogue sessions with residents, heritage groups and nature groups as part of the process of refining the development plans.
4 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the phased directional clearance plan for Gillman Barracks under the Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan will include checkpoints at which monitoring data from earlier phases is reviewed before authorising further clearance; and (b) if so, what criteria would trigger a pause or adjustment to the clearance schedule.
5 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent announcement on Maju Forest (a) how has the Government's approach to balancing public housing needs with the conservation of ecologically significant forests and heat resilience evolved over the past five years; and (b) whether alternative sites, redevelopment opportunities or higher-yield development options are systematically evaluated before such locations are selected.
6 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development with regard to proposed housing developments on former forested sites (a) what criteria are used to determine whether retained forest areas are sufficiently large and connected to remain ecologically functional over the long term; and (b) how is the effectiveness of wildlife corridors subsequently monitored.
7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development in light of the possible development at Maju Forest, whether the concerns and recommendations of the nature and conservation groups on preserving greenery, flora and fauna can be adopted.
8 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development given that the Environmental Impact Assessments at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks rate the biodiversity impact as major negative after mitigation (a) what threshold of harm sets a site aside if that finding does not; and (b) whether under-used state land, including the grounds of black-and-white bungalows and ageing low-rise estates, has been assessed as an alternative before clearance.
9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how were findings from the Gillman Barracks Environmental and Heritage Impact Assessments weighed against housing needs; (b) whether alternative sites were considered; and (c) what resident engagement was conducted prior to the redevelopment announcement, including whether closed-door discussions were held and how participants were selected.
10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how are findings from the Maju Forest Environmental Impact Assessment taken into account in ongoing considerations for housing at Sunset Way; (b) whether alternative sites can be considered; and (c) what measures are being considered to ensure any retained ecological corridor minimises edge effects and supports wildlife movement.
11 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) what microclimate or urban heat-island modelling was conducted to assess the localised temperature impact of clearing forest cover at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks; and (b) what will be the projected impact on surrounding residential areas.
12 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development regarding the Gillman Barracks redevelopment (a) what measures will be taken to ensure the preservation of its secondary hill forest and heritage buildings; (b) whether alternative brownfield sites were considered to minimise ecological impact; and (c) how public feedback from the environmental and heritage impact assessments will be incorporated into the final master plan.
13 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development what planning criteria does the Ministry use to determine that brownfield and other previously developed sites are insufficient before greenfield sites are selected for residential development.
14 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will further enhance the public accessibility of Environmental Impact Assessments by providing plain-language summaries of key findings and clearer explanations of how public feedback has informed planning decisions.
15 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) how was public feedback gathered for the redevelopment of Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks; and (b) what other sites are being studied over the next five years for similar possible redevelopment for housing or other uses that may substantially affect existing heritage or natural areas.
16 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent announcement on Maju Forest (a) whether future Master Plans will refrain from zoning forested greenfield sites for development where feasible, especially where the forested sites are of ecological significance, and prioritise the redevelopment and intensifying land use on existing brownfield sites; and (b) if not, why not.
17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks redevelopments (a) what is the impact on surface temperature and greenhouse gas emissions; (b) whether brownfield alternatives were surveyed and what is the rationale for selecting these sites; (c) what is the estimated cost of clearing Maju Forest versus redeveloping a similar area in mature estates; and (d) whether Environmental Impact Assessments measure climate-related factors.
18 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will publish, before consultations on the Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks sites close on 6 August 2026 (i) the projected housing demand these sites are intended to meet and (ii) the reasoning for selecting them over available alternatives.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Questions Nos 1 to 18 in today's Order Paper together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, my response will also cover related questions raised by Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr David Hoe1, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Shawn Loh, Miss Rachel Ong, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Patrick Tay2, scheduled for subsequent Sittings.
Mr Speaker, allow me to make one point clear at the outset. The plans for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way have not been finalised. Government will continue to engage stakeholders, to take in views and feedback before deciding how we will carry out the development of both sites. This could involve adjustments to the development layout and the amount of greenery and heritage to conserve.
We published the studies and conceptual plans so the public can study them, share their views and help us to shape the final development plans.
I want to assure Members that while the formal consultation period for the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) ends on 6 August 2026, our engagement with stakeholders will continue, as we adjust and refine the development plans based on the inputs received.
Sir, in my response, I will first explain why Singapore needs to build, where we choose to build and how we build. I will then explain how these principles apply to Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks.
First, why we need to build.
Mr Speaker, let us start with what I believe we can all agree on. We value our heritage and green spaces. We also want Singaporeans and our future generations to have access to affordable public housing. We want hospitals, schools, and places where we can work and earn a good living. We want roads and public transport so we can get around. We also need land for defence, essential infrastructure and coastal protection. And I wish we had an abundance of land, so we can provide all of these without having to make trade-offs.
But that is not our reality. Our choices are narrower than those faced by larger countries. We thus have to make the best use of our limited land. That is why we plan decades ahead, to meet Singaporeans' needs today while keeping enough options open for future generations.
Housing is one of our most pressing needs. Some asked why housing demand continues to grow even though our total fertility rate (TFR) is lower than before. Current low TFR figures reflect the smaller number of babies born in recent years. But Singaporeans who are buying Housing and Development Board (HDB) homes today and in the near future were born decades ago when our birth rates were higher.
Another reason is that household sizes are getting smaller. More young married couples prefer a home of their own to living with their parents or extended families. At the same time, many prefer to live near their parents, so they can care for and support one another. More singles are also setting up homes of their own. And more seniors now live alone or only with their spouse.
These trends mean we need more homes than we did in the past, as the total number of households has increased.
Many Members on both sides of this House have also called for the relaxation of eligibility criteria to provide wider access to public housing and shorter waiting times for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.
We understand and share these aspirations. But if we want more Singaporeans to qualify for HDB housing and to get their homes sooner, then we must build more homes and we must build them faster.
So, the question, Mr Speaker, is not whether Singapore should continue to build homes, hospitals, schools and other developments to meet our people's needs. The question is where we build and how we build responsibly.
Let us go on next to where we build.
Sir, we do not start with sites that have significant heritage or ecological value. We first ask a series of practical questions. Can we make use of vacant land? Can we make better use of existing land? Can we build higher, go underground, bring compatible uses together, or better use under-utilised spaces? That is what we have been doing and we will continue to do.
For example, relocating Paya Lebar Air Base to Changi and Tengah will free up a substantial area for redevelopment, as will consolidating our port activities at Tuas Port. We are also phasing out some golf courses and redeveloping older industrial areas for other uses. We are already redeveloping the former Keppel Golf Course as part of the Greater Southern Waterfront. By 2030, we will have taken back more than 400 hectares of golf course land for redevelopment.
Sir, we will also build taller where we can. This year, we announced Singapore's tallest public housing project – an over 60-storey development at Pearl's Hill.
Relaxing aviation height limits near airports also opens up new possibilities for us to build more intensely in suitable locations.
We build underground where possible too. We are developing rock caverns at Gali Batu, building on earlier projects such as the Jurong Rock Caverns. And through the North-South Corridor, we are moving vehicular traffic underground, freeing surface space for walking, cycling and greenery.
We are also doing more with existing sites and underused spaces, through integrated mixed-use developments, and by activating spaces beneath viaducts and on car park rooftops.
As we do all this, we pay close attention to greenery and heritage. Today, Singapore has about 7,800 hectares of green spaces, including our nature reserves. Even after accounting for planned developments in the latest Master Plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has safeguarded an additional 1,000 hectares of green space.
We are also strengthening ecological connections between core habitats. By 2030, we aim to restore and enhance 80 hectares of forest, marine and coastal habitats, and establish 300 kilometres of Nature Ways.
These efforts help make Singapore one of the world's greenest high-density cities. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Green View Index found that Singapore is ahead of most cities in urban tree coverage, including cities with much lower population densities.
We take a similar approach to heritage as well. We have conserved more than 7,200 buildings and structures in over 100 areas. Where possible, we retain significant heritage buildings and elements, and incorporate them into new developments.
Sir, these are guided by our long-term land-use planning process. Through our Master Plan, we engage Singaporeans and set out how we use our limited land for the next 10 to 15 years. And we review the Master Plan every five years through a major public consultation exercise, to ensure it remains relevant to our nation's changing needs.
A site's zoning reflects its long-term planning intention. But when we develop the site depends on our national needs, the availability of alternatives and if the supporting infrastructure is ready. Within this framework, we will always do our best to retain sites with significant greenery and heritage value.
But there will be occasions when no other suitable site can meet the same need, in the same area and within the required timeframe. And when that happens, we must weigh the trade-offs carefully and consider whether we can develop a site responsibly to meet an important national need, such as providing homes for Singaporeans.
Sir, the next question, then, is how do we build responsibly when it is necessary to develop a site.
We proceed with great care when a site has significant ecological or heritage value. Government agencies appoint independent external consultants to conduct an EIA or HIA, or both. These studies draw on inputs from nature and heritage groups. And the consultants do three things.
First, they establish what is on the site today. For an EIA, this means identifying the site's important habitats, plants, animals and ecological connections. For a HIA, it means establishing the significance of the site's buildings, structures, landscape and other heritage attributes.
Second, the consultants assess how the proposed development could affect these features.
And third, they recommend how to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential impact to the site. Depending on the site, this could mean retaining areas of high ecological significance, maintaining ecological corridors, preserving important buildings or incorporating heritage elements into the new development.
For an EIA, the consultants also propose a preliminary Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). The EMMP sets out mitigation measures, monitoring arrangements and reporting requirements that will apply during development.
So, our general approach is to avoid impact where we can, reduce them where we cannot, and mitigate those that remain. We publish the findings, potential impact and proposed mitigation measures in the EIA or HIA report. This allows residents and the wider public to study the proposal and to give their feedback and views. Agencies then consider the studies and feedback before finalising the detailed plans.
EIAs and HIAs are not meant to justify a detailed plan that is already fixed. They are an integral part of the consultation process through which the plan is shaped.
Once development proceeds, HDB and the National Parks Board (NParks) will monitor the works and require contractors to provide regular updates, to ensure the measures are implemented properly.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now explain how we apply the principles that I have laid out for both Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks.
Sir, both sites have been earmarked earlier for residential use.
For Sunset Way, the planning intention for housing had been reflected in the Master Plan since 1980. That intention has been reviewed and reaffirmed at each subsequent Master Plan review, including the most recent review in 2025.
For Gillman Barracks, we announced the intention to study the site for development during the 2024 Committee of Supply debate. The site was subsequently rezoned to reflect that intention under Master Plan 2025.
But we did not come to these sites first. Over the years, we prioritised brownfield redevelopment in Clementi, Bukit Merah and surrounding areas. In Clementi and Bukit Merah, we redeveloped several older estates under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme. In Bukit Merah, we are redeveloping the former Keppel Golf Course, as I mentioned earlier. But demand for housing in these estates remains strong. The recent BTO launches at Clementi Emerald and Berlayar Rise were each oversubscribed by over four times.
Many Singaporeans, especially young families, want to continue living near their parents for mutual care and support. Many understand this and so asked if we can build on sites that appear vacant or underused instead.
Sir, let me explain that some of these sites are already intended for housing. One example is the former Raffles Junior College site at Mount Sinai where we are planning to introduce public housing in the near term, and the former bus facility at Ghim Moh where BTO construction is already in progress.
Some asked about the former Institute of Technical Education Headquarters site at the Dover-Medway area and a nearby site at Albert Winsemius Lane. The former will be redeveloped for a mix of public and private housing, to be launched over the next few years, and the latter is a Land Transport Authority (LTA) worksite that is needed to support ongoing works for the Cross Island Line. It will be considered for redevelopment in future after the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line is completed.
Others also asked about Maju Camp. Sir, we need Maju Camp to support our national defence needs, so we cannot use it for housing at this point.
For Gillman Barracks, some suggested building homes at Depot Lane Industrial Estate, the former Central Manpower Base (CMPB) and the \"reserve site\" at Pasir Panjang.
Depot Lane Industrial Estate is indeed part of our future housing supply and demolition of the buildings is currently ongoing to prepare the site. While the former CMPB has moved out of Depot Road camp, the site is still required by the Ministry of Defence and other users. This also applies to the Pasir Panjang reserve site, where there are existing uses like the Ministry of Education Outdoor Adventure Learning Centre. This site can only be redeveloped in the longer term.
In short, many of the sites suggested are already being developed for housing, are needed for other national purposes or cannot be redeveloped yet. That is why we need to develop Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way to meet our housing needs over the next decade.
But we recognise, Sir, that Gillman Barracks has both environmental and heritage value. That is why we commissioned the EIAs and HIA, because we assessed that the development could have significant environmental or heritage effects and wanted to carefully study the impact before finalising any plans. These are comprehensive reports, reflecting months of data collection and analysis by independent experts.
At Gillman Barracks, we are studying how to retain most of the native-dominated secondary forest within the site. We are also studying how to maintain ecological connections in the East-West and North-South directions.
The East-West connection would link Telok Blangah Hill Park and HortPark, and the North-South connection would comprise an ecological corridor, supporting the movement of birds towards Berlayar Creek and Labrador Nature Reserve.
Gillman Barracks also has a distinctive heritage character. We are thus studying the retention of all buildings assessed to be of \"Exceptional\" heritage significance, as well as most of those assessed to be of \"High\" heritage significance. This would allow the future neighbourhood to build on the character and charm of the former colonial buildings.
But where a heritage building cannot be retained because of practical site constraints, we will explore other ways to preserve its history. These include detailed documentation, salvaging and reusing suitable materials, and incorporating heritage interpretation into the future development.
At Sunset Way, we are studying the retention of a significant stretch of greenery along the former Jurong Railway Line. This would preserve an important part of our railway heritage while maintaining ecological connectivity within the site.
We are also studying the retention of a natural stream and its surrounding riparian buffer, which provides refuge for wildlife. These retained green areas will be supplemented with more native trees, and serving as buffers between the future neighbourhood and existing residential estates.
Our approach to both sites will be informed by science and evidence.
Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way lie within the wider Labrador Nature Park and Clementi Nature Corridor respectively, as NParks identified through its ecological profiling exercise. The proposed retention areas are based on findings of the environmental studies, that aim to maintain ecological connectivity across these wider landscapes. HDB will also study how to design these future neighbourhoods to reduce urban heat. This includes using environmental modelling to improve wind flow, incorporating greenery, using cool-paint and orientating residential blocks to minimise direct sun exposure.
Sir, some Members also asked how many homes the sites will eventually provide. We are not yet able to give an exact figure because the layout, scale and detailed design have not yet been finalised. But in our current conceptual plan, we already reduced the number of homes to retain important green and heritage areas identified through the studies. If we conserve even more, we will build even fewer homes. So, we must weigh this trade-off carefully before reading a final decision.
HDB has also been attending local grassroots advisers' dialogues with residents to hear their concerns and suggestions in person. We appreciate the time and effort that many have put into studying the reports, attending dialogues and submitting detailed feedback. I personally engaged many stakeholders myself and walked the ground at both Sunset Way and Gillman. Young People's Action Party (PAP) and PAP Sustainability Group have also conducted engagements, gathering feedback and sharing that feedback with me and my team.
Some nature enthusiasts, heritage advocates and nearby residents also asked us to preserve more greenery and heritage. Some also proposed additional mitigation measures.
At the same time, we also heard from many Singaporeans, including residents in Clementi and Telok Blangah, about their desire for more affordable and accessible public housing. Many tell us they hope their children will have an opportunity to live near them.
Sir, both perspectives reflect legitimate concerns and aspirations. After the formal consultation period closes on 6 August 2026, we will conduct further engagements with stakeholders and closely review the study findings and feedback we received before finalising our detailed development plans. We will also publish a report summarising agencies' responses to the feedback and any amendments made to the original set of plans.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the question before us is not whether housing, greenery or heritage matters. They all do. The challenge is how we balance these needs responsibly within our limited space. We will and must always make the best use of existing land and safeguard our most important natural and heritage assets.
But there will be times where we cannot avoid difficult trade-offs. When that happens, we must be clear about why we need to build, deliberate about where we build and take great care over how we build. We must be honest with Singaporeans about the choices before us, listen carefully to their views and improve our plans wherever we can. And after weighing all these different considerations, Government must decide in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.
This is the approach we are taking for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way. We are studying the environmental and heritage findings, listening to public views and examining how the proposals can be improved before the detailed plans are finalised.
Sir, these difficult choices are not unique to Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way. And they will continue to confront us as we build homes, strengthen our economy, expand our infrastructure and realise our vision of a City in Nature.
Sir, generations before us faced similar choices. They made them with courage and foresight, and Singapore is now better for it. Our responsibility is to do the same – so that we can leave to our children a country that is greener, more liveable and continues to provide opportunities and good homes for our people.
Mr Speaker: Miss Rachel Ong.
\tMiss Rachel Ong (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for your response and for receiving the feedback and proposals that my residents and I submitted on Gillman Barracks. These came from in-person meetings, community sessions and written feedback, including well-researched proposals that the residents put together themselves.
I understand and appreciate the stated need for more housing and the potential benefits for many families. Along these considerations, my residents have also raised deep concerns including the loss of biodiversity and ecological connectivity in the area, the loss of the very greenery that drew many residents to make this precinct to their home. For many, Gillman Forest is a place of respite, reflection and connection. Also raised is the impact on climate resilience and urban heat.
With that, I would like to ask four supplementary questions.
First, can the Government clarify whether, and if so how, the earlier Berlayer EIA informed the Gillman Barracks EIA, particularly in relation to ecological connectivity corridor design and the cumulative impact across the two adjacent developments?
Residents have raised concerns over developing Berlayer and Gillman Barracks in close succession, particularly since both sides form part of the same ecological network and serve the same wildlife. In this context, they have asked why the recommended ecological widths differ between the two, despite this shared ecology.
The Gillman Forest links the Southern Ridges, which includes the Telok Blangah Hill Park, Berlayer Creek through to Labrador Nature Reserve and Kent Ridge Park, forming a larger ecological landscape. Retaining it alongside shared residents, would also honour Singapore's 2021 pledge under the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030.
My second supplementary question: instead of residential development on Gillman Barracks, will the Government consider re-imagining and re-engineering the site to better meet the evolving needs of our next generation, creating spaces that protect and promote human creativity and connection?
My third supplementary question: will the Government review our planning and consultation processes to ensure they remain fit for purpose in the changing climate, specifically for forested or ecologically sensitive sites, could EIAs and public engagement begin at the master planning stage before land is slated for development?
My final supplementary question: will the Government provide a summary of the feedback collected, together with clarity on how it shaped the final development decisions? This matters deeply to residents, who want assurance that their voices have made a difference.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Miss Rachel Ong for her strong advocacy on behalf of her Telok Blangah residents and for working together with our agencies to provide those feedback.
As I mentioned earlier on, the plans for both Sunset Way, and in this case, Gillman Barracks are not yet finalised. Even beyond 6 August, when the consultation period closes, we will continue to engage her residents. And after this further engagement and reviewing the feedback and findings from additional engagements with the residents, we will release reports summarising the responses to feedback and also any adjustments that we make to the original set of plans.
With regards to the Gillman EIA and its links to Berlayer, the Gillman EIA took into consideration the Berlayer Estate. So, there is connectivity. It has established an important connectivity, in fact, between Gillman and Berlayer for the movement of birds. And these draw upon the findings from the NParks' ecological profiling exercise, which I mentioned earlier on, and the Keppel Club EIA. And the conceptual plan, therefore proposes retaining the East-West Corridor, as I mentioned earlier on, and to establish a new North-South Corridor, to facilitate the movement of fauna.
Both studies also proposed a minimum 30-metre ecological corridor, and for Gillman Barracks, its recommended corridor stretches up to 200 metres.
So, we acknowledge that there is ecological connectivity between sites, we have done that through the EIAs and the EIAs for each site is different because each site is unique, but where possible, we recognise the connectivity.
On building on new spaces within this site, as I have mentioned, we will take in those feedback in the consultation process, even beyond 6 August. We will listen to residents and see where we can make adjustments.
On the spaces which the Member has mentioned, as I have mentioned, today, Singapore has over 7,800 hectares of green spaces and nature reserves. And if you look at the bigger picture, even after accounting for the planned developments in both sites in the Master Plan, URA has safeguarded an additional 1,000 hectares of green space.
So, net-net, we are building a green city. All of these plans, be it in Sunset Way or Gillman, are meant to enhance that ecological connectivity and also to balance between development for homes, as well as green and heritage places.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
\tMr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State Tan for the comprehensive response. I have three supplementary questions for you today.
Firstly, I would like to ask if the Minister of State can confirm if not proceeding with development is still an option for either site, rather than just adjusting developmental boundaries or taking mitigation measures?
The second supplementary question is, the Minister of State referred to quite a number of significant initiatives to free up further brownfield land, such as the relocation of Paya Lebar Air Base, the continuing relocation of our port terminals to Tuas, as well as taking back golf course land. Will enough of the brownfield land be freed up in time, so that we can continue to defer the development of green spaces like Maju Forest and Gillman Forest?
And my third supplementary question is regarding the location of the Cross Island Line Maju Station, does the Government regard the location of Maju Station as compelling or requiring the development of Maju Forest, in order to be able to sufficiently utilise the capacity that the station will provide? And if that being the case, will the Government consider in the future, when planning MRT lines, alignments and station locations, that we take into account the location of sensitive, ecological sites, such as Maju Forest, such that we do not perpetuate a vicious cycle where this station is planned for that location and therefore, it compels development of the forest?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Andre Low for his questions. I made it quite clear that the sites that we mentioned earlier on – Sunset Way as well as Gillman Barracks – have already been zoned for residential use under our Master Plan and they have been set aside for housing. So, we will proceed, but how we build is important. And that is why we have these EIAs and HIA to identify the ecological significance, the heritage significance, and then, we will mitigate as best as possible, the ecological and heritage impact to the sites.
With regard to alternatives, I mentioned earlier on that we have looked in the vicinity of both Sunset Way as well as Gillman Barracks for alternative sites – vacant land, brownfield sites, underused sites. And there are a variety of ways in which we consider the availability of the land, whether the land has leases remaining, whether they have additional uses, as I mentioned earlier on, whether the infrastructure surrounding that site is sufficient. Because when you build homes for our people, you also need the surrounding infrastructure to support them.
Which brings me to Member's third point about train. And that is one major consideration.
When we look and select sites for homes for Singaporeans, it is not just on those considerations, but it is also very important for us to determine whether we can build amenities to support the community and housing, whether there is sufficient transport links including stations. And when we do so, we do a couple of things. Number one, we do an ecological profiling exercise on a broad swath to look at the impact of where sites have ecological and natural heritage, natural significance. Then, when the sites are meant to be developed, we also look at the EIA and the HIA to mitigate those sites. And then, in the process, we get feedback and see how we can also better bring in amenities that will benefit home buyers and homeowners.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker and I also thank the Minister of State for his assurance that the Ministry of National Development (MND) continues to be equally committed to both providing affordable housing as well as our city in nature. As planning principles, we know the first gives Singaporeans a stake in society and the second is really what continues to make us exceptional as nature is functional.
I have three supplementary questions.
First, how are these planning principles consistent, even through reviews of various Master Plans? And can I confirm that MND is committed to the structured decision matrix and hierarchy, avoiding impact before minimising or mitigating in environmental or historical sites in guiding these decisions?
Second, our city in nature vision is ultimately about maintaining functional ecosystems that strengthen Singapore's resilience through biodiversity, ecological connectivity and climate adaptation. Beyond the size of the green spaces which are retained, what ecological criteria does the Government use to determine if a site should be avoided altogether? Is there a desired minimum viability that we are optimising for longer term? And when development does proceed, how does the Government monitor over time whether retained forests remain ecologically viable; for example, in terms of habitat quality, stormwater attenuation and urban cooling?
And finally, could the Minister of State please share more about the engagement process, including for this case of Maju Forest? How does the Government ensure that development decisions are made consistently and transparently, specifically, which nature groups and experts are consulted, at what stages of planning and how does the feedback finally influence the planning outcome? Has the Government considered whether EIAs and HIAs should be legislatively strengthened, brought earlier and the stages of the consultation process enshrined?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Thank you to Ms Nadia Samdin for the questions. I explained earlier on our development process quite in detail. But let me make a few emphases.
The first is that no development can take place without planning permission under the Planning Act. And as part of the planning approval process, all development proposals are screened for potential environmental as well as heritage impact. And the developments that are assessed to have likely significant environmental and heritage impact are then subjected to the EIA and HIA process, which I mentioned earlier on. And then, we work together with different stakeholders, community groups, residents, nature groups, to then study the EIA or HIA and to see where we can make adjustments.
On Member's point about the broader considerations, we have undertaken an ecological profiling exercise as I had mentioned, to better understand the role of sites in protecting and also supporting biodiversity and ecological connectivity. These findings are important because they help to identify important habitats and ecological corridors. I mentioned that earlier on. It also helps us and guides planning on how to balance development with nature conservation.
But the development priorities and development projects that are close to sensitive areas will be subject to and in fact, are subject to greater scrutiny. And it guides measures to help us to mitigate the impact. For example, we will protect our nature reserves and any nearby developments that may affect nature reserves are subject to very strict planning controls.
In consultation with the nature groups – I have met with many of them, including the Nature Society of Singapore, the Singapore Youth Voices for Biodiversity, LepakInSG, National University of Singapore academics and many residents as well. As I mentioned earlier on, our consultation process will continue even after 6 August and we welcome more feedback and more views so that we can take in those, as we look to finalise our plans in later stage.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister of State for his fairly comprehensive replies. I take comfort in the fact that he mentioned that the plans have not been finalised and I take comfort in the good Minister of State's position that there has been an agreement to extend the consultation period, or at least the engagement post 6 August. These are good valuable explanations for the residents that I serve.
My questions arise out of possible alternative sites. I accept the Government's national priority to have housing close to parents and to family – something that I support. But I think we can look at alternative sites close to Maju Forest and here I have two: between the MSCP and the canal at Sunset Way there is currently a construction site for the Cross Island Line. And if one was to build higher there, it would have beautiful waterfront living. So, that is one alternative that is within my own ward. Would that be considered?
And pardon the pun, taking a leaf out of Dover Forest and the debate I had some years ago, we managed to find alternative housing sites that preserve half of Dover Forest – and it was a win-win situation. So, I invite the good Minister of State to look at this as a blank sheet of paper to see whether we can achieve such a win-win. And therefore, an alternative site is also Clementi Avenue 5. I understand that it is a worksite, a large worksite for the Cross Island Line, and it will be a rather eloquent and elegant position to put high rise HDB flats.
So, I am not one to just throw the problem away. I am giving solutions. Would the good Minister of State consider this?
The last point, Sir, if I may, arises out of Ms Sim Ann and my engagement on the ground. We have had town hall meetings. We have done home visits. We have been responding to emails and we have visited Maju Forest twice. And there is this great affinity for the forest, it is a part of their lives and there is also heritage.
So, for all of these reasons, I ask for the same ethos, the same principles that governed the debate between the back bench and the front bench regarding Dover Forest, and if we can receive a win-win-win solution with alternative sites and as much mitigation as possible, I think that would be a great advantage and great fillip for this House.
So, in summary, those are my responses. I do support the national priority of building. My question is, where? And if we can find a good win-win-win compromise.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza as well as grassroots advisor, Sim Ann. They have been very actively engaging myself, Minister Chee, Minister Indranee – very strongly speaking up on behalf of the residents at Sunset Way. They have gone down to the ground. They have organised town halls. They have conveyed many of the residents' feedback to us. They have also visited the residents. So, they have been very actively engaged – both on the ground and to me, as well as our MND colleagues.
I mentioned earlier on the alternative sites, and I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for being very practical and also identifying some potential alternative sites.
We do our best to optimise the land use and to tap the vacant land and brownfield sites where possible, but there are no other suitable sites to meet the near-turn demand in the vicinity. For example, the Albert Winsemius Lane site that he mentioned earlier near the MSCP is currently being used for LTA for the Cross Island Line. Clementi Avenue 5 is also to support ongoing works for the Cross Island Line, but will be considered for residential development after the MRT line is complete.
So, these are already measures that we have taken into consideration. We first look at brownfield sites. We first look at underused land. We first look at vacant land. And we look into whether we can first use them. Then, we see whether there are alternative sites for us to build.
So, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his inputs and we urge him to continue engaging with us beyond 6 August, so that we can take in his residents' feedback and make relevant adjustments to the plans before they are finalised.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State the following supplementary questions.
One, in my Adjournment Motion on Serangoon River Forest earlier this year, I raised concerns that public engagement often takes place only after key land use directions, which includes non-consultative zoning decisions, have been determined. So, why were consultations not conducted before the scope and parameters of the environmental studies for Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, for example, were established? And will the Government consider engaging stakeholders at an earlier stage for future major redevelopment proposals?
My next supplementary question: I would like to again urge the Minister of State to clarify whether the development plans for Gillman Barracks and the housing proposed under consideration remain open to substantive revision, and whether the Government is prepared to reduce development intensity or footprint, and consider alternative sites? And I got one more alternative site. What about the Protective Security Command at Ulu Pandan?
My next supplementary question: would the Minister of State tell the House, what specific long-term population and household formation projections are driving the planning for HDB housing developments in Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, and indeed elsewhere? And will MND publish this figure so that the public can independently assess if clearing these forests is necessary now?
My next supplementary question: given residents' concern about the loss of canopy cover, has HDB modelled the potential urban heat impact of the proposed developments on both sides and what measures are being considered to ensure surrounding neighbourhoods do not experience significant ambient temperature increases?
And finally, could I ask the Minister of State to consider extending the current one-month consultation period beyond 6 August, so that the residents, experts and civil society can have more time to review the reports and submit their feedback?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, Mr Dennis Tan had five Parliamentary Questions, and we have debated this many times before, for Serangoon River Forest. Let me try to answer him as best as I can.
First, we will be extending the engagements beyond 6 August. So, that is very clear. So, as I have mentioned, please share with us your views and your feedback, and we will take them into consideration as we finalise the plans. We will also publish the agencies' responses to this feedback.
On the canopy cover and urban heat, I spoke about this in my main reply about how HDB is already taking these steps in existing and also future developments to reduce urban heat through many of these factors.
On population, I have also mentioned why currently, we require more housing. Household formations have increased. Household sizes are smaller and there is increased demand for housing, particularly in the central areas where the two sites are. At close by, Clementi Emerald, for example, is four times oversubscribed. So, we need those.
And I also wanted to ask for Mr Dennis Tan and the Workers' Party (WP) colleagues in this House to also stand by us in this regard. Because we have debated housing in this House many times. We have debated it in, I think, 2023 on the debate on Motion for public housing and the WP stance on housing is very clear. Let me just share a little bit.
First, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua had proposed to reduce the age eligibility for singles to access public housing, from age 35 to 28. Mr Pritam Singh also suggested allowing a first-time couple who exceeded income eligibility criteria threshold to buy a BTO. Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua also pushed for the Government to increase public housing supply. Mr Louis Chua, in his Adjournment Motion in September 2022, implored the Government to take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and address the current demand-supply imbalance to ensure housing demand of all Singaporeans, not just singles, are met. He had also asked in the same Adjournment Motion for the Government to build residential homes ahead of demand and to have a fundamental rethink of the BTO system.
So, all of these are very clear positions that housing is required and we need to build more. And when we do that, it is not a question of why we build. I think it is very clear. It is a question of where we build. I have explained to Members the sites. I think the Protective Security Command is also set aside for residential housing, for example. And as I mentioned, also to Mr Christopher de Souza, we have already looked at all of the surrounding brownfield sites and where possible, we have to factor in the timing, the availability, the infrastructure, as well as the lease and other factors before we go into vegetated sites. And in this case, we have been quite comprehensive in that regard.
On the public engagement, I also already mentioned that we will continue to engage the public, and we welcome public consultation and feedback beyond 6 August.
Mr Speaker: I see many hands. I ask Members to ask your questions, but not to ask the same questions in different ways for which Minister of State Tan has already answered. Mr Kenneth Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. But first, I do not think my Parliamentary Question was answered.
So, (a) what is the threshold of harm that sets aside a site if a major negative EIA assessment does not? And (b) whether under-used state land, including the grounds of black and white bungalows and ageing low-rise estates, had been assessed as an alternative? I have been to the grounds of some of these black and white bungalows, and I think that they are very, very low density, and certainly, if you wanted to build more housing there, it would be ideal.
My three supplementary questions. First, residents value Telok Blangah for its greenery and forest, and that is a large part of its identity. I think that removing the forest removes that identity. So, in the spirit of alternative sites, I think, could the car workshops around Alexandra Village Food Centre be considered for development?
Second, can there be a formal extension of the consultation deadline beyond 6 August?
Third supplementary question: many nature observers expressed to me deep disappointment in what they perceived to be the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's (MSE's) lack of leadership and ownership in the decisions on Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest, and their perception that MSE has gone missing on this issue. In this very year, 2026, that MSE has designated the \"Year of Climate Adaptation\", why has MSE not been seen leading and advocating for this forest?
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Tan. Minister Fu, I will come to you, after Minister of State Tan.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, let me answer Mr Kenneth Tiong's questions. A \"major negative\" is a formal technical term used in the EIA and it is not always possible to avoid the ecological and heritage impact, including the type for Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks. But with the EIA and the HIA, we have plans already to mitigate these possible impacts and we will do what we can to do so.
On alternative sites, we have already explained why and where; we have looked into alternative and brownfield sites.
On the engagements and the consultation, I also mentioned that we will extend it beyond the consultation period on 6 August.
And on the MSE, I disagree with his characterisation. The Government makes decisions across different Ministries. We speak to MSE. MSE gives us the feedback. But at the end of the day, we will have to make decisions based on the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
You cannot say you want housing, as the WP has already mentioned multiple times and said in this House, but yet, then also in the same breath, say, \"Why don't you do this?\" and \"Why don't you do that?\"
I think what is important is for us to look at the compatible uses, the trade-offs and for us to, at the same time, build homes for people whom both the WP and us want to build homes for and at the same time also preserve where possible heritage sites as well as ecological sites.
These are not incompatible. It requires us to make very deliberate decisions on where we build, which is alternative sites, and also how we build in this regard.
So, I hope that the Member agrees with me, and I hope that he will work with us as well in engaging the nature groups, explain all of these different considerations. And I also really wanted to say that MSE has been working very closely with us in terms of addressing many of these issues together.
Mr Speaker: Minister Fu.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Thank you very much. The suggestion that MSE should take on a different position than MND, and to make a strong stance because it is the Year of Climate Adaptation, to object to some of the decisions that have been taken by MND – it is not how we work as a government. For us, any one of us standing in front here, presenting a position to the Government, the rest of us are in support. So, I think if a WP Member is hoping for a fight between Ministers, I think they will be disappointed.
But in any case, the purpose of having the Year of Climate Adaptation is precisely for that: for all the agencies and the Ministries, when they are planning long-term land use, when they are planning long-term transport infrastructure, when they are planning long-term power infrastructure, to have a view on the adaptation that is needed, given the long-term climate change. It is not to change the way that we have worked effectively as a team in the Government.
Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.
\tDr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Young PAP recently engaged Singaporeans on the proposed housing developments at Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest. My fellow Young PAP advisors, Mr David Hoe and Ms Lee Hui Ying, heard two key concerns.
First, some young Singaporeans felt let down. They have been taught in school to make personal responsibility for sustainability but perceive a disconnect between this message and these developments.
My first supplementary question: will the Ministry further enhance public accessibility of EIAs and HIAs, make them easier to understand among the general public?
Second, our young accept that trade-offs are necessary, but they feel that they lack sufficient information to understand why this particular trade-off was made. Questions remain, such as why more areas of high ecological value are not included within the proposed retained area, and they want to know how the decision was reached and whether every reasonable alternative has been considered.
Hence, my second supplementary question is, will MND publish a report similar to the National Climate Change Secretariat's response on Singapore's long-term low emissions development strategy to respond to these questions and suggestions, and explain how feedback informed its final decision?
Finally, Maju Forest is quite hilly and it may entail potentially higher construction costs that potentially could be passed on to HDB buyers. It is also a very desirable site, given all the nature and the greenery surrounding it. How can we keep public housing at these sites affordable for HDB buyers?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for leading, together with Mr David Hoe and Ms Lee Hui Ying, together with the Young PAP, to engage our youths. And I understand that they will be engaging them further.
We can understand why our youths feel strongly about this and our youths ought to feel strongly about this. These are important issues, these are important considerations. It means they treasure our heritage and they treasure our green spaces. We will continue to engage them beyond and to get their feedback on where we can make adjustments to the sites, but then also to explain the rationale as well.
On those sites, we are not yet able to give an exact figure about the plans because they are not finalised yet. We could make, for example, potential adjustments to the layout, to the scale and to the detailed design.
If you look at what we are trying to study, we are trying to study the retention of some of these green spaces, including a significant stretch of greenery along the former Old Jurong Railway Line, also a natural stream and a riparian buffer that will help to support wildlife. And we will also publish a report summarising the agencies' responses to feedback and also any amendments made to the original plans.
So, we will do all of that. We will continue to engage our youths.
Sir, if you just allow me, I also had not answered Mr Kenneth Tiong's questions earlier on about alternative sites. I wanted to make the point that, where feasible, bungalows have been redeveloped or earmarked for future redevelopment already. And previously, the demolished clusters, for example, of bungalows at Seletar Camp have made way for an industrial park – and that supports our aerospace sector. In the coming years, we will also be studying plans to redevelop bungalows at Medway Park as part of the Dover-Medway Estate.
So, again, it reinforces our point that, where we can, we will prioritise brownfield sites and vacant sites, but where we cannot, then when we have to build, then we build very carefully, taking into account the EIA, the HIA, and then also looking at mitigation measures, working together with residents, communities, youth groups, nature groups and the like.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I would just like to make the point that asking the Government to build new houses should not preclude us from questioning where these houses should be built and the trade-offs that need to be made for these houses.
Secondly, Sunset Way has been largely zoned for residential use since the Master Plan in 1980. But since then, Maju Forest has become ecologically significant amidst the loss of many other green spaces in Singapore, including Tengah and parts of Bukit Brown.
The Minister of State has mentioned that MND has safeguarded a lot of green spaces, but there are also different types of green spaces. Destroying a secondary forest and then replacing it with a park yields the same amount of green space, but the ecological impact is completely different.
So, in light of this, will the Government consider reclassifying forested greenfield sites that are currently zoned for development into sites to be preserved wherever feasible? And if not, what factors might lead the Ministry to consider re-zoning forested greenfield sites that have already been identified for development, for park or nature reserve use?
A second question is, what is the threshold for conducting EIAs before developments on greenfield sites?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Fadli Fawzi for agreeing with us that there is really a need for housing and I also agree with him that it does not preclude the fact that we need to ask tough questions. And I appreciate Members of this House for conveying those concerns of their residents as well as the community, in this regard. It is important to ask these questions and it is on the Government to explain them, to explain the different aspects of it and to also ask for the public as well as residents to work with us in the design of these areas.
I have answered quite substantively, the questions that the Member had asked, particularly the ones that I had answered Ms Nadia Samdin, about how we look at the overall green space, the ecological profiling exercise. I have also answered before, how we look at alternative sites; and I also answered earlier on, how the EIA and HIA is meant to identify where their ecological and heritage significance and then, where, that is, what is today, how the proposed development may impact ecological and heritage features within the site and also, how we also mitigate the impact.
So, overall, if we look at where we are as a nation, we are one of the most liveable cities in the world. And despite our limited space, we have gone on to conserve and preserve over 7,800 hectares of greenery, within all of these constraints.
If we look at sites like, even Maju, in 1976, it was a brownfield site. The vegetation started growing there and then, of course, right now, even as we plan for Sunset Way, we factor in those green features. The stream, for example; the ecological corridor, for example; the old Jurong line, for example. So, these were not there in 1976. But there are there now, they have grown onto an original brownfield site. There are secondary native forest.
And when we plan, we already factor in that because we want to preserve these green sites and these green features, we already are lowering the number of homes that we can build on these sites. So, we take those into consideration and we will be able to build desirable homes for our people living close to their parents and also, enjoy the greenery that abuts these sites.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.
\tMs Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.
Would the Ministry consider publishing a forward-looking list of intended planning studies within the near term, say about two to three years, that may affect areas with heritage or ecological significance, and actively engage the community from the outset?
The second supplementary question will be, would the Ministry consider incorporating measures of non-market values, including existence value, bequest value and cultural value, into its evaluation framework for redevelopment decisions affecting heritage or natural areas?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Valerie Lee for her questions. Again, I had mentioned earlier on, how we look at the overall landscape as well as our island and how we have undertaken, for example, ecological profiling exercises, to better understand the role of sites in supporting, for example, biodiversity and ecological connectivity.
All of these, in concert, these findings do help us. They help us to identify important habitats and ecological corridors to guide how we plan and how we can balance development with nature conservation. As part of this planning approval process, and I had answered that earlier on as well, all development proposals are screened for potential ecological and heritage impact before we proceed. And the developments that are assessed to likely have high significant ecological and heritage impact are then subject to the EIA, and again, I have mentioned how we do that as well. So, I hope that answers the question.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to respond to the Minister of State. I am not sure I agree that his characterisation of the WP's position is a fair one. I think the question at hand here is not about whether or not we should build more. The question is and I believe that Members of this House are actually asking whether this location and the decisions, or at least the announcements have been made, are going to be the best given that there is a lot of pressure on housing. We all know that residents have balloted many, many, many times for housing. So, again, we are not disagreeing about about this, but the question before us today is whether or not these sites are the best places to build.
And we also want to understand a bit more from the Government, why these announcements have been made, what are the considerations that have gone into it?
In this regard, I also want to ask a couple of supplementary questions on this. The first being that we are talking about Gillman Barracks and also, Maju Forest. I noticed and I believe the Minister of State also said earlier that the Southern Waterfront, for example, is an area that is being developed, and I believe that the numbers is estimated about 7,000 new units, and nearer to Maju Forest, we have got a Turf City development, where up to 20,000 housing units are being proposed, or at least being planned. So, I would like to ask, despite all these numbers coming up, is it actually the Government's or at least MND's assessment that these 7,000, 20,000 units coming up in the vicinity is not enough?
I also noticed that Minister Chee earlier in the last few days also mentioned that HDB is continuing to study the impact of reducing BTO age, and I am just curious about whether or not the announcement of the development of these two areas is tied in any way to any potential reduction in BTO eligibility ages?
The last supplementary question that I would like to ask is whether or not, we have heard a lot about EIAs and HIAs and when these are being conducted. We also heard a bit about zoning, and the Minister of State mentioned earlier that Sunset Way has been zoned since 1980 for residential housing purposes. So, I just wanted to know whether or not, whether there had been any precedence where formal EIAs or HIAs have been conducted before any zoning changes or zoning decisions are made in order for us to have a bit more forward guidance in deciding to do a formal assessment, something a bit more formalised – EIAs or HIAs – before we even decide to change the zoning.
\tMr Alvin Tan: I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her questions and I also thank her for acknowledging that Members in this House, on both sides of the aisle, acknowledge that we need to build more. And she also acknowledged that there is a lot of pressure on housing. She mentioned earlier on that residents coming and balloting many times for housing. I am sure she faced that with her residents coming to her. I definitely face my residents saying, \"I have multiple ballots and I can't get the home.\"
And residents and homeowners want housing, they want housing, many of them want housing in central areas living near their parents. And that is why the demand for housing in these areas are now, four times oversubscribed, as I mentioned in my earlier reply. So, there is a huge demand for housing. And the question then, as Ms He mentioned, is whether the alternative sites, whether we have sufficiently looked at alternatives.
Yes, we have and we will continue to look for alternatives and focus on brownfield sites and vacant land before we touch a vegetated site. But these are all considerations that I have already mentioned.
On the BTO eligibility age, Minister Chee had mentioned that we are reviewing that. Then on the EIA and the HIA, I think there has been a little bit of misunderstanding on this. We need an EIA and HIA to present a proposal and that proposal then, is meant for agencies, it is meant for the community, it is meant for residents to then look at the proposal, see where the impact is and see how to mitigate that impact.
The EIAs are naturally very extensive, they run over 300 pages long. But we also have executive summaries of it. And with these engagements then, we can also go into the detail. So, the engagements, for example, that Mr Christopher de Sousa and Minister Sim Ann or Miss Rachel Ong has organised; or many others outside of it; or the YP has organised. These go into the details, make it a little bit easier.
But we do still need a plan. And the EIA and the HIA are plans. It showcases what is there, where the impact would be and also where the potential mitigations are. And again, as I reiterated, the consultation and the feedback process is ongoing and we hope that many will continue to give us that feedback. We will make the changes as necessary, because the development plans are not final.
\tMr Speaker: We spent over 70 minutes on this issue. I will allow two final supplementary questions. One from Eileen Chong and one from Joan Pereira. Eileen Chong first.
\tMs Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions and one clarification for the Minister of State. The Minister of State spoke about the better use of existing land, building taller where we can and using under-utilised land. So, in this regard, I also note that the Government has committed to the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) from early 2030 to renew ageing estates. So, I would like to ask, when the recommendation was made to clear parts of Maju Forest, Gillman Forest and Gillman Barracks for housing, was there any consideration to bring forward this renewal as an alternative? And if yes, what were the comparisons?
My second supplementary question is actually related to the Minister of State's earlier reply about how he was unable to share the exact housing yield of these sites, because the layouts have not been finalised. So, I would like to ask whether there is a target per site yield that HDB is looking at? I note in the 2025 draft URA Master Plan that it does contain indicative site yields for sites, like Newton, 5,000; the Patterson, 1,000; and also for Bayshore, 10,000 to 12,000, and so forth. But none has been given in this Master Plan for Maju Forest as well as for the Gillman Barracks sites.
And related to this, I would like to ask the Minister of State, what is the exact size of the housing demand that these sites are meant to respond to? It is something that my colleague Dennis Tan has asked. How much of this housing demand reflects local family formation per the Minister of State's outline about households getting smaller versus planned population growth?
And finally, I have one clarification. Given the volume of questions raised in this House today and the clear public interest and feedback on this, could the Minister of State clarify whether MND will be extending the consultation window beyond 6 August —
\tMr Speaker: Well, that has been answered three times, if I recall rightly.
\tMs Eileen Chong Pei Shan: Yes, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification: whether this window is extended beyond 6 August, just like what was done for Dover Forest in 2021, or is it simply that MND will continue to engage the public and relevant agencies beyond 6 August? I am asking this so that Singaporeans can have more of a meaningful opportunity to participate.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, for Ms Eileen Chong's questions, I have answered about the process of how we looked into the ecological profiling exercise, the EIAs and HIAs, but she raises some important points which I wanted to address.
The first is on the sites in the Master Plan with housing use, I think she mentioned Newton and other places, it is because the plans are firm. The plans are firm. Newton is my constituency. For Maju Forest and for Gillman Barracks, they are not firm and that is why we have the consultation period. That is why we have the EIA. That is why we are extending that, so that we can make adjustments.
And I mentioned earlier on that we make adjustments already prior with the EIA and HIA, where we could potentially have built more homes for Singaporeans. But we already have the EIA and HIA where we already accept that there will be lesser homes and the feedback exercise that will go beyond 6 August, as Speaker had mentioned, I have explained many times, will continue to help us to shape these plans as we go ahead.
On VERS, this is a long-term policy to have gradual redevelopment. It is not specifically linked to this. But earlier on, I have already mentioned why there is a demand for housing. I have already mentioned the smaller household sizes, I have mentioned greater family formation and also where people want homes. So, that is why we need to take this decision, look at the sites, look at where to build, look at alternatives and then, where we build, we do our best to mitigate the impacts of development – all to build homes for Singaporeans, which is our main objective.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question, Ms Joan Pereira.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State. May I know how the Government intends to support the arts community at the Gillman Barracks, either in relocating them or in continuing their work as an enclave in another area?
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her question. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has already engaged tenants at Gillman Barracks since 2023 and informed that the site has already been safeguarded for residential use in the longer term. SLA has also kept the tenants updated on the environmental and heritage studies which I mentioned earlier on, as well as upcoming development works.
For arts tenants, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for thinking of our arts practitioners in the site. I want to assure her that SLA is working closely with the National Arts Council (NAC) to support them. NAC will continue to engage the tenants and work with relevant agencies to facilitate their relocation, where possible, including pointing them to suitable alternative spaces and opportunities within Singapore's arts ecosystem.
Sir, if you allow me to wrap up very quickly.
\tMr Speaker: Okay.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I think we took the majority of Question Time. And it really reflects upon all Members of the House reflecting the voices of our people, reflecting the voices of youths, reflecting the voices of our residents, reflecting the voices of our communities. And I thank them. I appreciate them.
It also shows how we care. Earlier this morning, at 2.30 am, as I was preparing for this, Mr David Hoe messaged me and he said he just finished his Meet-the-People Session, and he showed me two young children with a little placard and it says, \"Please save the forest.\" I texted him and I said, \"That is wonderful\". Because we should care, our children should care, our youths should care. That they care enough to come together, to write to us, to ask tough questions, but also to walk with us and to work with us to find solutions together to build homes, to also protect our precious green and heritage spaces.
Mr Speaker, both are not incompatible. We can build homes that are nestled in greenery. We can also build homes which are nestled in heritage. But we can do that if we understand collectively why we need to build, if we choose carefully where we build and if we manage carefully how we build.
Sir, we are going to celebrate National Day on Sunday. And as we celebrate National Day, we will be going down to our estates as we usually do. These estates were once upon a time, probably vegetated sites or brownfield sites, like Maju Forest was in 1976, but are now thriving estates with families, with homes, with generations raising families.
So, even as we have this very robust debate, can I ask my colleagues here in this House to walk with us collectively to assure our people that despite our limitations and our constraints, that we continue to shape our island into one of the most liveable cities in the world and with Singaporeans at the heart of everything we do. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development given that Maju Forest has been earmarked for residential use since the 1980 Master Plan (a) whether HDB reassessed these plans against current biodiversity, climate-resilience and liveability priorities; (b) what alternative brownfield sites were considered, if any; and (c) how trade-offs in housing yield, timing, infrastructure and environmental impact informed the decision to clear parts of Maju Forest.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government assesses that the clearing of mature forests like Maju and Gillman Forests will worsen the urban heat island effect; and (b) given that critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable flora and fauna species were recorded in their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, how can such irreversible loss be justified."],"footNoteQuestions":["1","2","3","4","5","6","7","8","9","10","11","12","13","14","15","16","17","18"],"questionNo":"1-18"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"GovTech's Restructuring, Roles Redesign and Retrenchments, and Support for Affected Staff ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government was consulted prior to GovTech's decision to proceed with its operating-model transformation and the retrenchment of affected employees on the current timetable; and (b) if so, what the Government's assessment was of the feasibility of phasing the retrenchment over a longer period.
20 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government is aware of (i) the age and tenure profile of the 93 retrenched GovTech officers and others placed on retraining pathways (ii) the criteria guiding whether officers were retrained or retrenched (iii) whether such criteria will apply in subsequent phases and (iv) how GovTech will sustain staff morale and projects serving the public during transitions; and (b) if so, what are they.
21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information on GovTech's announced restructuring (a) whether the Ministry has information on (i) the age (ii) seniority (iii) roles (iv) identified skills gaps of the 93 officers who were retrenched (v) why these officers were not deemed transferrable to other agencies (vi) whether the skills gaps and agency needs for future restructuring will be assessed and announced in advance; and (b) if so, what are the details thereof.
22 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in relation to the first phase of GovTech's workforce transformation announced on 15 July 2026, whether the Government has information on (i) how many of the 93 retrenched officers were assessed, interviewed and offered vacant roles within GovTech or the Public Service respectively and (ii) whether suitable redeployment and retraining must be exhausted before external recruitment for roles requiring substantially similar capabilities.
23 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry had (i) anticipated GovTech's shift towards a continuous product ownership model and (ii) directed timely upskilling or career conversion programmes to be implemented to reduce retrenchments; and (b) of the officers affected by the restructuring, whether the Ministry has information on (i) how many have secured new employment and (ii) what career transition and reskilling support has been provided.
24 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether GovTech's move from project delivery to product ownership reflects a broader shift in public sector technology hiring; (b) how the Government's demand for project, vendor-management and product-development roles is expected to change; and (c) what implications these have for the wider technology workforce, including mid-career workers and their retraining pathways.
25 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of recent GovTech retrenchments (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if Singapore has a sufficient pipeline of talent to support the growing demand for capabilities in digital product management and product ownership across the public and private sectors; and (b) what measures, if any, are being taken with industry and Institutes of Higher Learning to strengthen these capabilities among Singaporeans.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Jasmin Lau) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, my reply will address the questions raised by Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Andre Low, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Sharael Taha in today's Order Paper, as well as the questions filed by Mr David Hoe1 and Mr Christopher de Souza for a subsequent Sitting, as they relate to GovTech's workforce transformation. If Members are satisfied with the reply, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.
I would first like to acknowledge that this is a difficult transition for the affected officers and their families.
With that in mind, let me explain what GovTech has done internally, how we intend to strengthen conviction in our public mission and how we are continuing to support our officers through this change.
The Ministry was consulted on GovTech's workforce transformation plan and we support it. The transformation will be implemented progressively over two years to give officers time to adjust. GovTech will also incorporate lessons learnt from each phase.
The workforce transformation is a necessary part of GovTech's shift from a one-off project-delivery model to a continuous product-ownership model. GovTech's workforce will grow because of this shift, but its composition will also need to change.
GovTech officers will need to take greater end-to-end responsibility for the digital products and platforms that the public interact with, while continuing to partner with the industry where vendors bring specialised expertise. Teams that own the products must not only design and build them, but must also maintain and improve them continually, to provide more reliable, secure and responsive digital services for our citizens.
GovTech is therefore hiring more software engineers, product managers, designers, data specialists, cybersecurity experts and platform engineers. However, as GovTech builds more products and operates them in-house, it will need fewer officers doing traditional project and vendor management.
GovTech anticipated this need to reshape its workforce. For several years, through natural attrition and targeted recruitment, its workforce profile has shifted, but not enough to meet our needs.
Therefore, GovTech has also invested heavily in pilots and apprenticeships to retrain existing staff for new roles or to redeploy them. But there are limits to its pace and scale. Meanwhile, technology is changing fast and GovTech must keep up, because if we fall behind, the quality of our digital products and services for our citizens will suffer.
We will retrain and redeploy as many officers as we can, but we cannot avoid having to transition out some officers. We recognise the disruption this causes to the affected officers and their families, and we will support them fully through this process.
The first phase will affect 305 GovTech officers. Of these, 102 officers have been retained or redeployed into roles where their skill sets are still required; 110 are being supported through structured job conversion and apprenticeship pathways; and 93 are being retrenched.
In deciding whether to retain, place on apprenticeship pathways or retrench officers, GovTech first assessed the job roles it needed for its future organisational and capability needs. Then, it assessed individual officers based on their competencies, domain expertise, job fit and readiness for the roles required. GovTech also consulted technology leaders in our agencies, including Chief Information Officers and Practice Leads, but it took the final workforce decisions centrally.
Among the 93 exiting officers, the largest age group is 40 to 49. This age group accounts for 42% of the exiting officers and also, 42% of the 305 affected officers. This age group is therefore not over-represented among the exiting officers. There is no significant difference in tenure between the exiting officers and those on retraining pathways. The exiting officers have served for a median of 5.4 years, compared to a median of 6.0 years for the officers on retraining pathways.
As for seniority, two-thirds of the affected officers were individual contributors and one-third of the affected officers were Team Leaders.
GovTech decided to be upfront in informing the affected officers about the transition plans, to help them evaluate possible redeployment opportunities against other options. Where there was a suitable pathway, GovTech has retrained and redeployed its officers before considering external recruitment. The apprenticeship pathways provide full salary, structured training and on-the-job learning to support officers in developing capabilities required under GovTech's future operating model.
Where there was no suitable role within GovTech, affected officers were supported in seeking opportunities in the public and private sectors. GovTech is working with the Public Service Division, the Skills and Workforce Development Agency and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute to facilitate job matching and referrals. Together, we identified a good mix of more than 300 job opportunities that are relevant to the affected officers' competencies. Officers interested in these options are currently in the application or interview stages. Affected officers also receive financial and transition support, career guidance and active job placement assistance.
GovTech will take the same approach in subsequent phases. We will strive for clarity on the roles and capabilities required, assess officers fairly against those requirements, retain and retrain where suitable, and support those who are retrenched.
The outcomes of the transformation will be assessed across three areas. First, whether officers have been supported through meaningful transition pathways, including retraining, conversion and redeployment where appropriate. Second, whether GovTech has strengthened the capabilities required for its future operating model. And third, whether GovTech successfully delivers more secure, reliable and effective digital services for Government agencies and citizens.
As the plans for subsequent phases firm up, GovTech will inform the officers affected of the timelines and the implications for them. GovTech's leadership will continue to engage officers throughout the transformation and work closely with agencies to ensure that critical projects and public digital services remain supported during the transition.
To sustain staff morale, GovTech has conducted town halls and dialogues at the cluster, team and individual levels. We seek to ensure that our staff understand not just what they are building, but why it matters. This fosters a shared sense of purpose and commitment to building technology for public good.
For the wider Public Service technology workforce, mid-career professionals in project and vendor management do bring valuable and transferable experience that can serve as useful foundations for product-oriented roles. However, these officers will still need to acquire relevant skills, such as agile delivery, user-centred design, cybersecurity and knowledge of data and cloud technologies.
We recognise that technology will continue to evolve and the skills required of technology professionals will also have to evolve in tandem.
The Government is committed to building a strong pipeline of digital tech talent to meet the growing demand for digital capabilities across the public and private sectors. We will continue to support workers, including mid-career professionals, through initiatives, such as the Infocomm Media Development Authority's TechSkills Accelerator. The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) will also equip students with product management capabilities through coursework and internships. Within the Public Service, GovTech's Digital Academy plays a key role in building these capabilities by providing structured learning pathways and programmes on designing and managing products and platforms.
We will continue to work with the industry and IHLs to ensure that training opportunities are available for Singaporeans to reskill and upskill to take on roles in growing digital fields, including digital product management and ownership.
