1 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how stockpiled food is drawn down on; and (b) whether steps are taken to avoid food wastage in the process.
2 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how frequently are food items in national stockpiles replaced to ensure nutritional value is not diminished; (b) whether the food items released from stockpiles can still be sold or distributed to reduce food wastage; (c) whether the cost of freezing the stockpiles in sub-zero temperature warehouses is borne by food suppliers; and (d) if so, how are they compensated.
3 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the current national food stockpiling (a) by whom and how are stockpiling decisions made on food products that are not mandated by law; and (b) whether alternative proteins are currently stockpiled in addition to traditional proteins.
4 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the cold rooms used for national food stockpiling (a) what are the measures to ensure an uninterrupted power supply; (b) whether such measures are legally mandated; and (c) whether the Ministry conducts regular inspections to ensure compliance.
5 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the cost of prevailing food supply prices are taken into consideration when deciding whether food which are stockpiled should be drawn down to mitigate any sudden or anomalous spikes food supply prices.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, my response will address Question Nos 1 to 5 for today's Sitting.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: The Government works closely with the private sector to maintain adequate stockpiles of essential food items to serve as a buffer to ensure that our basic needs can be met in times of food supply disruptions. Our stockpiles are not intended as a mechanism to influence food prices.
Our national stockpiles consist of a range of items including rice, frozen protein and canned vegetables. We do not stockpile alternative protein.
The Government works closely with the private sector to optimise our stockpiling operations, including to ensure proper storage conditions and conduct regular churning to ensure that the stockpiled food is safe for consumption while minimising food wastage. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) conducts regular inspections of our food stockpiles to ensure compliance with requirements. The operating cost of maintaining the Government-owned food stockpiles is borne by the Government.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad. I would like to know what are the considerations for selecting or mandating some of these food suppliers to set aside food for the stockpiling and also, how may they be compensated, especially when some of these food may have to go into the stockpile? Also, what are the considerations in terms of sustaining the freshness of the food that is in the stockpile?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Member for her questions. I just want to assure the Member that our stockpiles provide a critical buffer, especially when you think about food resilience in Singapore and how we may need to draw down in times of crises.
As Minister Grace Fu shared a few days ago, we have now embarked on the Singapore Food Story 2, in which the stockpile is just one of four pillars. We will often try to diversify and rely on our local imports first, to ensure that we are food-resilient, before drawing on the stockpiles. There is also \"Grow Local\", in which we want to ensure that we have enough local supply before we draw down from the food stockpiles. Lastly, we are now embarking on a new pillar, \"Global Partnerships\", in which we are working with other countries to ensure food resilience.
Therefore, where stockpiling is concerned, we draw down only when it is most critical.
As I mentioned in my reply earlier on, SFA conducts regular inspections to ensure that our food is safe, they are not expired and more importantly, that we do regular churns as well in the system to ensure that there is adequate, safe supply of food in our system. In doing do, we want to minimise food wastage, to ensure where possible, we try to get towards zero food waste. I want to assure the Member that food waste is kept to a minimum in this regard.
On the stockpiling of food through the private sector, today, we have the Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR). But that is only just for rice. So, the rest of it is Government stockpile. I cannot reveal too much, as it involves national security concerns, as the Member may be familiar with. Our stockpiles are in consideration of not just the disruptions that could occur in the short term, such as pandemics or other forms of disruption, but also long-drawn situations where you have decisions, such as war blockades and other matters. So, we will keep it as that. There are certain details I cannot reveal. Rest assured that the Government does its best to minimise impact to food prices, to minimise impact to the private sector, but at the same time keeping food safe in our stockpiles.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Foo.
\tMr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. Sir, my question to the Senior Minister of State is this: given the stockpile's aim is to be able to provide for the entire nation, I can imagine that the volume of food that is stored is significant. I note the Senior Minister of State's assurances that there is zero food wastage, but he also shared that there is churn to make sure that the food is kept fresh and suitable for consumption. So, my question is whether he can share a little bit more in terms of what are the strategies to ensure zero food wastage? Because we do not want to also impact the market; so, are the food used for community purposes, for example?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question and his concern about food wastage and how we manage this effectively. In my reply, I spoke about how we work with the private sector, commercial operators, where this is also quite efficient. Through them, there is offtake, there are ways in which we can minimise food wastage. As food expires, you also want to – I would not say on the very last date – but there are ways to churn them through the system.
I think that is important because that is an efficient market measure, in which we churn and at the same time, not impact food supply and food prices here.
There are occasions in which we may also dispose of them through food donations, but those are typically on a large scale, like humanitarian efforts, for example. So, those are things that we do sometimes. At the same time, how we dispose and how we do that, I cannot give you too much detail again because of national security concerns. But I want to assure the Member that we work towards zero waste. I am not going to say zero waste today, but we are working towards zero waste as we minimise some of the food churn.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I understand that the cost of prevailing food supply prices are currently not taken into consideration at this point in time, but whether moving forward, we can take this into consideration and consider working closely with the Ministry of Trade and Industry?
While I understand that we want to ensure sufficient food supplies for food security purposes, we also want to take care of our merchants and hawkers in trying to mitigate their operating cost. And there has been feedback that there has been a sudden surge in some of the protein items, for example, like chicken, which, as a result, they are deliberating whether to transfer this cost to the consumers. As a result, it will invariably become a concern in terms of the cost of living.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I think we should separate the two. Our stockpiles are not meant to be a mechanism to influence food prices, not to find ways to flood the market so that prices of chicken or other meats come down. Ultimately, today, the main stockpile that involves private sector stocking would be just rice.
