1 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the median and maximum programmed wait time for pedestrians at signalised junctions; (b) whether pedestrians are currently prioritised in traffic signal timing logic and, if not, whether the Land Transport Authority will consider prioritising them; and (c) whether the Ministry will reduce maximum wait times to under 60 seconds.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): Speaker, the median and maximum waiting time for pedestrians at signalised junctions are 120 seconds and 140 seconds respectively.
Wait times for pedestrians depend on the nature of road, junction size and configuration, as well as prevailing traffic volume. For example, waiting times at signalised junctions of Friendly Streets, which we are expanding to every town by 2030, are under 60 seconds.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Sir, the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) 2018 Transport Impact Assessment guidelines reflect a shift to prioritise mass transport and active mobility, which includes walking over private transport modes. Can the Minister of State give some examples of how this translates into shorter pedestrian wait times and more pedestrian priority, other than the Friendly Streets initiative, which only covers a few intersections in a few towns? Does the Government intend to give greater priority to pedestrians for all intersections, including the older ones?
And secondly, the Minister of State said that the maximum time is 140 seconds? That is almost two and a half minutes. Does the Minister of State agreed that a wait time of almost two and a half minutes in Singapore's hot and humid climate, can be a bit too long and can the maximum time be reduced further, as much as to 60 seconds?
And thirdly, do most signalised intersections currently use a fixed time signal, or do they change according to demand?
And the last question is very fast one: does pressing the green man button, does that shorten the wait time, or does that just signal that the pedestrian is waiting at the junction?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Sir, the configuration for signal timing needs to strike a balance among all the users of the junction, whether vehicles on the roads or pedestrians. And while I appreciate that the Member has concern for people waiting longer at the traffic junction, waiting for the green man, we also have to take account for traffic. Traffic is not just private vehicles. It also includes public buses, which need to stick to a schedule to make sure they bring commuters to work on time. So, we do need to look at the interest of all parties, which will be affected by changes in the traffic light timings.
Having said that, we do take a look at the junctions in question. So, we mentioned that there is a median time; it is not a fixed time for every junction. We look at the configuration, the volume of pedestrians and traffic, so that we are able to achieve an optimal situation to balance the different needs.
We do have dynamic systems that are able to track traffic volume. We are working on a better system where at certain junctions we might want to install cameras at the pedestrian waiting area to track pedestrian volume and whether we are able to build that capability to also incorporate pedestrian data to adjust traffic lights timings dynamically. But it will be within a certain range.
As for the green man, the Member was talking about pressing the button, whether that activates it faster. I think it depends on the junction. For some, it does turn faster; and for some, there are some crossings where the lights do not usually change because it has a very low pedestrian crossing volume. And therefore, the lights are green in favour of the traffic, and unless someone presses it and then, it will turn red or have the green man turned on for the pedestrian. So, it serves a variety of functions. We will customise it for the need of the particular crossing and where possible, we use technology data from the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 system to allow us to better assess the different needs and then to achieve a more optimal situation for all.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Dollar-specific Factors Contributing to Persistent Weakness against Malaysian Ringgit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what Singapore dollar-specific factors have contributed to its persistent weakness against the Malaysian ringgit; (b) what implications a sustained slide below the exchange rate of 3 Malaysian ringgit/Singapore dollar may have on Singapore’s labour market; and (c) whether MAS will consider strengthening policy settings or adjusting the exchange rate band to ensure stability.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Sir, the Singapore dollar has appreciated against the Malaysian ringgit at an average rate of 1.3% per annum over 2020 to 2025. However, it is important to emphasise that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) manages the Singapore dollar against a trade-weighted basket of currencies of its major trading partners and not against any bilateral exchange rate. The Singapore dollar trade-weighted exchange rate has been on a gradual appreciating path since October 2021. The strength and stability of the Singapore dollar is assessed against the attainment of medium-term price stability in the economy.
Non-resident labour flows into Singapore principally reflect the economy’s overall growth and employment prospects.
MAS will continue to closely monitor economic and financial developments and is in an appropriate position to adjust its monetary policy stance to ensure medium-term price stability.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his response. With the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link, expected to begin operation soon, cross-border travel will become faster and cheaper, making it even easier for consumers to travel across the Causeway and tap on the services there. Coupled with a weaker Singapore dollar, this could significantly reduce demand for local retailers, and food and beverage (F&B) outlets.
Will the Government look into forward-looking support measures to help local businesses prepare for this shift, given the potential impact on Singapore jobs and household incomes?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng for his question. I am answering this Parliamentary Question in my MAS hat, but he has asked a question wearing my Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) hat. In fact, this is regard to the RTS Link, and of course there are some relationships with the Singapore dollar as well as Malaysian ringgit.
In fact, earlier this morning I met with the RTS Link Task Force, of which I am chairing, to look at ways in which to enhance our local business, their competitiveness, their ability to place-make. In the MTI Committee of Supply, we have also announced many enhancements to the grants and support for heartland businesses, looking forward to both the challenges as well as opportunities of the RTS Link when it is operational at the end of the year.
So, as chairman of the RTS Link Task Force, we are looking at this very carefully. We have met with the merchants. We have met with Government officials, including Enterprise Singapore, the Housing and Development Board, and the National Environment Agency this morning. And we will announce these measures in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mobile Network Dead Zones in MRT Network and Steps to Rectify Persistent Signal Gaps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) compiles a list of specific mobile network dead zones across the entire MRT network; (b) if so, whether this list and the rectification status of each site will be made public via a dashboard to ensure operator accountability; and (c) how many persistent signal gaps have remained unrectified for more than 12 months.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) are required to meet the Infocomm Media Development Authority’s (IMDA's) 4G Quality of Service standards, and IMDA conducts regular checks to ensure these are met. This includes the requirement to provide more than 99% mobile coverage in all Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) tunnels and MRT stations in Singapore. The Quality of Service performance results for each MRT line are published on IMDA’s website.
Where there are coverage gaps found along the MRT network, IMDA works closely with MNOs to carry out enhancements that address the gaps. MNOs typically take six months to complete these enhancements, working within the limited hours of maintenance windows for tunnel access.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. For the persistent dead zones that have been remain unrectified after six months, does the Ministry impose any escalating financial penalties on the providers in order to ensure that there is a stronger commercial incentive for them to resolve the issues more speedily? And second, does IMDA track whether certain mobile operators have a higher proportion of these long-term dead zones and will this track record of non-compliance be factored into the pricing or allocation of future spectrum allocations or spectrum options?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, as I said earlier in my reply, MNOs typically take six months to enhance coverage. Over the last three years, no persistent signal gaps within MRT network remained unrectified.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Use of ActiveSG Credits to Include Sports Facilities Such As Those at Community Clubs and The Kallang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Ministry will consider expanding the usability of ActiveSG credits to include sports facilities beyond those currently under ActiveSG, such as those in community centres and The Kallang, to offer residents greater flexibility and encourage wider participation.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Goh Hanyan) (for the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): The Government is committed to ensuring that public sports facilities remain accessible and affordable for all Singaporeans.
ActiveSG credits can be used at all ActiveSG sports facilities, including ActiveSG’s World Aquatics Championship Arena at The Kallang, as well as community sport facilities in Our Tampines Hub and Senja-Cashew Community Club. The credits can also be used to offset the cost of ActiveSG and Active Health programmes.
Since November 2025, we have also expanded the use of ActiveSG credits across more than 370 school sports facilities under the Dual-Use Scheme (DUS), providing more opportunities for the public to utilise their ActiveSG credits.
SportSG will continue to explore ways to expand the use of ActiveSG credits at more public sports facilities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I ask this Parliamentary Question because I have been approached by many residents who have asked to use the ActiveSG credits in community facilities, like in the Community Clubs for sports. And I want to ask the Ministry whether it will consider opening it up and ensuring that there is no fragmentation and there are no barriers to continue to help Singaporeans to remain active and healthy.
\tMs Goh Hanyan: Sir, I appreciate the Member raising the interest from his residents. We are aligned in wanting to provide more access to these facilities for our Singaporeans. Rest assured, Sport SG is working on enhancing the My ActiveSG+ booking system – first, focusing on enhancing and improving the user experience, before working on expanding the use of ActiveSG credits for People's Association facilities. So, this is currently in the works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Export Potential of Singapore’s Water Recycling and Management Capabilities and Support for Water Technology Firms to Compete Globally","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has assessed the export potential of Singapore’s water recycling and integrated water management capabilities, particularly in regions facing rising industrial and digital infrastructure demand; and (b) whether there are plans to develop a coordinated strategy to position Singapore firms as global leaders in this sector.
6 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether existing financing and risk-sharing mechanisms are sufficient for Singapore-based water-technology firms to compete internationally with state-backed competitors in large-scale overseas projects; and (b) whether further enhancements are planned to strengthen Singapore’s global competitiveness and support local firms in securing international desalination and recycling contracts.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer oral Questions Nos 5 and 6 in today’s Order Paper together, as they both relate to the international competitiveness of Singapore’s water technology firms?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Alvin Tan: Thank you, Sir. Sir, water supply is an existential issue for Singapore. Therefore, the Government has been promoting the water industry and investing in the research and development (R&D) of water technologies under Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE). Today, Singapore is globally recognised for our integrated water management and our know-how also creates opportunities for our companies to meet the needs of other countries.
Enterprise Singapore, PUB and the Singapore Water Association work together to support Singapore-based companies such as Keppel and Sembcorp as they build capabilities and pursue opportunities overseas.
Our biennial Singapore International Water Week has become one of the world’s leading conferences for public utilities and the water industry since its establishment in 2008. It comprises flagship events that gather suppliers and customers of innovative water, coastal and flood solutions. Co-organised by PUB, the event culminates in the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize. Events like these help Singapore-based companies and startups gain visibility and access to potential investors, partners and customers.
Our agencies also regularly organise business missions to and facilitate engagements with stakeholders in key regional markets.
These efforts have been particularly helpful for smaller companies. Hydroleap, a watertech company specialising in electrochemical separation, piloted its water recycling systems with Amazon Web Services (AWS) at a data centre facility in Singapore. It has since expanded to markets like Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia.
SG Enviro, another Singapore startup focused on advanced water purification treatment using nano-bubble technology, has been working on water reclamation and wastewater treatment projects with palm oil refineries in Malaysia.
\t
Watertech companies like Hydroleap and SG Enviro have and can tap the Enterprise Development Grant to upgrade, innovate and access new markets and our Market Readiness Assistance grant to defray the costs of overseas market promotion. They can also use those grants for development of their businesses and to set up their businesses overseas.
Companies which need financing for overseas expansion can also tap the Enterprise Financing Scheme (EFS). Under EFS, Government offers risk sharing with participating Financial Institutions, such as for fixed asset loans for construction or the acquisition of plants and equipment. They also can access trade loans for the buying and selling of goods. We announced enhancements to some of these schemes at this year's Budget and the Ministry of Trade and Industry's Committee of Supply (MTI COS) session.
I want to ensure the Member that the Government will continue to support our local water tech companies, to strengthen their global competitiveness and better position them to pursue market opportunities abroad.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his answers. I have different supplementary questions for Question Nos 5 and 6 respectively.
For Question No 5, I would like to ask the Minister of State, will the Government consider a circular economy export office to specifically bundle our water recycling and waste to energy technologies, like Tuas Nexus, as a single high value export for the growing cities in ASEAN and beyond in Asia?
Second supplementary question, for Question No 5. Is MTI actively marketing Singapore's integrated cooling plus water recycling solutions to regional digital hubs like Johor and Batam, to ensure our firms capture the spillover infrastructure demand from Singapore's own land constraint?
Finally, for the third supplementary question, given that water is often a sovereign municipal issue overseas, will the Government use more government-to-government platforms to pre-qualify or support Singapore water technologies in emerging markets?
For Question No 6, Mr Speaker, my supplementary questions are as follows. One, will MTI introduce a sovereign project bond or risk sharing mechanism that allows Singapore water firms to bid for larger scale overseas desalination projects with the financial backing of a, so called, Team Singapore guarantee?
Second supplementary question, will the Government allow for more export oriented test bedding within PUB facilities where the primary goal is not just local water security, but providing the firms with a globally recognised reference track to win overseas tenders?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his supplementary questions for both Question Nos 5 and 6. Let me try to answer them as comprehensively as possible.
With regard to the circular economy export office and the market integrated cooling solutions, there are no immediate plans to do so.
With regard to supporting Singapore water tech companies and to use our know-how to tap onto the opportunities outside of Singapore, I think those are very useful suggestions and important ones. Allow me to put that into context; because I have two questions. I can go a little bit into detail to answer Mr Dennis Tan's questions.
First of all, maybe I start with the export test bedding and talk about PUB's support. PUB, in fact, has opened up its water insulation for test bedding. For example, they have this Living Lab fund which provides R&D funding. So, if you are a local company, for example, Hydroleap or SG Enviro, you are able to use some of these funds to test bed some of these innovative solutions, which if it works, then you can potentially use it in Singapore and then potentially export to different markets.
PUB also has support schemes for companies and research institutions to then pilot and to validate these new tech, which could be applied for both industrial as well as municipal water needs.
What I thought is also very important, because the Member is asking about how Singapore water tech companies can better expand into the overseas markets, is this. Since 2006, Government has invested about $800 million from RIE on water tech. And since, then the water tech industry has grown quite significantly. In fact, we have now moved from 50 to about 400 companies and increased job opportunities. So, now, it is about over 20,000 jobs.
For the schemes, at MTI COS, we have enhanced some of these schemes to help these companies, not just water tech companies, but companies who want to expand overseas. For example, we enhanced the Market Readiness Assistance grant. So, even if you are already in the market, you can continue to use that grant.
We have enhanced the Double Tax Deduction for Internationalisation grant, and we have also enhanced the EFS.
All of these, put together, enables our companies to expand overseas. I give a quick example to illustrate this point. Hydroleap, for example. Because of the support from Enterprise Singapore and MTI, it is now able to use the Enterprise Development Grant funding to upgrade its water technologies, which I mentioned earlier on. It is now expanded to Australia. It is expanded to Thailand, for example, partnering with the Bangkok Industrial Gas, to provide smart water treatment solutions in PepsiCo Thailand.
So, I thank the Member for his questions. We are indeed looking at water as a strategic imperative, not just as an existential issue for Singapore, but also supporting our water tech companies to test bed, to validate their ideas to grow and then to expand beyond our shores.\t
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Facilitating Adoption of AI in Energy Generation Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what measures the Government is taking to facilitate greater adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) within the energy generation sector; and (b) how it is supporting businesses and households in leveraging AI solutions to improve energy conservation and efficiency.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, artificial intelligence (AI) can be a strong enabler in the power sector. In 2025, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) launched a regulatory sandbox for Virtual Power Plants (VPPs), which are essentially, digital platforms that control, optimise and aggregate distributed energy resources, such as solar panels and battery energy storage systems. VPP pilots may utilise AI to forecast renewable generation output and optimise generation capacity based on prevailing wholesale market conditions. EMA has also incorporated AI within its internal energy management systems to support solar forecasting.
The Government is committed to helping businesses and households improve energy conservation and efficiency, including through AI-enabled solutions. For example, Enterprise Singapore supports the Singapore Business Federation's Cost and Carbon Reduction Programme. The programme utilises a proprietary AI tool to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) identify cost reduction and decarbonisation opportunities, including through energy conservation and efficiency measures.
We welcome proposals from the public and industry on how the Government can better support the adoption of AI solutions in the power sector and for businesses and households in Singapore.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lee.
\tMs Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State. I have two supplementary questions. For successful deployment of AI in power generation, it will require engineers with both energy and data analytics expertise. Could the Minister of State elaborate on whether there are plans to develop specialised skills in AI for the energy sector workforce?
The second supplementary question is, have we studied use cases across other jurisdictions on AI use within the power sector, for example, for power dispatch, power generation efficiency and for renewables dispatch?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: The Government is committed to growing our own pipeline of talent in the energy sector and helping workers navigate their careers in this exciting space. For example, we have the Skills Framework for Energy and Power developed by SkillsFuture Singapore, Workforce Singapore and EMA with industry and union partners, mapping out the key roles and required competencies, including digital and data skills. For niche skills, the Government will work closely with industry partners and educational institutions to update the curriculum and grow talent to meet the sector's needs.
Can I ask the Member Ms Valerie Lee to repeat her second question?
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee: Yes, so have we studied used cases across other countries on AI use within a power sector, for example, for power dispatch, or for power generation efficiency? And in what countries did we do so?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, we have a lot to learn from other countries. We recognise that AI is a strong enabler in the power sector and that other countries could be more advanced than us in the adoption of AI. We are studying various AI solutions, which other countries have deployed for both energy generation and the grid network. Some examples include the use of AI for predictive maintenance of energy assets and the application of machine learning to enhance the operational efficiency of both traditional and renewable energy sources.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Teachers and Schools on Handling of Students with SEN","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry provides guidelines to teachers and schools on the handling of children who may have or are diagnosed with special education needs (SEN); (b) what is the annual number of hours of SEN training provided to teachers; and (c) whether the Ministry conducts an annual review on the best practices across schools in providing support to children.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi) (for the Minister for Education): The Ministry provides guidelines, information and video resources to schools to support students with special educational needs (SEN). Through Teaching and Learning Guides, all teachers are provided with practical strategies to support the learning of diverse learners, including students with SEN.
All new teachers undergo basic training covering how to engage students with SEN during their pre-service training. After they start teaching, they continue to deepen their SEN-related skills through workshops and Networked Learning Communities in areas, such as inclusive pedagogy. Micro-Learning Units offer just-in-time learning opportunities to build teachers' understanding of principles for supporting students with SEN and strategies for an inclusive classroom. Each school also has Teachers Trained in Special Needs who have completed a 130-hour certificate-level course conducted by the National Institute of Education. All mainstream schools also have SEN Officers who work with school personnel to develop customised interventions to support the specific needs of students with SEN, particularly those with higher needs.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) facilitates systematic sharing of best practices among mainstream schools, as well as between mainstream schools and Special Education schools. MOE continually reviews our guidelines and good practices through monitoring international research, international good practice and local practice.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now. I wanted to ask if that is actually consistent across all the different schools and whether this can be made available to across both parents and teachers, so that everyone can have a better understanding on how best to support the children.
The second question is in relation to the training. So, I understand that for in service teachers, there are optional online courses that they can sign up for as part of their 40 hours continuous professional development (CPD), but just wanted to ask what is the actual number of hours of these SEN-related training that is being imparted? May I also ask as a extension where, if you look at the finance industry for certain modules, such as ethics or regulations, there are minimum hours required for these components, whether or not there is a specified requirements for this continuous training.
\tDr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. On the first question with regard to the guide and whether it is standardised across the schools – indeed, it is something that we endeavour to have. In terms of access for our teachers for their continual education, we do have a variety of platforms which are accessible for our teachers at different levels.
First, we have the SEN Resource Portal and this offers schools with the structures, the guidelines and the resources to support students with SEN.
Second, we also have the Transition Support Framework for which there is guidance of facilitating students' successful transitions in new settings through a planned, goal-oriented process.
And third, we also have the SEN:se Online Professional Development, a series of practice oriented online modules on OPAL 2.0 for teachers' just-in-time learning and also bite-sized, locally produced modules covering perceptions about SEN, support principles on needs and not on diagnosis, as well as strategies on positive classroom culture and behavioural support.
So, these are the variety of opportunities for our teachers to look at where their needs are in terms of their teaching, in the classroom and directly, they can apply through the learning process through their CPD.
As to the Member's question about parents, there is separate information that we push through our Parents Gateway, to our parents, to be able to allow them to in turn, look towards supporting their children with SEN where the needs apply.
In terms of the specific number of hours in terms of SEN, I do not have the exact number of hours that we have for our teachers, but suffice to say, they have the flexibility to look at what lessons they require, what additional modules they wish to be able to have; and they can apply that in turn, because it is readily accessible for them.
If they are keen on developing further towards becoming a Teacher Trained in Special Needs, then they will transit into the 130-hour Certificate Module by the National Institute of Education, as I mentioned earlier.
\t
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Sustainability and the Environment.
[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":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Energy Conservation Act 2012\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary), on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, 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":"Veterinary Practice Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to establish the Veterinary Council, to provide for the registration of veterinarians and the regulation of individuals practising veterinary medicine and for matters connected therewith and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan), on behalf of the Minister for National Development, 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":"Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027","subTitle":"Committee of Supply – Paper Cmd 4 of 2026","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Head I (Cont) – (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [5 March 2026] (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the total sum to be allocated for Head I of the Estimates be reduced by $100.\" – [Mr Xie Yao Quan] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Minister of State Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim): Chairman, several Members, such as Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Mariam Jaafar and Mr Cai Yinzhou, have raised concerns about improving social mobility. This has always been an area of focus for the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).
As we saw in the Ministry of Finance (MOF) Occasional Paper last month, Singapore has done relatively well in this area compared to other advanced economies. However, like in other advanced economies, pressures are likely to persist or even intensify. Hence, MSF will redouble our efforts to enhance social mobility.
MSF's goal is to support lower-income families to progressively achieve the \"3S\" outcomes: stability, self-reliance and ultimately, social mobility. We are going beyond social assistance to social empowerment by supporting our families through three things.
First, a safety net. When families fall on hard times, we provide a safety net through immediate support. Second, a steadying hand. MSF provides a boost so families can get back on their feet and take the next step forward. Third, a supported ladder. MSF supports families with opportunities to grow their own resources. Such opportunities, when harnessed, will allow families to reach, grab the next rung and pull themselves up. In this way, MSF empowers families to succeed by overcoming challenges, seizing opportunities and most importantly, doing so with dignity.
This is what drives ComLink+.
Today, MSF supports around 11,000 ComLink+ families. We started with families living in public rental housing and we have been expanding to other lower-income families, such as those on KidSTART. Each ComLink+ family has a Social Service Office (SSO) family coach or Family Service Centre (FSC) case worker. They are the family’s greatest champion – someone in their corner who understands their circumstances and walks alongside them towards their longer-term goals.
Mr Xie Yao Quan suggested efforts to address slowing social mobility. ComLink+ seeks to do precisely that by providing targeted support across key domains and over different life stages, such as income security, children’s development and education, housing, family functioning, financial resilience and health. As families’ needs are varied and dynamic, we co-develop an action plan with each family.
As mentioned by Minister Masagos, MSF is committed to invest in research to better understand the impact of these efforts. We do not have all the answers on how to best support families to achieve social mobility. But by learning continuously and applying these insights, we will be able to refine our intervention and update our slate of support.
From a safety net to a steadying hand. When family coaches or case workers start journeying with families, they address the families' immediate needs. This could mean referring the family for ComCare assistance and other financial support for some interim relief. Together, these form our safety net for families.
But a safety net may not be enough for upward mobility. This is where we offer a hand to give families a boost to progress in a steady, sustained manner.
We therefore introduced the ComLink+ Progress Packages to encourage families moving towards their goals. Launched progressively over the last two years, these packages boost families’ efforts through financial top-ups when they take action in four areas: preschool enrolment and attendance, employment, debt clearance and home ownership.
Let me introduce Joseph, a family coach, who has been working with Ms Erna and her husband, Mr Suhaimi, together with their young children, aged one to 10. Joseph remembers when Mr Suhaimi shared his dream to move out of their rental flat and into their own home. Hearing that, Joseph worked with the family to chart out a roadmap and encouraged them along the way to achieve this dream. Acting on the plan, both Ms Erna and Mr Suhaimi are working hard. They are committed to employment and their children’s education. With ComLink+ Progress Package top-ups, they are also able to set aside more savings for their future.
However, as noted by Mr Melvin Yong, some families find the conditions too complicated or difficult to meet. With that, as announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in his Budget speech, we are enhancing the ComLink+ Progress Packages this year.
First, all ComLink+ families will now receive a new payout of $500 each quarter. We will call this the Partnership Payout. It reflects the families' commitment to work with us to improve their circumstances. Families will receive this payout after agreeing to be on ComLink+ and will continue to receive it so long as they keep taking steps towards their goals. With steady, predictable support, families can better focus on longer-term goals.
Second, many families work hard to maintain employment and regular preschool attendance. Yet, despite genuine effort, some may not be able to meet their targets due to their circumstances. We are therefore adjusting our conditions to better support families with more complex challenges.
For employment, we will look at the whole family's efforts, rather than the income of each person. For example, Ms Erna's part-time job's salary currently does not qualify her for payout on its own. However, with the enhanced progress package, it will now be counted together with her husband's earnings towards their family's employment milestones. For preschool, we will introduce intermediate milestones to encourage families' progress towards regular attendance.
Overall, a ComLink+ family with two preschool-aged children can receive up to $10,000 every year by maintaining a household income of at least $2,000 and regular preschool attendance.
More of the payout will be in cash to better support families facing day-to-day cashflow challenges. At the same time, a portion will continue to be placed in families' Central Provident Fund (CPF) and Child Development Accounts (CDA), so that we support not just today's needs but also tomorrow's security.
As noted by Mr Cai Yinzhou, some families may be hesitant to get on board ComLink+. Together with these enhancements, family coaches will step up efforts to reach out to families by working closely with Government agencies and community partners in their support system.
A supported ladder. Once families get back on their feet and start to move forward, we support them to take charge of their long-term progress. At MSF, our goal is to create opportunities that families can seize for themselves.
Employment is one of the best ways to do this. However, lower-income families often face barriers to employment that are not so straightforward to address, especially with limited financial resources. Even with a stable job, they may need certain educational qualifications or skills to unlock higher wages. We will therefore put in place more enablers to bridge the gap to employment, starting with three enhancements: facilitate job matching, enable upskilling and support caregiving. Allow me to elaborate.
On job matching, MSF is reviewing how to provide tailored support for lower-income families navigating the world of work as they may face more challenges finding suitable jobs. For example, lower-income jobseekers tend to work in service industries, where work schedules are less flexible on short notice. This makes it harder to deal with family emergencies, such as picking their children from school when they fall ill. MSF is thus working with partners, such as Employment and Employability Institute (e2i), AKG and TOUCH Community Services, to strengthen employment support for these families to prepare them for work, find suitable jobs and ultimately do well in their jobs.
We will also provide more support for upskilling. Some ComLink+ families today have younger jobseekers, who with the right skills, can unlock better-paying jobs. While broad-based schemes like SkillsFuture exist, ComLink+ families may benefit from a more targeted approach.
Families bear some costs when they choose to upskill. For example, their income may be disrupted during their studies and it is not certain even that they will get a job with a higher salary after. MSF has observed that this deters some ComLink+ families from upskilling even when they want to do so and even when they have the opportunity to do so.
That is why we rolled out a ComLink+ Skills Upgrading Support Pilot this January. When ComLink+ individuals aged 18 to 39 undergo full-time education or vocational training, they will receive support for basic living expenses. They will also receive an incentive of $500 for every three months that they sustain their education.
On caregiving, parents will have peace of mind to work when they know that their children are being taken care of and meaningfully engaged after school hours. MSF supports this by making after-school care more accessible, more affordable.
As announced by the Prime Minister in his Budget speech, MSF will increase the Student Care Fee Assistance income threshold from $4,500 to $6,500 and update the income tiers. This will benefit around 13,000 students.
We are also giving parents greater assurance of support so that they can plan ahead. Parents can now submit their Student Care Fee Assistance applications up to six months before their child’s enrolment in a Student Care Centre. Eligible parents will be granted in-principle approval, which guarantees that they will receive Student Care Fee Assistance once they enrol in an eligible centre. We are also extending the maximum Student Care Fee Assistance assistance period from 24 months to 36 months.
Mr Cai Yinzhou highlighted that children should have opportunities to continue developing holistically outside school hours. We totally agree. As a parent myself, the time I spend with my children after hours, after work, allows me to bond with them and explore their interests. Lower-income families, who are often stretched in time and resources, could especially benefit from additional support to purposefully engage their children.
As part of Grow Well SG, we have worked with Families for Life partners to provide low-cost activities for screen-free family bonding. Families can enjoy children's books, discounted attractions and community events.
Working towards the 3S outcomes is a long journey for our ComLink+ families. One of the factors that can derail progress is dealing with health issues. When we are unwell, it is not easy to meet our responsibilities at home, at school or at work, let alone pursue our aspirations. And yet, for many ComLink+ families who are busy making ends meet, they tend to deprioritise these health concerns. Over time, this can lead to poorer health outcomes, leaving some families trapped in a vicious cycle where poor health makes it harder to stabilise their lives, and life's pressures make it even harder for them to stay well.
We want to help them break out of this cycle. Therefore, as mentioned by Minister Masagos, we trialled a new model of support in 2025. We tested how family coaches and healthcare staff, together, could achieve two things. First, set health goals and actions that support families to take care of their health even as they juggle competing needs. Second, streamline service delivery, so families do not have to interact with too many officers, which can be overwhelming.
MSF, the Ministry of Health and the healthcare clusters are finetuning the model and will extend it to more ComLink+ families this year. Together with the extension of Healthier SG to younger ComLink+ families, shared by Minister Masagos, we hope families will be empowered to take charge of their health.
Ms Mariam Jaafar would be pleased to know that as we develop more interventions to support families towards the 3S outcomes, families will not face a navigation nightmare. Instead, it has always been the intent of ComLink+ for family coaches to co-develop action plans with families that sequence the interventions in a manageable way. Family coaches will also connect families to the resources and support to achieve their goals. This is how ComLink+ aims to provide each family with a pathway towards social mobility tailored to their needs.
Such efforts reveal how we can do better together, but the Government cannot do this alone. Minister Masagos proposed 3Cs to guide how we partner with others. We will collaborate, cooperate and co-create. Because truly, it takes a whole-of-society effort to uplift each other.
We thank our partners for working closely with MSF, like the DBS Foundation, which has been a strong supporter of the ComLink+ progress packages for preschool and homeownership. We look forward to more partners coming onboard.
With tighter partnerships, we can weave stronger safety nets, offer more steadying hands and craft sturdier supported ladders. Together, we will journey with our families to achieve stability, self-reliance and social mobility. Chairman, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In these challenging times, many Singaporean families face numerous obstacles. These include rising costs of living, the need to upgrade skills in a rapidly changing economy and various daily responsibilities that often test our families' resilience and perseverance.
Yet we continue to stand firm, facing these challenges steadfastly. As the saying goes, \"Effort is the ladder to success\". Every small step taken with a sharp mind, determination and collaborative spirit brings us closer to our dreams.
Families like Mdm Erna's embody this spirit. Mdm Erna's husband, who works as a clerk, is working towards getting his driving licence to secure better job opportunities. Mdm Erna herself works hard, taking on part-time jobs more frequently despite being busy caring for her children. With sustained and comprehensive support, their efforts will bear even greater fruit.
In their journey to improve their quality of life, families like Mdm Erna's do not have to go through it alone. MSF is committed to supporting every family that needs help so they can achieve stability, self-reliance and progress.
We will therefore enhance the ComLink+ Progress Packages to ensure more families can get the support they need for their next steps. With this enhanced package, families like Mdm Erna's can better manage daily expenses and build savings for the future. MSF will also boost after-school care support by raising the income criteria for Student Care Fee Assistance from $4,500 to $6,500. More than 13,000 students and their families will benefit.
Beyond Government support, community organisations play a vital role. MSF has strengthened collaboration with them, particularly in expanding employment support and skills development opportunities for low-income families.
We must stand by those families in need. We value our Malay/Muslim organisations' efforts and hope more organisations will join hands with MSF to build a caring and united society.
Through close cooperation, we can build a caring and inclusive society for everyone at every stage of life.
Let us continue working together to build a Singapore that gives hope and opportunities for every family to become stronger, self-reliant and progress. Strong families are the bedrock of a successful society. This is our shared responsibility.
(In English): Chairman, real support is not just once-off. It is journeying together, step by step. Families, like Ms Erna's, know their strength and hard work will be seen by their family coaches, like Joseph. They will never have to walk alone.
In MSF, we believe that collective efforts by the Government, partners and the families themselves, will turn obstacles into opportunities, trials into triumphs, hardships into hope for families who need it the most. As a society, we need to ensure that no family is trapped by their circumstances, no child is defined by their starting point, no potential goes unrealised and no hope beyond reach.
This is not just a social policy; it is a moral responsibility. As a society, we will empower all families to unlock their maximum potential, for a brighter future. As we move collectively from assistance to empowerment, this future is shaped not by what we give to families, but by what families are enabled to become.
The Chairman: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Chairman, a fair and inclusive society does not expect people to fit neatly into our systems. Instead, it asks the question: how must our systems evolve so that every person can flourish?
At MSF, that is the question guiding our work. Earlier, Minister of State Zhulkarnain spoke about uplifting low-income families. I would like to focus on another group of families who carry both immense love and immense responsibility, families with persons with disabilities (PwDs).
When I meet parents and caregivers, one concern surfaces time and again. It is not just about today. It is also about tomorrow. They ask me, after my child graduates from special education (SPED) school, what comes next? Will there be a community? Will there be meaningful opportunities? And most importantly: perhaps when I am no longer around, who will look after my child?
Sir, these are deeply human questions, and under the Enabling Masterplan 2030, we are addressing them in three ways.