Mr Speaker: Acting Minister Lau, just to be clear, your answer is in response to Question Nos 19 to 25 listed in today's Order Paper? Correct?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: Yes, that is right.
\tMr Speaker: Thank you. Order. Leader.
REVISION OF QUESTION TIME
(Suspension of Standing Orders)
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable Questions for Oral Answer to continue until the completion of Question No 25, including supplementary questions.
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader, please proceed.
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Question time at this day's Sitting continue until the completion of Question No 25, including relevant supplementary questions thereon. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
GOVTECH'S RESTRUCTUING, ROLES REDESIGN AND RETRENCHMENTS, AND SUPPORT FOR AFFECTED STAFF
(Resumption for supplementary questions)
Mr Speaker: And now, we can take supplementary questions. Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank Acting Minister Lau for her responses. I just have two short supplementary questions.
I note that she has mentioned that GovTech will continue to hire talents in this space. And so, my question is whether the Ministry is aware of how this major restructuring effort will affect GovTech's reputation, and attractiveness for future talent acquisition and retention?
\t
My second supplementary question has to do with whether this exercise has caused staff to be more cautious and whether that might affect GovTech's innovative culture, and what are the steps being taken to preserve the culture of innovation that is prevalent within GovTech?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his questions. We will continue to do our best in talent attraction and retention. We will explain the new roles that we are hiring for which are also closely aligned to the skills that are being taught in our IHLs today.
And related to the second question on the innovative culture, we will have to convince all of our existing GovTech's staff and also new recruits that the way we approach our work in GovTech is in service of Singapore. So, it is not about being careful or innovative for the sake of doing so, but it has to be done because that is the only way that we create and deliver better services for Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Acting Minister for the response. As we help workers move forward, I have three supplementary questions.
Firstly, what lessons from this GovTech experience from this round will inform subsequent rounds? Because I know this is not the end.
The second supplementary question will be: I know some anxieties from those who are on term contracts and which are extended without being offered a permanent role. For GovTech's officers on contract for service or term contracts, will their roles be more impacted by this change in operatonal model for GovTech?
And my third supplementary question is: she mentioned earlier those in the 40 to 49 years age group, they comprise 42% of those who are being affected. What is the percentage of those affected who were above 50 years?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his questions. Perhaps, I will share two lessons from this first phase.
First, on how officers experienced the transition itself. We have found that officers who have to spend an extended period on a pathway towards exit, even with the support in place, it did create prolonged uncertainty and anxiety for both them and also for the teams that they are in. So, going forward GovTech will aim to shorten this period, wherever possible, so that officers reach clarity on their next steps more quickly rather than remaining in a state of limbo for longer than necessary.
Another lesson we have learned is that it is on how this transformation can be understood or may have been understood outside of GovTech. Some of the messaging around this restructuring may have given the impression that GovTech intends to move all work in-house and not use vendors anymore. That is not the case. Vendors continue to play an important role, particularly where they bring specialised expertise that complements our in-house teams.
What is changing is that GovTech is taking greater ownership of the products that we build and the platforms that we deliver. We will be clearer on this distinction in how we communicate future phases, so that our partners and the industry understand exactly what is and what is not changing.
On the second question on contract staff, we do have contract staff across GovTech in different roles – in cybersecurity, in data management, in user design and so on. For contract officers who are in project and vendor management roles, then it is more likely that they will be affected by the workforce transformation plans going forward.
Sorry, can the Member repeat the third question?
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: My third question is about —
\tMs Jasmin Lau: Those above 50, that is right. On the proportion of affected workers above the age of 50, I believe the number is about 30%.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just one question for the Acting Minister. I think in the letter by GovTech Chair, it was said that GovTech requires people who can define the problem, shape the architecture and more importantly, that the shift began years before the current AI wave. So, my original Parliamentary Question still remains, in that given that we already know that this was going to be coming a few years ago, what then is the so-called skills gap or competency gap that was really missing in these retrenched workers. And particularly, when they are in the age of about 40 to 49, these would be quite flexible mid-career workers. Why is it that even as the transformation was anticipated, they were not being able to be repositioned for another role within the Public Service?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his questions. As I explained earlier, we have tried in different ways through apprenticeships, pilots and training programmes to convert as many of our staff as possible, and also to allow natural attrition to take place. Unfortunately, it is the pace and the scale of the changes that have been that have required us to take the current steps.
I think for many of our affected officers, we also want to give them a chance to consider whether the conversion to these new rules is something they want to do, because their competencies and their skillsets are still in demand, both in other Public Service agencies as well as in the private sector. So, we want to avail to them all opportunities possible and let them consider if there are opportunities that match their skillsets as well.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
\tMr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Acting Minister.
First, I think it is not very clear, so I would like the Minister to clarify if the affected 93 workers that have been retrenched have already stopped working, or alternatively, are they actually being supported through their transition while remaining on payroll? I am not clear what arrangement is. And if it is not that they are being supported through their transition and remaining on payroll, if this will be considered for both the current phase and subsequent phases? This is a practice that my previous employer did and I thought it was a very good one as we transition workers out of the company.
Secondly, has the Government already exhausted all public sector and Public Service opportunities for these 93 retrenched workers or is that part of the subsequent transition phase, post-retrenchment?
And thirdly, will Government commit to monitoring the outcomes of these affected workers over the next six months or perhaps a year and commit to publishing them?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his question. I will reverse the order in how I respond.
We chose to inform the affected officers early after we completed our internal capability assessments and then determine which roles we needed going forward. We wanted to also give them early and direct communication because we think it serves to offices better.
Matching an officer to a role in other Government agencies is not something GovTech can do unilaterally by just comparing a resume against a list of vacancies. Every receiving agency and team have their own hiring processes which include interviews and assessments for fit. And an officer has to actively take part in that process for a match to happen at all. So, we wanted to do the communication early, give them some time and support to explore all options. We curated the list of more than 300 job opportunities and some of the offices are now in the application and interview stages.
All 93 officers are still on GovTech payroll. What we have done is to give them enough time after the notification to let them do both work handover and also look for alternative opportunities around.
I also just want to give a shout-out to all of them. Many of them are focusing very much on the handover of the work and some even tell us that they will do that first before they look around for opportunities elsewhere. We, in GovTech, are extremely grateful to them because they have helped us build up our digital products and services over the years.
We will continue to give them support for as long as they need and we intend to monitor all of them, all 93 of them, and any future GovTech officers who are retrenched, we intend to monitor their progress through the job placement efforts, to make sure that they have a good landing.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
\tMr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Acting Minister for her responses. Two supplementary questions from me.
Firstly, thank you to all our GovtTech officers for the amazing work that they do on the digital products that we all enjoy.
As automation and AI continue to reshape digital jobs, how will the Ministry ensure that the Government remains an employer that proactively invests in continuous skills renewal to prevent further redundancy?
My second supplementary question is, does the Ministry see this as a structural change from project delivery to product ownership, especially so since we are rolling out more AI capabilities, more AI agents, and the need to manage such agents and whether the industry will see this similar change and whether we do we have sufficient talent in the pipeline to address this?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his questions. Yes, GovTech will continue to invest in the skills of our officers.
Just to give you a sense of what apprenticeships look like and how we retrain and invest in our officers, our apprenticeships that we run for officers that have to go into new roles, they run from between 12 and 18 months. They are conducted on a full-time basis within a product team. Officers gain practical experience in the role that they have been mapped to. Every apprentice is given is an assigned mentor, clear learning objectives and they have regular developmental check-ins at key milestones throughout the 12 to 18 months, and then they go through a conversion assessment at the end of their apprenticeship period.
This is extremely resource-intensive but also demonstrates our commitment to ensure that all suitable officers who are put through these pathways do have a good outcome at the end of it.
The second question on whether or not it is a structural change in capabilities, I think overall, we try to explain the shift we are making towards product management and away from traditional project and vendor management roles. We are not moving 100%. We do recognise that there are still many projects that are being managed with vendors and we also value the expertise that industry and vendors bring. I think, overall across the industry, while we do see some shift towards more product management roles, there is clear recognition, whether in the public or private sectors, that vendors remain a key partner in our digital ecosystem. And therefore, going forward, we still expect to work very, very closely with them.
As for AI and the technologies and the benefits that AI will bring, we think that they can be brought on even as we move into product management, as long as we ensure that our product managers and software engineers have a good grounding in AI than any future products they build through a product management model can have AI already infused in them.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip, do you want to raise a last supplementary question? I am not forcing you if you do not have any.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for her reply.
I think my question builds on Mr Sharael Taha's questions. The Minister has explained the movement towards product ownership. However, with AI fundamentally changing the economics of developing digital services, for example, reducing development time, lowering costs and enabling small teams to deliver more, how are you rethinking about reshaping the future workforce and especially in terms of capturing the productivity gains and at the same time, creating meaningful careers for our GovTech officers?
\tMs Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his questions.
I think a proper treatment on how we will use AI in GovTech and across the Public Service will require a separate question and debate on its own. But I think, as I explained earlier, we want to make sure that all of our GovTech officers have a good foundation in AI first of all, so that as they build the existing products, as they improve, maintain the existing products, they are able to infuse some benefits of AI into these services.
I also want to end off by saying that transformation is never easy. And this is not a story about GovTech needing fewer people who care about Public Service, it is about GovTech needing more people equipped to build and own the technology that Singaporeans depend on in the long run. We build and we build for Singapore. We will not lose sight of it. That is GovTech's mission before this transformation and it remains true today.
\tMr Speaker: Order. End of extended Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.
[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.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government was consulted on GovTech's restructuring phase, which resulted in 102 officers retained, 110 placed in apprenticeships and 93 retrenched; and (b) if so (i) what role it played in determining that skills gaps prevented further redeployment despite ongoing hiring for technical roles and (ii) how outcomes across all three phases will be assessed."],"footNoteQuestions":["19","20","21","22","23","24","25"],"questionNo":"19-25"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Civil Defence Shelter Act 1997 and the Fire Safety Act 1993, and to repeal the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act 2019\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scams (Countermeasures) and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Protection from Scams Act 2025 and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906 to counter and prevent scams, to amend the Online Criminal Harms Act 2023 and the Police Force Act 2004 to enhance enforcement measures and to make related and consequential amendments to the Banking Act 1970\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Sciences Authority (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Health Sciences Authority Act 2001, the Biological Agents and Toxins Act 2005, the Human Biomedical Research Act 2015 and the Healthcare Services Act 2020, and to make related and miscellaneous amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967 and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, I seek to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, road safety remains a key priority for the Ministry. Road accidents, which can lead to severe and irreversible consequences for victims and their families are entirely preventable. Our accident rates and fatality numbers need to come down. Last year we had a record high of 149 fatalities – almost one death every two days on the roads.
There are several pillars in our approach towards promoting road safety. One pillar is having strong and effective laws. Over the years, the Ministry has reviewed and updated the Road Traffic Act (RTA) to ensure that it remains fit-for-purpose. Since 2019, the Act has been amended four times. We seek to do so again today, to achieve three key objectives:
First, strengthen accountability for the most egregious road conduct; Second, further deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and third, enhance the Traffic Police's ability to detect and enforce against traffic offences.
Sir, the most egregious road conduct must be met with sufficiently severe consequences. We will amend the RTA in two ways to ensure this.
First, the Bill introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment where an offender deliberately uses a motor vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety, resulting in death or grievous hurt.
Members may recall the case of Jarrett Tee. Whilst racing a motorcyclist along a highway, the offender deliberately swerved his car to cut off the motorcycle and prior to doing so, said to his passengers, \"Do you want to see motorcycle fly?\" The offender's car then side-swiped the motorcycle, causing the motorcyclist and the pillion passenger to be flung off the motorcycle. The pillion rider passed away as a result.
The Prosecution described the case as, \"One of the worst examples of dangerous driving possible,\" and his culpability was, \"on the extreme end of high\".
Yet the most serious charge that the offender could face, based on the facts of the case, was dangerous driving causing death, which carries a maximum imprisonment sentence of eight years.
The Government's view is that such conduct must face harsher consequences.
Where an offender deliberately uses a vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety, for example, by deliberately swerving a motor vehicle towards another driver to force the latter off the road or purposefully driving one's vehicle towards another road user, the offender's culpability is significantly higher than that of a driver who speeds or beats a red light. The law must recognise this distinction.
However, existing RTA offences do not adequately distinguish purposeful endangerment from dangerous driving. It may also be challenging for the Prosecution to prove that the conduct fulfilled the mental elements required for more serious Penal Code offences, such as murder, culpable homicide or voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means. For example, in a case like Jarrett Tee, where a driver deliberately swerves to cut off the motorcycle, it may be difficult to prove that he did so with the knowledge that death or grievous hurt was likely to result.
Clause 6, therefore, introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment. It fills a gap in respect of offenders who deliberately use their vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety. Given the severity of the conduct, the penalties for the offence will be higher than those for dangerous driving causing death. Where death is caused, the offender is to be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to 15 years and is also liable to fine or caning, or both. The Court must also impose driving disqualification for life, unless there are special reasons not to do so; and if special reasons apply, the Court must impose at least 10 years of driving disqualification. The Court may also order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in the commission of the offence.
The offence will apply even if the person who died or suffered grievous hurt is not the person whom the offender intended to endanger. This ensures that the offender remains fully accountable for the consequences of their conduct.
Second, the Bill raises the penalties for careless and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt.
We are making this amendment because the most serious forms of grievous hurt may cause victims to suffer permanent, life-altering consequences, leaving them unable to work, live independently or care for themselves. For example, Members may recall a recent case of an auxiliary police officer who was on duty at Tuas Checkpoint when a drunk driver collided into him. He survived the collision but suffered traumatic brain injuries and is now paralysed and requires lifelong care.
The penalties in such cases must be proportionate to the harm. Yet today, the maximum penalties for reckless or dangerous driving, which I will hereafter refer to as dangerous driving, causing grievous hurt under the RTA remain significantly lower than those causing death.
Clause 7, therefore, increases the maximum penalties for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, bringing them closer to the corresponding offences causing death. For dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the Bill increases the maximum imprisonment term for first-time offenders from five years to seven years, and for repeat offenders from 10 years to 13 years.
Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill also increases the additional imprisonment terms that serious offenders are liable for. Serious offenders referring to those who drove under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
For both careless driving – also known as driving without due care or reasonable consideration – and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the maximum uplift for serious offenders will increase from one year to one and a half years' imprisonment. For serious repeat offenders, who are convicted of a dangerous or careless driving offence committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and who have a previous conviction for driving under the influence, the maximum uplift will increase from two years to three and a half years' imprisonment.
Our intention is for the increased penalty range to only apply to the most egregious cases. We do not intend to affect the prevailing sentencing benchmarks for those with lower culpability or who cause less serious forms of grievous hurt. The Ministry will work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to develop sentencing guidelines to give effect to this intent.
Sir, the second objective of this Bill is to further deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Sir, driving under the influence of such substances is simply inexcusable. It poses a serious threat to the safety of all road users. Every instance of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is entirely preventable and highly culpable. It reflects conscious and reckless risk-taking behaviour. Yet year after year, we continue to see far too many motorists make this dangerous decision.
Over the past five years, the Traffic Police detected between 1,500 and 1,800 drink-driving violations annually. And we know this is an under-detection, because drink driving generally can only be detected at roadblocks and with our limited operational resources, we cannot be setting up roadblocks everywhere.
This Bill introduces two provisions to enhance deterrence against driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
First, Clauses 11 and 19 tighten the prescribed alcohol limits from exceeding 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, to 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; and from exceeding 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, to 30 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
The current prescribed alcohol limits have been in force since 1985. Since then, scientific understanding of alcohol impairment has advanced considerably. Many jurisdictions, including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and South Korea have adopted lower prescribed alcohol limits.
The evidence today consistently shows that even low levels of alcohol can impair a driver's reaction time, judgement, concentration and ability to respond safely to situations. As blood alcohol concentration increases, the degree of impairment increases and so does the risk posed to other road users.
The new prescribed limits represent the point at which impairment and thus, unacceptable risk to road users begins. The new prescribed limits broadly correspond to no more than 1.5 standard drinks for males and not more than one standard drink for females, consumed three hours before driving. These are only broad illustrations for reference and do not represent the \"safe\" number of drinks to go below the revised limits. This is because the effects of alcohol differ significantly depending on factors, such as age, sex, health and body composition.
Our message remains: if you drink, do not drive. You cannot be sure of your level of impairment after drinking, so do not take the risk.
As we make this amendment, the sentencing guidelines applicable to the new alcohol limits would also need to be reviewed. The Ministry's view is that offenders who drive with very high blood alcohol levels should face imprisonment given the significant risks such conduct poses to other road users and to enhance deterrence. We will work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to consider issuing new sentencing guidelines for drink driving, including guidelines on when imprisonment is warranted.
Second, the Bill introduces a new offence of driving with controlled drugs, psychoactive substances or intoxicating substances present in one's blood. I refer to these substances collectively as \"specified substances\".
Today, it is already an offence to drive under the influence of specified substances in a manner that results in impaired driving. However, while it is an offence to drive simply with a certain concentration of alcohol in one's blood, there is no corresponding offence for specified substances. This is because there is no single scientifically established concentration threshold that can reliably indicate impairment across a wide range of such substances.
Instead, under the current offence, the prosecution must prove not only that the driver had consumed drugs, but also that the drugs had rendered him incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.
This gives rise to significant evidential challenges. For instance, where Police officers arrive only after an incident has occurred, a positive blood test alone may not be sufficient. This is because it may not be possible to prove that the drugs had impaired driving, unless there is evidence, such as in-car camera footage showing such impairment.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has reviewed this and assessed that there should not be a need to prove impaired driving. Driving with the presence of specified substances in one's blood is itself dangerous and should be deterred, since these specified substances – for example, etomidate – are already regulated under our existing laws and are known to impair driving ability by affecting reaction time, attention and coordination.
Clause 11 therefore introduces a new offence under the new section 67(1)(c) of the RTA, where a person who drives or attempts to drive with the presence of a specified substance in his blood will commit an offence, without separately proving that he was impaired whilst driving.
Mr Speaker: Minister Sim Ann, if I may ask you to just take a seat.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Visit of Thai Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn for Viewing of Parliament Proceedings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. On behalf of hon Members, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of the Kingdom of Thailand and her entourage who are present in our Chamber. Her Royal Highness is visiting Singapore with a delegation of officers and cadets from the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy who are present here today.
Her Royal Highness is a cherished and long-standing friend of Singapore who has played a pivotal role in deepening our bilateral ties, particularly in education, healthcare, and science and technology.
Her steadfast support for the Global Young Scientists Summit has fostered enduring links between the young scientists of our two countries, through promoting collaboration, mutual understanding and lasting friendships.
Her Royal Highness also championed the establishment of the Chaipattana Foundation-Republic of Singapore Short-term Cultural and Educational Exchange Programme, which enables Thai students and teachers to participate in meaningful exchanges with their counterparts at NorthLight School in Singapore.
These initiatives have helped to strengthen the ties between the next generations of our countries.
Her Royal Highness has devoted her life to improving the well-being of the people of Thailand through her guidance of several charitable and public service organisations, including the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Foundation, the Chaipattana Foundation and the Thai Red Cross Society. Her Royal Highness' commitment and dedication to education, sustainable development, public health and humanitarian causes have benefited countless lives both within Thailand and beyond.
In recognition of her remarkable contributions to Thai society and her enduring impact internationally, the National University of Singapore conferred upon Her Royal Highness an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Letters in 2025.
We are honoured to have Her Royal Highness with us today. Hon Members, please join me in welcoming Her Royal Highness to our Parliament. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Sim Ann, you may proceed to resume your speech.
Ms Sim Ann: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a warm welcome to Her Royal Highness.
We recognise that there may be situations where a person lawfully consumes or administers specified substances for medicinal purposes. The Bill provides a statutory defence where the substance was lawfully consumed by or administered; and the person did not know or have reason to believe that consuming it could impair his or her driving.
However, if the consumption of such substances did in fact impair the driving of the person, then there would continue to be criminal liability, as per the existing law.
The third objective of this Bill is to enhance Traffic Police's ability to detect and enforce against traffic offences, in four areas.
First, clause 14 of the Bill removes the requirement to administer a preliminary breath test, streamlining the drink-driving enforcement process.
Currently, enforcement of drink-driving is a two-stage process. Upon suspicion of drink-driving, an officer administers a preliminary breath test at the roadside. If the result is positive, the driver is arrested and brought to the Police lock-up, where an evidential-grade breath test is administered. This process is operationally onerous and results in a lower alcohol concentration reading when the evidential-grade breath test is carried out at the lock-up. It is also unnecessary as technology has improved over the years and Handheld Breath Analysers can now provide evidential-grade test results.
Clause 14 supports the Traffic Police's use of a Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser, allowing officers to obtain evidential-grade breath test results on the spot that accurately reflects the driver's alcohol level at the time of the offence. The Traffic Police can also conduct its drink driving enforcement operations more efficiently without having to bring the driver to the lock-up.
Second, the Bill aligns the procedure in the RTA for the taking of breath and blood specimens from hospital patients with that of similar provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Currently, under the RTA, before a police officer may require a hospital patient to provide a blood specimen to determine his blood alcohol level, the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge of the patient must first authorise this. While the Act does not prescribe the mode or manner of obtaining the authorisation, in a recent judgement, the District Court held that this authorisation must be express – that is, it cannot be inferred from the doctor's silence or failure to object. In that case, the drink driving suspect was acquitted after the doctor treating him was found not to have explicitly authorised the taking of a blood specimen.
This differs from the process under the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs forensic medical examinations in non-traffic investigative contexts and does not impose similar express authorisation requirement on the treating medical practitioner.
Clause 16 therefore removes the authorisation requirement under the RTA, aligning it with the Criminal Procedure Code provisions. In its place, before taking a blood specimen, the medical practitioner or nurse in immediate charge of the patient must be satisfied that the taking of the specimen will not endanger the individual. The amendment removes the procedural authorisation requirement but does not diminish the medical practitioner's or nurse's duty to assess whether doing so would harm the patient. The safety of the patient remains paramount and continues to be assured with this amendment.
Third, the Bill amends section 65B of the RTA, which sets out the offence of using a mobile communication device while driving.
Currently, an offender must satisfy three elements to be liable for an offence: (a) the driver must hold the mobile communication device in his hand; (b) the driver must operate any communicative or other functions of the device; and (c) the vehicle must be in motion while the driver is holding and operating the device.
The requirement in element (b) – that the driver must operate a function of the device – can only be enforced by a Police officer on the ground who observes the driver operating the device while the vehicle is in motion. This is challenging to enforce practically. More importantly, there should be no need to prove that the driver was operating the device. Unlike other everyday objects, a mobile communication device is ordinarily held to communicate or access information. These are activities which typically require the driver's visual and cognitive attention and divert their attention away from driving. Where the device is handheld, the risk of distraction is further compounded because the driver must hold and support the device, reducing the driver's ability to maintain proper control of the vehicle.
Clause 10 therefore amends section 65B to remove the element stating that the driver must be operating the device. A driver who holds a mobile communication device in his hand while the vehicle is in motion will commit an offence. This amendment also makes clear that it is not an offence if the device is secured in a mount and a driver touches it while driving.
However, where the driver's use of a mounted device distracts the driver or compromises the driver's control of the vehicle, the driver may be liable for offences such as careless or dangerous driving.
Fourth, the Bill supports the Traffic Police's ongoing efforts to leverage technology to scale up enforcement of traffic violations.
Today, when a camera captures a vehicle committing a traffic violation, a Police officer must review the footage to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed and, if so, require the owner of the vehicle to provide the particulars of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.
Clause 21 introduces a new section 81A, which allows a computer program to assess whether there is sufficient evidence that a traffic offence was committed and if so, automatically issue a notice to require the vehicle owner to provide the particulars of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This enables the Traffic Police to significantly scale up the enforcement of traffic violations and eliminate manual processes, by using video analytics in traffic enforcement cameras.
The Traffic Police will ensure that only computer programs that have been robustly tested are used for enforcement. The computer program will also be subject to regular audits to ensure its continued accuracy and reliability.
To further safeguard against system errors, the new section allows drivers to apply to revoke the notice if they believe that the relevant vehicle was misidentified or where the alleged offence did not occur. Where such application is made, an officer will manually review the relevant evidence that led to the issuance of the notice.
The Bill also makes two other amendments to streamline and clarify existing provisions.
First, the Bill amends a number of provisions in the RTA to make clear how driving disqualification periods are calculated.
The current legal language in the RTA may give rise to an interpretation that a driving disqualification period runs concurrently with an imprisonment term in certain contexts – meaning an offender effectively serves his disqualification while incarcerated and already unable to drive.
In a case earlier this year, an offender was convicted of drink driving and other unrelated offences. He was not imprisoned for drink driving, but imprisoned for the unrelated offences. The Court of Appeal interpreted section 67(2) of the RTA to mean that the offender's disqualification period should commence on the date of his drink driving conviction, despite the offender being in prison for unrelated offences.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
This goes against the policy intent for the offender's disqualification period to start only after he has served his imprisonment term, even if the imprisonment is for an offence unrelated to the offence for which the person is disqualified.
To give effect to this policy intent, clauses 3, 7, 8, 11, 22, 23 and 25 make similar amendments respectively to sections 42, 64, 65, 67, 84 and 116 of the RTA, and section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third‑Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960.
Second, clause 24 repeals section 133(2) of the RTA, an administrative requirement that has become obsolete. Section 133(2) of the RTA currently requires Traffic Police to prepare a duplicate of every traffic ticket notice and, if required by a Court, to produce this duplicate to the Court. In practice, this provision is not necessary as the Courts have obtained the information they require without needing this duplicate copy from the Traffic Police.
Sir, to conclude, this Bill introduces significant amendments to the RTA to achieve the three objectives I have laid out.
Alongside these amendments, we announced last week that we will tighten the Driver Improvement Points System, commonly known as the demerit points regime, to be implemented from January 2027. The two key changes are the lowering of the suspension threshold from 24 demerit points to 18 and lengthening the suspension periods for errant drivers who meet this lowered threshold.
Together, these measures are aimed at decisively arresting the increase in traffic fatalities and injuries.
But laws and enforcement alone cannot make our roads safe. Ultimately, it is the choices made by every road user – every driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, and pedestrian – that will determine whether we can reach home safely every day.
We urge all road users to exercise patience and graciousness on the road. When we stay alert, slow down or give way, we protect not just ourselves, but other road users, our families and our loved ones. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Sir, this Bill introduces important changes to make our roads safer. Before I conclude, let me leave motorists with two important messages.
First, if you intend to drink, do not drive. This Bill lowers the prescribed alcohol limits for drink-driving because scientific evidence consistently shows that even small amounts of alcohol can impair a driver's judgement and reaction time. The tightened limits better reflect the point at which impairment begins.
Second, when you drive, keep your attention on the road and do not hold your mobile communication device at any time. Unlike many other distractions, a handheld mobile communication device is designed to capture your attention. Using it requires you to take your eyes off the road, a hand off the wheel and your mind off driving. Even a moment of distraction can lead to devastating consequences. This is why we are strengthening our laws on the use of handheld mobile communication device while driving.
These measures will strengthen our laws and make our roads safer.
But safer roads ultimately depend on every one of us. It is the choices made by every road user – every driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, and pedestrian – that will determine whether we can reach home safely every day. We urge all road users to exercise patience and graciousness on the road. When we stay alert, slow down or give way, we protect not just ourselves, but other road users, our families and our loved ones.
(In English): Sir, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Last year, there had been a spike in both the numbers and seriousness of traffic accidents and this Bill is timely in raising the seriousness of traffic-related offences as well as making them easier to prosecute.
First, there are a range of amendments dealing with penalties for causing death and grievous hurt. One of these is a new offence of dangerous driving to endanger another person on purpose that causes death or grievous hurt. This new offence is understandably a serious one with mandatory imprisonment of up to 15 years.
My question is whether this is necessary as I believe such a person can probably be prosecuted under existing offences where such a person can be charged for intending to cause death or grievous hurt under the Penal Code. The Penal Code covers a whole spectrum of mens rea, from intentional harm to causing it by a rash or negligent act, with different penalties for each. The Jarrett Tee case mentioned by the Minister could, perhaps, have been categorised as intentional causing of grievous hurt since he had asked his passengers if they wanted to see the motorcycle fly. And after the incident, he had said, she deserved it. So, it sounds like this was intention to cause grievous hurt and could alternatively have been brought under that offence.
In this regard, I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether there is an envisioned overlap in the current legislation that this needs to fill on the basis that the RTA is not the only legislation that can deal with this situation. If more than one Act might apply in a situation, such as the Penal Code, how would the authorities decide which Act to apply?
There are other amendments that raise the penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt, and I agree with the rationale that grievous hurt can totally ruin a person's life and causing it should be treated with a suitably serious penalty.
Second, I note the offence of handphone driving is now going to be easier to make out. Previously, there were three components that needed to be made out, but now there are only two – that the driver must be holding his mobile phone and the vehicle must be in motion. The requirement for the driver to actually be using the phone has been removed. I note that there is a new section 65B(1B) which provides that, \"to avoid doubt…a driver who touches with his or her hand a mobile communication device which is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, in the manner intended by the manufacturer of the mounting, does not hold the device.\"
So, this gives some clarity to what many drivers have been doing, which is, using mounted mobile devices while they drive. So, this clearly is not going to be an offence anymore. I think this clarity is helpful, particularly for those in the private hire trade who rely on this for a living. I also agree with the clarification that should their use of the mobile device surmount to carelessness, then they would face potential liability under careless driving.
Next, there is a revision of offences, first of all, in relation to alcohol-related offences, to reduce the level of alcohol required to make out a drunk driving offence, which I completely agree with.
But separately, in relation to offences dealing with impairment for those who drive under the influence of controlled drugs, psychoactive or intoxicating substances, there is no longer a requirement to actually prove impairment nor is there a minimum threshold for the level of these substances found in a person's blood. While I have no objections to these offences being treated more seriously, I do have some concerns about a purely presence-based model without the need to show either intoxication or a suitably high level of concentration. For example, intoxicating substances, include glue, paint and petrol fumes.
Under the Intoxicating Substances Act, an offence is committed if a person inhales these substances for the purpose of causing or inducing himself to be in a state of intoxication. Therefore, if a person inhales these substances without such an intention, such as in the course of work, say working at a petrol station, construction site or factory, they will not commit an offence under the Intoxicating Substances Act.
However, for those people who are exposed to intoxicating substances in the course of work, because of workplace safety requirements, they are unlikely to inhale them in sufficient quantities to get intoxicated though there will probably be some level of these substances in their blood because they will be inhaling it. Would these people now be at risk of committing offences under the RTA since there is now neither a requirement for intoxication nor a requirement for an intoxicating level to be found in the blood? Some of these people may drive as a living, for example, vehicle operators at construction sites, while others may drive cars or motorcycles to work.
Next, on the amendments to do away with a manual review in favour of automated notices, I think this is sensible from the perspective of administrative efficiency and saving resources, and I am grateful for the Minister's clarification that this will only be confined to offences where machines are able to confirm with a high level of certainty that an offence has been committed. The assurance that these offences or these notices will be subject to a human review is also useful, certainly in the beginning when this is being rolled out.
I do have a final clarification of when the disqualification period will run and in particular, those who are suspended will have the disqualification run only from the time they have finished serving a prison sentence, assuming that sentence is for an unrelated offence. I would just like the Minister to clarify what is the policy intent behind this. Because if the idea of a disqualification is to keep the driver off the road for a certain period of time, why does it matter whether a driver is kept off the road because of a prison sentence or for some other reason? If the aim is to keep the person off the road, I think it does not really matter what the reason is.
Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill recognises the seriousness of driving-related offences, especially those that cause grievous hurt or death to innocent members of the public. At the outset, I wish to state clearly that I support the main proposals for change to our Road Traffic laws under this Bill. The data shared by MHA paints a stark picture between 2021 and 2025.
Singapore's traffic fatality rate increased by about 24%, while traffic violations rose by approximately 38%. To arrest this worrying trend, firmer legislative mechanisms are undoubtedly required. I fully support the introduction of penalties for purposeful endangerment, the tightening of legal alcohol limits, the standalone drug driving framework and the transition towards automated enforcement technology. In particular, the creation of a purposeful endangerment framework addresses a critical gap where a driver deliberately uses a vehicle as a dangerous weapon.
As the Ministry has noted, such offenders often cannot be convicted of murder or culpable homicide because of the exceptionally high threshold of proving intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to result. Instead, they are typically charged with dangerous driving causing death, which currently carries a maximum imprisonment term of eight years for a first-time offender. Elevating the maximum penalty to 15 years, instituting a default lifetime driving disqualification and empowering the Courts to order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in offence are appropriate expressions of deterrence and accountability.
In my speech today, I seek to clarify the understanding and practical enforcement of certain provisions, with particular focus on the evolving definitions surrounding mobile communication devices, digital screens and mounted devices while driving. The Bill amends the offence of using a communication device to simply holding one, thereby allowing Traffic Police officers to enforce the offence without needing to prove active device use.
I welcome the Government's intention to make our roads safer by reducing distractions caused by motorists handling their mobile devices while driving.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we must not underestimate the growing range of digital distractions confronting motorists today. These distractions no longer arise only from handheld phones. They increasingly come from mounted smartphones, wearable devices, large infotainment systems, digital dashboards and other screens embedded within modern vehicles. As vehicles become more technologically advanced, our regulatory frameworks must also continue to keep pace with the changing nature of driver distraction.
Under this Bill, a driver is not regarded as holding a device if the device is mounted in accordance with the mount manufacturer's intended use. While I understand the practical rationale for this exemption, it raises important questions about how the exemption will operate alongside existing road safety rules.
In March 2026, I asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry had conducted or reviewed any local studies on the impact of multiple mounted mobile devices or digital screens on motorist reaction times and overall driving performances. In a written reply, the Minister stated that no such local studies have been conducted. The Ministry instead noted that Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules already makes it an offence to install a visual display unit in the manner that causes distraction or constitutes a safety hazard.
Given the absence of local research, I continue to urge the Ministry to proactively study the effects of screen-based distractions on road safety. In particular, we need empirical evidence on whether multiple mounted devices, large dashboard screens and simultaneous digital interfaces affect driver cognitive load, situation awareness and emergency braking response times. Such data will enable policy makers to calibrate future regulations on a sound evidential basis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question concerning the interaction between the new mounted device exemption and Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules. Under the Bill, the touching and operation of a properly mounted device will not amount to the offence of holding a communication device. However, the same device could potentially still constitute a visual distraction under Rule 126 depending on how it is installed and used. Can the Minister clarify how these two provisions are intended to interact? What would legally constitute a safe mounting arrangement under the new framework? Would compliance with the mounting requirements under the Bill have any bearing on the assessment of whether a visual display unit creates a distraction under Rule 126?
We must also consider the realities faced by many platform workers. To maximise their earning, some drivers or many drivers simultaneously operate multiple ride hailing or delivery applications, often using several mounted devices within the vehicle. Each additional screen potentially imposes further cognitive demands on the driver and increases the amount of visual attention diverted from the road.
Has the Ministry assessed whether the use of multiple mounted devices contributes significantly to driver distraction? If not, would it consider studying this issue and also to study how safe driving can be enhanced, whether by way of improving vehicle dashboard or device design, hardware or software, particularly given the growing number of drivers who rely on platform work as a source of income, for their safety?
May I also clarify with the Minister for devices of wearable technology, such as smart watches, how would their use while driving constitute an offence under section 65B(1A) or elsewhere in the amended provisions, given their ability to deliver messages, notifications and other distractions directly to motorists while driving?
Beyond mobile phones and wearables, the law must also keep pace with developments in vehicle design itself. Modern infotainment systems have evolved into sophisticated communication and entertainment hubs. Features such as Apple Car Play, Android Auto, allow motorists to send messages, browse media content, interact with navigation systems while their vehicles are in motion. At the same time, many manufacturers have adopted increasingly minimalist cockpit designs, replacing traditional buttons and switches with large touchscreen interfaces. Functions that were once operated instinctively through physical controls are increasingly accessed through digital menus, requiring drivers to glance away from the road even for routine tasks.
So, Mr Deputy Speaker, while stronger penalties are necessary, enforcement alone cannot fully address the problem if the design of modern vehicle cockpits is itself becoming a source of distraction.
If we focus solely on penalising distracted driving after it occurs without examining whether certain vehicle designs contribute to driver distraction in the first place, we may be addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.
In the interest of proactive road safety, will MHA work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to consider standards of governing pre-installed infotainment systems, vehicle mobile application control functions and increasingly screen-dependent cockpit designs? Will the Government look into whether we need to require certain complex touchscreen interactions or app-based functions to be automatically restricted while a vehicle is in motion, in the interest of driving safety?
Around the world, regulators and vehicle-safety bodies are increasingly recognising that road safety depends not merely on how people drive, but also how vehicles are designed to be operated.
In Europe, European New Car Assessment Programme has revised the safety assessment protocols to encourage manufacturers to retain physical controls for key vehicle functions in response to concerns about touchscreen-related driver distraction. Similarly, China has introduced requirement for designated safety-critical vehicle functions to retain dedicated haptic physical controls that can be located and operated by touch alone, reducing the need for drivers to take their eyes off the road.
In the United States (US), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has also issued driver distraction guidelines, recommending that certain visual manual tasks be restricted or locked up while a vehicle is in motion where they may interfere excessively with driver attention.
Against this backdrop, will the LTA consider whether Singapore's vehicle-type approval framework should evolve to better address the risk posed by increasingly large and complex in-vehicle displays? Does the Government agree that safety-critical vehicle controls should remain readily operable, without prolonged visual interaction with digital screens or navigation through multiple layers of menus?
Mr Deputy Speaker, while I believe that we should take a much closer look at the evolving landscape of digital and screen-based distractions, the fundamental reforms contained in this Bill represent a significant and necessary upgrade to our enforcement capabilities.
Indeed, we must send a clear and unequivocal message that irresponsible and dangerous behaviour on our roads will not be tolerated. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the measures in the Bill to strengthen road safety, including introducing the offence of purposefully endangering safety, tightening drink-driving standards and expanding the use of automated enforcement technology.
With technological advancement, the distractions faced by drivers are no longer limited to mobile phones. Many vehicles are equipped with large touchscreens and various digital systems, and drivers can likewise be distracted when operating these devices. I believe that road safety depends not only on how drivers drive, but also on vehicle design.
Therefore, I urge MHA and LTA to study the impact of these new technologies on driving safety and to review vehicle standards when appropriate, so as to ensure that important driving functions do not rely excessively on touchscreens, safeguarding the safety of road users.
I support this Bill.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is ultimately about making sure our roads are safe. The case for action is compelling, traffic fatalities hit a 10-year high is 2025. The rising numbers of traffic accidents resulting in injuries also increased and the number of traffic violations rose too.
Such evidence should be of great concern to drivers who transport people and goods daily, the workers who use our roads for commuting and their families. And the introduction and implementation of stronger laws must be aimed at supporting their safety on our roads.
Clause 6 introduces the new section 63A. It targets drivers who deliberately endanger any other road user. The penalty reaches up to 15 years of imprisonment, caning and lifetime disqualification.
Some road users do not make mistakes. They deliberately use their vehicle to pose a safety risk to another on the road. This Bill recognises that difference, and calls it \"purposeful endangerment\", and metes out stiff penalties for introducing dangers to our roads. I welcome it.
Clauses 7 and 8 also increase penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt. Some maximum terms nearly double. This should make our roads much safer for workers like our bus captains, taxi and private hire drivers and delivery workers. Our roads are their workplaces and their families just want them to return home safely after work ends.
In July this year, it was reported that the number of work-related traffic fatalities in the first half of 2025 has exceeded last year's total. I find this very concerning. Hence, I would ask the Ministry to commit to a review in a few years. Did identifying this new offence actually shift driver behaviour? Higher numbers of violations in the statute book are not proof of success. Lower fatality and injury numbers on the ground are.
Sir, while I support the new section 63A, I have one clarification for the Minister. Section 63A(6) empowers a District or Magistrate's Court to impose the full penalty. This departs from the usual position under the Criminal Procedure Code. Could the Minister confirm the rationale? And confirm that rights of appeal remain fully preserved?
Sir, I support the tighter alcohol limits and the prohibition against holding a mobile phone while a vehicle is moving. However, compliance begins with communication. Could the Minister share concrete outreach timeline before the commencement? Would the Minister consider a targeted campaign well ahead of the first summons and delivered through the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the platform operators and the taxi associations?
I have noted the proactive clarification by the Ministry in its media release, that the usage of mounted devices will not be an offence and that drivers may also hold their devices while the vehicle is stationery. This is an important clarification to ease concerns on the ground. Many platform workers receive their in-app notifications on their phone and rely on them for navigation. So, I urge the Ministry to leverage on my proposed campaign to ensure that our platform workers are kept up-to-date.
Sir, the workers most affected by this Bill often lack the human resources support available to most employees.
First, on prescribed medication. Clauses 11 and 13 create a new offence for any specified substance found in a driver's blood. There is a statutory defence. But the burden falls on the driver to prove his use was lawful. I note that doctors and pharmacists do highlight the side effects of prescribed medicines, including when the medications affect a person's fitness to drive and operate machinery. I therefore ask the Ministry to continue to work with pharmacies to highlight when a prescribed medication could affect the driver's fitness and to provide a simple hotline a driver can call to enquire before he starts his shift, and not after he is being arrested?
Second, on the disqualification timing, where disqualification begins after release from prison. I agree with the Ministry that errant and dangerous drivers should be kept away from our roads. However, this poses an adverse impact on breadwinners where driving was part of their job.
I therefore ask that when livelihoods are affected, that the Ministry work with platform operators, our unions and platform work associations, and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) in the outreach and in handling of cases sensitively. In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry for its recent efforts to engage unions and platform work associations leaders before revising the Driver Improvement Points System. I am glad that the Ministry addressed the concerns by providing a one-time deduction of demerit points. This will ensure that motorists do not face suspensions or revocations when the revised Driver Improvement Points System becomes effective on 1 January 2027. So, I hope that the Ministry can adopt the same consultative approach to manage the livelihood issues in the transition towards the new compliance measures being debated today.
Sir, clause 21 introduces the new section 81A. It allows a computer program to assess camera footage. That program can then automatically trigger notices to vehicle owners. As enforcement becomes more technology-enabled, Singaporeans must remain confident that technology assists decisions. It does not replace accountability. It is important that section 81A clarifies that this computer program is operated under the Deputy Commissioner of Police's oversight.
And I would like to ask the Minister four questions. First, will the human review safeguard remain permanent, to safeguard accountability even as the confidence in the system continues to grow? Second, will the appeal process remain fast and free-of-charge? Third, will MHA publish annual figures on notices issued, the notices challenged and notices revoked on review? Fourth, how will the Ministry maintain transparency and provide timely information to road users on which offences are being handled by the computer program?
Sir, I would like to highlight a practical question for those who drive for a living. Such a driver will feel the pinch of loss of income if they are unable to drive while their case is under appeal. How will the Ministry handle appeals of those detected by the computer system and resolve them quickly?
Next, on the record-keeping duties for corporate vehicle owners under section 81C. I would like to ask the Ministry if this duty must also be performed by a transport fleet operator and a platform operator, as defined under the Platform Workers Act. If so, I request that the Ministry actively monitor the implementation, for example via account suspensions, and whether those costs are quietly passed down to Platform Workers by way of fare adjustments. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): Sir, for many Malay/Muslim drivers and delivery riders, this job is not merely about earning a living. It is an \"amanah\" or duty.
The duty to transport passengers safely. The duty to deliver goods with care. The duty to return home to one's family each night in good health. These are the values that have long guided our community on the roads.
Viewed through this lens, this Bill is aligned with our principles. It demands accountability from every driver. It imposes heavy penalties on those who wilfully endanger others. I support this.
However, allow me to raise two concerns that better reflect the reality of our community.
First, on the use of mobile phones. For private-hire vehicle drivers, taxi drivers and food delivery riders, the phone is not merely a communication device. It is a work device to determine the next job, the delivery address and the day's earnings. The new regulations must be explained in detail. What constitutes \"holding\" a phone? When may the phone be touched? When may it not? This clarity is important so that a driver does not lose his licence due to confusion, not negligence.
Second, on medication prescribed by a doctor. Many elderly drivers in our community have diabetes, high blood pressure or heart conditions. They take medication every day in order to continue working and supporting their families. This Bill introduces new offences relating to certain substances in a driver's blood. While legal defences exist, the burden falls on the driver himself. A driver who takes medication as prescribed by his doctor should not face the risk of losing his livelihood because of the very medication that keeps him alive.
I urge the Ministry to work not only with pharmacies and doctors, but also with Malay/Muslim organisations so that this information is presented in plain and simple language, that is conveyed early and to those who are most affected.
Because to a father who supports his family with this income, losing his licence means losing his livelihood. And the loss of his livelihood affects the entire family, including his school-going children. This \"amanah\" or duty is not only meant for the road. It also applies at home.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill does right on three fronts. It names and significantly penalises deliberate endangerment, it makes standard stricter for every driver and it modernises how we enforce our roads.
And I have three asks. I ask that we: first, communicate the new laws and compliance clearly to the workers most affected before the enforcement begins; to take responsibility for the livelihood risk the Bill creates for compliant drivers and build in the transparency from day one; the implementation to support enforcement technology that we deploy to expand the enforcement power.
Sir, our drivers deserve safer roads as they work to move people and goods across our island. Our commuters deserve safer roads and so, they can arrive at home safely to their families. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's move to tighten enforcement and penalties for traffic offences under today's Bill is welcomed. These are urgent and lifesaving legislative moves. As MHA itself noted, the road safety situation is worsening significantly, with the traffic fatality rate increasing 24% between 2021 and 2025, while traffic violations rose by about 38%. I also noted that generally, the Singapore situation is also worse than some other comparable cities, with our traffic fatality rate in 2025 at 2.44 per 100,000 population. This is more than 150% higher than in Tokyo and almost double Hong Kong's.
Road-related deaths are a leading non-health related cause of death in Singapore. Perhaps, it will also help to start avoiding using the word \"accidents\", which may in a way imply inevitability and helplessness, weaken accountability and also reduce needed attention to root causes, which ultimately can be tackled through public policy and infrastructure design.
Broadly speaking, the tools added or amended before this House operate to tackle road traffic incidents via four mechanisms: first, boosting certainty, that is, the chance of getting caught; two, severity of consequences; three, removing the ability to offend; four, norm signalling. Each of these areas have room for improvement or greater clarity, both in the legislation and in the public policy being effected on the ground.
First on enforcement certainty. Clause 10 changes section 65B from an offence requiring both the holding and operation of a mobile communication device to an offence based on holding the device while the vehicle is in motion. This should make the offence more straightforward to enforce. However, the clause also makes clear that merely touching a phone secured in a properly affixed holder does not amount to holding it.
Repeating the call by my colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, could the Minister clarify how the law will address drivers who interacts extensively with a mounted phone or even entertainment system? This could include typing messages, scrolling through social media, watching videos or taking video calls. What rules will apply, where the same activities are carried out through an in-vehicle display, including through systems, such as Apple CarPlay. At what point will such conduct be enforced as careless or dangerous driving under sections 65 or 64?
The other point on enforcement relates to enforcement cameras. While the Bill touches on cameras, my question relates to a broader point. Enforcement camera locations these days are publicly disclosed and flagged out in bright colours, as it was noted that this is important for deterrence. Yet in 2024, the Traffic Police released statistics that showed that motorists would slow down to ensure they are not caught and then go back to speeding again after they have cleared the stretch.
Given that vehicle velocity is the most important determinant of crash deaths, I am concerned that this behaviour not only fails to reduce speeding or dangerous driving. It may instead cause drivers to drive more dangerously when they believe there is no chance of being caught. In this regard, what is the evidence that the current format of disclosed camera and ad hoc Traffic Police enforcement is sufficient to tackle excessive speeds and dangerous driving?
Next, on deterrence and proportionality. Clause 7 raises the imprisonment ceilings for reckless or dangerous driving causing grievous hurt under section 64, including for repeat and serious repeat offenders. It does not raise the corresponding fines. Clause 8, likewise, raises certain additional imprisonment ceilings for serious offenders convicted of careless driving causing grievous hurt while leaving the existing fines unchanged. Could the Minister explain what evidence and methodology used to assess whether the Act's statutory dollar denominated fine limits remain sufficiently deterrent for motorists of very different means? Does MHA examine its sentencing outcomes, repeat offending and the relative burden of fines across offenders' financial circumstances?
While penalties, like jail terms and suspensions, ultimately remove the ability to re-offend, a crime punishment model alone is not enough. We need to bring down offending in the first place by rethinking our road infrastructure. Some positive steps have been taken recently with initiatives to calm traffic, improve pedestrian use and access. Local data backs this up. The Silver Road scheme was found to have resulted in the reduction of incidents involving elderly pedestrians by 80%.
It is worth reiterating that alongside intelligent design with direct input from behavioural signs, traffic calming results in lower speed limits, and lower speed limits result in lower casualties. A pedestrian hit by vehicle travelling at 50 kilometres per hour (km/h) has a 40% chance of dying compared with 13% when the vehicle is travelling at 30 km/h. Recent Meta analysis studies from different cities show that a 30 km/h speed limit in urban areas causes an average 40% reduction in crashes, fatalities and injuries, with added benefits in improving active mobility and health. A 30 km/h speed limit may also not need to mean longer travel times if we design our roads to improve traffic flow by reducing stopping times, allowing closer spacing and making lane merging easier.
In this regard, while we already have the Green Link Determining system determining our traffic light junctions' timings, could we not upgrade this further to improve safety? In order to do so, we also need to pay attention to the end-user experience; that is, to ensure that traffic light timings do not end up making motorists even more impatient and likely to speed. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology mobility initiative study noted that adjusting traffic signals so that only drivers obeying the speed limits will come across green lights was, \"99% effective to reliably induce speed reductions,\" and was such that most drivers do not even notice them. Can the Minister clarify if or how our traffic lights control system takes similar measures into account?
Other traffic calming measures, especially for new roads, should also be rolled out quicker and there should be better centralisation of efforts with input from road users and experts. This would also provide more learning points from where existing roads and Silver Zones can and should be improved.
During our Sengkang Town Hall conversations a couple of years back, residents also shared their candid views and thoughts about already worsening road safety standards and increased congestion. What became clear to many of us then was the sense that relief and deterrence measures were important, but only a part of the puzzle. We wanted to know why motorists were acting the way they did; that is, to get to the root cause of the problem. Why are we speeding more and driving more recklessly? What is the impact on road safety of increased stress, population density and crowding on the way we drive, react and act on our roads? Are there studies looking into this? What does the data show and how do we tackle these root causes of poor road safety beyond throwing more people in jail or impounding vehicles and revoking licences?
Lastly, on new norms. The reduced alcohol limits introduced by clause 19 signal new norms in another way to change the culture of driving in Singapore. The new limits are that permissible alcohol levels are roughly equivalent to 1.5 standard drinks for men and one standard drink for women consumed within three hours of driving. My WP colleague, Mr Andre Low, will speak more on this but hopefully, this is a start to shift the needle away from the attitude that a motorist can drink as long as they can handle their alcohol.
Another new norm we need to move towards is a policy call that introduces a Vision Zero movement for our road safety. This takes a leaf from global aviation industry efforts to eliminate fatalities from incidents and akin to what we are aiming for, for workplace health and safety. Sweden, Norway and Finland work on efforts across policy-makers, enforcement agencies and all sectors of society to find and implement ways to virtually eliminate all traffic fatalities, buttressed by the ultimate belief that loss of life on roads is both preventable and unacceptable.
This is not an easy task, especially as individual failings account for many deaths, but we must work continuously to ensure that our roads and their design keep up with innovation and technology for vehicles, and to more holistically regulate and encourage road safety. After all, Helsinki achieved a full year without road deaths across 2024 and 2025 through lower speed limits, safer street designs, strong enforcement and improved pedestrian infrastructure. It is time for us to set our own North Star in our own attempt to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.
As an orthopaedic surgeon, I have had to treat many victims of road traffic accidents. The public often remembers the headlines, the collisions, the fatalities, the Court cases. But in hospitals and in the emergency rooms, we remember something very different. We remember the young motorcyclist who survives but spends months in rehabilitation, recovering from multiple fractures and repeated surgeries. We remember the pedestrian who never walks independently again. We remember the father who can no longer work because of chronic pain; the mother who has to become both a caregiver and a breadwinner; and the child whose life quietly changes because someone else's momentary lapse became a lifelong consequence.
These are the stories that seldom make the news, but they are the very reasons that this House is debating this Bill today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, road safety is therefore not simply about preventing deaths. It is also about preventing lifelong disability, protecting livelihoods and keeping families together. The objective of this Bill is therefore not simply to punish more drivers. It is really to prevent more victims.
For me, this Bill rests on a very simple but important principle: that road safety succeeds when our laws are fair, firm and practical.
Today, I would like to make three points: first, protecting lives; second, protecting livelihoods; and third, protecting public trust.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first point is about protecting lives. I support the direction of this Bill. In particular, I welcome the introduction of the new offence of purposeful endangerment using a motor vehicle under the proposed section 63A. It recognises that there is a clear distinction between negligence and intent.
Most road accidents arise from human error, but this amendment addresses something different – intentional harm. Where a vehicle is deliberately used to endanger another person's life, society is dealing with something fundamentally different. A motor vehicle is no longer simply a mode of transport. It becomes a weapon. And the law should recognise that distinction, and I am pleased that this Bill does so too.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I also support the amendment relating to mobile phones. The Bill removes the need to prove that the driver was operating a phone. Simply holding a phone while driving will now constitute an offence while making clear that touching a phone that is mounted does not do so. This is both sensible and practical. Drivers should not be holding a mobile phone while their vehicle is in motion. Our eyes belong on the road and our hands belong on the wheel. Because every distracted glance lasts only a few seconds, but as mentioned earlier, the consequences for some can be a lifetime.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as doctors, we often say that prevention is better than cure. The same principle applies to road safety. The safest accident is the one that does not happen at all. Every dangerous driver deterred before causing harm means one fewer patient in our emergency departments. One fewer family receiving devastating news. And one fewer life permanently altered. That is why I support this Bill. Not because it supports stronger penalties. But because it has the potential to prevent greater tragedy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second point is about protecting livelihoods. I support giving the Traffic Police stronger powers to intervene where there are reasonable grounds that a driver poses an ongoing danger to other road users. If there is a genuine risk to public safety, early intervention is the right thing to do.
However, I would like to seek some clarification from the Minister on how these powers will be exercised in practice.
For many Singaporeans, a driving licence is not simply a licence. It is a livelihood. Taxi drivers. Private-hire drivers. Delivery drivers. Commercial drivers. Many of them spend 10 to 12 hours on the road daily. Their licence essentially pays the mortgage, puts food on the table and pays their children's school fees. For many of these Singaporeans, suspension of a driving licence means suspension of their income.
Public safety must always come first. There can be no compromise on that. But equality, procedural fairness is essential.
Could the Minister therefore elaborate on the safeguards that will ensure that these suspension powers remain proportionate, transparent and timely? Could the Minister also assure our professional drivers that appeals involving the livelihoods will be dealt expeditiously? Where investigations ultimately exonerate a driver, what are the mechanisms that exist to minimise unnecessary disruption to their livelihoods?
Strong laws command respect. Fair processes build trust. We need both because road safety succeeds only when our laws are not only firm, but also when they are fair.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my final point is about protecting public trust. People accept tough laws and they accept them when they can understand them better. If we want safer roads tomorrow, we must educate our road users today better.
Mr Deputy Speaker, much of our discussion today has centred on stronger penalties. That is understandable. Penalties change behaviour through fear but education changes behaviour through intentional choice. Could the Minister explain how the changes to the law today and the principles behind these changes be weaved into public educational and communication, including across our schools?
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the greater use of technology in strengthening enforcement. Technology allows us to intervene earlier, apply the law more consistently and improves objectivity. But I hope we will go one step further. Technology should not merely catch bad behaviour. It should also encourage good behaviour. Technology should become a partnership in prevention, not just merely a tool for punishment. Perhaps, currently installed cameras and prospectively installed cameras can pick up near misses and such near misses be shared with these drivers to show them what could have been a fatality or something consequential. Because ultimately, no camera, no sensor, no piece of legislation can replace personal responsibility.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if this Bill prevents one child from losing a parent, one family from losing its breadwinner and one young motorcyclist from becoming the next patient, then this House would have done something worthwhile today. With that, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, every road user makes a simple assumption. That the people around them will exercise basic care. The motorcyclist riding home after work, the parent driving a child to school and the pedestrian at a crossing all rely on it.
When someone drives after drinking or taking intoxicating drugs that trust is broken. The risk is borne not only by the driver but by everyone around them. A collision can take seconds. Its consequences can last for decades. A life may be lost. A serious injury can change what a person is able to do, how a family lives and what their future looks like forever.
And that is why there is often a palpable sense of public anger when someone who did nothing wrong is killed or permanently injured in an avoidable collision. That anger is often justified. Our task as Parliamentarians is not to amplify that anger but to tap into it, so that it can inform our work to reduce the chances of the next tragedy.
The law cannot undo irreversible harm, but it can set clearer boundaries, support effective enforcement and make dangerous choices far less likely. My comments today will focus on the changes concerning drink and drug driving and the evidence on which these offences will be enforced.
Let me begin with alcohol. The message should be simple. If you are driving, do not drink. The legal limit should not be mistaken for permissive drinking allowance.
The Bill lowers the prescribed breath alcohol limit from 35 to 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and the blood alcohol limit from 80 to 30 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. This is a substantial change intended to shift behaviour as much as enforcement. I support that direction.
I ask the Minister to explain the evidence supporting the precise limits of 15 microgrammes and 30 milligrammes that we have chosen, including the relationship between these levels and the risk of impaired driving. I also asked how the new limits will be communicated to the public.
MHA's safest advice in their press release is that drivers should not drink at all. Public messaging should reinforce that norm rather than invite motorists to guess at how much they might be able to consume without crossing the line. That message must be matched by an enforcement people can trust.
The Bill will also allow evidential breath test to be conducted at or near the place where the requirement is made. MHA intends to use portable handheld breath evidential analysers at the scene.
Faster testing may give a reading closer to the time of the offence, but that roadside reading may also become central evidence in a criminal case. The more consequential the reading, the more important is that the device can withstand scrutiny.
What approval, calibration and maintenance standards will apply and how will measurement uncertainty rounding and device tolerances be treated where a reading is at or very near the legal limit? And where these records are relevant to the prosecution, would the accused be able to obtain the device calibration and operator records needed to test the evidence?
I will move on to drug driving. The need for a clear and defensible legal boundary is even more important for drug driving. Under the present framework, enforcement may require proof that a driver was unfit and incapable of proper control. The Bill creates an additional offence where a controlled drug or psychoactive substance or intoxicating substance is present in the driver's blood, regardless of the quantity detected or whether impairment was observed.
I understand the enforcement problem. Different substances can affect people differently and proving the precise link between a substance and a driver's impairment may be difficult. A presence-based offence gives the law a clearer enforcement line. It also makes the scientific and operational meaning of presence critical. So, I ask: which substances and metabolites will be tested and at what analytical threshold will they count as present?
MHA should publish the relevant detection windows, its treatment of therapeutic use and any reporting or prosecution thresholds before the offence commences. Motorists must know the legal boundary and the Courts must be able to assess the evidence consistently.
The Bill already provides a defence for lawful use, including prescribed medication. The defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that a substance was lawfully consumed or administered, and that he or she did not know or have reason to believe it would affect proper control of the vehicle.
The existence of that defence is important. Its practical operation is also very much important. In practice, I ask what evidence will ordinarily establish lawful use? Is it a prescription, a dispensing record or medical evidence?
MHA should also explain how the test of reason to believe will apply, where medicine carries only a general warning that it may cause drowsiness and what guidance patients, doctors and pharmacists will receive before commencement of this Act. Once credible medical evidence is produced, the Minister should explain why the defendant should continue to bear the legal burden of proving both parts of the defence.
We should be firm against drug driving without leaving responsible patients to interpret a criminal law boundary from a generic label on the medicine packet.
The same principle should also govern how evidence is collected in hospital. Enforcement must never compromise necessary medical care. The Bill changes the procedure for taking breath and blood specimens from hospital patients and expands the role of nurses. For hospital breath specimens, the person immediately responsible for the patient's care is expressly part of the statutory safety check. The blood specimen provision is framed differently. Will the Minister confirm that the patient treatment remains paramount and that a specimen will not be taken where the clinician responsible for the patient's care believes it would compromise their care or treatment? What training and professional guidance will be given to nurses involved in taking forensic specimens?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, drink driving and drug driving can cause irreversible harm to people who have no control over the risk they face. Parliament is right to strengthen the law.
Firm enforcement needs more than severe penalties though. It must be grounded in evidence testing that can withstand scrutiny. Clear rules on what constitutes drug presence and practical guidance for people taking lawful medication.
We do owe innocent road users laws that can prevent avoidable harm and ward off the next tragedy. I am glad we are taking these steps and I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. At one level, this Bill is about stronger penalties for dangerous driving. But at a deeper level, it is about something more fundamental: trust.
Every day, millions of Singaporeans place their trust in people they have never met. We trust that the driver approaching a pedestrian crossing will slow down. We trust that the motorist beside us is paying attention. We trust that the person behind the wheel has chosen not to drink, not to speed recklessly and not to look at a mobile phone while driving. Dangerous driving is a breach of that shared trust and that is why I support this Bill.
The purpose of stronger penalties is not punishment for its own sake. It is to influence behaviour before harm occurs. Every driver who chooses to slow down because the consequences are more severe represents an accident that does not happened. Every motorist who chooses to keep both eyes on the road because enforcement is more credible represents a family spared unimaginable grief. That is the value of deterrence.
Some may ask whether stronger penalties alone are enough. Of course they are not. But that does not make them any less necessary.
The statistics show why this Bill is timely. Traffic fatalities rose to 147 last year, up from 139 in 2024. Accidents causing injury increased by about 7%. Red-light running accidents rose by more than a quarter. And Singaporeans have been shocked by high profile cases like the June 2024 Central Expressway racing case. Each statistic represents a life altered, a family grieving, or a future forever changed.
I fully support the Bill's central changes, including the new offence of purposeful endangerment and the increased penalties for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt. Where a driver knowingly or deliberately puts another person's life at risk, the law should reflect the full seriousness of that choice. These provisions are proportionate to the harm they address.
I do want to raise one question on the Bill's mobile phone provision, and a separate concern about how, in the context of these tougher penalties, the recently announced revised demerit points regime will affect our private hire and taxi drivers.
First, on mobile phones. Today, prosecutors must prove a driver was actively using a handheld device. This Bill removes that requirement – simply holding a phone while the vehicle is moving will be enough, enforceable by camera or by footage support submitted by members of the public.
I understand the underlying logic: distraction begins before a call connects or a message is typed. But removing the need to prove active use also removes the safeguard that previously separated genuinely risky conduct from momentary, non-distracting contact – a driver silencing a ringing phone, repositioning it on a mount, passing it to a passenger or rerouting using a maps apps after making a wrong turn or running into traffic.
Could the Minister clarify what threshold Traffic Police and the Courts will apply in practice to distinguish these situations, and what checks will be in place around footage submitted by members of the public, given that this offence may now be established without any need to show that the driver was distracted at all?
Second, I want to speak up for our private hire and taxi drivers on the demerit points changes in the context of higher penalties. From January 2027, the threshold before a non-probationary motorist faces suspension will fall from 24 to 18 points. The intent: to get irresponsible motorists off the road sooner.
For most motorists, an occasional suspension is a serious inconvenience. For a private hire or taxi driver, it is their livelihood. A driver who beats a red light while speeding would, under the new regime, be suspended immediately, and for a full-time private hire driver, that suspension is not a pause in convenience, but a pause in income.
I acknowledge that the Ministry has introduced a one-time point adjustment to ease the transition in direct response to concerns raised by vocational drivers and transport unions. This shows that the Ministry is alive to the issue.
But a one-time adjustment addresses the transition. It does not address the ongoing, structurally higher exposure that vocational drivers face every year, simply by virtue of spending far more hours on the road than the average motorist and depending on that same licence for their income.
They would likely also be more susceptible to the new mobile phone rules as they use their mobile phones to confirm rides and receive messages from platform operators.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in my Meet-the-People Sessions in Woodlands, I have seen the anguish and stress on my resident vocational drivers' faces when they come to appeal their demerit points. So, I ask the Minister whether there is a case for more support measures specific to this group, such as reconsidering some variant of the Safe Driving Course in lieu of a portion of suspension time?
I raise this not to weaken the deterrent effect of the new regime but because if we are asking one group of road users to bear a disproportionate livelihood risk in service of a safety goal that we all share, this House should at least examine whether targeted support is warranted, in the same way we have looked at safeguards in other sectors undergoing regulatory tightening.
Singapore's good road safety record has never depended on a single intervention. Good laws, consistent enforcement, safer road design, public education and responsible road users all reinforce each other.
This Bill strengthens one pillar: personal responsibility backed by credible deterrence. I would like to suggest two ways to strengthen it further.
First, technology can make enforcement smarter, not just stricter. Deterrence depends on certainty of detection, not only severity of punishment. The rise in red-light running accidents suggests detection at certain locations remains a live gap.
Could the Minister share how the Traffic Police and LTA are using, or plan to use anonymised traffic data and artificial intelligence- (AI-) assisted analysis to spot emerging hotspots before they produce repeated accidents, and to deploy enforcement dynamically to where the risk is highest? Technology should not replace enforcement judgement. It should make enforcement more targeted and more preventive.
Second, every serious accident should sharpen our understanding, not just our accountability. Each is a tragedy, but also a chance to learn why it happened and whether patterns point to fixes in design, enforcement or education. Could the Minister elaborate on how these lessons are systematically fed back into policy and whether better data capabilities can help us move from responding to accidents towards anticipating them?
Deterrence and learning are about correcting for the minority who put others at risk. But we should not lose sight of the majority who already drive responsibly, day after day. I was glad to see the Traffic Police's own \"Reward the Sensible Motorists\" initiative, recognising exemplary drivers for safe behaviour. I would ask the Ministry to consider scaling this up and pairing it with the driving data that fleet operators and insurers increasingly hold, so that safe behaviour is recognised systematically, not only symbolically.
Spain's points-based licensing system offers a model worth studying here. Spanish motorists start with 12 points, but a driver who maintains a clean record for three years is credited back up to 15 points – a genuine, earned buffer built directly into the licence, not a separate reward scheme sitting alongside it.
I would ask the Minister whether a similar mechanism, where a sustained period without any offences restores the variable demerit points, could be considered here, either for all drivers, or at minimum for our vocational drivers, who face the sharpest livelihood consequences and have the most to gain from a system that rewards years of safe driving with real headroom, not just a certificate and goody bag. A Bill about deterrence should sit alongside a system that also rewards doing the right things.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our transport landscape is also changing. We have more active seniors, more cyclists, more users of active mobility devices, more delivery riders. The 2025 figures remind us that elderly pedestrians remain disproportionately represented in pedestrian fatalities, while motorcyclists and pillion riders continue to account for more than half of all traffic deaths.
This diversity makes mutual respect on our roads more important than ever. We need to be more careful, more patient. Road safety is not about prioritising one group of users over another, it is about ensuring that everyone on four wheels, two wheels or on foot can reach their destination safely.
Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, the success of this Bill will not be measured by how many offences are detected or how many penalties are imposed. If it works, those numbers should eventually fall.
Its success will instead be measured by the family that never receives a late-night phone call, the child who crosses the road safely, the elderly pedestrian who walks to the Active Ageing Centre without incident, the motorcyclist who returns safely to loved ones at the end of the day, and I would add, the private hire driver who can keep earning a living while driving safely.
With the privilege of using our roads comes the responsibility to use them safely. This Bill is not about punishing more drivers. It is about creating fewer victims. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill. I would like to make three points.
First, I would like to clarify the intent of section 63(a), \"purposeful endangerment using motor vehicle\".
In March, I asked the Ministry whether we needed an offence of vehicular homicide with penalties on par with culpable homicide due to the mens rea hurdle rates of the Penal Code. The reply was that such an offence was being considered and described it in almost the exact terms now before us as section 63(a).
I welcome it, and that is why I would like to understand its boundaries. Its middle limb requires the purpose to endanger \"a particular person\". In March, the Ministry said it would be \"another person\" and the Bill's three illustrations are all of one driver against another. So, does section 63(a) apply to these two examples: (a) a driver who drives at a crowd meaning to hurt whoever is in front of his or her car, taking out nobody in particular; (b) a driver who drives at a tree with the intent to kill him or herself. I note that we repealed attempted suicide in 2019.
Second, the ceilings. This Bill raises the penalty for grievous hurt to seven years and leaves killing at eight. This gap of one year seems small, given road deaths last year were the highest in a decade – with 149 in 2025. So, why did the Government choose to retain this eight-year ceiling for causing death?
Third, we will need firmer measures against drivers who are on the road when they should not be there at all. The driver who is caught is banned and the driver who has lost his or her licence and never earned it back.
I have three questions.
First, driving without a valid licence carries up to three years jail. This year, in PP v Eng Kwan Meng Garrick, our High Court set the starting point for a driver who had lost his licence completely and drove anyway, at three weeks. But three weeks under a ceiling of three years tells us the ceiling is actually doing very little work. So, I would like the Government to consider a minimum sentence for this offence. The Government has said that they would work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel on guidelines for drink-driving. Will it do the same here?
Second, forfeiture of the vehicle is mandatory only on a second conviction for driving while disqualified. Would it consider making it mandatory for the first?
Three, our annual Road Traffic Report tells us how many speedsters and drunk drivers we catch, but not how many disqualified or unlicensed drivers. Will the Government publish that number and how many of them go on to re-offend?
I would just like to also put forward my approval and agreement with the Member Mariam Jaafar's earned buffer system. I have had residents with 10-year clean records with a single high demerit point offence, which have endangered their private hire vehicle driving livelihoods. Some consideration of their long-term clean history should be given, so as to better take the circumstances into account.
Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill and its aim of making our roads safer. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for a very clear explanation of the Bill. And I therefore will not quote any numbers, but I will definitely support the Bill.
I have three points for the Minister to consider.
First, on brake checking. I have personally encountered people brake check in front of me, so it falls under the purposeful endangerment clause. It is scary. I watched a couple of videos online also and it is really, really scary. Using the weaponisation of the vehicle to express your rage or whatever, is really not acceptable as it can cause dangerous accidents.
However, when I look at the penalty, I am not too sure – maybe the Minister can clarify – that if a person or a driver has been identified and there is video evidence to show that this person has done a brake check, will the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who is in charge, do an immediate suspension of the driving licence before the Court proceedings?
My second point is on the issue of riders. We differentiate between motorists and riders, and in this specific case I am referring to cyclists. I do notice that there are a lot of cyclists nowadays on the road and some of them may not be familiar with our highway code. Would the Minister consider passing regulations that ensure that all cyclists or any road users have a knowledge of our highway code? Else, it is quite endangering because they might do things that are not in line with our process, especially if they are from overseas.
The third point is on the automated decision-making process. I really support this, because I personally, and my wife also, we have encountered, when we receive our speed summonses, quite some time after the offence or the speeding has been done. I actually support the speeding cameras being deployed. The issue is not that we want to speed. The issue is that there are some speed cameras, but sometimes they are very difficult to see or observe, or it is new.
So, I think the point is the shaping of behaviour and therefore, the request is to make sure that if there are any speeding cameras, newly installed speeding cameras, that these be prominently displayed and notified to the motorists.
I can understand that using the automated enforcement or decision-making process, we can quickly get it out, get the details out, especially on the car numbers and asking for the details of the drivers that have committed the offence. When the information has been decided and disseminated to the driver that is under the offence, typically we go by mail and that takes about a couple of days. In this instance where there are new speed cameras, people may use the same road a couple of times per day or within the week. And within that week, or before we receive the notice of the offence, we may have committed the offence a couple of times already.
So, maybe one solution is that we do an immediate electronic notice. Another way is if we stick to the mail, then maybe we can consider that for a grace period of a couple of days – could be seven days or five working days – that whatever offence committed will be treated as just one offence. So, that is the grace period for the Minister to consider. Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): I support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. I have three points to make.
First, regarding the act of malicious or deliberate emergency braking, stronger measures should be taken to clamp down on such behaviour. Not only can such acts lead to serious accidents, but a moving vehicle can undoubtedly become a lethal weapon. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether the Traffic Police can immediately and temporarily suspend the licence of the driver involved when such behaviour occurs, pending the completion of legal proceedings.
Second, on the matter of bicycles. Bicycles are increasingly common on major roads, making road traffic and driving conditions more complex. I would therefore like the Minister to consider whether regulations can be introduced to require all cyclists on public roads to pass an examination on road traffic rules or the Highway Code.
My final point concerns the running of red lights. I support the use of automated decision-making systems to determine whether running a red light constitutes a traffic violation.
What I would like to know is whether, when a new red light or speeding enforcement system is installed at a location, more prominent signage can be put up to alert drivers that speed enforcement is in effect at that location.
Additionally, when a new speed enforcement site is first set up, some drivers may be unaware that enforcement has commenced there. In such cases, could a grace period of a few days be granted after traffic infringement notices are issued to him?
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.34 pm until 3.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
ROAD TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, while Singapore's roads have long been shared by motorists, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, the composition of road users has evolved significantly over the past few years.
For example, the rapid expansion of the platform economy has brought about many more delivery riders on our roads, many of whom rely on Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs). At the same time, our active mobility framework has rightly prioritised pedestrian safety by requiring PABs to use the carriageway instead of footpaths. As a result, our roads now accommodate a broader mix of users travelling at different speeds, operating different types of vehicles and using the roads in very different ways.
This complexity will only increase as autonomous vehicles become part of Singapore's transport network. As interactions between road users become more complex, the margin for error narrows. A single moment of distraction or poor judgement can have far more serious consequences, particularly for vulnerable road users. Our enforcement regime and deterrence framework must therefore evolve alongside these challenges.
Against this backdrop, I support the broad intent of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Strengthening deterrence is therefore both timely and necessary. But lasting improvements in road safety cannot be achieved through harsher penalties alone. Effective deterrence rests on four pillars: a high certainty of detection, proportionate enforcement, timely behavioural intervention and ultimately, a shared sense of responsibility among all who use our roads.
I support the Bill's move towards stronger penalties for irresponsible road behaviour. However, deterrence depends not only on the severity of punishment, but also on the certainty of detection.
Singapore has never shied away from imposing strong penalties where public safety is at stake. But penalties alone cannot deter offences that are inherently difficult to detect. On our roads, many types of dangerous behaviour can last only a few seconds. A driver may glance at a mobile phone, drift briefly into another lane or make an unsafe manoeuvre before correcting it moments later. Such offences are fleeting by nature and difficult to detect consistently through patrols alone. Unless offenders believe that they are likely to be caught, even the harshest of penalties will have limited deterrent effect.
The prohibition against using a mobile phone, as we have heard previously from many speeches, while driving is not new. Parliament first introduced these restrictions more than two decades ago, when mobile phones were primarily used for voice calls and Short Message Service (SMS). Today, the nature of distraction has fundamentally changed. Smartphones are no longer simply communication devices. They are cameras, entertainment platforms, navigation systems, social media platforms and even productivity tools. So, beyond making calls or replying to messages, motorists can now watch videos, browse social media or participate in online meetings even while travelling at speed. The distraction is no longer occasional. It is continuous, immersive and far more dangerous.
If the risk has evolved, then our enforcement methods must evolve as well.
Several jurisdictions have begun leveraging technology to strengthen this deterrence. The state of New South Wales in Australia, for example, has deployed AI-powered roadside cameras to detect motorists using hand-held mobile phones while driving. Importantly, the system does not automate enforcement. Rather, AI identifies only potential offences, which are then reviewed and verified by authorised officers before any enforcement action is taken. This combines the scale and consistency of technology with human judgement and accountability.
In light of this, could the Minister elaborate how Singapore intends to leverage technology to strengthen enforcement against distracted driving? Will Singapore consider wider deployment of automated or automatic detection systems at high-risk locations or along major expressways? Beyond mobile phone offences, are there plans to explore whether similar technologies could detect other unsafe behaviour, such as the failure to wear seat belts, for example?
As enforcement becomes increasingly technology-enabled, robust safeguards will be equally important. Could the Minister clarify the standards governing the collection, retention and verification of digital evidence? How will the accuracy of automated detection systems be validated before enforcement action is taken? What avenues of review will be available to motorists who believe an offence has been wrongly detected? Public confidence in these technologies will depend not only on their effectiveness but also on their transparency, accuracy and accountability.
Technology should not replace Traffic Police officers; it should amplify their effectiveness. By increasing the certainty of detection, it can often deter unsafe behaviour more effectively than increasing penalties alone.
Mr Speaker, while stronger enforcement and greater certainty of detection are necessary, they should not be the end of our response. The ultimate objective of deterrence is not simply to punish unsafe behaviour, but to change it. For motorists who repeatedly commit distracted driving offences, enforcement should be complemented by targeted behavioural interventions.
This is particularly relevant for mobile phone use while driving. Unlike offences arising from excessive speed or inconsiderate driving, distracted driving is often a habitual behaviour. Many motorists do not consciously decide to break the law. Instead, they instinctively glance at a notification, attempt to reply to a message, or check a navigation app without fully appreciating the risks.
Such habits cannot always be corrected through fines and demerit points alone. I therefore encourage the Government to consider introducing a mandatory distracted driving intervention programme for repeat offenders. The programme could focus on behavioural education, hazard perception and the real-life consequences of distracted driving, helping offenders understand that not just that the behaviour is illegal, but also why it is dangerous.
There is also scope to strengthen prevention at the earliest stage of a driver's journey. Driving schools already devote significant attention to vehicle control and traffic rules. Could distracted driving become a compulsory module within the learner driver curriculum before they are granted their driving license and likewise be incorporated into the Driver Improvement Points System courses? Every motorist should demonstrate an understanding of the dangers of distracted driving before obtaining a licence and again, if unsafe habits continue to emerge.
Safer roads are built not only through enforcement, but by changing behaviour. By combining effective deterrence with meaningful education, we can reduce repeat offending and foster a stronger culture of responsible driving.
I would like to speak now, Sir, about calibrating deterrence for vocational drivers. I understand why the Government has recently decided on a reduction in the demerit points threshold for licence suspension and the tougher consequences for repeat offenders. Indeed, stronger deterrence is appropriate for those who repeatedly disregard the rules of the road.
At the same time, Sir, we should recognise that these changes will have a disproportionate impact on vocational drivers, including bus captains, taxi and private hire drivers and those in the delivery and logistics sectors. By the very nature of their work, they spend substantially more time on our roads than the average motorist and are therefore more likely to accumulate demerit points through sheer exposure alone. More importantly, their driving licence is not just the privilege; it is also tied to their livelihood.
I therefore ask whether the Government would consider introducing an early intervention mechanism for vocational drivers. For example, upon reaching nine demerit points, they could be required to attend a mandatory road safety programme focused on defensive driving, hazard awareness and responsible driving behaviour. Upon successful completion of this programme, they could receive a one-time reduction of three demerit points, available once every two years in line with the existing demerit point cycle.
While, Sir, this should not be viewed as either a relaxation of enforcement or a special concession, attendance for this programme would be compulsory and the intervention would occur well before the suspension threshold is reached and the concession is tightly controlled. But more importantly, it creates an opportunity to correct unsafe behaviour before a vocational driver loses his or her licence and their livelihood.
If the objective of the demerit points system is to improve road safety, then timely behavioural intervention is often more effective than waiting until suspension becomes inevitable.
Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that I support the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and the gradual direction it takes in strengthening road safety. Ultimately, however, no legislation, however comprehensive, can by itself make our roads safer.
Road safety, Sir, is a shared responsibility. It is not just the responsibility of those who drive, nor is it solely the responsibility of the Traffic Police. Whether we drive, ride, cycle, or simply cross the road as pedestrians, every decision we make affects the safety of others. Respect for the rules, consideration for fellow road users and a willingness to exercise patience and responsibility remain the strongest safeguards against accidents and fatalities.
At its heart, road safety has never been about penalties or demerit points. It is about protecting lives. Every accident prevented is potentially a family spared grief. And every journey completed safely reminds us that the choices we make on our roads matter. That, Sir, is ultimately, what this Bill seeks to achieve. I end my speech in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Sir, I stand in full support of the Bill, which essentially makes our road traffic laws stricter to make our roads safer for all road users. Yet, I wish this Bill had gone even further and made our road traffic laws even stricter – in two ways.
First, I wish this Bill had also revised the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death. My starting point is this: the maximum penalty for the new offence of purposeful endangerment causing death or even grievous hurt is 15 years' jail. This brings the new offence on par with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(b) of the Penal Code, even though it could be argued that the offender's state of mind in purposeful endangerment is likely not as egregious and thus, his culpability not as high as in culpable homicide.
Purposefully endangering a person's safety is not quite as egregious as knowing that one's actions are likely to cause death. You could purposefully endanger someone without knowing that you are likely to cause death. Yet the maximum penalty for this new offence of purposeful endangerment on our roads is on par with culpable homicide. And I support it. I support the stricter stance, because it will help to keep our roads safe, and keeping our roads safe for all road users is an urgent task and of paramount importance.
So, this new offence of purposeful endangerment on our roads causing death carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' jail. Yet, the existing offence of dangerous driving causing death still carries a maximum penalty of only eight years – almost half that of the new offence. Even though most offenders who cause death while driving will, I think, continue to be prosecuted under the charge of dangerous driving instead of purposeful endangerment, because it will not be that common, I think, for offenders to have the requisite state of mind for a charge of purposeful endangerment to be brought against them.
Take the horrific case of Jeremiah Ng, who in 2021 treated our roads like an F1 race track, drove at up to 169 km/h on a 60 km/h road – so, more than 100 km/h an hour above the speed limit – lost control when turning at a T-junction and went straight instead, ploughing into multiple cars on the other side of the T-junction, getting a motorcyclist crushed in between two cars and ultimately, causing one death and leaving six others injured. Reckless as Jeremiah Ng was, I do not think his state of mind would have met the threshold for purposeful endangerment if this law had existed then. And so, he would still have been prosecuted under dangerous driving causing death, with a maximum penalty of eight rather than 15 years' jail. And that just does not compute for me. It just does not compute.
Of course, Jeremiah Ng was also prosecuted as a serious offender because he was also drink driving while driving dangerously, so, there was an additional penalty of up to two more years' jail. But had he not been drink driving, the maximum penalty would have been eight years. And for such an egregious case of recklessness and wanton disregard for other road users, eight years' jail feels way too light.
The High Court noted that the \"heaviest punishment\" for a case like Jeremiah Ng will be the lifelong burden of knowing that his irresponsible and selfish action of dangerous driving while drink driving claimed an innocent life. But while offenders like him may have a lifetime of guilt and remorse, we cannot count on that. Our laws should provide for stronger retributive justice.
And so, I wish this Bill had revised the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death. Using the maximum penalty of 15 years' jail for the new offence of purposeful endangerment as a starting point, I think the discount for dangerous driving causing death, should be no more than 30%. And so, I wish the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death had been revised upwards, to 11 years instead of eight.
Second, I wish this Bill had also harmonised the offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt with the offence of dangerous driving causing death – harmonise the two into one offence of dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt. The new offence of purposeful endangerment already includes both death and grievous hurt in one harmonised offence. And the rationale is simple, that whether or not the victim dies, is not within the control of the offender. But his culpability and harm are no less whether the victim dies or not. So, one harmonised offence, to deal with his culpability and harm. I fully agree with this logic. And I think it should be extended to dangerous driving causing death or grievous hurt. The culpability and harm from causing grievous hurt by dangerous driving may be not be less than causing death.
This Bill proposes a higher maximum imprisonment penalty for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, but it is still lower than the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death. I wish the Bill had brought the offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt on par with the offence of dangerous driving causing death, or indeed, harmonise the two.
Take the case of Yoong Kok Kai, who was heavily drunk, somehow found his way to Tuas Checkpoint, even though he was intending to head north back home. He ran down a safety bollard and gantry at Tuas Checkpoint, and drove into an Auxiliary Police Officer who had tried to take refuge behind the safety bollard and gantry from Yoong's car. The officer survived the horrific accident, but his injuries have left him permanently incapacitated, unable to eat, unable to move, bathe, dress or toilet without help.
Yoong was charged with dangerous driving causing grievous hurt while drink driving. So, it was a serious offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, and that carries a maximum penalty of six years' jail. The High Court Judge sentenced Yoong eventually to five years, close to the maximum. But in his judgment, he also noted, \"If anything, I wonder whether the maximum sentences prescribed are fully adequate for the worst type of incidents. That is, however, a matter for the Legislature.\"
Well, the Bill before the Legislature today provides one response to that, to the High Court Judge's comment, which is to revise the maximum sentence for these worst types of grievous hurt incidents upwards to eight and a half years from six.
My view, as a legislator, is that for the worst type of incidents, where \"worst\" means surviving may not be better off than death; where \"worst\" means the grievous injuries caused are no less harmful than outright death, the maximum penalty for grievous hurt ought to be on par with that for death, higher than eight and a half years. Or indeed, we ought to harmonise the offence for grievous hurt and death into one, as the Bill is already proposing for the new offence of purposeful endangerment.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the above two points, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
Let me begin with the numbers, because they remind us why action cannot wait. Last year, 149 people lost their lives on our roads, the highest number in a decade. Between 2021 and 2025, traffic fatalities increased by 24%, while traffic violations rose by nearly 38%.
But these are not just statistics. They represent parents, children, friends and colleagues who never make it home. Behind every number is a family whose lives changed forever.
A resident once shared something with me that has stayed in my mind. He runs a small logistics company and often reminds his drivers, \"The delivery can be late, but you must go home on time.\"
Mr Speaker, this is exactly what this Bill is about. The message can wait. The delivery can wait. But everyone who uses our roads should be able to return home safely.
I would like to speak today from the perspective of our small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as logistics operators, delivery riders, transport businesses, and food and beverage (F&B) operators. They spend more time on our roads than most Singaporeans and these amendments will have a direct impact on them.
First, I support the new offence of holding a mobile phone while driving. The current law requires authorities to prove that a driver was actively using the phone. That is difficult in practice. Under the Bill, simply holding the phone while the vehicle is moving becomes an offence.
This creates a much clearer rule. Hands on the wheel, phone on the mount. It is easier for motorists to understand and easier for Traffic Police to enforce. Importantly, mounted devices remain allowed and drivers may still use their phones when the vehicle is stationary. This strikes the right balance between road safety and the operational needs of delivery drivers and private hire drivers who depend on navigation for work.
Second, I support the tougher penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt. Some victims survive but suffer lifelong consequences, like brain injuries, paralysis or permanent disability. Their families may spend years providing care. The law should reflect the seriousness of that harm. The increased penalties send a strong message that irresponsible behaviour on our roads carries serious consequences.
Third, I support lowering the legal alcohol limit. Today, the slogan reads: If you drink, do not drive. But I think it should be reversed: If you drive, do not drink. People respond differently to alcohol depending on their body, health and even whether they have eaten. Trying to calculate \"how much is still safe\" is not a good habit to encourage. The new limits also bring Singapore more in line with other advanced jurisdictions.
Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have three constructive suggestions.
First, introduce a short education-first transition period before full enforcement of the new mobile phone offence. Many delivery riders and drivers have developed habits over many years of checking navigation or delivery applications while driving. Changing habits take time. I hope the Traffic Police can consider an advisory period of several months, where first-time offenders receive warnings and educational materials instead of immediate penalties, except in more serious cases.
During this period, Government agencies can work with platform companies, transport associations and SMEs to publicise the new rules in multiple languages. The objective is not simply to issue fines; it is to change behaviour.
Second, help SMEs make every commercial vehicle mount-ready. Many SME operators told me that this is not as straightforward as it sounds. One delivery van may be shared by three or four drivers across different shifts. Each driver uses a different phone model.
Instead of every business trying to solve the problem individually, perhaps Government could consider working with LTA and industry to develop a universal phone mount suitable for commercial vehicles. Support could also be provided to help SMEs retrofit their existing fleets. In time, such mounts could become standard equipment in newly registered goods vehicles, much like today's in-vehicle units. When every vehicle already has a suitable mount, safe behaviour becomes the easiest behaviour.
Third, partner our F&B sector to educate the public on the new alcohol limits. Many Singaporeans will not know that the legal limit has changed. Rather than expecting customers to interpret technical guidance about standard drinks or alcohol concentration, the message should remain simple as shared earlier: \"If you drive, do not drink.\"
Restaurants, coffee shops and bars can help reinforce this through simple posters, table cards or coasters encouraging customers to take a taxi, use public transport or appoint a designated driver. Road safety is not solely the responsibility of enforcement agencies; businesses can also play an important role.
Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. The Bill rightly prohibits holding a mobile phone while driving. However, what happens if a phone is properly mounted but is playing videos while the vehicle is moving? The driver's hands remain on the wheel, but the driver's attention is no longer fully on the road. Currently, such conduct may only be dealt with under careless or dangerous driving, which still requires proof that the distraction affected the driver's driving. Does the Ministry intend to monitor this issue? Would it consider addressing this potential gap in future so that we do not simply shift the distraction from the driver's hand to the phone mount?
Mr Speaker, every day, Singaporeans drive, ride, cycle and walk on our roads. Road safety depends not only on good laws but also on responsible choices. This Bill strengthens both law and our enforcement. With thoughtful implementation and strong public education, it will also help change behaviour before accidents happen.
Let me end where I began. The delivery can wait, the phone call can wait; but every Singaporean should be able to return home safely. Let me share a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Lastly, road safety ultimately protects each family. Whenever we leave home, we all hope that we and our loved ones will return home safely. Many road accidents happen in a split second. It may be a moment of impulse, looking down at a mobile phone, or thinking that one has not drunk much and should be able to drive.
Therefore, the law must stop dangerous conduct in time and the public must also truly understand the risk. Drivers must focus on driving; riders must pay attention to their surroundings and pedestrians should put down their phones and check the road carefully when crossing.
If each of us exercises a little more vigilance and think more of others, we can reduce injuries that could have been avoided otherwise.
We must remember that while roads can be travelled again, a life once lost cannot be restored. Obeying traffic rules is not merely a matter of complying with the law; it is also about protecting the loved ones waiting for us at home.
(In English): I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gabriel Lam.
Mr Gabriel Lam (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. It is a necessary Bill and a timely one. But there is one gap I hope the Ministry will review and one refinement I hope it will consider.
Mr Speaker, our roads are getting more dangerous. Between 2021 and 2025, traffic deaths rose by about 24% and traffic offences by about 38%. The Ministry knows this. This Bill is its response and on the whole, it responds well.
Today, when a driver uses a car to scare or hurt someone on purpose, but we cannot prove intent to kill, the charge is usually dangerous driving causing death, capped at eight years. This Bill creates a new, tougher offence for exactly this conduct: up to 15 years' jail, caning at the Court's discretion, a lifetime driving ban, absent special reasons, and forfeiture of the vehicle.
This is the right message. A car is not a weapon for settling scores. I also support the tougher penalties for dangerous driving causing serious injury, the maximum rising from five years to seven years for a first offence; and from 10 to 13 years for a repeat offence.
Injuries, like brain damage, can leave a victim bedridden for life; the punishment should reflect that. Careless driving causing serious injury is rightly left unchanged, at two years for a first offence and four for a repeat one. The larger increase belongs where the conduct is more dangerous, and the Bill gets that balance right.
I welcome, too, the stricter drink driving limits, breath alcohol falling from 35 to 15 microgrammes, blood-alcohol from 80 to 30 milligrammes, bringing us closer to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.
The new offence for driving with any trace of a controlled drug or intoxicating substance, even absent visible impairment, closes a real gap. And the Bill fixes an old anomaly: a driving ban that used to run down while the offender sat in prison. Now it starts only on release.
Mr Speaker, the second limb of this Bill gives the Traffic Police the tools to work at scale. The Traffic Police processes hundreds of thousands of violations a year, and today an officer must manually review every photo or video before a Notice to Furnish Driver's Particulars can be issued. This Bill changes that: for objectively verifiable technical violations, speeding and red-light offences chief among them, the Traffic Police may use an automated decision-making system to assess the violation and issue the Notice without a human reviewing the footage first.
I do not object to this in principle. But once a Notice reaches a vehicle owner, the obligation on them is serious – 14 days to identify and furnish the driver's particulars or face prosecution themselves. Their only recourse against a mistaken Notice is to apply for revocation, reviewed manually, after the fact.
What the Bill does not do is place any corresponding limit on the Traffic Police's side: how long after an offence is detected the Notice itself may be issued. There is a hard 14-day clock running against the owner. There is no clock at all running against the system that generates the Notice.
This imbalance matters more, not less, precisely because the new system is automated and built for the volume MHA has described. A system built to run at that scale is also one where a processing backlog can build quietly and go unnoticed until it clears, and by the time a Notice for a months-long violation reaches an owner, the means of checking the system's work may already be gone: dashcam footage overwritten on its usual cycle, a fleet's shift roster long since filed away, memories of who was driving that day faded. An owner who would have identified the driver promptly, had the Notice arrived promptly, can still fail the 14-days test simply because the Notice was slow and lose any real ability to catch or contest a mistake.
I would ask the Ministry to close this imbalance directly; prescribing a maximum period – 30 days from detection would be a reasonable starting point, within which a Notice must be issued to the vehicle owner. If a system is fast enough to detect a violation and generate a Notice without manual review, it is fast enough to issue that Notice promptly too. Fairness to owners and the practical ability to verify or contest what the system has decided, both depend on closing this gap.
Mr Speaker, one effect of this Bill deserves attention. When we tighten thresholds – a lower alcohol limit, a new offence for any trace of a controlled substance, wider automated detection – we will catch more people, not just more dangerous people. Some of the newly caught will be genuinely reckless, others will be ordinary drivers who crossed a line that has simply moved, perhaps for the first time in years of otherwise safe driving.
The Bill already accepts that first-time and repeat offenders are different. That is exactly why it sets a lower penalty for a first offence and a higher one for a repeat offence under the grievous hurt provisions.
I ask the Ministry to extend that same thinking to how we respond to first-time offenders at the lower end, not only to how we sentence them.
Concretely, for first-time offenders caught under the newly tightened thresholds, go easy; pair a shorter suspension with mandatory retraining, such as a defensive driving or road safety course, so that the driver leaves with better habits, not merely a served suspension. For repeat offenders, go hard; the escalation the Bill already builds in for repeat conduct is right, and should stay uncompromising. A first-time, lower-culpability offender who completes retraining is less likely to re-offend than one who simply waits out a suspension and returns with the same habits unchanged. A repeat offender has already shown that leniency did not work and deserves the fuller weight of the law.
Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and I urge the Ministry to consider these two refinements: a statutory clock on Notice issuance to match the one already imposed on owners; and a graduated response that goes easy on first-time offenders while going hard on repeat ones. Neither changes the Bill's direction. Both would make it fairer and stronger in its execution.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): While Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates worldwide, our roads are becoming increasingly dangerous. There is a Chinese phrase, \"马路如虎口\", which means the roads are like the mouths of tigers. Indeed, in the past five years, our roads have become more dangerous as traffic violations rose 38% and fatality rates rose 24%.
We must not allow more innocent lives to be lost due to careless or reckless drivers. Hence, I support the amendments to the Road Traffic Bill, to impose stiffer penalties on dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt, specifically due to drink driving and using mobile communication devices while driving.
Smartphones have become an integral part of our lives because they remove most of the friction from everyday transactions. They have also become a mobile platform for entertainment videos. Many people find it a struggle to leave their phones out of sight or not to use their smartphones for an extended duration of time or for doom scrolling, which to me, is a blight on modern life.
But it is not just bad for our cognitive and social development – it is a dangerous habit for drivers. Instead of focusing their eyes and their minds on the road conditions, their attention is split between operating their cars and operating their smartphones.
Smartphones usage is a common cause of split-second misjudgement and mishandling of vehicles, resulting in accidents. In our densely-populated city-state with millions of road users daily, the probability and risks of one being involved in a serious road accident has been on the rise.
The amendments to the RTA aim to deter the use of mobile communication devices by allowing the Traffic Police to enforce the offence using cameras or based on photographic or videographic evidence submitted by members of the public, which will increase the detection of such offences. So long the driver holds the mobile communication device in his or her hand while the vehicle is in motion, even if the driver is not making a call or typing a message, this would constitute an offence. In contrast, if the device is mounted, it is not an offence.
While the revised definition gives clarity to what constitutes an offence, it may not have necessarily addressed the real cause of distraction to the driver. As a case in point, it is not an uncommon sight for drivers to be watching their Korean or Chinese dramas on their mounted smart devices.
In reality, the driver's attention is clearly divided if his or her attention is on the characters inside the mobile phone screen, rather than on the other vehicles and pedestrians in front of his or her big windscreen. My concern is that instead of curtailing distracting activities related to the use of smart communication devices, the amendments may instead legitimatise the blatant misuse of mounted devices. Can the Minister clarify MHA's position towards such use of mobile devices and if they would constitute an offence?
Over the years, the Traffic Police have installed hundreds of speed cameras, red-light cameras, set up roadblocks and deployed dozens of patrol teams to apprehend drivers who are speeding or drinking under the influence of alcohol. Although resource-intensive, kudos to the hard work of the the Traffic Police officers, they have kept our roads relatively safe over the past decades.
The use of mobile communication devices while driving will be much harder to detect, let alone to apprehend the offenders red-handed with evidence. Many vehicles have sunshades attached onto the windows and drivers may be operating their phones at a position well below eye-level, which makes it even harder to gather evidence.
The amendments would allow the Traffic Police the enforcement of the offence using photographic or videographic evidence submitted by members of the public. However, it would be difficult for the Traffic Police riders or patrol teams to detect someone operating their smart devices, let alone other members of public, unless they are sitting in the same vehicles. Hence, I am concerned over the efficacy of the latest amendments, other than to deter bad behaviour.
My view is that other than stricter penalties, we need to work on three areas, namely instilling awareness, education and leveraging technology.
First of all, we should instill awareness in our young children both in school and at home, to always be vigilant. It is a common sight these days of pedestrians looking down at their mobile phones, wearing headphones and looking completely oblivious to the surroundings, while crossing the roads. These inattentive pedestrians are a hazard if they appear out of nowhere, especially at night at zebra crossings and at traffic lights crossings. We need stronger measures to remind pedestrians not to use their mobile communication devices while crossing roadways.
The Road Safety Park at East Coast Parkway has always been a fun and an effective way for primary school students to learn about traffic rules. However, the roadways these days have become more complicated. Improved traffic lights systems, such as the Red Amber Green turning lights have been deployed in many cross junctions and curb cut crossings have also been added to help pedestrians cross roadways more safely. The Road Safety Park should be revamped to incorporate the latest road safety features. Students attending road safety course should also learn about the dangers of a pedestrian using mobile phones and wearing headphones playing loud music. If these poor habits are not corrected from a young age, it may be a lot harder to convince a teenager to stay vigilant and alert on the roads, until something bad happens.
Secondly, training at driving centres and by private driving instructors must be stepped up to reinforce the \"no mobile devices while driving\" practice. The driving instructors must set a good example and the use of mobile devices by both instructors and learner-drivers must not be permitted during driving lessons. Also, the curriculum should include a module on examples of past accidents caused by the use of mobile devices, to let learner-drivers understand the extent of harm and damage that can result. Lastly, the basic driving test should also include questions related to the \"dos\" and \"don'ts\" of mobile device use while driving.
Thirdly, drivers should leverage on technology to operate their mobile communication devices using voice activated commands. With software enhancements, most devices are now equipped with voice recognition functions, for instance, replying a WhatsApp message using voice instead of typing out the message. In case of an urgent need to make a call or reply to a message, drivers can use voice-activated commands, which will reduce the need to operate their mobile devices with their hands while driving. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Malay.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, other than stricter penalties, we need to focus on three areas, namely cultivating awareness, enhancing education and leveraging technology.
These measures should not only be directed at drivers. We should also cultivate awareness in our children from young, both in school and at home, so that they remain vigilant.
It is a common sight these days of pedestrians looking down at their mobile phones, wearing headphones and looking completely oblivious to the surroundings, while crossing the roads.
We need stronger measures to remind pedestrians not to use their mobile communication devices while crossing the road.
As a society, every road user has a responsibility to practice road safety, to keep each other out of harm's way.
We should all take a proactive, preventative approach to minimise road accidents.
Stiffer penalties can only be a deterrent because after an accident occurs, the harm and damage caused cannot be undone.
We do not wish to live in regret that we should have been more vigilant and more careful. Let us continue to remind one another that the roads will always remain dangerous unless every user does his or her part to stay safe.
(In English): At the end of the day, safe driving boils down to a sense of responsibility and self-discipline. Every driver should understand that their fast-moving vehicle can become a weapon that can destroy life and property. They may also have to serve time in jail and lose their driving licence if found guilty.
As a society, every road user has a responsibility to ensure safe road practices, to keep each other out of harm's way, and we should all take a proactive, preventative approach to minimise road accidents. Stiffer penalties can only be a deterrent because after an accident occurs, the harm and damage cannot be undone. We do not wish to live in regret that we should have been more vigilant and more careful. Let us continue to remind one another the roads will always remain dangerous unless every user does his or her part to stay safe. Mr Speaker, allow me to share a few points in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Bill, to impose stiffer penalties on dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt, specifically due to drink-driving and using mobile communication devices while driving.
Smart phones usage is a common cause of split-second misjudgement and mishandling of vehicles, resulting in accidents.
My view is that other than stricter penalties, we need to work on three areas, namely instilling awareness, education and leveraging technology.
For instance, drivers should leverage technology to operate their mobile phones using voice activated commands. With software enhancements, most devices are now equipped with voice recognition functions, for instance, replying to a message using voice instead of typing out a message. In case of an urgent need to make a call or reply to a message, drivers can use voice-activated commands which will reduce the need to operate their mobile devices with their hands while driving.
At the end of the day, safe driving boils down to a sense of responsibility and self-discipline. Every driver should understand that their fast-moving vehicle is a weapon that can destroy lives and properties. They will also have to serve time in jail and lose their driving license if found guilty.
We do not wish to live in regret that we should have been more vigilant and more careful. Let us continue to remind one another that roads will always remain dangerous unless every user does his or her part.
(In English): Mr Speaker, after having said all this, I wish to add a radical idea. To focus on punitive measures and detection is akin to filling a leaking bucket. The best and perhaps the only solution is to stow away the smart devices when driving, especially if they are not required for navigation.
There are countries which ban devices for young children because of the damage to their minds. Why do we do less for actions which damage our lives? Mr Speaker, I support the amendment Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo.
Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, I believe the amendments sought to the RTA today seek to achieve three outcomes: first, to make our roads safer for everyone; second, to make the thresholds of our road traffic laws clearer for drivers and riders; third, to allow our enforcement officers to better perform their duties in protecting all road users.
I think, importantly, it is hoped that over time, these amendments will enable all road users to reset driving habits and reshape road behaviours. And if we are able to achieve this, then our roads will be indeed safer for all.
Sir, the increase in traffic fatalities and injuries make this Bill a timely one. I believe we can all agree that road safety affects more than just drivers and riders, whether we are pedestrians, public transport users, riders, cyclists or drivers at any given time.
According to the Police's Annual Road Traffic Situation Report 2025, fatalities on the roads rose from 107 in 2021 to 149 in 2025. The number of people injured on our roads rose from 7,240 to 9,955 in the same period.
What is most concerning is the vulnerability of particular segments of our road users. For example, while motorcycles formed only about 15% of our vehicle population in 2025, motorcyclists and their pillion riders were involved in 54.8% of all traffic accidents and accounted for about 53% of all traffic fatalities – more than half.
Our seniors constitute 12.9% of our population in 2025, yet account for 75% of all pedestrian fatalities. Fatal accidents involving elderly pedestrians more than doubled in one year from 11 in 2024 to 27 in 2025.
We also have recently read reports on the increase in work-related traffic fatalities and injuries. Workers who travel on our roads daily for a living, such as our logistics and platform drivers and riders, face far greater risks due to increased exposure and time spent on the roads. In many instances, they are involved in accidents not of their making but by the actions of other road users.
Safety on our roads is therefore non-negotiable. This Bill will hopefully go some way in addressing this and reducing these risks.
Sir, while the amendments appear on their face to impose stricter requirements on drivers, they will also bring greater clarity as to what constitutes not just safer but responsible driving. In the past, for instance, a driver may attempt to evaluate how much he or she can drink to stay within the legal limit to drive.
However, as we know, the effect of alcohol impairment, varies with gender, age, health and body composition. And with the proposed lower alcohol limit, the message is clearer: \"If you drink, don't drive\". In fact, the Ministry, in its recent press release, made this statement that there is really no safe number of alcohol drinks before driving.
If this is the position that the Ministry takes, I thought I wanted to ask a question on whether the Minister can share if the Ministry considered a zero-tolerance stance like some jurisdictions have done with regards to alcohol limits and the reasons why the lower thresholds of alcohol limits were selected instead.
For the use of mobile devices, I think it is quite clear. The amendments now clarify that if the vehicle is in motion, a driver should not, at any instance, be holding on to their mobile phones. There will be drivers who will say that they are holding on to their mobile phones is a matter of habit with no intention of use. Others will say it is no difference from holding a cup of coffee while you are driving. But I would say that if this so, then, perhaps, it is a good opportunity to change the habit.
Why are mobile phones more culpable? Holding a mobile phone in one hand inevitably gives rise to the possibility that the driver can and will be distracted by messages, by calls or even the temptation to scroll. With the proposed amendment, the message is now clear. When you drive, you either mount your device safely, integrate it with your vehicle's infotainment system. Otherwise, leave your mobile phone aside.
For driving under the influence of drugs, the Bill seeks to remove the proof of impairment requirement, in cases where drivers are found under the influence of controlled drugs, psychoactive or intoxicating substances. If a person is under such influence still chooses to drive and put other road users in danger, then the driver/rider must surely be taken to task by the law, without the onus being on the authorities to have to prove impairment.
In fact, I would take a further step and ask if the Ministry will consider calibrating the exception for prescription drugs. If a person is unwell and he is prescribed medications by his or her doctor that are not only likely, but it is almost certain to cause drowsiness or impairment, then the safe and responsible thing to do, must surely be – not to drive, not to ride.
Sir, finally on enforcement. Clearer laws are easier to enforce. Our officers no longer need to prove the use of a mobile phone while the vehicle is in operation. They do not need to prove impairment with the presence of controlled substances. This is not a lowering or changing of standards. It is the removal of evidential hurdles that make enforcement challenging. Importantly, it will send an unambiguous and clear signal on where we stand as a society on road safety for all road users.
This Bill is not about new offences, higher thresholds or stiffer penalties. It is about the driver who chooses to leave his or her car behind after a drink or the driver who remains fully focused on driving while leaving his mobile phone properly mounted on the dashboard.
Resetting driving habits and reshaping road behaviours are what this Bill seeks to achieve. And if we succeed, then perhaps, most of the provisions in this Bill may rarely have to be enforced at all.
Sir, safer roads is in everyone's interests. We all want to return home safely to our families every day. Safety on our roads is non-negotiable because behind every traffic fatality is a family for whom an ordinary everyday journey changed lives tragically and irreversibly. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Diana Pang.
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Our roads are becoming less safe and I agree our laws must keep pace with changing behaviour and technology. But whenever we expand criminal liability, we must also ensure that the law is clear, proportionate and fair. Dangerous conduct should be punished, but ordinary drivers acting reasonably should not be unintentionally caught by the law.
Today, I wish to speak on three areas: the proposed offence of holding a mobile communication device while driving, the lowering of the drink driving limits and finally, road hogging.
First, holding of mobile communication devices while driving. I welcome the proposed amendment to section 65B. It is sensible that the Bill does not criminalise the holding or the use of a handphone while a vehicle is stationary. Drivers may need to change the Global Positioning System destination, inform someone that they are delayed or deal with an urgent matter before continuing their journey.
However, once the vehicle is moving, this Bill makes the act of physically holding a phone an offence, without needing to prove that the driver was actually using it.
I understand why. It closes an evidential gap and makes enforcement easier. But we must be careful not to replace one problem with another. A phone may slip from its holder or fall near the pedals. A driver may instinctively pick it up, place it somewhere safe without looking at the screen or operating any function on the phone. Should that one-second act alone make the driver a criminal?
I therefore ask the Minister whether section 95 of the Penal Code, which embodies the de minimis principle, will apply in such situations. If a driver handles a phone just for a second, solely to remove an immediate hazard and without causing distraction to himself, will that still amount to an offence?
Motorists should not have to wait until they receive demerit points or face prosecution before discovering where the legal boundary lies. After all, we do not automatically criminalise a driver who briefly picks up a fallen water bottle, wallet or another object. If doing so results in careless or dangerous driving, the driver can already be prosecuted. But simply holding the object, in itself, is not an offence. I therefore hope the Minister can clarify section 95 of the Penal Code will apply in such a situation as I have described.
Next, there is also an issue of consistency. A driver may spend several seconds typing on a mounted phone, entering a destination into a navigation system or repeatedly tapping a touchscreen while the vehicle is moving. That can be equally distracting as holding a phone.
If the intent of the law is to remove distraction for the better of road safety, should we not also consider criminalising the act of operating a mounted device while driving?
A tougher rule for handphone use whilst driving is justified because this is a significant source of distraction. But the law should also distinguish between the deliberate use of a phone, versus a temporary movement of a phone purely for necessity. It should also address the the safety issues of whether a phone is held on one hand versus when it is mounted. Both methods ultimately cause distractions for the driver. I hope the Government can clarify these boundaries so that motorists can understand exactly what the law requires.
Second, drink driving. I fully support stronger action against drink driving. The message should be simple: if you drink, do not drive. Drink driving places innocent lives at risk. We should continue to deter it firmly.
The Bill proposes to reduce the prescribed breath alcohol limit from 35 microgrammes to 15 microgrammes; and the blood alcohol limit from 80 milligrammes to 30 milligrammes. These are substantial reductions. If Parliament lowers the legal threshold by more than half, then the science behind enforcement must be equally robust. The Bill allows the Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser to produce an evidential reading at the roadside instead of requiring a second evidential test at the police lock-up. This improves efficiency. It allows the reading to be taken closer to the time of driving. But convenience must never come at the expense of accuracy.
I therefore ask the Minister how the margin of error for such measurements will be addressed, especially for the readings at or just above the legal limit? Will borderline readings require confirmation, for example, a second test? Will there be prosecutorial discretion shown for measurements that are just slightly above the limit? Will drivers be entitled to a second test if the reading is only marginally above the prescribed limit?
I would also appreciate the clarification on how these devices will be approved and independently validated. Have they been tested under Singapore's operating conditions, including our temperature and humidity? If the accuracy of a device is challenged at trial, will maintenance, calibration and error records be disclosed to the defence?
Public confidence depends not only on tough laws, but also on the confidence that the evidence is accurate. I hope the Government will consider making reliable self-testing devices more accessible to members of public. Consumer breathalysers are already available, but their quality varies greatly. The Government could certify approved models, publish a list of independently tested devices or encourage licensed premises, such as restaurants, bars and clubs, to make certified devices available to all patrons.
These devices should never replace personal responsibility. The safest choice remains not to drive after drinking. But prevention should go hand in hand with enforcement. If we expect motorists to comply with much lower limits, we should also equip them to make responsible decisions before getting behind the wheel.
Finally, I ask the Government has studied the increasing number of gummies, tablets and supplements marketed as helping to reduce breath alcohol readings or break down alcohol more quickly. Whether or not these claims are scientifically valid, they may give certain motorists a false sense of confidence. Clear public guidance will help to ensure that the motorists do not rely on misleading advertisements and instead make responsible action, decision not to drive if in doubt.
Finally, road hogging. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have saved my strongest appeal for last. Every driver in Singapore knows exactly what I am talking about. A driver remains in the rightmost lane despite having ample opportunity to move left. A queue builds behind. Frustration grows. Drivers weave across the lanes, overtaking on the left or follow too closely. Tempers rise.
What begins as inconsiderate behaviour can quickly become a safety issue for everyone. Road hogging does not excuse speeding, tailgating or dangerous driving. Every motorist remains responsible for his own action. But neither should we ignore the conduct that unnecessarily creates congestion, frustration and conflict on our roads.
The speed limit is not a licence to camp in the overtaking lane nor should any driver take it upon himself to decide how fast everyone else behind him should travel. The rightmost lane is for overtaking. Once that manoeuvre is completed, drivers should return to the left whenever it is safe to do so.
I recognise that our existing Road Traffic Rules already require slower vehicles to keep left and prohibit obstructing faster-moving traffic. But the reality is that many motorists either do not understand these rules or simply ignore them. The existing framework has not created sufficient awareness or deterrence.
Road hogging is more than just an annoyance. It contributes to unnecessary lane changing, undertaking, sudden braking, tailgating, road rage and may even delay emergency vehicles trying to get through.
I therefore urge the Government to consider creating a clear standalone offence for persistent road hogging. Such an offence should target drivers who remain unnecessarily in the overtaking lane despite having a safe opportunity to move left, who are not overtaking and who materially obstruct the lawful flow of traffic without reasonable justification.
Enforcement is increasingly feasible through cameras and technology, supported by human review. Objective factors, such as how long the vehicle remained in the overtaking lane, whether it was overtaking, whether the adjacent lane was clear and whether traffic accumulated behind it, could all be considered before prosecution takes place.
Better lane discipline is not about convenience. It is about safety. We need to stop road hogging today to make our roads safer.
Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. But as we strengthen our laws, we must also ensure they remain fair, proportionate and practical. We should draw a clear line between dangerous conduct and momentary acts done in the interest of safety. We should match tougher drink driving laws with reliable science, accurate enforcement and stronger prevention. And we should finally give road hogging the attention it deserves.
Safer roads require drivers who are attentive, sober and considerate. Road safety is not only about how fast we drive. It is also about how responsibly we share the road. With these observations, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I see the behavior of some people on the road, a phrase pops into my mind: \"You think this is your grandfather's road?\" Not everyone in Singapore drives in an unsafe manner, but it takes just one black sheep to endanger all of us.
Every day, hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans entrust their safety to other road users: to the driver in the next lane, to the cyclist ahead, to the stranger crossing the road at dusk. Road safety is, at its heart, a promise we make to one another. We do not know the people we share the road with and yet, we depend entirely on their care for us, as they depend on ours.
This Bill states plainly, that the safety of one Singaporean can never be a lesser priority than the convenience of another.
Let me speak to three aspects of the Bill.
First, clauses 11, 13 and 19 which enact changes to drink driving and drug driving laws. Sir, the Bill lowers the prescribed alcohol limits for driving: the breath alcohol limit falls from 35 to 15 microgrammes; and the blood alcohol limit falls from 80 to 30 milligrammes. It also introduces a new offence for driving with specified controlled or psychoactive substances present in the blood.
Some may ask whether this is too strict a standard. I would ask, strict compared to what? A driver's reaction time is not a matter of personal preference – it is a matter of other people's lives. A car travelling at 60 km/h covers almost 17 metres every second. That is the difference between an elderly pedestrian safely crossing the road, and a family receiving a call no family should ever receive. If a lower limit gives a driver even half a second more clarity, half a second more control, then it has already justified itself.
I support this change because it reflects a simple truth: the right to drive after drinking is not a matter of legal rights, but a risk that other road users were made to bear without their consent. This Bill returns that risk to where it belongs – with the driver who chose to take it.
Second, clause 10 and its enacted changes to mobile phone offences. The Bill removes the requirement that a driver be actively using a mobile device's functions. It will now be an offence simply to hold a mobile communication device while driving. Devices must be properly secured to an approved mount.
Sir, I have heard the argument that this may be an inconvenience to some. But I would gently suggest that we ask a different question: is the two seconds it takes to glance at a screen worth the safety risks it presents? A driver's hands should hold a steering wheel, not a phone. This is not a difficult standard to meet and I believe most Singaporean drivers already meet it. This amendment closes a loophole that allowed a driver to hold a phone at the wheel so long as they claimed that they were not using it.