First, building capability through lifelong learning. Second, building communities where PwDs truly belong. And third, building lifelong security so families can plan with confidence. Allow me to share more.
For many families, graduation from SPED school is both a proud milestone as well as a moment of uncertainty. Each year, about 250 SPED graduates move into employment or further studies within six months of graduation. Behind each statistic is a young person taking a brave step into adulthood, and parents learning, oftentimes anxiously, to let go. Access to lifelong learning is important to facilitate a smoother transition to life beyond school.
Mr Ng Chee Meng and Ms Denise Phua will be pleased to know that we provide funding support for skills training through the SG Enable Training Grant. SG Enable, supported by SkillsFuture Singapore, will introduce new courses from April this year, adding to the existing 140 active courses curated by the Enabling Academy.
But skills alone are not enough. We need inclusive employers.
SG Enable is partnering employers in sectors, such as food and beverage (F&B) and Health and Social services to curate job roles thoughtfully. And through various grants, wage offsets and the Enabling Mark, our national accreditation framework, organisations can steadily strengthen the inclusive hiring practices.
Inclusive hiring is not charity. It is good business. It enriches workplaces with resilience, loyalty and diverse perspectives. For graduates with higher support needs, centre-based services remain critical. Today, about 3,600 PwDs attend our Daily Activity Centres (DACs) and Sheltered Workshops (SWs). [Please refer to the clarification later in the debate.]
Behind this number are real families, like 21-year-old Mirza and his mother, Mdm Habibah, who simply wants the best for her son.
After graduating from SPED school, Mirza tried a placement with a SW before eventually settling into a DAC at SUN-DAC. I visited Mirza recently. For him, the DAC gives him good structure, friendship and a safe space to grow. Every Thursday, Mirza goes on walks around Bedok. He buys prata, sometimes ice cream, learns how to count money and take the bus. These are meaningful lessons in independence.
For his mother, Mdm Habibah, the programme gives her peace of mind. She can go to work knowing that Mirza is safe and meaningfully engaged, and treasures coming home to hear his story about the day.
But we know the current wait time, from referral to enrolment, is long, over half a year on average. This weighs heavily on families. When the child graduates, six months can feel like an eternity.
We are accelerating expansion. Our pledge was to add 500 DAC and 500 SW places by 2030. But in fact, we have already added 100 shelter workshop places in 2024. A further 520 DAC and 360 SW spaces will come on stream progressively by 2027.
As capacity builds, families on the waitlist are not left alone. Enabling Services Hubs (ESHs) offer activities and serve as community touch points. For recent graduates, the Supported Transition and Engagement Programme (STEP) ensures they remain meaningfully engage with outings and activities at least twice weekly while waiting for placement.
All this, because transition should not mean isolation.
We also heard feedback that moving between SW and DACs can be cumbersome. Re-assessments, transitions – families told us that it felt like starting from scratch each time the needs changed. So, last year we launched the Enabling Skills for Life Programme (ESLP).
ESLP integrates both models – SW and DAC – into a single continuum. More importantly, it introduces individualised curriculum and development plans co-created with clients and caregivers. That co-creation is important because no one knows a person's strengths and aspirations better than the individual himself or herself, and the family members.
As of January this year, close to 770 clients across eight centres have transitioned to ESLP, and we will continue refining the service model over the next three years. Our aim is simple: as each individual grows, the support around them grows too. This means that ESLP clients will have access to more training pathways depending on their specific needs and aspirations.
Sir, skills matter, but belonging matters just as much.
To this end, MSF is piloting two community living models to strengthen support for independent living. The first is the Enabled Living Programme (ELP) pilot, which has started in five locations, and we are doing this in close partnership with appointed SSAs.
Delivered within designated public rental flats, ELP allows PwDs with low to moderate support needs and no to little family support to live independently.
When I recently spoke to Boon Hao, an ELP resident supported by the Autism Resource Centre, he did not talk about policies or subsidies. He spoke about hosting his friends on Valentine's Day – about the dishes he prepared, about the chore schedule he shares with his roommate, Vincent, about grocery runs at Ang Mo Kio Hub. These may sound like mundane things, but for Boon Hao, they represent dignity, independence, friendship.
Through ELP, persons with low to moderate support needs can live independently in public rental flats, supported by coaches and community networks. Residents may not live with family, but they are never alone. Grassroots leaders check in, neighbours build friendships, and Boon Hao is even exploring volunteering. That is inclusion, in action. Living side by side, contributing to the same community.
We will also launch the Home Support Programme in the second half of this year, extending similar support to those already living independently or has plans to do so in their homes, near ELP sites.
Alongside community-living models, we are strengthening neighbourhood support through our ESHs. The idea is straightforward: support should be close to home and easy to access.
Our ESHs in Tampines, Punggol and Jurong have worked with over 300 community partners and volunteers in the past two years: from grassroots organisations to schools and local businesses. They conduct outreach, organise learning workshops and social activities, and link PwDs and caregivers to relevant services.
For families, the ESH can be a reassuring first touchpoint: a place to ask questions, seek guidance and find support without feeling overwhelmed. More importantly, ESHs help communities grow in confidence. Through inclusion workshops and partnerships, neighbours learn how to better welcome and support PwDs in everyday settings.
Because when support is embedded within our neighborhoods, PwDs are not seen simply as clients of a programme, but they are recognised as fellow residents, friends and contributors to the same community they live in.
Chairman, caregivers carry quiet courage. Many worry most not about themselves, but about what will happen after they are gone. We recognise the challenges they face and we must ensure they are well-supported on this journey.
As Singapore ages, this concern becomes more urgent. Caregivers themselves grow older too. Health challenges emerge over time. Future planning cannot wait. As noted by Assoc Prof Kenneth Poon, a chief area of concern for caregivers is how their loved ones will be cared for after they pass. We are supporting families in three ways: first, near-term relief; second, strengthened savings; and third, secure future arrangements.
First, to provide near-term financial relief, Prime Minister announced in Budget last year that subsidies will be increased for adult disability services and extended to more households. Since January this year, subsidies for the Assistive Technology Fund were enhanced, and extended to families with per capita income between $2,601 and $4,800. Through the Assistive Technology Fund, eligible families can purchase assistive technology devices for independent living. From July 2026, we will increase subsidies for residential and community disability services by up to 15 and 10 percentage points respectively. The income threshold for subsidies will also be raised, extending eligibility to households with per capita income between $3,601 and $4,800.
Ms Denise Phua and Ms Kuah Boon Theng would be pleased to know that these enhancements will provide additional financial relief for 3,600 PwDs accessing our residential and community disability services, including those attending Day Activity Centres.
Ms Phua and Ms Kuah also noted that our funding to service providers impact service access and quality. And that is exactly why we regularly review our funding models for relevance. We last increased funding to Day Activity Centre providers in 2021, and to disability residential service providers last year, in 2025, to account for inflation and enhanced staffing requirements for clients with higher support needs. The inter-agency Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities will explore more ways to keep disability support affordable for families and sustainable for service providers.
Second, on strengthening savings. From January this year, eligible Singaporeans with disabilities are included in the Matched Retirement Saving Scheme (MRSS). This was announced by the Ministry of Manpower at the Committee of Supply last year. Under the MRSS, we dollar-match CPF top-ups for those eligible, up to an annual cap of $2,000 and a lifetime limit of $20,000.
This means that if a parent of a seven-year-old with a verified disability status tops up $2,000 annually to their child's account, we will match by topping up another $2,000 each year. Assuming: one, the parent consistently tops up $2,000 annually over 10 years to hit the lifetime cap of $20,000; and two, a 4% compounding interest, this child would have minimally $320,000 in CPF retirement savings by age 65. This translates to at least $1,700 in monthly payouts for life, from age 65. If a parent tops up consistently from a young age, the compounded impact can be substantial, giving their child meaningful CPF payouts in later life. This is all about dignity in their senior years.
Third, on securing future arrangements. Caregivers need assurance that these funds are secure when they are no longer around. The Special Needs Trust Company can help.
As announced at Budget last year, we will be introducing a dollar-for-dollar matching grant for tops-ups to the Special Needs Trust (SNT) accounts. From 1 April this year till 31 March 2031, families with per capita household income of up to $3,600 can sign up to receive matching top-ups of up to $10,000 to the SNT accounts. [Please refer to the clarification later in the debate.]
Parents can further multiply their financial provisions for their child by buying a Great Eastern Cares Term Plan. This term plan insures parents up till age 100, with coverage ranging from $100,000 to $300,000.
For insurance coverage of $250,000, a healthy 33-year-old mother with per capita household income below $3,600 would only need to make a one-off trust top-up of $10,000 to her child's account to cover the total premiums for the plan. Upon the insured parent's demise before age 100, $250,000 will be paid into the child's SNT account.
As premiums increase with age and the amount insured, caregivers are thus encouraged to start these conversations early with SG Enable. Case Managers, who are social work-trained, will work with caregivers to craft personalised care plans and ensure funds are disbursed in accordance with these plans after caregivers have passed.
These measures offer real relief for caregivers. I recently met Mdm Kitty Li. Kitty is the mother of a child living with autism and she was initially hesitant due to the initial capital needed to start an SNT account for her child. With the Community Chest sponsorship, Mdm Li can start saving in the SNT account to benefit from the Government Matching Grant and use these savings to purchase a Great Eastern Cares Term Plan.
While we work on ensuring our initiatives remain fit for purpose, we agree with Miss Rachel Ong that raising awareness is a crucial part of ensuring that these initiatives have reach. Beyond what is available on their website, SG Enable has developed the Enabling Guide to consolidate information on available support. And they will also continue engaging with partners, such as employers and industry chambers, to raise awareness of inclusive hiring and employment support.
We also endeavour to improve accessibility to our initiatives given the wide range of needs. To Miss Rachel Ong's query, we are studying how to improve deaf access services, including training more Singapore Sign Language interpreters. There are also SSAs like SADeaf, who provide casework and counselling services using sign language. Chairman, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, promoting a more inclusive Singapore is the shared aspiration of all Singaporeans. We hope to build a Singapore where PwDs can pursue their own ideals and aspirations.
Through employment support, Day Activity Centres and Sheltered Workshops, as well as the Enabling Skills for Life Programme, we hope to help PwDs build lifelong learning capabilities, enabling them to better integrate into society and live meaningful lives.
We implement the Enabled Living Programme, the Home Support Programme, and establish Enabling Services Hubs to strengthen the support networks for persons with disabilities at home and in the community, allowing them to live independently in the community for the long term.
We have not forgotten about the family members and caregivers around PwDs. The existing CPF Top-Up Matching Scheme and Special Needs Trust Company are in place to provide financial security for special needs families, giving them a peace of mind in planning for the future.
We will continue to collaborate with partners from all sectors to ensure that every person with disabilities can find their place in our country and live dignified and meaningful lives. This is our commitment and determination in building a more inclusive and caring home.
(In English): Chairman, as we journey towards 2030, our commitment very clear: to build a Singapore where PwDs pursue aspirations with confidence, where families trust that support will endure.
And we will keep listening and we will keep refining. We thank Ms Denise Phua for her suggestions to the Taskforce, and we will deliberate over her input and share more when ready.
Sir, policies alone cannot create inclusion. Policies remove barriers. People create belonging. Inclusion happens when employers open doors, when neighbours extend friendship and when communities choose to see ability before disability.
PwDs are not defined by what they need. They are defined by the strengths they contribute: resilience, creativity, loyalty, courage. They are not passive recipients of support, much like seniors in our community. They are partners in our shared future.
So, let us move forward together: not by asking people to fit into narrow definitions, but by shaping a society heartful enough for every Singaporean to belong. And that is how we advance an inclusive Singapore. One where everyone, truly, can thrive. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Minister of State Goh Pei Ming.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Goh Pei Ming): Mr Chairman, MSF is committed to building a nation that supports Singaporeans in raising strong families and giving every child a good start.
Today, I will elaborate on three strategies to achieve this: starting strong – building firm foundations within the home; starting early – ensuring access to affordable and quality early childhood education; and starting together – working as a community to support our families.
Strong, Early, Together. And if we take the first letter of each, they spell out SET, reflecting our shared commitment to ensuring that families are set to thrive in Singapore.
I will begin by sharing how we are supporting our families to start strong. For many of us, families are our safe harbour and where we turn to in our happiest and also our most challenging moments. An MSF survey in 2023 showed that most Singaporeans have a closely-knit family and believe in its importance.
We will continue to support families to build strong foundations within the home. Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Melvin Yong asked about support available for the different family types, while Ms Eileen Chong asked about strengthening support for parents and caregivers.
MSF is committed in our efforts to strengthen all families. Our children deserve to be valued and given equal opportunities to thrive. Benefits that support their growth and development, such as subsidies for education, healthcare, and the CDA, are given to all citizen children, regardless of their parents’ marital status.
To help all families stay resilient, we offer holistic support at every stage of life. These programmes range from financial assistance to family counselling to parenting workshops. For more vulnerable households, by adopting a holistic case management approach, our Family Service Centres help them manage multiple stressors and break out of inter-generational patterns. Minister Masagos has also shared that we will double our family counselling capacity under the Strengthening Families Programme (FAM) by 2030.
To provide better support for caregivers, we have significantly enhanced leave provisions for parents of newborns, increased mandatory paternity leave, and introduced a new Shared Parental Leave scheme, and in total, parents now have up to 30 weeks of paid parental leave from April 2026 onwards. The Ministry of Manpower has also introduced the Tripartite Guidelines on flexible work arrangements to help caregivers.
MSF's latest survey findings show that more than 85% of Singaporean families reported moderate to high family resilience scores, reflecting good ability to bounce back from life’s challenges. Nonetheless, data also shows that our divorced, widowed and separated respondents reported a lower family resilience score compared to married respondents. MSF will continue to track the resilience of families and study whether to provide more targeted support for single parent households.
We also recognise that some children may not have access to stable homes with their biological parents, and may require adoption or fostering. Ms Sylvia Lim and Dr Neo Kok Beng have asked about these arrangements.
Today, there are multiple layers of checks in our adoption processes to detect child trafficking. Challenges remain in transnational arrangements. Singapore has adopted regional frameworks to complement our domestic efforts to protect children. We undertake regular reviews to ensure that our processes, our laws and our international efforts are effective in combating unethical adoption practices and child trafficking.
In fostering arrangements, we facilitate regular contact or access between children and their biological parents to maintain links, wherever safe and appropriate. We have also seen cases where foster parents proactively help children reunite with their biological parents. MSF remains open to considering ways to facilitate this, including co-parenting, recognising also that every case is unique. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all foster parents, including Dr Neo, for their efforts in providing positive family environments.
Finally, we are helping families plan for their later years. Yesterday, I was very glad to share that we will make it free of charge for citizens to file Form 1 of the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). Members of this House have raised this topic, including Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Kenneth Tiong. We encourage all Singaporeans to make their LPA while they are still healthy and to do so as soon as possible.
We acknowledge Members' feedback about the challenges faced in the scenarios where individuals require Professional Donees or Deputies. We have also heard similar feedback in our public consultations and with our Professional Deputies and Doneess. We will consider them in our upcoming review of the Mental Capacity Act and the Professional Deputies and Donees Scheme.
Building a strong family environment requires creating healthy habits and quality time together – a challenge when screens increasingly dominate family life. Mr Cai Yinzhou and Miss Rachel Ong raised valid concerns about prolonged screen usage and exposure to AI.
Parents are our first and most important line of defence. For practical support, I will refer parents to the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Digital for Life portal and MSF’s Families for Life Parenting website. They offer guiding materials on managing children’s screen time, and helping them navigate the online world safely and to use AI responsibly. By reducing screen times, we hope parents can create opportunities to bond and form meaningful connections with their children.
Every year, we dedicate the month of June to celebrating families through the month-long National Family Festival (NFF). Last year, more than 850,000 participated in activities like family carnivals, games and experiential learning activities. With greater community and corporate support, we hope to welcome one million participants to participate in NFF 2026 this year and to create even more memories as a family.
Through our partnerships, MSF has been bringing more quality and affordable family activities directly to local communities. These include kite-making, reading programmes, community lo-hei, since Chinese New Year just passed, as well as discounts from commercial partners for family outings. Families can find upcoming events and good discounts on the Families for Life website.
Next, let me touch on Starting Early, I would like to share how we will further enhance our early childhood education.
Research has shown that the early years are crucial to a child’s development, where preschool attendance from the age of three leads to positive outcomes. To ensure accessibility to preschools, we have increased the number of full-day preschool places from around 135,000 to now more than 220,000 in the past decade. We now have enough full-day preschool places nationally for every resident child aged three and above. We have also achieved our commitment of ensuring that 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool. To serve the newer housing estates with more families with more young children, we are on track to adding more than 40,000 full-day places in Anchor Operator preschools by 2029.
Our early childhood services will continue to remain affordable. Since the start of the year, full-day childcare fees have been further reduced to a maximum of $610 at Anchor Operator preschools and $650 at Partner Operator preschools, a reduction of 15% since 2020. This will make out-of-pocket expenses for full-day childcare in an Anchor Operator preschool comparable to primary school and after-school care fees combined. With the revised Additional Subsidy income thresholds announced by the Prime Minister in his Budget speech, many families can expect to pay even lower fees.
Let me elaborate. From January 2027, we will raise the gross monthly household income ceiling for the Additional Subsidy for childcare and Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme to $15,000. We will also increase income thresholds for all the subsidy tiers below to reflect changes in household incomes. This will further improve affordability of preschools for more than 60,000 lower- and middle-income families with young children.
Let me cite an example. A median income household earning $12,500, with two children in Anchor Operator childcare, will see their total out-of-pocket fees for both children reduce by 35% from $730 in 2026 to $470 in 2027.
Mr Kenneth Tiong suggested portable preschool subsidies and additional salary support for non-Government supported operators. Portable subsidies have been raised in Parliament before. We have studied this and highlighted that this approach alone may lead to unintended consequences, such as fee increases without improvements in accessibility or quality, or preschools becoming overly commercial. We have seen this initiative implemented in other countries, only to be withdrawn a few years later.
Instead of one single approach, we take a more holistic, multi-pronged approach. We provide funding to rigorously selected operators to cap fees and to maintain quality. We also provide basic and means-tested additional subsidies, so basic subsidies as well as additional means-tested subsidies, to parents to ensure affordability, with lower-income families paying less. CDAs help parents further offset post-subsidy fees at preschools of their choice. And our schemes have worked well with demonstrated success in our accessibility and affordability outcomes.
In the next bound, MSF will place greater emphasis on the quality of preschools. Today, I will share our vision for \"Quality Preschools\", where children play, learn and grow alongside their peers, and develop holistically with strong foundations for life. To achieve this vision, we will journey with the sector to enhance preschool capabilities, improve programme and professional quality, foster stronger parent-preschool partnerships, and strengthen research and innovation.
First, for our children, we will cultivate a preschool environment where they can play, learn and grow at a pace suitable for them. We will cater to children of different needs and backgrounds by encouraging play and offering different ways for them to learn and to explore.
In my maiden Parliamentary speech, I highlighted the crucial role of play in children's learning and development. Play is a child's natural language. Play teaches children to share, to solve problems, to adapt to new situations, and to manage emotions. Our educators today already provide play experiences. We introduced play-based pedagogies in our earliest curriculum more than a decade ago. In the next bound, we will take it further. We will share across the entire sector best practices they have observed from the operators and intensify the application of play in everyday lessons to make learning more responsive to each child's needs and interests, and to help children enjoy both learning and their childhood.
Next, we recognise that every child has their own strengths and learning needs. International research demonstrates that when educators design lessons that offer children different ways to learn, it improves teaching quality and leads to better outcomes for our children. We are strengthening efforts to equip educators to support every child's development to help them reach their full potential.
For our parents, we will enable stronger partnerships with their child’s educators. Parents play a crucial role in bridging our children's development across preschool and home. From my preschool visits, the principals have shared that parents want to be involved in shaping their children’s development and learning. However, they are unsure how to partner educators. So, we will work with preschools to strengthen educator-parent partnerships through clearer role definitions and shared best practices.
Educators are at the heart of preschool education and critical for our children's holistic development. We care for their well-being and want to ensure that more support is given to our educators as mentioned by Mr Melvin Yong. Attracting and retaining quality educators remains a priority for us. We will grow our early education workforce by another 3,500 educators by 2030 to meet sector needs. We will better equip educators through pre-service training and in-service continuous development to adapt to our evolving early childhood landscapes, as they apply more play-based learning and support different learning needs.
We also acknowledge the challenges that our preschool operators face – given the long hours they spend caring for our children, there is little time to engage in other tasks, such as lesson planning or relevant upskilling. Preschools also do not have school holidays unlike primary or secondary schools. We have been enhancing our educators' career proposition over the years and we remain committed to doing more to ensure they are well-supported.
Together with operators and educators, we are currently reviewing educators' working conditions and workload, such as better enabling non-contact time. We will also embark on a sector-wide job redesign project to review the job scopes, the work processes and support structures in our preschools and to improve work experiences.
For our operators, we will provide more support to strengthen their daily operations and to enhance their programme quality.
Technology is a key enabler. As shared by Minister Masagos yesterday, we will refresh the Industry Digital Plan 2.0 jointly with IMDA to enhance support for all preschools' digital transformation efforts, including non-Government-supported preschools. Through new innovation seed funding and establishing baseline technology requirements, we will support preschools to adopt digital capabilities. We want to streamline routine tasks while facilitating better communication with parents and fostering stronger parent-preschool partnerships.
We will also want to encourage more operators to seek accreditation under the revised Singapore Preschool Accreditation Framework 2.0, rolled out last year. As preschools attain a higher banding that reflects better service provision, parents can be assured of better quality. They can look forward to these preschools, which offer an even more enriching environment, to cater to their children's needs and to allow them to flourish.
Finally, undergirding our next bound of quality improvements will be a strong focus on research and innovation.
ECDA will lead efforts and collaborate with research partners to stay updated on emerging research and assess and encourage adoption of effective teaching and learning practices to raise the overall profile of our early childhood landscape.
Quality improvement is a continuous journey. Our focus this year will be to engage and closely work with preschool operators, our educators, our operators and our parents to further develop our plans, as we strive to deliver this vision of quality preschools over the next five years. MSF and ECDA will share more details when we are ready.
I have spoken about the importance of starting strong and starting early. So, that brings me to my final point to ensure that our families are set for life – starting together.
Many parents tell me that raising children is a full-time job, and since many parents have to continue to work, we are often stretched thin and this is where the broader community plays a crucial role in supporting our children's development and makes raising children a joyful experience.
Through the strong partnerships that MSF has built with our community partners to run our Families for Life @ Community initiative, we were able to organise more than 670 family-centric activities across all 24 towns in Singapore last year. These events were supported by over 780 volunteers and benefited more than half a million participants. So, my deepest appreciation goes out to all our volunteers who help make these events possible. Thank you.
These events provide opportunities for local communities to come together to foster friendship, to build support, while teaching our children what books cannot teach them – to care for those people and everyone around us.
Take 11-year-old Capella, who started volunteering with Families for Life because she wanted to accompany her mother. What began as family time has become something much deeper – Capella has become more confident, more empathetic and discovered her own passion for volunteering and helping others. Their shared service not only supported other families; it deepened their own bond. This is the ripple effect we see when families volunteer together – creating meaningful family time while making a difference in our community.
We all have a role to play in supporting families in Singapore. Let me talk about families, our families with PwDs.
I would like to thank Ms Denise Phua and Prof Kenneth Poon for acknowledging the inter-agency Taskforce and your suggestions that the Taskforce can consider, including reviewing the affordability of day activity centres and residential homes, reviewing employment opportunities and supporting PwDs and their families with long-term planning. As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric has shared, we will carefully consider these suggestions, along with recommendations for supporting PwDs that many other Members have raised through the past week. I am grateful to be leading this Taskforce which will complement our Enabling Masterplan 2030 and go beyond its recommendations to provide greater opportunities and assurances of dignity and stability for them.
The Taskforce has started its work by looking at the life-cycle of PwDs of different needs and identifying the pain points and gaps that they encounter in the current system. We will relook how they transition from education to employment. We will grow employment opportunities that tap on their strengths. We will expand capacities of our day activity centres and sheltered workshops to provide stable and secure care environment for more clients and to shorten waiting times, thereby reducing the unnecessary stressful transitions for PwDs and their families. We will review community pathways and healthcare support for them to stay engaged in the community for longer. We will see how to better support our caregivers, by designing the system with them and their PwDs as a dyad and we will review and keep services affordable for all.
The Taskforce's report will be released later this year.
The Government stands ready to invest more to support PwDs and their families. But an inclusive society also means reshaping our systems and attitudes to embrace all abilities, and empowering PwDs to pursue their aspirations, achieve their potential and participate as integral members of society. Chairman, next, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Building an inclusive society requires whole-of-Government coordination and participation and effort from the entire society. Therefore, we have established the inter-Ministerial Taskforce on Assurance for Families with Persons with Disabilities to explore how to better provide assistance to persons with disabilities and their families in areas, such as employment, community living and affordability of disability support services. The taskforce will also examine encouraging corporates and community partners to provide more job opportunities and community support for persons with disabilities, as well as promote greater social inclusivity, so that they can also pursue their dreams, realise their potential and contribute to society in their own way.
MSF firmly believes that family is the cornerstone of society, so we are committed to building a nation that can support Singaporeans in forming families. Marriage, parenthood – we support Singaporeans through various measures at every important stage of life.
Worth mentioning is our progress in preschool education. Over the past decade, preschool places have increased from 130,000 to 220,000 today. School fees have also become more affordable. Today, every child above three years old in Singapore can receive quality, affordable preschool education, and in the next phase, we will further enhance the quality of preschool education, continuing to give children a good start in life.
(In English): Mr Chairman, at MSF, families are at the heart of all we do. Strong families need effort and they are built by entire communities working together. The Government provides broad-based support to help families start strong, early and, together, setting firm foundations and giving every child a good start.
For families who are more vulnerable, we offer a steady hand and a supported ladder, so that they too can climb and thrive on their own terms. For families with PwDs, we are committed to removing barriers and working with the community to create opportunities that foster inclusion and belonging.
Over the past week, our House has shared our respective visions of a \"we first\" society. For MSF, this vision comes alive when our social service sector, community and our corporates partner us to create better outcomes for families and individuals that we serve. By sharing in this commitment that \"Better Starts with Us\", each of us make the difference together.
Let us work towards stronger families, stronger communities, a stronger Singapore. [Applause.]
The Chairman: We have some time for clarifications. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
Mr Eric Chua: Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I would like to set right a couple of points in my speech earlier before Members seek clarifications.
Firstly, I mentioned that enhancements we provide additional financial relief for 3,600 PwDs accessing our residential and community disabilities services. The number should be 3,800.
Second, on families who are looking to set up the SNT Account, for these families, we will provide the initial $5,000 capital needed to set up an SNT Account through ComChest Funding. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan: Thank you, Chairman. Just three buckets of clarifications.
The first on the expansion of ComLink+ social health integration pilot. So, this is directed at Minister of State Zhulkarnain. How many more ComLink+ residents is MSF looking to bring onboard this expanded pilot and where, which ComLink+ towns is MSF looking to expand this pilot to? And also, will family coaches and public health institutions be sharing data to support clients to navigate the system and avoid the navigation, like Minister of State Zhulkarnain spoke about?
Second bucket of clarifications on the ComLink+ skills upgrading support pilot. Again, directed at Minister of State Zhulkarnain. I just wanted to ask if family coaches will be working with IHLs and the course providers to signpost clients to certain courses and also to help them to enrol and get on board these courses?
A third bucket of clarifications on supporting our professionals in the sector to uplift them, even as they care and pour their heart and soul to care for clients. So, this is directed at the Minister. Does MSF have plans to enhance the support to professionals for professional development and career advancement opportunities in the sector?
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Thank you, Chairman. I thank Member Xie Yao Quan for all those questions and clarifications.
On social health integration, we focus our efforts on the health issues that are most likely to disrupt the broader social goals. Last year was the trial for the social health integration and about 500 families were involved. We target another additional 500 more. In terms of where the regions will be trialled in, we are trialing in SSO clusters in: one, Bukit Batok, Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang; two, Sembawang and Woodlands; and three, Tampines, Pasir Ris and Punggol. In terms of the data sharing, MSF works closely with MOH, and the health care clusters so the relevant health information, like the children's mandatory immunisation records would be shared via a system interface with the family coaches.
The second bucket of questions on the skills upgrading scheme. The family coach works together with the families, closely with the families who express interest to come on board the pilot and it is a very recent thing, the pilot was just in January, we aim for 100 families. We also engage the IHLs on their application, to help them with their application as well.
The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): We work with the industry practitioners, including the training providers, education institutions, the professionals themselves and their associations, to put up what we call the skills framework for social service. Within this framework, we lay out the competencies needed for the families of social sector jobs so that professionals know clearly what they need to have in order to articulate and for their career planning. This is very useful for both the trainers, training institutions as well as for the individuals and the associations.
For the individuals themselves, for example, they would know there are scholarships available under the professional development sponsorship, where it covers full tuition fees. They can study, even if they have a degree, of which they have to have one to practise as full professionals in this field – in alternate or related fields, for example, in psychology.
But we want to also look at how we can expand these fields of studies that may not look as related as they were, maybe 10 years ago, but may be relevant today. For example, AI, for example, how they can be related to their work in social service.
There are also of course, short-term grants for individuals to look at, to take up the courses and then to uplift their ability and their skills. Not necessarily to enhance their career possibilities, but also to support their clients better.
In the meantime, SSAs, too, should use this framework, because they may want to attract talents from outside who may not have the requisite professional degrees or qualifications to practise in this sector. MSF also will provide grants for such people and at the same time for our SSAs to plan the career path and articulation for their own staff, those who are within the SSAs themselves.
The Chairman: I see a number of hands, but guillotine time is 12.15 pm. So, as usual, keep your clarifications succinct. Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Chairman. I have three clarifications for Minister of State Goh Pei Ming, they are all related to preschools. One, given the critical importance of quality early childhood education in shaping our children's developmental outcomes, how can ECDA further strengthen the capabilities of preschools to better engage parents as active partners in their children's learning and development?
Two, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has introduced a right to disconnect policy so that school teachers are not expected to respond to work matters after school hours. Given that preschool educators also face demanding workloads, could the Minister of State clarify whether ECDA has similar safeguards for our preschool educators?
Three, recognising that continuous professional development is fundamental to maintaining high educational standards, what steps is ECDA taking to enable our early childhood educators to pursue meaningful professional development opportunities, for example, giving study awards or time off for the preschool educators?
Mr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Chairman, let me take the questions part by part. First in terms of how we will build stronger parent-preschool partnerships, we believe that this partnership is important to help bridge the overall development and learning of our children between the home and the preschool. They are not separate entities, that experience has to be collective. Therefore, we want to see more parents participate in our preschools.
In fact, one of my recent visits to My First Skool in Anchorvale, Sengkang, I was very encouraged, it was the day of the launch of the health screening and I observed there was a parent doing a storytelling exercise together with the children. After that I managed to speak to her and she was sharing with me that My First Skool, at least at that centre, regularly sends out messages, sharing what are the opportunities for excursions, for storytelling, participating in games, sports or even coming in for rather mundane activities. But these experiences allow for the parent as well as the child to have a common experience that goes beyond the classroom back into the living rooms, over the dining table, where they talk. And in fact, the parent also knows many of the names of the child's friends. I thought that was very precious, very, very meaningful, and we want to have more of such experiences.
And for this parent, when she walked away, this was sometime about 9.45 am in the morning, I remember being quite encouraged that how come she was able to do this? She told me she was going to work, so I guess some of the flexible work arrangements have also set in, and she is well supported by her employer in this regard.
So, from ECDA's view, what we are hoping to do more, as I mentioned earlier, we want to talk to the preschools, share many of their best practices. We understand within the landscape, it is a little bit varied. All of them have their good ideas. We want to collate and promulgate many of these across. We also want to perhaps set clearer expectations of what the educator is and is not supposed to do, what the parent is and is not supposed to do and also, perhaps in this process, enable digital capabilities to foster this partnership.
The second part of the question on the right to disconnect and understanding that MOE has a similar policy. In fact, in the preschool sector, we recognise the importance of having this. We agree, the workloads of our preschool educators are very heavy, the hours are very long, and this is a policy that we are working now. It is a work-in-progress. We want to formalise this, and we are starting with the co-creation of a parent-preschool charter. Once we formalise this, will promulgate to all. But perhaps my own experience, I also have a preschooler in my home, but I do not have the phone numbers of the teachers, nor is it shared. I call the general office and through that, the messages get shared to the teachers when they need to.
The third question pertains to how do we allow our educators to have meaningful professional development opportunities. We recognise it is important for them to be well supported in their journey by ECDA, and to have time to attend to not just the professional but also their personal learning needs. We have mechanisms, such as a Continuing Professional Development roadmap, whereby we help guide and mentor our educators through this journey in terms of what courses that they can attend to upgrade, to upskill, and many of these courses are provided by the National Institute of Early Childhood Development, as well as other training providers, so we allow them a certain scaffold for them to continue to grow and progress in their careers and, of course, with new pedagogies, we hope that they will stay current.