Third, on clauses 6 to 8, and 21 and its changes to punitive and legal measures. The Bill introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment using a motor vehicle, with penalties of up to 15 years' imprisonment; it raises maximum sentences for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt; and it empowers the Deputy Commissioner of Police to authorise a computer program to assess camera evidence and issue Notices to vehicle owners for certain strict liability offences.
I support all three changes. A driver who deliberately turns a vehicle into an instrument to frighten or harm another person has stepped outside the ordinary risks of the road and the law is right to treat that conduct with the seriousness it deserves. Likewise, raising sentences for grievous hurt caused by dangerous driving sends an unambiguous signal: carelessness that maims or kills a fellow citizen is not merely a traffic matter – it is a matter of justice.
But, Sir, I wish to speak candidly on the introduction in of an automated decision-making system in clause 81A of the Bill, in the case of enforcement using a computer program.
Technology can help us process the sheer volume of footage and evidence that a modern transport system, like ours, generates and I do not doubt its usefulness. But I would urge this House and the Ministry, to hold firmly to one principle as we proceed: the law exists to serve people, not the other way around. A computer program may assess evidence efficiently, but it cannot exercise judgement, cannot weigh context and cannot look a citizen in the eye.
There is a difference between using technology to assist enforcement and allowing technology to become an arbiter of guilt.
Clause 2.7 of the Infocomm Media Development Authority Model AI Governance Framework posits the guiding principles that AI use in decision-making should be explainable, transparent, fair and human-centric. Will a human being review the assessment made by the system before a Notice is issued? A computer system could make mistakes. How will we ensure that we are not wrongly issuing Notices?
A wrongly issued Notice imposes a heavy burden on those who do not know how to navigate the system or those with less bandwidth in their lives, such as delivery riders, who are already trying to work three jobs at a time. We must never let efficiency become a substitute for justice. It is a tenet of justice that every citizen has a right to be heard by another human being before consequences are imposed on them.
It is for this reason that I am encouraged to see the Bill provide vehicle owners the right to apply for a human review and revocation of an automated Notice. I commend the Ministry for including it.
But, Sir, a safeguard that exists today must not erode over time. I would ask the Ministry for an assurance. This right should not exist only at the Bill's passage, but that it must be actively upheld, resourced and protected against dilution by future policy or operational shifts made without this House's scrutiny.
Whatever tools we adopt to keep our roads safe, the citizen must remain at the centre of our legal system – not the algorithm, not the camera and not the convenience of the system. That principle must be non-negotiable today, and in every year that follows.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a nation that speaks proudly of our kampong spirit – of neighbours who look out for one another, of a society that prizes kindness, graciousness and mutual regard. I have met so many gracious people in our homes and in our hawker centres. And yet, too often, that kampong spirit disappears the moment we step behind a wheel – the driver who tailgates a slower car; the motorist who refuses to give way to a pedestrian at a crossing; the road user who treats every journey as a race to be won, rather than a space to be shared.
These behaviors are not befitting of who we say we are. Our roads are not separate from our society, but are an extension of it. How we drive is how we treat one another when no one seems to be watching.
This Bill should not just be a set of legal amendments, but a mark of growth for us as a society that wishes to build safer roads and a kinder driving culture. Not only through the force of law, but through kind and socially-responsible decisions each of us makes every day.
Hopefully, in the future, instead of \"You think this is your grandfather's road?\", we can all say, \"This is our road\". Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.
Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It raises the maximum penalties for careless and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, tightens the prescribed alcohol limits for drink driving and makes clear that when a vehicle is moving, it will be an offence for a driver simply to hold a mobile communication device without the need to prove that the driver was operating it.
I would like to focus on distracted driving and on why this legal change should be complemented by measures that help drivers protect their attention.
Some time ago, my husband became concerned about my safety when I was driving. He helped me activate the \"Do Not Disturb While Driving\" function on my phone. It was a small intervention. When the phone detects that I may be driving, notifications are silenced and an automatic response can let others know that I am on the road. What struck me was that my husband did not simply tell me to exercise more self-control. He changed the settings around me, so that exercising self-control became easier.
That captures an important psychological reality. Most drivers know that checking a phone while driving is dangerous. Yet knowledge does not always overcome impulse. A notification appears. We tell ourselves that it will take only one second, or that we are good at multi-tasking.
Our devices are very effective at capturing our attention. They create a sense of urgency even when the message itself is not urgent. So, while individual responsibility must remain at the centre of road safety, we should also design systems that make responsible behaviour easier.
The Bill's focus on handheld devices is supported by evidence. The World Health Organization estimates that drivers using mobile phones are approximately four times as likely to be involved in a crash as drivers who are not using a phone. This makes sense when we consider the different ways in which a phone distracts us. There is visual distraction, when our eyes leave the road; physical distraction, when a hand leaves the steering wheel; cognitive distraction, when our mind is occupied by another task; and auditory distraction, when a sound or conversation draws our attention away.
Handheld phone use could potentially involve all four forms of distraction at the same time. This is why removing the need to prove that the driver was actively operating the device is a sensible amendment.
The amendment also makes it easier to enforce the rules, including through cameras, photographic or video evidence submitted by the public. Deterrence depends not only on the severity of a penalty, but also on whether people believe that a violation is likely to be detected.
However, the fact that the Bill does not prohibit mounted devices should not be taken to mean that they are necessarily safe. A mounted device may remove the need to hold the phone, but it does not remove visual or cognitive distraction.
Mounted devices are also necessary for many drivers. Private hire, taxi and delivery drivers rely on phones for navigation and work allocation. The law must draw an enforceable line, but drivers should not mistake that legal line for the boundary between safe and unsafe behaviour. A phone mount is not a licence to multi-task.
At the heart of this issue is the psychology of attention. Human beings have limited attentional capacity. What we casually call multi-tasking is in fact our attention switching rapidly between tasks. During each switch, we may fail to process important information.
I was particularly struck by a recent Straits Times commentary by my colleague, Mr Krishnan Menon, from the Nanyang Centre for Marketing and Technology at the Nanyang Technological University. He highlighted that Singapore recorded 149 road fatalities in 2025, the highest number in a decade, and that \"failure to keep a proper lookout\" was identified in 52% of accidents.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
This does not mean that every such accident involved a mobile phone. But it tells us that inattention itself is a major road safety concern. The physical reality is sobering. A vehicle travelling at 90 km/h covers about 25 metres every second. If a driver looks away for just two seconds, the vehicle travels about 50 metres – approximately the length of an Olympic swimming pool – without the driver fully observing what is happening ahead.
Within those two seconds, a pedestrian may step onto the road, a motorcyclist may enter a blind spot, or the vehicle in front may brake. The road does not pause while we answer a message.
Legal sanctions are therefore a critical first step. They establish a norm, strengthen deterrence and give the Traffic Police clearer tools for enforcement.
But research on handheld phone bans is mixed. Some studies find reductions in phone use or crashes after restrictions are introduced. Others find that the effects are stronger in the short term than in the longer term. Some drivers may also try to evade detection by holding their phones lower, causing them to look even further away from the road.
This does not mean that the law is unnecessary. It means that the law is one lever but not the full solution. If the behaviour is driven by habits, impulses and the pressure to remain constantly connected, we must also help drivers establish and sustain safer habits.
I have three suggestions.
First, make attention management part of driver education and continuing education. Learner drivers should understand the four forms of distraction and the limits of multi-tasking. Simulator and hazard-perception exercises can let them experience how easily they miss a hazard while completing a secondary task. Theory and practical tests can also cover mounted devices, navigation and work notifications, and teach drivers to set up their journey before moving off.
We can pair this with simple \"if-then\" plans. For example, \"If I need to change my destination, then I will stop safely before doing so.\" Such plans turn a general intention into a response prepared before temptation arises.
Safe-driving education should also be refreshed at existing touchpoints, such as vocational-licence renewals, remedial programmes and reinstatement after suspension or disqualification. Managing attention should be treated as a core driving competency, not an optional piece of advice.
Second, use technology and platform design to reduce the demands placed on drivers. New drivers could be prompted to activate \"Do Not Disturb While Driving\" when they obtain their licences. Similar reminders could appear when motorists activate On-Board Units (OBU) or renew a vocational licence. The OBU could also offer an optional reminder at the start of a journey to activate driving mode or set navigation before moving off. Any prompt should be simple and delivered while the vehicle is stationary, so that an intervention intended to reduce distraction does not itself become another distraction.
We should also work with private hire, taxi and delivery platforms. For these drivers, the phone is a work tool. Platform design and incentive structures should not force them to choose between driving safely and earning a livelihood.
The Government could work with platform operators to minimise the need for interaction while vehicles are moving. This could include simpler displays, voice-guided directions, suppressing non-essential notifications and sufficiently long response windows so drivers can wait until it is safe before responding to job offers. Drivers should not be penalised for putting their safety first.
Many operators and commercial fleets already provide safety guidance and driver training. We should build on these efforts by ensuring that attentive driving and the management of digital distractions are consistently covered.
Third, pilot voluntary feedback and rewards. In a large, randomised trial published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, weekly goals and social competition reduced handheld phone use by about 20% relative to the control group. Some of the improvement continued after the intervention ended.
Singapore has previously introduced telematics-based motor-insurance products, so there is a foundation on which to build. Insurers and fleet operators could pilot voluntary programmes offering drivers private feedback, weekly attentive-driving goals and small rewards for sustained improvement.
Such pilots should be evaluated locally and designed with safeguards for privacy, consent and fairness. At least initially, the data should be used to encourage and reward safer behaviour rather than to penalise drivers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, driving deserves more respect than we sometimes give it. The average car driver controls a machine weighing well over a tonne, often travelling at speeds capable of causing grievous hurt or death. Driving may feel routine, but the responsibility we assume each time we take the wheel is anything but routine.
On the road, no decision affects only ourselves. A passenger places trust in the driver. A pedestrian assumes that an approaching driver is alert. A cyclist or motorcyclist depends on being noticed. Every journey depends on thousands of strangers remaining attentive and making responsible decisions toward one another.
A moment of convenience – a message checked, a destination changed, an impulse indulged – can result in a lifetime of regret.
The Bill sends an important and necessary message: when a vehicle is moving, the phone should not be in the driver's hand. But our wider message must go further. It should not be allowed to take possession of the driver's attention either. When we take the wheel, the attention we give to the road becomes part of the protection we owe one another. With these comments, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a director of a law corporation, whose areas of practice include criminal defence and regulatory matters.
I rise in support of this Bill, and my speech today will focus on specific issues and seek a few clarifications.
Firstly, clause 10 seeks to amend section 65B(1) so that it will be an offence for a driver simply to hold a mobile communication device while the vehicle is in motion on the road or in a public place. The requirement that the driver must also operate any of the device's communicative or other functions will no longer be needed to constitute the offence commonly known as \"handphone driving\".
It is not contentious that a driver should be punished under the present un-amended section 65B if he or she has used \"the mobile communication device's communicative or other functions\", since such a driver's attention is clearly divided and distracted from operating the vehicle safely. The present section 65B rightly targets the impermissible policy object, which is the risk, if not the fact of distraction arising from the use of the device.
That said, in a Mothership report dated 10 July 2026, MHA is cited as having clarified, and I quote, that \"the acts of eating, drinking or smoking while driving are not offences in and of themselves\".
Furthermore, on a close reading of the proposed amendment to section 65B, holding anything other than a \"mobile communication device\" as defined under section 65B(3) would not constitute an offence.
This brings me to my first clarification. The Ministry has described its approach as a \"calibrated\" one. Could the Ministry explain how, in the context of the mere physical act of holding an object, it distinguishes between a mobile communication device on the one hand and everything else on the other? More specifically, how does the Ministry justify criminalising the mere act of holding a mobile communication device while driving, but not when a driver performs a more physically engaging activity, such as eating, drinking or smoking, which may likewise distract the driver's concentration on the road.
To be clear, I am not proposing that eating, driving or smoking while driving should be criminalised. However, the Ministry's rationalisation of its calibrated approach should be clarified, especially since Parliament's intent will be examined by the enforcement authorities, legal practitioners and our Courts if the Bill is passed.
My next clarification is whether the Ministry has contemplated specific scenarios in which drivers may inadvertently fall foul of the new section 65B. And if the matter is left to police discretion, how should that discretion be exercised? For example, even when a mobile communication device is properly secured in a mounting affixed in the manner intended by the manufacturer, it is not uncommon for such mounts to become dislodged. This could be due to prolonged exposure to heat from Singapore's tropical climate as such mounts are most commonly affixed to the windshield of a vehicle under direct sunlight or due to hard braking or other maneuver to avoid an accident.
And just as what my fellow Parliamentary colleague, Ms Diana Pang, has shared earlier, it is not a fanciful possibility that a driver may instinctively catch a falling device and at that precise moment, be observed by the Police.
Another plausible scenario involves private hire car or other driving service providers who need to plug in a hands-free earpiece to take a call, especially when it is not practicable for them to use the vehicle's built-in Bluetooth function for privacy reasons or to minimise the disturbance caused to their passenger.
My other clarification under this clause is to seek the rationale behind the Ministry's proposal to remove the \"operate\" element entirely, rather than, for example, requiring a driver alleged to have committed an offence under the new section 65B to prove on a balance of probabilities that he or she was not operating a device. In my view, the latter would be a more calibrated approach than what is currently proposed.
I now turn to the question of how we can keep rehabilitation and the protection of livelihoods in view as we strengthen our road safety framework.
The passage of this Bill, coupled with the Traffic Police's announcement on 31 July 2026 that it will tighten the Driver Improvement Points System from 1 January 2027, will mean more drivers being caught and sanctioned, and therefore receiving more demerit points.
Just as what my fellow Parliamentary colleague, Ms Poh Li San has shared with this House earlier, as the Chinese saying goes, \"马路如虎口\". The road is just like a tiger's mouth. This Bill rightly puts road safety first.
Yet, as many of my hon colleagues and I have encountered on a regular basis at our respective Meet-the-People Sessions, we must not forget that many residents rely on their driving licence to earn a living and raise their families. While we strengthen enforcement and enhance penalties for errant road users, I sincerely believe that there must also be room for second chances.
In this vein, I ask whether the Ministry has considered, or will consider, a form of \"suspended suspension\" for motorists who accumulate the relevant number of demerit points. What I mean is this: especially for private hire car drivers, delivery drivers, passenger-ferrying drivers and others whose livelihoods are wholly dependent on operating a vehicle, could they, instead of or prior to suspension, be placed on a driving performance improvement plan, just like what my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Darryl David, has also suggested in his speech earlier, and/or consider for these drivers to be allowed to provide a sum with sufficient deterrent effect to guarantee good driving behaviour, similar to the concept of a bail?
Save for those disqualified for life, other drivers have the prospect of returning as responsible road users. This proposal, I believe, could rehabilitate these motorists more effectively and more quickly for their personal betterment and for greater utility to the public. These motorists would also realise, if they had not already, the grave consequences of continued errant driving; namely, loss of their driving licence, consequent loss of livelihood, financial hardship for themselves and their families and most importantly, that it is entirely within their control to avoid these outcomes.
The core policy objective of safer roads would remain unchanged. The signal would, if anything, be strengthened; that bad behaviour attracts real consequences. This, to me, is another calibrated approach that would further our goal of improving safety while allowing drivers and perhaps also their families, a second chance to avoid ending up in a perilous and potentially unrecoverable situation.
My next point concerns ensuring that every affected driver charged in Court has access to justice. The Public Defender's Office under the Ministry of Law currently does not provide legal representation to persons charged under the RTA, even where the individual who is facing financial hardship faces a potential term of imprisonment.
In view of the increased severity of the penalties under this Bill, would the Government consider reviewing the Public Defender's Act to remove the RTA from the list of excluded offences in the schedule? In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, while this Bill rightly focuses on strengthening the responsibilities of drivers, road safety is ultimately a shared duty. Pedestrians, cyclists and personal mobility device riders who are distracted by their mobile phones also contribute to accidents and near-misses on our roads and footpaths.
I therefore ask whether the Ministry is also studying measures to address phone distraction among these other road users. If the fundamental aim of this Bill is to enhance overall road safety, then a more holistic approach, one that also encourages all road users to stay vigilant would further strengthen that objective.
(In English): Notwithstanding my above clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazlina Halim.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments and its intent to protect more lives, especially on the roads. However, enforcement cannot be the sole problem solver or the whole answer. As is often the case, we must also go upstream.
Today, I will cover three points: disproportionate impact of fines on the vulnerable, using data to identify patterns; but first, Singapore's road culture.
The wider consideration is the culture on our roads. Drivers must know the rules. The issue cannot be a lack of knowledge. It also should not be impatience, distraction and a lack of consideration for other road users.
First, how will MHA and the Traffic Police work with driving schools and private instructors to review the driving curriculum and on-the-road tests.
Learning to drive should not only be about passing the theory and practical tests. There should be greater emphasis on defensive driving and road courtesy. A learner driver should understand the risks of scrolling on the phone, tailgating or accelerating towards a junction or when the light is changing or when someone signals. This is not about frightening learner drivers. It is about ensuring they understand the responsibility that comes with being in control of a vehicle.
Second, education should not stop once a person obtains a license. Where a driver repeatedly commits traffic offences, there may be value in requiring that person to attend a refresher or corrective driving course. For some offenders, a fine is paid and then forgotten. A good corrective course may have a more lasting effect. The offender will have to confront driving habits, understand risks created and learn how to respond differently. The objective should go beyond punishing the offence that has already happened but also preventing the next offence.
Third, the data collected through automated enforcement should be used to identify patterns. For example, if many motorists are speeding along the same road, running a red light at the same junction or committing the same offence at the same location, we should ask why and what are the factors beyond poor driving behaviours? Perhaps, it is road design, signage or traffic-light timing? I urge the Traffic Police and LTA to use, track and share data on its findings and the changes it plans to make to the road environment in an attempt to reduce the risk of offences and accidents.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I now highlight an acronym that my colleague, Ms Hany Soh, had also earlier mentioned and it is an acronym that all of us Members here hold close to heart – MPS. Dare I say that every week when we meet our residents, we receive appeals for traffic fines. A resident may not dispute the offence nor the fine but seeks help no less because he or she is struggling to pay it. Just yesterday alone, my Fengshan resident, a probationary driver and rider, Mr X, came to submit yet another appeal because he could not afford the $200 fine and was anxious that his licence may be revoked. We unpacked and explored some solutions, including reaching out to social service agencies and also Malay/Muslim organisations. Mr X's case is of course not the only one.
When the driver is a sole breadwinner managing bills, arrears and other family expenses, the fine can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. We therefore should ask: how are fines actually punishing lower-income offenders more heavily than better-off offenders?
A $500 fine is the same amount for everyone. But its effect can be vastly different. For a higher-income driver, it may be an inconvenience – cutting back spending for the month. For a lower-income worker, the same fine may mean having to go a little hungrier, a room that is a little dimmer or postponing the doctor's appointment.
I want to be clear. Financial hardship does not excuse dangerous driving. A person's income cannot determine whether he or she is required to obey traffic laws but how do we mitigate the impact to the vulnerable? Some jurisdictions use income-based fines. Under such a system, the seriousness of the offence determines the scale of the penalty while the offender's income determines the actual amount payable.
I recognise this will not be straightforward to introduce in Singapore. There will definitely be legitimate questions about how income should be assessed. A person may have a low salary but substantial assets. Another person may have irregular income. The system could become complicated. I am therefore not suggesting that Singapore should immediately introduce income-based traffic fines, but I ask for MHA to consider studying the consideration.
It would be useful to understand whether fixed fines achieve a broadly similar deterrent effect across different income groups or whether they are too easily absorbed by some and disproportionately damaging to others. In the meantime, there are practical measures that can be considered. Could there be a clearer and more accessible framework for offenders facing genuine financial hardship to pay their fines by instalments? This need not apply automatically. An applicant could be required to provide supporting documents, and serious and, of course, repeat offenders could be excluded. By this way, a reasonable instalment plan may prevent a one-off offence from creating a much larger financial crisis for the offender's family. Importantly, the fine would still have to be paid and the person would still be held accountable.
For suitable lower-level offences, MHA could also consider corrective driving courses or corrective work orders to be imposed alongside or in limited cases instead of part of the financial penalty. This should not apply to drink driving, deliberate dangerous driving, repeat offending or conduct causing grievous hurt. But for less serious offences, we should ask whether a financial penalty is always the best way to change behaviours.
The point is not to be soft on offenders. It is to make sure the penalty works. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): Notably, the impact of fines is disproportionate on individuals with lower-income and those who earn their livelihood on the roads
While I support the intent of this Bill's amendments, I also voice my concern of the impact that will be felt by these groups.
As the Member of Parliament Dr Wan Rizal mentioned earlier, road safety is more than just law enforcement – it also depends on understanding and education.
I would also suggest that the Government work together with social service agencies, as well as Malay/Muslim organisations, to ensure that road users understand these amendments and feel assured, so that they will comply going forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that said, a fine of $500 is the same amount for everyone. Yet, its value and impact can sometimes be vastly different.
For a high-income driver, it may be little more than a minor inconvenience. But for a lower-income worker, that same fine may mean tightening one's belt, unpaid bills and mounting debt.
So, are we, in effect, punishing the less well-off more heavily than those with higher income?
I wish to be clear that one's financial situation does not excuse dangerous driving. Salary or income should not determine whether a person is required to obey traffic laws.
However, there are countries that employ a system of income-based fines.
Under such a system, the severity of the offence determines the scale of the penalty, while the offender's income determines the actual fine payable. The purpose is to ensure that fines carry a meaningful deterrent effect. I recognise this would not be straightforward to introduce in Singapore. For instance, a person may have a low salary but possess substantial assets. Others may have irregular income.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not suggesting that Singapore should immediately introduce income-based traffic fines. But could MHA at least explore if this proposal can be considered?
In the meantime, there are several practical measures that can be considered. Among them, a clearer and more accessible framework to allow fines to be paid in instalments.
Of course, applications need not be approved indiscriminately, and applicants should certainly be required to provide strong and genuine supporting evidence.
MHA could also consider whether corrective driving courses or corrective work orders could be imposed alongside – or in limited cases, instead of – part of the financial penalty or demerit points.
The point is not to be soft on offenders. Rather, the objective is to ensure that the penalty can be truly effective without jeopardising the offender's family stability.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, safer roads will not come from higher penalties alone. Singapore needs better drivers, better training, earlier interventions, safer road design, sensible use of technology and a fair approach to financial penalties.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the law must do more than punish wrongdoing. It should shape society's conduct, earn public confidence and strengthen our values that holds Singapore together. Sir, clarification notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill strengthens our road safety framework in two important ways: tougher enforcement and penalties, and better use of technology by the Traffic Police. I support both.
But I would like to make one broader point. Deterrence is necessary, but deterrence must ultimately culminate in prevention. The best outcome is not that we punish a dangerous driver more severely after an accident. It is that we use stronger laws, better technology and better information to prevent that accident from happening in the first place.
First, on deterrence. I welcome the tightening of the drink driving and drug driving regime. I had previously asked a Parliamentary Question on protocols for road traffic offences involving drugs and asked for stricter penalties. While drink driving rightly receives significant attention, drug-impaired driving can also have devastating consequences. And I am glad that the Ministry is now implementing stricter protocols and stiffer penalties for both.
More broadly though, could the Ministry share the principal causes of serious road traffic accidents in Singapore? How many involve speeding, mobile phone use, drink- or drug-impaired driving, fatigue, failure to obey traffic signals or other dangerous behaviour? If we want better prevention, we need better understanding. The data should tell us where enforcement and education can have the greatest impact.
Second, on technology. I welcome the amendments allowing the Traffic Police to use automated decision-making for objectively verifiable offences, such as speeding and red light violations. The Bill also allows photographic and video evidence submitted by members of the public to be used for the mobile device offence. Technology should not merely help us process more offences. It should help us identify risk earlier.
Some time ago, I filed a Parliamentary Question regarding accidents and traffic enforcement cameras along Loyang Avenue, after residents repeatedly raised concerns about speeding and dangerous driving. At that time, I was informed that camera deployment was not practical due to space constraints. On that note, I am really grateful for LTA for the measures that they have put there, but I hope MHA can invest in technology and AI to overcome the technical limitations we have for our current camera systems.
Technology should not just detect violations. It should also help us see danger coming. This is also why I support greater use of citizen reporting. Many residents submit videos or pictures of dangerous driving or illegal parking through LTA's OneMotoring platform. Could MHA share how many public reports ultimately result in warnings, investigations or prosecutions? And could better feedback be provided to those who take the effort to submit evidence? People are more willing to participate when they know their contribution makes a difference. So, as we give the Traffic Police greater ability to leverage on technology, I urge the Ministry to also look at how accident data, traffic violations and citizen reports can be used to identify emerging hotspots.
My next point, prevention is not only about the driver. It is also about the road environment and the organisations operating on our roads. Residents have raised concerns about Pasir Ris Drive 3. In May this year, a cyclist tragically lost her life following a collision involving a tipper truck. While investigations will determine the precise circumstances, it is a sobering reminder of the vulnerability of cyclists when sharing the road with heavy vehicles.
Along Tanah Merah Coast Road, cyclists have also raised concerns about loose gravel, debris, accumulated dirt and stationary heavy vehicles along cycling paths. When they move onto the road because the cycling path is unsafe, we should not immediately assume that they are simply being irresponsible. Sometimes, the safer choice is just not available.
Enforcing matters pertaining to heavy vehicles involve several agencies – the Traffic Police, LTA and NEA – with different responsibilities. But road users only experience one road. They see gravel falling from trucks, they see debris accumulating and they see cycling paths becoming unsafe. So, where repeated breaches create persistent hazards, could enforcement, road maintenance and action against recurring sources of debris be better coordinated?
There is also a question of corporate responsibility. Where an individual driver commits an offence, that driver should be held accountable. But if the same operator or company repeatedly has vehicles associated with unsafe driving, poorly secured loads or other safety breaches, should we not also ask whether there is a deeper management problem? Could persistent safety breaches by operators be met with stronger licensing or operational consequences where appropriate? Road safety should not end with the person behind the wheel. It should also be part of the organisation's safety culture.
Finally, Sir, deterrence should be complemented by rehabilitation. For drivers returning after lengthy disqualification, could the Ministry consider a structured refresher or a rehabilitation programme before their licences are restored? A driving test demonstrates competence at that moment in time, but not necessarily judgement or changed attitudes. We should ensure that those returning to our roads are ready not just to drive, but to drive responsibly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill strengthens the consequences of dangerous behaviour and gives the Traffic Police better tools to detect offences. But ultimately, safer routes require something more. They require shared responsibility. And in my latest morning ride with some members from the Safety for Active Mobility Users, I learnt about a simple framework that captures this – the MAS framework. Not Meet-the-People Session, but MAS.
\"M\" for mentality: the most important one in their opinion, to recognise that another person's safety is more important than our own convenience. \"A\" for awareness: stay alert, slow down and anticipate others. And \"S\" for skill: stay in control and respond safely when situations change.
Mentality, Awareness and Skill. Because ultimately, road safety is not just about tougher laws. It is about ensuring that our convenience never comes at the expense of someone else's safety. If we can combine stronger deterrence, smarter technology, responsible operators and a culture of shared responsibility, we will not only have a stronger road traffic regime, we will have safer roads. I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's reply.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, every year, lives are lost to accidents that should never have happened: a moment of distraction, a driver who did not slow down, a pedestrian who was not seen in time. I believe that this Bill will close enforcement gaps by making phone-holding while driving an offence regardless of proof of active use.
I also welcome the lowering of the drink driving threshold to bring us in line with comparable jurisdictions and the recalibration of Driver Improvement Points System.
I have four questions.
First, pertains to motorcyclists' safety. When the question of lane splitting was previously shared in this House, the Ministry's position was that an outright ban is impractical and difficult to enforce. Instead, the Government's approach relies on a catch-all charge for dangerous or careless driving, the principle of shared responsibility among all road users and safety mandates, such as anti-lock braking systems on new motorcycles.
I do not dispute that enforcing a specific ban presents real difficulties. However, given that motorcyclist fatalities and serious accidents remain disproportionately high, I strongly urge that public education on safe riding practices be stepped up urgently, including clear messaging that lane splitting can amount to careless and dangerous behaviour.
In terms of public education, can we also extend it to foreign-registered vehicles and motorcyclists, such as by sending SMS reminders to all LTA Vehicle Entry Permit-holders, and putting up reminders at strategic locations, such as at the ICA premises at the Causeway?
My second question concerns Ministry's views on ensuring that both hands are on the wheel when driving. We all know that both hands must be on the steering wheel when operating motor vehicles, but very often, we see drivers with one hand on the wheel, while the other hand is tapping or scrolling on the phone, on a mounted device or holding a cigarette. This involves visual and manual disengagement from the wheel in ways similar to device use.
My third question is regarding the Traffic Police's deployment of Traffic Violation Enforcement Cameras (TVECs). MHA recently shared that after the TVEC's successful pilot, where they detected more than 67,000 traffic violations over 11 months, they have plans to increase the number for TVECs on our roads in the future. Could the Ministry share more about these plans?
In addition, I seek clarification on whether these TVECs detect drivers' failures to signal and insufficient durations during signalling for lane changes. This is an issue that my residents and many drivers have been giving feedback on, in view of a worsening trend. How often might TVECs be redeployed, especially in high-risk areas?
I would also urge the Ministry to step up enforcement against dangerous behaviours by other road users, including motorists who do not slow down when approaching pedestrian crossings and tapping on technology for identification of offenders.
My last question is on protecting our seniors at pedestrian crossings. Other jurisdictions have adopted hybrid crossing models with encouraging results. The United Kingdom's Pelican crossing pairs zebra markings with a signal cycle that legally compels vehicles to stop; its newer Puffin crossing goes further, using sensors to hold the signal red for exactly as long as a slower-moving pedestrian needs. Will the Ministry consider studying these cases for converting our higher-risk unsignalised crossings in School Zones or Silver Zones to such models? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): My last question is on protecting our seniors at pedestrian crossings. Other jurisdictions have adopted hybrid crossing models with encouraging results.
The UK's crossing pairs zebra markings with a signal cycle legally compels vehicles to stop; its new crossing goes further, using sensors to hold the signal red for exactly as long as a slower-moving pedestrian needs.
Will the Ministry consider studying these cases for converting our higher-risk, unsignalised crossings in School Zones or Silver Zones to such models?
(In English): Sir, it is the responsibility of all road users to play their parts in road safety. Our road traffic framework and system must empower each to do so. I hope the Ministry will continue to treat both the calibration of our rules and the evidence behind them with equal rigour, so that when a rider, driver or elderly resident places their trust in the system, that trust is backed by the assurance for their safety. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jackson Lam.
Mr Jackson Lam (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill because the objective is simple: to make our roads safer by encouraging responsible driving.
Road safety matters to every Singaporean. Whether we are drivers, cyclists or pedestrians, we all expect our roads to be safe. Every accident prevented means a life protected and a family spared from tragedy.
I welcome these amendments because our roads are changing. Traffic is increasing, technology is evolving and our laws must keep pace.
I support three aspects of the Bill.
First, the new offence of purposeful endangerment makes it clear that a motor vehicle is not a weapon. The law should rightly distinguish between careless driving and deliberate acts of violence. Second, I welcome the stronger measures against drink and drug driving. Lower alcohol limits and new provisions on specified substances reinforce our commitment to keep impaired drivers off our roads. Third, I support the greater use of technology in enforcement. Computer-assisted systems can improve efficiency and consistency, provided there is proper human oversight.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make one point on implementation. The success of this Bill should not be measured by the number of summonses issued, but whether it changes behaviour.
Many motorists will not read the legislation. They will learn about these changes through public education and the media, or maybe one day, when they receive the summonses themselves. That is why implementation is just as important as legislation.
I hope the Ministry will roll out a strong public education campaign to explain what has changed, why the changes are needed and what motorists need to do differently. Could the Minister also consider a clearly communicated transition period for amendments that introduce new obligations? For lower-risk, first-time offenders where there is no immediate danger to public safety, the Ministry or the officers could issue warnings where appropriate while helping motorists understand the new rules, especially for the cases where motorists are holding on to their devices.
This is not about weakening enforcement. Serious offences, such as dangerous driving, drink or drug driving and excessive speeding, should continue to be dealt firmly. It is about giving the public a fair opportunity to understand the new requirements before full enforcement begins.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also welcome the use of technology in enforcement together with the safeguards for human review. Could the Minister share how these systems will be monitored? For example, will there be regular reviews of their performances and will the Ministry publish data on notices issued through automated systems and those later revoked after human review?
Such transparency will help strengthen public confidence. Good laws must be understood. Effective enforcement must be fair and trusted and lasting behavioural change requires education to go hand in hand with enforcement.
If we get this balance right, we will achieve what we all want: safer roads, more responsible motorists and greater public confidence in our road traffic laws. With those remarks, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a registered member of the Allied Health Professions Council and my work has involved treating, assessing and educating on disability.
I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. This Bill strengthens our response to dangerous driving. It better distinguishes deliberate harm from negligence, strengthens deterrence against the most serious offending and makes enforcement more effective through technology. I support these changes.
Last year, 149 people lost their lives on the roads – the highest number in a decade. Nearly 10,000 others were injured. Every one of them started the day expecting to return home. For those who survived with serious injuries, the accident is often only the beginning.
That is why, while I support the Bill, I hope to raise four issues where I believe we can strengthen its impact: ensuring automated enforcement remains accessible and fair; helping patients understand the implications of prescribed medications; designing safer roads for an ageing population; and recognising the lifelong consequences of permanent neurological injury.
First, on the automated decision-making system for camera-detected offences. The efficiency gains are real, given the huge number of violations the Traffic Police has to process a year. But removing manual review for even objectively verifiable offences, like speeding, places greater weight on the appeal process. Could the Minister share what safeguards will ensure the 14-day appeal window is genuinely accessible to elderly or less digitally literate vehicle owners?
Second, I have questions regarding the new offence of driving with controlled or psychoactive substances present in blood, regardless of impairment. While this is a reasonable deterrent, it depends on drivers knowing which common medications could trigger liability. Could the Ministry commit to a public education campaign, in partnership with pharmacies and general practitioners so that patients on legitimate prescriptions are not caught unaware?
Mr Deputy Speaker, my profession also leads me to think about one further question: what happens to those who survive? Two groups stand out, both in the statistics and in the patients I have treated.
Elderly pedestrian fatalities more than doubled last year. Many elderly residents are not careless. They simply experience the road differently, needing more time to cross safely. As Singapore ages, and as new towns, like Tengah, take shape, I hope the Ministry will consider whether roads can be designed around how people actually move, rather than assuming uniformed walking speeds.
Residents' requests for safer crossings are also valuable information about how they actually use their neighbourhoods. I hope the Ministry will consider whether this information can be used earlier in new towns to guide where crossing improvements are most needed. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): At this point, I would like to say a few words on behalf of our senior residents. It is not that they disregard the rules or do not value their own safety. They simply need a little more time. I hope road designs can take greater account of how residents of different ages and abilities use our roads.
(In English): Motorcyclists are the second group. Though motorcycles make up only about 15% of our vehicle population, riders account for more than half of all traffic accidents. Many are young working adults. A serious accident can affect not only their livelihood, but also the families who depend on them. Could the Minister update the House on the timeline for mandatory rider refresher training and whether technologies that have improved safety for other vehicle classes could be extended to motorcycles?
Finally, there is another aspect of this Bill that I hope we can reflect on. One sentence in the Explanatory Statement describes traumatic brain injury resulting in a permanent vegetative state as \"almost as serious as death\". I understand why those words were chosen. Death, however devastating, is final. Severe neurological injury, too often, is not.
Many people imagine recovery as a period of rest followed by a return to normal life. Severe brain injury rarely follows that path. Recovery, when it happens, unfolds over months and years. Some patients make remarkable progress. Others improve only to a certain point despite the best efforts of the patient, family and rehabilitation team.
The difficulty is not only that recovery takes time. It is that the person's life and the family's life, may never return to what it once was.
This is why I ask whether permanent and irreversible neurological impairment could be recognised as a distinct aggravating factor in sentencing and whether the Government is reviewing longer-term rehabilitation and caregiver support for affected families. Such support would complement, not compete with, this Bill's deterrent aims. A family well-supported through recovery is also a family better able to see justice served without being consumed by it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill strikes a reasonable balance between deterrence, fairness and effective enforcement. Working in rehabilitation has taught me that the consequences of a road accident do not end when the ambulance leaves. For some families, the consequences last a lifetime. That is why I hope we continue to judge our road safety system not only by how firmly it punishes dangerous driving, but also by how many Singaporeans never need rehabilitation because the accident never happened.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I would first declare my role as one of the advisors to the National Taxi Association.
Sir, the statistics shared by the Ministry are sobering. These figures represent real lives lost and families shattered. A split second is all it takes – a split second of distraction, a split second of eyes off the road and a life is changed forever.
This is a critical turning point to zero in on the reckless behaviour endangering our streets. Our current enforcement regime must evolve to meet the challenges of an increasingly distracted driving environment.
I wish to raise clarifications on the amendments, particularly to make it an offence for a driver to hold a mobile communication device while the vehicle is in motion. While I understand this is intended to simplify enforcement and allow for camera-based detection, there are some practical questions that I hope the Minister and Ministry can clarify.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
First, addressing the root causes of accidents. May I ask the Minister how can these regulatory changes effectively reduce road safety by discouraging drivers from engaging in irresponsible behaviours?
The 2025 Annual Traffic Situation statistics are clear: the top killers on our roads are the \"failure to keep a proper look-out, failure to have adequate control of the vehicle and changing lanes without due care.\"
By making the act of holding a phone an offence, we are ensuring more consistent physical control over the steering wheel. But physical control is only half the battle.
\"Failure to keep a proper lookout\" remains a real threat, even when hands are off the device. Drivers can still be dangerously distracted by prolonged interactions with mounted phones.
Other jurisdictions, such as Queensland in Australia, have addressed this by strictly limiting mounted phone use. It allows certain licence category holders to \"briefly touch [the] mobile phone for hands-free use if, for example, the phone is in a cradle attached to the vehicle\", including starting navigation, accepting a trip, or skipping a song.
May I ask will the Ministry consider implementing a similar \"one-tap\" policy for mounted phone use to prevent drivers from \"scrolling\" while their phones are mounted? How does the Ministry intend to discourage the cognitive distraction that remains even when the phone is not being \"held\"?
Second, protecting the livelihoods of our taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers. While we tighten these rules for the ordinary driver, we must account for those whose \"office\" is the driver's seat. These are our taxi and private hire drivers. They handle trip requests and navigating is not a luxury: it is their livelihood. To ensure they can comply with these strict safety standards without compromising their income, we must move beyond mere regulation and toward technological empowerment.
Will the Ministry consider working directly with taxi companies, ride-hailing platform operators to accelerate the adoption of hands-free navigation and voice assistant tools? Can the Ministry also provide a roadmap for how these drivers will be supported to transition to a \"hands-free\" environment, ensuring they remain compliant while keeping their eyes firmly on the road?
Finally, a data-driven legislation is crucial. Between 2019 and 2023, there were no road traffic accidents where evidence directly attributed the cause to mobile phone use. Yet, enforcement has been active, with an average of 2,800 summons issued annually between 2021 and 2025. This suggests that while our enforcement is effective, the link between phone use and actual accidents in our local context needs clearer definition.
I would like to ask the Minister if there have there been any accidents from 2024 onwards where mobile phone use was the primary factor? And if so, how do these new regulations specifically address the common factors found in those recent cases? Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. From 2021 to 2025, traffic fatalities increased by 24% while traffic violations rose by 38%. Behind these figures are lives lost and families broken.
On the roads, a moment of carelessness can lead to serious consequences. We are now at a critical turning point to focus our efforts on tackling reckless behaviour that endangers road safety. As distracted driving becomes increasingly serious, enforcement regime must keep pace with the times to address this challenge.
I like to seek several clarifications on the provision that makes it an offence for a driver to hold a mobile communication device when the vehicle is in motion.
While this is intended to simplify enforcement and enable camera-based detection of violations, it also raises several practical issues.
As we tighten these rules from ordinary drivers, we must also consider taxi and private-hire vehicle drivers. The car seat is their office. They need to respond to job requests in real time and navigation is an essential part of earning their livelihood.
To ensure that they can comply with these stricter safety standards without affecting their income, we should not look only at regulatory restrictions. We must also improve technology and empower them to balance their work needs with safety driving.
Will the MHA consider working directly with taxi companies and private-hire platforms to accelerate the adoption of hands-free navigation and voice-assistance tools.
In addition, can the MHA provide a roadmap setting out how it will support these taxi and private-hire drivers in transitioning to a hands-free working environment, so that they comply with the regulations while keeping their eyes firmly on the road?
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the message to every driver is clear. Loud and clear. When you are behind the wheel, your only \"mobile communication\" should be with the road. For this law to truly save lives, it must be matched by common sense in enforcement and a proactive commitment to helping our drivers and those who rely on this for livelihoods to adapt to this new reality. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I am speaking in support of this Bill because I fundamentally believe in building a Singapore where every family can thrive, every child and every senior will be able to cross the road without having to worry being injured.
Based on Traffic Police statistics, 149 people died and 9,955 were injured on Singapore roads in 2025. Our road fatality rate increased from 1.96 death per 100,000 people in 2021 to 2.44 in 2025. This is an increase of about 24% in four years.
While this Bill strengthens our law, punishment is ultimately the last line of defence. Deterrence depends on severity of punishment but certainty of detection, the speed and consistency of enforcement matters.
Hence, for the purpose of this Bill, I will focus on three specific areas: number one, distracted driving; number two, drink driving and impaired driving; number three, the use of technology in enforcement.
First, the amendment Bill recognises that it is an offence for driver to hold a mobile communication device when his or her vehicle in moving. It is no longer necessary to establish that the driver was operating on one of the device functions. The Bill also clarifies that touching a device properly secured and mounting does not constitute holding it.
I support this change because the driver holding a phone or another communication device may already be distracted even if it is difficult to prove whether he or she was typing, making a call or using a particular mobile app. So, this means that enforcement will be more practical in this regard.
MHA has also stated that the offence may be enforced using camera and photographic or video evidence submitted by members of public.
Back to the idea I mentioned earlier on certainty of detection, could the Ministry clarify whether the Traffic Police will publish guidance on the minimum information and quality of evidence for public submission?
This is important because as a parent and as a Member of Parliament, I know residents who witnessed dangerous driver behaviour often want to do their part, but they need to know what can be reported, what evidence is exactly useful, how to submit without putting himself at risk? Specifically, would a photograph or a video showing a driver holding a device with vehicle registration number be sufficient? If a witness can provide vehicle number, location and time but the recording is not sufficiently clear, would the Police also consider checking with other available camera footage to corroborate the report? Clear guidance would help members of public to make reports that can be acted upon.
The Bill also draws a distinction between holding a device and touching one that is secured in mounting. This distinction is understandable, but distraction does not disappear simply because the phone is being mounted. A driver may still spend extended period of time typing, reading messages, scrolling through manuals and entering direction when vehicle is moving.
So, could the Minister therefore clarify how this provision will work together and whether the Traffic Police will issue practical guidance in future when interaction with a mounted device may cross into the line of careless or dangerous driving?
Second, the Bill makes substantial changes to drink driving and impaired driving by lowering prescribed alcohol limits. I support a firm approach to drink driving. The public message should be simple: if a person intends to drink, he or she should not drive, full stop.
Similar to what Minister Sim Ann mentioned earlier, motorists should not treat the new limit as an allowance or an attempt to calculate how many drinks they may consume just to remain below it because the effect of alcohol varies across different factors, such as body composition, health, food consumption and medication.
The Bill also creates an offence when a controlled drug, psychoactive substance or intoxicating substance is present in a driver's blood. Unlike general offence of impaired driving, the provision applies based on the presence of specific substances, regardless of the quantity detected, without the need to prove the observed impairment.
The Bill provides a defence where a substance was lawfully consumed or administered, that the driver did not know or have reason to believe that it will affect his or her ability to control the vehicle.
You see, my concern is this. How would the ordinary person taking medication lawfully, understand this obligation? Because the reality is this. For many of us who are taking prescribed medication at some point, he or she is just following the doctor's instruction and he or she should not need to have specialised legal knowledge to understand whether how it may affect their driving.
So, the term \"specific substance\" does cover a broad category under several pieces of legislation. It is not presented to the motorists as a simple list of medicine or substance.
My ask is whether would MHA work with the Ministry of Health (MOH), doctors and pharmacists and medicine suppliers to provide clear guidelines on commonly prescribed or dispensed medicine that fall within this provision. Will medication labels and patient advice be strengthened where a medicine may affect driving? The guidance should be clear and publicly available before provision comes into force.
Third, the Bill allows the Deputy Commissioner of Police to authorise the use of computer program to access recorded images or video. Where the program assesses that there is sufficient evidence of a prescribed offence, it may cause a notice to be issued requiring a vehicle owner to identify the driver. I support the use of technology to process straightforward cases more quickly to free officers for work that requires human judgement.
Separately, Government has also announced that the Driver Improvement Points System will be tightened from 1 January 2027. Given the punitive framework, it is already being strengthened. I believe immediate priority should then be increased to the certainly of detection. So, against this backdrop, could the Minister also share whether the Traffic Police intends to extend the use of fixed and mobile enforcement cameras, including on roads within our neighbourhoods at location frequent by children and seniors?
This Bill also provides a safeguard. A person may apply for a notice to be revoked on the basis that the vehicle was not at the location of the alleged offence. The evidence then will be reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner or an authorised public officer who will confirm or revoke the notice?
Mr Speaker, my view is as enforcement become more automated, public confidence will depend not only on efficiency, but also on accuracy and accountability. Whether the system uses AI or any other form of automated analysis, people must be able to check the evidence behind its conclusion. Just as today we tell all citizens to not just trust what AI produce, you have to fact check. Likewise, we must also allow people to check when an offence is being issued.
Could also the Minister say what kind of accuracy and validation standards that a computer system must satisfy before it is officially deployed? Would there also be a pilot phase?
Mr Speaker, the Bill strengthens criminal enforcement. But criminal enforcement, in my view, is the last line of defence after dangerous conduct has already occurred. Road safety responsibility, therefore, cannot be the responsibility of MHA and Traffic Police alone.
MHA and Traffic Police are responsible for laws and enforcement. Ministry of Transport and LTA shape our roads, our junctions, our crossings, speed limits and traffic calming measures. The Ministry of Education and our schools continue to teach our children to be safe road users, and hopefully, the children will go back home to discuss this at home as well with their families. MOH and healthcare professions have an important role in ensuring that patients understand whether medication affects their ability to drive. Even at local level, People's Association and other community partners play an important role in identifying recurring danger sports, gather resident feedback, bring road safety education to families and seniors.
Because in my view, if we are serious about building a Singapore made for families, then road safety must be treated as a family policy. A child should be able to cross the road outside the school safely. A senior should be able to walk to the market with confidence. A motorist should be able to return home without being intimidated by a larger vehicle.
Therefore, my final ask is this: could the Government consider setting a whole-of-government target for reducing road deaths and serious injuries with clear responsibility across agencies and regular public reporting on progress and measures that are taken at high-risk location? Strong laws are necessary, but our wider objective must be to prevent collision, protect vulnerable road users, and make responsible behaviour the expected norm of every journey. This is the kind of Singapore I want my children and my family to be able to grow up in, one that they can move safely.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, nearly three decades ago, Sweden asked a question that changed how the world thought about road safety: how many deaths on our roads should society accept each year? Most countries were asking how to reduce the number, but Sweden asked: what if we refuse to accept any road death as inevitable?
That became Vision Zero, adopted by their Parliament in 1997.
While Singapore should not import another country's model wholesale, its central insight travels well: human error is inevitable, but our transport system should be designed so that those mistakes are less likely to become tragedies.
That is a useful lens for this Bill. For many years, road safety focused mainly on the driver, who remains responsible. Modern road safety, however, is also shaped by platform algorithms, vehicle-sharing, medication risks and automated enforcement. As risks become more interconnected, responsibility must be shared.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. It strengthens deterrence, modernises enforcement and closes gaps. I will raise five areas where we can build a safer, more trusted road system.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, a vehicle must never become a weapon. The Bill creates a new offence of purposeful endangerment where a driver deliberately targets and endangers another person, such as through brake checking, aggressive tailgating, or swerving, resulting in death or grievous hurt. This carries up to 15 years' imprisonment, possible caning, presumptive lifetime disqualification and vehicle forfeiture.
I strongly support this proposal. There is a clear moral and legal difference between a lapse, reckless driving and deliberately using a vehicle to terrorise another person. I seek clarification on two issues.
First, what would ordinarily amount to the \"special reasons\" needed to depart from lifetime disqualification? Second, how will the forfeiture operate when the vehicle belongs to an unknowing employer, rental company, car-sharing operator, or family member? The law should punish the person who weaponises the vehicle while protecting an owner who neither knew of nor consented to the conduct. When anger turns a vehicle into a weapon, the law must draw a line as firm as the harm is grave.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill strengthens our impaired driving framework. It lowers the prescribed breath alcohol limit from 35 to 15 microgrammes, and the blood-alcohol limit from 80 to 30 milligrammes. It also targets specified substances in a driver's blood, permits passive breath testing and modernises procedures.
I support this firm stance; the message should be simple: if you drink, do not drive. But as our population ages, the next frontier in impaired driving may not be alcohol alone, but lawful medication.
Many older residents take several prescribed medicines daily for pain, insomnia, anxiety, or chronic conditions, and understandably, assume that any prescribed medicine is safe for driving. That assumption is not always correct. The Bill provides a statutory defence for lawful, unknowing consumption, but a legal defence raised after investigation is a poor substitute for prevention.
Will MHA, MOH or Health Sciences Authority jointly issue a plain language guide on the new limits, specified substances, and testing procedures? Will healthcare professionals receive standard guidance on advising patients whose medication may affect driving?
I propose a recognisable, prominent national \"Do Not Drive\" symbol for medicines presenting a material driving risk. HealthHub could also provide a checker explaining whether a prescribed medicine affects driving, what precautions to take and when to seek advice.
This is especially important for vocational drivers whose livelihoods depend on the road. The Government should work with operators, unions and healthcare providers to offer short refresher modules whenever major traffic rules change.
The hallmark of good legislation is not that it expects ordinary people to be perfect, but that it helps them make better decisions. The best prosecution is the one that never becomes necessary.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill sharpens the offence concerning mobile communication devices. It will no longer be necessary to prove that a driver holding a device was also operating its functions and it clarifies that touching a properly mounted device does not amount to holding it. I support this clearer rule.
For many taxi, private hire and delivery drivers, however, the mounted phone is not merely a telephone. It is their workplace, constantly providing navigation, ride requests, delivery assignments, customer messages and payment alerts.
Drivers must remain responsible, but platforms also shape behaviour. If a platform can dictate how quickly a driver responds, how jobs are queued, or penalising a non-responsive driver, it has the power to design systems that support safer attention.
Could non-essential notifications be suppressed while a vehicle is moving? Could drivers receive longer response windows, use more voice-enabled functions, or have apps default to a simplified driving mode once vehicular movement is detected?
While auto-accept reduces tapping, if drivers still have only seconds to reject an unsuitable job, the pressure to look down remains. This is especially critical for private hire drivers who spend long hours on the road, often switching between multiple apps simultaneously. A single moment of distraction risks not only their lives, but the lives of their passengers and other road users. App design plays a decisive role here.
I propose that LTA work with transport and delivery platforms on a Safe Driver Digital Interface Code, establishing principles for movement-sensitive notifications, voice interaction, response times and safeguards against penalising drivers who stop before responding.
This does not prevent innovation; it directs it toward safety. We should not only regulate distracted drivers. We must actively design away the distractions.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill allows an authorised computer program to assess recorded images or videos and automatically issue notices requiring vehicle owners to identify the drivers. This is a sensible use of automation to improve speed, consistency, and free up officers for complex work. The Bill also provides an important safeguard, allowing recipients to seek a revocation that triggers human review.
To be precise, the program does not convict anyone; it initiates an information requirement. But this requirement has serious consequences. The owner must respond within 14 days. Failure to do so is an offence, and for certain offences, a licensed owner is presumed to have been driving. When automation triggers such legal duties, transparency and human review must be absolute.
I have four suggestions.
First, notices triggered by automated detection must clearly state that they were generated by an AI system.
Second, notices should provide easy digital access to the visual evidence, location, timestamp, vehicle details and a plain language explanation of the suspected offence.
Third, the review process should accommodate material errors beyond the Bill's express grounds, such as misread plates, lane confusion, or other clear signs of a wrongly issued notice.
Fourth, the Government should publish an annual report stating the number of automated notices, reviews, revocations, average review times, main causes of error and system improvements.
The most revealing measure is not simply how often the system is right, but how it detects, corrects and learns when it is wrong. The governing principles should be straightforward: transparency, explainability, meaningful human oversight, auditability and continuous improvement. A computer may issue the first notice, but it must never have the final word. When the state automates enforcement, it must make human accountability just as robust.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill requires corporate vehicle owners, including companies, partnerships and unincorporated bodies, to keep accurate records of who is permitted to drive, including their personal details, dates, and allocation periods. These records must be retained for 12 months.
The intent is sound. Enforcement agencies need to identify drivers swiftly, and proper records to prevent evasion.
Proportionality, however, matters. Not every organisation is a major logistics operator with a fleet management system. Many small and medium companies own only one or two vans shared among employees, and charities use vehicles to deliver meals or equipment using rotating volunteers.
To help them, the Government should provide a simple digital logbook template and checklist before these rules take effect, with guidance on handling shared shifts, temporary substitutions and changes in allocation.
Since the law mandates collecting and retaining sensitive personal details, the Government must also help these organisations protect that data. Will the implementation guidance address access controls, secure storage, safe disposal and general data-protection obligations?
There should also be a reasonable transition period, where genuine administrative errors are distinguished from deliberate concealments or the falsification of records.
Good regulation is not measured by the paperwork it generates, but by how effectively it solves problems and how safely it handles sensitive data.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I began this speech with Sweden's Vision Zero. Let me end there too. Many focus on the word \"zero\", an unpragmatic promise that no one would ever die on the roads. However, I think the critical word here is \"vision\", a decision about the deaths a society refuses to accept.
That is the spirit behind the five areas I spoke on: purposeful endangerment, impaired driving, digital distraction, automated enforcement and record keeping. While these may look like separate issues, they point in a single direction.
For decades, road safety policy asked how to change driver behaviour. This Bill invites a larger question: how do we change the system around the driver?
While my suggestions are distinct, they are driven by the same goal: designing safety into the system. A warning symbol is a safer default built into dispensing prescriptions. A Safe Driver Digital Interface Code designs safety into platform apps. An annual enforcement report builds accountability into technology and practical tools for small organisations make compliance achievable, so good intentions are not defeated by paperwork.
None of this dilutes personal responsibility; it strengthens it. A driver supported by clearer information, safer defaults, and better-designed systems is more empowered to do the right thing, and less likely to fail through a moment's inattention. That is the shift before us: not merely to punish the individual after harm occurs, but to design our system so that harm is prevented where possible.
Our laws reveal what we refuse to accept. Over time, through legislation, education and social norms, behaviours that were once common, like driving without seatbelts or holding a phone, became unacceptable. One day, I hope future Singaporeans will look back and wonder why the risks we tolerate today were ever treated as an ordinary part of driving.
The best laws do not just punish bad behaviour; they redefine what is acceptable, reshaping our systems so that the safe choice becomes the natural one. The measure of this Bill will not be the number of prosecutions, notices issued or sentence lengths. It will be the tragedies that never happen: the dangerous distractions designed out, the medication risk caught before the journey begins and the enforcement error corrected before it becomes an injustice. It will be measured in the lives of the people we protect: the child crossing safely to school; the senior reaching the market; the delivery rider and the bus captain finishing their daily shifts; and the families waiting at home at the end of the day, who are not left waiting.
Vision Zero began in Sweden. But the refusal to accept preventable death begins with all of us. This is our next step along that road, in our own way and for our own people. Let us take it not merely to write tougher laws, but to build a safer system and with it, a society that expects and protects, nothing less. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister Sim Ann.
Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their interest and support for the Bill. Please allow me to address the questions they have raised.
Mr Vikram Nair asked about the gap that a separate offence of purposeful endangerment fills, beyond what is already provided for in the Penal Code today. I have addressed this in my opening speech. He also asked how the Ministry will decide which Act to apply in any given case. If the facts and circumstances of a case can satisfy more than one offence provision, whether in the same Act or across different Acts, the Attorney-General's Chambers will exercise its prosecutorial discretion to determine the appropriate offence to prefer.
Regarding the offence of purposeful endangerment, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked what would ordinarily amount to the \"special reasons\" needed to depart from lifetime disqualification, should the offence of purposeful endangerment be made out. What constitutes \"special reasons\" in the context of purposeful endangerment is ultimately to be decided by the Courts. The Courts have, in the context of other traffic offences, found that \"special reasons\" are extenuating or pressing circumstances and relate to the offence itself and not to the offender. These circumstances should be exceptional.
Mr Yip also asked about how vehicle forfeiture is to be carried out if the vehicle belongs to someone else. This scenario is provided for under our existing laws. On the application of the Public Prosecutor, the Court is to make an order for the forfeiture of the motor vehicle unless the Court is satisfied that the person who has committed the offence is not the owner of the motor vehicle and the person who has committed the offence had used the motor vehicle without the owner's consent.
Dr Wan Rizal noted that clause 6 empowers a District or Magistrate's Court to impose the full penalty, which departs from the usual position under the Criminal Procedure Code. He asked about the rationale for this and if the rights of appeal remain fully preserved.
The Criminal Procedure Code prescribes the sentencing jurisdiction of the District Court and Magistrate's Court. However, this is subject to any other written law. There are offences in the RTA and other statutes which allow the Court to impose the full penalty for the said offence, beyond the limit prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code. This is to ensure that the Courts have the jurisdiction to impose a sufficiently severe sentence if warranted on the facts. Parties may still appeal against the Court's sentencing decision in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.
To Mr Kenneth Tiong's question on whether his illustrations apply to the purposeful endangerment offence, it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Regarding the maximum penalties for careless and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, Dr Wan Rizal asked the Ministry to review, in a few years' time, if this was effective in influencing driver behaviour. We will continue to monitor the road traffic situation closely to ensure that our laws and policies remain adequate. That said, we do not expect to see many cases attracting this punishment since the higher maximum penalties should only apply to the most serious forms of grievous hurt.
Dr Choo Pei Ling suggested for permanent and irreversible neurological impairment to be recognised as a distinct aggravating factor in sentencing. In the context of careless and dangerous driving, the Courts presently recognise three broad factors as aggravating harm factors: first, the nature and location of the injury; second, the degree of permanence of the injury; and third, the impact of the injury on the victim's quality of life. The Courts can consider a victim's neurological impairment in the context of these three factors.
Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested increasing the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death, to narrow the gap with the maximum penalty for purposeful endangerment. I acknowledge this suggestion. As with other traffic offences, we will continue to review the penalties, including raising the maximum penalties, depending on the road traffic situation. As we review the penalties in the Act, we will reference penalties in other legislation, such as the Penal Code where appropriate.
We will take the same approach regarding the fines for these offences, as raised by Ms He Ting Ru. We highlight that generally, the RTA does not allow for the imposition of a fine for more severe forms of driving offences, such as dangerous driving causing death. In this Bill, we have focused on addressing these egregious forms of driving and therefore, have only reviewed the imprisonment terms for these offences.
Mr Xie has also suggested fully harmonising the maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving causing grievous hurt with the offence of dangerous driving causing death. We have chosen to draw a distinction between death and grievous hurt. Notwithstanding, I agree that severe forms of grievous hurt, such as those where victims fall into a permanent vegetative state, can have consequences that are almost as serious as death and the penalties should therefore be broadly similar. This is what the Bill seeks to achieve by increasing the penalties that can be imposed for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Wan Rizal, Dr Choo Pei Ling, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr David Hoe and Mr Andre Low asked about the criminal liability of drivers who take lawfully prescribed or available medication that may impair driving.
Let me first reassure the House that the new offence does not apply to most common medicines or over-the-counter medicines. The new presence-based offence is a targeted one. It applies only to controlled drugs, psychoactive substances or intoxicating substances already covered under existing legislation, namely the Misuse of Drugs Act, Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act and the Intoxicating Substances Act.
Further, a statutory defence is available for those who can prove two conditions on the balance of probabilities. First, that the controlled drug, psychoactive substance or intoxicating substance was lawfully smoked, inhaled, used, consumed or administered. Second, the individual did not know or have reason to believe that this would affect his or her capacity, at the time of the alleged offence, to have proper control of a motor vehicle. This addresses Mr Vikram Nair's query regarding occupational or accidental exposure of such substances.
For non-controlled drugs, such as medication, the legal position has not changed. It continues to be an offence if a person is incapable of having proper control of the vehicle because he or she is impaired by any medicine or other substance. As for the suggestion to make information on medication-related driving impairment more accessible, the Health Products (Therapeutic Products) Regulations already specifies substances which must come with a label cautioning that they cause drowsiness. And if in doubt, members of the public should consult with their healthcare professionals and err on the side of not driving.
Mr Andre Low asked what constitutes the legal threshold for the new drug driving offence. As mentioned in my opening speech, the presence of specified substances in a person's blood constitutes the offence. These specified substances comprise controlled drugs, psychoactive substances and intoxicating substances regulated under the three Acts that I have mentioned earlier.
Mr Low further asked about analytical thresholds for the new offence. The laboratory applies validated analytical limits and reporting criteria when reporting the presence of specified substances in blood. These limits are method- and substance-specific and are established to ensure that reported results are reliable, scientifically supportable and thus evidential. A concentration below the applicable reporting criteria would not be reported as a positive finding.
Ms Diana Pang and Mr Andre Low asked for more details on the efficacy and reliability of the Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser. The Traffic Police, with the support of the Home Team Science and Technology Agency, will ensure that the deployed Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser models meet evidential grade standards through testing and certifications in accordance with internationally recognised references, such as the International Organisation of Legal Metrology R126. Subjects will be shown the test results on the spot. Where it is not practicable to conduct a breath test, the Traffic Police can require the subject to provide a specimen of blood instead.
Ms Pang also asked if the Ministry would consider certifying reliable breath-testing devices for purchase by members of the public, to allow a person who has consumed alcohol to conduct a preliminary self-check before deciding whether to drive. I would like to reiterate that our key message for the drink driving amendments in this Bill is: when you drink, do not drive. There is thus no reason to provide breath-testing devices in the market for drivers to self-check their alcohol levels. The same applies to those who attempt to consume products that claim to help reduce alcohol readings, as drivers should not be drinking in the first place.
Mr Andre Low asked about how the new drink driving thresholds were set and Mr Alex Yeo asked if we had considered a zero-tolerance approach for drink driving.
In reviewing the limit, the Ministry considered both the scientific evidence on alcohol-induced impairment and the approaches adopted in comparable jurisdictions. Scientific evidence shows that impairment begins at low levels of alcohol consumption. The tightened limit therefore targets the range at which alcohol-induced impairment begins, while also accounting for endogenous alcohol productions where the body naturally produces small amounts of ethanol through normal metabolic processes.
As mentioned in my opening speech, I would like to reassure Mr Low that the amendment to the blood authorisation requirement does not diminish the duty of the medical practitioner or nurse to assess whether taking the blood specimen would harm the patient. On the contrary, the amended provisions make clear that prior to taking a blood specimen, the medical practitioner or nurse must be satisfied that this will not harm the patient.
Ms Lee Hui Ying asked if there was evidence to show that accidents resulted from handphone driving. When accidents are reported to the Traffic Police today, there are significant evidential difficulties in proving whether handphone driving contributed to it. For one, drivers would not proactively confess that they were in fact using a mobile communication device at the time of the accident. There is also often no objective video evidence available to establish that a driver was on their mobile communication device at the time of the accident. But that does not mean that handphone driving is not dangerous or not prevalent.
As Ms Elysa Chen noted, the World Health Organization has reported that drivers using mobile phones are approximately four times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers not using a mobile phone. We also note with concern that handphone driving violations are on an upward trend, with a 40% increase from 3,014 in 2024 to 4,214 in 2025. We must move decisively against this undesirable driving behaviour and not wait until more accidents or fatalities have been caused.
Ms Poh Li San asked how the revised handphone driving offence would be enforced. The amendment will make enforcement easier, as the Traffic Police will no longer need to prove that the driver was operating the device for the offence to be made out. The Traffic Police intends to leverage technological solutions, such as cameras, as far as possible, to detect and enforce against this offence.
Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh sought clarification on the different scenarios that will trigger this offence. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked if the Ministry would consider implementing a \"one tap\" policy for mounted phone use. Ms Diana Pang asked if an exception can be made for scenarios where the driver's holding of the phone is a split second occurrence.
The Bill makes it clear that if the vehicle is in motion, holding a mobile communication device is prohibited. There is no exception. Even in the scenario where the device has fallen from its mount, the driver should stop the vehicle safely before retrieving the device. It is dangerous to assume that it is safe to pick up the device while the vehicle is moving, even if just for a second. What we are aiming for is a collective change in driver mindset and habits to minimise distractions while on the road.
Several Members raised the issue of increased distractions for drivers, such as use of mounted devices and in-car entertainment systems. Ms He Ting Ru asked how the law will address drivers who interact extensively with a mounted device or in-car entertainment system. Mr Dennis Tan asked how the use of multiple screens would impact cognitive load, and how Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules would interact with the amendment to criminalise holding a phone while the vehicle is in motion.
We have not criminalised the use of a mounted device while a vehicle is in motion, as we appreciate that there are legitimate reasons to do so, such as using navigation applications. That said, there are existing provisions which target the use of mounted screens in moving vehicles under certain circumstances.
Depending on the facts of the case, for instance, if a driver were to use a mounted device, whether single or multiple, and becomes distracted to the point that it affects his driving behaviour, the driver may be liable for the offence of careless or dangerous driving.
Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules already makes it an offence to install any visual display unit in a manner that poses a safety hazard or causes distraction. We will monitor the road traffic situation and we do not preclude making changes to our approach to mounted devices or screens should the need arise.
Mr Dennis Tan asked about the evolving definition of \"mobile communication device\" and asked about the treatment of wearables. Under the current section 65B(1A) of the Road Traffic Act, it is not an offence for drivers to drive with wearable devices worn in the manner intended by the manufacturer of the device.
I also thank Mr Tan for his suggestion regarding setting robust vehicle safety standards. The Traffic Police and LTA will continue to work on this.
Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Hany Soh and Ms Diana Pang compared handphone driving to other behaviours, such as smoking when driving. Handphone use while driving is especially dangerous because it engages three distractions simultaneously – visual, because it causes drivers to take their eyes off the road; manual, because it takes drivers' hands off the wheel; and cognitive, as it diverts mental attention away from driving. The result is that a driver using a handphone while driving has slower reaction times, reduced situational awareness and impaired ability to maintain control of the vehicle. That said, we encourage all drivers to free themselves from any distraction while on the roads to protect themselves and others.
Let me now turn to other comments and suggestions from Members on our approach to offenders.
Mr Gabriel Lam suggested to take a rehabilitative approach towards first-time offenders and a more punitive approach towards repeat offenders. This is indeed our approach today. Under the Driver Improvement Points System, unless a very serious offence was committed, a first-time offender would generally not have his or her licence suspended immediately.
Dr Hamid Razak asked about safeguards for suspension decisions. The RTA only allows for immediate suspension under limited circumstances, where it is in the interests of public safety to do so. This power is exercised judiciously only in egregious cases. The suspension may be rescinded at any time if the investigation reveals that the person was not involved in the commission of any such offence.
Dr Neo Kok Beng suggested to immediately suspend the licences of those found to have engaged in deliberate \"brake checking\". Such conduct may constitute dangerous driving or purposeful endangerment. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the driver may also be immediately suspended.
Ms Diana Pang spoke about road hogging, where a driver is in the rightmost lane of the expressway but is not overtaking and has a clear opportunity to switch to a different lane but does not do so, thereby blocking other drivers. As she noted, the Road Traffic Rules already includes an offence of road hogging and this is enforced by the Traffic Police today. MHA and the Traffic Police will consider what more can be done to tackle such behaviour.
I would also like to acknowledge Ms Hazlina Halim's suggestion to scale traffic fines according to income. This is a complex issue and involves questions of equity and fairness. We are aware that some jurisdictions have rolled this out and will study their experience.
Members have highlighted the need for the new rules to be communicated clearly to drivers. We fully agree and will work with industry stakeholders and partners to achieve this ahead of the planned operationalisation of the amendments in early 2027. There will be publicity on mainstream and social media channels, as well as targeted communication through key partners such as NTUC, platform operators and taxi associations. We will also update the curriculum in our driving schools to reflect these changes.
Ms Valerie Lee asked if offenders returning to driving after lengthy disqualification can have refresher programmes before their licences are restored. Today, drivers who are suspended or disqualified from driving for more than one year will have their licences revoked. Such individuals are encouraged to sign up for refresher driving courses and would have to retake the theory and practical driving tests to obtain a fresh valid driving licence before they can drive again.
Ms Poh Li San suggested ways to better utilise the Road Safety Community Park to educate our children and youths about road safety. There are plans to redevelop the Park to cater to a wider range of participants and engage families in road safety education. We also plan to seek suggestions from stakeholders on how the Park can be made more relevant and engaging. More details will be released in due course.
Members have asked various questions about the use and limitations of technology for enforcement. The Traffic Police has been stepping up enforcement, both manual and supported by cameras. Examples include the Traffic Violation Enforcement Cameras and the switching on of the speeding detection function in our red-light cameras. We will continue to expand our camera-based enforcement efforts, with further details to be shared in due course.
Dr Neo Kok Beng and Ms He Ting Ru also asked about the deployment of cameras to enhance road safety and their effectiveness in targeting speeding respectively. Overt and covert cameras serve different purposes. Overt cameras achieve specific deterrence against speeding in areas where there are higher risks of accidents. Covert cameras achieve general deterrence and reinforce safe driving behaviour.
Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hazlina Halim asked about the use of data to identify traffic violation and accident hotspots. The Traffic Police works closely with LTA to identify locations with high accident rates and develop targeted interventions at these hotspots. Where a location is identified as a persistent hotspot, it may be designated under LTA's Black Spot programme, a structured initiative to implement more comprehensive traffic engineering measures to address the root causes of accidents at these sites. The Traffic Police may also step up enforcement at these locations.
Ms Valerie Lee asked how many public reports result in warnings, investigations and prosecutions, and if better feedback can be provided to those who submitted evidence. We appreciate submissions from the public. However, due to the volume of submissions, we are presently not able to update every person of the outcome of their feedback. We will continue to explore whether it is feasible to do so.
I would nevertheless like to assure the House that the Traffic Police follows up on all reports received from its online portal, including initiating investigations and acting against violators when a traffic offence is made out. Today, action is taken for about four out of 10 public reports. The remaining reports typically do not disclose sufficient grounds to warrant investigations.
Mr David Hoe asked if the Traffic Police would publish guidance on the minimum information and evidential quality required for public submissions. The Traffic Police's \"Feedback on Road Users\" portal already sets out what members of the public should provide when submitting a report, including the date, time and location of the violation, the vehicle registration number and any available evidence such as video or photo. Members of the public are encouraged to refer to these guidelines when making submissions. The Traffic Police will assess each case on the facts and circumstances submitted.
Regarding automating the issuance of the Notice to Furnish Drivers' Particulars, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Dr Wan Rizal, Dr Hamid Razak, Ms Choo Pei Ling, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr David Hoe and Mr Jackson Lam asked how transparency can be maintained alongside a swift and robust appeal process. The Traffic Police will consider these suggestions in the development of the automated system. I would like to clarify that automated notices will only be sent for technical traffic offences, which will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. The legislation provides a permanent safeguard that applications to revoke notices issued through automated processing must be reviewed by an authorised public officer.
Members also had questions on the timelines for appeals. The Traffic Police aims to resolve appeals submitted by members of the public expeditiously. Most appeals are dealt with within a month, though more complex appeals can take up to three months to process. The addressing of appeals will continue to be free of charge. Those who require assistance with the appeal process can approach their nearest Community Centre or ServiceSG Centre, where staff can help them lodge their appeal digitally.
Mr Gabriel Lam also suggested for the Traffic Police to prescribe a maximum period of 30 days from detection within which a notice to furnish particulars must be issued to the vehicle owner. I agree that notices should be issued as soon as possible, so drivers can take immediate corrective action. However, currently, every traffic violation must be processed by at least one officer. This takes considerable time, especially with the significant increase in violations we have seen. That said, the automation of enforcement, which this Bill will allow, should expedite the process considerably once we have put in place the necessary systems.
Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal asked if additional administrative guidance or resources can be provided for companies to comply with record-keeping requirements and to monitor if these requirements result in increased costs for platform workers. These requirements are in fact not new. While we understand that such recordkeeping imposes some compliance costs on businesses, we seek the public's understanding that they are necessary to ensure that we can enforce our laws fairly and effectively.
Ms Valerie Lee asked for more information on the limitations of setting up and using traffic cameras for enforcement and plans for upgrading. Traffic enforcement cameras are typically deployed at locations prone to accidents and traffic violations, subject to space and infrastructure constraints. Deployment at any given location depends on site conditions such as space availability, power supply and line of sight for the camera to oversee traffic.
Sir, I now turn to the Driver Improvement Points System, more commonly known as the demerit points system. Although the changes to Driver Improvement Points System recently announced by the Traffic Police are not part of this Bill, I will address Members' comments as these changes share the same objective of improving safety of our roads.
Several speakers, Mr Darryl David, Ms Mariam Jaafar, and Ms Hany Soh have asked to consider a differentiated regime for vocational drivers under the revised Driver Improvement Points System.
I would like to assure this House that while MHA and the Traffic Police had good reasons for tightening Driver Improvement Points System, we have been very mindful of the sentiments and potential reactions from vocational drivers. This was why we made sure to consult the transport unions while formulating this policy. They are the NTUC's affiliated associations, namely: the National Delivery Champions Association, the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, the National Taxi Association and the National Transport Workers' Union.
We considered carefully what it would mean if there were to be a differentiated regime for vocational drivers. This, in effect, creates a lower standard of road safety accountability for one group of road users versus the rest. Seen in this light, it is very difficult to justify. That said, while we intend for the lower thresholds for licence suspension and revocation to nudge all motorists to adhere more closely to traffic rules in future, we agree it would be good to ease the transition wherever possible.
Rather than have different rules for different types of drivers, we think it is better to apply the same one-time deduction of demerit points across the board come 1 January 2027 as a transitionary measure, so that no motorist will be closer to the suspension or revocation threshold simply due to the changes to Driver Improvement Points System taking effect, and these are up to six points for non-probationary drivers and up to one point for probationary drivers.
We have also taken in the union's feedback about vocational drivers' perspectives when refining the overall set of changes to the Driver Improvement Points System, including retaining one opportunity for all drivers being suspended for the first time to reduce the suspension period from four months to six weeks by completing the Driver Improvement Points System retraining course.
I am heartened that our transport unions have been proactive in championing road safety beyond just the Driver Improvement Points System changes. In particular, they have been speaking out against the dangers of being distracted on the roads, such as holding a handphone or watching videos while driving. Just today, the NTWU as well as NTUC Assistant Secretary-General, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, who has been very helpful in facilitating MHA and Traffic Police's engagement with the unions, released a Facebook video to actively remind the vocational driver community that no notification, booking or message is worth the risk of a momentary lapse in attention that could cost lives.
I thank our transport union leaders for their strong support for vocational drivers and for agreeing with us that, ultimately, greater compliance with traffic safety throughout Singapore would be especially valuable for the safety and livelihoods of our vocational drivers, precisely because they spend more time than others on our roads.
Ms Mariam Jaafar asked to consider a similar mechanism to Spain's points-based licensing system, where a sustained period without any offence may increase their threshold for suspension or revocation. Mr Kenneth Tiong made a similar suggestion and asked that the Traffic Police take into consideration one's driving history over a longer period of time.
I have explained that the one-time deduction of demerit points on 1 January 2027 is a transitionary measure, not intended to formalise another means of rewarding or incentivising safe driving behaviour. We had considered introducing an additional buffer for drivers with good driving history. But upon reflection, this seems to be at odds with our intention of resetting driving behaviour across a backdrop of a worsening road situation. We think it is better to retain the existing incentives for good driving behaviour under the revised Driver Improvement Points System.
A motorist who commits no traffic offences within 12 months of their last offence will have their entire demerit point balance wiped from their record. A motorist who remains offence-free for 24 months from the end of their suspension will have their suspension records removed entirely. These incentives reward sustained responsible driving behaviour and offer drivers an opportunity to rehabilitate their records. We believe these incentives are effective and will be continued.
Mr Darryl David, Ms Hazlina Halim, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Ms Hany Soh asked to consider introducing an early intervention course, refresher course or performance improvement plan for drivers, before they hit suspension. A similar mechanism had previously existed in the form of the Safe Driving Course, available to all drivers. The Safe Driving Course was an early corrective course for eligible motorists who had incurred demerit points but had not yet reached the suspension threshold, and motorists who completed it would have four demerit points expunged from their driving records.
A review of data from 2023 to 2025 showed that the take-up rate of the Safe Driving Course was low – only 15% of those offered the Safe Driving Course last year took it up. Its impact on improving driving behaviour was also minimal, with the difference in re-offending rates between Safe Driving Course and non-Safe Driving Course takers being marginal. These findings suggest that introducing similar early intervention courses that allow reduction in demerit points are unlikely to contribute to the objectives of safer roads.
As for Mr David Hoe's question on whether there are any plans to adjust the penalties and demerit points for each offence under the Driver Improvement Points System regime, we have no immediate plans to do so but will continue to monitor the road safety trends and make adjustments where necessary.
Sir, this Bill is ultimately about lives. It is about ensuring that every person who uses our roads – whether motorist, rider, cyclist or pedestrian – can do so with greater safety and confidence. Laws and enforcement are important but safer roads ultimately depend on the daily choices that each of us makes – to slow down, to stay alert, to put away distractions and to think of the other persons on the road.
We agree that laws must be evidence-based and this principle has guided several amendments in this Bill, such as the revised drink driving limits. Members have raised other suggestions that go beyond the scope of the Bill. MHA and Traffic Police will work with the relevant agencies to consider these suggestions. For instance, suggestions relating to road infrastructure is something that we will discuss with LTA. Also, suggestions to make platform workers' work environment safer can also be taken up at the Multi-Agency Task Force on Workplace Safety and Health, and this is a task force that the Traffic Police is very glad to be invited to recently by the Ministry of Manpower.
We also encourage our partners, including unions, transport and platform operators, and community organisations to step forward and do their part by reinforcing safe habits, supporting responsible driving and helping every road user make safer choices. Once again, I thank Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for the Minister? Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister. I appreciate that these applications can be case-by-case. I would like to clarify whether it is the legislative intent of section 63A to apply to vehicular ramming attacks and the attempted suicide by vehicle, which were the two scenarios I mentioned.
Ms Sim Ann: I have given an explanation to Mr Kenneth Tiong. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. But on their own, currently, they could also be liable for existing offences in other laws.
Mr Speaker: Looks like a very comprehensive rounding up speech.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Sim Ann]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I seek to move, \"That this Parliament determines that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament under the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) shall be revised in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff in Paper Misc 4 of 2026\".
Sir, the remuneration of Parliament Staff is provided for in the Constitution. Specifically, Article 51(6) of the Constitution provides that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament may be determined by Parliament after receiving the advice of a Commission consisting of the following persons, either Speaker as Chairman, not more than three Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister and a member of the Public Service Commission.
A Commission was set up to consider revisions to the schemes of service of the Parliamentary Service arising from the Civil Service pay revisions announced on 20 February 2026. This Commission comprised: yourself, Mr Speaker; the Minister for National Development, Mr Chee Hong Tat; the Minister for Transport and Second Minister for Finance, Mr Jeffrey Siow; Mr Ramli Buang, a member of the Public Service Commission; and myself.
The Commission presented its Report to Parliament on 27 July 2026. The Report recommends that the salaries of the Parliament staff adopt the same salary adjustments as civil servants on the Management Executive Scheme (2008) and a retention payment component for Parliamentary Clerks.
The staff of Parliament comprise the Clerk of Parliament and the officers who assist him, such as Parliamentary Clerks; and Language Service Officers who are on the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008), respectively. Since 2008, these schemes have adopted a salary and performance-based framework similar to the Management Executive Scheme (2008) in the Civil Service.
On 20 February 2026, the Public Service Division (PSD) announced that eligible civil servants on the Management Executive Scheme (2008) would receive salary adjustments of 2% to 9% to keep pace with market standards and enable the Public Service to continue to attract and retain talent to deliver well for Singaporeans. These adjustments took effect on 1 August 2026.
The Commission recommends that the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) adopt the same salary adjustments, also with effect from 1 August 2026. This will bring these schemes in line with the current framework for the wider Civil Service and supports the continued attraction and retention of officers in the Parliamentary Service.
The Commission also recommends introducing a retention payment component for Parliamentary Clerks under the Parliamentary Scheme (2008), and for this to take effect from 1 September 2026.
The volume of parliamentary work has increased substantially over the years. Further, our Parliamentary Clerks handle increasingly complex and novel questions of parliamentary business and rules. As the pool of Parliamentary Clerks is small, each departure has a disproportionate impact on the operational effectiveness of the Parliament Secretariat. The work of Parliamentary Clerks is highly specialised. There are challenges recruiting suitable candidates, especially qualified legal professionals. Even where suitable officers are recruited, time is needed for the officers to acquire the proficiency needed for such work.
PSD supports these proposals. The Commission's recommendations are aimed at ensuring that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament remain competitive in attracting and retaining strong officers in the schemes of service of the Parliamentary Service. Mr Speaker, I ask the House to accept the recommendations of the Commission.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion moved by the Leader of the House.
This Motion may appear administrative, but at its heart, it speaks to something very important: making sure that the staff who support Parliament every day have fair, updated and sustainable terms of service.
The Commission's first recommendation is to align the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) with the recent adjustments to the Management Executive Scheme (2008). As the Report highlights, the PSD announced salary adjustments of 2% to 9% depending on market gaps to help the Public Service continue to attract and retain talent to deliver well for Singaporeans.
Since our Parliament staff have followed the Management Executive Scheme framework since 2008, it is only right and fair that they receive the same adjustments.
The second recommendation introducing a retention payment component for Parliamentary Clerks is especially important. Parliamentary Clerks form a small group of specialists, their work is highly technical, demanding and central to the smooth running of our Sittings, committees and legislative processes.
Mr Speaker, the Report notes that the volume and the complexity of Parliament work has been increasing. We have all seen this first-hand. Major Bills today routinely involve extensive clause by clause scrutiny and complex amendments. Recent examples include the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill and the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill which introduced new regulatory duties for digital platforms and critical infrastructures with technical definitions and multi-agency coordination that our clerks must manage with precision.
Committee work has also grown more demanding in the last few years. The Public Petitions Committee has handled increasingly complex petitions such as the 2023 petition on the Maintenance of Parents Act, which required hearings, legal analysis and a detailed report. Earlier petitions on housing policies for single unwed parents and on strengthening of harassment protection also involve substantial stakeholder engagement and cross agency coordination.
On top of this, our Sittings now regularly see over a hundred Parliamentary Questions filed. Members are seeking clarifications on complex policy areas such as digital regulations, sustainability and cost of living measures. All these developments place heavier demands on our Clerks, who must manage complex procedures, tighter timelines and a broader range of legislative issues than ever before.
Recruitment has also become more challenging, especially for legally trained officers who can handle the specialised nature of Parliamentary work. And when good officers join us, the training required to reach proficiency is extensive. As the report states, there is also substantial replacement costs and a clear need to retain officers long enough to build up the specialised competencies Parliament relies on.
The proposed retention payment is a practical and thoughtful response. It is designed with clear parameters, a fixed quantum, roughly equivalent to 1.5 to 1.75 months' salary per year, annual payouts for entry level Clerks and three-year payouts for those recognised for competence, but capped at 20 years, and a one-off ex-gratia payment to support the transition.
This is a sensible and targeted measure to strengthen retention, reduce turnover and ensure that Parliament continues to have a stable, experienced secretariat. It is an investment in institutional capability, one that ultimately supports the functioning of this House and the quality of our legislative work.
Under article 5(51)(6) of the Constitution, Parliament must determine the terms of service after receiving the Commission's advice. The Commission has considered the matter carefully and PSD has also supported the proposals. These recommendations are measured, justified and aligned with the long-term needs of Parliament. Most importantly, they recognise the contributions of our Clerks and secretariat officers, whose work is often behind the scenes but absolutely essential to the smooth running of this House.
Accepting these recommendations is an investment in Parliament's capability. It strengthens Parliament's capacity to scrutinise, legislate and engage the public with continuity and professionalism. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Recognition, remuneration, responsibility. Mr Speaker, with these three words, I rise in firm support of the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff, because all three facets point clearly to the fact that the recommendation in this report should be adopted.
I begin with recognition. Why recognition?
I think we ought to start by recognising the critical work that our Parliamentary Clerks, staff and translators carry out behind the scenes to ensure that Parliamentary business, which is very serious business, runs smoothly. They support the Office of the Speaker, Members of this House and Select Committees in the proper conduct of Parliamentary business.
They advice on Parliamentary procedure and examine Parliamentary Questions, Motions, amendments and other papers to ensure compliance with the Constitution, Standing Orders and established practices. They also support Sittings and committee proceedings, and maintain authoritative Parliament records, or Hansard.
In other words, their work, often unseen, helps ensure that our Parliament can make decisions for Singapore smoothly, efficiently and effectively. We should therefore recognise them for their integrity and ever reliability, and for their ability to think on their feet when applying the Standing Orders objectively and professionally.
They do all this while Sittings happen in public view and scrutiny. In fact, right in front of the cameras that are rolling live even now. And the need for accuracy and adherence to our Standing Orders is paramount for public accountability and transparency. Because what we debate here could well become law, because national policies are fine-tuned in this House, I think we ought to take a moment to credit our Parliament Clerks, secretariat, staff and the translators for all their hard work. Can I invite the House to record our support for them? [Applause.]
In short, the professional support needed to ensure robustness of debate and accuracy of policy is extremely important. Hence, I firmly believe it is important to recognise the significance of the duties Parliamentary staff carry out for all Members of the House, be they Government Members of Parliament or Opposition backbenchers, elected, or Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs).
In fact, I know that our Parliamentary secretariat has seen the evolution of Singapore's Parliament from being a fully elected house to one with NCMPs and NMPs, so we should recognise the accuracy and professionalism of our clerks and all the staff. Once we agree in principle, with the recognition of our Parliamentary staff, I think the natural corollary or the practical consideration which follows is that remuneration should match the significance of their work.
Here, what is proposed in the Report comprises essentially of two parts: first, adopting the same adjustments adopted by PSD for the Management Executive Scheme, as well as higher discretionary bonuses to recognise and encourage strong performance.
Second, introducing a retention payment component to attract and retain talent, as set out in paragraph 10 of the Report. These adjustments are much needed, and I am in full support. I note that the last review was some time ago, in fact, many years ago.
In fact, compared to salaries being paid in the private sector – and I have no doubt the capability of our Parliamentary staff can match those of people in the private sector – it has actually been behind the curve. In this regard, I think it is fair that the changes will be on par with those, or broadly in par with those on the Civil Service. I might even go so far to urge that when we consider the importance of Parliament in keeping Singapore viable and adaptable in today's competitive and changing world, the remuneration of our Parliamentary staff should in fact be at the forefront of the curve.
I am therefore happy and much encouraged that Mr Speaker has personally taken this proposal up. In fact, Sir, I recall my conversation with you together with then Deputy Speaker Jessica Tan, where we raised some years ago, the need to raise salaries for our Parliamentary staff. I therefore wish to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your leadership and for taking this up.
Third, responsibility. The question here is how do we ensure that recognition, when matched with remuneration, will result in a responsible officer. To this, I say there is no doubt in my mind that the ethos of responsibility runs deep within our Parliamentary Clerks, secretariat, translators and staff.
To this we need not look any further than the four to five unprecedented Budgets we passed in 2020 when Singapore was in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a House, we decided to meet in person, physically, no such thing as Zoom parliaments in this jurisdiction. We therefore passed the Budgets, ensuring safety and viability, while ensuring safe distancing within the House. I remember those days and some of us who have been in this Chamber long enough remember those days. Masks on, empty seats between each Member, but the House was filled, nevertheless.
Through it all, our Parliament staff worked hard to ensure that Parliamentary business continued in the depths of the crisis. For instance, we were not in our actual seats, so we had to vote by standing up and saying \"yes\" or \"no\" or \"abstain\" on placards, and Parliament staff would record every vote to reflect the democratic will of our people.
This task they did with fortitude, and with the help, we passed nearly $100 billion in support for Singaporeans. And holding up that placard and counting every single Member was important because we needed a certain amount of super majority vote to use our reserves.
In this, I saw great resilience and how in this House we have an institution where people are committed to a cause bigger than themselves.
All these combined shows how the need for a cutting-edge Parliament has become all the more obvious in the last 10 to 15 years, and if demands on our elected Parliamentary Members has increased, and rightfully so, because demands have increased, then what more the need to attract and retain good talent to support this process? This is why I am confident these responsibilities will be carried out by our professional Parliament staff.
To recap, this is about recognition, remuneration and responsibility. In light of these three arguments, I urge all Members to support this worthy Motion unanimously. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I do not think there is anything further I need to say in response, other than to thank Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Christopher de Souza for their strong support for the Motion and also to urge Members of the House to support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: I do not want to be presumptuous, but any clarifications for the Leader? No.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this Parliament determines that the terms of service of the staff of Parliament under the Parliamentary Scheme (2008) and the Language Executive Scheme (Parliament) (2008) shall be revised in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff in Paper Misc 4 of 2026. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I would like to thank Members for your strong support on behalf of my colleagues. I am quite sure with it, they will help me and help us do our job better. Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reaching 75%: Reforming Singapore's Public Transport System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, I seek to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, world class infrastructure is not experienced in masterplans or at ribbon-cuttings. For the vast majority of Singaporeans, it is experienced at the bus stop downstairs, on the platform at the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station, in the daily journey to work and back home. It could be excellent service and smooth journeys, as articulated in the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) Service Charter, or it can be poor service and frustrating journeys if things do not work well.
To begin with, the LTA aims to have 75% of all peak hour journeys carried out via public transport by 2030. Ten years ago, in 2016, the figure stood at 62%. As of financial year 2024, it is a mere 66%, and with just four years to go, I wonder if this target will soon be quietly revised. I believe we should instead be ambitious and aim to meet and exceed it. To do so, our public transport network must be as convenient as, if not more convenient than, private road transport.
To that end, my speech proposes three thrusts. First, reforming the Bus Contracting Model as it approaches its 10-year anniversary to raise service standards rather than merely minimise costs. Second, accelerating the development of our rail network through a renewed rail financing framework and a single, publicly owned national rail operator. Third, accelerating the roll-out of autonomous vehicles (AVs), not as a threat to employment, but as a catalyst for anchoring good jobs in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, I am sure many of us in this House have received feedback from constituents regarding bus connectivity in their estate, whether it be increasing bus frequencies or introducing a new bus route altogether.
This also comes at a time of increased public transportation demand, with new Build-To-Order projects springing up island-wide and the densification of existing Housing and Development Board estates. Commuters feel this during their daily commutes, from squeezing with other commuters on the train early in the morning to missing their bus home as it is full.
Ramping up public transportation capacity is no easy feat. Schedules need to be reshuffled, while additional buses and manpower will need to be deployed. In particular, new blood needs to be pumped into the industry. From 2021 to 2025, the proportion of local bus captains dropped from 54% to 41%, with two local bus captains leaving the industry for every new local hire.
Allow me to first touch on the Bus Contracting Model. Ramping up public transport capacity presumably comes at a cost. And as the Government often reiterates, our public transport services are heavily subsidised by the Government, with former Transport Minister S Iswaran stating in 2022 that this stands at more than $2 billion per year and this includes a subsidy of around $1 billion for trains and another $1 billion for buses.
The Bus Contracting Model introduced in 2016 splits up our bus network into packages, which Public Transport Operators (PTOs) eventually bid to operate. Aside from service quality, the LTA looks at the bid price set by the operator, which is also the service fee payable to the operator by the LTA. The unique feature here is that the Bus Contracting Model shifted the industry from an asset-heavy framework to an asset-light contracting model, and that the Government assumed full revenue risk while operators can earn a cost-plus margin for their services.
The Bus Contracting Model is a big step forward from the completely privately-run bus network of yesteryear. Subjecting profit-motivated PTOs to a competitive tender incentivises them to keep operating costs low, which might be an issue if it adversely impacts service standards. However, is there room for us to require even higher standards on the PTOs, for the benefit of our commuters and broader public transport ridership goals?
Ten years on from the launch of the Bus Contracting Model, I think it is time for us to undertake a thorough review to evaluate if the model continues to deliver good value for commuters. I have three concrete asks of the Minister when it comes to the Bus Contracting Model.
First, bus services are scheduled at headways of 15 minutes or less during the morning and evening peak periods, compared to the pre-Bus Contracting Model standard of 30 minutes or less. From an extremely low bar of 30 minutes, we have made significant progress. But 15 minutes is still a long time, especially if the commuter ends up not being able to board the first bus that arrives.
While the Government may say that we have at least half of the bus services having shorter scheduled headways of no more than 10 minutes, I believe this should not be a ceiling but a floor. Can we aim for a shorter scheduled headway of 10 minutes or less, period? Moreover, in a bid to spread demand out, commuters are being encouraged to travel outside of the traditional peak periods, and we ought to at least have specific schedule targets in place for off-peak periods.
On the cost side of the equation, the recent Tampines Bus Package tender results provide us with much reason to be optimistic.
Firstly, the LTA awarded the contract to the Go-Ahead Group, the company that placed the highest bids, for $646 million instead of offering it to the incumbent operator who placed the lowest bid of $596 million. This suggests that there is significant room for improvement when it comes to bus service quality.
Secondly, and more importantly, Go-Ahead Group's proposal offered cost savings for the LTA compared to the current contract, even at the highest bid price. Considering that the incumbent operator is willing to earn $50 million less and still make a profit suggests that there are significant cost savings to be made from the current expenditure levels incurred by the Government.
The latest tender award for the Serangoon-Eunos bus package on 16 July presents a similar picture, where SMRT was awarded the contract for a fee of $599.5 million and offered cost savings for LTA compared to the current contract.
Looking at the latest financials of SBS Transit, I estimate that their return on equity is 9% while their return on invested capital stands at around 18%. For an oligopolistic business, particularly where the operator takes on no fare revenue risk for buses, this appears quite high.
I hope that the Government can accelerate the calling of tenders for the remaining four of 14 bus packages that have never been put up for competitive tender but were instead directly negotiated between the operator and the LTA. As the Tampines and Serangoon-Eunos examples have shown, there is significant room for cost savings and quality improvements to be made.
Third, the LTA collects Excess Wait Time, lost mileage, safety and commuter satisfaction data by operators under existing contractual frameworks. Publishing this annually, as Transport for London does quarterly, would cost nothing additional and would allow Parliament and the public to assess the performance of operators and whether performance extensions are justified.
Most importantly, I hope that a thorough review can be conducted by the LTA, to evaluate if the model continues to deliver good value for commuters and if we can raise the bar for better public transport outcomes.
Mr Speaker, if buses are the capillaries of our public transport network, then rail is its backbone. Our MRT and Light Rail Transit (LRT) network carries some 3.7 million rides daily, and the expansion pipeline is substantial.
Former Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew announced all the way back in the Land Transport Master Plan 2013, that by 2030, eight in 10 households will be within a ten-minute walk of a train station. This was again highlighted in a gov.sg Facebook post which I saw in 2020, stating, \"Do you know that eight in 10 households will be within a 10 minutes' walk of a train station by 2030?\"
Recent commentary however seems to have shifted to the 2030s with an \"s\", and it gives the impression that the target has been quietly tweaked. Regardless of whether the Government intends for this target to be reached in 2030 or 2039, if we are serious about 75% mode share by 2030 and beyond, rail is where the heavy lifting must happen.
But even as we pour tens of billions into rail infrastructure, the framework governing how our rail lines are financed and operated has become a bit of a patchwork. Allow me to briefly trace its history.
The New Rail Financing Framework (NRFF) was announced under the 2008 Land Transport Master Plan, with the Downtown Line the first to come under it in 2011. Under NRFF version one, the operator collected fare revenue and paid the Government a licence charge, bearing significant commercial risk. In 2016, a decade ago, the LTA bought over $1.06 billion of operating assets from SMRT and moved its lines onto NRFF version two, which introduced fare revenue shortfall sharing and an earnings before interest and taxes' cap and collar that effectively caps the operator's margin at around 5%. SBS Transit's North East Line and LRT lines followed in 2018, and the Downtown Line only completed its transition to NRFF version two in January 2022.
Meanwhile, the Thomson-East Coast Line was awarded to SMRT in 2017 via a limited tender on an entirely different basis: a service fee model where the Government collects all fare revenue, bears all fare revenue risk and pays the operator a fee of about $1.7 billion over nine years. The Jurong Region Line, awarded in November 2024 to a joint venture between SBS Transit Rail and RATP Dev for approximately $750 million over up to 11 years, is on the same service fee model. The Cross Island Line and future lines, such as the Seletar Line will, in all likelihood follow suit, with the LTA bearing all development expenditure and fare revenue risk.
So, today, we have one increasingly intertwined network operating under multiple concurrent financing frameworks. As more interchanges open and more journeys span multiple lines and operators, even more effort is expended on apportioning fare revenue between operators and reconciling different frameworks. I believe that our rail network should be planned, financed and viewed holistically.
It has been a decade since SMRT was privatised, and NRFF version two was rolled out in 2016. I therefore call for a renewed rail financing framework: to complete the convergence of all rail lines onto a single, unified service-fee framework, and go one step further by consolidating rail operations under a single, publicly owned national rail operator.
This draws on the Workers' Party's proposal in our manifesto for a National Transport Corporation: a publicly owned, non-profit entity that reinvests profits for commuters' benefit, ensures fare sustainability, optimises infrastructure revenue, attracts top talent, achieves economies of scale and enables the LTA to focus on its regulatory role.
Mr Speaker, the Minister responding to my speech may well point out an apparent contradiction: on one hand, I call for more competitive tendering of bus packages; and on the other hand, I call for a single rail operator.
The answer is that the right market structure follows the nature of the asset. Buses are asset-light for the operator, the Government owns some fleet and depot assets and they can be parcelled out into distinct geographic regions. There are many capable bus operators globally; contracts turn over five to seven years; and critically as the recent Tampines bus tender showed, contestability delivers real value for money.
Rail is the opposite: massive, lumpy capital expenditure over decades, deep system-specific engineering knowledge and in practice, only two incumbent operators. The Thomson-East Coast Line itself was awarded by limited tender, not open competition. Even for the Jurong Region Line, foreign operators can only participate as minority partners of SMRT or SBS Transit. Contestability in rail is thus limited to a duopoly by design, so we should instead capture the economies of scale that a single operator brings.
Looking at foreign jurisdictions with larger rail networks than us is instructive. Transport for London, the very jurisdiction whose quality incentive contracts inspired our own Bus Contracting Model, operates the London Underground directly through a wholly owned subsidiary while franchising its buses to private operators through competitive tender. Rail in-house, buses by tender – which is precisely the structure I am proposing. In Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation operates the entire heavy rail network as a single integrated operator with on-time performance of 99%. Taipei's metro is likewise run by a single city-owned corporation.
Across the jurisdictions we most often benchmark ourselves against, the single integrated rail operator is the norm and not the exception.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, we are already halfway there in practice, just not in name. The Rail Reliability Taskforce formed in September 2025 is chaired by the LTA Chief Executive and comprises the Group CEOs of both SMRT and SBS Transit, precisely because rail reliability cannot be managed operator by operator. Its recommendations, which the Ministry accepted in February this year, call for accelerated renewal of trains, signalling and power systems, better management of spare parts, and more comprehensive, standardised condition‑monitoring across the rail network. The Singapore Rail Academy is also being positioned as a sector‑wide platform to build and deepen workforce competency in rail.
As with buses, I therefore have three concrete asks of the Minister when it comes to the NRFF.
First, commit to a renewed rail financing framework that converges all existing lines onto a single, unified service-fee model under one licence, ahead of the Cross Island Line's opening in 2030 and upon the gradual expiry of existing licences.
Second, study the consolidation of rail operations into a single publicly owned national rail operator, drawing on best practices from likes of London, Hong Kong and Taipei.
Third, in the interim, publish regular updates on progress made in implementing the recommendations of the rail reliability task force. Particular attention should be paid on the costs of the current fragmented structure and the potential synergies from network-wide harmonised data standards, pooled management of spares and supply chains, and coordinated renewal of power, signalling and trains across the network.
Mr Speaker, let me now turn our eyes to the future, and that is AV technology. Frontier technologies will be critical to strengthening our economic competitiveness and anchoring good jobs. To quote the Ministry of Transport (MOT), AVs will be the next game changer.
My concern is that we appear to be more like an observer than a player in this rapidly evolving game and risk being left behind in the global push for AVs at a time when physical AI is being framed as the next wave after generative AI. As Jensen Huang, chief executive officer of Nvidia shared in January this year, \"The ChatGPT moment for physical AI is almost here\" and that \"Our vision is that someday, every single car, every single truck, will be autonomous\".
As I have shared in my MOT Committee of Supply speech earlier this year, Singapore has been involved in research and small-scale testing of AVs since at least 2013. Yet, over a decade later, our AV roll-out remains largely in the trial phase, with only around 20 AVs involved in short, fixed route services in Punggol. We also have six autonomous buses procured at a contract value of $8 million, due to start operating on Bus Services 400 and 191 in the second half of 2026. These are 16-passenger seat vehicles in a pilot that will run for an initial three years.
From a regulatory standpoint, sections 6(C), (D), and (E) of the Road Traffic Act provide a regulatory sandbox for AV trials here, with MOT's public consultation regarding an upcoming piece of legislation specific to the deployment of AV systems having just wrapped up in June. The Government's stated AV ambition, when pressed, was that Singapore would have \"many autonomous vehicles\" in five years. Notably, the LTA adopts a more cautious approach when implementing such technology locally, choosing to be more \"calibrated and data-driven\".
That is not a negative per se but let us set that against the global reality. The AV industry in places such as China and the United States has boomed, with their biggest players – Pony AI, WeRide, Waymo and so on – already running fully driverless commercial services in the cities that they are operating in. Amidst the growth this industry is facing, the United Nations has also introduced a regulatory framework for AVs, bridging the gap between the fragmented patchwork of regulations across different countries.
Countries in the Middle East are also showing markedly faster implementation of AVs. The Dubai Autonomous Transportation Strategy aims to have 25% of the total transportation in Dubai to be autonomous by 2030. Saudi Arabia's Transport General Authority has set a target for 25% of all goods transport vehicles to be fully autonomous by 2030.
While Singapore deliberates and conducts protracted trials, these global players and global cities are already operating at scale, creating a new ecosystem of jobs in AV research, operations and maintenance.
Even as we have close to 100,000 private hire cars, there remains a shortage of ride-hail drivers especially during the peak periods and the wee hours of the night. On robotaxis, as Transport Minister Jeffrey Siow has said, even if we bring all the AVs in the world to Singapore, that is less than 10% of our taxi and private hire car population. Having AVs deployed on the specific routes and hours where the driver gap actually bites would materially help. And the severe shortage of local bus captains presents a clear opportunity for autonomous buses to alleviate manpower pressures and satisfy rapidly growing transport demand.
A 2025 survey by the National Transport Workers' Union found that one in three public transport workers expressed concern that AVs would impact their jobs. That concern is legitimate and deserves to be taken seriously. However, even as the demand for public bus captains has grown, as of December 2024 only 28% are Singaporeans, with 57% foreign work pass holders required to supplement the driver pool.
Whether it is school buses or tour buses, operators consistently cite the challenge of driver shortages. In fact, 42 school bus operators have been allowed to recruit more foreign drivers than under the standard provision to alleviate an acute shortage of drivers. The shortage of local bus captains and the need to expand our public transport network is a clear and urgent impetus for us to accelerate AV deployment. This is also echoed by People's Action Party Member of Parliament Mr Ang Wei Neng, who said at the debate on the Transport Motion that we need to move with a much greater sense of urgency.
Moreover, to truly anchor good jobs, we must accelerate our AV roll-out with clear, ambitious numerical targets. This is not about replacing human jobs; it is about transforming the nature of work. We need to create higher-skilled roles in the AV ecosystem, from AI engineering to remote fleet management and ensure Singaporeans are trained to take up these roles.
Critically, AVs should be used to grow and plug gaps in our public transport network, connecting underserved neighbourhoods with major transport nodes. This would be especially helpful for those with mobility issues, such as the elderly and persons with disabilities. With the pilot autonomous public buses equipped with ramps for barrier-free access, I hope that the AV roll-out would be carried out with the needs of these communities in mind.
The Minister for Transport shared during the debate on the Transport Motion that \"MOT plans to invest $800 million over the next five years on transport research and innovation to support efforts to develop frontier technology\". All that is fine and good, but once again, I reiterate the question I have posed for the Minister, in that beyond stating that Singapore will have \"many autonomous vehicles\", in five years' time, can the MOT provide numerical targets for our AV ambition, as well as a concrete and just path towards our engagement with frontier technologies?
To conclude, Mr Speaker, our public transport mode share has crawled from 62% to 66% in eight years, against a 75% target that is now four years away. The three thrusts I have proposed today, a Bus Contracting Model 2.0, a unified rail financing framework and an accelerated AV roll-out with numerical targets, share a common thread: they ask the Government to organise our land transport system around outcomes for commuters, and to move quickly rather than navigate around the increasingly complex but administratively convenient structures in existence today.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling.
The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling): I thank Mr Louis Chua for sharing his views on how we can encourage more Singaporeans to choose public transport for their peak-period journeys.
Indeed, for land-scarce Singapore, public transport is the most efficient and sustainable way for our people to get to where they live, work, play and study.
We are committed to making mass public transport the preferred mode. Our ambition to achieve 75% peak-period mode share reflects this. We invest heavily in our public transport system, about $2 billion a year on public transport operating costs, on top of much larger sums for infrastructure.
Despite these investments, we do not expect progress to be even. Our city and our people's travel needs will continue to evolve and to change. The growth of the private hire car industry has provided Singaporeans with more affordable point-to-point transport, on a pay-per-use basis. COVID-19 changed the way people travel and work, and also delayed completion of some major public transport projects.
We will continue to expand our public transport network to serve homes, workplaces and amenities in new areas.
Despite these changes, our approach is clear: we are focused on improving travel time and convenience, while putting in place the right structures and investments to ensure our public transport remains well-run and sustainable.
Like what Mr Louis Chua mentioned, to make public transport more attractive and to increase mode share, we must narrow the gap in travel time between public and private transport. We know that once commuters are on the rail network, most journeys are fast and reliable. This is why we are growing the rail network from 275 kilometres today to about 360 kilometres by the early 2030s, with the opening of the Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line.
Just last week, we announced the station locations for Phase 3 of the Cross Island Line. When this is completed, those travelling to and from the West can save up to 50 minutes.
New lines also strengthen the resilience of our network and help relieve crowding on existing lines, improving the experience for all commuters.
While new lines are being built, we are also providing bus alternatives such as express City Direct Services. We have rolled out 11 new City Direct Services since we started the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme in 2024, in estates like Sengkang, Punggol and Tengah.
Under this programme, we are also improving the first- and last-mile of journeys. We are providing more skip-stop feeder bus services and bus lanes to bring residents to MRT stations more quickly and reliably.
LTA is also expanding cycling paths and adding more pedestrian-friendly features to make neighbourhoods safer and more comfortable for walking.
For these plans and programmes to be effective, they must be executed well and they must be sustainable. We agree with Mr Chua that how we structure our public transport system to deliver well is critical.
Mr Louis Chua has made some suggestions on the Bus Contracting Model; I would like to reiterate some key points around the Bus Contracting Model.
Firstly, competitive tendering ensures that contracts continue to be value-for-money. Since we transited to tendering out bus packages, service fees paid by the Government to the operators have dropped by 15%. This has allowed us to keep the level of subsidies sustainable as we expand and improve bus services.
However, we tender not only to obtain better prices, but also to improve service standards and to foster innovation. The contracts are awarded based on a two-envelope evaluation process that considers first, quality and then, price. This approach incentivises operators to deliver reliable and safe bus services, invest in their workforce and capabilities and also build expertise in emerging areas such as electrification.
So, we should not encourage a race to the bottom based on price alone. This can cause unnecessary churn that affects day-to-day service quality.
We want to assure Members that our Bus Contracting Model ensures minimum standards but does not stop us from doing better.
Mr Louis Chua gave a specific example about the wait time for buses. Before the Bus Contracting Model, the standard was to operate at intervals of 30 minutes or less and 90% of feeders ran at intervals of not more than 10 minutes. Now, more than half of the bus services run at intervals of 10 minutes or less during peak, exceeding the baseline standard of 15 minutes. Feeder buses run at even shorter intervals of eight minutes or less.
These are basic standards which operators must plan for and adhere to and we will penalise them if they fall short. We can consider Mr Chua's suggestion to share more data on bus operators' performance over time.
We must also keep in mind that more competition does not automatically resolve the real constraints we face in resources, manpower and road space. Along the busiest corridors, we have buses arriving almost every minute.
As Mr Louis Chua has shared, we face constraints on the number of bus captains we have. We have done something concrete about that – we are working with operators to attract more bus captains by raising starting salaries. But this will not change the situation overnight. We must also be mindful that fiercer competition in bus tenders does not inadvertently affect operators' ability to pay their workers fairly.
At this point, I would like to thank Mr Chua for his support for our vision to deploy more AVs. We are doing this systematically. We are in the process of building greater public confidence in AVs. Safety must be our number one priority. We are also increasing socialisation amongst drivers, amongst members of the public and amongst commuters. We welcome Mr Louis Chua to come by Punggol to trial the AV shuttle if he has not done so.
We are also working towards the AV Act, which would cover some of the questions that he has raised. I also hope that with the use of AVs, we could manage some of the manpower constraints that we have around drivers as well as bus captains.
Coming back again to the bus sector, we do need to prioritise resources to areas with more urgent needs and to adjust services in response to ridership.
Mr Louis Chua had some suggestions on rail, he suggested moving towards a single, publicly-owned national operator. There are different rail industry models around the world, each with its own strengths and trade-offs.
In Singapore, we have continued to refine our rail industry model where it makes sense to do so. The NRFF consolidated asset ownership under the Government, which enabled us to take a long-term view of asset renewal, drive common standards and to coordinate investments across the rail network.
Meanwhile, platforms like the Rail Reliability Taskforce brought our two operators together with LTA, while also engaging international experts from other metro systems to share good practices and to overcome common challenges.
We are implementing the recommendations of the Taskforce and will provide more updates along the way.
Mr Louis Chua had cited examples of overseas metros. LTA and the rail operators maintain good relationships with these peer systems and many others. These systems operate under different institutional and financing arrangements. We can learn from them without necessarily adopting their model wholesale.
The reality is that different sectors may require different approaches. Mr Chua himself acknowledges this. I think this reflects the fact that different industry structure involves different trade-offs, which must be carefully balanced and managed.
Ultimately, the question is not what industry model we have but rather, the test is whether we are able to operate our network to deliver good service.
We have achieved and maintained high rail reliability standards, above our one million mean kilometres between failure target. Our operators have grown their capabilities to manage an expanding network, to provide faster journeys and better connectivity over time. This is how we encourage commuters to choose public transport over other modes which is the key thrust of your Motion.
So, Mr Speaker, to summarise, improving public transport is not about one project or one policy. We need both sound planning and sustained investments, supported by the right structures and operating models.
We will continue to improve journey times and connectivity, while ensuring that our public transport system remains well-run and financially sustainable so that public transport is the travel mode of choice for most Singaporeans.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 10.30 am. Order. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 8.15 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Identifying Leading Indicators in Government Agencies that May Require Their Workforce to Undergo Significant Transformation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has identified leading indicators that a Government agency's or Ministry department's workforce may require significant transformation because of changing technologies or operating models; and (b) how such foresight is translated into earlier workforce planning, skills development and redeployment opportunities for affected officers.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): My response will cover the question raised by Dr Choo Pei Ling in today's Order Paper, as well as the questions by Dr Wan Rizal1 and Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari2 for tomorrow's Sitting. These questions touch on workforce transformation and our support for officers. If Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after the session.
The Public Service needs to continually evolve and improve our organisational structure, functions, operating models and workforce requirements to serve Singapore and Singaporeans well. It does not rely on a fixed set of indicators to determine when an agency requires workforce transformation. Agencies must take into consideration their different operating contexts and technological and service delivery changes, and assess how their workforce size, shape and skill profiles must change to better suit future workforce needs. This will allow them to determine the nature and extent of transformation required for their workforce and plan ahead where possible.
As agencies transform and work changes, roles will also need to evolve. Our priority is always to reskill and redeploy affected officers within the Public Service, where possible. In some circumstances, there may be officers who are unable to be retrained and redeployed to new roles. When this happens, we will support their transition to a role outside of the Public Service with financial support as well as employment assistance, as appropriate.
Let me assure the House that the Public Service invests in the career fitness of all public officers, regardless of whether they are appointed on a permanent or contract basis. The Public Service encourages and supports officers in continually building and expanding their competencies, to take on different roles within the Service while building fulfilling careers. Officers can pick up new skills to adapt to different contexts through courses, job rotations and short-term work attachments. Officers are further supported in their career fitness journey with personalised career guidance and coaching through the Public Service Career Coaches Network.
These efforts are aligned with the national effort to invest in the Career Health of all Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn:","To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of GovTech’s recent workforce transformation exercise (a) how does the Public Service support officers on contracts for service or term contracts, where their roles can be more affected by workforce transformation; and (b) what lessons from GovTech’s experience can be drawn to support lifelong employability for Singaporeans.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn:","To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how the Public Service plans to strengthen career transition pathways for officers affected by workforce transformation, including through skills conversion, cross-agency redeployment and movement into emerging areas of demand; and (b) for officers who are unable to complete these pathways, what support mechanisms are available and whether they will receive the same retrenchment package like other affected officers."],"footNoteQuestions":["26"],"questionNo":"26"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of MOH Development Projects with Undeclared Savings Other Than That Highlighted in FY2025/2026 Auditor-General's Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of the findings by the Auditor-General's Office (a) beyond the audited project, how many other Ministry of Health development projects have undeclared savings; (b) what is the total quantum involved; and (c) whether these undeclared savings have been used to fund items from other projects.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: To provide background for Members, the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) audited the development of the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS), which was approved by the Development Planning Committee (DPC) in 2016. It was found that when major construction tenders closed, the Ministry of Health (MOH) did not declare project savings soon after, which is required under financial rules. It was a process lapse, albeit at a system level. NCCS was completed in 2022.
Savings at the point of tender award arise when the tender price is below budget, and is an early estimate of excess funds. As the project goes on, savings may be deployed for unforeseen uses, which is common for development projects. This includes variations to improve operational efficacy or user experience, adjustments for material price fluctuations post-COVID-19, compliance with new regulatory requirements, and loss and expense claims from contractors.
The adjustments will be within the approved project scope and with the necessary internal approvals. As such, not all the initial savings may be realised. Conversely, there could also be additional savings as the projects progresses, when requirements are simplified or budget set aside for contingencies are not used. What is more important is whether there are actual savings when the project is completed and, if yes, what happened to those monies. For NCCS, the eventual savings was $105 million.
Besides NCCS, there are eleven other development projects where savings were not declared after closing of major tenders. Six projects have been completed and the accounts closed. The initial savings after award of main construction tenders for these projects were $165 million. Upon project completion, actual savings increased to around $436 million due to additional savings realised in other aspects. These funds, together with NCCS' savings, were freed up for the Ministry of Finance's reallocation.