But of course, this requires time and we are studying and, we have in the past, set aside more protected time for them. We designated six preschool closure days – development days, actually – to allow the centre, not only for personal training but also team training. We have also designated Teachers' Day and Children's Day as holidays in 2024, we have also ceased childcare services or early childhood education services on Saturdays from last year onwards.
A few months ago, I met a group of ECDA Fellows. They shared with me, and this is a group of very senior principals and educators, and they shared with me some of their feedback, so we are looking into it. We are looking to offer more bite-sized continuous development opportunities. We are also looking into how we can ease the workload, more non-contact time, ensuring there is protected time for professional development, time for reflection, time for individual planning and more importantly, at the end of the day, all these allow for the development of the educators, which translate into better development and teaching for our children, benefiting our future.
The Chairman: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Chair. My clarifications are on preschools. One, ECDA itself shifted Anchor Operator funding from a centre-capacity model to a per child funding model earlier in 2025. If per-child funding is the right principle for allocating resources among Anchor Operator centres, then why is it the wrong principle for allocating resources among all licensed centres?
Number two, I thank Minister of State Goh for his emphasis on play-based learning. Ms Loy Wee Mee, who I mentioned in my cut, is a – if not the expert – on play-based learning in Singapore. So, does the Ministry acknowledge that their operator funding model is making the play-based learning expert's schools, and others like hers, unviable? And what is your message to the independent operators?
Mr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Chairman, to the Member's first question on whether per child funding should be extended to all centres. There are two parts to it. We moved from capacity-based to enrolment-based funding, primarily because we wanted to be more equitable to ensure that efficient resources are being assigned to all centres and if the centre is not full, we should not be assigning it based on capacity. And that is also to encourage the centre to improve on quality to attract more parents to come to them, to provide better curriculum, and per child enrolment basis allows for that. However, that is a different conversation from resources for all centres, and I note that the Member has over past instances also raised that we should provide funding to be assigned to the child rather than to the centres.
It goes back to the fundamental principle of how we build the early childhood sector. MSF and ECDA's priority is to ensure that families have access to accessible, affordable, quality preschools and today, 80% of all preschoolers are able to enrol in Government-supported preschools. That is the vision. That is the outcome that we have achieved. We have done this, like I explained in my speech earlier, through various means or various funding approaches, both on the subsidy side to the preschools directly; on the demand side to the parents, as well as allowing the parents to have some free choice through the CDA. We believe that the confluence of that allows us to achieve the balance and the right incentives for both the preschools' operators, as well as in terms of our support for the parents.
One particular area that I would like to perhaps talk about is how do we run our anchor operator and partner operator schemes, because I think the point of the Member's question is how do we better support – there is a slice of operators that may not be getting Government funding. The operator schemes, the Anchor and Partner Operator schemes, employ a very rigorous selection process, and these are private operators that we are evaluating, so as to find out who are the best able to advance our early childhood objectives. The operators must be both willing and capable to meet stringent scheme requirements, and these include the provision of affordable quality preschool services as well as the commitment to improve the professional development of their educators.
There can be good reasons why certain operators are not part of the Anchor Operator or the Partner Operator schemes. Some operators simply choose not to participate because of legitimate business considerations, such as they have already established a premium market positioning. Others may be providing a very specialised, a very niche service or programme. They have higher business costs that may not justify for Government funding to go in. And to maintain the quality and sustainability of these programmes, they may also not believe and subscribe to the fee caps that we have imposed through our operator schemes.
Some preschools are also in areas with higher Permanent Resident and foreigner numbers, and therefore, Government support is less relevant. Some operators may also not be selected because of the application process. The Partner Operator selection is competitive and factors, such as track record in delivering services, financial sustainability, accessibility of the centres as well as the local preschooler demand in the immediate area where the preschool is located. So, all those are factors that we consider, and we want to do so because we need to be judicious in how we spend Government money.
The second point on play-based learning. Actually, I would like to reiterate the point that play-based curriculum is embedded as part of our preschool curriculum, that all Anchor Operators and Partner Operators already implement across all our centres and like I said in my speech, we are looking to step it up further. I acknowledge the point the Member raised about Ms Loy. I think we will be keen to talk to her and see how she can help in the sector.
The Chairman: Prof Kenneth Poon.
Prof Kenneth Poon (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chairman. Let me just get to the point. Future care planning extends beyond employment and financial planning, and it includes residential arrangements, community access and the maintenance of social relationships. So, I would like to ask if the Ministry has or intends to help develop a playbook or have a coach or peer support system to guide family members involved in this future care planning process?
Mr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications. Indeed, future care planning, especially with the person, as well as the caregivers at the centre of this planning process, is absolutely essential. That is a key organising principle for service models moving forward.
Just want to highlight a few examples, so that we can illustrate the point. I have mentioned briefly in my speech that the Enabling Skills for Life Programme, an important component, is the individual curriculum and development plan, for which the caregivers, as well as the PwD themselves are very intimately and closely involved in the creation of the content and the milestones within.
In yesterday's cuts, Ms Denise Phua, also talked about the Family Life Navigator Model, and she likened that to the ComLink model, where we have different families, different ranges of needs being supported by somewhat like a defender. We totally agree with that mission and that vision. What we need is some time, in order for us to assemble the right manpower, with the right aptitude, the right capability and competencies to do this. But in terms of vision, we are well aligned.
The Chairman: Ms Diana Pang.
Ms Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): I would like to ask Minister of State Goh, how would the increase in a family counselling capacity affect the quality of counselling services? And are there sufficient counsellors to support this capacity increase?
Mr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Chairman, there are currently 11 FAM centres across Singapore providing family counselling services. We are working with the various service providers to ensure that there is adequate staffing as capacity expands. We want to make sure that we are expanding while not compromising quality. I think that must be the key principle that we are observing here.
The timeline of 2030 actually allows us to work together with the providers to build up the capacity in sync, as demand grows, and that also allows us to work with the educational service providers to help raise up this capability.
To maintain service quality, there are two key principles or two key prongs that we are going to do this by. We will recruit professionals with relevant credentials and experience. Counsellors in FAM are required to have the relevant tertiary qualifications in counselling, psychology or social work, along with a minimum of three years of experience working with families. Especially in FAM centres, we do need our counsellors to be a lot more experienced, slightly more experienced than usual, to deal with more complex cases.
Those with social work and psychology qualifications also undergo additional training to ensure they have the necessary counselling skills. At the same time, FAM counsellors will receive ongoing clinical supervision to maintain professional standards and to support their ongoing development.
The Chairman: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I just want to thank Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric, Minister of State Goh and the SG Enable MSF team for being really sincere and responsive all these years. Two clarifications. Number one is, I am glad that the Ministry has curated some more enabling skills courses, but there is a real urgency because there is a lot of disruption in the AI-driven automation space, and many of the jobs, blue and white collared included, are really at risk, and there is urgency to have more deliberate intentional effort in this. Therefore, that is why I recommended the National Disability Job Redesign Resource/Fund. So, I would like to hear the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's views on that, because there is an urgency and we cannot wait until all the reports are out.
The second one is: there is a strong need also for those with moderate to high needs and that it will take a while for DACs to come up, and also, they are also costly. I wonder if there is a possibility of looking at a lighter version of the ESHs, so that these services can be developed at the local community centres or residents' committee, supporting grassroots efforts as well, because I know many of my colleagues really want to support these families as well.
Mr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for her very passionate interventions over the past years as well. First, on job redesign. Under the existing Open Door Programme, there is a Job Redesign Grant that can already be applied for, so that is one potential avenue that we can point to.
On her suggestion for the lighter version of the ESH – the ESH Minus or the ESH Portable – we are very keen to roll out more ESHs over different parts of the island in the coming years, so please stay tuned for more information.
The Chairman: Mr Cai Yinzhou.
Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Chair. I would like to ask how would MSF evaluate project success of progress packages launched? I thank the Minister of State for sharing that families can enjoy community events and attraction tickets at discount, but these activities still require supervision. Money is scarce and time is even more. Are there any other initiatives with supervision that can be formalised across neighbourhoods, such as the Touch Young Arrows Children's programme?
My second question is that I understand ComLink+ families become FSC cases during crisis and family coaches take a step back. Will the Ministry consider allowing family coaches to continue journeying with the families on the context that in times of crisis, more hands-on-deck is needed, and trust and relationship built with coaches can be more pertinent in these moments?
Third question, has the Ministry explored grants to support caregivers with entrepreneurial endeavours with PwDs that they are caring for initiatives, such as Junlefont and Bakes by Ben? They are both started by caregivers with children with special needs, and they continue to provide and allow the children to be meaningfully engaged, yet allowing income generation and flexibility.
Lastly, riding on Member Denise's points to reduce wait time in the pressure valve of DACs, has the Ministry considered pilot integrating Senior Care Centres and DAC for adults, since DAC residents are getting older, and I have also been a care staff in both settings, and care needs of toileting, feeding and cognitive engagement are similar in objectives. A pilot integration could help the pressure valve queue of an average of six months.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Thank you, Chairman. I will address the first few questions and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will cover the rest.
Member asked about the effectiveness of ComLink+ and our evaluation of the success. We continuously monitor ComLink+ and we receive feedback from families that we serve and of course, from the family coaches themselves, the SSOs and FSCs. Bearing in mind that ComLink+ was only launched in the middle of 2023, and if one looks at the MSF release paper in 2025 \"Supporting Lower Income Household Trends\", that report showed positive signs in some domains, like employment and housing, compared to the year before, experienced by families who had been enrolled in ComLink+.
Children in ComLink+ Progress Package also had higher enrolment and attendance rates, compared to the children who were not emplaced. But we continually want to do more. Hence, the enhancements to the ComLink+ Progress Packages were made, and these were made based on the feedback from the ComLink+ families and ground practitioners as well. We understand that some families may find it difficult, as I have mentioned in my speech, to meet some of these conditions despite their best efforts, so we are actually working with the families and the family coaches themselves on how to encourage the families to achieve those milestones.
In terms of tracking, we are also working with academics to study the impact of the packages on the families' short- and long-term outcomes. I also referenced that in my speech that we will continually finetune our approach as we have learned more insights.
On the local efforts, these are complementary to our programs already in MSF. Families may take advantage of all the programmes in the community. Family coaches also themselves connect our ComLink+ families and their children to such activities. For instance, in Choa Chu Kang and Keat Hong where I serve, we have specific programmes during the holidays for music and pharmaceutical visits for lower-income families.
But MSF also will be looking towards working and understanding the best practices all across Singapore, across towns and try to implement programs at the local level. And I do encourage all Members in this Chamber, if Members have partners on the ground, do come up with innovative programmes to engage our low-income families and their children.
Lastly, on the FSCs, Member asked on the situation when the case is referred to the FSC, whether the family coach can continue journeying with the family, he said \"all hands-on-deck\" would help. However, this only typically happens when there is a crisis that happens to the family, like domestic violence, there is a divorce. So, in that situation, the priority would always be to stabilise the families. So, achieving milestones, such as employment, may be the furthest thing on their minds.
However, the FSC caseworker will double up and serve like the family coach to the ComLink+ family, so do not worry, for those families that require family services and need more help, and the Family Service Centre caseworker will focus on these more urgent risk issues and prioritise that. And they will also build rapport with the family and, hopefully, build trust, and this also allows one caseworker to be the main touchpoint for each family, and integrate the different support in the community for that family, so that again, the navigational nightmare would be avoided and they have one touchpoint.
The Chairman: Last clarification. Sorry, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
Mr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his two clarifications on disability inclusion and support.
First, on DACs. DACs are actually meant to support PwDs with moderate to more severe needs and in fact, the profile of clients in DACs are actually rather young, with many of them coming straight from SPED schools. The focus really is on equipping and getting these clients ready for independent living in the community, but we acknowledge his suggestion and we will take it back to take a closer look.
Second, on home-based businesses. I thank him for raising the point and pointing the spotlight on Junlefont. In fact, I have been supporting Jun Le. My two National Day Parade outfits for the past two years has been designed by Jun Le. And I thank Member Lee Hui Ying for also jumping onboard last National Day Parade.
But that aside, we are already working with them. So, for instance, like as part of the i'mable collective, we have curated a whole host of home-based businesses, such as Jun Le, and Jun Le is featured as part of the i'mable collective as well.
Every year end, when we have our Enabling Lives Festival, we do have a marketplace where we feature each of these home-based businesses, like Jun Le themselves, and that is where I got to know designers like Jeremiah, we have Isaac and Sheng Jie, who is so good with the dinosaur drawings, and so on. And I really hope that Members of the Chamber, and also all of us out there – this is my call to all of you to also support these businesses. It is not just about buying a clay or porcelain dinosaur. It is not just about buying artwork. The act is not in the buying, but because that buying is living proof of their dignity, of their ability to also contribute to society and to be an upstanding member of society.
And I behove all Members of the Chamber to also support these home-based businesses, because many of them, for instance, Bakes by Ben and his mum. They are making a living. They are not letting life get them down, and they are saying, \"Look, I am playing my part\", and in a way they are crying out to society to say, \"Support us as well in this journey\". I have come on board and I invite everyone to share in this journey. [Applause.]
The Chairman: Let us all support local talents and local businesses. On that note, can I invite Mr Xie Yao Quan, if you would like to withdraw your amendment?
Mr Xie Yao Quan: Thank you, Chairman. I thank MSF for responding to our cuts and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
[(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $5,822,529,800 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The sum of $259,759,300 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Heads B, C, D, E, G and Z","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining Heads of Expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads B, C, D, E, G and Z. I propose to take those Heads of Expenditure en bloc.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sums stated for Heads B, C, D, E, G and Z which appear in the last column of the schedule of estimated expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 6 of Paper Cmd 4 of 2026 stand part of the Main Estimates,\" put and agreed to. (proc text)]
The Chairman: In respect of the Development Estimates, they are Heads B, C and E.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sums stated for Heads B, C and E which appear in the last column of the schedule of estimated expenditure under the Development Estimates on page 7 of Paper Cmd 4 of 2026 stand part of the Development Estimates,\" put and agreed to. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Committee of Supply – Total Sums for Main Estimates, Development Estimates and Resolutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Question, \"That the sum of $158,962,520,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, contained in Paper Cmd 4 of 2026,\" put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question, \"That the sum of $49,014,559,600 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, contained in Paper Cmd 4 of 2026,\" put and agreed to. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Resolutions to be reported.
[(proc text) Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Second Minister for Finance.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions.
[(proc text) First Resolution reported – (proc text)]
[(proc text) That the sum of $158,962,520,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, contained in Paper Cmd 4 of 2026. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Second Resolution reported – (proc text)]
[(proc text) That the sum of $49,014,559,600 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, contained in Paper Cmd 4 of 2026. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Second Minister for Finance.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move, \"That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supply Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
In accordance with Article 148(1) of the Constitution, Heads of Expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund, other than statutory expenditure, have to be included in the Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund to meet the expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027.
The Heads of Expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each Head are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027, as contained in Paper Cmd No 4 of 2026.
The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower the Minister to issue warrants, authorising expenditure up to the amount for each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund and the Development Fund. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Third Reading. Second Minister for Finance.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly 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":"Supplementary Supply (FY2025) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The purpose of this Bill is to make additional provision in accordance with Articles 148(2) and 148C of the Constitution for expenditure in excess of the sums authorised by the Supply Act 2025. The additional sums have been approved by the House in the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, as contained in Paper Cmd No 5 of 2026. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: The question is that the Bill be now read the Third time. Oh sorry, I jumped the gun. The question is that the Bill to be read a Second time.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Third Reading. Second Minister for Finance.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time.\"
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly 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":"Acknowledgement to the Chair","subTitle":"Conclusion of proceedings for business of supply","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, the passing of the Supply Bill and the Supplementary Bill a few moments ago marks the end of the formal Budget process for Budget 2026.
This being the first Budget in this new term of Parliament, I should explain for the benefit of first-time Members that it is customary at the end of the annual Budget process for the Leader of the House to deliver a speech in acknowledgment of the Chair of the proceedings, namely, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, as Chair of the proceedings, you have presided over two weeks of intensive debate on the Budget Statement and in the Committee of Supply, in which we have passed a Budget with more than $200 billion worth of Estimates – $158,962,520,000 for the Main Estimates and $49,014,559,600 for the Development Estimates.
This is our largest annual Budget to date, passed against the backdrop of a profoundly changed and uncertain world.
The international order that underpinned stability and prosperity for over nearly eight decades is breaking down. Geopolitical tensions have increased. The multilateral system that has served us well has weakened. More countries are resorting to unilateral action. The rule of law is under strain with the resurgence of a \"might is right\" approach.
In short, the world has become more contested, more fragmented and ultimately, more dangerous.
Budget 2026 is our action plan to enable Singaporeans to navigate this new reality with confidence and secure our future together.
A key feature of Budget 2026 was artificial intelligence (AI). Budget 2026 aims to harness AI as a strategic advantage and drive national adoption so that Singaporeans can take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by technology.
Budget 2026 also allows us to implement our refreshed economic strategy, continue investing in our workers and drive growth to create jobs, strengthen support for families and advance our social compact, and enhance our security and sustainability.
Budget 2026 also put a spotlight on our total fertility rate (TFR), which has dropped to a historic low of 0.87 and signals the start of the marriage and parenthood reset as a whole-of-nation effort. As we begin this important work, we will take into account the many helpful ideas and suggestions from Members on both sides of the House on what we can do to provide more support for families and couples who aspire to become parents.
Mr Speaker, in a world rocked by turbulence and change, Singapore stands out as a beacon of safety, security and stability. This is not by accident. It is the result of successive Budgets, anchored on fiscal prudence, forward planning and catalysing new ways to catch the winds of change even as we provide for current needs. This approach has stood us in good stead.
We have projected a healthy surplus of $15.1 billion for financial year (FY) 2025. It is in contrast to many other major economies, where public debt is rising, straining their financial stability and weighing on growth prospects.
When the surplus was first made known in the Budget Statement, some questioned why the surplus was so large and whether the Government had been too conservative.
The Budget Statement was delivered on 12 February, against the backdrop of 5% gross domestic product (GDP) growth, when the world had more or less adjusted to the United States (US) tariffs and things seemed to be getting back on an even keel.
However, within the span of just three weeks since the Budget Statement was delivered, the world changed again.
On 20 February, eight days after the Budget Statement, the US Supreme Court struck down President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. President Trump responded by doubling down on tariffs the next day, triggering another round of economic uncertainty.
On 26 February, hostilities between Pakistan and Afghanistan erupted.
On 28 February, the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran. Iran is retaliating, not just against the US and Israel, but also against other countries in the region, plunging the Middle East into another round of instability. No one knows how long the conflict will last.
These developments have added to the overall climate of uncertainty. The business outlook for trade and investment may have to be adjusted. Energy prices may be affected. If so, there will be implications for business costs and daily costs of living. As a small and open economy, Singapore will feel the knock-on impacts keenly.
Viewed in light of these changed circumstances, our surplus is less about marksmanship and a whole lot more about assurance and quiet confidence. We have the ability to do more for Singaporeans with ballast and buffer against potential turbulence.
Our approach of fiscal prudence has been validated time and time again.
Budget 2020 was delivered on 18 February. The global economy was calm, the outlook rosy even. But within a month, we were plunged into the thick of a pandemic, the crisis of a generation and the global economy shut down. We ended up delivering another four Budgets and drew down about $40 billion of Past Reserves.
In 2022, the Budget Statement was delivered on 18 February. At that time, we were just getting out of COVID-19 and things were looking up. Within six days, the Russia-Ukraine war started, changing the global geopolitical dynamic once again and adding to energy and supply chain issues, accompanied by inflation at levels unseen since the 1970s.
In all our Budgets, we prepare for the best, but we also plan in case of the worst. History is a hard taskmaster, and we must not ignore its lessons. Our Reserves and our surpluses are things to be grateful for.
Our fiscal approach is enabled by our unique system of Parliamentary democracy, which has served us well and continues to deliver good results for Singaporeans. During the Committee of Supply debate, I spoke about then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s 1988 speech on the infamous Hendrickson affair, where he outlined three different political models. That speech is well worth re-reading. Not all Members may have been present in the Chamber when I spoke about it. So, it is worth recapping what he said.
First, the American system is one of checks and balances. Its underlying premise is fundamentally one of distrust, with each branch of government constantly checking the others.
Then you have the British system where the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are given a wider range of discretionary powers. There is a greater premise of trust, which rests on the mandate given to the party with the majority in Parliament. The unspoken and unwritten expectation is that those in power are individuals who can be relied upon to always act honourably.
And then, there is the Singapore system. It resembles the British system, except, as Mr Goh noted, Singaporeans have gone further and superimposed on our Constitutional framework the ideal of a political leader who is upright, morally beyond reproach, someone people can trust. We believe that our leaders must be men and women of ability and integrity, committed to the public good.
The world has changed greatly since Mr Goh spoke in this House in 1988. So have the way both the US and British political systems operate. But Mr Goh’s observations remain, if anything, just as relevant today. Rules and processes are important. But even more important are the people who are elected to represent and serve the people and whether they possess the competence, commitment and conscience to fulfil their duties. If they do, then you do not need as many rules because they can be trusted to do the right thing. If they do not, we can impose and improve as many laws and rules as we like, but democracy and politics will still go wrong. This applies to governments as much as it does to oppositions and governments-in-waiting.
Mr Speaker, in a changed world, Singapore’s model of democracy remains our anchor. It is by no means perfect, and we must and will continue to find ways to improve our system. But we do have something rare and precious. To safeguard it we must have the right laws, the right principles and the right people. It is important to appreciate that not only is our model unique but that it is this uniqueness that has enabled the Government to continue delivering Budgets that strengthen our economy, improve the lives of Singaporeans and bring Singapore forward.
I thank all Members on both sides of the House, as well as our Nominated Members of Parliament, for supporting Budget 2026 and for their contributions to the Budget process. Even when there were disagreements, we share a common commitment to building a better Singapore.
For this year, we had robust debate spanning nine days; 68 Members spoke for two and a half days in the debate on the Budget Statement, the highest number in recent Budgets with about 21 hours of debate; 425 cuts were covered over six days of Committee of Supply, with almost 55 hours of debate. And for the first time in my recollection, there was no formal break in the Budget process. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, you have had to spend long hours in the Chair, presiding over these proceedings with fairness and professionalism. This year, you have added a new item to your toolkit to keep us on time and in line – the bell and the mute button. I am glad that you only had to use them a few times and as the exception, and not the norm. On behalf of this House, I thank you once again for your able chairmanship. [Applause.]
We are also deeply grateful to the Clerk of Parliament, Deputy Clerk and the other Clerks of Parliament, the Parliament Secretariat and staff, interpreters and translators. Their dedicated efforts and support behind the scenes ensured that our proceedings went smoothly. I hope that we can express our appreciation for them too. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: For about a third of the Members in this House, this is your first Budget and Committee of Supply debate. Just to let you know, this is one of the few and rare occasions that the Speaker gets to speak. [Laughter.]
Hon Members, the work we undertake in this House has never been more important. In a world filled with large dramatic developments, sensational revelations and an unending array of twists and turns, it is the careful, meticulous and practical work of government that makes a difference to people every day.
With more Members in this 15th Parliament, the total time that we needed for this year’s Budget and Committee of Supply debate was 12% more than last year, even though the number of cuts were fewer, by about a third.
But as Members would know, I am a big advocate of the maxim “Less is More”.
It has, indeed, been an intense two weeks and I want to start by thanking all Members for your contributions. From my perspective, there were a few highlights in this year’s debate.
First, there was unanimous support from both sides of the House for Budget 2026. In most countries, this is rare. Our unity puts us in a good place to face a very challenging future. And for the first time, this year’s entire Budget and Committee of Supply debate took place within the period of Ramadan. So, I thank our Muslim colleagues who had to work through this period where every Sitting day ended well past the iftar time. [Applause.] In fact, last evening, Minister Masagos, as he broke fast, took a sip of water and immediately proceeded to make and deliver his speech. We honour all our Muslim colleagues for your commitment to your public duties. [Applause.]
As Speaker, I have the rare privilege of listening to all your speeches and perhaps, more able than most to distinguish between form and substance. Some Members were able to deliver crisp responses and ask succinct clarifications. Others were, as they say, a little bit “cheong hei”, or long-winded. There was also a one-word response by one Minister – no preamble, context or elaboration needed. A simple one-word “No” was all that was required. That was Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. For Minister of State Alvin Tan, a five-word reply will do: “Please don’t feed the birds.”
We also know who among us can speak fluently in three languages, are poets in the making, can speak slow and can go at great speed. [Laughter.] Though the latter is not encouraged, as it means risking not only the Minister being unable to fully capture your points, but it also places undue stress on our interpreters.
In the course of these Sittings, we also found out Members’ favourite songs and singers – from Bon Jovi to Black Eyed Peas, 郭富城 or Aaron Kwok, Taylor Swift and our very own Benjamin Kheng.
Throughout the Committee of Supply debate, there was only one day where we had an official break. On all other days, we persevered without one. I did this to the extent possible because I wanted as many Members to be able to seek their clarifications before the guillotine time. It was certainly not to test one’s stamina without the need to go for a bio break. Having said that, I established a new personal record for myself [Laughter], by being in the same seat for a good six hours and 10 minutes [Applause], a record I hope I do not never need to break again. [Laughter.]
Some Members also wondered whether my magic “mute the microphone” button was functioning properly – and as quite a few Members found out, it is in good working order. I hope this would be used very sparingly, going forward, and look to your self-discipline in that regard. Indeed, there was a Member who realised she had run out of time and stopped her speech without the need for me to turn the mic off. Thank you, Ms Cassandra Lee.
As Speaker, here is my advice. Parliamentary speeches are not an exercise in word count. It is not how many words you use or how fast you speak but clarity and importance of your main message.
This principle is even more crucial for our political office holders, who must use their time, beyond sharing their Ministry’s plans and explaining the rationale behind the policies, also tell Singaporeans how our lives will be improved, the trade-offs to be made and what the country is requiring of us. Tell us the hard truths too.
Minister Desmond Lee exemplified this approach, though he also gave us a challenging problem to solve. How truly Singaporean to have a mathematics test in the Chamber! As they say, “Never a dull moment in Parliament”.
But the true meaning of debate is not when we agree, but how and why we disagree. This is not merely partisan disagreement, but a disagreement about ideas, which we have seen within the same party as well as across party lines. This, for me, is a mark of the sanctity and legitimacy of the agreements we come to and the laws we make, as well as the trust we have in each other.
Parliament functions best when we come with sound arguments and good intentions, bringing our diverse experiences and backgrounds to discuss and debate. When we remain open to listening without prejudice, when we strive to propose solutions, popular or otherwise, for our people, without pandering or playing to the gallery.
We may not hit on the correct note right from the start, but we try and try again. To paraphrase Prime Minister Wong and Deputy Prime Minister Gan – and this applies not just to the problem of our low birthrate – we have not, we will not and we cannot give up.
Each day, we wake up to an increasingly fractured world. Whilst we have been able to navigate well over the last six decades, but as Prime Minister has reminded us, Singapore must brace for greater volatility and unpredictability. There will be more debates, more Bills to pass and more challenges ahead.
As Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai said yesterday, our history as a small island nation has given us a “particular prosperity”, a “prosperity that can remain ours as long as we preserve and grow our courage and ability to navigate the high seas”.
Let us remember that this “particular prosperity” has been earned through the hard work, sacrifice and a deep sense of duty of all Singaporeans to one another.
Let us not take this for granted. As Members of this 15th Parliament, whatever storms may range on the high seas or up in the skies, let us keep our eyes on the horizon that is the Singaporean people. We must leave the world in no doubt of our commitment to do what is best for Singapore. Only then, can we secure our future together in a changed world.
Before I conclude, let me express my gratitude to the Leader of the House, Minister Indranee Rajah; Deputy Leader, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad; my two Deputy Speakers, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Xie Yao Quan; and also to my dedicated and competent Parliamentary Clerks and all Parliamentary staff, who are unseen but invaluable work ensured that proceedings went smoothly throughout these two weeks. Thank you, hon Members. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil List","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Second Minister for Finance.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I move that this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Gratuity Act 1970, resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures “$6,696,700”, “$3,342,200” and “$550,000” in the second column and substituting for them the figures “$7,318,000”, “$4,542,000” and “$1,288,000” respectively.
The Constitution requires the legislature to provide a Civil List for the maintenance of the President and his office. It ensures that the President has sufficient budget to operate his office and hire his staff. The Civil List was last adjusted in FY2022 and has remained unchanged since. However, operating costs have risen. It is thus necessary to move this Motion to adjust the Civil List. To be clear, no change is proposed for Class 1 expenditures, that is to say, no change is proposed in this Motion to the President's salary and allowance. The proposed changes are in Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 of the Civil List to enable the President's office to continue to meet its expenditure needs. The variations also arise as we have re-categorised some expenditures to better reflect the nature of those expenditures. The changes will take effect from FY2025.
For Class 2 expenditures, which provide for the salaries of the President's personal staff, it is proposed to increase the sum from $6,696,700 to $7,318,000. The proposed adjustment is to cater for the increases in expenditure in manpower. The increase is partially offset as it is proposed to categorise expenditure for manpower for public officers seconded to the President's office under Class 4 instead of Class 2. This is because these public officers who are seconded to the President's office are not part of the President's personal staff.
For Class 3 expenditures, which provide for the expenses of the household, it is proposed to increase the sum from $3,342,200 to $4,542,000. This is to cater for the higher cost of maintaining and securing IT systems as well as organising official events at the Istana, while the main building of the Istana undergoes major restoration works.
For Class 4 expenditures, it is proposed to increase the sum from $550,000 to $1,288,000. As explained earlier, this arises because expenditure on manpower for public officers seconded to the President's office will now be categorised under Class 4. Sir, I move the Motion.
Mr Speaker: The question is as moved by the Minister. I assume no one wishes to speak on this?
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Gratuity Act 1970, resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures “$6,696,700”, “$3,342,200” and “$550,000” in the second column and substituting for them the figures “$7,318,000”, “$4,542,000” and “$1,288,000” respectively. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health and Coordinating Minister for Social Policies, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time\".
On 1 September 2025, the Government launched a coordinated response to enhance the enforcement approach towards vaping, due to the emergence of etomidate-laced vaporisers or \"Kpods\".
In the past, cigarette smoking and drug abuse were two separate issues. But vaporisers have changed that. It is no longer just about nicotine. People are using vaporisers to abuse etomidate or even other more serious controlled drugs. This makes vaporisers a bridge between these two worlds, creating new challenges in vaping enforcement and health protection.
Hence, the Ministry of Health (MOH) worked closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and other agencies to leverage existing legislation to develop a new regime for enforcement, rehabilitation and education.
Specifically, as our existing laws, particularly the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act and Poisons Act, are not designed for such enforcement actions, we temporarily listed etomidate and its analogues as Class C controlled drugs in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). I will refer to these substances collectively as “etomidate”. We then used legislative levers in the Poisons Act to take action against first-time etomidate vaporiser offenders as well as repeat offenders under the MDA.
It was not ideal, but we made it work. In gist, this is how the enforcement system works today, since September 2025. First, we imposed much tougher penalties for those who illegally import, sell, supply or traffic etomidate – enabled by listing etomidate as a controlled drug under the MDA. Second, we created a rapid escalation of actions against etomidate vaporiser users. First-time offenders are required to attend rehabilitation, in lieu of prosecution for illegal possession of etomidate under the Poisons Act. Those who default on the rehabilitation are prosecuted under the Poisons Act and may be subject to a custodial sentence. Third, repeat etomidate vaporiser offenders are placed under mandatory urine-test supervision, or detained in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC), under the MDA.
Finally, we also introduced a new rehabilitation requirement for repeat vaporiser users, bearing in mind that vaping is harmful, even if does not contain psychoactive substances like etomidate.
Over the past six months, we have caught more than 5,100 persons for vaporiser-related offences. Of these, more than one in 10, or 593, are etomidate vaporiser users. Among the offenders placed on rehabilitation, 42 defaulted their rehabilitation – of which one has been convicted and imprisoned and the rest will be charged. Seventy offenders have completed their rehabilitation programmes, with four youth offenders re-offending after their completion.
These past six months have been critical, not just for enforcement, but also to consolidate lessons from our enforcement experience and review our laws. We are now ready to put in place a new law, which will not only prohibit vaporisers, but will also allow for enforcement against the abuse of etomidate and potentially other psychoactive substances through such delivery devices in the future.
The new law is built upon the existing Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, which will be broadened and strengthened. Let me walk Members through the key changes. First, we are renaming the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act to the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act (TVCA). This reflects the broader mandate and coverage of the new law. Second, we have updated the categories of prohibited products under the TVCA.
One, tobacco products, such as cigarettes, that contain any prescribed substances, or contain or emit substances exceeding prescribed limits. For example, this includes cigarettes whose emissions contain nicotine or tar in excess of the prescribed limits. The TVCA calls these \"section 14 tobacco products\". Two, various types of prohibited tobacco products such as smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products, and their components too. The TVCA calls these \"section 15 tobacco products\". Three, vaporisers and their components.