The other five are ongoing projects, with initial savings totalling about $95 million after award of their respective main construction tenders. Similarly, after savings were redeployed for other approved in-project uses, the current estimated savings is about $48 million. MOH is following up on AGO's observation and declaring them. But as I explained earlier, this will likely differ from the final actual savings, by the time the projects are completed and accounts finalised.
I wish to emphasise to Members that where savings were tapped, they were used for works that eventually benefited the public, and these were done in good faith. In the case of NCCS, savings were also used to build a pedestrian bridge to the Mass Rapid Transit station to enhance connectivity for patients and staff, and develop laboratories mainly to produce immunotherapies for cancer patients. These are not cases of funds going missing or being inappropriately channelled to other projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Incident of 15 July 2026 where Preparation Prompt for O-level English Language Oral Examination Differed from What Was Asked","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education regarding feedback that in the 15 July 2026 O-level English Language oral examination, the preparation prompt differed from what was asked (a) whether the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) examined each candidate's displayed prompt and contemporaneous planning notes, or only central logs; (b) how many reported the alleged discrepancy to SEAB; and (c) what assistance, if any, will be provided to candidates who gave such feedback.
29 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education regarding the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board’s (SEAB) investigation into feedback that candidates in the 15 July 2026 GCE O-level English oral examination were asked a planned response question different from that displayed on candidates' screens (a) what records and evidence were examined; (b) whether affected candidates and examiners were consulted; and (c) what evidence supported its conclusion that no error occurred.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to these Questions, together with other Questions which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Awareness and Take-up of Lightning Alert Systems in View of Recent Fatal Lightning Strike Involving Paddleboarder","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government has assessed the effectiveness and public take-up of Singapore's existing lightning alert system, including the myENV app; and (b) whether further measures are needed to improve public awareness, timely warnings and safety for those participating in outdoor and water-based recreational activities.
33 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the recent fatal lightning strike involving a paddleboarder off Pasir Ris Beach, whether the Ministry will review, with relevant agencies, measures to mitigate lightning risks at beaches and outdoor recreational areas, including (i) public warning systems, (ii) real-time lightning alerts and (iii) public education efforts.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore, located near the Equator, is amongst one of the world's most lightning-prone countries. The National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Changi Climate Station observes lightning on average, about 176 days a year, or one in every two days. NEA operates a comprehensive lightning detection system, which detects cloud-to-ground lightning as well as lightning occurring within thunderstorm clouds. Data from the detection system is used to provide real-time lightning alerts to the public through the myENV app. Users subscribing to lightning alerts for a specific location will receive an alert if there is detection of cloud-to-ground lightning or forecasts of thundery showers occurring in the next two hours issued within a six-kilometres radius of that location. This includes situations when the thunderstorm may not be directly overhead.
NEA will continue to work with agencies, such as Sports Singapore and the Ministry of Education schools, to support the safe conduct of outdoor activities and the operation of their facilities. It will also continue to improve public awareness of mitigating lightning risks through myENV. In addition, NEA is revamping the myENV app to make it more user-centric, personalised and accessible to weather advisories, including lightning alerts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocols for Water-based Recreational Activities When Lightning Risk is Elevated","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether agencies managing beaches, parks and reservoirs have standard operating procedures for suspending or advising against water-based recreational activities when lightning risk is elevated; and (b) whether these protocols will be reviewed following recent incidents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The National Parks Board (NParks), the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) require water sports operators to have standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place to ensure the safety of users participating in water-based recreational activities at our parks, beaches and reservoirs.
As part of these SOPs, operators are required to brief participants on the safety measures to adopt during lightning alerts, monitor weather conditions, and suspend all water-based activities upon the National Environment Agency’s (NEA) issuance of Category 1 lightning alerts. Operators are also required to take the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of their staff and customers, until conditions are assessed to be safe for activities to resume.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Checks on Non-compliant Devices on the Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Transport regarding non-approved devices sold or marketed as seat belt modifications (a) what is the number of casualties linked to such devices over the past two years; (b) how will LTA increase roadside checks for better enforcement against the use of such devices; and (c) whether LTA will collaborate with e-commerce platforms to systematically ban listings of these non-compliant devices.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Traffic Police does not track the number of casualties from road accidents linked to non-approved seat belt modification devices.
Checks against the use of non-approved devices, such as belt stoppers and buckle extensions, are conducted during routine enforcement operations. The Government will work with e-commerce platforms to request that they remove listings of such devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Performance Indicators for Reducing Road Casualties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry and the LTA have set key performance indicators for reducing road casualties; and (b) if so, what these indicators are and how they benchmark against international frameworks.
Mr K Shanmugam: As set out in the oral reply to Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis on 6 November 2025, the Ministry's approach towards road casualties is one of zero tolerance. [Please refer to \"Reducing Road Traffic Accidents and Fatalities Involving Motorcyclists and Pillion Riders\", Official Report, 6 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Every fatality and injury is one too many. Rather than setting numerical key performance indicators and targets, which risks normalising a level of casualties as acceptable, the Ministry aims to reduce road casualties as far as possible. That said, the Ministry does track statistics including traffic injuries and fatalities, to assess how road safety is trending over time and to inform our policies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Leveraging Technologies to Improve Road Traffic Management and Reduce Traffic Congestions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the current and future plans to leverage on technologies to improve road traffic management and reduce traffic congestions in Singapore; and (b) what are the timelines for these plans.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) continually explores and leverages new technologies to improve traffic management and enhance the efficiency of Singapore's road network. For example, with the transition to ERP 2.0, LTA can leverage ERP 2.0 data to enhance traffic management and transport planning. We are experimenting with using this data to dynamically optimise the traffic light signal system to improve traffic flow via the Cooperative and Unified Smart Traffic System (CRUISE), which is a smart traffic light control system that LTA is currently piloting.
LTA is also enhancing its traffic incident detection capabilities by using artificial intelligence-powered video analytics so that motorists could be warned of traffic incidents earlier. These capabilities will be progressively rolled out over the coming years to improve traffic flow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of AI-enabled Traffic Camera Systems to Detect Erratic or Dangerous Driving Behaviours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the increase in road traffic accidents and fatalities in 2025, whether the Traffic Police is studying the use of AI-enabled traffic camera systems capable of detecting erratic or dangerous driving behaviours so that timely enforcement or intervention can be taken before accidents occur.
Mr K Shanmugam: As mentioned in Parliament on 7 April 2026, the Traffic Police (TP) has deployed nine Traffic Violation Enforcement Cameras since March 2026. [Please refer to \"Findings from Trial Deployment of Traffic Violation Enforcement Cameras\", Official Report, 7 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 27, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
These cameras use video analytics and automatic number plate recognition technology to detect selected traffic offences, including red-light running, illegal U-turns and crossing double white lines.
TP has been and will continue to explore the use of artificial intelligence and other technological tools to identify dangerous driving behaviours and support timely intervention where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Advisory Notices and Summonses for Offences within Enhanced School Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Traffic Police will consider (i) issuing advisory notices instead of summonses to first-time speeding offenders at recently-enhanced Enhanced School Zones (ESZs) (ii) issuing individual penalties for offenders who speed multiple times in the same ESZ during a short journey and (iii) waiving summonses for speeding offences at ESZs, for incidents where the offender had not yet received the first notice of traffic offence.
Mr K Shanmugam: Our roads are becoming less safe. The number of accidents resulting in fatalities or injuries increased by 7%, from around 7,200 cases in 2024 to around 7,700 cases in 2025. Speeding is a contributing factor towards such accidents. This is why the Traffic Police has stepped up enforcement against speeding, and why the Ministry of Home Affairs has also enhanced the penalties for speeding with effect from 1 January 2026.
There is no reason to relax the rules for those driving in Enhanced School Zones (ESZs). In fact, ESZs warrant more attention from drivers and higher penalties for offenders because they are places where vulnerable pedestrians frequent. To alert drivers to be more careful, ESZs have identifiable features, such as prominent traffic signs, \"SLOW\" and \"SCHOOL\" markings painted on the road, and red-coloured road surfaces along the school frontage. Drivers will also receive On-Board Unit alerts when they are entering and driving within school zones.
Depending on the facts of the case and the driver's record, offenders may be issued separate advisories or summons for distinct violations occurring within different sections of an ESZ.
All drivers should be aware of their surroundings and adhere to the appropriate speed limits, regardless of whether they have received notice of a prior traffic offence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Systemic Factors in Preliminary Investigations of Recent Workplace Fatalities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether preliminary investigations into the recent workplace fatalities have identified any common systemic factors, such as inadequate risk assessments, poor supervision, unsafe work practices or commercial pressures; and (b) if so, what targeted interventions will be implemented to address these root causes.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shares the Member's concern over the recent workplace fatalities. Of particular concern is the close succession of seven fatalities from five incidents over four weeks from end-May to June 2026. Investigations into these incidents are ongoing. Preliminary findings do not point to a single underlying cause as the incidents occurred across different industries and circumstances. Nonetheless, some areas of concern are vehicle-related activities, including traffic accidents on the roads and individual worker lapses.
To address these areas, MOM has implemented enhanced workplace safety measures, with the support of the Multi-Agency Workplace Safety and Health Taskforce (MAST). A nationwide voluntary Safety Time-Out was called from 26 June to 9 July for employers to review their work processes and engage workers and supervisors on workplace risks. Enhanced enforcement measures were also introduced from 26 June to 31 July to strengthen deterrence and accountability, including increases in the composition fine quantum for workplace safety offences and minimum duration of Stop-Work Orders.
MAST was convened on 27 July and issued an Advisory on Strengthening Measures for Work‑Related Traffic Safety. Further, MAST was expanded to include the Ministry of Home Affairs and Traffic Police to strengthen whole-of-Government efforts to tackle traffic risks. MOM and the respective agencies will continue to work closely with industry partners and the unions to enhance vigilance and safety in our workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Lessons from Fatal Workplace Incident at Choa Chu Kang Waterworks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what key lessons have been drawn from the fatal workplace incident at PUB's Choa Chu Kang Waterworks in May 2024; and (b) whether the Ministry will require public sector procuring entities to strengthen governance over workplace safety and health by incorporating lessons learnt into contractor selection, supervision and performance evaluation for higher-risk works.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The incident at Choa Chu Kang Waterworks involved three workers, employed by Stargroup Est. Pte Ltd and its subcontractor, who collapsed after entering an enclosed passage beneath a water treatment tank during cleaning operations. They had been exposed to hydrogen sulphide gas. Two of the workers subsequently passed away. As the case is before the Courts, we are unable to comment on the specific lessons that could be learnt.
The incident underscores that confined space work presents serious risks and must not be treated as routine. There are well-established safety procedures to protect workers entering confined spaces. Employers must conduct proper risk assessments before such work commences, test the atmosphere before entry and provide appropriate respiratory protective equipment where required. Employers should also implement a safe system of work, which includes ensuring that a trained person is stationed outside the confined space at all times to monitor workers inside, maintain communication with them and render assistance in emergencies.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has regular platforms with agencies to share Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) insights, such as lessons learnt from past incidents. MOM may also recommend strengthening agencies' WSH practices, including safety supervision of their contractors, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temporary Housing Support for Subtenants in HDB Flats Who Are Displaced Due To Fires","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development (a) what temporary housing support is available for subtenants in HDB flats who are displaced as a result of HDB fires; and (b) whether there are plans to review or enhance assistance for fire-affected Singaporean residents who are not registered flat owners.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In the event of a fire in a Housing and Development (HDB) block, HDB offers temporary accommodation to affected flat owners and HDB rental tenants whose homes were damaged.
For tenants who are renting a flat or bedroom from an HDB flat owner, HDB will assess their household circumstances, including whether they have alternative temporary housing options. Where necessary, HDB will provide them with temporary accommodation on a case-by-case basis.
HDB will continue to exercise flexibility in assisting affected residents, including tenants who are renting a flat or bedroom from HDB flat owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Audits at HDB Block Coffee Shops to Identify and Mitigate Fire Risks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the fire at Block 269B Queen Street in March 2026, whether additional preventive measures and fire-safety audits can be conducted at coffeeshops in HDB blocks to identify and mitigate fire hazards and risks, so as to prevent and minimise the recurrence of such fires.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Fire Code, food and beverage establishments, including coffee shops, are subject to a comprehensive suite of requirements to minimise fire risk. These requirements include measures to reduce the risk of a fire from cooking-related activities as well as to ensure the safety of people in the coffeeshop in the event of a fire.
To ensure Fire Code compliance, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) also conducts enforcement checks on food and beverage establishments. These include both scheduled visits and unannounced inspections based on public feedback. These inspections complement the annual fire safety checks conducted at coffee shops by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), as well as other regulations imposed as part of HDB's licensing conditions.
These fire safety measures and enforcement checks remain adequate. The number of fires at coffeeshops in HDB blocks has remained largely constant between 2021 and 2025, ranging from 15 to 19 cases annually. This translates to under 1% of the total fire incidents per annum. Nonetheless, SCDF will continue to monitor fire trends involving HDB coffeeshops and work with related agencies, such as the HDB and the National Environment Agency, to take the appropriate intervention measures if required.
Nevertheless, it is important that we remain vigilant and mitigate fire risks as best we can. We urge all stall operators to uphold good fire safety practices and do their part to keep our community safe.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subscriber Service that Provides Regular Updates on International Safety Alerts for Travellers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Ministry will consider setting up a portal or subscriber service which provides regular and timely updates on international safety alerts, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, protests, amongst others, for Singaporeans to refer to, with push notifications for those who e-register with the Ministry before departure.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issues travel notice or advisory where there is known major crisis or incident that could affect the safety of Singaporeans overseas. Such travel notices and advisories are published on the MFA official website. MFA may also provide updates through text messages, phone calls and emails to Singaporeans, especially to those who eRegister. This was recently done during the severe floods in Hat Yai and the crisis in the Middle East.
MFA encourages Singaporeans to eRegister when travelling abroad. We also advise Singaporeans to remain vigilant and take precautions for their personal safety, including by monitoring local news and purchasing comprehensive travel insurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requiring Travel Agencies to Provide Pre-trip Risk Assessments and Safety Briefings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) whether the Singapore Tourism Board can require travel agencies to provide regular and timely updates on safety alerts, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, protests, amongst others, for their clients, and to provide pre-trip risk assessments and safety briefings for higher-risk activities.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Travel Agents Regulations, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) can take regulatory action against travel agents licensed in Singapore that compromise the safety of their customers due to negligence, such as by giving their customers inaccurate or misleading information. Travel agents are also required to ask clients to consider purchasing travel insurance.1
Aside from what is regulated, travel agents are advised to put in place appropriate measures, such as pre-departure advisories, safety briefings and situational updates, based on the nature of the activities offered. They are also encouraged to share relevant travel notices and advisories, including those issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), with their clients before and during their trips. STB regularly updates travel agents on MFA's travel notices and advisories through TRUST, STB's licensing portal for travel agents and tourist guides.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Section 9(1)(a) of the Travel Agents Act 1975: STB may suspend a licence for a period not exceeding six months (or a longer maximum period if prescribed in substitution), or revoke a licence if the licensee or a relevant individual of the licensee is not a suitable person to be involved in the management or operation of the business of a travel agent, including by reason of the manner in which the licensee is carrying on that business."],"footNoteQuestions":["48"],"questionNo":"48"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Collaborations with Countries Bordering Straits of Malacca to Ensure Long-term Freedom of Passage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the freedom of passage through the Straits of Malacca (a) what are our ongoing partnerships and collaboration with the countries bordering the Straits; and (b) what are the geopolitical contestations amongst the big powers over the Straits and our responses or collective positionings for these.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The right of transit passage applies in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore as it is considered a Straits Used for International Navigation. This right is provisioned under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which enshrines navigational rights and freedoms. This right is also customary international law that all States are bound by.
Cooperation between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore as littoral States bordering this critical waterway predates UNCLOS. A series of Tripartite Ministerial Meetings in the 1970s led Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to adopt a common position on matters relating to the Straits of Malacca and Singapore – namely, that the safety of navigation is the responsibility of the three littoral States. We established the Tripartite Technical Experts Group (TTEG) in 1975 and jointly implemented the Traffic Separation Scheme in 1981 to enhance the safety of ships navigating through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.
The Co-operative Mechanism on Safety of Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore was jointly launched by the three littoral States in 2007, following meetings that involved the littoral States and interested user States that included the major maritime nations. The Co-operative Mechanism was established under the TTEG framework and supported by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). While the littoral States continue to jointly decide on matters relating to the Straits through TTEG, the Co-operative Mechanism has served as a key platform for the three littoral States to engage in dialogue and undertake projects with all users, whether they are States, shipping industry and other stakeholders.
The establishment of the Co-operative Mechanism was both historic and significant in that it realised, for the first time, the spirit and intent of Article 43 of UNCLOS on cooperation between littoral and user States. It is a good example of how the three littoral States and users can work together to enhance safety of navigation and environmental protection in Straits Used for International Navigation, in full compliance with UNCLOS. It gives users, including the major maritime nations, an open and inclusive avenue to participate and contribute to efforts to ensure that the Straits remain open and safe, while recognising the sovereignty of the littoral States.
The Co-operative Mechanism has three complementary and inter-connected components. It comprises the Co-operation Forum for dialogue on issues of common interests concerning the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, the Project Co-ordination Committee overseeing implementation of projects to enhance navigational safety and environmental protection, and the Aids to Navigation Fund which receives voluntary financial contributions from the international maritime community for the provision and maintenance of critical aids to navigation.
Keeping the Straits of Malacca and Singapore open and safe, is essential to maintaining security and stability. Singapore continues to work with all parties in the international community that share interest in continued freedom of navigation, such as at IMO and the United Nations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increases in War Risk Insurance Premiums, Marine Insurance Costs and Freight Rates Due to US-Iran Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Government has latest data on increases in (i) war risk insurance premiums, (ii) marine insurance costs and (iii) freight rates arising from the US-Iran war and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, including the extent of freight rate and surcharge increases; and (b) if so, how these cost pressures are assessed to impact Singapore's competitiveness as a global maritime and trading hub.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Across the international maritime industry, war risk insurance premiums and freight rates have increased alongside the increased risk of operating in the Persian Gulf.
Based on industry estimates as of July 2026, war risk cover for transits through the Strait of Hormuz had increased to 3.5%-7.5% of hull and machinery value per transit, from 0.10%-0.25% pre-conflict. Container freight rates for the Asia-North Europe trade lane had risen by about 120% compared to rates before the conflict, though they remain around 40% below the highest peak observed during the Red Sea shipping disruption in 2024.
For Singapore-based shipowners and operators, standard marine insurance cover remains stable. Shipments to and from Singapore have also been less affected compared to those to and from the Middle East, where shipping lines have imposed additional surcharges.
The increases in freight rates and marine insurance costs are not unique to Singapore. The Singapore maritime ecosystem remains competitive. Our value proposition as a maritime and trading hub lies in our stability, strong connectivity and comprehensive ecosystem.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse for Damage Caused to Singapore-flagged Cargo Ship Struck by Projectile at Strait of Hormuz","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has any information on the damage caused to the Singapore-flagged cargo ship that was struck by a projectile at the Strait of Hormuz; and (b) what recourse does Singapore have in relation to this attack.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) was informed on 25 June 2026 that a Singapore-registered container vessel – Ever Lovely – sustained minor damage to the bridge area from an unknown projectile. The incident took place while the vessel was departing the Strait of Hormuz at around 5.30 pm (local time).
All 21 crew members were reported safe and the vessel was able to proceed on its voyage. The Ever Lovely subsequently arrived at the Port of Singapore on 5 July 2026, where the necessary ship repairs were completed. MPA remained in close contact with the vessel's management company throughout the ship's voyage and provided the necessary assistance.
The vessel's management company may consider its available options to seek compensation, including filing a war risk or marine insurance claim with its commercial insurers.
The Singapore Government has consistently urged all parties to uphold their obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This includes the right of transit passage in all Straits Used for International Navigation, which is entrenched in both UNCLOS and customary international law. Singapore continues to work with the international community to uphold the right of transit passage through our support for relevant resolutions and multilateral initiatives at the United Nations and International Maritime Organization.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Involvement in Thailand Land Bridge Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether the Government has been approached to invest in the Thailand Land Bridge project, or is aware of Singapore-linked entities having been approached; (b) if so, what criteria will be used to evaluate the investment, given the competition with Singapore's core economic infrastructure; and (c) if not, what contingency strategies are in place to safeguard Singapore's long-term competitiveness as a maritime hub.
Dr Tan See Leng: While the Thai government has mentioned the Land Bridge project in general discussions, the Singapore Government has not been approached to invest in the project. We are also not aware of Singapore-linked entities having been approached.
Singapore continues to invest in the competitiveness of our maritime hub. This includes expanding our port's capacity to meet the needs of shipping lines, harnessing technology to drive operational efficiency and reliability, and enhancing the breadth and quality of our marine services.
53 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what has been the performance of Singapore's floating solar systems deployed on reservoirs to date, including in terms of energy generation, efficiency and operational reliability; and (b) what are the Government's plans for the further deployment and scaling of floating solar systems as part of Singapore's energy transition strategy.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Singapore has deployed 63 megawatt-peak (MWp) of floating solar systems in our reservoirs to-date, and plans to deploy an additional 350 megawatt-peak (MWp) of floating solar deployment across Lower Seletar, Pandan and Kranji reservoirs by 2030 in support of Singapore's 2030 solar deployment target of three gigawatt-peak (GWp). Singapore's first large-scale floating solar farm at Tengeh Reservoir has been operational since July 2021 and the system generates 60 MWp, which is sufficient energy to power 16,000 4-room Housing and Development Board flats. This is 7% to 10% more solar energy compared to land-based solar systems of similar capacity.
Further deployment of floating solar systems on reservoirs and sea space will need to consider competing uses of these water bodies, such as for shipping, environmental conservation, recreation and utilities. The Government will continue to study the feasibility of deploying more floating solar systems, to maximise the deployment of solar on feasible spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Planning Parameters including Potential Locations in Government's Considerations for Deploying Small Modular Reactor to Tap Nuclear Energy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) in light of the recent announcement for Singapore to undergo an assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency on our nuclear capabilities (a) what are the planning parameters for the buffer zone required for small modular reactor (SMR) used by the Energy Market Authority (EMA); and (b) whether EMA is considering deploying the SMR underground or at an offshore island.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government has not made any decision to deploy nuclear energy in Singapore. As part of our study on whether nuclear energy could be a suitable option for us in the longer term, we have been building capabilities in nuclear science, safety and technology. The first phase of the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review, which we plan to undertake next year, will be an independent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency on whether we have the expertise, institutions and frameworks to make an informed decision. This review is not a commitment to deploy nuclear energy.
We will also continue to monitor global developments, including advances in small modular reactors and other advanced reactor technologies with enhanced safety features. This includes studies to evaluate the safety performance and technical feasibility of advanced nuclear energy technologies. As no decision has been made on deployment, it is premature to set out planning parameters, such as buffer zones, or siting options, such as underground or offshore locations.
Any future decision to deploy nuclear energy will be carefully considered against a range of factors, with safety as the foremost consideration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Availability of Entry-level Job Positions for Fresh Graduates and Expansion of GRIT Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current availability of entry level job positions vis-à-vis the fresh graduates currently looking for jobs; and (b) whether the GRaduate Industry Traineeships Programme needs to be significantly expanded, enhanced and have its criteria reviewed.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The number of entry-level professionals, managers, executives and technicians job openings increased slightly from 32,500 in Dec 2025 to 32,800 in March 2026. Among the around 18,000 fresh graduates from our autonomous universities who recently graduated, about 3,600 are currently still seeking employment as at June 2026. Of the remainder, 9,100 have found employment, while 5,400 are outside the labour force, mainly for voluntary reasons, such as pursuing further education or taking a break before starting work. Fresh graduate employment outcomes have generally remained resilient. For the 2025 cohort of university graduates, around nine in 10 found employment 12 months after graduation, similar to previous cohorts.
To prepare our graduates for a fast-changing workplace, we work with the institutes of higher learning and industry to help students and fresh graduates gain meaningful work experience through work-based learning programmes, including in knowledge-intensive sectors that have seen faster artificial intelligence (AI) adoption. These include the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) TechSkills Accelerator and AI Apprenticeship Programme in the information and communications technology sector, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') Polytechnic Talent for Finance Scheme (Apprenticeship Track) in the financial services sector. The MAS also recently launched the Young Talent Programme for AI in Finance, which equips students with applied AI and financial sector skills that are sought after by financial institutions.
In addition, we introduced the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) and GRIT@Gov last year to support fresh graduates who face difficulty in their initial job search. GRIT aims to bridge the gap to full-time employment by providing fresh graduates with industry-relevant skills and experience through traineeships in growing sectors and firms. Out of 800 places, more than 550 GRIT trainees have been recruited as of end-June. We have extended both programmes to the 2026 cohort of graduates and are prepared to make further enhancements, if necessary.
We will continue to review our suite of support for fresh graduates to gain meaningful work experience and improve their employability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviews for Tests on Imported Food to Ensure Effectiveness in Detecting Excessive and Emerging Contaminants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) regularly reviews its testing regime for imported food to ensure it remains effective in detecting excessive pesticide residues and emerging contaminants given that Singapore imports most of its food; and (b) how SFA responds when overseas food safety concerns arise involving products that are also sold in Singapore.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) regularly reviews its food safety testing regime. The acceptable thresholds for food safety are aligned, where possible, with Codex – the international food standards body established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization.
From time to time, SFA receives international food safety alerts from overseas authorities or identifies potential food safety concerns in imported food from its ongoing surveillance efforts. In response, SFA may enhance its testing regime and initiate a recall, if necessary. SFA will also notify the public of recalled products through its press release and social media.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revision of CHAS Blue Card Subsidy of $18.50 for GP Visits for Common Illnesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the CHAS Blue subsidy of $18.50 for GP visits for common illnesses will be revised upwards; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Community Health Assist Scheme is reviewed from time to time. Our most recent enhancements extended subsidies for vaccinations against shingles at general practitioners, increased the affordability of commonly-used chronic medications and significantly enhanced subsidies for dental care.
We will continue to monitor the overall affordability of primary care and review the scheme, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies that Have Adopted AI and Their Experienced Outcomes in Areas Such As Job Redesign, Creation of New Roles and Changes to Use of Contract Staff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry can provide a breakdown by firm size of companies that have adopted artificial intelligence (AI) and their experienced outcomes, such as job redesign, creation or redeployment to new roles, lowered hiring, changes in use of contract workers or reduced headcount.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Currently, artificial intelligence (AI) adoption in Singapore is uneven, with larger firms more likely to be adopters. In 2026, 27.2% of smaller firms with fewer than 200 employees adopted AI, compared to 54.8% of mid-sized firms with 200 to 500 employees, and 76.4% of larger firms with more than 500 employees. This generally reflects the greater capacity of larger firms to invest in and deploy AI in their operations.
Based on the Ministry of Manpower's survey findings, AI-adopting firms reported workforce outcomes, such as job redesign, creation of new AI-related jobs and redeployment of workers, rather than reductions in employment. Larger firms were more likely to report these outcomes than smaller firms. The Government will continue to monitor the adoption of AI and its impact, so that we can better support our businesses and workers to adopt AI in a way that create good jobs and new opportunities for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Higher Co-payment Requirements on IP Policyholders with Medical Conditions Requiring Ongoing Treatment and Safeguards against Significant Out-of-pocket Cost Increases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the impact assessment of higher co-payment requirements on Integrated Shield Plan policyholders with chronic or serious medical conditions requiring ongoing treatment; and (b) whether transitional measures are being considered to mitigate significant increases in out-of-pocket healthcare costs for such affected policyholders.
66 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's long-term approach for the migration of Integrated Shield Plan (IP) policyholders with existing IP riders to the new rider framework; and (b) whether further safeguards are being considered to provide greater certainty for long-standing IP policyholders.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As the Ministry of Health's new requirements on Integrated Shield Plan (IP) riders apply prospectively to new rider policyholders, no transitional measures are required. That said, some existing IP rider policyholders also transited to the new IP riders. We believe most will consult their financial advisors and make their own calculations, balancing savings in premiums against higher co-payments. Individual insurers will further study and determine their own approach for existing rider policyholders who purchased their IP riders on or before 26 November 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time and Capacity Surge Management Strategies at Public Hospitals In View of New IP Rider Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the new Integrated Shield Plan rider requirements (a) what waiting-time thresholds is the Ministry monitoring across public hospitals for non-urgent procedures and elective scans; (b) whether significant changes in waiting times have been recorded in the first three months since April 2026; and (c) what patient-volume threshold will trigger surge capacity activation and which procedures are prioritised.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The change in Integrated Shield plan rider requirements to moderate private healthcare cost increases is not a key driver of wait times, and neither are wait times for non-urgent procedures and elective scans direct indicators of capacity in public hospitals. Between January and June 2026, public hospitals have reported stable median monthly wait times for non-urgent procedures and elective scans.
Patients who need more time-sensitive procedures or scans, based on their conditions, will be prioritised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dedicated National Suicide Prevention Strategy that Complements National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Assoc Prof Terence Ho asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health following the publication of the community-led Project Hayat White Paper on suicide prevention in 2024 and subsequent public consultations on mental health and well-being, whether the Ministry will consider developing a dedicated national suicide prevention strategy to complement the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Suicidality is multi-faceted. Promoting good mental health and addressing mental health issues is a key plank to suicide prevention, and the two are closely intertwined.
We have run public education campaigns to address stigma and normalise help-seeking, and trained peer supporters and frontline personnel to identify and support those in crisis. The national mindline 1771 and community mental health teams are also available to help those in mental distress.
We are also developing a youth crisis facility to support youths with suicide risks due to psychosocial reasons and require a temporary safe environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports of AI-encouraged Cases of Self-harm amongst Teenagers and Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has received any reports on artificial intelligence-encouraged or related cases of self-harm by teenagers and children in the past three years; and (b) what are the safeguards in place to prevent such risks.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not track reports of self-harm specifically related to artificial intelligence (AI). Nevertheless, we note that the factors contributing to self-harm are often multi-faceted and may differ from case to case.
The Government's approach is to educate Singaporeans, especially young users, with the knowledge and awareness to use technology in a safe and healthy way. In schools, students are taught to be safe, respectful and responsible online users through their Cyber Wellness and Mental Health Education lessons. Students are also taught to use AI tools safely and responsibly.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Digital for Life portal provides resources that explain the risks of AI and guide parents on how to safeguard their children's well-being when interacting with AI platforms. Parents who suspect that their children are struggling with mental health issues arising from digital technology use, including interactions with AI platforms, can seek help from school counsellors or community service providers, such as TOUCH Community Services, which runs counselling and intervention programmes for youths affected by cyber and mental wellness issues.
Youths may also seek mental health support from First Stop for Mental Health services, such as national mindline 1771, mindline.sg, Youth Community Outreach Teams, CHAT and Youth Integrated Teams in the community.
IMDA has regulatory safeguards to minimise users' exposure to self-harm content on platforms. The Code of Practice for Online Safety for Social Media Services requires designated social media services to minimise users' exposure to self-harm content and provide relevant safety information to users searching for high-risk search terms, including those relating to self-harm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Children and Young Persons from Downloading Online Games that Contain Extreme Violent or Graphic Content","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of the Philippines' recent temporary ban on the online game GoreBox following a fatal school shooting (a) whether the Ministry will restrict or block access to the download of online games that contain extreme violent or graphic content; and (b) under what circumstances will such measures be considered to protect children and young persons.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Code of Practice for Online Safety for App Distribution Services requires designated app stores – Apple App Store, Google Play Store, Huawei AppGallery, Microsoft Store and Samsung Galaxy Store – to minimise the risk of users being exposed to harmful content. This includes measures to reduce the likelihood that users aged below 18 download apps designed for older age groups. These requirements apply to all apps, including gaming apps. In Singapore, among the designated app stores, Gore Box is only available on Google Play Store for users aged 18 and above.
In addition, under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority can direct app stores to disable Singapore users' access to egregious content on their services. This includes content that advocates or instructs on violence, physical abuse or torture, and terrorism. These app stores, include Google Play Store and Steam, a game distribution platform which applies a mature content label on Gore Box. We will continue to work with the app stores to tackle apps containing harmful or egregious content.
The gaming ecosystem is highly variegated. Beyond app stores, we are also studying further protections for children and young users for online games that are accessible on other platforms.
Regulations can only do so much. We also need to foster healthy digital habits among young users. The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Cyber Wellness lessons for primary to pre-university students aim to develop empathy and respect for others, and guide them to be discerning users of technology. This includes managing their online gaming habits and recognising negative influences. Children and young users can also refer to the Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media, jointly developed by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, MOE and Ministry of Social and Family Development, for practical tips on staying safe online, including on gaming apps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement of Online Harms Legislation's Orders on Non-English Overseas Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr David Hoe asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in relation to content targeting the Indian community and AI-generated disinformation about Singapore (a) whether the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) can effectively address such content on non-English overseas platforms accessible to Singapore users; (b) whether any directions or information requests were issued to such originating platform(s); and (c) whether stronger laws, access-blocking or enforcement measures are needed across the wider online ecosystem.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) provides the Government with powers to act against online content if they constitute an offence under the First Schedule. These powers apply to all online platforms accessible to Singapore users, independent of language medium, and includes artificial intelligence-generated content.
Should a platform fail to comply with OCHA Directions without reasonable excuse, further actions may be considered against them. These include prosecutorial action and the issuance of orders to restrict Singaporean access to the non-compliant platform.
In this particular case, Directions were issued to a number of platforms and they have complied. These are platforms which are used by many Singapore users. The Direction restricts their access to the offending content, regardless of their source.
We take a serious view of threats to our social cohesion and racial harmony, and will not hesitate to take further measures to protect Singapore users from online harms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demographic Profile of Persons Investigated or Admitted for Rehabilitation for Etomidate Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the demographic profile of persons investigated or admitted for rehabilitation for etomidate abuse, broken down by age group and sex; (b) whether there has been a discernible increase in female abusers; and (c) whether the Ministry has assessed if existing rehabilitation facilities and programmes sufficiently meet the needs of female drug abusers, including those abusing etomidate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Among offenders investigated for etomidate abuse since 1 September 2025, about 70% are above 21 years old; 23% aged 16 to 20; and 7% below 16. The male-to-female ratio is around three to one and has remained stable. Etomidate rehabilitation programmes take into account the needs and profile of offenders, including gender, and are provided through individual and group counselling. Recalcitrant offenders may be admitted to a Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC). There is currently a DRC dedicated to female offenders. The Singapore Prison Service monitors the capacity utilisation of the DRC closely and currently has sufficient operational capacity and resources to accommodate new admissions for both male and female etomidate abusers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Instances when AI-augmented Evidence Has Been Tendered as Evidence before Court of Law in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law whether (i) the Ministry is aware of instances in which artificial intelligence-fabricated or augmented evidence has been tendered as evidence before a Court of law and (ii) judicial staff and officers are sufficiently trained and equipped to guard against such cases.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Artificial intelligence (AI)-fabricated or augmented evidence tendered in Court proceedings may arise in two broad scenarios.
First is the deliberate fabrication or manipulation of evidence using AI, such as deepfake images or videos. The Singapore Courts have confirmed that there have yet to be such findings in a published decision. However, the Courts have in instances disregarded evidence where a party cannot satisfactorily explain the extent of reliance on AI in preparing the document. Nevertheless, any party who knowingly tenders false evidence faces serious consequences under the law, including criminal liability.
The second scenario is the use of AI tools in the preparation of documents filed in Court, such as affidavits and reports. The concern here is not the use of AI in itself, but where the negligent or careless use of AI introduces inaccuracies, fabrications or fictitious citations into Court documents.
In 2024, the Singapore Courts issued the Guide on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users which makes clear that Court users are responsible for ensuring that all materials placed before the Court are accurate, relevant and independently verified. This responsibility is underscored in the Ministry's Guide for the Use of Generative AI in the Legal Sector issued in March 2026. There have been at least two published cases where the Singapore Courts have imposed sanctions on lawyers for failing in such responsibility.
To detect such occurrences, the Singapore Judicial College provides training to judges to deal with issues of admissibility, authenticity and reliability of evidence, including digital evidence. Where authenticity or reliability is contested, the Courts may also rely on expert evidence and digital forensic analysis for verification.
The Singapore Courts keep pace with technological developments through a range of learning platforms supported by technical and expert assistance. Judges, in particular, are trained to deal with evidentiary issues in litigation as part of a multi-pronged comprehensive continuous training framework.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing AI-enabled Mobility Aids for Persons with Visual Impairment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether SG Enable will assess emerging AI-enabled mobility aids, including robotic guide dogs and wearable AI navigation devices, for persons with visual impairment; (b) whether safe and effective devices may be supported through existing funding schemes; and (c) whether Singapore will facilitate trials of or access to suitable devices.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: SG Enable supports persons with disabilities in accessing assistive technologies that enable greater independence and mobility. The Assistive Technology Fund (ATF) provides means-tested subsidies for persons with disabilities to acquire, replace, upgrade or repair assistive technology devices across a range of purposes, including education, employment, therapy and independence in daily living.
As artificial intelligence-enabled devices continue to develop, SG Enable will consider these as part of its broader efforts to promote assistive technology adoption. This includes exploring opportunities, such as trials in partnership with community and industry partners, to better understand the suitability of these products in the local context. Devices assessed by a qualified healthcare professional assessor to be suitable for use by persons with disabilities can be supported under ATF.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measuring Productivity Gains, Service Improvements and Risks from Generative AI Deployments across Public Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the principal use cases in which artificial intelligence is currently deployed across the Public Service; (b) how many public agencies have deployed generative AI systems in their operations; and (c) how the Government measures the productivity gains, service improvements and risks arising from such deployments.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My reply will address the Oral question raised by Mr Saktiandi Supaat in today's Order Paper, as well as his Written Question for the next Sitting, as they both relate to artificial intelligence (AI) in the Public Service.
The Public Service is progressively deploying AI to solve operational problems and improve public service delivery across a wide range of areas. Almost 70% of public officers use AI tools on a regular basis to analyse information, prepare drafts and support document processing. Agencies are also using AI to improve service delivery for citizens.
While adoption is broadening, the depth and maturity of AI adoption remain uneven across agencies. The current focus is on learning from practical deployment and experimentation, including where AI delivers the greatest value, how they affect work and teams, and what safeguards are needed to ensure responsible use.
Given the many ways AI can be deployed, whether through common platforms, embedded within larger digital services or adapted for agency-specific workflows, a simple count of AI systems would not provide a meaningful measure of progress. Instead, agencies assess the benefits, costs and risk of AI deployments, with success ultimately measured by whether AI helps officers work better and deliver more effective and efficient services to our citizens and businesses. As agencies continue to assess and refine their AI use cases, they do so within Government-wide requirements for procurement, governance and security.
Agencies must implement appropriate safeguards and human oversight for AI deployments and apply AI prudently to maximise benefits. At the same time, we are also training and upskilling public officers to use AI confidently, effectively and responsibly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Onboarding of Persons and Children with Disabilities and Special Needs to National Initiatives like Healthier SG and Grow Well SG","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how persons and children with disabilities and special needs are onboarded onto national initiatives, such as Healthier SG and Grow Well SG; and (b) what adaptations, if any, ensure the suitability of these initiatives, such as adaptations to work with caregivers.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Healthier SG and Grow Well SG are Singapore's national programmes focused on preventive care and the development of healthy habits across different age groups. These programmes are applicable to all.
For Healthier SG, enrolment for individuals with disabilities and special needs and are aged 40 and above can be done through polyclinics, Healthier SG general practitioner clinics and Healthier SG enrolment booths at community touchpoints, same as the general population. Caregivers can assist individuals in the enrolment process.
The primary care providers develop individualised Healthier SG health plans that consider the needs of their patient. This may be done in consultation with caregivers, if required. However, should the persons with disabilities (PwDs) require special intervention, they can be supported by social service agencies, such as MINDS.
Under Grow Well SG, the Health Promotion Board provides health screening, immunisation services and personalised health plans to students in mainstream preschools and primary schools, including those with disabilities and special educational needs (SEN). The trained healthcare personnel will tailor their communication styles for students with disabilities and SEN to help them understand their health plans and act on the lifestyle recommendations. All students in mainstream schools and special education schools also receive education on healthy habits as part of their curriculum.
All parents can view their child's personalised health plan via HealthHub, and access general resources on healthy habits through various platforms, such as Parent Hub and Families for Life websites.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Subsidies for Targeted Eczema Therapies and Providing Considerations for Patient Eligibility, Subsidy Duration and Cost Effectiveness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review current subsidy frameworks for targeted eczema therapies, including biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (b) if so, what key considerations will guide patient eligibility, subsidy duration and cost-effectiveness assessments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Oral conventional systemic immunosuppressants, biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors are commonly prescribed for moderate to severe eczema cases resistant to topical treatment. There are also immunosuppressants and a JAK inhibitor – abrocitinib – that are subsidised. Citizens and Permanent Residents are eligible for these subsidies at public healthcare institutions.
The Ministry of Health will continue to review the list of subsidised drugs for eczema treatment. Subsidies are provided for drugs that are assessed to be clinically- and cost-effective, which in turn takes into account prices proposed by the companies, drug efficacy and the availability of effective alternatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Generative AI on Singapore's Arts and Creative Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of generative artificial intelligence on Singapore's arts and creative sectors; and (b) what support is being considered to help artists adapt to generative artificial intelligence while safeguarding intellectual property and creative livelihoods.
Mr David Neo: This response will also address Dr Choo Pei Ling's Written Parliamentary Question on whether the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has conducted or commissioned any studies to understand the adoption and impact of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI). [Please refer to \"Understanding Adoption and Impact of Generative AI on Singapore’s Arts and Creative Sectors\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, Written Answers to Questions section.]
MCCY has been engaging the arts community on the impact of Gen AI. Some practitioners have expressed concerns about the impact on livelihoods, as well as legal and ethical issues. Others have shared that AI can serve as a collaborative tool to support ideation, experimentation and new forms of artistic expression.
MCCY is supporting the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI's) Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community Mental Health's collaboration with the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Policy Lab to conduct a research study on AI. IPS expects to publish its findings in 1H2027. MCCY will work closely with relevant agencies to assess the findings of the study.
The National Arts Council (NAC) has been actively helping artists work and innovate with GenAI, while recognising that technology should complement, not replace, the originality, lived experience and creative judgement that artists bring to their work.
To help artists' safeguard their rights in the evolving AI landscape, NAC's Arts Resource Hub provides arts self-employed persons (SEPs) with resources on intellectual property and copyright protection. In addition, NAC is partnering Pro Bono SG on an arts legal support initiative to empower SEPs with legal literacy and increase access to legal guidance and personalised advice, including on emerging AI-related issues.
For practitioners who wish to explore integrating AI into their creative practice, NAC's Arts x Tech Lab supports capability development, experimentation and cross-disciplinary collaboration. The Lab provides a dedicated space, access to tech equipment for prototyping and curated artist-led activities, such as workshops and showcases. These enable artists to explore new creative possibilities while strengthening their practice.
MCCY and NAC will continue to keep a close watch on AI developments and engage the arts community as we navigate the opportunities and challenges that AI brings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Structured Peer Support Programmes for Adults with Anxiety or Depression","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Government plans to expand structured peer support programmes for adults with anxiety or depression, given recent findings that most such adults do not seek professional help but are open to peer-based care; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that these programmes are quality-assured and able to refer participants to formal services when needed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: While expanding peer support efforts across various settings, the Government also ensures that peer supporters are well-trained. To date, through institutes of higher learning and workplaces, the Health Promotion Board has trained more than 33,000 peer support individuals. It plans to train an additional 5,000 peer supporters each year for the next five years.
There are other peer support initiatives, such as the Well-being Champions Network and Well-Being Circles, which provides participants with training. The trainings are guided by the National Mental Health Competency Training Framework, which sets out the knowledge and skills required, and when and where to refer individuals to professional help if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Older Singaporeans Seeking Mental Health Support in Line With Recent Uptick in Retrenchments among Older Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of the recent uptick in retrenchments, particularly among older workers, whether the Ministry has observed a corresponding increase in older Singaporeans seeking mental health support, especially among those balancing employment with caregiving and parenting responsibilities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also address a similar question raised by Dr Wan Rizal filed for a subsequent Sitting. If the Member is satisfied with the response, he may wish to withdraw the question from that Sitting.
The proportion of new clients aged 50 to 59 and above who sought help at Community Outreach Teams, Community Intervention Teams and Polyclinic Mental Health Clinics has not increased between 2023 and 2025. Data for 2026 is not yet available. It is also our understanding that while the number of retrenchments has risen, it is not so significant that it will change healthcare demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Workers Aged 51 and Above Who Remain Employed after Completion of Career Conversion and Mid-Careers Pathways Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Acting Minister for Manpower over the last five years, what is the proportion of workers aged 51 and above who remain employed after completing the (i) Career Conversion Programme and (ii) Mid-Careers Pathways Programme, respectively.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Over the last five years, close to nine in 10 Career Conversion Programme participants aged 51 and above remained employed 24 months after embarking on the programme.
The Mid-Careers Pathways Programme (MCPP) is a full-time attachment programme designed to help mid-career individuals gain industry-relevant experience and demonstrate their capabilities to prospective employers. Since its launch in April 2022, more than six in 10 MCPP participants aged 51 and above successfully found employment within six months after completing or exiting the programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Support for Employees in Their 50s who Voluntarily Resign to Secure New Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what are the measures that support employees in their 50s who voluntarily resign to secure new employment, beyond schemes for retrenched workers; and (b) whether additional mid-career job matching, training or employer incentive programmes will be introduced to improve their re-employment outcomes.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Workers in their 50s who voluntarily resign to pursue new employment can make use of a suite of employment facilitation services and programmes offered.
The Skills and Workforce Development Agency also offers programmes to help Singaporeans reskill for new jobs, with enhanced support for mature individuals. These include Career Conversion Programmes and the Mid-Career Pathways Programme. Singaporeans in their 50s can tap on the SkillsFuture Mid-Career Enhanced Subsidy, which covers up to 90% of selected course fees for Singapore Citizens aged 40 and above. Those seeking a more substantive skills reboot can benefit from the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, which provides a $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit top-up and a monthly training allowance of up to $3,000.
The Ministry of Manpower, National Trades Union Congress and Singapore National Employers Federation are studying other measures under the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment (TWG-SE) to provide better support across a senior's career journey, including during mid-career transitions. The TWG-SE's recommendations will be announced later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons Public Healthcare Institution Patients Fail to Attend Follow-up Appointments or Collect Prescribed Medication, and Actions Taken to Help Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the reasons why patients fail to attend follow-up appointments or collect routinely prescribed medication at public healthcare institutions; and (b) whether these institutions proactively identify and assess the reasons for missed appointments and where financial barriers are identified, connect the patients to available financial assistance before they disengage from care.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not track the reasons why patients fail to attend follow-up appointments or collect routinely prescribed medication at the public healthcare institutions (PHIs).
Based on feedback from PHIs, reasons cited for missing follow-up appointments are improvements in their medical condition, and work or other commitments. Common reasons cited for not collecting medications include having a balance of the prescribed medication from prior collections and obtaining medications from another provider.
PHIs make reasonable efforts to contact patients who miss follow-up appointments or medication collection, to facilitate rescheduling and minimise impact on patient care. Medication delivery services are also offered, where clinically appropriate.
Patients who express financial concerns will be referred to a medical social worker for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring and Supporting Families with Dependent Children That Are Affected by Incarceration of Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in reducing recidivism and adverse inter-generational impact (a) whether ComLink+ or Family Service Centres have a dedicated protocol for supporting families affected by incarceration; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider working with the Ministry of Home Affairs to develop a Family Stability Plan for inmates with dependent children, starting from admission and continuing after release.
86 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider developing anonymised longitudinal tracking of children of incarcerated parents, including educational continuity, youth-risk indicators and offending outcomes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I will take the questions filed by Member Victor Lye in today's Order Paper together as they both pertain to supporting inmates and their families.
To support families impacted by incarceration, Social Service Office (SSO) Family Coaches of ComLink+ clients and Family Service Centre (FSC) caseworkers will be notified when their clients, or their clients' family members, are incarcerated. This enables them to assess the family's needs and provide timely assistance to support the family, including those with dependent children.
In addition, as family support plays an important role in helping ex-offenders reintegrate into society and remain offence-free, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) facilitates family contact through face-to-face visits, televisits, e-letters, phone calls and family programmes. SPS also works with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to connect incarcerated parents with their school-going children through quarterly video conferencing sessions.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) already conduct anonymised longitudinal tracking of children of incarcerated parents via the Intergenerational Transmission of Criminality and Social Disadvantages Plus study. The study found that children with parental criminal justice involvement were more likely to offend compared to those without such exposure.
MSF will continue to work with agencies to monitor and assess the effectiveness of these programmes and measures, including strengthening coordination between SPS, SSOs and social service agencies to support families impacted by incarceration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevalence of Use of AI-assisted Clinical Notetaking Tools at Public Healthcare Institutions and Safeguards for Such Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) which public healthcare institutions have deployed AI-assisted clinical note-taking tools; (b) whether such tools are classified as medical devices under the Health Products Act; and (c) if not, what mandatory safeguards exist to ensure the accuracy and safety of such tools.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted clinical note-taking does not diagnose, manage or treat medical conditions, they are not medical devices regulated under the Health Products Act.
Healthcare professionals are required to go through the AI-generated notes before adding them to their clinical records. Ultimately, the notes are still from the healthcare professional, not the AI tool. This is the principle of keeping the human in the loop when we implement AI tools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Thresholds of Non-payment or Delayed CPF Contributions That Would Trigger Government Intervention before Corporate Liquidation Proceedings Begin","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what specific thresholds of non-payment or delayed Central Provident Fund contributions trigger an active, proactive investigation into an employer before corporate liquidation proceedings begin; and (b) how many such proactive investigations have been conducted by the Ministry in the past year.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board has measures to detect non- or late-payment of CPF contributions.
In the past year, there was an average of about 2,600 employers per month, or 1.6% of all active employers, who failed to make timely CPF contributions within one month after the grace period. The CPF Board followed up on all of these cases detected and took enforcement actions to recover arrears where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria Such As Defined Number of Salary Claims Within Given Period That Would Escalate Government's Response from Individual Case-handling to a Group-level Investigation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is a formal threshold, such as a defined number of salary claims within a given period, that will trigger escalation from individual case handling to a group-level investigation of such cases within related entities; and (b) whether the Ministry will formalise and publish the criteria and process for such escalation rather than relying on case-by-case discretion.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Protecting all workers and ensuring they are paid their salaries in full and on time is a priority for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). When investigating a case, the Ministry would consider its specific circumstances, including the quantum of arrears involved and the number of employees affected.
The Ministry will also investigate other companies with a common Director to assess whether similar practices have been occurring across those related entities.
While MOM maintains an escalation and enforcement framework, we do not publish this as doing so will enable errant companies to game our framework and undermine our enforcement effectiveness.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recent Adjustments to Tote Board Enhanced Fundraising Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in light of recent adjustments to the Tote Board Enhanced Fundraising Programme (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of these changes on charities, including both Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) and non‑IPC charities; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider supporting affected charities by refunding GST incurred on charitable activities or extending GST Voucher-type support.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The question on the impact of adjustments to the Enhanced Fund-Raising (EFR) Programme on charities has been addressed by written reply to Question Nos 35 and 36 on the Order Paper for the 6 May 2026 Sitting. [Please refer to \"Effect of Downward Revision to Enhanced Fundraising Programme's Fund Matching on Charities' Donation Revenues, Operating Budgets and Staffing Plans\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
In summary, in view of the trends in charitable giving and the Government's support measures, we do not expect the donations received, programming and operations of charities to be significantly affected by the EFR adjustments.
Our Goods and Services Tax (GST) is designed to be a simple and broad-based tax on most goods and services consumed locally, with minimal exemptions. This means that only GST-registered businesses can claim the GST incurred on their local consumption. Instead of having separate GST rules for charities, the Government provides support in other ways, such as direct grants for programming and operations, which can offset the GST cost of supported expenditures.
To further support charities through fostering a culture of giving, the Government also provides a 250% tax deduction for qualifying donations to Institutions of a Public Character and matching grant schemes for donations. We review our schemes regularly to ensure the charity sector is well supported.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Persons Who Receive Negative Results under Pre-marriage Long-term Visit Pass Assessment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of persons who have received a negative assessment under the Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass Assessment since its implementation; and (b) whether there is any recourse available for persons who have received a negative assessment but nevertheless choose to proceed with the marriage.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since the Pre-Marriage Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) Assessment (PMLA) was implemented in 2015, about 4,300 applications were processed by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority annually, of which approximately 950 applications received a negative assessment.
While couples may marry even with a negative PMLA assessment, they are unlikely to be successful in their LTVP application unless there is a material change in their circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Informal Deterrence at Workplaces for Flexible Work Arrangement Requests","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of surveys showing that more than one in three employees fear stigma when requesting flexible work arrangements (FWAs) (a) what measures, beyond legal compliance, are being considered to address informal deterrence at the workplace; and (b) whether the Ministry has conducted any studies on the impact of FWAs on firm-level productivity and retention rates, disaggregated by sector.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) takes an educational and enabling approach towards flexible work arrangement (FWA) implementation, to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for employees and employers. The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR) provide guidance on how employees should request for FWAs and use them and how employers, and supervisors should consider these requests on reasonable business grounds.
Employees who feel that their FWA requests are not properly considered may approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for assistance, and TAFEP will assess the case. If employers are found not to have assessed the FWA request properly, TAFEP will guide them to comply with the TG-FWAR.
MOM has conducted survey-based studies on the impact of FWAs on firm-level retention and productivity. About seven in 10 firms offering FWAs reported improved retention and six in 10 reported higher productivity. The effects were more pronounced in the financial and insurance services, and information and communications sectors. Members may refer to the Ministry's report on Conditions of Employment for further details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Households to Use CDC Vouchers to Offset Utilities Charges","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry will integrate the U-Save Rebate scheme with the CDC Vouchers scheme to allow households to use CDC vouchers to offset utilities charges; and (b) whether the Ministry assesses that such flexibility, where unused vouchers can be spent at heartland merchants and supermarkets, will incentivise greater household energy efficiency.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Utilities-Save (U-Save) rebates and Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers are designed to help Singaporeans in different areas. U-Save rebates help households with their utilities expenses. The CDC Vouchers scheme helps Singaporean households with their cost of living, and supports heartland merchants and hawkers at the same time. As such, CDC Vouchers can only be spent at participating supermarkets and heartland businesses.
Both schemes are working well and there are no plans to integrate them. U-Save rebates do not have an expiry date, so the design already preserves the incentive for households to use energy efficiently.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adoption Rate of Tripartite Standard on Recruitment Practices among Employers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current adoption rate of the Tripartite Standard on Recruitment Practices among employers; (b) what measures are in place to ensure that job applicants, including those for public-sector positions, receive timely updates on their application status; and (c) how many complaints have been received in the past three years on employers failing to notify applicants of hiring outcomes.
Ms Jasmin Lau: As of end-May 2026, a total of 6,620 entities, including Government agencies, have adopted the Tripartite Standard on Recruitment Practices (TSRP).
The Ministry of Manpower does not track complaints relating to employers not notifying applicants of hiring outcomes. We encourage employers to inform candidates who attend interviews on how results will be communicated and to subsequently notify them of the outcome within a reasonable timeframe. Employers can refer to guides, such as the TSRP, the Fair Recruitment and Selection Handbook and the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices, to strengthen their fair employment practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Access to Physical Banking and Cash Deposit Services in Residential Estates and Neighbourhood Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether MAS has assessed the adequacy and geographical distribution of cash deposit machines, particularly in neighbourhood centres with significant numbers of seniors, hawkers and small businesses that continue to handle cash.
100 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS monitors disparities in access to physical banking services across residential estates; and (b) if so, what indicators does it use to determine when regulatory intervention or industry coordination is warranted.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): My response will cover the questions raised by Ms Cassandra Lee in today's Order Paper, as well as the question filed by Mr Jackson Lam1 for tomorrow's Sitting.
While more seniors are becoming comfortable with digital banking, many still rely on cash and face-to-face banking. We therefore take a two-pronged approach to help seniors adopt digital services while ensuring physical banking services remain accessible.
Banks provide hands-on, guided support to seniors via community events to strengthen their digital literacy and skills and improved the usability of their digital banking platforms. Features, such as larger fonts, clearer visuals, intuitive navigation and multilingual interfaces, make digital banking applications easier for seniors. Seniors can also learn how to use digital services for everyday tasks, like online payments and mobile banking at SG Digital Community Hubs islandwide.
Even as digital banking becomes more widely adopted, we recognise that physical banking services remain important. While the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) does not prescribe where banks should locate their branches, automated teller machines (ATMs) or cash deposit machines, we monitor overall accessibility of banking services and work with industry where necessary to address significant gaps, taking into account retail and corporate customer demand, as well as local demographics. As part of these efforts, the local banks recently committed to providing an ATM, branch or the Network for Electronic Transfers cashpoint within 500 metres of every Housing and Development Board block by 2027.
MAS will continue working closely with the banking sector to maintain convenient access to physical banking services for those who need them, while helping consumers and businesses benefit from the convenience and efficiency of digital banking services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has assessed how payment preferences among seniors are changing over time; (b) how these findings are incorporated into digital inclusion policies; and (c) whether differentiated approaches are needed for essential services frequently used by seniors."],"footNoteQuestions":["99","100"],"questionNo":"99-100"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Requirement for Employers to Restart Full Job Advertising Period for All Salary Adjustments against More Calibrated Approach","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in respect of the Fair Consideration Framework, whether the Ministry has assessed the current requirement for employers to restart the full job advertising period for all salary adjustments, including minor revisions, against a more calibrated approach in cases where such changes are unlikely to materially affect the interests of local jobseekers, especially for occupations with persistent local manpower shortages.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Fair Consideration Framework requires employers to repost a job advertisement and keep it open for at least another 14 consecutive days if key details, such as the salary range, hiring organisation, occupation and number of vacancies, are changed. This ensures that job seekers are applying based on the updated job details and also helps businesses find the best candidate for the role.