And four, other imitation tobacco products that are not already covered by the other sections I mentioned above, and their components. This allows us to future-proof our legislation, ensuring that new products that resemble any existing tobacco product or may be used to mimic the act of smoking, will be prohibited.
Future-proofing is important, especially given that the tobacco industry has been introducing new products to circumvent tobacco control regulations. One example is products containing nicotine analogues, which will be considered a tobacco product moving forward, and can be prohibited under the TVCA.
To be clear, products in all four categories are already prohibited currently under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. When I say “prohibited”, I am referring to the entire supply ecosystem.
Hence, under the Bill, we are making it clear that giving, transporting, sending or delivering these prohibited products within Singapore, offering to do any of these acts and possessing such products for the purpose of doing any of these acts, are prohibited.
Third, in addition to the four categories, “Specified Psychoactive Substances” (SPS) will also come under the scope of the TVCA. These are substances or products that will be specified in a new Schedule, provided for in clause 23, being substances and products that can cause a psychoactive effect when consumed, and are also abused or likely to be abused by using a tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product.
Etomidate, currently under the MDA, will be listed in this new Schedule. Concurrently, etomidate will be removed from the MDA. The Minister for Health can amend this Schedule by order in the Gazette.
The TVCA will focus on SPS, while the MDA will continue to govern the abuse of controlled drugs, including those abused through vaporisers or tobacco products. Hence, controlled drugs will not be included in this Schedule under the TVCA. The TVCA introduces two presumptions to do with the nature of SPS.
One, a rebuttable presumption that such substances have a psychoactive effect when consumed. Two, for prosecution purposes, a person is deemed to have the knowledge that a product or substance is an SPS as long as the person knows that the SPS has a psychoactive effect when consumed. The person does not need to know the name or chemical composition of the SPS. These provisions mirror sections 22A and 22B of the MDA. Fourth, we are consolidating the enforcement levers under various pieces of legislation today, under the TVCA.
Stiffer penalties will be applied to offences related to the products I just described – prohibited products, as well as tobacco products, vaporisers and imitation tobacco products containing SPS, that is, SPS products.
The offences and penalties for importing, supplying or abusing SPS products are similar to those in the MDA, to ensure similar level of deterrence. Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout that summarises the changes in legislative penalties for key offences.
Mr Speaker: Yes, go ahead. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please see Annex 1.]
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL App. As Members can see on the handouts, individuals who supply SPS products will face two to 10 years imprisonment term and two to five strokes of the cane.
Those who import these products will face stiffer penalties – three to 20 years imprisonment term and five to 15 strokes of the cane.
And those caught possessing or purchasing such products, or consuming SPS, if prosecuted, can be liable to a fine of up to $20,000, or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.
On the offence of consuming SPS, I would also like to highlight that although one of the Ministry of Health’s (MOH’s) criteria for listing a substance or product as an SPS is that it is abused or is likely to be abused by using a tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product, the consumption offence is not confined to a specific mode. This means that once a substance or product is listed as an SPS, even if an individual abuses the SPS through means other than a vaporiser, tobacco product or imitation tobacco product, for example, in its liquid form or through a patch, they can still be dealt with under the TVCA.
Like the MDA, it will be an offence for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to consume SPS overseas. This deters locals from going abroad to feed their addiction to evade enforcement in Singapore.
We have also introduced new offences to better protect our young people and children, again drawing from the MDA.
Section 19G targets adults who, being in possession of SPS products, first, knowingly or recklessly leave them where children can access them, or second, do not take reasonable steps to prevent the use of SPS products by young persons.
These adults are liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years for the first offence and imprisonment for two to 10 years for repeat offences.
Section 19H addresses adults who involve young or vulnerable persons in importing or supplying SPS products. These adults are liable to imprisonment for four to 20 years and four to 15 strokes of the cane.
Section 19I makes it an offence to arrange or plan gatherings where SPS products are used or supplied. Those found guilty are liable to imprisonment for two to 10 years and up to five strokes of the cane.
Sir, rehabilitation is the main intervention implemented by MOH for etomidate vaporiser offenders. Today, this is effected in lieu of prosecution under Poisons Act. We will now provide for specific powers for the Chief Executive of the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to order community-based rehabilitation and institutional treatment and rehabilitation under the TVCA.
A community-based rehabilitation order can be made as long as the Chief Executive has grounds to believe that an individual has consumed an SPS.
Such grounds of belief could arise from, for example, observation of an individual behaving erratically or appearing disoriented who is also found in possession of an SPS product; or an individual testing positive for SPS in their urine or hair; or admission by an individual that they have consumed SPS.
Aside from SPS consumption, community-based rehabilitation can also be ordered for individuals who use vaporisers or section 15 tobacco products, based on observation of use, say, by an enforcement officer, or an admission of use. As per our current practice, rehabilitation will only be ordered for repeat offenders, to support them to quit vaping.
The Chief Executive can also require individuals subject to community-based rehabilitation orders to comply with other requirements, like undergoing urine or hair tests. Non-compliance can result in prosecution.
Besides community-based rehabilitation at the Institute of Mental Health and social service agencies, the Chief Executive can also, under section 19U, order institutional treatment and rehabilitation in the DRC, for re-offending cases of SPS consumption.
The Chief Executive can also require certain persons, such as those discharged from DRC after treatment and rehabilitation for SPS consumption, to provide urine or hair samples to check if they are still consuming SPS. Those who do not comply can be prosecuted.
Finally, we will enhance penalties for offences involving section 15 tobacco products, vaporisers and imitation tobacco products.
Mr Speaker, while etomidate vaporisers triggered the recent escalation in enforcement efforts, the majority of offenders we have caught are actually users of vaporisers that do not contain etomidate.
We are therefore significantly increasing the penalties for offences involving these products to strengthen deterrence.
For purchase, use and possession, the maximum fine will be increased from $2,000 to $10,000. The enhanced penalties are coupled with the new powers to order rehabilitation, so that those who need help to quit can receive support.
For offences involving the import of vaporisers or section 15 tobacco products, we are introducing mandatory imprisonment for up to nine years, and additionally, offenders may face a fine of up to $300,000. For offences involving the sale or supply, including possession for the purpose of sale or supply, of these products, offenders will face mandatory imprisonment for up to six years, and additionally, may face a fine of up to $200,000.
For offences involving the sale, supply or import of imitation tobacco products, the penalties will be increased to a fine of up to $100,000, or imprisonment of up to three years, or both for first-time offences; and a fine of up to $200,000, or imprisonment for up to six years, or both for repeat offences.
We will also be introducing new statutory presumptions and offences to further strengthen our controls and enforcement on the supply chain.
Rebuttable presumptions relating to possession and knowledge of the nature of prohibited products under the new sections 14 to 16A and SPS products will be introduced, along with similar presumptions in relation to vehicles and trailers in which such products are found.
For example, with the new presumption under section 16C, if vaporisers are found in a vehicle entering Singapore, the driver of that vehicle will be presumed to be in possession of the vaporisers, and cannot avoid legal liability by simply claiming ignorance that the vaporisers are present in the vehicle.
This will address the current challenge where most of the illegal operations bringing vaporisers and other prohibited products into Singapore are run from overseas, and it is extremely difficult for our enforcement authorities to obtain the evidence needed to prove that the suspect knew about the presence of the products found in their vehicles.
Similar presumption clauses are also found in the MDA.
HSA has uncovered several cases of illegal vaporiser operations in warehouses and storage units. The largest warehouse seizure exceeded 400,000 vaporisers and components, worth more than $5 million in street value. These are often cases where offenders rented storage units to run their illegal operations.
Under the new section 18A, introduced by clause 10, it is an offence for owners and occupiers of land, buildings and places to allow other individuals to store prohibited products in these spaces.
To avoid liability, the owner or occupier must have exercised due care to prevent such storage from happening.
This may involve: conducting proper background checks on tenants, including asking them for uses of their storage spaces; explicit clauses in tenancy agreements on prohibited activities; conducting ad hoc inspections and so on.
HSA will publish a handbook of best practices that owners and occupiers can refer to.
The intent is to allow us to take action against owners or occupiers who allow or turn a blind eye towards storage of such illegal products in their premises for supply and distribution purposes.
To facilitate enforcement, particularly against importers and suppliers of prohibited products, we are also introducing new powers to seize vehicles and trailers reasonably suspected of being used, or is intended to be used in connection with committing an offence under the TVCA, and to seize cash that is reasonably suspected to be evidence that a TVCA offence has been committed.
While vaping is prohibited, some continue to do so in public settings, for example in night clubs, bars and pubs. Under clause 12, we are imposing obligations on owners and occupiers of specified premises to take certain actions when they find someone in possession of or using any section 15 tobacco product, vaporiser or imitation tobacco product. The Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act imposes similar obligations.
The TVCA will spell out the steps which owners and occupiers of specified premises will be required to carry out, such as telling the offending individual to stop or leave the premises and seeking HSA's assistance if necessary.
As a start, specified premises will include discotheques, pubs, bars, lounges and night clubs. These are entertainment venues where people often gather and where we have seen vaping incidents occur. HSA has already been working with some of these operators on anti-vaping measures in their premises, like putting up anti-vaping signages, and we are thankful for their cooperation. HSA will continue to work closely with the operators to comply with this new requirement, creating a safer environment for patrons.
There are several related and consequential amendments to several other pieces of legislation, such as the Poisons Act, MDA, Civil Defence Act, Merchant Shipping Act, and Road Traffic Act, to align to the TVCA. I will not elaborate here.
Sir, this Bill represents our commitment to protect public health, particularly against vaporisers, and to deter those who would undermine it.
It consolidates the lessons we have learned over the last six months.
With this Bill, we will move from temporary measures into a more structured approach, embedded in our legal framework, that can address current challenges and provides flexibility to respond to future trends.
I urge Members of the House to support the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1898, a German pharmaceutical company introduced a product it described as a scientific breakthrough. It was marketed as a non-addictive substitute for morphine and as a remedy for coughs, even for children.
It was sold openly in pharmacies. It was endorsed by doctors. It was regarded as modern medicine. It was called heroin.
Few imagined then that what was promoted as relief would soon become synonymous with addiction. By the time governments recognised the harm, dependency had already entered homes across continents. The tragedy was not that society refused to act. It was that society understood too late.
History teaches us something sobering. Harm does not always look like vice. Sometimes it arrives packaged as innovation. Today, it does not come in glass bottles. It comes in sleek vaporisers and small pods designed to resemble pens and highlighters. It does not sit behind pharmacy counters. It appears on messaging apps.
For many residents in our estates, this is no longer abstract. Parents are discovering devices in schoolbags. Teachers are noticing changes in behaviour. Neighbours are raising complaints about vaping in void decks and playgrounds.
I support this Bill. It is necessary.
But residents will judge it not by how severe its penalties are, but by whether it truly protects families and restores confidence on the ground. As the Deputy Chair of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Health, I believe we must ensure that this legislation is not only tough, but properly calibrated, proportionate and effective in practice.
I have several clarifications.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, are we protecting our youths in a way that is firm, fair and effective? As a father of five children, I do not approach this as an abstract policy issue. I think about exposure, influence and consequence. I ask whether the system will respond proportionately if a young person makes a mistake.
The Bill introduces a new category of products containing SPS, with penalties aligned to the MDA. That seriousness is understandable.
However, while the Bill speaks of treatment and rehabilitation, we must balance deterrence against vaporiser use, which disproportionately appeals to youths, with offences now benchmarked against the MDA. Are we calibrating this appropriately for a problem that may involve young offenders who may not know or fully appreciate what they are consuming?
The Bill introduces presumptions of possession and knowledge. In reality, youths share devices. Some may be misled.
What charging guidance will distinguish deliberate abuse from peer pressure or deception? How will discretion be exercised for first-time cases? While deterrence is important, we must ask whether mandatory imprisonment for young offenders may be counterproductive. Will custodial sentences reduce long-term harm, or entrench it?
Next, measurable outcomes. What percentage reduction in youth cases is targeted within 12 to 24 months? Will reductions in school incidents and hospital presentations be publicly reported? Arrests are not outcomes. Seizures are not safety.
On rehabilitation, community-based orders are introduced, with escalation to institutional treatment in DRCs for repeat offenders.
What is the projected impact on DRC capacity? Do we have sufficient counsellors and officers? Will youths caught with psychoactive vapes be segregated from hardened drug offenders?
We must also consider the long-term consequences of convictions. Will offences under this Act be treated as spent after a period? If not, how will criminal records affect education, employment and reintegration? If rehabilitation is our aim, youthful mistakes should not become lifelong barriers.
The Bill also empowers urine, hair and oral fluid testing, with presumptions triggered upon positive results. What safeguards ensure laboratory accuracy and prevent wrongful penalisation?
Finally, the Bill expands the definition of tobacco products to include nicotine analogues as a preemptive safeguard. Do we have the scientific capacity to detect emerging analogues quickly? Future-proofing must be operational, not merely legislative.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, will residents see real change in their daily lives?
Penalties for possession and use of vaporisers increase significantly, with fines up to $10,000. Import and supply now carry mandatory imprisonment. What evidence supports this calibration? How do we deter effectively without disproportionately burdening vulnerable youths?
A $10,000 fine may well be a manageable business expense for a lucrative syndicate. For a vulnerable youth, it can be life altering. We must distinguish between masterminds who profit and runners who were coerced or misled.
The Bill also expands enforcement powers to search persons, seize vehicles and seize cash. What safeguards ensure proportional use of these powers?
Residents experience enforcement in shared spaces. Will response times to estate complaints improve? Can measurable service benchmarks be set?
Agencies prioritise syndicates, but residents see daily offences. Will other ground agencies such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), Land Transport Authority (LTA), Town Councils or NParks and so on be empowered to act against blatant vaping offences so enforcement is not overly centralised?
On responsible persons, specified premises initially include public entertainment outlets. Will this scope expand? In residential areas, who bears responsibility? Will we be outsourcing enforcement to managing agents and security guards in condominiums? If so, will they understand their limits and obligations? Is notifying authorities sufficient or must responsible persons retain offenders? Will clear standard operational procedures (SOPs) and training be issued?
The Bill also introduces liability for owners who allow storage without due diligence. What constitutes due diligence? Will clear guidance and safe harbour frameworks be provided? Strong laws must translate into visible confidence on the ground.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, are we staying ahead of the market? The SPS Schedule is exhaustive. Etomidate and its analogues will be listed and delisted from the MDA. What is the timeline from detection to scheduling? Is there a defined service standard? Will structured horizon scanning and digital monitoring be institutionalised? We cannot fight a fast-moving market with slow-moving processes.
On upstream disruption, are we moving beyond intelligence sharing to coordinated operations targeting production hubs? What international partnerships are being strengthened?
The Bill also amends the Civil Defence Act, Merchant Shipping Act and Road Traffic Act, expanding liability for individuals under the influence of SPS. How will cross-agency enforcement be coordinated? Are frontline officers trained to detect SPS impairment? Unless we disrupt supply at its source, enforcement becomes cyclical.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1898, heroin was sold as medicine. It was trusted. It was legal. By the time society realised the cost, addiction had taken root.
But there is a difference between then and now. Then, they did not know. Today, we do.
In this debate, I have asked three essential questions. First, are we protecting youths with measurable outcomes, fair safeguards and properly resourced rehabilitation? Second, will residents see visible enforcement, accountable powers and clarity on the ground? Third, are we staying ahead of evolving substances through rapid scheduling, predictive monitoring and upstream disruption?
If we answer these well, this Bill will not merely add penalties. It will reduce exposure, restore confidence and protect families. The tragedy in 1898 was ignorance. The tragedy today would be hesitation. The device in a schoolbag does not have to become this generation's cough syrup. History warned others too late. It is warning us in time. As lawmakers, we carry that responsibility. And as a father, I take that responsibility to heart. With that resolve, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the renaming of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, to the Tobacco and Vaporisers Control Act is symbolic of the Government's increased focus on tackling vaporisers, also known as vapes, which have seen increased usage over the past few years.
The Bill notably increases the fine amounts for vape users, sellers and smugglers. While this is welcomed, given the proliferation of etomidate-laced vapes or \"Kpods\", I hope that enforcement efforts will provide users the opportunity to turn over a new leaf instead of inadvertently stigmatising them.
This is especially pertinent as vaping is prevalent mainly amongst children and teens who have a long future ahead of them. The recent popularity of Kpods too has further added to the risk that our children are exposed to.
This is especially so as our brains continue to develop way into our mid-20s and vape use is especially harmful to the prefrontal cortex. This means that the brain's neurocircuits end up being dysregulated. That is detrimental to attention, impulse control and mood.
Vape and nicotine use is associated with dependence, mental health problems and use of other addictive substances.
This is why even though enforcement checks in school to stamp out such behaviour are welcome, we must also be cautious about being overly punitive with our approach to prevent students from being unduly stigmatised. Instead, the focus has to be on giving them the opportunity and support to change.
For instance, expelling or suspending a student might set them back academically, especially if they are already lagging behind their peers. Because vape and nicotine use is ultimately addictive and causes brain changes, it should be treated as a chronic relapsing disease that may require multiple quit attempts.
Therefore, I hope that the Government exercises understanding to its victims and abusers of vapes, whose lives and livelihoods are upended.
On the other hand, we must clamp down heavily on those who profit off the vape trade. Hence, different penalty regimes and the move to impose a fine of up to $200,000 and six years' jail for vape sellers is one which I support wholeheartedly.
Mr Speaker, aside from imposing bans and handing out fines for vaping, we must also be cognisant that solely relying on enforcement might not sufficiently address underlying systemic factors that result in people turning to vapes.
A 2012 study highlighted a lower socio-economic status and associating education level was associated with a higher prevalence of smoking and nicotine addiction. Although it seems unrelated at first glance, our efforts to stamp out vaping can be a socio-economic one. We can do so by ameliorating the undercurrents of inequality in our society.
Aside from socio-economic factors, we should also aim to tackle or at least mitigate the psychological vicious circle that connects vaping and poor mental health. A New Zealand study found that people who did not smoke or vape were 40% more likely to do so if they are experiencing mental distress.
However, vaping does not provide the path of least resistance for someone who wishes to escape their circumstances. In fact, nicotine and vapes is associated with increased stress and anxiety. Vape users are also more likely to attempt suicide compared to non-users. This ultimately causes a vicious feedback loop that cycles users between poor mental health, vaping and back again.
Although addressing mental health issues is targeted at a broader group, it has a knock-on effect of reducing the likelihood of people turning to vapes in the first place. Therefore, I hope that the Government could work to strengthen mental health support interventions, especially amongst children, to be much more accessible and age-appropriate.
Even as we work to address vapes, we must also continue to play close attention to another societal health risk – smoking.
The increased enforcement against vapes might inadvertently cause users, especially those who use it as a means to quit smoking, to shift back to cigarettes for their nicotine fix. Notably, this Bill's Second Reading comes at the heels of this year's Budget, where it was announced that tobacco excise duties were increased by 20% from 49.1 cents to 58.9 cents per cigarette. For financial year (FY) 2025, tobacco duties are expected to increase by over $92.9 million, compared to financial year 2023 when tobacco duties were last increased.
Instead of viewing it as merely a sin tax, another revenue stream, I hope that the Government would explore more ways to use tobacco duties as a tool to tackle the negative externalities brought about by smoking to smokers, their loved ones and society at large.
The health implications of smoking are well known. For smokers, these include the increased risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke. Their loved ones, who would likely be subjected to second-hand smoke, would experience an increased cancer and stroke risk.
Meanwhile, people walking past smokers or the neighbours of smokers would likely be exposed to second-hand smoke and their associated risks while society at large would have to partially bear the cost of treating smoking-related health issues.
This has grave implications for our public health. According to the Global Burden of Disease survey, some 66,000 disability-adjusted life years are lost per annum to smoking. The effect of nicotine on young brains, especially those under 25, are even more pronounced, given they are still not fully developed. This is why banning smoking for those aged 21 and below may simply not be enough.
Mr Speaker, I therefore repeat our call to consider instituting a tobacco cohort ban.
While the Government might write fully point out that New Zealand scrapped the ban in 2023, it was done so to subsidise tax cuts. Furthermore, although the country has legalised vapes as a tobacco cessation device, thus leading smokers to turn to vapes instead, targeting the tobacco cohort ban at people born after a certain year, when they are still young children, will significantly minimise the exposure to both tobacco and vapes.
Although New Zealand may have made a U-turn, other countries such as the Maldives have also implemented a similar ban, with the United Kingdom (UK) seeking to implement a similar measure.
Our smoking rate has dropped to an all-time low of 8.4%, in no small part due to the efforts of the Government and society at large. Nevertheless, I believe that we can and should do more.
After all, if the authorities have the wherewithal to impose bans on chewable tobacco and vapes as well as leave the door open to a ban on flavoured tobacco products, I am confident that we can also move decisively to impose a smoking cohort ban, as I have previously mentioned during my Committee of Supply cut for MOH.
I also hope that we can set out targets for complete smoking cessation over time as an end game that we can all work towards.
Mr Speaker, while I am supportive of the Government's zero tolerance approach towards stamping out vapes, we should also be holistic and mindful of the socio-economic and even possibly psychological undercurrents that give rise to vaping. Moreover, our law should aim to rehabilitate and integrate rather than ostracise and stigmatise to curb smoking and vaping all together whilst preventing damages to lives and livelihoods.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. It is timely, it is forward looking and it recognises a very simple reality – that the threat simply has changed.
What we are dealing with today is not just cigarettes in the traditional sense. It is also vaporisers, lookalike products and substances that can be mixed, disguised and marketed at speed, especially online. And the people most at risk are our young.
So, I welcome the direction of this Bill. It strengthens prevention upstream, it tightens controls where harm begins and it also provides a framework for early intervention and importantly, rehabilitation that is centred in the community, where I think that is the safer and wiser approach.
My remarks would be phased in three parts: first, on prevention and youth protection; second, the balance between enforcement and rehabilitation; and third, ground implementation so that the law is workable, fair and consistent.
First, on prevention and youth protection.
Mr Speaker, Sir, prevention is not a slogan. It is a design choice. If we want to protect young people, we have to act early, before harmful patterns become habits, before curiosity becomes dependency and before experimentation becomes identity.
This is why I support the Bill's upstream preventive stance, especially provisions that deal with behavioural gateways and imitation products. Because globally, we have seen how this plays out. Products are designed to look harmless, even trendy. Packaging is sleek. Flavours are sweet. Names are playful. Everything points to normalising the behaviour and then addiction becomes a problem. So, I support intervening early.
But I want to ask about the \"other half\" of prevention. Laws and penalties matter. But so, too, does understanding. Many young people do not start because they want to intentionally break the law. They start because they underestimate the risk. They trust what they see online. There is a lack of information, there is peer pressure and they tell themselves, \"Well, it is just a vape.\"
So, my first clarification is this. Alongside enforcement, how the Ministry will ensure that there is preventive education and health literacy alongside and in a strong way? How will we then equip students and young people to recognise the risk early on?\tHow will we support parents who may not even know\twhat to look out for and how to start conversations with their young ones? How will we keep our messaging current, when products evolve so quickly?
Because a strong preventive framework is not just regulation. It is also proactive, upstream education, delivered in a way that young people and their parents will actually receive and understand. If I may offer one standard to guide us, the test is not how many rules we have, but how fewer young people are trapped in the first place.
Second, on enforcement and rehabilitation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I also welcome that the Bill is not only punitive. It recognises rehabilitation as part of public health and that matters. Because on the ground, we do see young offenders who are not hardened criminals. They made a poor decision. They followed the wrong crowd. They got pulled into a risky habit. And very often, they regret it deeply. They want and look for a way back. So, the inclusion of rehabilitative pathways, including community-based rehabilitation orders, is a very important and integral part of this amendment.
But if we expand powers, we must also look to expand capacity. So, my second set of clarifications is about the scale and readiness. Will there be an increase in training supervising officers? Will counselling and psychosocial support services be expanded with these new pathways? How will community-based agencies be equipped to deliver effective rehabilitation programmes in a way that is structured, consistent and outcomes-oriented? Because rehabilitation is not just compassion. It is accountability coupled with support. It has to be credible. It has to work. Otherwise, we create churn where the system looks busy, but the outcomes do not improve.
Next, on ground implementation and operational clarity. In Parliament, we can discuss and debate clauses, but on the ground, it comes down to people, processes and clarity. This Bill places duties on responsible persons of specified premises in relation to access controls, age checks and reporting obligations. These are important measures, but many smaller premises may not have the experience managing regulatory responsibilities of this nature, so I want to seek clarification on what operational guidance will be provided. Will there be practical tool kits, clear protocols, simple scripts for staff to use training for de-escalation so that they can comply with safety and be consistent about it? We should not put our frontline workers in a position where they must enforce rules without the support, and then face confrontation without adequate protection.
Mr Speaker, Sir, there is also a second operational issue. Frontline enforcement officers will now operate in an environment where substances regulated under this act may coexist with substances governed under the MDA. In reality, an officer conducting a ground check may see a device, a liquid, a cartridge or a mixture. Decisions would need to be made quickly, so I ask how will enforcement agencies operationally distinguish between these categories of devices and substances, especially when they are doing their ground checks and when they need to respond rapidly?
Clear differentiation matters for two reasons. First, it ensures proportional enforcement; and second, it can reduce confusion, both for the officers and the public.
Mr Speaker, Sir, trust is built not just by good policy intent, but by how people experience the system. If rules are clear, processes are fair and officers are supported, enforcement would become more consistent and confidence in the system would increase. This Bill represents a careful and calibrated response to the growing public health challenge of vapes and smoking substances. It strengthens prevention. It tightens enforcement and it recognises for many, especially the young, early intervention and rehabilitation must be part of the process. With these remarks, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Tobacco (Control of Advertisement and Sale) (Amendment) and Other Matters Bill marks a shift in our approach to drug-laced vaping and the persistent harm of tobacco smoking. Renaming the act to the Tobacco and Vaporises Control Act 1993 rightly reflects a focus on modern delivery systems for nicotine and psychoactive substances.
I support the amendments in this Bill, which control the purchase, use, possession, import and supply of vaporisers and specified psychoactive substances. However, I would like to address in my speech the use of tobacco products in the form of smoking. Smoking remains a primary driver of preventable disease and death in Singapore. According to a Global Burden of Disease study in 2023, Singapore saw 2,043 deaths from tobacco and 660,152 disability adjusted life years, which are the years of life lost and years lived in disability.
These statistics represent thousands of families whose lives are upended by chronic illness, disability and premature death. Our objective should not be to merely regulate a harmful habit, but to systematically dismantle the structures that allow it to persist in our society through successive generations.
Crucially, the Bill broadens the regulatory landscape by amending the long title to explicitly include the control of tobacco product use. This transition from regulating commercial transactions to overseeing actual product usage provides a necessary legislative basis to address how these products impact the immediate environment of our residents.
The expansion of smoking bans in public places could have unintentionally pushed smokers into their homes to light up. I have received numerous complaints from my residents about smoke drifting into their homes from nearby units.
Currently, the authorities are only empowered to provide guidance to smokers to be more considerate. In response to a Parliamentary Question on 10 September 2024, by my hon friend, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment said that the exhalation of cigarette smoke to the open air outside of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat is not a violation of the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) regulations when the individual is smoking within the flat, as smoking is not prohibited in residential homes. While smoking within five metres of a of an HDB void deck is prohibited, smoking at home and blowing smoke in that same protected space is allowed. This highlights a gap in how we protect the air in and around our homes.
Clause 37 of this Bill defines smoking as both inhaling and expelling of tobacco smoke. This specific focus on the expulsion of smoke suggests that the impact of these emissions on neighbouring units can fall within the Bill's regulatory ambit. I urge the Minister to utilise the powers under clause 21 to set standards for the use and emissions of tobacco products, ensuring that private enjoyment does not result in the involuntary consumption of secondary emissions by neighbours.
Beyond residential smoking issues, we must move beyond managing the prevalence of smoking and start legislating for its eventual elimination for future generations. I reiterate my call from 5 March 2024 and echo my hon friend, Ms He Ting Ru, regarding a cohort tobacco ban. This would make it illegal to sell tobacco products to or for them to be used by anyone born after a specific year. This will ensure that younger generations of Singaporeans never start smoking, creating a smoke-free future for our children and our children's children. I would like to emphasise that this does not further restrict the smoking rights of existing smokers.
I was glad to hear Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam say during the Committee of Supply debate on 5 March 2026 that the Government remains open to a cohort smoking ban and will study its effectiveness and how it can be applied to Singapore's context. I hope we can move forward on this expeditiously.
In fact, a crackdown on vaping without equally aggressive cigarette controls risk inadvertently pushing our youths towards smoking. We would not want this Bill, which curbs vaping, to cause a resurgence in cigarette smoking by young people. Therefore, anti-vaping strategies, which I support, must be structurally linked to a definitive tobacco phase out.
Next, we must examine the chemical composition of tobacco products on the market. Nicotine is the primary driver of smoking addiction, and by restricting its concentration, we can reduce the pharmacological hook that makes it so difficult to quit using these products. Under clause 6 of the Bill, which introduces the new section 14, the Minister is granted the power to set maximum allowable amounts for substances within tobacco products or their emissions. I urge the Minister to exercise the powers granted under clause 6 of the Bill to set a stringent cap on the nicotine yield in the smoke of all tobacco products.
I understand that in the European Union and the UK, the maximum emission level is strictly limited, and the nicotine yield cannot exceed 1.0 milligrams per cigarette. Can I ask the Senior Minister of State what nicotine yield limit he intends to prescribe for this for Singapore under the new section 14?
Finally, I hope the Government can also address the harm of second-hand smoking on the move. Even in non-prohibited outdoor areas, a smoker walking ahead of a crowd creates a smoke trail that everyone behind is forced to inhale. This requires greater public education and clearer guidelines on pedestrian etiquette and social responsibility.
In summary, Mr Speaker, while this Bill provides the necessary tools to control vaporisers and psychoactive substances, we must take this opportunity to protect residents from second-hand smoke. We must pair enforcement with a tobacco cohort ban to meaningfully reduce our national disease burden. By addressing gaps in residential smoking and committing to a clear end game for tobacco, we can better safeguard the health of all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, what began as a so-called \"safer alternative\" has, in some cases, become something far more dangerous. This is no longer a debate about lifestyle. It is a public safety issue.
Devices that resemble vaporisers are now being used to deliver psychoactive substances. What is marketed to youths as flavour and novelty can conceal sedation, dependency and real harm. When a device can fit in a pocket yet deliver chemical dependence, the state must respond clearly and decisively.
I rise in strong support of the Bill. First, I support the move to future-proof our legislation. Industries innovate to evade regulation. If we regulate only what we already know, we will always be one step behind what arrives next. The expansion of definitions to capture nicotine analogues and the creation of a Specified Psychoactive Substances framework ensure that enforcement can respond swiftly as substances evolve.
If enforcement is reactive, exploitation will be proactive. This architecture signals that Singapore intends to stay ahead of the curve, not chase it.
Second, deterrence must be sharpest where harm is multiplied. Young users are visible, but organised importers and distributors are the engines of this problem. The strengthened penalties for import and supply, the presumptions preventing easy denial of knowledge and the duties placed on owners and occupiers to prevent storage and distribution draw a clear hierarchy of culpability. The law must be firmest where profit meets exploitation.
Singapore is a trade and travel hub. We must anticipate concealment methods, storage networks and cross-border sourcing. Targeting upstream syndicates protects downstream youths. I would welcome the Senior Minister of State’s clarification on how agencies will prioritise dismantling organised supply networks and measure disruption of these channels, so that enforcement impact is visible and sustained.
At the same time, deterrence alone cannot be the entire answer. Nicotine and psychoactive substance exposure affect impulse control and judgement, particularly in adolescents. Early experimentation can escalate quickly.
I therefore welcome the structured rehabilitation orders introduced in this Bill, including community-based rehabilitation and family involvement.
Enforcement stops the spread. Rehabilitation stops the cycle. The credibility of this framework will depend on timely and consistent implementation. For eligible first-time youth offenders, intervention must be swift, structured and supported by access to cessation and counselling pathways. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on how agencies will ensure that diversion to rehabilitation is operationalised quickly, so that intervention is meaningful rather than delayed. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Chairman, protecting youths is not just a matter of law enforcement; it is the responsibility of our entire society.
Vaporisers today are no longer just nicotine products. Some have even become carriers of psychoactive substances. If a small device can subtly alter a young person's mind, we cannot afford to be complacent. We must come down hard on those who supply these products for profit. But we must also promptly intervene to help young people who have gone astray. Strict measures are to cut off the source. Care is to save the future.
In Tengah, I often hear young parents say that their biggest worry is not fines, but whether their children, out of momentary curiosity, will embark on a path of no return.
This Bill is not simply a tobacco control measure. It concerns the health of the next generation, the peace of mind of families and the bottom line of society. Protecting youths is a principle we cannot compromise on.
(In English): Mr Speaker, law alone does not shape norms. A law is strongest when ordinary people understand it and can comply without fear or ambiguity. As duties are placed on premises owners and responsible persons, guidance must be clear and practical. Frontline staff must know what steps to take if they encounter suspected use or storage.
Enforcement communications must reinforce that detection is real and consequences are certain. A firm law, consistently enforced, shapes behaviour long before it punishes it.