To provide employers sufficient flexibility, we allow them to indicate a salary range in the job advertisement, with a maximum salary up to two times the minimum salary. This is a more practical approach, compared to making a hard distinction between minor and major salary adjustments, and differentiating our rules accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Classification and Tax Treatment for Company-owned Premises Used to House Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how IRAS classifies company-owned premises used to house persons for property tax purposes, including whether they are treated as residential premises, staff accommodation, dormitories or other non-residential premises; (b) what factors IRAS considers in making that classification; and (c) whether clear guidelines can be set on this issue.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The definition of residential premises is set out in the Property Tax (Rates for Residential Premises Order 2013 (the Order)), which defines it as any building, flat or tenement, principally used for residential purposes. As company-owned residential premises are owned by non-individuals, they do not qualify for owner-occupier tax rates and are instead taxed at the non-owner-occupier rates that start at 12%.
The Order excludes certain accommodation types from the definition of residential premises, including some staff quarters and workers' dormitories, where these uses have been approved by Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) under the Planning Act 1998. Such premises are taxed at the non-residential rate of 10%.
Property owners and businesses can refer to URA's and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's websites for the relevant planning guidelines and property tax rates for different property types.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimum and Mean Number of Years of Non-contribution to CPF for Members who Turned 55 in 2025 and who Do Not Fulfil Basic Retirement Sum","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in respect of Singaporean CPF members who turned 55 in 2025 and who do not meet the Basic Retirement Sum, what the (i) minimum and (ii) mean number of years of non-contribution to CPF are.
Ms Jasmin Lau: For Singaporean Central Provident Fund (CPF) members who turned 55 in 2025 and did not meet the Basic Retirement Sum, the minimum and mean number of years of non-contribution to CPF, from age 25 to 55, were zero and 16 respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temasek Holdings' Investment in Indonesia's eFishery Which Is Linked to Fraud and Accounting Scandal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is aware if Temasek Holdings had invested in eFishery; (b) if so, whether the Government has information on (i) the amount invested and (ii) measures taken by Temasek Holdings to prevent similar investments in the future; and (c) whether the Government intends to hold the Temasek Holdings management accountable for the approval and oversight of this investment.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: There are public reports regarding Temasek's investment in eFishery and Temasek has also publicly commented on the matter. The Government does not scrutinise or direct Temasek's individual investment decisions. These are commercial decisions made independently by Temasek.
As we have explained previously in this House, Temasek invests with a long-term perspective. This includes investments in startups, which are inherently higher risk but form a relatively small part of its overall portfolio.
The Government's role is to ensure that Temasek has a sound governance framework. We hold the Temasek Board accountable for the company's overall long-term performance, including its governance and risk management. Accordingly, we assess Temasek's performance on an overall portfolio basis and over the long term, rather than on the outcome of any individual investment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcomes from Pilots at Clementi and Paya Lebar of Community Rest Space for Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"106 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what outcomes have been observed from the community rest space pilots for migrant domestic workers in Clementi and Paya Lebar since inception last year; and (b) whether the Ministry can work with MOE, MCCY and private space owners to expand safe and welcoming rest spaces for migrant domestic workers, including suitable community or school facilities.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Since 2025, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), together with our partners, has been piloting the use of community spaces in Paya Lebar and Clementi for migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to rest and socialise. We have received positive feedback from MDWs, who have used these spaces to gather, connect and engage in recreational and skill-based activities on their off days.
Given the encouraging feedback, MOM will continue to work with agencies and our partners, including community groups and commercial players, to identify more suitable premises and expand the number of gathering spaces for MDWs while balancing the needs of the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Status of Dependant's Pass Holders Who Are Spouses of Holders of Various Employment Pass Types","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower for each year from 2023 to 2025, what is the breakdown of the employment status of Dependant's Pass (DP) holders who are spouses of Employment Pass (EP), S Pass, Personalised Employment Pass (PEP) and Overseas Networks and Expertise (ONE) Pass holders, based on whether they are (i) employed (ii) unemployed or (iii) business owners.
Ms Jasmin Lau: As of December 2025, there were 62,300 Dependant's Pass holders who are spouses of Employment Pass, S Pass, Personalised Employment Pass or Overseas Networks and Expertise Pass holders. About 57,100, or 92%, were not employed; 4,100, or 7%, were employed; and 1,100, or 2%, were business owners. The numbers and percentages have remained stable from 2023 to 2025.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Seniority of Roles in the Case of Possible Falsified Approvals for Appointments of Education Officers as Recorded in FY2025/2026 Auditor-General's Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education in respect of the Auditor-General's Office report on possible falsified approvals for appointment of officers (a) what roles or appointments had possible falsified approvals; (b) whether these appointments had any decision-making authority; (c) whether the appointed officers are still in their roles; and (d) whether the Ministry has separately conducted an investigation on the motivations behind such possible falsification.
109 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education regarding the possible falsified approvals for appointments of officers noted in the FY2025/2026 Auditor-General's Office Report (a) how many such appointments processed under the manual approval system were found to lack adequate scrutiny; (b) whether all such appointments have since been re-verified as properly approved; and (c) what independent checks now prevent recurrence.
Mr Desmond Lee: During the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) audit, the Ministry of Education (MOE) had identified possible falsified approval emails relating to the appointment of new officers. Following MOE's internal investigations, a Police report had been made. The officer responsible had also been dismissed from service.
As police investigations are ongoing, we are unable to share further details, including the roles affected or the motivations behind the falsification.
MOE's recruitment process requires all candidates to go through a rigorous selection process, including being assessed by properly constituted formal selection panels. Only after the selection panels have duly verified and cleared the candidates for appointment, would they be submitted to the appropriate authority for approval. The falsification of approvals cited in the AGO report pertains to this final step after the candidates have been cleared by the selection panels. MOE has checked and confirmed that all candidates listed in the falsification of approvals had been found suitable after going through the entire selection process, including clearing the selection panel.
Following this incident, we have strengthened internal controls for governance by introducing independent checks to verify that all appointments have received the required approvals and are working to automate staff appointment processes to reduce reliance on manual workflows.
MOE remains committed to upholding public trust.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent that Fixed Asset Investment and Total Business Expenditure Commitments Translate into Procurement and Business Opportunities for Local SMEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Mr Mark Lee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether the Government tracks the extent to which the $14.2 billion in Fixed Asset Investment and $8.9 billion in Total Business Expenditure commitments secured by EDB in 2025 translate into procurement and business opportunities for local SMEs; and (b) what measures are in place to increase SME participation in these investments.
Dr Tan See Leng: Investments secured by the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) generate spillovers for our local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through supplier contracts, co-innovation partnerships and improvements to the overall quality of our workforce. A 2025 Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) study titled \"Estimating the Spillover Effects from EDB-Supported Firms\" published on MTI's website found that firms that are linked to EDB-supported firms saw better outcomes in terms of improved value added (VA), VA per worker, local employment and local wages.
The Government does not track procurement value flowing to local SMEs, as sourcing decisions are determined by individual companies and are commercially sensitive. However, EDB and Enterprise Singapore administer the Partnership for Capability Transformation scheme to support collaborations between SMEs with multinational companies (MNCs) and large local enterprises (LLEs) in areas, such as supplier development, co-innovation, capability training, internationalisation and corporate venturing. In addition, the MNC-LE Alliance, launched by the Singapore Manufacturing Federation and supported by EDB and Enterprise Singapore, actively facilitates project collaborations between MNCs and local suppliers and partners.
MTI, together with sector agencies, regularly reviews our schemes to ensure they remain relevant and responsive to the needs of businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Auditing Self-employed Professionals to Enforce Accurate Tax Reporting and Taking Professional Advisors to Task for Tax Avoidance Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how frequently IRAS conducts audits on self-employed professionals to enforce accurate tax reporting and curb tax avoidance; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider taking punitive action against professional advisors, such as lawyers and accountants, who actively advise clients to engage in tax avoidance schemes.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) conducts audits on self-employed professionals every year, on a selective basis.
Where there is evidence that a professional advisor has promoted or facilitated tax avoidance arrangements, the Ministry of Finance and IRAS will refer the case to the appropriate regulatory or professional body for investigation and disciplinary action.
112 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) when and how did the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) discover that Simba could have been using certain radio frequency bands to provide mobile services without authorisation; (b) how many telcos in the past 20 years have used radio frequency bands that were not authorised; and (c) what lessons can be learnt from the recent discovery of possible unauthorised usage.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This question has been addressed in the reply to a related Parliamentary Question by Associate Professor Terence Ho at the 7 July Parliament Sitting. The Member may refer to that reply. [Please refer to \"New Safeguards following Probe into Simba Telecom's Unauthorised Use of Radio Frequency Bands\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Occupancy Rates for Shop Spaces in HDB-managed Neighbourhood Malls and Proposal to Set Aside Space for Social Enterprises at Concessionary Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the average occupancy rates of shop spaces in HDB-managed neighbourhood shopping malls in the last five years; and (b) whether HDB would consider setting aside a proportion of the shop spaces in these shopping centres for social enterprises or not-for-profit organisations at concessionary rentals.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) works closely with relevant agencies to plan and provide for Social Communal Facilities (SCF) in heartland spaces, which not-for-profit organisations can tap on. For the convenience of residents, these are typically provided in close proximity to residential blocks, such as in void decks.
HDB-managed shopping malls are designed primarily to serve residents' commercial needs, with an average occupancy rate of 95% between 2021 and 2025. Although SCFs are not typically located within commercial spaces, HDB considers requests on a case-by-case basis if there are compelling reasons and space available.
Social enterprises and inclusive-hiring businesses which are interested in HDB shop spaces may reach out to Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise (raiSE) or SG Enable for more details. Under HDB's Social Enterprise Policy, such businesses supported by raiSE or SG Enable receive direct space allocation and a rental discount of 30%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing National Day Parade Balloting System to Improve Public Accessibility and Reduce Collection Times for Tickets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"116 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether the Ministry will (i) review the National Day Parade (NDP) balloting system to improve public accessibility and (ii) reduce collection times for the tickets; and (b) whether consideration can be given to increasing the chances of applicants who have unsuccessfully balloted for NDP tickets over consecutive years.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Recognising Singaporeans' desire to watch the National Day Parade (NDP) live, successive NDP Executive Committees (EXCO) have sought to enable as many audience members as possible to attend the parade in person. The number of live audience members is dependent on the capacity offered by each venue. Since 2025, NDP EXCO has put in place a system to increase the chances of those who have not been successful in their ticket ballots prior.
To reduce collection times for NDP tickets, alternative ticket distribution options, such as e-Tickets, are being explored while balancing accessibility for those who prefer physical tickets.
Live telecasts of the NDP will continue to ensure that as many Singaporeans as possible get to watch the NDP show and celebrate National Day together.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number and Average Rents of HDB Eating Houses in Tenders where Contracts were Awarded to Bidders Who Did Not Bid the Highest","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"117 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for National Development since HDB introduced the Price-Quality Method for eating house tenders in 2018 (a) how many of the tenders have been awarded to a bidder other than the highest bidder; and (b) what has been the average rent difference in those cases.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board has awarded 65 price-quality method tenders for eating houses since its introduction in 2018. Of these, 40 were awarded to a bidder other than the highest bidder, with the average monthly rent being $38 per square metre lower than the highest bidder.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Youth Football Development Models in Countries Like Norway and Applicable Lessons for Singapore's Sporting Ecosystem","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"118 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether Sport Singapore and the Football Association of Singapore have studied the youth football development models of countries, such as Norway, which emphasise broad participation, volunteer coaching and delaying early talent specialisation; and (b) what lessons, if any, are applicable to Singapore's sporting ecosystem.
Mr David Neo: We regularly study youth football development models from around the world, including Norway, and work to adapt best practices to suit Singapore's context.
The Norwegian football system's emphasis on broad participation is a principle that Singapore embraces. Through Unleash the Roar! (UTR!), our national project for youth football development, we are making football more accessible through initiatives, like our School Football Academies and ActiveSG Football Academies. Together with other private football academies, these provide opportunities for young Singaporeans to play football regularly.
At the same time, in recognition that children develop at different paces, we complement broad participation with structured pathways for youths with interest and potential. The Singapore Youth League also plays a key role in this regard, supporting more than 6,000 youth footballers aged seven to 19, who play and compete an average of 30 matches a year.
Norway's success also reflects its place within Europe's highly competitive football ecosystem, where players with potential can progress into some of the world's leading professional leagues. While Singapore does not have the benefit of being embedded in such an ecosystem, UTR! provides overseas training opportunities and scholarships with partner clubs to expose our top players to stronger competitive environments, including in Europe and the United States. Since 2023, we have sent 28 promising players to train and study in top-tier environments.
We similarly recognise the important role that coaches play and place strong emphasis on developing our coaches. Through UTR!'s Coach Overseas Attachment Programme, our coaches have the opportunity to learn from the high-performance environments of professional clubs in Japan, Austria and Belgium, and bring international best practices back to Singapore.
We will continue to learn from successful football systems around the world and work with key stakeholders to uplift Singapore football.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rental Reductions, Free Lunchtime Parking to Boost Footfall and Other Measures to Support Commercial Tenants Expected to Be Affected by JB-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"119 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider supporting its commercial tenants expected to be affected by the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link with measures including (i) rental reductions, (ii) permitting struggling businesses to sublet or transfer leases and (iii) reinstate free lunch time parking in places that used to have them.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The multi-agency Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link Taskforce has been engaging the Housing and Development Board (HDB) commercial tenants in the North. The Taskforce will study their feedback, as well as the Singapore Business Federation's report published on 16 July 2026 on the RTS Link's potential impact on food and beverage (F&B) and retail businesses.
HDB commercial tenants who face genuine business challenges and financial constraints may approach HDB if they require assistance. HDB will assist them on a case-by-case basis, including offering shorter tenancy periods or facilitating business transitions to other locations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Public Transport and Reducing Commute Times for Sembawang Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"120 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Transport in light of the General Household Survey 2025 published on 30 June 2026, which indicates that residents in Sembawang had a median travel time of 50 minutes to work, whether there are any further plans to improve public transport in Sembawang and reduce the commute times of its residents.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Residents in Sembawang group representation constituency (GRC) are served by both the North South Line and Thomson-East Coast Line, which provide direct rail connections to the city. Under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, we have introduced two new services and enhanced 10 existing services in Sembawang GRC, providing residents with more direct and frequent bus options. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to monitor travel patterns and feedback from residents, and enhance bus services where needed. In the longer term, LTA is studying the alignment for the future Seletar Line, to better connect residents in the North with key employment centres in the city centre.
In addition, to reduce the need for longer cross-island commutes to work for residents in the North, the Government will continue with our strategy of providing more employment options closer to home, such as in Woodlands regional centre and Yishun.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Placement and Specifications of Refuse Hoppers in Older HDB Flat Types","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"121 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will review the placement and specifications of refuse hoppers in older flat types; and (b) what remediation measures or upgrading options can be offered to senior residents who face physical strain or difficulties due to low-positioned hoppers.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Flats built since 1991 are fitted with a centralised refuse chute outside of the flats. The refuse hoppers are generally positioned higher than waist height, and are operated using a foot pedal, allowing for ease of refuse disposal.
Older flats built before 1991 typically have lower-positioned hoppers within the flat, such as below the kitchen sink. As the hoppers are connected to the refuse chute system, relocating them would require major structural modification works, resulting in significant disamenities and additional costs for the flat owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria Leading to Introduction of City Direct Buses Linking Housing Estates to Central Business District and Request for Bukit Batok West Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"122 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Transport (a) how does LTA decide on the introduction of City Direct Service (CDS) buses; and (b) whether such services will be introduced for Bukit Batok West residents, in view of the fact that some currently walk to nearby areas, like Tengah, to access CDS routes to the Central Business District during peak hours.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: City Direct Service (CDS) buses are generally introduced when there is significant travel demand for direct, peak-hour bus connections to the city centre, especially for areas further away from existing rail connections. As they are more resource intensive, we are more selective on where they are introduced.
We recently launched a new CDS 684 to serve Bukit Batok West on 15 June 2026. At the same time, we had amended CDS 674 and 649 to stop along Bukit Batok Road to provide additional options for Bukit Batok West residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposed Scheme to Allow Pets on Buses and Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"123 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will explore a pilot scheme allowing pets on buses and trains under rules, like enclosed carriers, size caps and hygiene standards; and (b) whether the study will refer to overseas models and existing pet-friendly services by taxi and private hire operators.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: As part of the ongoing Land Transport Masterplan 2040 refresh, the Land Transport Authority will be engaging the public on whether and under what conditions pets should be allowed on public transport, bearing in mind commuter preferences, safety, hygiene and noise concerns. In the meantime, pet owners have the option of using pet-friendly rides offered by ride-hailing platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Pigeon- and Crow-culling Operations Carried Out and Number of Birds Culled","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"124 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for National Development in each of the past five years (a) how many pigeon- and crow-culling operations have been carried out by NParks; and (b) how many pigeons and crows have been culled through these operations.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Between 2021 and 2025, the number of pigeons and crows removed each year through National Parks Board's operations, including those conducted to support Town Councils' operations for pigeon management in Housing and Development Board estates, increased from 15,000 to 50,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Illegal Fishing and Enforcement Actions Taken along Springleaf Park Connector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"125 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment along Springleaf Park Connector each year since 2019 (a) what is the number of (i) reported cases of illegal fishing and (ii) enforcement actions or penalties taken; and (b) what are the measures planned to strengthen enforcement, given persistent offences and the impact on biodiversity, animal welfare and public safety, including risks from discarded hooks or sinkers.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since 2019, there have been a total of 222 reports of illegal fishing at Springleaf Park Connector and 92 cases of enforcement action taken by PUB and the National Parks Board (NParks), which include warnings and fines.
To deter illegal fishing at this location, PUB has installed multiple closed-circuit television cameras and \"no fishing\" signages. PUB and NParks officers also conduct patrols in the area, with PUB conducting additional targeted stakeout operations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consultations with Recreational Anglers on Functional Design of Fishing Infrastructure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"126 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether PUB (i) consults recreational anglers on the functional design of fishing infrastructure, including deck height, railing configuration and casting zone demarcation, before designated fishing facilities are built, (ii) will review existing designated fishing facilities to ensure they are fit for purpose and not just safety compliant and (iii) provides channels to welcome public user feedback.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Our reservoirs and waterways form part of our critical water infrastructure. The fishing facilities within designated fishing areas are designed to ensure that the primary objectives of water security, water quality and flood alleviation are not compromised, while also ensuring the safety of anglers and other members of the public.
Members of the public may submit their suggestions on existing fishing facilities through either PUB or the National Parks Board's websites.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Removal or Relocation of Bee Hives in Public Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"127 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is NParks' current approach towards the removal or relocation of bee hives in public spaces; and (b) whether the Ministry regards bees primarily as pests to be eliminated or as ecological assets to be managed safely given their role in pollination and biodiversity.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Bee hives found in publicly accessible areas in parks are removed by the National Parks Board to safeguard public safety.
Among the more than 130 species of bees in Singapore, the hives that are typically removed belong to four honey bee species. While bees play an important ecological role as pollinators, these species are widespread locally and across Southeast Asia, and the ecological impact of removing the hives of these species is low. The hives are removed to ensure public safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contamination of Recyclables as a Reason for Decline in Singapore's Recycling Rate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"128 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry can quantify how much of the decline in Singapore's recycling rate is attributable to contamination of recyclables, compared with other factors, such as weaker market demand, export restrictions and changes in total waste generated; and (b) how this attribution will guide targeted interventions under the Zero Waste Masterplan review.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As shared in my reply to the House on 7 July 2026, there are three key factors contributing to the decline in Singapore's recycling rates – rising logistics, freight, manpower and energy costs, tightening export requirements by receiving countries, and the persistent challenge of contamination of recyclables. It is challenging to determine their relative contribution to the decline in recycling rates. [Please refer to \"National Recycling Rates, Plans and Targets\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Nonetheless, contamination remains a key challenge that we are actively addressing. As part of the ongoing Zero Waste Masterplan review, we will study solutions to reduce contamination of recyclables further, including through the possible use of source-segregated bins. These measures aim to tackle contamination alongside the broader structural challenges affecting recycling outcomes. We will share more details on the review outcomes in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of New L1R4 Requirement for JC Admission on Secondary 3 Subject Selections and MOE's Policy Intent","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"129 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education in light of the Secondary Three students in 2026 being the first batch to be affected by the change from L1R5 to L1R4 for Junior College admission from 2028 (a) which O-level subjects have seen the largest changes in Secondary 3 students choosing to study these subjects compared to previous years; and (b) whether this is aligned with MOE's policy intent.
Mr Desmond Lee: The intent of revising the Junior College (JC) admission criteria is to give students more autonomy to recalibrate their curriculum load, such as by offering one fewer subject for the Singapore-Cambridge Secondary Education Certificate examination, and to use the freed-up time to strengthen their holistic development.
The change to L1R4 continues to require students to offer two languages and three subjects from the mathematics/science and the humanities subject groups, including the compulsory social studies paired with geography, history or literature. This ensures that JC-aspiring students continue to have a broad-based education to prepare them for JC.
For the first cohort under the new policy, fewer students are enrolling in geography, physics and principles of accounts. Fewer students are taking eight subjects or more, which is in line with the policy intent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Basis for Reducing Vacancies in Primary Schools in Sengkang for Primary 1 Registration Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"130 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education what was the basis for the decision to reduce available vacancies across almost all primary schools in Sengkang, despite a number of them still facing oversubscription in Phase 2C of the Primary 1 Registration Exercise.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's answer to oral Parliamentary Question No 58 on 7 July 2026. [Please refer to \"Impact of Reduced Primary 1 Intake on Home-school Distance Balloting at Oversubscribed Schools\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Increase in Chronic Disease Caseloads for GP CHAS Clinics Due To Additional Conditions Covered and Measures to Meet Additional Manpower Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"131 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there will be a projected increase in chronic disease caseloads for general practitioner (GP) CHAS clinics arising from the additional conditions covered under the Chronic Disease Management Programme; (b) if so, what increase in GPs, nurses and care coordinators headcount is projected for the next five years; and (c) how the Ministry intends to meet these manpower requirements.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed in the response to Question No 79 from the Parliament Sitting on 7 July 2026. [Please refer to \"Response to Rise in Prevalence of Preventive and Chronic Illness Cases Seen by Family Doctors and Small Clinics\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Permissible Weight of Vehicles in HDB Multi-storey Car Parks Given That Electric Vehicles are Heavier","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"132 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for National Development whether, in the interest of facilitating the transition to electric vehicles which are generally significantly heavier than those with internal combustion engines, the Ministry will raise the permissible weight of vehicles permitted to use HDB multi-storey car parks.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Member may wish to refer to the written reply given by the Ministry of National Development to a related question posed by Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye on 26 February 2026. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Structural Load Capacity of Multi-storey Car Parks Given Greater Adoption of EVs which are Generally Heavier\", Official Report, 26 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 20, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extent to Which Retrenchments among Degree Holders are Associated with Business Restructuring and Technological Change, and Most Affected Occupations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"133 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Acting Minister for Manpower given the rise in retrenchment incidence among degree holders from 2.6 to 3.1 per 1,000 employees in the first quarter of 2026, whether the Ministry has assessed (i) the extent to which these retrenchments are associated with business restructuring, technological change or AI adoption and (ii) which occupational groups are most affected.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry does not track the reasons for retrenchment by specific educational groups such as degree holders. In the first quarter of 2026, business reorganisation or restructuring remained the predominant reason for retrenchments, accounting for 74% of all retrenchments. Reorganisation or restructuring may include reasons, such as technological change or artificial intelligence adoption, amongst other things.
In 1Q 2026, professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) continued to have the highest retrenchment incidence at 2.6 retrenched per 1,000 resident employees; compared with 0.7 retrenched per 1,000 for clerical, sales and service workers; and 0.3 retrenched per 1,000 for production and transport operators, cleaners and labourers. However, it is important to note that these rates, including those for PMETs, remain within the non-recessionary range observed between 2015 and 2019.
We will continue to review how our data collection can better capture the drivers of retrenchment across different educational and occupational groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Retrenchment Statistics to Capture AI or Automation as Contributing Factors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"134 Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry plans to enhance retrenchment statistics to better capture contributing factors, such as artificial intelligence or automation, instead of under the broad category of business restructuring; and (b) if so, whether a detailed breakdown of such cases by occupational group, particularly among Professionals, Managers and Executives, can be provided.
Ms Jasmin Lau: It is currently difficult to isolate the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) or automation as a primary driver of retrenchments as automation is typically implemented as part of broader business transformation or restructuring exercises. The Ministry will continue to study how we can better capture the impact of AI and automation in its retrenchment statistics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Flats Wrongly Allocated and Subsequently Forfeited under Married Child Priority Scheme in the Lapse Recorded in FY2025/2026 Auditor-General's Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"135 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the 37 applications incorrectly allocated priority under the Married Child Priority Scheme reported in the latest Auditor-General's Office report (a) how many applications resulted in flats being allotted and accepted; (b) whether any applicants had their leases forfeited after the errors were discovered; and (c) of those whose leases were forfeited, whether there were any other aggravating breaches involved.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Out of 9,592 approved Married Child Priority Scheme applications, the Auditor-General's Office identified 37 cases where there were differences between the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA's) records on residential addresses. None of the applicants had their leases forfeited.
HDB has since addressed the gaps identified, including introducing additional checks using ICA addresses alongside HDB's records when assessing proximity scheme applications, to prevent similar lapses. HDB has also taken steps to rectify the discrepancies for grant and priority schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Contractor in Case Where There Was Inadequate Oversight of HDB Car Park Patrol and Enforcement as Recorded in FY2025/2026 Auditor-General's Report","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"136 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development with reference to the Auditor-General Office's finding on inadequate oversight of carpark patrol and enforcement by HDB (a) which contractor was found to have discrepancies in service performance; (b) whether the contract remains in force; (c) when the contract is expected to end; and (d) whether the deficiencies identified will lead to HDB selecting another contractor for future services required.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As reported by the media, the contractor is Certis Cisco Auxiliary Police Force Pte Ltd. The affected contract ended on 31 January 2026.
The Housing and Development Board has commenced recovery of the administrative charges, which includes the full extent of payments made for works not rendered. The lapses will be taken into account in future tenders that Certis Cisco bids for.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Nationwide Use of Source-segregated Recycling Bins to Replace Existing Blue Bins Infrastructure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"137 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if the current blue bin infrastructure discourages recycling; (b) whether the capacity and clearance frequencies of existing blue recycling bins will be increased to resolve persistent issues of overflowing and contamination; and (c) whether the Ministry has considered introducing a nationwide use of source-segregated recycling bins to replace the blue recycling bins.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. This question has been addressed in the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's combined answer to Question Nos 15 to 18 and Written Question No 33 on the Order Paper for 7 July 2026. [\tPlease refer to \t\t\"National Recycling Rates, Plans and Targets\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \t\t\"Proportion of Town Councils with Dedicated Paper and Cardboard Collection Channels Through Public Waste Collector Partnerships\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Members may refer to the Official Report for the full response.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Working with Counterparts in Malaysia and Indonesia to Strengthen Upstream Haze Prevention Efforts Ahead of Expected Severe Haze in 2H2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"138 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how the Ministry is working with its counterparts in Malaysia and Indonesia to strengthen upstream haze prevention efforts, in view of the expected return of severe haze in the second half of 2026.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Member may wish to refer to the combined reply issued in Parliament on 12 February 2026, which sets out the bilateral and regional haze-mitigation measures that Singapore has in place with Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states, including Malaysia and Indonesia. Those efforts are ongoing and continue to be relevant. Recently, Singapore and Indonesia also signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Cooperation, which includes transboundary pollution among other areas. [Please refer to \"Assessment of Transboundary Haze Episodes, and Review of Bilateral and Regional Haze-mitigation Measures\", Official Report, 12 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 17, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Commercial Viability of Converting Industrial Waste at Semakau Landfill into Resources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"139 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the mandate for Towards Resource Efficiency And Sustainability for URban EnvironmentS (TREASURES) Centre includes ensuring the commercial viability of converting industrial waste at Semakau landfill into resources, besides technical viability and risk management; and (b) whether NEA will consider reviewing the 70% recycling rate target for 2030 if Semakau landfill can be utilised for converting waste into commercially viable industrial resources.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Commercial viability is an important consideration in the work of the Towards Resource Efficiency And Sustainability for URban EnvironmentS (TREASURES) Centre, alongside technical viability and risk management. The TREASURES Centre will develop the scientific evidence, technologies and capabilities needed to strengthen the commercial prospects of waste-to-resource solutions. That said, the commercial viability of any solution also depends on broader external factors, such as market conditions and industry investment decisions, which are beyond the mandate of TREASURES.
The Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment and National Environment Agency will take into account viable technologies and resource management pathways when reviewing our targets under the Zero Waste Masterplan given the changing waste and recycling landscape.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Impact of RTS Link's Opening on Businesses in Singapore's Northern Region","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"140 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) what data or analysis the Government has on the expected impact of the RTS Link's opening on businesses in Singapore's northern region, given the joint Singapore Business Federation, Restaurant Association of Singapore and Singapore Retailers Association study's finding that these businesses will be less affected due to existing familiarity with cross-border competition; and (b) whether transition support measures for affected businesses, particularly SMEs in the north, are sufficient.
141 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) whether the Government has assessed how the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link is expected to reshape cross-border consumer spending and business activity; (b) which sectors in Singapore are expected to experience the greatest opportunities and competitive pressures, if any; and (c) how the Government is supporting Singapore businesses to strengthen their competitiveness and tap into new opportunities.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link is an important bilateral project that will strengthen connectivity between Singapore and Johor Bahru. It will deepen economic and people-to-people ties, and create win-win opportunities for both sides of the Causeway. The RTS Link will bring net benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans.
The Government recognises that our local businesses are operating in an increasingly competitive environment, shaped by the growth of e-commerce, evolving consumer preferences and rising operating costs. The RTS Link Taskforce, which was set up in March 2025, has engaged a wide range of stakeholders to study the impact of the RTS Link.
Through our engagements, we have heard concerns from businesses in consumer-facing sectors, such as food services and retail. These concerns are particularly pronounced in the North, as residents living in that area may travel more frequently to Johor Bahru after the RTS Link opens.
While businesses have expressed concerns, they also recognise the opportunities the RTS Link offers. For example, with less congestion at the Causeway, transport and import costs may fall. In addition, enhanced connectivity will also attract more visitors from Malaysia to Singapore for recreation, entertainment, dining, shopping and other activities, adding to the vibrancy of our heartlands.
To support our SMEs and heartland enterprises, the Government has in place a range of schemes, such as the Enterprise Development Grant and Productivity Solutions Grant, to help businesses adapt. We also have targeted support, such as the Enhanced Visual Merchandising Programme, for our heartland enterprises and initiatives, such as the Retail Maverick Challenge launched by Enterprise Singapore and CapitaLand Investment, to support local retailers in piloting innovative and experiential retail concepts.
The RTS Link Taskforce will share its findings and recommendations in further detail later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans and Performance Indicators for Specific Technologies Considered \"Bold Bets\" in Singapore's Economic Strategy Review Recommendations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"142 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) with respect to the Economic Strategy Review’s final recommendations (a) which specific areas or technologies have been considered for the taking of \"bold bets\"; (b) how does the Government plan to (i) \"[e]ntrench investments deeply into our ecosystem\" and (ii) \"[s]trengthen entrepreneurship as a viable pathway\"; and (c) what are the respective Key Performance Indicators for each of these plans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Economic Strategy Review (ESR) Committees identified three technology domains – quantum, space and decarbonisation – where Singapore has made early investments under our research, innovation and enterprise plans that have the potential to be new growth engines.
ESR recommended that we foster deep partnerships between firms and public research institutions, build dense and capable local supplier networks, and develop strong pipelines of skilled talent. The intent is to make these investments in Singapore more integral to their firms' global operations and less vulnerable to being relocated when costs rise or supply chains shift.
To strengthen entrepreneurship as a viable pathway, ESR suggested increasing the availability of capital and facilitating access to more forms of financing for growth-stage startups; developing partnerships and networks to accelerate market access and customer acquisition; and enhancing access to specialised and top-tier talent. The Government announced at this year's Budget, a second $1.5 billion tranche of the Anchor Fund – Anchor Fund 2 – to invest in firms that are ready to list and raise capital in Singapore, in order to strengthen our public equities market.
The Government will work with industry partners and our unions to translate the ESR recommendations into action with appropriate performance measures where relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Business Relocation and Restructuring, and Staff Retrenchment Trends in Q1 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"143 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) whether there is a trend of business relocations and restructurings in the first quarter of 2026 leading to higher retrenchments and job losses; and (b) if so, how does the Ministry plan to address this trend.
Dr Tan See Leng: Businesses continually review and optimise their operations in response to changing market conditions. They may choose to relocate or restructure according to cost considerations, technological disruptions or shifting supply chains. The Government closely monitors these developments to ensure that we maintain our economic competitiveness and secure good jobs for our people.
In particular, Singapore's retrenchment rate remained stable with a retrenchment incidence of 1.6 retrenched per 1,000 employees in the first quarter of 2026. This is below the non-recessionary quarterly average of 1.7 retrenched per 1,000 employees from 2014 to 2019. The number of retrenchments in the first quarter of 2026 attributed to business reorganisation or restructuring or overseas relocations was the same as in the fourth quarter of 2025 (2,950).
In the first quarter of 2026, many businesses continued to expand. Total employment excluding migrant domestic workers increased by 9,400, marking the 18th consecutive quarter of growth, contributed mainly by transportation and storage, and administrative and support services.
With greater and faster economic and technological changes, there will be more frequent business and career transitions. For example, some food manufacturers relocated their production lines recently. They opted to shift their production operations to regional countries for cost optimisation, while retaining their regional headquarters here to benefit from Singapore's innovation ecosystem, professional services and connectivity, for functions, such as product development, regulatory and quality oversight, distribution and supply chain planning.
As recommended by the Economic Strategy Review, the Government will continue to strengthen Singapore's competitiveness by supporting businesses and workers as they pivot, grow, and seize opportunities in growth areas, such as advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, high-value trust-based services, as well as emerging technologies, like quantum and space.
We continue to support and journey with our workers. We are strengthening pathways for those affected by automation or restructuring by improving their long-term prospects through reskilling and job matching support. We also help workers build on their existing skills and experience to take on new roles and opportunities, thereby increasing their employability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Not Introducing Mandatory Wage Recovery Insurance and Personal Liability for Company Directors for Unpaid Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"144 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what are the reasons for not introducing mandatory wage recovery insurance and personal liability for company directors for unpaid salaries; and (b) what legislative hurdles exist in amending the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 to prioritise employees over secured creditors.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Member may refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question No 33 for the Sitting on 13 January 2026. [Please refer to \"Support for Employees Affected by Abrupt Closure of Companies and Proposal to Amend Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 to Prioritise Payout to Employees\", Official Report, 13 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 13, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
We will continue to work with the tripartite partners to improve support for workers affected by unpaid salaries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Category C COE Scheme Given Increasing Premiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"145 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Transport given that the Category C COE premium has reached a record $95,000 (a) whether the commercial vehicle quota, currently growing at 0.25% annually, will be raised to meet demand; (b) whether fleet and leasing firms will be required to bid separately or face caps to protect small owner-operators; and (c) whether Category C can be further sub-categorised by vehicle weight.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The recent increase in Category C Certificate of Entitlement prices is likely due to the increase in electric heavy goods vehicle and electric bus registrations since the Heavy Vehicle Zero Emissions Scheme was implemented in January 2026. Registrations for electric heavy vehicles have risen from less than 1% in 2025 to more than 30% in June 2026.
Unlike all other vehicle categories, Category C is allowed a 0.25% vehicle growth rate to meet the operational needs of businesses. The vehicle growth rates are reviewed once every three years and the next review will be in late-2027.
We do not intend to split Category C further, whether by bidder type or vehicle weight. Doing so is economically less efficient. It would mean smaller quota numbers in each sub-category and hence more volatile prices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Patents Filed for Projects under Research, Innovation and Enterprise Plans in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"146 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the number of patents filed for the last 10 years under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) plans; (b) how many patents were commercialised; (c) what has been the average time between the patent filing date and commercialisation; and (d) what follow-up actions did the Government take, if any, for patents that were not commercialised.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Over the past 10 years, our public research institutions have filed around 8,000 patents. Approximately 20% of these have been commercialised through licensing or assignment, with the time to first commercialisation typically being between two and four years.
In deciding whether to file a patent, and whether and when to commercialise it, our researchers and research institutions would consider factors, such as industry interest and whether through spin-outs or licensing, and so on.
The Innovation and Enterprise Offices in our public research institutions may support the commercialisation of the intellectual property through active marketing and outreach at exhibitions and industry platforms, and targeted engagement with potential licensees and industry partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Complaints and Chargeback Requests Across Banks, Card Issuers and Payment Institutions Involving Unauthorised Online Spending by Minors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Victor Lye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS has data on the number of complaints or chargeback requests received by (i) banks (ii) card issuers or (iii) payment institutions, involving minors who incurred unauthorised or excessive spending through online platforms, including livestream gifting, in-app purchases or transfers to online content creators; and (b) if so, what is the data for each of the last five years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): The Monetary Authority of Singapore does not collect the requested data from financial institutions, and has received a few cases of feedback from the public on this issue in the past five years. Customers would typically approach their banks for such disputed transactions.
Bank accounts for minors under 16 years old can only be opened by their parents or guardians, who can set lower daily transaction limits for them.1 Minors would generally be ineligible for credit cards as they would not meet minimum income or net asset requirements.2
We encourage all parents to remain actively engaged in guiding their child's access to online content and managing the child's spending on online platforms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Please refer to the reply given in this house on 12 November 2024 for more information: Written reply to Parliamentary Questions on digital banking and fraud liability protection for minors (https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2024/pq-on-digital-banking-and-fraud-liability-protection-for-minors).","2 : Under MAS’ unsecured credit rules, card issuers like banks can only issue credit cards to individuals 55 years of age or younger if the individual meets at least one of the following requirements: (i) has an annual income of at least S$30,000, (ii) has net financial assets in excess of S$1 million, or (iii) has total net personal assets in excess of S$2 million."],"footNoteQuestions":["1"],"questionNo":"1"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Baby Bonus Scheme Disparity for Families with Two Children versus Families with Third and Subsequent Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the policy rationale for the difference in Child Development Account (CDA) Government co-matching caps and Baby Bonus Cash Gift amounts between the second child and third and subsequent children under the enhanced Baby Bonus Scheme; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider aligning these support levels to further ease the cost of raising two-child families.
Ms Indranee Rajah: One of the key policy objectives of the Baby Bonus Scheme is to encourage couples to have more children. Higher amounts of the Baby Bonus Cash Gift (BBCG) and the Child Development Account (CDA) Government co-matching caps are therefore given to children of higher birth orders to support larger families.
The Government recognises that families with fewer children also require financial support in raising children. We have strengthened financial support for children in all birth orders over the years. For example, in 2023, we increased the BBCG and CDA First Step Grant quanta for children of all birth orders, and increased Government co-matching caps by $1,000 for children of the first and second birth orders. The Government has also increased preschool subsidies, which do not vary by birth orders.
We will continue to review our marriage and parenthood support measures, including the Baby Bonus Scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Whole-of-Government Guiding Principles to Manage Workforce Transitions Due to Organisational Transformation and AI Adoption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Public Service Division has established whole-of-Government principles to guide agencies in managing workforce transitions arising from organisational transformation and AI adoption, including how agencies should balance retraining, redeployment, workforce restructuring, the preservation of institutional knowledge and operational resilience.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service continually reviews our organisations, functions, operating models and workforce requirements so that we can meet changing needs and priorities of Singapore and Singaporeans well. Most transformation efforts and workforce changes are made progressively, through reskilling, job redesign, redeployment and natural attrition. More significant restructuring is undertaken only where necessary, in response to fundamental changes in an agency's operating environment, mission or operating model.
In all organisational transformation and workforce transition efforts, the principle is to support affected officers through the changes with care and practical assistance. As a fair and responsible employer, agencies will prioritise reskilling and redeploying affected officers, whether within their agency or elsewhere in the Public Service. Where redeployment is not feasible, we are committed to providing transition support to the affected officers, such as financial support and employment facilitation assistance. This approach ensures that capabilities, institutional knowledge and operational resilience are maintained even as we strive to meet future needs.
The Public Service's purpose is to serve Singapore and Singaporeans. To do this well, agencies must continue to transform and ensure that the Public Service workforce remains effective, responsive and ready for the future, while supporting public officers through change.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing Centralised Digital Service for Consumers to Manage Recurring Payment Authorisations Across Financial Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether MAS has considered developing a centralised digital service that enables consumers to view and manage their active recurring payment authorisations across financial institutions and payment service providers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Consumers today can manage their recurring payment arrangements directly through the digital platforms of major retail banks and payment service providers. These channels provide customers with the ability to view, amend or terminate recurring payment instructions as needed. There is no need for a centralised service. Nevertheless, the Monetary Authority of Singapore will continue to monitor developments and review the need for further measures if circumstances change.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Public Service Officers by Employment Type, Hiring Trends and Managing Underperforming Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) of the current public service officers, what percentage of them are employed on a contract and permanent basis respectively; (b) whether there is a trend of moving away from employing officers on a permanent basis; and (c) how does the Public Service manage underperforming officers employed on a contract and permanent basis respectively.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Public agencies may appoint officers on permanent or contract terms, depending on operational and workforce requirements. Contract appointments may be used to assess an officer's suitability for a longer-term career in the Public Service or to support specific projects over a defined period.
As at 31 December 2025, 15% of employed officers were on contract, excluding those on re-employment contracts. Permanent appointments continue to account for the majority of the Public Service workforce.
All public officers – regardless of whether they are appointed on permanent or contract terms – are expected to meet the required performance standards. Supervisors in turn are to support the officers' development – through feedback, coaching and support to help officers improve their performance. Where an officer's performance falls below expectations, the agency and supervisor will work with the officer to identify areas for improvement, set clear performance expectations, provide appropriate support and coaching and review progress over an appropriate period. Officers who consistently are unable to perform at the required expectations may have their permanent or contract service terminated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing GST Voucher Eligibility Framework to Reflect Current Economic Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will review the GST Voucher eligibility framework by (i) updating the annual assessable income threshold of $39,000 to better reflect current economic conditions (ii) taking household size into account when determining eligibility and (iii) replacing the current cliff effect with a tapered reduction in benefits as income increases.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Government periodically reviews the GST Voucher scheme to ensure that it continues to provide meaningful support to lower- and middle- income Singaporeans. Most recently, we raised the Assessable Income threshold for the GST Voucher-Cash scheme from $34,000 to $39,000 to keep pace with rising incomes.
The GST Voucher-Cash is an individual-based scheme. As such, households with more eligible members will receive more GST Voucher–Cash support. Other Government support measures, such as the Community Development Council vouchers, U-Save rebates and Service and Conservancy Charges Rebates, are provided at the household level. Taken together, our support schemes cater to households with different circumstances.
The GST Voucher scheme is also designed to provide more support to those with less means. While any eligibility threshold creates a cut-off, individuals with higher incomes who are not eligible for the GST Voucher scheme may still benefit from other Government support measures. We will continue to review our support schemes, taking into account changes in incomes, household circumstances and the broader economic environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Pursuing Modular and Sector-Specific EU-ASEAN Trade Cooperation Ahead of Full EU-ASEAN FTA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) whether Singapore is pursuing modular or sector-specific EU-ASEAN cooperation ahead of a full EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (FTA); and (b) if so, how can such arrangements be prioritised.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The European Union (EU) was ASEAN's third largest trading partner and second largest investor as of end-2024. The EU has concluded bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Singapore, Viet Nam and Indonesia, and is currently negotiating FTAs with Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. ASEAN and the EU are also working closely together to strengthen economic ties in areas, such as digital trade, green technologies and green services, and supply chain resilience. Both bilateral FTAs and ongoing sectoral cooperation serve as building blocks towards a region-to-region economic cooperation framework in the longer term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exploring Institutional Trade Links Between EU Frameworks and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) Structures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) whether Singapore is exploring trade institutional links with the European Union (EU) frameworks and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) structures.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: A Trade and Investment Dialogue between members of the European Union (EU) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was established in November 2025. The dialogue is to deepen economic linkages between the two blocs who are committed to free and open markets and rules-based trade. Areas of collaboration being worked on relate to supply chain resilience, digital trade and supporting the global trade environment. Singapore is active in the dialogue and will continue to build and strengthen economic relations globally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protecting Singapore-domiciled Companies from Foreign Regulatory Overreach and Preserving Singapore's Neutral Business Hub Reputation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) what is the threshold at which the extraterritorial application of foreign laws on Singapore-domiciled companies infringes upon Singapore’s sovereignty; (b) what legal frameworks protect these entities from foreign regulatory overreach; and (c) how does the Government ensure such incidents do not undermine Singapore’s reputation as a neutral business hub.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: States can enact laws to regulate extraterritorial conduct in accordance with accepted principles of international law. However, a State cannot enforce its laws within another State's territory without the other State's consent. If a State enforces its laws in Singapore without our consent, it will be a breach of our sovereignty. Singapore's reputation as a trusted global business hub rests on our commitment to the rule of law, zero tolerance for corruption, regulatory transparency, and an open and inclusive business environment.
We recognise that foreign laws with extraterritorial effect may impact Singapore-domiciled companies. We expect Singapore-domiciled businesses and companies to adhere to relevant laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate. We also work closely with foreign counterparts to address their concerns and facilitate their investigations where appropriate and in accordance with our domestic laws. This principled and consistent approach is what makes Singapore a trusted partner to both countries and companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Channelling Recovered Funds from Scam-related Offences Towards International Enforcement Cooperation, Victim Support and Targeting Transnational Scam Syndicates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether recovered funds from scam-related offences forfeited to the state can be channelled towards international enforcement cooperation, victim support initiatives or efforts targeting the organisers of transnational scam syndicates.
Mr K Shanmugam: Funds recovered from scam-related offences that are forfeited to the state are transferred to the Government Consolidated Fund, which is used to fund Government expenditure in accordance with the Government's spending priorities.
Our spending on anti-scam initiatives is independent of the amount of forfeited proceeds. The Ministry of Home Affairs receives a budget allocation to pursue the Ministry's priorities for Singapore, which would include combating scams.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Average Sentencing Outcomes for Drunk Driving Cases over Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs of the more than 1,700 cases of arrest for drunk driving over the past three years, what have been the average (i) duration of driving ban (ii) fine and (iii) duration of incarceration among those who have been sentenced to jail time.
Mr K Shanmugam: Over the past three years, there were 5,176 persons arrested for drink-driving.
Arrest and sentencing statistics in a particular year are not directly comparable as persons arrested in a year may only be charged and/or sentenced in a later year, following investigations and Court processes.
Between 2023 and 2025, the average sentences imposed by the Courts are set out in the table below.
12 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs since 2023, how does the two-year drug-free rate among persons who completed Drug Rehabilitation Centre programmes compare with outcomes from community-based rehabilitation pathways.
Mr K Shanmugam: Drug abusers who are caught purely for consumption offences are placed on differentiated treatment and rehabilitation pathways based on the number of prior drug consumption offences and assessed risk of re-offending. First-time, lower risk abusers may be placed on community-based rehabilitation pathways, such as the Youth Enhanced Supervision Scheme for youth drug abusers under the age of 21, and the Enhanced Direct Supervision Order for adult drug abusers. Repeat and/or higher risk abusers will be admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Centre.
Given the differing risk profiles of the drug abusers put through the various pathways, the outcomes for these programmes are therefore not directly comparable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Measures Against Youth Recreational Drug Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent Coroner's findings linking two teenage deaths to methamphetamine intake, what further measures are being taken to clamp down on youth recreational drug use, particularly methamphetamine and new psychoactive substances, including their online promotion, supply and distribution.
Mr K Shanmugam: Youth drug abuse continues to be an area of concern, with the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) detecting more youth abusers over the years, at a younger age. In 2025, the youngest abuser arrested by CNB was 12 years old, and half of the new drug abusers arrested were below 30 years old.
Recognising these challenges, the Inter-Ministry Committee on Drug Prevention for Youths (IMC) was formed in 2023 as a whole-of-Government response to the youth drug problem. The IMC provides guidance on the deployment of resources and touchpoints across key sectors to further strengthen support for our youths throughout their developmental journey. This enables the authorities to combat youth drug abuse in a holistic and effective manner. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) uses age-appropriate activity packages for primary, secondary and pre-university levels to facilitate classroom discussions on the harms of drugs.
DrugFreeSG Champions actively engage youths to combat misinformation and promote messages within their spheres of influence. These Champions are appointed by the IMC and come from diverse backgrounds, including educators, student leaders, counsellors, youth workers, and parents. Currently, there are close to 1,000 DrugFreeSG Champions whom the IMC agencies actively support with resources. Parents are also encouraged to have open conversations with their children at home, supported by resources on MOE's Parents Gateway and the CNB website.
CNB conducts regular DrugFreeSG campaigns to amplify the drug-free message to various target audiences, including the youths. In particular, the DrugFreeSG “Uninfluenced” campaign was launched in February 2025 with the aim of empowering youths to stay drug-free through non-traditional and innovative means of delivering Preventive Drug Education messages. The multi-year campaign allows participants to experience the influences surrounding drugs through gamified theatre and escape room experiences. The experience is amplified through content partnerships with influencers that highlight common permissive statements echoed by youths, for them to reflect on factors that have shaped their perceptions of drug abuse. It seeks to strengthen community resilience against drug abuse and prevent its normalisation in youth culture, by challenging prevailing mindsets and indifference about drug abuse.
Singapore's efforts have shown results in shifting youth perceptions away from drug abuse. Based on the National Drug Perception Survey 2025, there is a strong consensus among youths for a drug-free Singapore, and 87.7% of youths held conservative views of drugs compared to 83.2% in 2023.
On the enforcement front, CNB has been leveraging emerging technologies to sharpen its intelligence and investigative capabilities. CNB also works closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and courier companies to detect and disrupt drug trafficking activities.
Apart from the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), CNB also utilises other existing legislative levers to enforce against the online promotion, supply and distribution of controlled drugs. For example, CNB will soon commence the issuance of directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act to online platforms to take down drug-related content and direct platforms to furnish CNB with information to assist in investigations or in criminal proceedings.
CNB takes swift and decisive enforcement action against drug offenders to prevent them from contaminating others within their social circles. We take a zero-tolerance approach towards adult drug offenders who prey on the young, and such offenders are liable for enhanced punishments under the MDA.
The Ministry of Home Affairs will continue to monitor the situation and enhance our enforcement capabilities and laws where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Investigation Outcomes and Regulatory Actions Taken on Excluded Persons Betting Through Singapore Pools Accounts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs following the Auditor-General’s Office's finding that 79 Singapore Pools accounts held by excluded persons were not closed and 32 holders placed 1,358 online bets totalling $75,800 during exclusion periods (a) what are the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore's investigation outcomes and regulatory actions; (b) which recurring data-matching, exception-monitoring and independent-testing controls have been implemented; and (c) from when.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Gambling Regulatory Authority and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), which oversees the National Council on Problem Gambling, found that the lapses arose from system-related issues that resulted in some excluded persons not being flagged. These issues were rectified in February 2026.
Investigations into possible offences committed by the 32 excluded persons who engaged in remote gambling are ongoing. Individuals found liable will be dealt with. The remaining 47 excluded persons did not engage in remote gambling.
MSF has enhanced its system controls and validation processes, including implementing more rigorous testing for new system enhancements since June 2026. MSF will extend these enhancements to existing systems and operational processes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Use of MediSave for Overseas Elective Hospitalisations and Day Surgeries in Past Five Years, and Cost Comparisons with Treatments Undertaken in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Victor Lye asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the use of MediSave for overseas elective hospitalisations and day surgeries in the past five years (a) what is the annual (i) number of claims lodged (ii) number of claims approved and (iii) corresponding amount of MediSave approved for use; and (b) what are the top 10 medical treatments approved and their average cost difference compared with equivalent treatments undertaken in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediSave can be used for elective overseas hospitalisations and day surgeries at accredited hospitals, subject to the relevant existing withdrawal limits. From 2020 to 2024, there was an average of about 200 claims per year, with an average MediSave withdrawal of about $3,200 per claim. Most of the claims were for obstetrics and gynaecology services. We do not track how the cost of these overseas medical treatments compare with similar ones undertaken in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Disposable Incontinence Sheets in Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund Subsidies for Comprehensive Hygiene and Pressure Sore Protection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the inclusion of underpads in the Seniors' Mobility and Enabling Fund (SMF) consumables subsidy from April 2026 covers full-sized disposable incontinence sheets for bed-bound patients; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will expand the subsidy to ensure comprehensive protection against hygiene issues and pressure sores.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Yes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing MediSave Withdrawal Limits and Government Co-funding Schemes for Assisted Conception at Private Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has studied if current MediSave withdrawal limits for assisted conception remain sufficient for timely treatment at accredited private centres, given that Government co-funding is offered only at public facilities; and (b) whether the Government co-funding scheme for Assisted Conception Procedures at public hospitals will be reviewed given rising costs and the time-sensitive nature of such treatments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The MediSave withdrawal limits for Assisted Conception Procedures (ACPs) are sized considering the cost of treatment at public Assisted Reproduction centres, after co-funding.
The Ministry of Health is reviewing the Government co-funding scheme and MediSave withdrawal limits for ACPs as part of the Marriage and Parenthood Reset Workgroup led by the Prime Minister's Office. More details will be shared when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Gaps in Caregiving Support for Elderly Households After Experiencing Falls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there is currently any support for elderly households with no family caregiving support when a senior suffers a fall but is not hospitalised, or when the spouse-caregiver is also incapacitated; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider introducing subsidised short-term caregiving and home-based rehabilitation support beyond current post-discharge limits, including for community-referred households.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Subsidised rehabilitation services are available at Senior Care Centres or through Home Therapy for those who are home-bound. Those who require custodial support can access subsidised enhanced Home Personal Care services. Seniors or their caregivers can contact the Agency for Integrated Care, who will assess which service best meets the household's needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Community Mental Health Peer Support Through Funding and Training, and Tracking Referral Pathways into Formal Mental Health Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many trained peer support specialists are currently active in community mental health settings; (b) what funding and training frameworks govern peer support programmes outside clinical settings; and (c) whether the Ministry tracks referral rates from peer support into formal mental health services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As of December 2025, more than 160 peer support specialists have been trained in the Peer Support Specialist Programme run by the National Council of Social Service.
The Health Promotion Board also trains individuals from Institutes of Higher Learning and workplaces to be mental health peer supporters. More than 33,000 individuals have been trained as of December 2025.
Both programmes are funded by the respective agencies and aligned to the National Mental Health Competency Training Framework. The Ministry neither tracks the number of peer supporters who are active in community mental health settings nor the referral rates from peer support programmes into formal mental health services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing ADL-Based Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession Assessments to Address Caregiving Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has encountered cases in the Migrant Domestic Worker levy concession assessment process where individuals assessed as independent in all Activities of Daily Living nonetheless required regular supervision or caregiving support due to cognitive, behavioural or mental health conditions; and (b) whether the reliance on Activities of Daily Living as the primary eligibility threshold adequately captures such caregiving needs.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The concessionary Migrant Domestic Worker (MDW) levy is not restricted only to persons who require assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). A large majority of persons with care needs, including those with cognitive impairment, can qualify.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Data Security Requirements for Patient Data Processed by AI Tools Through Third-party Cloud Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether mandatory data security requirements apply to AI tools that process patient data through third-party cloud services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Yes, data security requirements apply to AI tools that process patient data, whether hosted on third-party cloud services or on-premise. These are requirements under both the Healthcare Services Act and the Personal Data Protection Act.
Public healthcare institutions have also adopted additional practices to safeguard data. For example, AI model providers whom they work with must give legally-binding commitments that all input and output data are not stored or retained. The AI tools also need to be accessed from secure environments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Waiting Times for Psychiatric Specialist Appointments and Expanding Community-based Specialist Capacity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how does the Ministry monitor waiting times for first specialist appointments at public psychiatric services; (b) what service standards exist for urgent but non-emergency referrals; and (c) whether community-based specialist capacity will be expanded to reduce reliance on hospital emergency departments.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) monitors the wait times for new psychiatry appointments at public hospitals' specialist outpatient clinics by the duration from the date of request for the appointment to the given appointment date. All acute hospitals triage patients according to the acuity of their clinical needs to ensure urgent cases are prioritised.
Under the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy, MOH is expanding community mental health services to improve access and anchor care in the community where appropriate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Establishing Guidelines and Escalation Processes for CPR Decisions Opposed by Next-of-kin, and Standardising Processes for Obtaining Second Opinion or Transfers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what guidelines and escalation processes are in place when a treating medical team determines that cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not clinically appropriate, despite objections from the patient's next-of-kin; and (b) whether there is a standardised process for obtaining an independent second clinical opinion or, where appropriate, arranging a transfer to another healthcare institution.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As our population ages and as a society, we will increasingly face difficult decisions regarding end-of-life care. These are often deeply emotional situations, and healthcare institutions will support patients and families through these periods with compassion, sensitivity and professionalism.
In this regard, the clinical team has a duty of care to their patient. They act professionally and ethically in the patient's best interests. Their responsibility is to ensure that care provided is always appropriate, compassionate and beneficial to the patient.
Where a patient has mental capacity, the clinical team will discuss treatment options with the patient and take into account the patient's informed preferences. In situations where the patient lacks capacity, the clinical team will refer to any Advance Care Plan that the patient might have prepared. Family members and other persons close to the patient can provide valuable information regarding the patient's previously expressed wishes, values and goals of care. All this information helps the clinical team determine the treatment approach that would be in the patient's best interests.
There are often circumstances where the team determines that aggressive medical interventions are unlikely to reverse the patient's condition or will not meaningfully improve outcomes, and may instead prolong suffering. In such situations, the focus of care may appropriately shift towards comfort, relief of suffering and preservation of the patient's dignity towards end of life.