Singapore has always taken a clear stance against substances that undermine public health and social stability. That clarity has protected generations. In confronting the evolution of vaporisers into vehicles for psychoactive substances, we must be equally resolute.
Firm against exploitation. Compassionate toward recovery. Disciplined in implementation. Because ultimately, this Bill is not about devices. It is about safeguarding the next generation. The measure of a society is how firmly it protects its young, especially when the threat evolves. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. As the vapes or vaporisers are posing health hazards to our population, especially the youths and our students, I would like to seek answers to the following specific questions.
What is the current situation of the peddling of vapes or vaporiser who are getting the students and our youths?
Number two: what are the educational and awareness programmes for students going forward? Is it compulsory for students to attend such programmes and learn what are vapes and how bad it is?
Question three: is there any plan to equip or provide parents with tools for them to identify vaping devices and the potential use or identify the potential use of vapes by the child?
My last question: the campus and the hostels of the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) are really porous and do we have plans to install vapes detection systems in the IHL campus and hostels? I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 2.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 1.50 pm until 2.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 2.10 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, some time back, a father met me at my Meet-the-People Session, holding a small metallic device he had found in his daughter's room. It was slim. It was discreet. It did not resemble anything like a cigarette. It did not resemble an item where many parents would traditionally associate with drugs. When he asked his daughter about it, she replied, \"It's not like smoking. It's not a drug.\"
Sir, that moment illustrates how quickly substance misuse is evolving, how often, faster than public perception and regulation.
Vaping is already illegal in Singapore. We have clear prohibitions on the import, sale, possession and use of vaporisers. Enforcement has been ongoing. Public education efforts have been sustained. Yet what has evolved is not merely the device but the chemistry behind it.
Today, products are modified to include nicotine analogues. Some are adapted to deliver psychoactive substances. Specifically, we are seeing the rise of substances, like etomidate, and its analogues, originally developed as medical anaesthetics, which are being misused in vaporisers in ways that exploit regulatory gaps between existing frameworks.
This Bill ensures that substances can no longer hide in the shadows of regulatory framework. It reorganises product categories, expands definitions, introduces the new Part 3A framework for specified psychoactive substances, strengthens presumptions and enhances penalties across the supply chain. I strongly support these measures.
Today, I will focus on the implementation because the strength of this Bill will ultimately depend on how it is operationalised.
While my opening example involved a young person, we must be clear – this is not merely a youth issue. The importation and distribution of Part 3A products containing specified psychoactive substances represent deliberate, profit-driven activities. They exploit regulatory gaps. They undermine public safety. They intersect with organised supply networks.
The introduction of mandatory imprisonment for serious import and supply offences sends a strong deterrent signal. The enhanced presumptions relating to possession and control are also important enforcement tools. However, I would like to seek clarification on how enforcement agencies intend to operationalise these strengthened provisions in increasingly complex supply environments, including decentralised storage and informal distribution channels.
As enforcement tightens, syndicates adapt. And this is a problem. Continuous monitoring and intelligence coordination will be essential.
To this end, the Bill equips authorised officers with the necessary powers to operate safely in enforcement situations that may involve risk. I also note that the Bill strengthens operational powers under section 23B, including the use of restraints where necessary. This recognises that enforcements against organised supply networks is not an administrative work. It can involve real operational risks.
And for residents on the ground, this Bill sends a clear signal. It tells parents that the law is keeping pace with substances designed to evade regulation. It tells communities that those who profit from distributing these products will face serious consequences. And it reassures residents that enforcement agencies are being equipped with the powers needed to respond to new and evolving threats.
Sir, this Bill does not only enhance penalties, it also introduces a structured community-based rehabilitation and institutional treatment orders.
This dual approach is important. But as we strengthen enforcement and potentially increase the number of persons subject to rehabilitation orders, we must ensure there is an adequate capacity.
I would like to seek clarification on firstly, the projected caseload for community-based rehabilitation under Part 3A; secondly, whether the supervising officer's capacity is being expanded; the availability of addiction-trained clinicians and counsellors; and finally, the framework for relapse prevention during and after supervision.
If rehabilitation becomes primarily supervisory without sufficient therapeutic intervention, we risk short-term compliance without that long-term recovery. Substance misuse is not only a legal issue. It is also a behavioural and health issue. Enforcements protect society. Rehabilitation restores the individual. Both must be resourced proportionately.
Sir, beyond enforcement and rehabilitation, the Bill also introduces an important dimension of shared responsibility. Part 3B places duties on the responsible persons of specified premises. This is a significant shift towards shared responsibility. It signals that enforcement cannot rest solely on the state. I support this direction.
However, commercial storage operators, landlords, transport providers and small business owners will understandably seek clarity on what constitutes \"due care\" and \"reasonable knowledge\".
Under the new section 18A, an owner or occupier commits an offence if they allow the storage of these prohibited items unless they have exercised \"due care\". For a small warehouse operator or a landlord, the difference between compliance and a heavy fine lie in the definition of that effort. So, we must ensure our business communities are not penalised for syndicates' sophisticated concealment tactics. I welcome the indication that best-practice guidance may be developed.
May I encourage that: firstly, clear operational guidelines be issued before enforcement is intensified; second, outreach be conducted through trade associations; and third, practical examples of due diligence be provided to reduce uncertainty. When compliance expectations are clear, cooperation improves. When ambiguity persists, anxiety naturally will increase.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many residents may also wonder how these provisions apply in everyday settings. For example, landlords, small shop operators or those managing shared premises may ask what constitutes reasonable steps to ensure that prohibited products are not stored on their premises. As we strengthen enforcement against those distributing these substances, it will be important that guidance is clear so that law-abiding residents and businesses understand what is expected of them.
Sir, the Bill empowers the Chief Executive of HSA to order parents or guardians of youths subject to community-based rehabilitation to attend counselling, with penalties for non-compliance. To me, family involvement is critical, it is critical to sustain recovery and I support this principle.
At the same time, we should ensure that such measures strengthen families rather than create adversarial dynamics. Will counselling models emphasise restoration and support? Will there be flexibility for families facing financial or caregiving constraints? If we require parental participation, we should also equip parents with knowledge and the practical tools to navigate.
Sir, I offer these points in the spirit of strengthening what is already a robust legislative framework.
Given the rapid evolution of synthetic psychoactive substances, I would encourage the Ministry to consider a formal review of the Part 3A framework within three to five years of implementation.
Such a review could assess our enforcement outcomes, rehabilitation effectiveness, emerging substances' trends and operational challenges faced by responsible persons. This would future-proof us, because future-proofing requires periodic recalibration.
Sir, if I may conclude, the device that the father found was already illegal. We have campaigns that were ongoing. We have laws that exist. What changed was the product's sophistication and the intent behind those distributing it. And this Bill recognises that reality. It closes regulatory gaps, strengthens enforcement and provides the necessary tools to address substances designed to evade existing frameworks.
But legislation alone cannot solve the problem. Its success will depend on how effectively we implement enforcement, strengthen rehabilitation and support families as they navigate these challenges. As a father of four myself, I believe strongly that protecting our children from substances designed to exploit regulatory gaps must remain a priority. If we implement this Bill effectively, we can ensure that our laws' enforcement and support structures remain one step ahead. For these reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Kuah Boon Theng.
Ms Kuah Boon Theng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.
We have been witnessing the rise of a new public health threat, that of vapes and its variants, especially those laced with dangerous chemicals, such as etomidate. This Bill will play an important role in addressing this threat. And we must act quickly, especially as the lives of many are being upended by the harmful nature of vaping.
As we have all heard, vapes are highly addictive, often more so than traditional cigarettes. Our youths have been particularly susceptible, as peddlers of vapes prey on those who are impressionable. More than 3,000 students were caught vaping every year between 2022 and 2024. The high concentrations of nicotine can trigger rapid brain responses, leading to quick dependency. It affects attention, learning and impulse control. And once hooked, trying to stop will provoke intense cravings and withdrawal.
Since September 2025, etomidate and its analogues have been classified as Class C controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act, for a period of six months while we awaited this Bill. This was intended to be an interim measure, and it has given our authorities more power to prosecute importers, sellers or distributers of etomidate e-vaporisers under the MDA and mete out heavier penalties.
As for consumers of these products, individuals found using etomidate e-vaporisers or who test positive for etomidate are not simply subjected to a fine, but have to undergo rehabilitation, treatment, mandatory supervision and even detention. But we now need to boost our laws to provide a more enduring framework to tackle vaping, and this Bill does that.
First of all, I support the provisions of this Bill that would, in essence, treat the use of vapes with psychoactive substances in a way that is consistent with how we approach controlled drugs. The new Part 3 and 3A will introduce amendments to enact stiffer punishments for the trafficking and selling of vapes laced with dangerous psychoactive substances. It will also provide for testing methods to uncover consumption.
As for users of vapes, in addition to stiffer fines, there are statutory rehabilitation programmes for users of psychoactive substances and this reflects a very calibrated response, with traffickers and sellers attracting strong punitive action, whereas the approach with vape users has a strong rehabilitative purpose which aims to help people break the addiction, work on their recovery and rehabilitate them back into society.
I agree that this is a sound approach. While all offenders have to ultimately be accountable for their mistakes, we must also do our best to support them by providing available help to give them the best chance of quitting an addiction.
I do have questions relating to how the Ministry hopes to achieve its rehabilitative objective. While community-based rehabilitation is an available pathway for users of vapes with psychoactive substances, for regular vape users, they will primarily be faced with a fine. And based on current policy, counselling programmes are mandatory for second-time offenders using regular vapes, but there is not much information available on what type of counselling programme will be made available to them and what other form of support will be provided particularly to students with vape addictions.
I would therefore like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State, in the case of youths in schools who are discovered to be regular vape users, will there be any close collaboration or coordination with parents and schools to implement a structured programme or protocol to help them kick the habit?
While the addiction itself can wreck havoc on the student's ability to learn and concentrate in school, I can only imagine that as they go through withdrawal from nicotine and other addictive substances, this could have an equally deleterious effect, especially in the short term, and during particularly stressful periods like exams. It is hard enough for adults to quit, are we expecting fines and warnings or counselling alone to be sufficient to help school-going children and youths do so?
As for schools, I would argue that without professional guidance and support being offered, they, too, would be left to navigate these issues on their own. The result may end up being an inconsistent and patchy response. I would therefore like to propose that MOH consider assembling a team of child and adolescent psychiatrists, qualified addiction specialists and professional counsellors, to come up with a national protocol or programme that will provide clear guidance to parents, teachers and schools as they support our youths who are trying to break the addiction of vaping. In fact, if we are going to do that, we should extend it to other forms of addiction amongst school-going kids, like gaming or even pornography.
Additionally, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Ministry intends to track the data of young vape users who are minors, to ensure that nicotine and other addictions are adequately identified and addressed? This is similar to the point made by the hon Member Mr Yip.
And lastly, will there be other steps taken to ensure that recidivism amongst youth vape users remains low? If so, what are these measures? That said, I support the Bill and look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. I had spoken up in July last year on the etomidate situation and advocated for its classification under the MDA, because of what I felt were limitations under the existing framework of legislation at the time.
The Government moved fast, and in September last year, etomidate was classified as a Class C drug as a temporary measure. This reclassification has been important. It allowed tougher measures to be taken against those that trafficked etomidate and also permitted mandatory treatment to be ordered against abusers who would often refuse to attend treatment voluntarily. This last point is reinforced by Senior Minister of State Koh's point in his introductory speech, that the number of abusers defaulted even on mandatory treatment.
The current Bill provides for the reclassification of etomidate from a Class C controlled drug under the MDA to a \"specified psychoactive substance\" under the proposed TVCA.
I was initially a little concerned about whether this meant we were taking a lighter touch approach against etomidate, but looking at the penalties involved, it appears the regime is largely similar to that used in relation to Class C drugs. I think Senior Minister of State Koh also confirmed this in his introductory speech. This suggests we are not taking a lighter touch approach against etomidate, and to the extent, this reclassification is administrative, to put it on a longer term footing. I have no objections to it.
One of the strengths of this Bill is the flexibility it confers. The Minister will be empowered to amend the Schedule by order in the Gazette, enabling new psychoactive substances to be added swiftly without the need for a full legislative amendment each time. This allows the Government to stay ahead of synthetic variants which are engineered specifically to exploit gaps in the legal framework. This is especially useful because so-called \"designer drugs\" can proliferate because of delays in the implementation of statutory control.
Having said that, there seems to be some overlap with mechanisms that already exist under the MDA.
I understand that the list of SPSes in the Schedule of the Bill currently includes only etomidate and its analogues. In comparison, under the MDA, a psychoactive substance is defined in section 2 conceptually to mean \"a substance or product that has the capacity to have a psychoactive effect on an individual if the individual smokes, administers to himself or herself or otherwise consumes, the substance or product\" and which is not an \"excluded substance\" under the Fifth Schedule.
Part 2A of the MDA contains provisions dealing with psychoactive substances generally and can be a conceptual catch-all mechanism for drugs that are not classified elsewhere. In contrast, those psychoactive substances that are already known are often classified as drugs and specific penalties would apply to those.
This essentially means there will be two statutes which could potentially deal with new psychoactive substances: one, they could be classified in the Schedule under this new Act; or two, they could still be captured conceptually under the MDA.
In relation to this, I make three points.
First, in future, what considerations will determine whether a psychoactive substance is to be listed under the TVCA?
Second, is it possible for a case to be caught by both the TVCA and the MDA, and if so, how will the authorities decide which statute to prosecute an offender under?
Third, will sentencing guidelines and cases under the MDA apply to cases under the TVCA? In my view, certainly, etomidate-related cases should apply.
Etomidate is plainly a psychoactive substance. It is largely misused through vaporisers and related products and that may be the reason for its classification under this Bill. However, the potential for vaporisers to administer more serious drugs has always been present, and the infamous Kpod was known to contain either etomidate or ketamine. Ketamine is, of course, classified as a drug under the MDA.
While I understand the rationale for placing etomidate under this Bill and therefore the jurisdiction of HSA, what happens if more harmful substances or drugs are found while the HSA is conducting a raid for vaporisers and/or etomidate? Would HSA be empowered to effect arrests and take enforcement actions, assuming drugs are also found with the vaporisers? In contrast, I understand the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers have much broader powers of arrest.
I believe the HSA will need to adequately resourced and empowered to discharge the new role. Likewise, the CNB should continue to be empowered to effect arrests for etomidate in the event they come across this substance while effecting arrests or investigations into other drugs and psychoactive substances.
The rehabilitation aspect of the Bill is also important. The framework allows for community-based rehabilitation and institutional treatment where appropriate. This mirrors, in many respects, the approach taken under the MDA. It recognises that while enforcement and deterrence are essential, rehabilitation remains a cornerstone of our drug control policy.
However, here again, there appears to be a potential overlap between the two statutes. I would be grateful if the Ministry would clarify two points.
First, would offenders subject to mandatory treatment under this Bill be sent to DRCs currently used for drug offenders or is the intention to send them to different facilities? If there are to be different facilities, the HSA will need the resources to set up such centres.
Second, where a case is potentially caught by both Acts, say, multiple substances were found, and the Chief Executive of the HSA and the Director of the CNB both have the power to order an offender to undergo rehabilitation under the relevant provisions of the two Acts, how will this overlap be resolved between the HSA and the CNB?
Finally, I wish to add an observation that young persons are particularly vulnerable to trends such as vaping and experimentation with psychoactive drugs. We must continue to emphasise prevention, education and parental involvement. The provisions requiring responsible persons to act when prohibited products are used on their premises and the measures addressing exposure of children and young persons are important complements to criminal penalties.
Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, this Bill reflects Singapore's long-standing position that we should adapt our laws on drug abuse in response to evolving realities while preserving the core of our zero-tolerance stance. Singapore's firm stance against drug abuse has been an important pillar of our social stability and public safety. This Bill strengthens that pillar. We must not be seen to compromise on this when new substances emerge.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.
Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken and for their unanimous support for the amendments proposed in the Bill.
Members have raised a number of thoughtful views and constructive comments. I have touched on some of these in my opening speech, so I will now elaborate more on other areas that were raised by Members.
First, beyond increasing penalties to enhance deterrence, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether our enforcement approach would truly reduce youth exposure and initiation. Well, the fact is that firm enforcement alone will never eliminate vaping. However, a strong deterrence posture remains essential if we are serious about reducing the harm it can cause to our people.
Vaping has not yet become deeply entrenched in Singapore. This gives us a critical window to act decisively. That is why we are targeting the entire supply ecosystem, the entire supply chain, through robust enforcement while at the same time supporting users through rehabilitation to prevent vaping from taking root in our society.
Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Vikram Nair rightly pointed out the importance of preventive education. Many people, especially the young, picked up vaping out of curiosity or peer pressure. Therefore, we have also stepped up preventive education efforts in tandem.
The national campaign across multiple platforms includes digital display panels cross the island, in our heartlands, especially, mainstream media and social media to inform the public about the dangers of vaping and etomidate vaporisers. We also collaborated with many online content partners to reach out to young people because this is where young people are consuming information, so this is a good way to reach out to them.
Schools and IHLs have also played a big part to educate the young on the harm and consequences of vaping. The messages are also integrated into the school curriculum. Dr Neo Kok Beng asked about this earlier.
For those who have already started vaping, we adopted a calibrated multi-layered approach. This approach provides multiple chances to quit before the more serious penalties apply.
First, the avenue to seek help to quit remains open under the QuitVape Programme. Those who come forward voluntarily will not be penalised for doing so. In the past six months, more than 110 persons came forward to quit etomidate vaping. We hope more will do so.
Next, for individuals who have been caught vaping, penalties will kick in, along with a requirement to attend rehabilitation for repeat offenders. For those consuming etomidate, testing of their urine or hair samples may be required on top of rehabilitation.
To Ms Kuah Boon Theng's question, students caught for the first time will be guided by school counsellors and referred to the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) QuitLine when needed. Her suggestion of working in a more coordinated manner across different Ministries, resourcing the counsellors, is something that we will take back and look at how to do so, although today, we do have close collaboration between HSA and the Ministry of Education.
To Dr Choo Pei Ling's question, suspected offenders may have to undergo interviews, investigations and testing prior to being sent for rehabilitation. This explains the turnaround time between detection and start of the rehabilitation programme. We are working to minimise this turnaround time.
The providers of rehabilitation programmes will explore the underlying causes for the use of vaporisers and etomidate, and offenders will learn healthy coping habits and how to withstand peer pressure. These are tips that will help them to sustain a vaporiser-free lifestyle, post rehabilitation.
For youths under 21 years old, the Youth Enhanced Supervision Scheme under the Ministry of Social and Family Development has an added element of family involvement, with some sessions conducted together with their parents or guardians. Parents can also refer to the Parent's Guide on Vaping on the Families for Life website for tips on having conversations with their children on vaping.
To Dr Wan Rizal's question, HSA will closely engage parents and guardians and use the powers of section 19S judiciously. Parental and family support, I am sure we all agree, are crucial to helping young offenders quit. Parents who refuse to be involved in their children's counselling without reasonable justifications will potentially face criminal charges.
However, despite our best efforts, if individuals decide to re-offend repeatedly, penalties will escalate rapidly.
For vaping, they will be prosecuted and subject to the increased fine, up to $10,000. For etomidate vaping, they will be detained in the DRC for institutional treatment and rehabilitation. In answer to Mr Vikram Nair's question, this will be separate from other drug offenders. By the time they are sent to the DRC, these reoffenders would have been caught at least three times and given multiple chances to quit.
To Mr Yip's question, mandatory imprisonment is imposed for importers and suppliers of section 15 tobacco products and vaporisers because they drive the continued availability of these harmful products. We have to go really upstream and stop the flow of these items into Singapore. If the products contain SPS, the penalties will be as severe and aligned to those for Class C controlled drugs under the MDA.
During the investigations of suspected import and supply offences, HSA takes into account several factors, including the quantity and types of prohibited products involved as well as evidence of intent to sell or supply to others, to determine the nature of the offence and how an individual is involved. Factors such as age and number of past offences will be taken into consideration by the Courts when determining the appropriate sentences. Specifically for youth offenders, the Courts will also consider youth-specific sentencing options such as probation or reformative training.
As Mr Yip and Dr Wan Rizal mentioned, supply channels are becoming more complex and decentralised, especially through the use of social media and messaging platforms. On the ground, we have also adapted our enforcement approach to better detect import and supply offences. Let me share two examples.
First, HSA actively monitors sales and advertisements of vaporisers on such platforms and works with platform owners to remove these listings. HSA also collaborates with the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) Office to block vaporiser websites targeting locals.
Over 10,000 online advertisements were removed since 2024 and 27 websites blocked under the OCHA since September last year.
Second, vaporiser supply chains predominantly operate overseas. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), CNB and Singapore Police Force already engage in information sharing with their foreign counterparts. We will work closely to make sure that we have intelligence to deal with this.
On vaporisers specifically, with the help of intelligence sharing, joint operations by HSA and ICA detected 59 large-scale smuggling cases in 2025, seizing around 230,000 vaporisers and related products. Thirteen of these cases have been charged.
Dr Hamid, Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal, Dr Choo and Mr Vikram Nair have raised a few operational issues.
Members asked how enforcement actions will be differentiated for SPS under the TVCA, and controlled drugs and psychoactive substances under the MDA.
A SPS, once scheduled under the TVCA, will be automatically excluded from the framework of psychoactive substances under the MDA because this framework in MDA works on a negative list approach and SPS has been excluded.
To Dr Hamid and Mr Yip's question on frontline enforcement, officers will assess the situation to route the case to the appropriate agency. Laboratory testing of the substance may be conducted to ascertain the identity of the substances involved and subsequently refer to the appropriate authorities.
To Mr Vikram Nair's questions, when it comes to rehabilitation, those who are suspected or are found to have consumed only SPS will be handled by HSA. If both SPS and controlled drugs or psychoactive substances under the MDA are consumed, the MDA rehabilitation framework will take precedence, given the seriousness of those drugs and offences.
Similar principles apply to prosecution. HSA and CNB will investigate the cases jointly if necessary.
The ultimate decision on prosecution will be made by the Attorney-General's Chambers. For cases to be charged under the TVCA, we will take guidance from the existing body of law, including precedent cases charged under the MDA.
Support will be provided to owners and occupiers of specified premises so they will understand how to fulfil their new obligations.
As I have mentioned, this is not entirely new, it is similar to the obligations under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act that public entertainment premises are already subject to and it is not meant to be onerous or impose a disproportionate amount of legal liability on premise operators.
HSA will support them in complying with these obligations. Practical guidance on the identification of prohibited products, how to engage and handle individuals possessing or using these prohibited products and when to engage HSA for further assistance, will be provided.
To protect these owners and occupiers, it will be an offence for individuals to hinder, obstruct, threaten, abuse or assault owners and occupiers in the course of performing their duties.
HSA will publish a handbook of best practices today on their website to illustrate what constitutes \"due care\" by owners and occupiers of land, buildings and places under the new offence of allowing other individuals to store prohibited products or their components in these spaces.
I thank Dr Wan Rizal for his suggestions on this and, understandably, owners and occupiers may worry that the storage of prohibited products could happen, even if they have done their best to prevent it. Let me assure you that each case will be assessed based on the particular facts of each situation, and owners and occupiers who have exercised due care do not need to worry.
We intend for the Bill to commence on 1 May and will provide support to responsible persons and owners and occupiers before then.
Mr Yip asked about the safeguards that ensure the accuracy of our laboratory tests, given that a positive urine test can be presumed to mean that the individual has consumed SPS and committed an offence. HSA has extensive experience supporting CNB in conducting laboratory tests for enforcement under the MDA. So, these powers and capabilities are not new to HSA.
Expanded powers require adequate resources to support implementation – this was also a point emphasised by a few Members.
We adopted a whole-of-Government enforcement approach, where relevant agencies, such as the Police, CNB, NEA and National Parks Board (NParks) assist in the detection and referral of suspected cases to HSA. So, the enforcement is not done just by HSA alone. This has multiplied our effective enforcement capacity, with more than 13,000 officers authorised to-date. These agencies will continue to be authorised under the TVCA.
To Mr Yip's question, HSA carefully assesses the suitability of these officers before empowering them with enforcement powers. This applies to officers from HSA and across other agencies. Officers are only authorised for specific powers that match their roles and experience and must also undergo prescribed training and competency assessments before being deployed. After deployment, they continue to be overseen and reviewed by their supervisors.
On rehabilitation capacity, having operated these programmes for the past six months, we have provided for sufficient capacity, including in the DRC. We will regularly review capacity utilisation and projections, based on the latest offender numbers and trends and make the necessary adjustments.
Finally, Members have asked about monitoring the effectiveness of the current enforcement approach, as well as monitoring trends in emerging substances of abuse. Beyond the number of offenders, we also monitor recidivism rates and other key indicators.
MHA already works with international and regional partners, such as the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) counterparts, to monitor the emergence of new psychoactive substances. MOH and MHA also review various sources of data to identify and be alert to emerging substances of abuse.
Specific to vaporisers, HSA also collects and exchanges intelligence with the World Health Organization and international regulatory counterparts and, on our own, we conduct random testing of vaporisers that we have seized to detect any new substances that is emerging in our market.
If another psychoactive substance or product emerges in tobacco products, vaporisers or imitation tobacco products, it can be listed in the Schedule of TVCA fairly quickly, by amending the Schedule via an order in the Gazette made by the Minister for Health. So, there will be less scrambling and a lot more responsiveness to any emerging threats.
Mr Gerald Giam cited clause 37 on the definition of smoking.
Let me clarify that this is actually an amendment to the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE)/NEA's smoking prohibition on certain places. It is not for the Tobacco Control Act, but it is actually an amendment to NEA's Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act. Smoking Area Ban policy is also under MSE and NEA's purview, but I understand where the Member is coming from. We will work with NEA and MSE on the Member of Parliament's suggestion to see how we can continue to help manage the issue of second-hand smoke and smoking within our heartlands.
On setting standards for emission of tobacco products, this is already in current section 15 and the new section 14. We have existing limits on the content emission of nicotine and tar of cigarettes that will continue under the TVCA.
On the suggestion to reduce addictiveness or tobacco and nicotine products, the Member of Parliament was likely referring to the nicotine cap policy I had mentioned earlier. We have considered this before and will continue to study it. It is possible to do so under the new section 14. But I do hear the Member's suggesting that the UK has a cap of 1.0 milligram and actually in Singapore, our nicotine emission yield is also capped at 1.0 milligrams since 2013.
So, if the Member were to look this up, it is actually under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Limits on Certain Substances) Regulations 2010. So, our limits are no different from what the Member has cited from the UK.
Mr Speaker, I believe I have addressed the clarifications raised by Members. I thank Members for their suggestions and support of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications arising out of Senior Minister of State Koh's response? If not, I will put the question to the House.
[(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. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon]. (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":"Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Since our early days as a trading port, Singapore's destiny has been shaped by the sea. Access to the sea brought us opportunities, enabled our nation to thrive and allowed us to define our place in the world.
But the sea which has served as our lifeblood could also pose a threat to our very existence. Singapore's Third National Climate Change Study (V3) projects that our sea levels may rise up to 1.15 metres by the end of this century, reaching up to five metres above today's mean sea level when coupled with storm surges and high tides.
This is serious. It means that around 30% of Singapore could be flooded by seawater. Our businesses along the coast, such as shipyards or ports that rely on having access to the sea, will be at risk of coastal flooding. In fact, Singapore already experiences coastal flooding during spring tides today, resulting in some parts of East Coast Park and Pulau Ubin being flooded. If we do nothing, places, like Changi Beach Park or East Coast Park, could become memories of the past.
We must therefore embark on coastal protection against sea level rise, to protect our land, our people and our livelihoods. In 2020, to prepare Singapore for this long-term endeavour, we amended the Public Utilities Act (PUA) to designate PUB, Singapore's national water agency, as our coastal protection agency.
Planning, design and construction of coastal protection takes time. The implementation needs to be carefully phased, to take into account the resources available and to tie in with other development timelines.
We are thus introducing the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill, or \"the Bill\" for short, principally to introduce legislative and regulatory levers to undergird coastal protection work moving forward. These new coastal protection elements will be introduced into the existing Sewerage and Drainage Act (SDA), which will be renamed the Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act (SDCPA).
I will go through the Bill in several parts.
First, I will explain our approach to coastal protection and PUB's role as the national coastal protection agency. Second, who should undertake responsibility for coastal protection. Third, how PUB will ensure completion of Singapore's coastal protection. Fourth, when coastal protection obligations for landowners will be imposed. Fifth, PUB's enforcement powers. Sixth, related and miscellaneous amendments pertaining to PUB's functions.
First, on our approach to coastal protection and PUB's role as the national coastal protection agency. The goal of coastal protection is to stop seawater from flooding our land. This will protect our assets and livelihoods and preserve the functionality of the land.
To do so, we will need to establish a continuous line of defence that will protect against permanent coastal flooding caused by sea level rise, as well as transient coastal flooding from high tides and storm surges. The Bill will provide PUB with the powers to determine the location of this continuous line of defence and gazette this line as an Absolute Protection Boundary.
PUB will decide where the Absolute Protection Boundaries are after carrying out studies on the different regions of Singapore. However, we may want to allow for transient coastal flooding in some places. There are some areas where access to the sea should be retained, such as beaches and coastal parks. We will therefore gazette Protection Boundaries to delineate the boundaries behind which the land must be protected from permanent coastal flooding.
In relation to these Boundaries, the Bill sets out four categories of Prescribed Places, which would have corresponding requirements of coastal protection measures to be put in place.
The first category comprises Prescribed Places at the Absolute Protection Boundaries. These will need to be protected against permanent and transient coastal flooding.
The second category will comprise Prescribed Places bound by two boundary lines, the Absolute Protection Boundary on the landward side of the area, and Protection Boundary on the seaward side. These places are known as \"Transiently Floodable Areas (Coastal)\". These need not be protected against permanent flooding but need to be protected against transient coastal flooding. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for Sustainability and the Environment\", Official Report, 6 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 26, Correction By Written Statement section.]
The third and fourth categories of Prescribed Places are Sheltered Structures within transiently floodable areas, such as food and beverage (F&B) venues as well as nearshore and offshore structures, like boardwalks and jetties. Where these structures need to be functional at all times, they would need to be protected against permanent and transient coastal flooding. That said, exemptions can be sought if these structures can be allowed to flood transiently.
Not every existing land plot by the coast will be a Prescribed Place. For example, PUB has adopted the \"Long Island\" project for City-East Coast under which the Absolute Protection Boundary will be located on new reclaimed land and the adjoining tidal gates that will be built.
Another example is the Greater Southern Waterfront which will have coastal barriers installed across the entrances of Keppel Harbour and Cruise Bay, to protect the land areas encircled by them. The residential and commercial areas along HarbourFront and Keppel Bay, as protected by these coastal barriers, will therefore not be Prescribed Places.
The Bill provides for coastal protection responsibilities to be undertaken by owners of Prescribed Places, or \"landowners\" for short. This is our current practice for coastal management. Today, landowners along the coast already protect their buildings and infrastructure against coastal erosion. From time to time, they top up the crest level or repair their coastal structures although they do so without direction from PUB and do not necessarily join the coastal structures up with their neighbours'.
We believe that this approach of decentralising the responsibility of implementing coastal protection measures will achieve a solution that will work for the owner and achieve the public good of coastal protection. Our land is scarce, and we should optimise it where possible. Therefore, we want to provide landowners the flexibility to select coastal protection measures that best meet their land use and waterfront needs. This will also avoid extensive reallocation or acquisition of land at the national level by the Government, which could potentially sterilise the valuable coastal land that we have.
Under the new section 30E of the Bill, each landowner must ensure that there is a coastal protection measure for the Prescribed Place by a stipulated date. All landowners within the same region will have to complete their measures by the date to accord protection to all within the region. These owners include the Government, Statutory Boards, as well as lessees with leases longer than three years. The majority of the coastal protection measures will be implemented by the Government and Statutory Boards as they own about 70% of the coastline.
As we engaged stakeholders, indeed, it became clear to us that different landowners require customised coastal protection measures to suit their individual needs. The measures differ because of their unique land use and operational requirements. For instance, for a shipyard with a dry dock, he may choose to build a seawall along the perimeter of the dry dock except the seaward entrance. Landowners may also have preferred timelines to carry out their construction work. It would not be practical, nor desirable, for the Government to implement standard coastal protection measures for such a wide range of land uses, from ports, ship building yards to petrochemical plants.
We have engaged the vast majority of affected landowners prior to tabling this Bill. During our engagements with them, some shared that they had not factored the cost for additional coastal protection measures when the land was leased or purchased. We have considered their views and will be supporting landowners to fulfil their obligations through a few ways.
First, we will provide a capital grant. The grant will cover the cost of studies, services diversion, as well as the construction necessary to implement coastal protection measures.
The grant will be sized according to cost norms, considering prevailing market rates and inflation. Landowners can apply for the capital grant after the legal obligation to implement measures has been formally imposed on them. The total grant amount will be split into reimbursement tranches to help with landowners’ planning and cashflow. We will further develop the grant details and share more information when ready.