There will be emergency situations when the clinical team has to decide whether to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for a dying patient. This is ultimately a clinical decision by the clinical team caring for the patient. In making such decisions, the clinical team considers the patient's clinical condition, the likelihood that CPR will achieve meaningful recovery, the patient's pre-morbid functional status and overall prognosis, as well as any known wishes previously expressed by the patient. It is a common institutional practice around the world that family members, including next-of-kin, cannot demand CPR when the treating team has assessed that it would not provide meaningful clinical benefit.
Often, especially for very ill and senior patients, resuscitation decisions can be made beforehand, which in a healthcare institution is called a \"Do Not Resuscitate\" (DNR) patient status. Public healthcare institutions have established processes to support such decision-making. It may include seeking inputs from senior clinicians, multidisciplinary teams and in complex clinical cases, hospital ethics committees' opinions. These processes help ensure that difficult decisions are carefully considered and appropriately reviewed.
Families who have concerns regarding a DNR decision may seek clarification from the clinical team and, where circumstances permit, seek an independent clinical review. Hospitals can facilitate such reviews and, where clinically appropriate and safe, may also facilitate transfers to another healthcare institution should the family request.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Insurance Clauses Refusing Coverage for Corrections of Medical Procedure Complications, and Implications for MediShield and CareShield Life","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether insurance clauses refusing payouts for corrections of medical procedure complications or errors are allowed in consumer insurance contracts; (b) if so, whether this has been observed to result in healthcare providers practising defensive medicine for complex issues and high-risk patients; and (c) whether the Ministry will regulate such clauses, given their potential impact on MediShield and CareShield Life.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We have not observed such clauses in Integrated Shield Plan policyholder contracts. Where patients require additional procedures to manage complications arising from a prior medically necessary treatment, insurers will generally cover them. However, private insurers may include clauses that stipulate that providers who have been found to have been involved in malpractice, medical negligence or fraud, waste and abuse cases are not allowed to seek reimbursement from insurers or patients for any corrective procedures they carried out to rectify the initial problem. This will prevent passing of these costs to patients and policyholders in such specific and rare circumstances.
MediShield Life provides universal coverage for all Singapore residents, and pays for corrective treatments and procedures, even if it is in correction of earlier medically necessary procedures. CareShield Life is a separate scheme that pays out in the event of severe disability, and is not impacted by such clauses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Pre-Implantation Genetic Testing in Past Three Years, and Enhancing Financial Support for Testing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what are the annual numbers, indications, and success rates of pre-implantation genetic testing in Singapore in the past three years; and (b) whether the Government will consider enhancing financial subsidies or MediSave coverage for eligible couples using such testing, given rising maternal age, to improve access and support fertility outcomes and Singapore's total fertility rate.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Pre-implantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) is currently being carried out as a pilot project at public Assisted Reproduction centres. Under the pilot, the test is subsidised for women undergoing In-Vitro Fertilisation and meet the eligibility criteria, namely, aged 35 years and above, who had experienced two or more recurrent implantation failures, suffered two or more pregnancy losses, or had two or more embryos or fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities.
As of 31 January 2026, 303 women underwent PGT-A. These led to 119 pregnancies with 92 live births. The rate of pregnancy is therefore higher with a PGT-A test. The Ministry of Health is reviewing the pilot scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Designating Tourist-Frequented Hawker Centres as National Hawker Centres and Strengthening NEA Oversight and Funding to Improve Cleanliness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether some hawker centres, such as those in the Chinatown area, that are mostly visited by non-residents, can be designated \"national hawker centres\"; and (b) whether NEA could directly manage such hawker centres or give additional grants to improve the standards of cleanliness in these hawker centres.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Hawker centres serve as community dining rooms, providing access to affordable food options for all. There are currently no plans to designate any centres as national hawker centres or change the existing management and funding arrangements for specific hawker centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Timeline and Status Updates of Extension of Smoking Restrictions to Rooftop Gardens on Multi-storey Car Parks at HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the status of the Ministry's ongoing review of smoking prohibition regulations in respect of rooftop gardens above multi-storey car parks within HDB estates; and (b) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for such review, since such spaces increasingly serve as community recreational areas.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Smoking is currently not prohibited in open‑air rooftops of multi-storey carparks. Nonetheless, we recognise that such spaces are increasingly being used as communal recreational areas, such as rooftop gardens, and will consider the Member's suggestion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Electricity and Gas Cost Increase Borne by Hawker Stallholders Since 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government is aware of the average increase in electricity and gas costs borne by hawker stallholders, since 2023; and (b) if so, what is the increase.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: My Ministry does not track data on the electricity and gas costs for individual cooked food stallholders at hawker centres. Such costs vary based on a range of factors, including the stall type, equipment used, the volume of business and which suppliers or providers that hawkers use.
Singapore's regulated electricity and town gas tariffs are determined on a quarterly basis, based on the fuel prices in the first two and a half months of the previous quarter. Hawkers paying regulated electricity and town gas tariffs would have seen these tariffs rise in 2024 and ease through 2025 and 1Q 2026, before the global energy price volatility in 2Q 2026 due to the Middle East conflict. The elevated rates in 2024 were mainly driven by fuel and natural gas costs in global energy markets and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.
Based on surveys of cooked food stallholders conducted by the National Environment Agency, the average cost of utilities, covering gas, water and electricity, remained relatively stable in 2023 and 2024, at around 7% of operating costs in both years. Survey data on 2025 is not yet available. Since 1 July 2026, both regulated electricity tariff and town gas tariff have increased, reflecting the increases in fuel prices from the last quarter due to the Middle East conflict.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire and Public Liability Insurance Coverage Rates Among Hawkers across NEA-managed and Operator-managed Centres, and Adequacy of Current Coverage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what proportion of hawkers hold fire and public liability insurance, broken down by management model, including centres under direct NEA management and those managed by NEA-appointed operators; (b) whether insurance requirements or coverage differ across these models; (c) if so, why; and (d) whether the Ministry considers current insurance coverage among hawkers adequate to protect stallholders and third parties.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Based on a survey conducted by the National Environment Agency (NEA), about two-thirds of all cooked food stallholders indicated that they had purchased insurance coverage for their stalls.
NEA does not currently require stallholders in hawker centres to purchase insurance. Nonetheless, NEA regularly promotes fire safety awareness among stallholders through circulars and face-to-face engagements, including encouraging stallholders to purchase fire insurance with public liability. For hawker centres where stall tenancies are managed by NEA-appointed operators, the operators may require stallholders to purchase insurance that would include public liability coverage for their respective stalls.
NEA is reviewing the requirements including whether to make insurance coverage compulsory for all stallholders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alignment of Clearance of Maju Forest with Singapore's Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Plans in 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given the designation of 2026 as the Year of Climate Adaptation and concerns about the impact of heat in Singapore, how does the clearing of Maju Forest fit into the Ministry's climate adaptation and mitigation plans.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We have designated 2026 as the Year of Climate Adaptation to raise awareness on the importance of adaptation, galvanise collective action to adapt to the effects of climate change, and co-create the development of our National Adaptation Plan with public, private and people stakeholders, including the Ministry of National Development (MND) and its agencies.
It is important for the co-creation process to consider and balance the needs for economic development, social services and environmental protection.
MND has separately answered the specific questions related to the development of Sunset Way on 4 August 2026. [Please refer to \"Assessments, Consultations and Consideration of Alternative Sites for Housing before Decisions on Clearance of Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Technical Malfunction and Rejection Rates for Return Right Reverse Vending Machines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the current rate of technical malfunctions and rejected returns at Return Right reverse vending machines since the launch of the Beverage Container Return Scheme on 1 April 2026.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This question will be addressed at the next Sitting on 5 August 2026, together with similar Parliamentary Questions filed on the Return Right Beverage Container Return Scheme, for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Deposits Collected under Beverage Container Return Scheme From Beverage Producers and Retailers\", Official Report, 5 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 34, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Land Use Changes in Lim Chu Kang and Differential Relocation Timelines for Affected Farms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the rationale for land use changes in Lim Chu Kang; and (b) why is there a need for three of the affected farms to move out within the next year, given that two other farms in the affected area can operate for at least 10 more years.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The land-use changes in Lim Chu Kang are intended to optimise our scarce land to meet our growing and evolving needs. These changes will allow the Government to explore the physical co-location of food and non-food farms to the North of Lim Chu Kang, which could benefit from shared facilities and integrated infrastructure planning. It also enables the consolidation of contiguous training land for the Ministry of Defence in the South of Lim Chu Kang.
The different timelines for the affected farms to move out are based on the expiry of their existing tenancies or leases and phased development timelines. There will be no early termination of tenancies or leases. The affected farms were informed early that no further lease renewals will be granted to provide sufficient lead time to prepare for the transition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Existing Provisions and Expanding Eligibility of Crisis and Transitional Shelters for Homeless Youths under 21 With No History of Family Violence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development given that homeless youths under 21 years of age with no family-violence history fall between crisis shelters, which require family violence, and HDB public rental, which sets a minimum age of 21 years (a) what provision exists for them beyond Youth Crisis Homes; and (b) whether crisis-shelter or transitional-shelter criteria can be opened to such youths.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development is committed to ensuring that youth in need have access to safe accommodation and appropriate support. Homeless youths aged below 21 with no history of family violence can also seek support from Family Service Centres, drop-in centres operated by various Social Service Agencies (SSAs) and other SSA-operated temporary shelters. These agencies will work closely with them to address their root causes of homelessness, including the possibility of family reconciliation.
Youths aged below 21 can also be admitted into crisis shelters if there are immediate safety concerns or transitional shelters, on a case-by-case basis.
We will continue to work with our SSA partners to ensure that the sector remains responsive to the needs of the vulnerable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Staff Salaries, Turnover and Retention Rates at Student Care Centres Administering Student Care Fee Assistance from 2021 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development for student care centres that administer Student Care Fee Assistance (a) whether the Ministry (i) tracks staff salaries and turnover rates and (ii) monitors whether they are adequate to attract and retain suitably qualified staff; (b) if so, what is the median monthly salary of (i) supervisors (ii) teachers and (iii) assistant teachers, respectively; and (c) what is the average annual staff turnover rate from 2021 to 2025.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This question has been addressed in the reply to Question No 41 for written answer on the Order Paper for 7 July 2026. [Please refer to \"Breakdown of Student Care Centres Operating in Singapore by Operator Type and Registered as Student Care Fee Assistance Administrators\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Staff Qualifications, Vetting Requirements and Preventive Measures Following Child Abuse Case Involving Unqualified Staff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of a recent child abuse case involving a manager who was hired by an educational facility despite not having any childcare or teaching qualifications (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the case; (b) what are the relevant lessons learnt; and (c) what measures, if any, will be introduced to prevent recurrence.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Member is referring to a recent news article which reported that a man hired by an “educational facility” providing accommodation to foreign students and workers, had allegedly abused victims who resided there.
The actual facts of the case are that the children's parents engaged a private accommodation facility for their children while they were studying in Singapore. This facility is therefore not an educational institution.
Parents who contract for services for their children should exercise due diligence by making reasonable checks on the provider's background, experience and suitability. Parents should also monitor the care of their child under the provider.
It is not practical to create a regulatory regime for every setting or activity where children are involved. The Children and Young Persons Act provides a broad safeguard by making it an offence for a person who has custody, charge or care of a child to ill-treat the child. This, together with other offences in the Penal Code, provide the overall framework to deter mistreatment of children, and punish those who flout the law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Subsidies to Children with Mild Special Needs Attending Private Special Student Care Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are existing subsidies for children with mild special educational needs studying in mainstream schools, who are turned away by mainstream school-based student care centres and not accepted by special student care centres, to attend private special student care centres; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will consider extending subsidies to these children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Subsidies are available for students enrolled in school-based or community-based Student Care Centres, or in Special Student Care Centres, under the respective Fee Assistance programmes. The student's household must meet qualifying income thresholds.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increase in Problem Gambling Assistance Requests to NCPG Ahead of and During FIFA World Cup 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry has observed an increase in the number of requests for assistance with problem gambling made to the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) ahead and during the FIFA World Cup 2026.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Requests for assistance with problem gambling received through the National Problem Gambling Helpline (calls and web chats) increased by about 14% in the months of June and July (estimated) 2026, compared to the monthly average in 2026 before the start of the World Cup. This is consistent with historical trends, where the number of individuals receiving counselling for problem gambling from the National Council on Problem Gambling and the National Addictions Management Service was higher during the FIFA World Cup years (2014, 2018 and 2022) than in non-World Cup years. This was why the National Council on Problem Gambling stepped up on the public engagement this year to raise greater awareness about the ills of problem gambling and how individuals can get help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detection of Simba Telecom's Alleged Unauthorised Radio Frequency Spectrum Use and Enhancement of Monitoring Mechanisms to Ensure Fair Competition Among Telcos","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the alleged unauthorised use of radio frequency spectrum by Simba Telecom only came to light during the review of its proposed merger with M1; and (b) whether monitoring mechanisms should be enhanced to ensure fair competition among telcos.
Mrs Josephine Teo: This question has been addressed in the reply to a related Parliamentary Question by Associate Professor Terence Ho at the 7 Jul Parliament sitting. The Member may refer to that reply. [Please refer to \"New Safeguards following Probe into Simba Telecom's Unauthorised Use of Radio Frequency Bands\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cybersecurity Incidents Affecting Critical Information Infrastructure, Mandated Remediation Timelines and Review of Cybersecurity Act 2018 Penalties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how many cybersecurity incidents affecting critical information infrastructure were reported in 2025; (b) what remediation timelines are mandated; and (c) whether penalties for non-compliance with the Cybersecurity Act 2018 have been reviewed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: For security reasons, the Government does not disclose the number of cybersecurity incidents affecting Critical Information Infrastructure (CII), as doing so could reveal information that may be useful to malicious actors. The Government treats any attack on CII seriously, given that the provision of essential services could be disrupted and that sensitive data could be exfiltrated. Last year's Operation Cyber Guardian was one such example, in which a multi-agency response was mounted against threat actors targeting our four telecommunication operators.
The Cybersecurity Act does not prescribe remediation timelines for cybersecurity incidents, as every incident is unique and the remediation work required will vary accordingly. Mandating timelines could also result in remediation efforts being rushed and potentially ineffective. Instead, the Act mandates timelines for CII owners to notify the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) of cybersecurity incidents with a full report submitted within 30 days of the initial notification. CSA and Sector Leads work closely with CII owners to ensure timely and effective remediation. For complex cases, there are provisions to extend the deadline.
The penalties for non-compliance were reviewed when the Cybersecurity Act was amended in 2024. In addition to the existing criminal penalties, the 2024 amendments introduced civil penalties to complement the existing enforcement regime. This gives the Commissioner of Cybersecurity, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, greater flexibility to pursue a wider range of enforcement actions based on factors such as the nature of the offence and the relevant annual turnover of the regulated entity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Restrictions on Community Screenings of Dialect-language Films to Ease Access for Community Groups and Non-Profits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry places restrictions on the private or community screenings of dialect-language films, including limits on publicity, invitations and attendee registration; (b) if so (i) what is the policy intent behind such restrictions and (ii) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing these restrictions to make screenings easier for community organisations, clan associations and non-profit groups while safeguarding rights holders.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Community organisations may partner film distributors to offer screenings of films, such as “Dear You”, to their members or the public. These “community screenings” are considered public film screenings, which can be promoted and publicised in the same way as other films offered by cinemas.
Films may be also offered for private viewing. Unlike public film screenings, no approval from the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) is required for “private screenings”. However, organisers must observe the spirit of a private screening and not advertise publicly or solicit guests. These requirements apply to all private screenings and are not specific to private screenings of dialect films.
The Government has acknowledged the calls for more dialect films to be screened in cinemas. We will update the public when the review is complete.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Systematic Whole-of-Government Analysis of Citizen Feedback from Government Digital Channels for Cross-Agency Coordination and Insights Sharing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether citizen feedback submitted through Government digital channels is systematically analysed at a whole-of-Government level to identify recurring issues or issues involving multiple agencies; and (b) if so, which agency is responsible for coordinating such analysis and sharing insights with relevant agencies.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government looks into feedback provided through its various touchpoints, including digital channels. Agencies are responsible for analysing the feedback they receive to improve their policies and services, and can use shared tools, like the Whole-of-Government Application Analytics (WOGAA) platform, to collect and analyse citizen feedback on their websites and digital services.
For issues that may involve multiple agencies, the Public Service has interagency processes and platforms for agencies to review and address such issues in a coordinated way. For example, ServiceSG within the Public Service Division works with various agencies to leverage data insights from citizen feedback, so as to streamline and redesign public services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Practical Life Skills Coverage and Assessment in Lower Secondary Food and Consumer Education Curriculum and Review of Components","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) what outcomes and assessment frameworks are used in the lower secondary Food and Consumer Education curriculum to ensure students acquire a balanced set of practical life skills, including food preparation, basic sewing and simple household repairs; and (b) whether the Ministry will review or enhance these components.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Food and Consumer Education (FCE) curriculum equips students with the knowledge, skills and values needed to make informed food, health and consumer decisions in today's world. The subject covers nutrition and health, financial and consumer literacy, and food science. The subject has widened beyond its earlier focus on home management. Basic sewing and simple household repairs are not part of the current curriculum.
In FCE, students are assessed on how well they understand the content and how they can use it in real-life situations. Assessment includes tests and coursework. Students also complete an Applied Module project, where they study a real food or consumer issue and propose practical solutions, which they present as part of the project.
The Ministry of Education reviews the FCE curriculum regularly to keep it relevant. The most recent update was completed in 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Public Concerns over Alleged Prompt Discrepancy Regarding 15 July 2026 \"O\" Level English Oral Examination Through Transparency of SEAB Verification Processes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education following feedback on the 15 July 2026 \"O\" Level English oral examination (a) how many candidates and schools reported a prompt alleged discrepancy; (b) what evidence and checks supported the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's (SEAB's) finding of no discrepancy; and (c) whether SEAB will consider publicly sharing a fuller account of its verification process to address continuing public concerns.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education will provide an oral answer to this Parliamentary Question (PQ) together with other PQs which have been filed on this topic, at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Probe into Incident of 15 July 2026 where Preparation Prompt for \"O\" Level English Language Oral Examination Differed from What Was Asked\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
44 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Education in light of Singapore's strong standing in the recent Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, whether the Ministry will review the current limits on international undergraduate admissions in Autonomous Universities and allow greater flexibility where additional capacity is available while protecting Singaporean places and promoting diversity, integration and talent retention.
Mr Desmond Lee: Admission to our autonomous universities (AUs) is based on merit. Places are planned and set aside for Singaporeans first. International students, who are subject to more stringent admissions criteria, are admitted over and above the places set aside for Singaporeans, and are subject to a cap.
International students add diversity to the education experience at the AUs. This helps cultivate our students' global orientation and intercultural skills, which are life skills that better prepare them for the workplace. The Ministry of Education will continue to work closely with the AUs to ensure Singaporeans' access to good quality higher education, while enabling our universities to attract good students from around the world, many of whom stay and contribute to Singapore meaningfully after they graduate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Approval Outcomes of Requests for School Transfer or CCA Change Made by Direct School Admission for Secondary School (DSA-Sec) Students","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past decade (a) how many Direct School Admission for secondary schools (DSA-Sec) students requested release from their committed talent area; (b) how many requests were approved; and (c) how many were allowed to change co-curricular activity within the same school versus those required to transfer schools.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Direct School Admission for secondary schools (DSA-Sec) provides a pathway for students to gain admission to secondary schools based on their interests, aptitude and potential, beyond their performance at the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Students who accept a DSA-Sec place commit to participating in the relevant Co-Curricular Activities (CCA) or talent development programme in the school and are expected to honour their commitment.
Schools may consider requests from students to be released from their DSA-Sec commitment on a case-by-case basis where there are valid reasons, such as injury, medical conditions or other extenuating circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, the school may allow the student to take up another suitable CCA or programme within the school or facilitate a transfer to another school.
The Ministry of Education does not track the number of such cases, as these requests are assessed and managed by individual schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Mainstream School-based Student Care Centre Capacity to Support Mild SEN Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"46 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Education (a) whether and how the Ministry assesses the ability of mainstream school-based Student Care Centres (SCCs) to support children with mild special educational needs (SEN) enrolled in mainstream schools, who may be at risk of being asked to leave due to the SCC being unable to cope with their needs; and (b) whether requirements to support mild SEN children at SCCs, if any, are set jointly with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development do not stipulate requirements for Student Care Centres (SCCs) to support students with mild Special Educational Needs (SEN).
While MOE and schools do not evaluate school-based SCC operators on their ability to support children with SEN, schools and operators work closely together to support them in after-school care arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework and MOE Guidance to IHLs on Prioritising Students with Long Commuting Distances in On-campus Hostel Allocation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"47 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will work with Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) that provide on-campus accommodation to develop a framework that prioritises students with long commuting distances from home; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing feedback to IHLs to incorporate travel time as a criterion in hostel allocation under the current system.
Mr Desmond Lee: Four of our autonomous universities (AUs), namely the Nanyang Technological University, the National University of Singapore, the Singapore Management University and the Singapore University of Technology and Design, have student hostels. Given the limited hostel capacity, they tend to prioritise contributions to hostel or campus life when allocating hostel places. Nevertheless, when students appeal for hostel places, most AUs will take into consideration various factors, including students' individual circumstances and commuting distances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reports from IHLs on Use of AI to Cheat in Examinations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has received reports from any Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) about the use of AI to cheat in examinations.
Mr Desmond Lee: There have been instances of students using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in ways that contravene the academic integrity policies of the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), including in assessments. These cases have been addressed by the IHLs in accordance with their respective disciplinary frameworks and processes.
In line with the Ministry of Education's guidance on the responsible use of AI in education, the IHLs regularly review and update their academic integrity policies and corresponding disciplinary frameworks to ensure responsible AI use among students and faculty and strengthen assessment design so that they remain valid measures of students' learning and capabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Yearly Lease Expiries for Arts and Culture Establishments in Gillman Barracks from 2026 to 2030, and Assistance for Relocation Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Law (a) how many arts and culture establishments currently leasing state properties in Gillman Barracks have tenancies expiring in each year from 2026 to 2030; and (b) what assistance will the Government render to help these establishments relocate their operations.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: As of July 2026, there are a total of 11 tenants renting the State properties in Gillman Barracks for arts uses. Their tenancies expire between 2026 and 2029. All tenants have been assured that the existing tenancy terms and tenure are unchanged. Tenants can continue to operate at their current location till the end of their tenancies. In addition, those whose tenancies expire before 2029 can also choose to extend their tenancies till end-2029.
The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has engaged the tenants since 2023 and explained that Gillman Barracks is safeguarded for residential use in the longer term. SLA has also kept tenants informed of the environmental and heritage studies as well as upcoming development works.
SLA is working closely with the National Arts Council (NAC) to advise the tenants of available relocation options, and NAC can also help interested arts tenants connect with suitable alternative spaces and opportunities within Singapore's arts ecosystem.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Relocation Trends of Regional Headquarters and Strengthening Singapore's Competitiveness as High-value Regional Hub","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) how does the Ministry assess the recent relocation of regional headquarters and production facilities to neighbouring countries; and (b) what strategic interventions will be implemented to restore Singapore's cost competitiveness, strengthen Singapore's value proposition and retain high-value regional hub functions amid intensifying regional competition for investment.
Dr Tan See Leng: Businesses regularly review and optimise their operations in response to evolving market conditions, shifts in global supply chains and changes in business strategies. While some firms have chosen to relocate activities elsewhere to optimise their cost structures, others have chosen to expand in Singapore to tap on our advanced manufacturing capabilities, research and innovation ecosystem, the depth and breadth of our financial and professional services sectors as well as connectivity to the region and globally.
In 2025, the Economic Development Board secured $8.9 billion in Total Business Expenditure commitments, with the majority coming from investments in headquarters, professional services and research and development, and $14.2 billion in Fixed Asset Investment commitments, including about $12.1 billion from manufacturing-related projects. These investment commitments were on par with recent years, demonstrating that Singapore's value proposition to businesses remains strong.
We do not take the competitiveness of our economy and our attractiveness to investors for granted. In line with the Economic Strategy Review recommendations, the Government will continue to strengthen Singapore's position as a leading business hub by supporting businesses and workers to pivot, grow and seize opportunities in growth areas, such as advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, high-value trust-based services as well as pursue emerging technologies, such as quantum and space.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Time between Completion of Solar Photovoltaic Systems Installations and Grid Connection, and Measures to Accelerate Process","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) (a) over the past two years, what has been the average time between the technical completion of solar photovoltaic systems and their grid connection, for residential and industrial installations respectively; and (b) what measures are being taken to shorten this interval so that generated renewable electricity can be exported to the grid promptly.
Dr Tan See Leng: We do not have data on the lag time between the completion of solar installations and their grid connection, as solar installers are not required to report the actual date of completion of solar installations to the Government or to SP Group.
For embedded solar photovoltaic (PV) installations with capacity below one megawatt alternating current (MWac), once the installation has been completed, tested and certified by a Licensed Electrical Worker (LEW), the LEW should promptly notify SP Group. If all technical requirements have been met and the required information is submitted, SP Group can inspect and turn on the installation within 10 calendar days of receiving a complete application.
For larger-scale solar PV installations with capacity of one MWac and above, and solar installations that are connected to the High Tension network, once the installation is completed, the LEW must submit a turn-on application to SP Group indicating preferred appointment dates that are at least four business days away. The inspection and turn-on are conducted during the appointment. Thereafter, the LEW must also submit a completed declaration to SP Group within seven business days. Compared to small installations, additional technical and regulatory requirements apply, and an SP PowerGrid officer may have to be present during commissioning to ensure that all necessary standards are met before the system is connected to the grid.
Details of the grid connection process are available on SP Group's website.
To minimise delays in grid connection, the Government encourages the timely commencement of the grid connection process and the prompt completion of the necessary applications and technical requirements by the relevant parties. This includes engaging SP Group on the feasibility of grid connection before commencing installation works and promptly completing the remaining grid connection procedures upon completion of the installation.
The Government will continue to work with SP Group and industry stakeholders to explore ways to further expedite the grid connection process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on First Mover Framework Applications, Approval Rates and Commercialisation Outcomes in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) for each year over the last five years (a) what is the number of applications received under the First Mover Framework; (b) what is the number of successful applications; and (c) what is the number of successful pilots that led to commercialisation.
Dr Tan See Leng: The First Mover Framework aims to facilitate a pro-enterprise environment by giving entrepreneurs with groundbreaking, innovative business ideas a head start with the use of public land or spaces. Successful applicants with approved projects will be awarded a direct allocation of state land or public spaces to test their product or service under market conditions for a trial period. Since 2021, 47 applications have been submitted, of which 13 were approved. Among the successful applications, six have since progressed to commercialisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Applications for Subletting of JTC Properties, Approval Rates and Safeguards Against Profiteering Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) over the past five years (a) what is the number of applications made for subletting of JTC properties; (b) what is the number of successful applications; and (c) what are the safeguards that are in place to detect and prevent profiteering abuse.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2021 to 2025, approximately 37% of the JTC Corporation's (JTC's) land lessees applied to sublet their premises to other businesses. JTC approved 99% of applications received. Tenants occupying JTC's ready-built developments are not allowed to sublet their premises to other businesses.
JTC's policy is for its lessees and tenants to fully occupy and use their leased or tenanted industrial premises for their own business needs and operations. Thus, subletting requires JTC's approval and is subject to conditions, including a cap on the subletting quantum and payment of relevant sublet fees, to prevent profiteering. Subletting without prior approval constitutes a breach of conditions and will result in enforcement action, such as the recovery of higher sublet fees for the period of unauthorised subletting, and in more serious cases, lease or tenancy termination.
To identify unauthorised subletting, JTC conducts regular inspections, investigates feedback, complaints, whistleblowing reports and uses data analytics to strengthen its detection capabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Due Diligence Findings and Financial Commitments for the Marina South Wellness Attraction Winning Bid","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) on the tender award for the Marina South Wellness Attraction (a) whether independent operational and financial due diligence was conducted on the winning bidder; (b) if so, what were the findings; and (c) what are the upfront and ongoing financial commitments or infrastructure costs the Government has undertaken or may be called upon for the project.
Dr Tan See Leng: Therme Group Singapore Pte Ltd was awarded the tender to develop and operate a wellness attraction at the Marina South Coastal site. As part of the tender evaluation process, Therme Group's proposal was assessed against a set of criteria, including its development concept, quality of physical infrastructure plans, track record and financial strength, and economic impact. Due diligence checks did not reveal any adverse findings. Details of the tender evaluation are confidential. The costs of developing the wellness attraction will be fully borne by the awarded bidder.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Startup SG Tech Proof of Concept and Proof of Value Grant Awards, and Breakdown by Industry and Research Institution Origins in Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) for the last 10 years (a) how many Startup SG Tech grants of Proof of Concept (POC) and Proof of Value (POV) were awarded; (b) how many POC projects were awarded the POV grant; and (c) what is the breakdown of the awardees who are from industry-originated startups or universities/research institutes-originated startups.
Dr Tan See Leng: Startup SG Tech was introduced in 2017, as part of the broader Startup SG umbrella of support schemes. From 2017 to 2025, Enterprise Singapore awarded the Startup SG Tech grant to 84 Proof of Concept (POC) and 99 Proof of Value (POV) projects. Among the projects that secured POC grants, 26 went on to secure POV grants. We do not have the breakdown of awardees that originated from industry, universities or research institutes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Biodiversity Monitoring, Habitat Connectivity and Public Consultation Concerns in Development of Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way Development Sites","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether findings from post-development biodiversity monitoring under the Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan for Gillman Barracks will be made public; and (b) what indicators will be used to assess mitigation effectiveness.
57 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether wider or alternative ecological corridor configurations were modelled beyond the proposed minimum 30-metre width; and (b) what was the ecological basis used to determine that this width is sufficient to maintain habitat connectivity at Gillman Barracks.
58 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for National Development (a) why are the public consultations for the Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks sites based on development proposals with retention percentages already determined, rather than on environmental baseline data prior to a development scheme as was done for Dover Forest in December 2020; and (b) how does this affect the scope of the feedback sought.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: These questions were addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the questions asked by Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Low Wu Yang Andre on 4 August 2026. [Please refer to \"Assessments, Consultations and Consideration of Alternative Sites for Housing before Decisions on Clearance of Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review to Increase Children's Play and Recreational Space Allocation in BTO Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will review and increase the ratio of areas within housing estates for children to play, socialise and exercise, such as for soccer, especially for Build-To-Order projects.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Recreational and community spaces are well distributed across the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates at the town, neighbourhood and precinct levels. Such spaces include neighbourhood parks, common greens, playgrounds, fitness areas, community gardens, hardcourts and precinct pavilions. Where feasible, HDB also builds in spaces for flexible use, such as lawn areas, to allow future activation for recreational activities. HDB's most recent Sample Household Survey showed high levels of resident satisfaction with neighbourhood and estate facilities.
In addition to HDB's provisions, residents are also served by facilities provided by Sport Singapore, under ActiveSG, and by the Ministry of Education under the dual-use scheme of school fields and sports facilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Ceiling Leakage Complaints in Top-floor HDB Units With and Without Rooftop Solar Panels and Whether Solar Installations Contribute to Higher Leak Incidence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has carried out any internal study on the effects of rooftop solar panels on top-floor HDB units; (b) how many ceiling leakage complaints were received annually in the past two years for top-floor units (i) with and (ii) without rooftop solar panels, respectively; and (c) whether there is a higher incidence of ceiling leaks for flats with rooftop solar panels.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Solar panels are installed on the Housing and Development Board (HDB) rooftops via a non-invasive installation process, without any drilling into the roof or waterproofing membrane. The panels are secured using concrete ballasts placed on protective felt pads, which cushion the roof surface. For each installation, a professional engineer ensures that the ballasts are correctly installed and do not affect the waterproofing membrane.
HDB conducted a comprehensive study in 2025 on the effects of solar panel installation on the rooftops of HDB blocks. The study covered 8,800 ceiling leak cases reported at top-floor units across the entire stock of more than 10,000 HDB blocks over a 10-year period and found that solar panel installation did not result in top-floor ceiling leaks. The occurrence of top-floor ceiling leaks remained consistent before and after solar panel installation. There was also no difference in the incidence of top-floor ceiling leak issues between blocks with and without solar panels.
Data from the last two years is consistent with findings from the 2025 study. Of the 1,200 top-floor ceiling leak cases, the incidence of such cases for blocks with and without solar panels is similar.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proactive Rent Reviews for Public Rental Scheme Tenants Following Changes in Household Circumstances and Per Capita Income Through Inter-agency Data Collaboration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB automatically initiates a rent review for Public Rental Scheme tenants upon changes in household circumstances affecting per capita income such as the registration of a newborn; and (b) whether HDB receives data from relevant agencies to proactively identify tenants eligible for an off-cycle rent review.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Rents under the Public Rental Scheme are reviewed during tenancy renewal, which occurs every two to three years.
To ensure the rent remains affordable for the tenants, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) considers multiple factors in deciding the rent to charge, including income, household size and household circumstances. If tenants face financial difficulties paying their rent, they may approach HDB for a rental review.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending HDB Family Nucleus Eligibility to Cover Extended Family Caregiving Relationships, and Tracking Outcomes of Eligibility Appeals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB tracks the grounds of appeal for family nucleus eligibility, particularly those by extended family members or by legal guardianship; (b) if so, how many of such appeals were received and approved; and (c) whether HDB will consider recognising extended family caregiving relationships and guardianships for family nucleus eligibility in its housing policies.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Given limited housing supply, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) prioritises housing for families comprising immediate family members involving spouse, parent(s) or child(ren). Non-immediate family members have other options, such as buying a flat together under the Joint Singles Scheme.
Since the implementation of the HDB Flat Eligibility letter in May 2023, HDB has not acceded to any appeals for non-immediate family members to form a family nucleus.
We will continue to review our policies to balance between ensuring fair and sustainable allocation of public housing resources and supporting diverse caregiving arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancements to Construction Safety Management Following Investigation of Tanjong Katong Road South Sinkhole","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for National Development in light of the findings of the Tanjong Katong Road South sinkhole investigation, whether any further enhancements are being considered to strengthen project oversight, site supervision, risk management and the reporting and escalation of potential safety concerns in construction and infrastructure projects.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As the matter is currently before the Courts, the Ministry of National Development is unable to comment further on this case. We have shared the investigation findings earlier and assessed that our current regulatory regime remains adequate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Neighbour Disputes Involving Pet Parrots, Adequacy of Existing Guidance and Licensing Requirements for Higher-maintenance Species","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether NParks has assessed the growing incidence of neighbour disputes involving pet parrots; (b) whether existing guidance adequately balances animal welfare and residential amenity; and (c) whether additional owner education or licensing requirements are being considered for higher-maintenance species.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Over the past five years, the number of neighbour disputes involving pet parrots received by the Municipal Services Office has been decreasing.
The National Parks Board (NParks) will continue to work closely with veterinarians, parrot behaviour experts and animal groups to develop guidance materials promoting responsible parrot ownership. For instance, the recently launched revised edition of the Parrot Care Handbook, developed by the Parrot Society (Singapore) and supported by NParks, guides owners on good care practices and managing parrots' behaviours, such as vocalisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government-approved Pigeon Management Practices, Humane Trapping Methods and Complying with Animal Welfare Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"65 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether poisoning continues to form part of any Government-approved pigeon management practices; (b) what humane pigeon trapping and removal methods are currently supported; and (c) how do Government agencies ensure pigeon management contractors comply with prescribed animal welfare standards.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Pigeon droppings cause health hazards to residents and it is necessary to reduce the pigeon populations across different towns in Singapore. A range of measures are used, including habitat modification, physical trapping and the use of alpha-chloralose. Contractors engaged by the National Parks Board (NParks) are required to complete the mandatory animal management certification programme and comply with contractual requirements and operational guidelines on the humane handling of pigeons. NParks has also developed a set of guidelines for Town Councils.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unit Declinations, Flatmate Change Requests and Follow-up Support Offered under Joint Singles Scheme (JSS) and JSS Operator-run Pilot","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development in the past three years (a) how many tenants on the Joint Singles Scheme and Joint Singles Scheme Operator-Run pilot have (i) declined offered units or (ii) requested for changes of flat mates due to co-tenancy issues; and (b) what follow-up support was provided in such cases.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under the Joint Singles Scheme (JSS), applicants apply with a flat mate of their choice, while under the JSS Operator-Run (JSS-OR) model, applicants mutually agree to matches facilitated by the operator appointed by the Housing and Development Board (HDB).
Where appropriate, HDB or its operator may provide counselling and mediation between the flat mates and, if need be, facilitate a change in flat mate. HDB facilitated about 400 requests for changes in flat-sharing arrangements over the last three years due to co-tenant issues, which forms about 2% of JSS and JSS-OR households.
The HDB has also implemented the Single Room Shared Facilities (SRSF) typology with private bedrooms and shared facilities, offering singles an alternative option to the JSS or JSS-OR model. HDB will be scaling up the JSS-OR and SRSF in the coming years to better meet the needs of our single tenants.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Infrastructure Cost Sharing, Tender Evaluation Criteria and Master Developer Model Following Town Hall Link White Site Launch","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development following the Town Hall Link White site launch (a) what infrastructure costs will the Government bear directly versus the 2023 master developer tender; (b) whether it is evaluated on a price-only basis instead of the Concept and Price model used previously; (c) if so, why; and (d) whether the Government still intends to pursue a Master Developer model for sites.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: On 3 July 2026, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) launched the tender for the White site at Town Hall Link under the Confirmed List of the second half 2026 Government Land Sales Programme. The new site is approximately half the gross floor area of the former Master Developer site and comprises a single plot of land.
To reduce development complexity and enhance the site's attractiveness, the Government will undertake infrastructure works, such as a common services tunnel for utilities, underground and covered pedestrian links to nearby MRT stations, road construction and services diversions.
With the reduced scale and complexity of the development, URA has adopted a price-only tender for the site. Tenderers only need to submit their land bids based on a fixed set of parameters and requirements that are aligned with our vision and objectives for the district.
The URA may adopt the Master Developer approach for future complex and large-scale sites that need comprehensive master planning.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Apportioning Neighbourhood Renewal Programme Budget for Resident-led Proposals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"68 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider apportioning part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) budget for residents to propose, develop and vote on their ideas on block and precinct-level improvements.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Town Councils have the flexibility to use their Neighbourhood Renewal Programme budget to implement estate improvement projects that residents propose and vote on, subject to technical feasibility.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Green Areas Relative to Overall Land Areas in Singapore in Past 10 Years, and Long-term Green Area Target","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for National Development (a) for the last 10 years, what is the percentage of green areas, which include parks and forests, relative to overall land areas; and (b) what is the final percentage of green areas to be maintained in Singapore's mainland.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: There are about 7,800 hectares of green spaces in Singapore today, which include nature reserves, nature areas, parks and park connectors. After accounting for planned developments as presented in the latest Master Plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority has safeguarded an additional 1,000 hectares of green spaces that is being progressively implemented. In total, the 8,800 hectares make up around 10% of Singapore's land area.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals Made for Sale of HDB Flats before Minimum Occupation Period Due to Divorce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"70 Ms Yeo Wan Ling \tasked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the last five years, how many appeals were made to HDB to permit the sale of a flat before the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) was fulfilled due to a divorce and a court order requiring the sale of the matrimonial HDB flat; and (b) whether such cases can be exempted from MOP requirements without requiring an appeal.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Following a divorce, flat owners who are required by Court Order to sell their matrimonial Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat on the open market must still satisfy the prevailing eligibility conditions to do so. If the minimum occupation period (MOP) has not been fulfilled at the point of divorce and neither party is eligible to retain the flat, the parties would need to surrender the flat to HDB. This ensures parity with the majority of flat owners, who are required to serve out the MOP before they are eligible to sell their flats.
Where appropriate, HDB also exercises flexibility on a case-by-case basis. From 2021 to 2025, HDB granted about 300 approvals each year for divorced couples to sell their flat within the MOP.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Help Point-to-point EV Drivers Manage Higher Operating Costs Amid Projected Electricity Price Rise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"71 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport given the Government's push towards electric vehicle (EV) adoption and to support a sustainable transition to EVs, what measures will the Government introduce to help point-to-point EV drivers manage the resulting increase in operating costs due to the projected significant rise in electricity prices from July 2026.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: To cushion the impact of the energy crisis arising from the Middle East conflict, the Government disbursed a $200 cash relief in May 2026 to active point-to-point transport drivers. This includes those driving electric vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Fair Ride-hailing Platform Commissions Through Fee Monitoring, Standardised Disclosures and Earnings Safeguards for Drivers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"72 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA monitors the commissions and other platform fees deducted from private-hire car drivers' earnings; (b) whether ride-hailing platforms should provide clearer and more standardised fee disclosures to drivers; and (c) whether caps or other safeguards will be considered to support sustainable driver earnings while preserving competition and consumer affordability.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The point-to-point transport sector in Singapore is market-based, which allows the needs of both commuters and drivers to be met. We have no plans to regulate ride-hail platform commission rates or passenger fares. The best way to improve the livelihood of point-to-point drivers is to help them ensure that the market is open and contestable. The National Trades Union Congress, its affiliated associations and platform operators jointly developed a set of principles on fair earnings and safe incentive schemes for platform work in September 2025. These principles guide platform operators in setting fares and incentives, including ensuring fair earnings for drivers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning Bus Service 112 Morning and Evening Peak Frequencies to Improve Commuting Experience for Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"73 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider increasing the frequency of Bus Service 112 during evening peak hours to better align with its morning peak hour frequency, in order to reduce waiting times and improve the commuting experience for residents returning home after work.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Ridership data indicates that passenger loading for Service 112 in the evening peak is currently significantly lower than that in the morning peak. The evening peak frequency for Service 112 and wait times are in line with required service standards. The Land Transport Authority will continue to monitor the service, bearing in mind the need to balance bus frequencies with finite resources islandwide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Fatigue and Medical Distress Monitoring Technology Onboard Commercial Vehicles and Availability of Financial Support for Elderly Drivers Deemed Unfit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"74 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA will study requiring onboard technology to monitor elderly drivers of buses, taxis, Private Hire Vehicles (PHV), and goods vehicles for signs of fatigue or medical distress, with real-time alerts to such drivers and operators; and (b) what support is available for such elderly drivers assessed as no longer fit for demanding trips.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Fatigue or medical distress can happen to any driver, though elderly drivers are at higher risk. All drivers aged 65 years old and above are required to undergo regular medical checks to maintain the validity of their Driving Licence and Vocational Licence respectively. The statutory age limits of Vocational Licence holders for buses, omnibuses, taxis and private hire cars, as well as Class 4 and Class 5 Driving Licence holders are set at age 75.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has progressively rolled out onboard technology, such as Driver Anti-Fatigue Systems, to support public bus captains. There is no similar mandatory requirement for privately-owned vehicle fleets, as operational needs vary across businesses.
LTA also works with tripartite partners to promote safe driving. For example, all taxi and ride-hail platform operators remind drivers to have sufficient rest, with reminders via the taxi's Mobile Data Terminal or the ride-hail application to take breaks. The Multi-Agency Workplace Safety and Health Taskforce also recently issued an advisory on managing work-related road safety risks, including driver fatigue.
Elderly drivers who are not able to drive but wish to continue working may seek employment facilitation support from the National Trades Union Congress's Employment and Employability Institute or the Skills and Workforce Development Agency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Projected Manpower Growth Needs in Public Bus and Rail Sectors by 2030","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"75 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport what the Ministry's projected increase in manpower needs in the public bus and rail sectors by 2030 is, in (i) percentage terms and (ii) absolute numbers of staff, split by broad sectoral occupations.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The rail workforce is projected to grow by about 16%, or around 1,500 workers, by 2030 due to the upcoming Jurong Region Line and Cross Island Line. This will bring the total rail workforce to about 10,500 engineers, technicians and operations staff.
The public bus workforce is projected to grow by about 8%, or around 1,000 workers, to reach about 13,000 bus captains, engineers, technicians and operations staff by 2030. This supports enhancements under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme and recommendations by the Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Disruption History of Bus ETA System, Financial Penalties for Vendors and Interim Safeguards Ahead of Cloud-based System Deployment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"76 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there are separate disruptions to the bus Expected Time of Arrival (ETA) system besides those reported in January and April 2026; (b) if so, how many shared a common root cause; (c) whether the financial penalties for third-party vendors have been imposed after the disruptions; and (d) what interim safeguards apply before the new cloud-based ETA system arrives in end-2027.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Since January 2026, there have been four disruptions to the bus Expected Time of Arrival (ETA) system in January, April, June and July 2026, due to failures of unrelated components. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has imposed financial penalties on the vendor for three out of four incidents.
To reduce the risk of further outages before the new ETA system is deployed by the end of 2027, LTA has put in place additional hardware redundancies, increased monitoring of system performance and strengthened incident response procedures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retaining Electronic Traffic Notification Signboards for Motorists' Information and Road Safety Public Education Messages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"77 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport regarding the plans to remove some electronic signboards for traffic notifications, whether the Ministry will consider retaining them as such signboards provide important information for motorists, and also highlight public education messages on road safety, as is done in other jurisdictions.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: With the Electronic Road Pricing 2.0, motorists will receive information, including real-time traffic notifications, road safety messages and congestion alerts, on their vehicles' On-Board Units. Public education messages on road safety will continue to be disseminated through other channels, including social media and community outreach.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Enhance Traffic Management Systems by Leveraging AI and Predictive Analytics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"78 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA has plans to leverage artificial intelligence and predictive analytics to further enhance Singapore's traffic management systems, including optimising traffic signal timings and other traffic management measures in real time to reduce congestion.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) continually explores and leverages new technologies to improve traffic management and enhance the efficiency of Singapore's road network. For example, with the transition to Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0, LTA can leverage ERP 2.0 data to enhance traffic management and transport planning. We are experimenting with using this data to dynamically optimise the traffic light signal system to improve traffic flow via the Cooperative and Unified Smart Traffic System, which is a smart traffic light control system that LTA is currently piloting.
LTA is also enhancing its traffic incident detection capabilities by using artificial intelligence-powered video analytics, so that motorists could be warned of traffic incidents earlier. These capabilities will be progressively rolled out over the coming years to improve traffic flow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Understanding Adoption and Impact of Generative AI on Singapore's Arts and Creative Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"79 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has conducted or commissioned any studies or surveys to better understand the adoption and impact of generative artificial intelligence within Singapore's arts and creative sectors; and (b) if so, what are the key findings to date.
Mr David Neo: This question has been addressed on 4 August 2026 in the reply to Parliamentary Question No 78. [Please refer to \"Impact of Generative AI on Singapore's Arts and Creative Sectors\", Official Report, 4 August 2026, Vol 96, Issue 33, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on First-generation Malay Graduates by Academic Year, Income Background and MENDAKI Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy Recipients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"80 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of the Intergenerational Mobility report by the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs (a) whether MENDAKI tracks data on the number of first-generation Malay graduates per academic year; and (b) if so, how many come from lower income families or are recipients of MENDAKI Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: The Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy scheme supports around 10,000 Malay students annually over the past five years. Earlier this year, the income eligibility criteria have been revised across all tiers to provide greater support for lower-income households. Yayasan MENDAKI does not track the number of first-generation Malay graduates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Occupational Profiles of First-generation Malay Graduates and Breakdown by PMET Categories and Private Business Ownership","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"81 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in light of the Intergenerational Mobility report by the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs (a) whether there is data on the type of professions that the first-generation Malay graduates normally enter into; and (b) if so, what is the percentage breakdown of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) and private business owners.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: The Government does not track the employment outcomes of graduates by which generation of their families they belong to (e.g., first-generation graduates). The General Household Survey provides data on the highest qualification attained, industry, occupation, employment status, usual hours worked and gross monthly income from employment.
Based on the General Household Survey 2025, for employed Malay graduates (i.e., with university as the highest qualification attained), more than nine in 10 were Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians. Around nine in 10 employed Malay graduates were employees, with the rest being either employers or own account workers (i.e., individuals who operate their own business or trade without employing paid employees). These trends are comparable to the national population.
The top five industries that Malay graduates were employed in were public administration and education, health and social services, professional services, financial and insurance services, and wholesale and retail trade. This largely mirrors the top industries that university graduates were employed in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Post-upskilling Wage Outcomes for Mid-career Singaporeans and Strengthening Job Matching and Experience Recognition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"82 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks the incidence of wage regression among mid-career Singaporeans who, after completing Government-supported upskilling programmes, move into lower-paying or entry-level roles; and (b) whether there are plans to strengthen job matching and recognition of prior experience for such workers.
Ms Jasmin Lau: We regularly review employment facilitation programmes funded by the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA). Wage outcomes are included in such reviews where relevant to the programme objective.
For example, the Career Conversion Programme (CCP) and the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme (SCTP) have shown positive outcomes. About nine in 10 CCP participants stayed employed for at least 24 months after the programme, and about seven in 10 CCP participants earned more than their last drawn salaries. About one in two SCTP trainees found new roles or employment within six months of course completion. The intent of these programmes is to support mid-career individuals to reskill into growth roles. While some may experience initial wage reductions when entering a new field, over the longer term, they may enjoy better career and wage prospects depending on their performance.
The Ministry of Manpower and SWDA work closely with employers to ensure that the skills content of these programmes is aligned with what industry needs. For example, the CCP is designed as a place-and-train programme where employers hire participants before training begins thereby ensuring post-programme employment. For SCTP, which are train-and-place programmes, SWDA supports participants to navigate career transitions. SWDA monitors placement rates to inform decisions on continued programme funding.
Beyond these programmes, SWDA's Careers and Skills Passport supports recognition of skills and prior experience by enabling individuals to share their verified employment history and skills with hirers through partner job portals, such as JobStreet. With the formation of SWDA, the link between upskilling and employment outcomes will be further strengthened.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Short-term Relief Fund Outreach to Retrenched Low-wage Workers and Expediting Emergency Payouts after Company Closure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"83 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry proactively informs retrenched local, low-wage workers about the Short-Term Relief Fund soon after employers submit retrenchment notifications or enter liquidation; and (b) whether it will consider an interim emergency payout within one week of company closure, given that current disbursements take one to two months after claim verification.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Short-Term Relief Fund (STRF) provides financial relief as a last resort to eligible local lower-income workers when their owed salaries, which their employers are legally obligated to pay, cannot be recovered.
When employees file salary claims with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), TADM will first engage their employers, mediate and help to recover the owed salaries from the employers. If the salary cannot be recovered despite best efforts, TADM will process STRF disbursements for eligible claimants. The disbursement may take one to two months as TADM needs to establish that the claims are valid and the salaries owed genuinely cannot be recovered. For those with urgent financial needs, we will refer them to their respective Social Service Office for financial assistance to meet their basic needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Gaps in Wage Arrears Data from Corporate Liquidations and Improving Policy Reviews Through Better Data Tracking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"84 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) why the Ministry does not track the total number of workers with unpaid wages due to corporate liquidations; (b) how it accurately assesses the full scale of the wage arrears problem and evaluates the adequacy of existing financial safety nets without this baseline data; and (c) whether the Ministry will begin tracking such data to improve policy reviews.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Salary arrears occur under different circumstances of which corporate liquidation is one. When corporate liquidation occurs, salary arrears are required to be filed to the company's liquidator in accordance with the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) is no longer able to mediate with the liquidated company.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) tracks all salary claims filed with TADM. The resolution rates of claims depend on the specific circumstances of individual cases. MOM publishes the data in the annual Employment Standards Report. This data allows MOM to monitor the salary arrears situation and conduct regular reviews of our policies and programmes, including the Short-Term Relief Fund.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detecting Salary Non-payment Risks Early and Introducing Scalable Penalty Frameworks for Wage Offences under Employment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"85 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what mechanisms does the Ministry have to detect early indicators of salary non-payment risk, including through electronic salary payment records for Work Permit holders; and (b) whether the Government will consider a scalable penalty structure for salary payment offences under Part III of the Employment Act, calibrated to total arrears, number of employees affected and extent of delay before restitution.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Member may refer to the reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos 21 and 22 for the Sitting on 7 July 2026, which sets out the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) approach to detecting and following up on early indicators of salary non-payment risk. [Please refer to \"Assessing Employment Practices and Financial Health of Related Entities as a Group and Identifying Warning Indicators Preceding Large-scale Unpaid Salary Cases\", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
MOM adopts a calibrated enforcement framework where the penalty meted for unpaid salary will depend on the facts of each case and take into consideration factors, such as the number of employees affected, total quantum owed and aggravating factors, if any.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Limited Reach of CPF Ordinary Wage Ceiling Increase and Plans to Review Wage Ceiling Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"86 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower noting that the recent increase of the CPF Ordinary Wage Ceiling from $6,000 to $8,000 benefitted around 20% of members (a) what may be the reasons for this low percentage; and (b) whether there are plans to review this wage ceiling.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Twenty percent refers to the active Central Provident Fund (CPF) members who saw an increase in CPF contributions from the recent CPF Ordinary Wage ceiling adjustments. This reflects the proportion of employees earning more than $6,000 in monthly Ordinary Wages but less than the $102,000 cap in annual wages.
We will continue to review CPF wage ceilings periodically to ensure that they cover the broad majority of resident workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Mandatory Retrenchment Notification Contraventions by Company Size and Sector, and Repeat Offenders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"87 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Acting Minister for Manpower from 2021 to 2025 (a) what is the breakdown of companies that have contravened the Mandatory Retrenchment Notification requirement by (i) company size and (ii) sector; and (b) how many of these companies are repeat offenders within this period of five years.
Ms Jasmin Lau: From 2021 to 2025, among the companies which were non-compliant with Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN) requirements, 62% had 10 to 99 employees, 16% had 100 to 199 employees, and 22% had 200 employees or more. Twenty percent were from the wholesale trade sector, 16% from the professional services sector, 15% from the information and communications sector, 13% were from the manufacturing sector, 12% were from the financial sector and the remaining 24% were from other sectors.
Over the same period, around 700 companies had been late in MRN submission more than once and were issued letters of caution.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Work Pattern Data to Assess Fatigue and Work Intensity as Safety Risks among Platform Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"88 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry tracks or intends to track data relating to the work patterns of injured platform workers, such as hours worked or duration logged onto a platform before an accident, to better understand whether work intensity or fatigue contributes to workplace safety risks among platform workers.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) currently has no plans to track such data. Doing so would be challenging as platform workers can be working for multiple platforms throughout the day. Nonetheless, when MOM investigates accidents involving platform workers, work patterns, including work intensity, will be examined alongside other risk factors, in order to determine the potential causes of the accident.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Pre-retrenchment Job Assistance Support and Strengthening Redeployment Support by Employers Receiving Public Grants","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"89 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what proportion of retrenched workers received job-matching or career-conversion assistance before their last day of employment, for each quarter since January 2025; (b) whether the Ministry has plans to intervene earlier where firms are contemplating sizeable retrenchments; and (c) whether the Ministry will require employers receiving significant public grants to provide earlier notice and stronger redeployment support.
Ms Jasmin Lau: The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation (Taskforce) actively reaches out to all retrenched local employees based on information provided in Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN) submissions. In 2025, of all the companies who submitted MRNs before the retrenched employee's last working day, 74% provided employment facilitation to affected employees either through the Taskforce's employment facilitation services, companies' own channels, such as private outplacement firms, or a combination of both. Within these companies, 82% of all retrenched employees received employment facilitation. Regardless of whether companies receive any public grants, all employers with 10 or more workers are required to comply with the MRN requirement.
As part of the review of the Employment Act, the tripartite partners are studying ways to strengthen the ecosystem of support for retrenched workers, including encouraging earlier notification by employers to enable delivery of employment facilitation support and outplacement services at the earliest feasible opportunity. We will provide an update on the tripartite discussions in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Re-employment Offer Terms for Retiring Workers by Role and Salary, and Ensuring Meaningful Re-employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"90 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Acting Minister for Manpower since January 2025 (a) how many workers reaching the statutory retirement age were offered re-employment with (i) the same role and salary (ii) the same salary, but different role and (iii) a role with reduced salary or benefits; (b) what is the median reduction in income where terms are changed; and (c) how the Ministry ensures that re-employment is meaningful, not merely formally and legally compliant.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Based on a survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in 2025, over nine in 10 resident workers who reached the statutory retirement age were offered re-employment in the same role.1,2 Among resident workers who were re-employed in the same job, more than 98% did not experience reductions in salary, leave benefits or medical benefits.1,3 MOM does not collect data on salary and benefits of those re-employed in different roles.
The Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees stipulate that any wage adjustments during re-employment should be based on reasonable factors, such as productivity, duties and responsibilities, and prevailing wage systems. Given that most workers who are re-employed in the same roles do not experience reductions in salary, leave benefits or medical benefits, this suggests that employers continue to value the experience and contributions of older workers.
Workers who feel that they have been offered re-employment with unreasonable terms and conditions may approach the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management for assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data pertain to private sector establishments each with at least 10 employees.","2 : Data pertain to private sector resident employees who were offered re-employment on an existing contract or on a new fixed-term contract in the same job.","3 : Data pertain to private sector resident employees who accepted a re-employment offer on an existing contract or a new fixed-term contract in the same job."],"footNoteQuestions":["90"],"questionNo":"90"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Foreign Worker Levy Overcharges on Marine Shipyard Firms, and Tracking Refunds and Adjustment Timelines Following Auditor-General's Office Findings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"91 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Manpower following the Auditor-General's Office's finding that foreign worker levies for marine shipyard firms in January and February 2026 exceeded prescribed rates by $4.82 million (a) what was the total excess before the 1 June 2026 amendment took effect; (b) how many firms were affected; (c) how much has been refunded or offset; and (d) when will adjustments be completed.
Ms Jasmin Lau: An excess of $8.3 million in foreign worker levy was collected between January to May 2026. This includes the $4.82 million reported by the Auditor-General's Office related to levy charges for January and February 2026. We have refunded all the excess levies collected to all 1,018 affected employers either via levy bill offsets or credits to their levy accounts.
The Ministry of Manpower has completed all necessary rectification measures and strengthened its internal processes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}