Second, we will offer technical advice and consultations to landowners. At the same time, we have been levelling up industry competency on coastal protection through training programmes. This will ensure that the local engineering industry has the proficiency to provide professional services to landowners to take on these projects and implement the measures to the standard required by PUB.
While coastal protection works are undertaken by individual landowners, PUB will coordinate the works around the entire island, so that we can safeguard the long-term functionality of these coastal protection measures.
To keep seawater out, coastal protection measures need to be connected to each other, and the connection must be water-tight. Section 30G requires landowners to connect their coastal protection measures with their adjacent neighbours. It also details how the responsibility of performing the connection will be allocated. Where necessary, section 30P allows PUB to require neighbours to permit entry to their premises or render assistance, for the purposes of connecting the coastal protection measures.
PUB will maintain centralised control and oversight of coastal protection through sections 30F and 30H. Landowners will be required to seek PUB’s approval before undertaking coastal protection works, or before altering existing coastal protection measures. Similar to other utility corridors, works within a designated coastal protection safety corridor, or Safety Corridor for short, will be regulated under the new section 30N.
The coastal protection measures and the Safety Corridor will be delineated in the Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan, or Interpretation Plan, under section 30C. This will be hosted on digital systems accessible to the public, where relevant details of coastal protection measures, and the locations of the Safety Corridor will be available.
Section 30I requires landowners to maintain, repair, inspect and monitor their measures. Under section 30O, it will be an offence to damage the measures. Should there be any observed damage to the measures, landowners will be required under section 30J to inform PUB and submit a rectification plan.
For landowners with deployable barriers, section 30K states that regulations may require these landowners to deploy the barriers before an imminent coastal flooding event, as required by PUB.
PUB will develop forecasting abilities to anticipate potential coastal floods, so that early warning can be provided to landowners in a timely manner.
To ensure public safety in transiently floodable areas along the coast, where transient flooding might occur, landowners of premises within the areas will be required under section 30L to prepare a flood response plan and periodically conduct drills based on the flood response plan.
As I explained earlier, we will publish the locations of the Absolute Protection Boundaries and Protection Boundaries for each region after our studies are completed. We will do so when we have a clearer plan on the recommended coastal protection measures of the region.
To provide landowners of Prescribed Places with sufficient lead time to fulfil their obligations, PUB will endeavour to inform them of their obligations about 10 years ahead of the expected completion date. PUB will send out a First Notification to them after it has identified the indicative location of the continuous line of defence. The Second Notification will follow later to inform them of the specific coastal protection requirements, and the date by which the coastal protection measures must be in place. Landowners will have at least five years from the Second Notification to implement their measures.
We will support landowners in fulfilling their obligations by publishing a Coastal Protection Code of Practice, or “the Code” for short. PUB aims to do so later this year, ahead of issuing the First Notifications. This will guide landowners and the industry on how to fulfil their coastal protection obligations. Landowners will have the flexibility to design the coastal protection measures around their needs, as long as they comply with the requirements stipulated in the Code.
As climate science continues to evolve, we will strike a balance between having protection early and overcommitting resources. We will want to have agility and flexibility in our coastal protection plans so that solutions can be adaptive to advancing climate projections and engineering solutions.
The fifth group of amendments will confer powers to enable PUB to carry out its coastal protection functions, deter undesirable behaviours and provide immunities for officers to carry out their duties.
There will be penalties for actions that affect the continuous line of defence, and for failure to comply with a written notice from PUB. Our guiding principle for penalties is to ensure they are comparable to similar offences within the current SDA and other Acts.
The Bill will amend section 43 of the SDA to provide PUB with emergency powers of entry, if, for example, the continuous line of defence is not yet complete due to delays, or a landowner cannot be contacted to deploy the coastal protection measure. This is especially important when an imminent coastal flooding event is forecasted. As a last resort, PUB may also use the power of forced entry to enter the premises to address the coastal flood risk.
This power of forced entry will only be used judiciously, and only where there is an imminent coastal flooding event. I would like to reassure Members that we have set a high bar to activate this clause.
Similar to other Acts, to aid enforcement, the Bill will provide authorised officers with immunities under section 71 of the SDCPA so that they can confidently carry out their duties. For the immunities to apply, authorised officers need to have acted in good faith and with reasonable care in the course of their actions.
Finally, the Bill amends the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act 2021 to adopt the new definition of “coastal management” inserted in the PUA by the Bill, as well as amends section 7 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 to include coastal management and sewerage.
There are also amendments to reflect the intended scope of Subsidiary Legislation on the Waterborne Tax and the Water Conservation Tax, and to regulate activities in reservoirs and waterways.
We have engaged the public and will continue to do so as we work on our coastal protection plans. Through Our Coastal Conversations, PUB’s flagship dialogue for coastal protection, we have engaged the community, including residents, business owners, recreational and nature groups, on what they hope to see at our coastlines and what they value about our coastal spaces.
Even as PUB coordinates the overall approach for coastal protection, we will work with landowners and support them in fulfilling their obligations.
The proposed amendments to the SDA which I mentioned, will commence this year. That said, affected landowners’ legal obligations will only begin taking effect closer to early 2030s, after the Absolute Protection Boundaries and Protection Boundaries are gazetted.
Today, as we stand on the firm foundations laid by our pioneers, so too must we build the safeguards of tomorrow. By laying a strong foundation for coastal protection, we ensure that future generations inherit a resilient and liveable Singapore, on which they can build their dreams for an even better and prosperous Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, 22 years ago, the Asian Tsunami happened and took away more than 200,000 lives. For weeks, my teammates and I were flying our helicopters to and fro along the coastline between Aceh and Meulaboh, distributing food, water and medical supplies to the survivors, as part of Singapore's humanitarian disaster relief efforts.
Until today, I can still remember vividly the sight of the massive scale of death and destruction along the coast of Sumatra. We were helping those who survived but we also witnessed first-hand the final journeys of others who did not.
The tsunami was a black swan event that no one had predicted. But had there been seawalls built along the coastline, the scale and impact of destruction may have been mitigated.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I share this experience because Singapore's weather has always been uneventful. We were fortunate to be spared from this catastrophic calamity as well as other extreme climatic conditions such as typhoons and floods that often befall our closest neighbours.
But with projections of rising sea levels of up to 1.15 metres by 2100 and up to two metres by 2150, we must remember that more than 30% of Singapore's land area is less than five metres above sea level. We must do all we can to protect our homes, our beaches, our parks and our factories from tidal waves and rising sea levels. Hence, I agree with the objectives outlined in this Coastal Protection Bill.
In response to this Bill, together with fellow People's Action Party (PAP) Members Nadia Samdin, Valerie Lee, Hany Soh, Lee Hui Ying as well as Cassandra Lee, we will cover concerns related to the integrity of water-tightness, clarity of Government funding, technical support from PUB, nature-based design solutions, impact on business operations, coordination between neighbouring companies, impact on land valuation as well as information asymmetry, defects and liability upon landownership change.
Mr Deputy Speaker, most regulatory requirements stipulated in respective codes of practice, such as building code, fire code and so on, impose requirements on respective buildings or structures independently. On the other hand, the effectiveness of the coastal protection code of practice lies in the water-tightness of adjacent coastal protection measures so as to ensure a continuous line of protection against tidal waves and rising sea levels.
Up to 100 companies are estimated to be affected by this Bill. The Coastal Protection Bill requires respective landowners to own, implement, maintain and operate coastal protection measures on their land premises. The purported rationale for placing the onus on landowners – no pun intended – is because landowners understand their sites best and thus have the flexibility to select measures that best suit their needs. They can even dovetail their infrastructure design and development with coastal protection works.
As mentioned, the crux of the water-tightness of this continuous coastal protection measures lies in the integrity of the adjoining sections between two sections of seawalls or coastal protection measures. If the design and construction of individual coastal protection measure are not well-coordinated and constructed – and there could potentially be up to 100 such potential points of weakness – how can PUB ensure that when the high seas hit our shores one day, the collective assembly of multiple sections of differently designed measures can indeed withstand the forces of nature?
I do not say this in anticipation of the shirking of individual responsibility. Even if everyone plays his or her part, even if all 100 companies or landowners have the best of intentions, they may have knowledge gaps and coordination failures. There is severe information asymmetry. This is a classic collective action problem.
How can we have an integrated and cohesive approach?
An alternative model would be for PUB to undertake the design and construction for all stretches of vulnerable coastal areas, both Government and privately owned land. The Bill would provide PUB the authority to access the site, coordinate with landowners and construct the required coastal protection measures. After the coastal protection measures have been constructed, the ownership will then be novated to the landowner. The long-term responsibility of maintenance and operations will also rest with the landowners.
After all, the Government, as the largest landowner of coastlines, will be responsible for implementing coastal protection for majority of coastlines.
In terms of funding, $5 billion had been topped up in 2025 to the national Coastal and Flood Protection Fund (CFPF). The cost of construction for all coastal protection measures could be recovered from this fund.
Sir, there is a time for individual creativity and innovation, and there is a time for central coordination. Coastal protection is a candidate for the latter even if we want to harness the power of the former.
I ask the Minister to consider a centralised approach towards the design and construction of all coastal protection measures to ensure the most robust outcomes. This also allows us to leverage economies of scale, working with qualified consultants and construction companies that have a good track record and quality of work. If the protection measures are well designed and well constructed from day one, the long-term maintenance will also be less onerous and better maintained.
To be clear, the crux is this – the responsibility is private, but the good is public. We may have 100 possible points of failure. Even one point of failure can cause massive damage. Our strongest remedy, our best hope, lies in one coordinating power. That way, our little island-nation can be truly well protected against the tidal waves during extreme weather and rising sea levels for the long run.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my suggestion, I support the Coastal Protection Bill.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Coastal Protection Bill represents a landmark shift in how we defend our island nation against the slow onset threat of rising sea levels.
As a low-lying nation, we cannot afford to wait. However, as we move from planning to legislation, we must ensure that the continuous line of defence we build is not merely an engineering success, but one that is socially and fiscally responsible. Our legislative framework must also be robust enough to manage the complexities of land tenure, private sector compliance and the preservation of our national identity.
Sir, Deputy Speaker, we are told that the Government will implement most of the coastal defence measures, given its ownership of 70% of the shoreline. Private owners and lessees who hold the remaining sections will need to implement their own coastal protection measures.
Under the proposed legislation, private landowners and lessees are responsible for installing and upholding coastal protection structures. Authorities have clarified that owners will receive a minimum of 10 years' notice to carry out these works, with specific deadlines tailored to the findings and progress of individual site studies.
It appears that landowners have the autonomy to choose protection strategies that align with their specific requirements and conditions, enabling them to integrate coastal defence works into their existing and future development schedules, ensuring both flexibility and efficiency in implementation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this flexibility. I would also like to ask the Minister to give us an indication of, among the non-state entities-related owners or lessees, the number or ratio of the non-Government entities or non-Government-linked corporations who are owners and lessees, be they individuals, Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs), clubs or other non-business or non-state entities.
I also like to ask whether there are any industrial lessees who may have shorter remaining tenures from now, for example, less than 10 years. If so, how many of such companies are we looking at?
It would be a significant financial burden to ask a company with only or less than 10 or even 15 years left on their lease to invest in multimillion-dollar seawalls.
We also told that the Government will provide financial and technical support. The Minister mentioned grants.
Can the Government elaborate with some detail the financial support, that is, the grant details as well as the technical support it is giving under the new law, including the level of support? How would the packages work for multinational companies (MNCs) as well as small and medium sized companies (SMEs)? Equally, how do we ensure that the non-commercial entities are adequately supported under this Bill?
Can the Minister provide a definitive timeline for the announcement of the financial support grant framework? Will there be tiered subsidies, specifically for local SMEs who may lack the cash reserve for major Government-linked Corporations and MNCs? Will the financial support mentioned be a one-off grant at the onset or will it help SMEs and MCSTs cover the recurring costs of specialised maintenance?
Further, will the Minister also consider a framework where lease extensions are tied to coastal protection investments? We must ensure that a continuous line does not suffer from fragmented tenures.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the 10-year lead-time provided is not necessarily a short runway, but it also creates a regulatory blind spot.
What happens if a lessee fails to complete construction before giving up the lease? If a waterfront company runs into financial problems or go into liquidation and is not able to build or to complete the construction, we may also be left with a public safety risk that neighbours cannot fix alone. How will the Government intervene in such a situation?
Separately, will the Government require performance bonds from private lessees to ensure funds are available to complete the project if the state or another state-appointed entity is required to complete the works required? Further, how will liability be transferred if a plot is returned to the state midway through the 10-year notice period?
Next, under the Bill, the landowner or lessee has 10 years to complete the coastal defences requirement. How would the Government supervise and ensure timely construction commence and completion within the 10-year period? Is the Government considering implementing mandatory construction milestones? Does the PUB have step-in rights to take over any lagging project and charge the cost back to the owner before the 10-year window expires? Would there be onsite supervision by PUB to ensure project milestone completion? How do we ensure that lessees account for their lack of action or delay?
May I also ask the Government to consider appointing one or a few specialised contractors to carry out the defence projects on behalf of all the owners and lessees at a reduced price based on bulk contracts, possibly grouped in different geographical zones, where the ground conditions may be different. This will also ensure that the contractor or contractors appointed will have the right expertise, experience, common understanding of each area and also economies of scale for the lessees, for the landowners.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill mandates that landowners comply with the standard set out in the upcoming Coastal Protection Code of Practice. While this code will provide the technical blueprint for our defences, we must ensure that these structures can complement and even enhance our natural environment and heritage.
I would like to ask the Minister to clarify how the code will formalise the integration of nature-based solutions such as mangroves and hybrid revetments, and how the designation of transiently floodable areas will be utilised to preserve uninterrupted public access to our waterfronts. Will the Government consider requiring the Code of Practice to mandate a nature-first visibility assessment before landowners are permitted to resort to traditional concrete seawalls?
Mr Deputy Speaker, our coastal protection efforts must be more than just an engineering success against rising waters. Even as I expect many of the current sites affected by the Bill may already be in use for industrial and commercial purposes, if there are segments containing any significant heritage value, the Government should have appropriate heritage assessment mechanisms to decide how any such historical markers can be suitably preserved and protected.
Finally, while this Bill interacts with the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, it lacks a mandate for detailed Parliamentary reports on how the $5 billion is prioritised or expended. For greater transparency on fund usage and decision-making, I hope the Government will consider tabling an annual coastal resilience report detailing Coastal and Flood Protection Fund disbursements and progress across both public and private sectors. May I also ask how much of this Fund is being tagged for the initiatives under this Bill once passed? What is the public-private split in the expenditure? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the principles of this Bill. However, I do have some concerns regarding the implementation.
First, industrial lesses with shorter lease terms. I understand that the Government will provide financial and technical assistance to landowners, but the specific details have not yet been announced. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are many affected private lessees who currently have remaining lease terms of less than 10 years.
Given that the sea wall construction is expensive, I am concerned about whether these businesses can obtain sufficient support to ensure that their operations are not negatively affected. At the same time, I am also concerned about how to avoid businesses pulling out early due to unviable investments, thereby leaving gaps in our line of defence.
Second, project supervision and insolvency risk. While the 10-year timeline is long enough, I am concerned about how we can prevent project delays due to businesses having insufficient financial resources or going bandkrupt. I suggest that the authorities should establish progress indicators or consider implementing a performance bond system to ensure that coastal defence works can be completed on schedule.
Third, regarding natural heritage and public spaces. I am concerned with the upcoming Coastal Protection Code of Practice – how it will balance the hard engineering standards with ecological protection. I hope that the Code will adopt nature-based solutions, such as mangroves and adopt designs for transient floodable areas, ensuring that while strengthening coastal defences, the public can still continue to enjoy precious waterfront spaces.
Fourth, as we strengthen our coastal defences, we must never sacrifice kampung heritage or cultural landmarks for the sake of engineering efficiency. I suggest incorporating cultural heritage assessment into the engineering process, so that while protecting our land, we can also safeguard the collective memory of Singaporeans.
Although I have the above concerns, I support this Bill. I hope that through strict supervision, we can protect our coastline and also the long-term interests of all Singaporeans.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, climate adaptation is a marathon that requires every stakeholder to stay the course. We must ensure our framework can withstand economic fluctuations and business exits over time. By implementing tighter supervision and clearer financial safeguards now, we protect not just our coastlines but the long-term interest of all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, according to Singapore's Third National Climate Change Study, and just as what Minister Grace Fu has shared with this House earlier, Singapore's mean sea level may rise up to 1.1 metre by end-century, higher than previous estimates of one metre.
Coastal protection measures will only become increasingly relevant and critical. To me, the purport of this Bill hits the nail on the head. However, the devil is in the details.
I therefore raise several clarifications to the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment.
Firstly, the Government and Statutory Boards currently own approximately 70% of Singapore's coastal line, which leaves about 30% private-owned or leased. While PUB consulted a wide range of stakeholders for the purposes of our coastal protection plan, how extensive were its consultations with the roughly 30% of the private owners or lessors of our Singapore coastal line?
These are the specific stakeholders whose concerns and feedback must be heard. For the practicality of this Bill's proposals and our coastal protection plan ought to be guided by the said group. This is not confined to the effectiveness of the Coastal Protection Measures but also and, perhaps, more importantly, the administrations of the Code of Practice and grants, which will all go towards the success or failure of the policy's objectives.
Secondly, given that the Government will itself be implementing Coastal Protection Measures for the 70% of coastal line it owns, has PUB considered extending any economies of scale to be reaped to the private owners or lessors? In this regard, perhaps PUB could consider an \"opt-in\", at least for the implementation or installation of the Costal Protection Measures for private owners or lessors instead of requiring them to procure the same from scratch.
Thirdly, in the 10-year period for private owners and lessors to plan and implement Coastal Protection Measures, will they be required to provide progress updates to PUB? If so, how does PUB intend to ensure that the responsibility does not fall through the cracks when there is a transition in ownership or occupation by a lessor?
Lastly, speaking from the perspective of conveyancing lawyer, how does the agencies ensure that the requirements are accurately reflected during the legal requisition stage? Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Our identity as a nation is inseparable from identity as an island. We were a small coastal settlement before we were a colony and a natural harbour before we were a nation.
The Singapore River was what made us prosperous and the Straits of Malacca made us globally relevant. This is not incidental to our story. It is the whole story, and it is not unique to us either. Wherever human beings have built something lasting, they have built it near water. And today, 40% of the world's population stays within 100 kilometres of a coast. The world's most beloved cities – Shanghai, New York, Barcelona, our own Marina Bay – they sit at the meeting point of land and water. This Bill is protecting the relationship between us, our island and the sea that made it.
Mr Speaker, the decisions we make as we implement this Bill will not be felt by us, but by Singaporeans who are, today, in primary school, in their parents' arms or not yet born. Singapore's own climate scientists project sea levels around our island could rise by up to 1.15 metres by 2100, and up to two metres by the middle of the next century.
To put that in perspective, a two-metre rise would submerge most of Kallang and Marine Parade, and parts of the Central Business District as well. So, we are legislating right now for the people who will live in that world. And that is the reason I want to speak today, about what we are defending for and what we can become in the act of defending it.
I want to make two arguments: one, that how we design our coastal defences matters as much as whether we build them; and two, that what Singapore builds here has the potential to serve not just our own shores but the shores of nations across our region and in doing so, build a new pillar of Singapore's economy.
Mr Speaker, I want to begin with a question of philosophy – the design philosophy that will be embedded in the Code of Practice flowing from this Bill. The conventional framing of coastal defence is adversarial – water is the threat, infrastructure is the shield, we build the wall, we hold the line and we keep the sea at bay.
But this Bill already contains the seed of a different philosophy. It introduces concept of the transiently floodable area, a coastal zone designed to accept water periodically, rather than resist it permanently, it opens the door to designing with water rather than purely against it.
So, my question to the Minister is about execution. Will the Code of Practice merely dictate technical details, like the height of sea walls and the specifications of pumps, or will it actively incentivise developers and landowners to think about what these spaces could be for the 99% of the time that they are dry?
A transiently floodable area that is well designed becomes a park, a waterfront promenade, a community space. One that is not well designed becomes a fenced-off eyesore. And which Singapore do we want to build?
This is not a novel ambition. Some of the world's most admired cities already have shown what designing with water looks like in practice. Rotterdam has water squares, which are sunken public plazas that fill during heavy rain and function as parks and markets the rest of the time. Copenhagen has redesigned entire boulevards to channel floodwater while remaining fully functional streets. These are not compromises. They are celebrated urban transformations; places people actively want to be that also happen to function as flood management systems.
Singapore also already knows how to do this. Marina Bay is simultaneously a reservoir, a tidal barrier and one of the most iconic public spaces in Asia. We did not choose between flood defence and urban liveability. We achieved both.
The \"Long Island\" project off the East Coast, with 20 kilometres of new waterfront, is an opportunity on the same scale. The engineering case is being made. What I would ask is that the design case be made with equal ambition. Not just how do we protect this land from the sea, but what kind of coastline do we want future Singaporeans to inherit.
Designing with water does not prescribe a single solution. It is a broad philosophy that can encompass built solutions, hybrid structures or nature-based solutions. But the last category, nature-based solutions, deserve special mention because of the scientific case for it being so strong.
A 2025 study in Nature's Communication, Earth and Environment found that mangrove forests wider than 500 metres dissipate at least 75% of incoming wave energy. Coral reef restoration costs roughly one-fifteenth the per metre cost of artificial breakwaters. Singapore's own 100k Corals Initiative, launched in December of 2024, is already integrating living reefs into our coastal protection strategy. The science is clear. Nature-based solutions are, in many cases, superior to hard engineering – on cost, on performance and on liveability.
So, I would ask the Minister to let the Code of Practice embed an active design philosophy, one that goes beyond technical standards to incentivise integrated water-positive solutions, especially nature-based ones.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me turn to what I think is the most forward-looking dimension of this moment. Singapore is committing $100 billion over 100 years to coastal protection. We are building legal frameworks, engineering standards, a digital Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan and a technical Code of Practice. We are adapting polar technology for tropical conditions at Pulau Tekong. We are generating what the Centre for Climate Research Singapore describes as the world's highest resolution climate projections for Southeast Asia. We are doing all of this on a tropical island in an equatorial climate surrounded by the ecosystems – mangroves, coral reefs, tropical peat coastlines – that define coastal defence in this part of the world. No one else is doing this at this scale in this geography.
That matters because the countries that need coastal resilience expertise most urgently are not the Dutch. They are our neighbours. A landmark 2019 study in Nature Communications found that by 2050, land currently home to 300 million people will experience annual coastal flooding and five of the six most exposed nations are in Asia.
Jakarta alone has 40% of its land below sea level, with some districts sinking at 180 millimetres a year. Ho Chi Minh City already loses $1.3 billion annually to coastal flooding and the Maldives faces projected damages of up to 12.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2100.
These nations need solutions, and the dominant global expertise in coastal protection, the Dutch model, built over centuries, was designed for temperate conditions, for clay soils and North Sea storm surges. Not for tropical peat that subsides at five centimetres per year, not for monsoon hydrology and compound flooding and not for the mangroves and coral reefs that must be both engineered and ecologically sustained.
Researchers have documented what they call the impasse in transferring Dutch delta plans to Jakarta. The soils, the institutions and the ecological conditions are simply too different. The Dutch water export sector generates nearly €10 billion annually. The Bangladesh Delta Plan, the Mekong Delta Plan and the rebuilding of the City of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Dutch expertise sits at the centre of all of them. They turn centuries of national need into a global industry, and that is a model worth studying and emulating.
Singapore is positioned to do for the tropics what the Dutch did for the temperate world. We have the research infrastructure – the Earth Observatory of Singapore, the Tropical Marine Science Institute, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore – and we have the training networks.
The Singapore Cooperation Programme has trained close to 150,000 officials from over 180 countries. We host the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre and we lead on green finance through the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy and we now have, through this Bill, a legal and regulatory framework for tropical coastal protection being built from first principles. The intellectual property being developed through this programme, the engineering standards, the legal frameworks and the climate models represent enormous potential value. The question is whether Singapore captures that value or whether we simply execute the work and let others package and export it.
So, I would ask the Minister if there is a deliberate strategy to position Singapore as the global centre of excellence for tropical coastal resilience to ensure that the expertise developed through this $100 billion programme generates not just a protected coastline for Singapore but a new export industry, one that creates high-value jobs for Singaporeans and allows us to serve Jakarta, Manila, Dhaka and the small island states of the Pacific with solutions designed for their conditions.
And there is an additional dimension beyond commerce. Singapore does not exist in isolation. The SIJORI Growth Triangle – Singapore, Johor, Riau – is deeply integrated with our economy and our workforce and our daily life. Flood risk in these communities is not an abstract concern for us. Helping our immediate neighbours build resilience is straightforward in Singapore's interest. A Singapore that exports coastal resilient expertise is not being just generous; it is being strategic.
Mr Speaker, let me close where I began, with the water. Every generation of Singaporeans has wagered on this island's future. The founding generation wagered that city with no hinterland could become a nation. The generation that built our water infrastructure wagered that necessity could become self-sufficiency. Both were right. The generation now in Parliament is being asked to protect this island and the relationship with the water that made us for the generations that follow.
I believe we can do more than just protect what we have. We want future Singaporeans to look back at this moment and see a generation that designed with the water, shared what it learnt and left a coastline more alive than the one it inherited. This is a compact worth making. We are not the owners of this coastline, we are its stewards, and future generations will judge whether we kept it well.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Singapore is a land-scarce, island nation. The impact of the rising sea levels from climate change is significant. I support the Bill as it recognises the longer-term challenge that Singapore faces.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
I take care of the division of Ayer Rajah. Ayer Rajah extends across southwest of Singapore's coast. It includes the coastal areas that are home to several private businesses that, under this new legislation, must implement, operate and maintain coastal protection measures. I have spoken with some of these affected businesses at an engagement session held at Ayer Rajah Community Club earlier in February. Businesses have shared their views with me. Many are positive and cooperative. They tell me that PUB has been actively engaging them. For that, I thank PUB and the agencies.
Today, I wish to focus my remarks and suggestions on four aspects: first, the transfer and apportionment of responsibilities and liabilities upon change of ownership and in co-ownership situations; second, the cost on private businesses and support; third, the requirement of appointing a flood protection manager; and fourth, the impact on our coastal marine environment.
First, on transfer and apportionment of responsibilities and liabilities. During the engagement, one question that we had in the room was the issue of latent defects in coastal protection measures and how liability will be managed when ownership or long‑term leases change hands.
Coastal protection projects have long life-cycles. It is possible that planning and design are undertaken by one owner, while the responsibility and implementation or construction falls upon a subsequent owner. Moreover, the owner that has to upkeep the measures may not be the original owner who had planned and constructed these measures.
If defects in design or construction emerge years after completion, will the incoming owner be obliged to rectify them at their own cost or will there be a period of time after the transfer of ownership during which the new owner may seek recourse against the previous owner who carried out the works? Especially if the previous owner had received financial support from the Government to carry out those works?
Landowners will be given at least 10 years' advance notice to implement coastal protection measures. Where a transfer of lease or ownership transfer occurs within this first 10-year notice period but before the end of the timeline, and the first owner completes the planning for such a set of measures, will the subsequent owner be bound by those approved plans? If deficiencies later emerge in the plans, will the subsequent owner have recourse against the first owner? The situation becomes even more complex if the land is sold mid‑construction.
On co-ownership, the Bill imposes duties on owners and long‑term lessees of prescribed places, but it does not break down what happens where more than one person owns the land, for example where the land is held in joint tenancy or tenancy‑in‑common. There is a question as to whether, co‑owners of the same prescribed place are intended to be jointly and severally liable for compliance with the implementation, operation, maintenance and rectification obligations.
May I invite the Government to consider statutory guidance on the transfer of obligations and latent‑defect liability and the assignment of liability between co-owners.
Second, the set up of a tribunal or adjudication body to address issues at first instance. This is similar to the Strata Titles Board, which hears matters related to certain disputes arising in respect of strata titled property and orders for collective sales of property under the Land Titles (Strata) Act.
Third, model clauses addressing issues of liability for parties' adoption in agreements.
I recognise that some of the issues outlined may need to be privately addressed through commercial negotiations and it may not be feasible to legislate for many of the circumstances. However, greater clarity on how obligations and liability transfer with ownership or are apportioned will help prevent disputes and protect incoming landowners. This is particularly important in an uncertain economic climate, where policy-making must remain flexible. Further, clear allocation of risks and responsibilities would give companies and investors more certainty and therefore, greater ease in attracting financing for these coastal protection projects.
Next, implications on businesses and their opportunity, costs and support. The Government has announced that it will provide businesses affected with both technical and financial support and I appreciate that details will be disclosed at the appropriate juncture. I would like to raise a few points for consideration.
Coastal protection infrastructure often involves substantial capital expenditure. Beyond the construction of coastal defences, costs can also include studies needed to properly assess flood risk. For new landowners, such expenses will naturally be priced into land costs. The mode of grant, of disbursement, will also make a significant difference to business owners and their decision to take up coastal land.
Upfront disbursements would provide business owners with greater certainty and allay concerns around cash flow, while subsequent reimbursements may cause more hesitation amongst business owners. As for leaseholders, they would now have to consider the remaining length of their land tenures when deciding whether such investments are financially feasible. New lessees may also seek to negotiate shorter tenures to avoid the obligations under the Bill.
Higher financial support at the stage of title acquisition, whether in the form of upfront subsidies or subsequent disbursements, can help lower the financial barrier and more effectively address the cost burden on businesses. While we want to protect our coastlines, it is equally important that we continue to sustain the commercial viability of coastal properties for businesses.
Another suggestion is to view the implementation of coastal protection measures as investments. In a recent Straits Times report, it was suggested that public financing alone may not be sufficient to support all coastal works. Financial instruments, such as sustainability-linked insurance or green bonds, may allow the private sector to structure the financing for coastal protection measures as an investment rather than cost. Affected businesses sharing the same stretch of coastline could also consider coming together to get joint funding for a coastal project, with payments made based on the share of the land that they occupy.
Another model is for landowners to obtain financing and manage the design, implementation and ongoing maintenance of the coastal protection measures end‑to‑end, passing the relevant costs on to new lessees over time. With this model, ESG and sustainability funds may find it to be an attractive proposition to become coastal landowners. These approaches open the door to new streams of investment and innovative financing products. I hope the Government will explore and encourage these alternative financing avenues at an appropriate juncture.
On technical support, 70% of Singapore's coastline is state-managed. As the Government will undertake coastal protection measures for the majority of the coastline, the Ministry is likely to be best placed to identify trusted consultants and contractors for coastal protection. Will the Government consider developing a vetted panel of contractors or an accreditation scheme for private sector use?
I ask for a panel, because many business owners have shared with me that they have different needs, and some have indicated that they already have plans to construct some infrastructure over the next few years while others say that they have components that can be submerged with no issue to flood risk. So, there are specific needs and we hope that the companies can seek their own contractors and consultants when implementing the projects. I suggest that Singapore-based firms be prioritised, if we have such a list, so that public spending in this area also strengthens our local economy.
Next on flood protection manager. Some companies I have engaged with have asked about the specific responsibilities of a flood protection manager, and I would like to seek clarifications on the Government’s plans on how the scheme will be implemented.
The Bill provides for the establishment, registration and regulation of flood protection managers including the qualifications and standards a person must satisfy, and the training and assessments a person must undergo, before being appointed. How does the Government envision the training and certification pathways for flood protection managers? Will such training and accreditation be made through SkillsFuture? Will the Government consider transitional support, such as grant schemes, training credits or phased compliance, to assist smaller affected landowners and lessees who may not have the manpower or expertise to take on such operational demands?
Lastly, on the impact on our coastal marine environment. More than two-thirds of Singapore's coral reefs have been lost to coastal development and reclamation since 1960s. Our Southern Coast is home to some of our reefs and unique marine life. I ask if the Government will require affected landowners and lessees to undertake environmental impact assessments, and if there are plans for the Government to assist with mitigating some of the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the coastal protection measures. I also urge the Government to give due consideration to natural coastal protection solutions, which can safeguard our coastlines while preserving the ecosystem. In Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is a land scarce nation. The impact of rising sea levels brings long-term and real challenges. I support the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill and is committed to establishing a continuous coastal protection line to effectively address the risk brought by climate change. This Bill makes coastal protection a responsibility shared between the Government and private parties.
At a practical level, a considerable portion of the affected private owners and businesses are concentrated in the Ayer Rajah area that I serve. Therefore, in my exchanges with these businesses, I have heard more directly about the specific difficulties and considerations they face when fulfilling the relevant requirements.
What businesses are most concerned about is cost and uncertainties. Coastal protection projects often involve substantial capital expenditure, not only for the construction itself, but also for preliminary risk assessment, design and subsequent long-term maintenance and rectification. How these costs are borne and when they are invested will directly affect businesses' investment decisions regarding the coastal areas. Especially for lessees, they must also weigh the relationship between lease tenure and investment recovery, otherwise they may face situations where huge investments are made, but very difficult to recoup.
Another key issue is the continuity and allocation of responsibilities. Coastal protection projects have long cycles and may be completed by different owners in phases. When ownership or leases are transferred during the process, how responsibilities transfer accordingly and who bears the responsibility if problems emerge in the past design or construction remain uncertain. If clear rules are lacking, businesses will face higher risks during transaction or financing and may therefore become more conservative, affecting their overall investment willingness.
Against this backdrop, clearer institutional arrangements are particularly important. Clear allocation of responsibilities and risks not only help reduce disputes, but also provides businesses and investors with greater certainty, making it easier to obtain financing support.
At the same time, I also believe the Government can play a greater coordinating role. For example, integrating resources to form a list of professional consultants and contractors for industry reference to reduce cost and uncertainties for businesses when selecting professional capabilities and improve overall project quality.
I also suggest that when formulating relevant lists, priorities should be given to capable Singapore companies so public resources can create positive cycles in the local economy and further drive the development of local professional capabilities.
In terms of the manpower, the \"flood protection manager system\" is necessary. Businesses are also concerned about specific implementation matters, including training, certification and compliance's cost. For SMEs, there need to be corresponding transitional and support measures to ensure policies can be smoothly implemented.
Finally, while addressing coastal protection, we must also consider the ecological environment. Our country has lost about two-thirds of its coral reefs since the 1960s, while existing ones mainly distributed in the Southern waters. I urge the Government to strengthen environment impact assessments when implementing projects and adopt nature-based solutions to enhance coastal protection capabilities while protecting our marine ecosystem.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small-island nation, the dangers of rising sea levels to us are real. By the year 2100, sea levels would have risen to 1.15 metres, possibly surging to five metres during weather events. This is higher than more than 30% of Singapore.
Smaller island-nations, such as Tuvalu and Kiribati have had to make plans for relocation of their population. We are fortunate and lucky to be larger. But fail to plan, plan to fail – our future generations may one day face the prospect of having to leave our island. I thus support this Bill as it makes the preparations we need to stay on the map, even into the next century.
I have three areas of clarifications.
First, our coastal protection requires us to build a continuous line of defence. This means implementation must be consistent and well-integrated. However, under this Bill, the responsibility is decentralised to individual landowners. Each may take a different approach to comply with the Bill. Responsible landowners would invest heavily in constructing their coastal defences, but some may choose to minimise costs, especially if they are on a temporary lease.
Will the Code of conduct provide sufficient guidance to promote consistent implementation between landowners? Or will PUB act as an overall coordinator to pre-approve coastal defence plans? Would it be more efficient for the Government to build maybe the entire coastal defence line and then seek reimbursement from landowners?
The Bill makes reference to implementing coastal management via nature-based solutions. This is ideal as nature-based solutions bring added benefits, such as preserving biodiversity and reducing emissions. How will we encourage landowners to adopt nature-based solutions? These could be more difficult to set up and integrate in a continuous defence line. Will there be technical guidance to help them integrate nature-based solutions with other coastal management features?
Second, how will we manage the smooth implementation of this Bill over such a long timeframe? Over 10 years, and surely by the year 2100, we can expect that landowners, lessees and personnel have gone through various changes. Effective handover of knowledge is crucial for these measures to be effective.
Will PUB set guidelines or conditions for the handover of technical knowledge to new landowners or lessees to preserve critical technical knowledge of privately-built coastal defences during transitions? Can critical data be centrally stored in the Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan, so that new owners, or even the Government, can step in where needed?
It is also important to stay accountable and be accountable for financial support that we provide over such a long period. How will the use of the grants be tracked over this period to ensure funds are properly deployed to coastal protection? What happens if landowners receive the grant and then liquidate or sell the property during the 10-year term?
Lastly, we must strike a difficult balance between building resilience for the future and succeeding in the present. Coastal landowners are those in key strategic sectors, such as shipping and energy. Singapore's future also requires that they can stay competitive in the global economy.
Constructing and maintaining coastal protections is a costly responsibility. In-depth studies and top-quality workmanship are needed to build effective defences. After construction, the coastal defences also need constant maintenance from sea erosion damage. Has the Government assessed how this Bill will affect business competitiveness for our coastal landowners?
Like the seas, businesses have its high and low tides. What happens to maintenance when coastal landowners face difficult market conditions or short-term liquidity challenges? Do we have contingency plans in place to provide support? Otherwise, we might not only have poorly maintained structures, but possibly lose valuable businesses. Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As a small-island nation, rising sea levels pose a real threat to Singapore. By 2100, sea levels are projected to rise to 1.15 metres, and during extreme weather, could even surge to five metres. This is already higher than over 30% of Singapore's land. Some smaller island-nations have already had to plan to relocate their citizens. If we do not plan early, our descendants may one day also face a situation of having to leave this island. Therefore, I support this Bill.
There are three things that I would like to raise.
First, our coastal protection needs to establish a continuous line of defence. This implementation process must remain consistent and highly integrated. I would like to ask, can the Coastal Protection Code of Practice provide sufficient guidance to encourage different landowners to implement consistently, or will PUB serve as an overall coordinator, pre-approving relevant coastal protection plans?
Second, how do we ensure that this Bill can be smoothly implemented over such a long period of time? Financial support over such a long duration also needs to ensure there is proper accountability. How can we track the use of funding during this period to ensure that funds are properly used for coastal protection?
Finally, we must strike a difficult balance between preparing for the future and immediate needs. Building and maintaining coastal protection facilities is an expensive responsibility. Once built, these facilities will still need maintenance to cope with erosive damages from sea water. When coastal landowners face difficult market conditions or short-term cash flow challenges, how should maintenance work continue?
(In English): Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support for the smooth sailing implementation of this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): I would like to declare my interest as an employee with a company that owns and operates assets along the coastlines. Speaker, as an island-nation, the sea has always shaped our geography, our history, it will also shape our future.
Today, as we debate the Coastal Protection Bill, we recognise a simple truth: rising sea levels and intensifying weather patterns are no longer distant projections, but real risks that require serious and long-term action.
When close to 30% of our island lies less than five metres above mean sea level, the need to strengthen our coastal resilience is clear. But our shorelines are not empty edges of the land. They host critical infrastructures and industries, keeping our nation alive economically and quite literally, including ports, petrochemical facilities, aviation infrastructure, logistics hubs and energy installations.
These coastal areas are part of our arteries and veins, sustaining us in our part of the world. And they provide thousands of jobs for our Singaporeans. I am sure we can all agree that coastal protection is necessary. The question before us is not whether we protect our coastlines, but how we ensure that implementation is effective, coordinated and sustainable over the long term.
As we move forward, it is therefore important that we consider how responsibilities and resources are allocated between the state, industries that operate along the coast and future generations – in a way that remains fair and economically sound.
With this, Speaker, I have a few clarifications to seek, centred around three themes: first, the scope of funding; second, implementation; and third, coordination efforts.
Under clause 13 of the Bill, landowners are obligated to ensure that there is at all times a coastal protection measure for the prescribed place that meets the coastal protection measures standards. It was reported that coastal protection site-specific study for the City-East Coast region, including areas, such as East Coast Park, began in 2021 and cost $18 million.
Naturally, we expect that studying and erecting sophisticated measures of a high standard will involve significant time and costs. I will like to ask broadly, whether the Ministry will consider centralising all expenditures, so that costs spillovers to consumers are well-managed, measured and not in the hands of commercial entities?
Notwithstanding, I understand that the Ministry intends to provide financial support in the form of a capital grant. May I ask the Minister to clarify the scope and extent of the capital grant?
While capital expenditure for the initial construction of coastal protection measures may be supported, coastal protection is not a one-time investment. Over time, these measures will erode, require upgrades and incur ongoing operational and maintenance costs. Will the Ministry consider whether support could extend to such incremental lifecycle costs, given that these measures ultimately contribute to national resilience?
In addition, some coastal sites host critical national infrastructure, such as power generation facilities or maritime installations. In such cases, will funding support be coordinated across the relevant Ministries, so that coastal protection for these strategic assets can be approached as a whole-of-Government effort, rather than solely through the landowners' framework?
Sir, coastal protection measures are often large in scale and can involve substantial construction activity, including sheet-piling, deep soil mixing and ground improvement works. They may include elevating land, implementing polder systems and constructing floodgates or seawalls.
Such works can involve substantial construction activity, including sheet piling, deep soil mixing and ground improvement works. For coastal industrial sites, these works may take place within or near operating critical infrastructure. For instance, certain power generation facilities rely on seawater intake systems and are located close to the shoreline. Construction activities in the vicinity may carry risks of operational disruption if not carefully coordinated.
In this regard, may I ask whether the Ministry has considered how such risks will be managed? Would the Minister agree that coordination with the relevant agencies should not be left solely to the affected businesses or landowners and a single point of contact will be useful. Given the potential implications for essential services, a whole-of-Government coordination effort may be necessary, involving the relevant sectoral agencies alongside the implementing authorities.
Further, under the amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act, notifications will be issued to landowners. Could the Minister clarify what level of detail these notices will contain? In the initial batch of notices, will they indicate only general areas where measures are required or will they provide more precise specifications? Greater clarity at that early stage would help stakeholders plan investments and align their implementation timelines more effectively.
Sir, I earlier spoke about coordination between private companies and the Government. I would now like to ask about coordination between neighbouring landowners. Under the proposed new section 30G of the Sewerage and Drainage Act, landowners and long-term lessees of coastal land must ensure that their coastal protection measures connect seamlessly with those on adjacent plots.
While the intent of ensuring a continuous line of defence is very clear, implementation may not always be straightforward. In industrial clusters such as Jurong Island or Tuas, companies operate facilities with very different operational requirements and site configurations.
Left purely to neighbouring parties, coordination may become complex. Differences could arise over design choices, implementation timelines or cost allocation, and these issues may have knock-on effects on the integrity of the overall coastal defence line.
More broadly, coastal protection along an industrial coastline often involves inter-dependencies across multiple sites, not just between two neighbouring plots. How will the Ministry ensure that coordination occurs at the system level, so that the resulting infrastructure forms a coherent and effective defence rather than a series of fragmented measures?
Sir, coastal protection is not optional. It is essential national infrastructure. Much like our water systems, power grids and transport networks, protecting Singapore's coastline ultimately requires a coordinated, system-wide approach. The resilience of our coast should not depend on isolated pockets of protection, but on a continuous and well-planned defence of the entire shoreline. With these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill and I look forward to the Minister's response.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I rise in support of the Coastal Protection Bill.
As an island city-state, our proximity and access to the sea is an important part of our identity. Along our shores are where many Singaporeans first learn to cycle, sail, fish, barbecue with family, dive or simply watch the sunset. For me, the coast is also where my husband and I enjoy slowing down with my son when time permits – pointing out boats along our shores.
Our coasts also support a wide range of activities and livelihoods: from sustaining trade to aquaculture and the protection of coastal habitats, such as mangroves and coral reefs. As climate change intensifies and Singapore strengthens coastal protection, these measures will inevitably shape our coastal environments and the people connected to them.
This Bill is an important step in ensuring that our shores remain safe, healthy and accessible for generations to come. Coastal protection, however, is technically complex and I am heartened that the Ministry and PUB have developed a nuanced plan that recognises the differing needs of stakeholders.
Sir, the Government will implement most of the coastal protection measures and the remaining coastline is occupied by private landowners and lessees. Naturally, their interests may be more site-specific than system-wide and there may arise situations where a landowner implements a more modest measure, whereas integrated coastal defence requires more comprehensive works.
Could the Ministry share how PUB will guide and support landowners to take a holistic and long-term approach to coastal protection, rather than prioritising lowest-cost or short-term retrofits? Given that climate projections and requirements may evolve over time, could the Ministry also share how the Coastal Protection Code of Practice will be periodically updated, and how landowners will be supported if future standards require upgrades to earlier works?
I would also like to ask if the Ministry will consider including in its Code of Practice an encouragement and prioritisation for hybrid nature-based solutions that meet the technical requirements? In some parts of the world, coastal protection has successfully taken on an integrated approach that can attenuate wave energy, enhance biodiversity and in some cases even create usable public spaces alongside protection works. For example, sponge cities in Denmark and China or living shorelines in America.
Sir, water does not respect boundaries. Beyond individual sites, coastal protection also operates as a connected system which the Minister has emphasised. The Bill rightly requires continuity along the adjacent land parcels. Could the Ministry please elaborate how PUB will support the coordination, so that the overall coastal system functions cohesively? In the event there are differing timelines or approaches adopted by the neighbouring landowners, what mechanisms will PUB have to step in and ensure timely alignment so that gaps do not emerge so as to avoid implementation risks?
This need for continuity also extends over time beyond the parcels, as land ownership may change. The Bill allows for up to 10 years for owners to implement measures, which is helpful for long-term planning and coordination. However, there may be instances where land ownership changes during this period. Could the Ministry clarify how continuity of planning and coordination with new owners will be ensured if and when coastal land changes ownership after the protection requirements or boundaries have been designated? Has the Ministry considered how many such parcels have changed hands over the past 10 or 20 years?
Given these coordination and implementation complexities, support for landowners will be important. I therefore appreciate the technical expertise, planning coordination and financial assistance the Government will provide. As investment costs may be significant, it would be helpful if the Ministry could outline a little bit more, the financial and technical support available over the years, so as to provide greater assurance to landowners during implementation and more importantly for maintenance in the years to come as such measures will need to remain robust and effective?
Sir, coastal protection is a collective responsibility across Government, landowners and the wider community. We inherited a coastline shaped with foresight, and it is our responsibility now to safeguard the shores that support livelihoods, leisure and our connection to the sea. In doing so, we ensure that future generations will continue to know Singapore not only as a global city, but also as an island home that will endure and thrive in the face of climate change.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Waves roll by the shore,
Sea breeze greets the morning light,
Coastlines guarded more and more,
For future generations' sight.
(In English): Thank you, Sir. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Members for their support and comments on the Bill. Many Members have given very good suggestions, have been very encouraging, I would say. Some even calling the Bill a strategic one, not just for the protection of Singapore's coastline but also as a new area of growth, new possibilities of jobs for Singaporeans. Indeed, we are very hopeful that coastal protection will be an area where Singapore, being a frontrunner, will be able to accumulate the expertise and experience that can then be useful to other countries and other cities.
Allow me to run through the queries and concerns raised by Members, which I will address in five broad themes.
First, on who should be responsible for coastal protection. Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked if the Government should instead implement coastal protection on behalf of landowners, to maximise efficiency and coordination.
Fundamentally, landowners should be responsible for the coastal protection measures on their land. This will allow for the optimisation of the very scarce and precious land that we have. Having the Government centrally implement solutions will be sub-optimal, since it may not be feasible to account for every landowner's unique needs and timelines. Landowners are most familiar with their sites and are better placed to implement coastal protection measures that best meet their business needs. Indeed, in our engagements, landowners expressed concern on the potential disruptions when enacting the coastal protection measures and wanted flexibility to dovetail coastal protection works with their redevelopment plans and business cycles.
Centralised specialised measures, like the barriers we are proposing for the Greater Southern Waterfront or the reclaimed \"Long Island\", are also not always relevant to the land uses in the region nor cost effective. That said, we will facilitate the process as much as possible.
For the companies that lease industrial land from JTC, actually this is the vast majority of the private landowners, PUB is working closely with JTC to explore a centralised procurement model, as well as other options that can support JTC's lessees in fulfilling their coastal protection obligations.
The responsibility for coastal protection will apply only to landowners of Prescribed Places. Ms Nadia Samdin asked if we would charge landowners who will be protected by centralised coastal protection schemes, such as the coastal barriers at the Greater Southern Waterfront. We will not be recovering the cost of these measures from the landowners, just like how we are not imposing any costs on inland landowners. These costs will be borne by the Government, who will own, implement and operate the coastal barriers.
We will gazette the Absolute Protection Boundaries in Subsidiary Legislation and publish it in the Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan, which would be discoverable during legal conveyancing.
These efforts would help address Ms Nadia Samdin's and Ms Hany Soh's as well Ms Poh Li San's points on ensuring that there is no information asymmetry and that coastal protection obligations do not fall through the cracks in the event of a change in land ownership. In addition, ahead of the formal gazetting, PUB will work towards publishing the indicative locations of the Absolute Protection Boundaries and the Protection Boundaries in the public domain, so that prospective lessees and landowners will be aware of their potential obligations.
Ms Cassandra Lee also asked about liabilities and responsibilities arising from the transfer of land ownership. Our principle is that landowners will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the coastal protection measures on their land. When there is a transfer of ownership, the transfer of liability is no different from when property changes hands today. In addition, the previous landowner would have had to engage a Qualified Person to certify that the structure is up to standard, before PUB approves it as a coastal protection measure. Landowners would also have to regularly inspect and maintain any coastal protection measures they have, according to PUB's standards.
Ms Cassandra Lee had questions on what happens if there are multiple owners, and what their respective obligations would be. Under the new section 2D of the Bill, the Government will make clear in regulations whether the lessor or the lessee is considered for the relevant coastal protection obligations. On the separate question of co-ownership, I would like to inform Ms Lee that we do not currently have any such cases. However, should this scenario arise, co-owners will each be responsible for coastal protection obligations.
The second set of questions covers how PUB will play a coordinating role among landowners, especially when the coastal protection measures must join up to form this continuous line of defence. Ms Lee Hui Ying spoke about the importance of preserving critical knowledge of the coastal protection measures, as land may change hands. I agree with her. Under the Bill, landowners will need to submit relevant reports and drawings, including as-built drawings and maintenance reports, to PUB.
PUB will also keep records of the reports and drawings, and can require a transfer of the records to the incoming landowner when there is a change in land ownership.
Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Nadia Samdin, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about the challenges on the ground for landowners and how PUB would facilitate coordination so that measures are connected and water-tight. I would like to assure Members that PUB will facilitate coordination among affected landowners during the planning and implementation stages. The Bill has provided for this coordination role. Section 30G allows PUB to provide as-built drawings or plans of the neighbouring plot to a landowner, if necessary, to ensure that the connection is effected.
PUB aims to publish the Coastal Protection Code of Practice, as I mentioned earlier in the speech. This Code of Practice will be published later this year. It will set out the baseline planning, design, operation and maintenance requirements for landowners' compliance. It will also spell out what landowners need to take note of when connecting their measures, such as designing for water-tightness.
Where necessary, PUB will use its enforcement powers to ensure the continuous line of defence is not compromised. This includes the scenario that Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about, for companies who face short-term liquidity challenges and are unable to maintain their coastal protection measures, or even non-compliant landowners who fail to fulfil their coastal protection responsibilities.
First, PUB has power under sections 41 and 44 to step in and undertake maintenance and repair works to ensure the functionality of the continuous line of defence and to recover the cost as necessary from the landowner subsequently.
Second, PUB has powers of forced entry, which we will use in the scenario when there is an imminent coastal flood, but the landowner does not have a fully implemented coastal protection measure in place and is unresponsive or uncontactable, notwithstanding efforts to contact them. When activating such powers of forced entry, PUB officers will be required to seek PUB senior management's approval before proceeding with forced entry into these premises.
PUB will do so to either activate a deployable measure or put in place an interim measure. This would only be used as a last resort when the officers have exhausted all other available options, including the deployment of measures outside of the premises. It is vital for PUB to have the forced entry power in such a scenario, to join up the continuous line of defence and ensure public safety and protect assets.
Third, on funding support. Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Nadia Samdin asked if maintenance of coastal protection measures will be funded through the grant. We are still working out the grant details, and more information will be released when ready.
The intent of the grant is to fund the necessary costs of putting in place the coastal protection measure. We have assessed that the maintenance required of measures such as seawalls and revetments are minimal, and that this would not be substantially different from how landowners might maintain their existing seawalls and revetments today.
Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked how the grant will be tracked and how it will account for changes in landownership. We are considering reimbursing the landowner in tranches. This would allow us to monitor the progress of works. Should there be a change in landownership before the completion date, the new landowner has the option of using the previous set of plans or submitting a fresh set of plans to PUB for approval.
Next, on preparing the industry. We are ramping up efforts to prepare the local industry as we embark on coastal protection. There are two main groups here – the consultants and the construction contractors that will put in place the coastal protection measures and the flood protection managers that will assist the landowner with meeting the coastal protection requirements.
On the issue of capability building, Ms Cassanda Lee asked if we would consider developing a list of contractors that landowners can engage. I believe Mr Dennis Tan made the same point.
PUB currently does not have any plans to maintain a list of pre-approved contractors. The coastal protection measures that landowners need to implement are unlikely to be significantly different from the seawalls, revetments or embankments that are seen in Singapore today. We are surrounded by sea and we have coastal protection measures today. Coastal landowners would likely be familiar with contractors involved in such works.
To Ms Nadia Samdin's point on how we will encourage landowners to take a long-term view during implementation, the Code of Practice will provide a set of minimum standards covering planning, design, operation and maintenance of coastal protection measures to ensure our continuous line of defence is sufficiently robust.
Landowners are also required to seek PUB's approval for their plans before construction. So, there is some quality checks on the part of PUB. This is when PUB can assess if the measure is sufficiently designed while keeping the longer-term needs in mind.
In my opening speech, I have also explained that the Code and what we are planning will also be updated in time to come, because we are continuously, regularly refining our projections on sea level rise, on storm surges and also, at the same time, researching into new engineering solutions, new technology that can help us. The Code will not be something that is fixed in time. I am sure we will review and we will update it over time.
We agree with Ms Cassandra Lee on the importance of flood protection managers. The intent of appointing flood protection managers is to have trained personnel who can assist landowners in fulfilling their coastal protection obligations such as inspecting and maintaining the measures. To ensure the flood protection managers are well positioned for their roles, we will work with professional bodies and industry associations to run training courses and accreditation. We will release details in due course.
The last group of questions relates to the impact to the environment. Very important questions, and I am sure many groups of nature lovers as well as members of the public, local community groups will also be keen to know how the coastlines will be affected by coastal protection measures.
Indeed, we placed a lot of emphasis in upfront site studies, in engagement, in listening very closely, in discussing, in to and fro exchange of ideas with relevant groups so that we can come together to agree on a set of workable designs. That is done at the site-specific study level.
Ms Cassandra Lee also asked whether environmental impact assessments will be required. We would like to assure the Member that coastal protection works in or near sensitive areas or that have potential transboundary impact will need to undergo in-depth consultation with technical agencies on the site's potential ecological and biodiversity value. If there is potentially significant environmental impact, agencies will require an environmental study to assess the full impact of the works and develop more extensive mitigation measures. PUB will have to conform and work within the EIA framework.
Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms Nadia Samdin, as well as Mr Andre Low, as well as Mr Dennis Tan, asked how we will encourage landowners to adopt nature-based solutions or to maintain some of their heritage value and whether there will be any technical guidance.
During our site-specific studies, we engage the community and nature groups to determine the location of the measures to preserve and encourage biodiversity where possible, including, for example, whether the continuous line of defence can be set behind mangroves to minimise the impact to them. This was done as part of PUB's \"Coastal Conversations\" for the Sungei Buloh area, for example.
So, my point is, the consideration for the environment, for the conservation of nature and the protection of biodiversity is done at the site study stage. When that is done, after consulting all relevant stakeholders, after arriving at the solution that we think is optimal, that itself will be developed into detailed requirements for the prescribed places, to be in the interpretation plan and to be gazetted.
So, by the time that the landowner receives specific requirements in their second notification, the consideration is already done. We would have moved back from protected area. The line would have been drawn behind and therefore, impacting the owners.
What the owners could do will be limited as far as environmental protection and consideration is concerned, although there are some considerations when it comes to using environmentally friendly, hybrid solutions, which over time, we hope to include in our Code of Practice that the landowners can then include in their specific sites.
This Bill does not dictate the site-specific study process. We will follow the prevailing EIA framework. Landowners have the flexibility to determine the coastal protection measures that best meet their land needs.
As part of the Coastal Protection and Flood Management Research Programme, there is ongoing research to assess the efficacy of hybrid nature-based solutions for coastal protection. Where applicable, these nature-based solutions will be shared in future editions of the Code of Practice.
I would just like to also repeat what Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan had said in the Committee of Supply, that we are going to publish a guidebook that is called the Flood Resilient Developments Guidebook, that is developed through an Alliance for Action on how we can incorporate some of these design elements. This guide will allow the landowners to have a collection of references that may be easier for them to consider as they carry out their works. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Coastal protection is crucial as it affects our daily lives and safety. The Coastal Protection Bill will help Singapore establish a continuous line of defence along coastal areas to resist threats from rising sea levels, protecting our people, assets and livelihoods.
After the Bill is passed, landowners can choose measures that adapt to local conditions and adopt appropriate coastal protection measures according to their organisational needs.
As a regulatory authority, PUB will gazette the scope of the \"Absolute Protection Boundaries\" and \"Protection Boundaries\" to demarcate Prescribed Places. PUB will also ensure that coastal protection measures of adjoining sections can be properly connected. We will engage landowners and coordinate among them to ensure that they work closely together to adopt appropriate measures.
PUB will also provide technical advice and grants to assist them in fulfilling their coastal protection obligations. We appreciate all the suggestions made by our Members on how to better support the landowners. We will give them careful consideration.
The collective efforts currently made by coastal landowners for protection of the coast will lay a solid foundation for our country's coastal protection and benefit future generations. The Government will work together with the people to address rising sea levels due to climate change, implement long-term coastal protection measures and jointly build a more resilient, safe and prosperous Singapore.
(In English): Mr Speaker, coastal protection is a long-term endeavour to protect our people, assets and livelihoods. Coastal protection is not a burden that reduces business competitiveness. Rather, it is an investment to ensure business continuity in a world where climate risks will become more apparent.
In fact, as Mr Andre Low has alluded to and explained so passionately, there could be new opportunities generated for us as we build up expertise and experience in coastal protection.
This Bill lays the foundation to ensure a continuous line of defence that will protect Singapore against sea level rise for the next 50, 100 years and more. Together, we will work together for a more resilient and prosperous Singapore amidst the rising seas. Mr Speaker, I seek to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Clarifications for the Minister? Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San: Thank you, Speaker and thank you, Minister, for your closing speech. I have two clarifications.
First one, in clause 30G, it was mentioned that the new section in this clause provides for the owner the obligation for connecting the coastal protection measure for its prescribed place, to the coastal protection measure for an adjacent prescribed place.
As highlighted earlier in my speech, the crux of the problem is really the water tightness of the protection measure. In the event of a compromised measure due to the failure at the interface, would there then be a penalty meted out to the original landowner or on his neighbour? That is the first clarification.
The second one is, Minister also mentioned that penalties will be metered out to landowners who compromise the continuous coastline of defence. PUB will force-enter or take over the works, especially in the event of imminent flooding events.
My question is, if it is something that is quite an extreme weather, like a tidal wave that is expected to hit in the next hour or so, will PUB then be able to respond in time, put in some kind of temporary barriers?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The first question on responsibility, it will have to lie with the landowner that has executed the work. Of course, we will have to look at the facts of the case, whether it is due to the design or an implementation error, or is it due to maintenance errors.
If I were to put in principle, we are looking at responsible decisions made by the landowner. If you are the later one that is joining to one that is already been built, it is your responsibility to ensure that there is connection and that the connection is water-tight.
The second question is on imminent flooding. It is a very important one. What we have in mind is not activate this preparedness or this preparation an hour before a flood arrives. We are investing a lot into the ability to forecast. And we hope that we are able to forecast days in advance. If we have days in advance, we could go around to look at areas where we can give advance notice to owners. Landowners could then put up some of their temporary or some of their defence. They can check, make sure that all the coastal protection measures are in place and working as they are intended to.
But if we are really unable to contact them, we will have some standard operating procedures – x number of hours from the expected time of arrival of the weather event, PUB will then have to execute.
And if they are unable to contact the landowner by a certain time and they have to access, they have no alternative except to enter the premises to erect some of these measures, then they have to seek the approval from their senior management and they will have enough time to erect temporary measures and interim measures.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister as well. I have just two points, mainly related to the site-specific studies, as it appears that this is a very key part of the process, and I am not sure if I missed it. First, in the event there are differing timelines or approaches adopted by neighbouring landowners, given that each measure will really depend on the site, what is the formal mechanism that PUB has to step in and ensure that there is alignment across implementation? That was the first question.
The second is, how will interested groups and members of the public be made aware about the timing of these site-specific studies and is there any opportunities for citizen scientists to get involved? Because I appreciate the Minister's assurances that nature will be well considered and integrated, but for nature-based solutions, these have to be very intentionally designed and woven in as part of the process.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Indeed so, Mr Speaker. We place a lot of emphasis on engaging the community, the local community. Earlier on, Ms Cassandra Lee talked about how businesses in her constituency have been consulted – that is really a reflection of the amount of effort and work that PUB colleagues have put in to reach out, to contact and to meet up and to have deep discussions about the obligations and the options.
Similarly, we have done so as we move from region to region, conducting site-specific studies, engaging local community, local businesses as well as nature groups, different nature groups, from those that are interested in plant materials to those who are interested in corals, we want to reach out as widely as possible.
Having done so over the last few years, I think we have created a good network among interested parties. And the stakeholders, important stakeholders have come forward and participated fully in the process, moving from region to region, as we finish one, we move onto another one.
You have seen the design reflecting the collective thinking on what is optimal for the country. So, where it is possible, we build tidal gates at the coastal area in Sentosa, in Keppel Bay, so that we can keep the coastline as pleasant as it is now. We can keep the movements of boats and also we can minimise the impact on the maritime environment.
At the same time, we have also moved back the boundary lines in some cases, allowing some transient flooding to occur at Sungei Buloh, really after having long discussions. Because I think the nature groups, having done these extensive discussions with us for many sessions, going through the options deeply, they understand also. If Singapore is flooded, it is difficult for us to protect other things around us. So, we also need to have some boundary, and so the Absolute Protection Boundary is set after due consideration. Where would be the appropriate line to be drawn so that we minimise the impact on the environment, so we maximise the protection of properties and lives – because that is the trade off that we are balancing. We want to be friendly to the environment, but at the same time we have to ensure that that is still an absolute boundary that is absolutely critical, crucial for the protection of our properties, our homes, our cars, our businesses and our lives.
Trade-offs have to be made, it is not an easy process, but we have done so already with many groups over several rounds, and we believe that we have come to a process that is useful for all parties, all parties – Government, people, users, sports users, recreation users, environmental activists – to come to a compromised position.
Mr Speaker: I believe all the clarification questions have been addressed.
[(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 Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (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":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, the Motion everyone has been waiting for.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Let me wish everyone a good weekend ahead. And to all our women Parliamentarians, \"Happy International Women's Day\" on Sunday. Order, order. [Applause.]
Adjourned accordingly at 4.53 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tuberculosis Patients Who Have sought Financial Assistance to Cover Travel Expenses and Lost Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"9 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there have been any tuberculosis patients who have sought financial assistance to cover travel expenses and lost income to complete Directly Observed Therapy; and (b) if so, what aid schemes are available to such patients.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Patients with tuberculosis (TB) can seek financial assistance to cover travel expenses and lost income related to completing Directly Observed Therapy (DOT), through the Medical Social Workers (MSWs) at the National Tuberculosis Care Centre and polyclinics.
Eligible residents may receive support through Government financial assistance schemes, such as MediFund, ComCare's Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance and the Agency for Integrated Care's long-term care scheme. In addition, the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association CommHealth's DOT and Shop scheme provides grocery vouchers and transport allowances to eligible individuals to promote adherence. TB treatment is also heavily subsidised for residents.
We are progressively adopting a risk-based approach, where patients who have demonstrated good adherence can transition to Video Observed Therapy or reduced frequency of DOT.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Crossing Designs at Intersections with Heavy Multimodal Traffic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider piloting or sandboxing alternative crossing designs, such as pedestrian scramble crossings, at intersections with heavy multimodal traffic; and (b) whether existing crossing standards are being reviewed to address increasing interaction between pedestrians and active mobility users in high-footfall areas.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) pilots and implements alternative crossing designs where appropriate. For example, LTA implemented a scrambled crossing at the junction of Robinson Road/Boon Tat Street, where there is high demand for pedestrians to cross diagonally and limited impact on traffic. However, the scope for implementing such crossings is limited.
Where feasible, crossings are widened to accommodate dedicated crossings for pedestrians and active mobility users, such as at Market Street and East Coast Road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lighting Designs for Shared Paths to Ensure Adequate Night-time Lighting for Tree Canopy Growth and Differentiation at Zones with Heavier Pedestrian and Active Mobility Traffic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"11 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport in respect of shared paths for pedestrians, cyclists and personal mobility aid users (a) how the Ministry balances the need for adequate night-time lighting with maintaining tree canopy and shade for daytime active mobility; and (b) whether lighting standards or design requirements are differentiated in high-conflict zones with heavier pedestrian and active mobility traffic.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Lighting for cycling paths at potential conflict areas, such as sharp bends and intersections with other paths, need to be twice the brightness of other cycling paths. Features such as \"SLOW\" markings, speed regulating strips and \"Give Way to Pedestrians\" signs also encourage users to slow down.
Guidelines are in place to ensure that the plantings along streets do not affect cycling path lighting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Wider Use for SG Culture Pass for Purchasing SingLit Books","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"12 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry will consider a wider literary use for the SG Culture Pass; and (b) whether it will further introduce an annual \"Literary Pass\" with credits to specifically purchase Singapore literature (SingLit) books to support Singaporean authors and the local literary scene.
Mr David Neo: To further broaden the reach and impact of the SG Culture Pass and to encourage Singaporeans to engage more deeply with Singapore literature, or Sing Lit for short, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) has expanded the Culture Pass scheme to include local literary works from 1 March 2026.
Since 1 March, Singaporeans have been able to use their SG Culture Pass credits to purchase physical books from participating bookstores across the island. Eligible titles include fiction, poetry, plays and literary short essays in English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, authored by a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident at the point of publication. MCCY will take into account the response and feedback from this first phase in considering other literary works that could be purchased with Culture Pass credits in the future.
There are currently no plans to introduce a separate credit scheme to encourage the purchase of Sing Lit books, as this can already be done with Culture Pass credits. MCCY and NAC will continue to support and invest in the broader literary ecosystem, which includes nurturing Singaporean literary practitioners through capacity building programmes and growing audiences for Sing Lit at major literary events, such as the Singapore Writers Festival.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Letters of Support from MUIS to Hold Night Prayers during Ramadan at Qaryah Community Group Venues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in the past 10 years (a) what are the requirements for letters of support from MUIS to hold tarawih or night prayers performed during Ramadan at qaryah community group venues; (b) how many applications for such letters have been from the People's Association (PA) or other organisations and individuals; and (c) what is the success rate of applications by those unaffiliated with the PA.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Qaryahs are ground-up groups that organise social and religious activities for our Muslim community, such as congregational Tarawih prayers at community venues.
To receive the Letter of Support to organise Tarawih Prayers, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) requires Qaryahs to be affiliated with a mosque. This is to allow our mosques to guide Qaryahs on the relevant religious and operational requirements. For instance, prayers must be conducted by a qualified religious teacher and funds collected must be properly safe guarded.
Qaryah representatives make applications for the Letter of Support directly to MUIS. While 10-year data is unavailable, all applications to MUIS in the last three years have been successful.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress and Budget Updates on AquaPolis Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether an update on the AquaPolis programme with details on the progress, status and utilisation of budget allocated can be shared; (b) whether the programme has pledged to support the fish farming industry's fingerling supply; (c) if so, whether the programme has delivered its pledge; and (d) if not, why the programme has not delivered.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: AquaPolis was established by the Singapore Food Agency, the National University of Singapore and Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory. It brings together researchers and industry players to drive innovation, develop talent and speed up the use of new technologies for Singapore's aquaculture sector.
Since inception, AquaPolis has launched an industry consortium platform to promote knowledge sharing and collaboration between industry players and researchers through conferences and workshops as well as to translate AquaPolis' research and development (R&D) outcomes into practical solutions that boost production. AquaPolis has also secured a budget of $18.5 million for a three-year R&D programme, starting from November 2025 to lower production costs and to continue to improve the quality of locally produced Asian seabass. For example, an ongoing R&D on seabass broodstock that are parasite-resistant could result in higher quality fingerlings for the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Taiwan's National Lung Cancer Early Detection Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether Taiwan's National Lung Cancer Early Detection Programme is relevant for adoption in Singapore.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health is aware of Taiwan's programme, which provides low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan for lung cancer screening for the general population, so long as individuals are either heavy smokers or have a family history of lung cancer.
In Singapore, lung cancer screening with LDCT is currently recommended only for current or previous heavy smokers in Singapore. This is based on the recommendations of the Screening Test Review Committee, after it reviewed relevant evidence.
The salient facts are: First, smokers make up around 60% of lung cancer cases in Singapore, which is far higher than the proportion of smokers in the population. Healthcare providers can exercise clinical discretion to offer lung cancer screening to patients with a history of heavy smoking, who are eligible and at risk.
Second, each LDCT exposes the individual to over half a year's worth of background radiation. This is within safe limits, but if LDCT becomes part of routine and recurrent preventive care screening – like a blood test – we cannot rule out the negative effects of repeated exposure, which may lead to accumulation of risk to health over one's lifetime.
Finally, LDCT scans have a relatively high false positive detection rate which leads to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures being performed to exclude the diagnosis of cancer. This causes distress, anxiety and further risk exposure from additional invasive procedures, such as biopsies.
The current evidence therefore does not show that the benefits of screening non-smokers for lung cancer outweigh the potential downsides of screening. With healthcare technology advancing rapidly, the Ministry of Health will continue to monitor any emerging evidence on the suitability of lung cancer screening for non-smokers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation Criteria for Tenders Submitted by Prospective Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre Operators","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will disclose the full criteria along with their respective weightages used by the National Environment Agency to evaluate the tender bids submitted by prospective Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC) operators.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency publishes the evaluation criteria and the respective weightages for Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre management tenders in the tender documents on the Government Electronic Business portal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors for Decisions on When and Where to Deploy Crow-shooting Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"17 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the resumption of crow shooting operations (a) what are the criteria that will determine when and where shooting is deployed; (b) how are officers selected, trained and certified and what safety protocols will apply; (c) how effective is shooting relative to other methods; and (d) what frequency of operations is expected to achieve sustained reduction of crow population.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Dr Charlene Chen on 5 March 2026. [Please refer to \"Timelines, Constraints and Safeguards for Resumption of Crow-shooting Operations\", Official Report, 5 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 25, 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":"Frameworks for Stress-testing Impact on Singapore's Economy When Major Trading Partners Make Sudden Legal and Policy Decisions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the recent rapid shifts in the US tariff policy following a Supreme Court ruling and given Singapore's reliance on external demand (a) what frameworks or criteria the Ministry uses to stress-test sudden legal and policy volatility in major trading partners; and (b) how these assessments inform contingency planning for trade-exposed sectors.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce (SERT) was established in April 2025 to strengthen our collective sensemaking of changes in the macro environment and support businesses and workers in navigating global economic uncertainties.
SERT works with our tripartite and industry partners to gather feedback on how businesses and workers are affected. For instance, SERT convened last week to discuss the tariff developments and preliminary sentiments of businesses and workers. In addition, the Government closely tracks economic indicators, such as gross domestic product, and sectoral value-added growth, domestic exports growth, unemployment rates, retrenchments, as well as firms' hiring and wage expectations.
The Government's approach to strengthening resilience of our trade-exposed sectors is to, firstly, help our firms diversify the markets that they serve. Secondly, deepen our trade and investment linkages with like-minded partners, such as cooperation in growth areas, like the digital and green economies, as well as in supply chain resilience. And thirdly, to continue working with partners to uphold and shape the rules-based international trading system.
To support our business and workers who are directly affected by sudden tariff measures, SERT launched the Business Adaptation Grant in October 2025 to help eligible enterprises adapt their business operations and strengthen supply chain resilience, with support levels at 50%. At Budget 2026, the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance announced that support levels would be enhanced up to 70%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Establish Master Database of Commercial Sublet Agreements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a master database of all commercial sublet agreements; and (b) whether the Ministry will mandate lodging of sublet agreements with HDB as a condition for tenancies, to enable evidence-based policy-making on business costs instead of relying on anecdotal feedback.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong on 2 March 2026. [Please refer to \"Data for Rentals of Privately-owned HDB Shops and for Licensing of Outdoor Refreshment Areas\", Official Report, 2 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 22, 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":"Accounting Treatment of Prolonged Vacancy in HDB-managed Commercial Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether prolonged vacancy in HDB-managed commercial properties is treated as a loss of public value; and (b) how HDB evaluates the trade-off between maintaining higher rental benchmarks and ensuring sustained occupancy and neighbourhood vibrancy.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In managing the Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental shop landscape, HDB focuses on achieving sustained occupancy and maintaining an appropriate tenant mix, so as to ensure residents in HDB estates have convenient access to amenities and services.
HDB does not seek to maximise rental collections or to maintain high rental benchmarks. In fact, HDB does not always award tenders to the highest bidder. For example, HDB adopts the Price-Quality Method for coffee shops and supermarkets, where 60% of the score is awarded for quality based on factors, such as affordability, good track record and community-centric initiatives.
When vacancies arise, HDB will assess the trade required. Where a change in the shop trade is assessed to be necessary to optimise the neighbourhood trade mix, HDB will conduct the necessary reconfiguration works before calling for tenders. Rather than setting specific vacancy thresholds or duration benchmarks, HDB puts out vacant units for tender as soon as possible to avoid inconvenience to residents. Vacancy rates for HDB rental shops are generally low. In 2025, the overall vacancy rate was 1.6%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Nationality, Race and Educational Level for Students Granted ASEAN Scholarships","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Education since its inception in 1998, how many students have been granted the ASEAN Scholarship, broken down by (i) nationality (ii) race and (iii) educational stage of admission.
Mr Desmond Lee: Singapore enjoys close ties with our Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) neighbours. To promote mutual understanding and goodwill in the region, the Ministry of Education (MOE) offers scholarships to promising students from ASEAN countries. After graduation, some choose to stay on to contribute to our economy and society, while others continue to be part of our valuable global network, through the friendships and ties forged during their studies.
In recent years, MOE has, on average, awarded over 400 pre-tertiary scholarships and 400 tertiary scholarships annually to students from ASEAN countries.
We do not publish data on the number of scholarship holders by nationality or ethnicity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Bicycle Parking Capacity Standards in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry is reviewing current bicycle parking capacity standards in HDB estates to account for both residents' personal bicycles and the rising number of bike-sharing bicycles.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Since 2014, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has provided dedicated bicycle parking racks in all new Build-To-Order projects. Currently, HDB provides one bicycle lot for every six dwelling units, with additional safeguarded space that can be converted by Town Councils (TCs) into additional bicycle lots when the need arises.
For estates built before 2014, HDB has increased the bicycle parking provision to one bicycle lot for every six dwelling units since 2019 where feasible. Where there is demand, HDB has been working with TCs to identify suitable locations within void decks to install additional bicycle racks.
With regard to shared bicycles, the Land Transport Authority is currently working with HDB to review the implementation of additional designated spaces for shared bicycle parking.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases where Salaries of Public Sector Employees Are Not Paid On Time","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in 2025, what is the number of cases where monthly salaries of public sector employees are not paid on time; and (b) what are the recourse available to and compensation accorded to such employees.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service is committed to paying all public sector employees on time. Employees of Ministries and Statutory Boards receive their monthly salaries at fixed payment dates in mid-month and end of each month.
In 2025, there were generally no late monthly salary payments for eligible Ministry and Statutory Board employees, except for 35 cases involving new public officers where there was an administrative delay in updating their appointment records in the payroll system. This was immediately rectified and the officers received their monthly salary in the next month. These cases constitute about 0.02% of our over 158,000 officers.
Even with our efforts, instances of late payments could still arise, such as system errors and outages, that impact payroll processing timelines. In such cases, we aim to ensure any affected officer will receive his/her payment in the subsequent payroll. We also proactively engage the affected officers to keep them informed and address any concerns.
Officers who face late payment situations can raise the matter with their human resource department, who will look into their case and rectify the situation as appropriate. The Public Service Division and Accountant-General's Department continuously monitor and enhance our payroll systems and processes to ensure salaries are paid in a timely manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Darker Colours in Solar Reflectance Standards for Cool Coatings under Green Towns Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the current solar reflectance standards for cool coatings under the Green Towns Programme effectively preclude the use of certain darker colours, like red brick; (b) whether the Ministry is working with manufacturers to certify a wider range of high-reflectance pigments; and (c) how HDB assists Town Councils when resident aesthetic preferences conflict with cool paint technical requirements.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Green Towns Programme, the HDB will be expanding the cool coatings initiative to residential blocks across all HDB towns. The paint used must comply with the Singapore Standard Specification for solar reflective water-based coatings, or SS678.
Currently, there are more than 60 colours that can meet SS678. Paint suppliers may progressively increase the colour selection if there is market demand. Town Councils can check with paint suppliers on the availability of darker colours that meet SS678.
HDB will continue to conduct sessions to share with Town Councils good practices and operational guidelines in the implementation of cool coatings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Details in HIP Renovation Schedules","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can provide Home Improvement Programme (HIP) renovation schedules with greater granularity, specifically indicating the exact month in which works will commence and be carried out for each block to enable residents to better plan their personal arrangements, caregiving responsibilities and renovation-related preparations.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) provides the estimated Home Improvement Programme (HIP) construction schedule for each block on the HIP precinct website and the HIP notice board located at the void deck of each block, at least one month before the works commence at the first block of the precinct. HDB will also remind residents of the impending works two weeks before and three days before the works commence.
While HDB tries to provide residents with the schedule as early as possible, it is challenging to provide the schedule well in advance because the exact timing depends on several factors including the progress of the blocks ahead in the works sequence and site-specific complexities. Additionally, contractors need time to survey individual flats and residents require adequate time to select their preferred optional items and designs before works can begin. Residents can approach the HIP Information Centre at the precinct for enquiries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Indonesia's Purchase of KHAN Ballistic Missile on Regional Security","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence given that Indonesia has acquired the KHAN ballistic missile from Türkiye, the first ballistic missile procurement in Southeast Asia besides Vietnam (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of this development's implications for regional security; (b) whether Singapore's defence capabilities are adequate against both ballistic missile threats and the threat environment driving such acquisitions; and (c) if so, on what basis.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) continuously monitors developments that can impact Singapore's security, including emerging technologies.
Ballistic missiles have been around for many years, both within and beyond the Asian region. The SAF has and will continue to build up our defence capabilities ahead of time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Digital Support Provided to Help Heritage Businesses Modernise and Sustain Their Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in respect of the SG Heritage Business Scheme (a) what forms of digital support are provided to help these businesses modernise and sustain their operations; and (b) what tools or programmes have been made available to assist these businesses in expanding their presence both locally and internationally.
Mr David Neo: The SG Heritage Business Scheme, administered by the National Heritage Board (NHB), provides designated heritage businesses with support in brand visibility, publicity and marketing. They receive special branding markers and a marketing toolkit to help them brand themselves as an SG Heritage Business.
Designated heritage businesses may also tap on NHB's Organisation Transformation Grant to support transformative and innovative projects that contribute to their sustainability and long-term viability. Some examples of the digital projects supported by the OTG include (a) the development of an Augmented Reality application by SG Heritage Business Pek Sin Choon to help the business' Chinese-speaking staff cater to English-speaking customers; and (b) the development of an online game for custom kebaya dolls made by kebaya maker, Ratianah Tahir, to foster appreciation and interest in this heritage dress among children.
Additionally, heritage businesses may also tap on grants, such as Enterprise Singapore's Productivity Solutions Grant, Enterprise Development Grant and Market Readiness Assistance Grant, to transform, adopt digital solutions and expand their presence locally and internationally.
In the coming months – in respect to the SG Heritage Business Scheme – NHB is looking to (a) develop a promotional campaign on NHB's channels; (b) develop an online register of designated businesses, which can be used to promote the businesses to local and international audiences; and (c) identify industry partners who are keen to collaborate and partner with these heritage businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training on Special Needs Recognition and Response in Mandatory WSQ Modules for Licensed Security Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the current mandatory Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) modules under the Progressive Wage Model for security sector for licensed security officers include training on recognising and appropriately responding to persons with special needs.
Mr K Shanmugam: The mandatory Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) modules under the Progressive Wage Model for the security sector equip security officers with skills such as threat detection and incident management. These are core skills to ensure the security of premises at which they are deployed.
Currently, the mandatory WSQ modules do not include training on recognising and appropriately responding to persons with special needs. The Government will, in consultation with the industry, continue to review security officers' training requirements so that they can carry out their duties effectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Fire Prevention Measures for Elderly Residents in Mature Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in view of our ageing population and SCDF data showing rising residential fires (a) what targeted fire prevention measures are being implemented for elderly residents in mature estates regarding unattended cooking and electrical faults; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider stepping up implementation of initiatives to protect senior households like subsidised smart sensors or electrical safety checks.
Mr K Shanmugam: Early detection and warning of fires can help homeowners, including the elderly, respond better and reduce the risk of tragic outcomes.
Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs) are an effective and simple solution to detect fires early, including those from unattended cooking. Since 2018, HFADs have been mandatory for all new residential premises and existing residential premises undergoing fire safety related addition and alteration works. To further encourage the installation of HFADs, the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme was expanded in 2024 to include the installation of HFADs. Seniors can opt to have HFADs installed in their homes under EASE with up to 95% subsidy. To ensure safety when an electrical fault occurs, the Housing and Development Board checks and replaces faulty Residual Current Circuit Breakers for older flats through its Home Improvement Programme and EASE. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) will continue to assess fire safety technological solutions for our elderly and incorporate them in homes where suitable.
Ultimately, homeowners play the key role in preventing fires in their homes. SCDF will continue to engage residents, including the elderly, through platforms, such as the Responders Plus Programme, Community Resilience Day and MyNicehome Roadshows, to raise awareness on fire-unsafe behaviours and practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Citizens with Additional Hanyu Pinyin Name Registered as Part of Legal Name","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the total percentage of Singapore Citizens who have an additional hanyu pinyin name registered as part of their legal name; and (b) in each of the last 10 years, how many Singapore Citizen babies have had an additional hanyu pinyin name included in their names.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of February 2026, about 13% of Singapore Citizens have registered an additional Hanyu Pinyin name with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority. Between 2016 and 2025, an annual average of about 3,500 Singapore Citizens had an additional Hanyu Pinyin name included during their birth registration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Real-Time Information Sharing Protocols with Foreign Authorities on Child Trafficking Syndicates Linked to Singapore Adoptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the protocols for real-time information sharing with foreign authorities on suspected child trafficking syndicates linked to Singapore adoptions; (b) how many joint operations or information requests on child trafficking occurred in the last five years; and (c) whether upstream efforts such as pre-clearance checks and source-country probes will be enhanced.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) maintains close ties with foreign counterparts and exchanges information on transnational crime investigation matters, both bilaterally and via multilateral organisations, such as the Interpol.
Following a request from the Indonesian National Police (INP) in September 2025 on the allegations of babies being trafficked from Indonesia into Singapore for adoption, SPF has been rendering assistance to the INP for their investigations.
Apart from this request from INP, SPF has not been requested to participate in any joint operation nor received any information request from any other foreign counterpart relating to child trafficking syndicates linked to adoptions in Singapore in the last five years.
On whether adoption processes will be reviewed, the Member of Parliament may wish to refer to a Parliamentary Question reply on this matter by the Ministry of Social and Family Development for the Parliament Sitting on 3 February 2026. [Please refer to \"Due Diligence Measures before Processing Adoption of Children\", Official Report, 3 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 15, 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":"Breakdown of Defence Contracts Procurement by Quantum and Procurement Method and Publication of Requirements for Major Platform Replacements on GeBIZ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) in the past 10 years, how many defence contracts above (i) $10 million and (ii) $100 million awarded have been procured through closed tender rather than open tender respectively; (b) what criteria determine whether a procurement is conducted as a closed tender; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider publishing requirements for major platform replacements on GeBIZ to enable local industry participation.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) conducts its procurements in accordance with the Government's procurement principles of transparency, open and fair competition, and value for money. Given the nature of defence procurements, operational and information security are additional critical considerations for MINDEF.
MINDEF's default procurement approach is to conduct open tenders via GeBIZ. Where there are good reasons and valid justifications, closed tenders, also referred to as limited tenders, may be conducted. Some criteria for adopting closed tenders include operational and information security considerations, proprietary or intellectual property rights, and interoperability with existing systems. Local companies are invited to participate in closed tenders if they possess the relevant products, services or expertise.
MINDEF's defence procurements are subject to the necessary approvals, governance processes and audits to ensure accountability and proper stewardship of public funds. For security reasons, MINDEF does not publicly disclose data of our defence contracts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"National Servicemen Who Have Applied for Redeployment under Enhanced Expertise Deployment Scheme and Work-learn Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) how many National Servicemen have applied for redeployment under the Enhanced Expertise Deployment Scheme and work-learn schemes in each of the past three years; (b) what is the success rate of these applications; and (c) what specific criteria or skill gaps currently limit the redeployment of these National Servicemen with private sector tech expertise.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: We introduced the Enhanced Expertise Deployment Scheme in 2022 to optimise the deployment of our Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen). Under the scheme, suitable NSmen can be redeployed from their existing Operationally Ready National Service roles if they have acquired specialised civilian expertise that the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) requires. NSmen have been redeployed to support the SAF in existing and emerging domains such as Medical, Legal, Digital, Cyber, and Communications.
As it is a fairly new scheme, the numbers have yet to stabilise. In the past three years, about 1,000 NSmen have indicated interest in the scheme annually through direct applications or via our units who proactively identify suitable NSmen. Interested NSmen undergo a selection process to determine if they have the appropriate skillsets matched to the available openings. Thus far, about 20% of interested NSmen have been redeployed under the scheme.
The Work-Learn Scheme is not a redeployment scheme. Servicemen who sign up for such schemes undergo a combination of full-time NS followed by Regular service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compliance with National Childhood and Adolescent Immunisation Schedule and Actions Taken Against Non-compliance in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health with regard to the National Childhood and Adolescent Immunisation Schedule (a) what is the compliance rate for Singaporeans and foreign students, including Permanent Residents; and (b) whether any actions have been taken against parents who do not comply over the past 10 years.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the National Childhood Immunisation Schedule (NCIS), measles and diphtheria vaccinations are compulsory for children aged 12 and below who are residing in Singapore. In 2024, the measles vaccination coverages at two and seven years were 93% and 97% respectively. For diphtheria, the vaccination coverages at two and eleven years of age were 89% and 95% respectively. The vaccination coverage rate for Singaporeans and Permanent Resident children have both remained high for years and can be found in the Reports on Communicable Diseases Surveillance in Singapore.
Foreign students aged 12 years and below are required to submit documented proof of vaccination or evidence of immunity for diphtheria and measles to the National Immunisation Registry for verification before applying for long-term immigration passes in Singapore.
Because of these measures and co-operation of all students and their families, we could maintain the herd immunity against measles and diphtheria.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ratification Plans of Arms Trade Treaty and Usage of Singapore-Origin Conventional Arms in International Crimes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore plans to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); (b) if so, when; (c) what is the Government's current assessment of Singapore's arms trade; and (d) whether any Singapore-origin conventional arms have been used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity or violations of international humanitarian law.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: As a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), Singapore takes our obligations under the ATT seriously. We recognise the importance of regulating international trade in conventional arms and support global efforts to prevent illicit trade and the diversion of such trade. Our approach is to ensure that the necessary legal, policy and institutional frameworks are in place before ratifying the treaty. Within ASEAN, only the Philippines has ratified the ATT.
While Singapore has not yet ratified the ATT, we contribute to international initiatives to combat unlawful arms trade. This includes participating in the United Nations (UN) Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons and the International Tracing Instrument.
Singapore complies strictly with our international obligations on international arms sales as well as UN sanctions. This includes submitting regular reports to the UN Register of Conventional Arms since 1993, which is on public record.
The Government remains firmly committed to our international obligations and will not hesitate to take action against any individual or entity which contravenes our export control regime.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Do Not Call Complaints, Investigations and Fines for Past Two Years, and Measures Taken to Improve DNC Registry Enforcement and Compliance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in view of continued technological developments including AI-driven calls (a) what measures are in place to improve Do Not Call (DNC) Registry enforcement and compliance; (b) how many (i) DNC complaints and (ii) investigations about unsolicited communications have taken place in each of the last two years; and (c) how many fines have been meted out for breaches of the relevant laws.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) monitors industry practices and maintains robust enforcement of the Do Not Call (DNC) provisions through investigation of complaints and engagement with businesses on compliance. The number of DNC complaints has continued to decline since the DNC regime was updated in 2021. The PDPC received approximately 1,700 and 1,380 DNC complaints in 2024 and 2025 respectively, of which 122 and 176 cases respectively were investigated for potential breaches of the DNC provisions. None of these cases warranted a financial penalty.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on ASEAN Scholarship Holders' Acquisition of Singapore Citizenship and Permanent Residency Since 1998","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Education (a) how many ASEAN Scholarship holders have acquired permanent residency or Singapore Citizenship since the inception of the scholarship in 1998; and (b) what percentage does this represent of the total number of ASEAN Scholarship holders during the same period.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education offers scholarships to promising students from ASEAN countries to promote mutual understanding and goodwill in the region. After graduation, some choose to stay on to contribute to our economy and society, while others continue to be part of our valuable global network, through the friendships and ties forged during their studies.
Similar to other international students studying in our schools, the decision to take up permanent residency or citizenship may occur from the time they are in school till much later in life. Generally, many do so progressively as they spend more time in Singapore.
Most who had received the ASEAN Scholarship choose to stay on in Singapore to continue their university studies. Of this group, about seven in 10 of those from the recent cohorts became Permanent Residents or Singapore Citizens within five years of graduation. Others who do not may still choose to stay on to contribute to our economy, even after their bond has ended, while the remaining become part of Singapore's overseas network of friends and partners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage of Data Collected from i-SMART Facial Recognition at NESST Tukang Dormitory","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the specific types of information collected from users of i-SMART's facial recognition system at the NESST Tukang migrant worker dormitory; and (b) how will the information collected be used by stakeholders, such as (i) the Ministry, (ii) the dormitory operator, and (iii) employers, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: The facial recognition system within Tukang Purpose-Built Dormitory's (PBD's) i-SMART tenant management system collects residents' facial recognition data, date and time stamps of entry and exit and body temperature readings. This is for access management to the dormitory and to facilitate health monitoring of the dormitory's residents.
The personal information collected via i-SMART's facial recognition system is only used by NESST Singapore Limited, the operator of Tukang PBD. It is not shared with any other stakeholder. Where necessary, such as in the event of a disease outbreak, the information may be shared with relevant authorities in line with applicable laws and regulations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Benchmarks to Trigger Review of Rental Rates of HDB Commercial Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has defined vacancy thresholds, duration benchmarks or other objective triggers that prompt a review of rental pricing in its commercial properties; and (b) if so, what these benchmarks are.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In managing the Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental shop landscape, HDB focuses on achieving sustained occupancy and maintaining an appropriate tenant mix so as to ensure residents in HDB estates have convenient access to amenities and services.
HDB does not seek to maximise rental collections or to maintain high rental benchmarks. In fact, HDB does not always award tenders to the highest bidder. For example, HDB adopts the Price-Quality Method for coffee shops and supermarkets, where 60% of the score is awarded for quality based on factors, such as affordability, good track record and community-centric initiatives.
When vacancies arise, HDB will assess the trade required. Where a change in the shop trade is assessed to be necessary to optimise the neighbourhood trade mix, HDB will conduct the necessary reconfiguration works before calling for tenders.
Rather than setting specific vacancy thresholds or duration benchmarks, HDB puts out vacant units for tender as soon as possible to avoid inconvenience to residents. Vacancy rates for HDB rental shops are generally low. In 2025, the overall vacancy rate was 1.6%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expansion of HDB Flyer Distribution Rules at HDB Homes as Mandatory Industry Regulation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in respect of the agreement announced by the top five estate agencies to ensure that flyers distributed to HDB homes are not visible to the public, whether these rules can be extended to become a regulation mandatory for all Council for Estate Agencies registered agents rather than covered by an industry-led voluntary memorandum of understanding.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Mr Yip Hon Weng on 4 March 2026. [Please refer to \"Reason for Voluntary Approach to New Guideline on Property Flyers to HDB Homes\", Official Report, 4 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 24, 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":"Reports of Unauthorised Works on LTA-managed State Land Fronting Private Properties in Past Three Years and Policy on Cost Liability of Restoration Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) in the past three years, how many reports of unauthorised works on LTA-managed state land fronting private properties were received; (b) how many resulted in enforcement action; and (c) what is LTA's policy on private property owners modifying road kerbs on such land including cost liability of restoration works that encroach on adjoining frontages of another private property.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In the past three years, there have been about 25 reports to the Land Transport Authority regarding unauthorised works on road reserve fronting private landed housing. Four have thus far been rectified by the owners. The remaining cases, which are assessed to not affect safety and connectivity, are pending resolution with the homeowners.
Where unauthorised works on public roads and footpaths affect the safety and connectivity, property owners will be required to restore the affected areas immediately at their own cost.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback and Compensation Claims Made by Yio Chu Kang SMC Residents on Damages from North-South Corridor Construction Along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Acting Minister for Transport in the last 24 months (a) how many feedback cases and compensation claims has LTA received from private residential property owners in Yio Chu Kang Single Member Constituency regarding damages from North-South Corridor construction along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6; (b) what is the number of resolved and outstanding cases; and (c) what is the service standards and timelines governing their resolution.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Over the past 24 months, the Land Transport Authority received 19 cases of claims for damages from private residential property owners in the Yio Chu Kang Single Member Constituency allegedly attributed to the North-South Corridor (NSC) construction along Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6. After investigations, 18 cases were assessed not caused by the NSC works and one recent case is still being assessed.
As the assessment process typically involves detailed site inspections, the time taken to resolve each case depends on its complexity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parking Management Companies Selling VPCs Without Designated Lots in Last Three Years and Enforcement Measures Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport in respect of the Vehicle Parking Certificates (VPCs) (a) in the last three years, how many cases are there of parking management companies selling VPCs without designated lots; (b) whether the Ministry will tighten enforcement against such operators; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider alternative parking proof mechanisms where systemic gaps are identified.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The VPC scheme is being reviewed. The Land Transport Authority also intends to investigate and strengthen enforcement against errant heavy vehicle parking operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alternative Sports Access Arrangements for Residents Affected by Renovations of ActiveSG Facilities and Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what plans are in place to support residents affected by major renovation works at their regional or local ActiveSG facilities, particularly multi-facility sports centres; and (b) whether alternative arrangements will be provided to ensure continued access to sports and community activities.
Mr David Neo: Sport Singapore renovates its ActiveSG facilities from time to time to ensure that they are well-maintained and aligned with residents' needs.
SportSG will inform residents of any facility closures in advance via the ActiveSG website and physical notices at ActiveSG facilities. The notices will also share information on alternative nearby locations, such as ActiveSG Sport Centres, Sport-in-Precinct facilities and Dual-Use Scheme facilities.
To minimise impact on users, organised groups and class instructors are engaged early on displacement plans, such as to other ActiveSG locations. SportSG will also avoid doing renovation works in multiple nearby ActiveSG facilities at the same time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Feedback Regarding Festival Naming Conventions and Cultural Greetings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether agencies under the Ministry have received feedback or questions from the community about the naming of festivals and use of greetings such as (i) Chinese New Year vs Lunar New Year (ii) the use of \"Seasons' Greetings\" (iii) Hari Raya vs Eid and (iv) Deepavali vs Diwali; and (b) if so, what is the approach to such feedback.
Mr David Neo: We receive such feedback occasionally. The names of our public holidays are well-established and understood.
Nonetheless, some in the community do choose to use different terms, depending on the purpose, context and audience. We encourage all to make such greetings in the spirit of respect and inclusivity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister for Sustainability and the Environment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in a speech given by the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) during the Second Reading of the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill at the Sitting of 6 March 2026: (proc text)]
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): The second category will comprise Prescribed Places bound by two boundary lines, the Absolute Protection Boundary on the landward side of the area, and Protection Boundary on the seaward side. These places are known as \"Transiently Floodable Areas (Coastal)\". These need not be protected against permanent flooding but need to be protected against transient coastal flooding. [Please refer to \"Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill\", Official Report, 6 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 26, Second Reading Bills section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5). (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my speech given during the Second Reading of the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill at the Sitting of 6 March 2026. My speech should read as follows:
The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): The second category will comprise Prescribed Places bound by two boundary lines, the Absolute Protection Boundary on the landward side of the area, and Protection Boundary on the seaward side. These places are known as \"Transiently Floodable Areas (Coastal)\". These need to be protected against permanent flooding but need not be protected against transient coastal flooding.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":2914,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":7000,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-6 Mar 2026 - MOS Zhulkarnain - Reply to MSF Cuts.pdf","fileName":"6 Mar 2026 - MOS Zhulkarnain - Reply to MSF Cuts.pdf"},{"vernacularID":7001,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Eric Chua","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-Eric Chua MSF 6Mar2026 -Chinese - Copy.pdf","fileName":"Eric Chua MSF 6Mar2026 -Chinese - Copy.pdf"},{"vernacularID":7002,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Goh Pei Ming","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-Goh Pei Ming MSF 6Mar2026-Chinese .pdf","fileName":"Goh Pei Ming MSF 6Mar2026-Chinese .pdf"},{"vernacularID":7003,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Choo Pei Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-Choo Pei Ling Tobacco 6Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Choo Pei Ling Tobacco 6Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":7004,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-Dennis Tan Coastal 6Mar2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Dennis Tan Coastal 6Mar2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":7005,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Cassandra Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-Cassandra Lee Coastal Bill 6Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Cassandra Lee Coastal Bill 6Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":7006,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Lee Hui Ying","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-Lee Hui Ying Coastal 6Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Hui Ying Coastal 6Mar2026 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":7007,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-6 Mar 2026 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Coastal Protection Bill.pdf","fileName":"6 Mar 2026 - Ms Nadia A Samdin - Coastal Protection Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":7008,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260306/vernacular-Grace Fu Coastal Bill 6Mar2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Grace Fu Coastal Bill 6Mar2026-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}