Having said that, as I said, it is really about stockpiling. We churn out through the commercial players, aiming not to disrupt the market. I think that is one of the key considerations for us. And therefore, we try to do it efficiently as much as possible without having to disrupt the market.
We should distinguish between stockpiling and price mechanisms for food and other supplies, because we should not then mess around with our stockpiles to try to influence food prices across Singapore. So, I just want to assure the Member that we do our best, but at the same time as well, let us keep the two separate: stockpiling and food price mechanism.
\tMr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Thank you to the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have a few clarifications. I note that no alternative proteins are being stockpiled now. Is it a reason of cost?
My second supplementary question is, in my Parliamentary Question, I do not think I got an answer on the measures of sites and the audits on the sites available, especially for frozen food. Will you be looking at uninterruptible power supplies and how often will you do the audits? Because, as you mentioned, with the MSR coming on board, there will be more sites allocated for such stockpiling measures.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: On the food audits, as I said in my reply, SFA does regular audits on the food quality and food safety to ensure that the food, when drawn down, is safe for consumption. That is one. So, those are regular audits to ensure that our food supply is adequate and at the same time as well, safe.
On the locations, I cannot disclose where they are, but I can assure the Member as well that as we pick these locations, we look into storage capability standards, making sure that they are able to stock our food stockpiles in a safe manner without having to worry about supply interruptions. But I think for Singapore, touch wood, we have been quite okay with our energy and power supplies.
But I am quite sure with some of these warehouses, like the one I visited, for example, they have such measures in place because we are not the only customer that they have. They are also managing it for other multinational firms and local firms as well who require such food stockpiles. For locations that we pick, I think we have to ensure that they are of sufficient standards. And I can assure the Member that is the case.
Mr Speaker: We are moving on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Nutri-grade Labelling System on Lowered Consumption of High-sugar and Saturated Fats Pre-packaged Foods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Ang Wei Neng –
6 To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Nutri-Grade labelling system has led to lower consumption of pre-packaged food high in sugar and saturated fat in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider placing restrictions on the advertising of pre-packaged food high in sugar and saturated fat, similar to the United Kingdom’s restrictions on the advertising of food high in fat, salt and sugar.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Question No 6.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Nutri-Grade measures were applied first to beverages, as they contribute to more than half of Singaporean’s sugar intake. Beverages containing the highest levels of sugar and saturated fat are graded \"D\" and are subject to advertising prohibitions across all media platforms.
We have seen encouraging results with the Nutri-Grade measures in place. The median sugar level of pre-packaged beverages has decreased from 7.1% in 2017 to 4.6% in 2023, and the average daily sugar intake of residents has fallen from 60 grammes in 2018 to 56 grammes in 2022.
To reduce sodium intake and further reduce saturated fat consumption, Nutri-Grade measures will be extended to key contributors of sodium and saturated fat intake sold in the retail setting from mid-2027. Similarly, advertisements promoting the sale of products including prepacked salt, sauces, seasonings, instant noodles and cooking oil that are graded \"D\" will be prohibited.
We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Nutri-Grade measures on the dietary habits of Singapore residents, as well as developments around the region and internationally, before considering any further measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of SkillsFuture Credits Courses Taken with Direct Relevance to Individuals' Ongoing or Future Employment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education (a) what proportion of courses taken in 2024 with support from SkillsFuture Credits have had direct relevance to the respective individuals' ongoing or future areas of employment; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered introducing conditions for the use of Credits to ensure such relevance, such as requiring courses to be recommended by Government-appointed Skills Development Partners.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, I invite the Member to refer to the Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) response to Question Nos 40 and 41, filed by the Member for written answer in the Order Paper for 5 November 2025, where MOE has addressed this issue in detail.
But I will provide some further details, specific to the question that Mr Shawn Loh has also filed for today.
There are conditions imposed on the types of courses that the SkillsFuture Credit can be used for, to ensure that the courses taken meet our policy intent. For example, the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up targets mid-careerists aged 40 and above, and can only be used for curated courses with stronger employment objectives. On the other hand, immediate relevance to employment is not the objective of the opening SkillsFuture Credit of $500, which is intended to encourage lifelong learning and skills development across different life stages. Overall, across SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG)-supported training, eight in 10 learners find the course content relevant to their work.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Loh.
\tMr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. And I have read in the earlier replies over the last few days. I have also read the responses to other Parliamentary Questions filed by other Members of Parliament (MPs).
Many MPs across both sides of the aisle have focused on the utilisation of SkillsFuture Credits and how to increase the utilisation. I think that is a wrong question. I think we should be asking how SkillsFuture Credits are helping to address the greater economic challenge of this time, which is how it improves the culture of lifelong learning so that it leads to better skills acquisition for better jobs.
I take the Senior Minister of State's point that the SkillsFuture Credits are first and foremost, meant to improve the culture of lifelong learning. To that end, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry or the Government has measured the improvement in the culture of lifelong learning and whether it can also measure the translation from that culture of lifelong learning to a culture of skills acquisition that is industry relevant.
\t
And for future tranches of the SkillsFuture credits, would the Senior Minister of State agree that it would be better for our taxpayers' dollars to help encourage Singaporeans to acquire those skills that can help them get good jobs?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Loh for his questions as well as his considered view on what the SkillsFuture Credit and its interventions should be targeted to achieving. The short answer to all of his questions is yes and we will continue to try to do better and develop more data on these issues.
We do already work along this track. Indeed, we have part of the funding focused on developing the culture, and then part of the funding focused on employment opportunity development; in other words, in mid-career to create the opportunity for someone to transition into another career and have fulfilling employment as a result. We work with the sector agencies and with industry partners. We map out manpower needs to identify jobs and skills gaps. And we do want to then curate the training programmes with the training providers to close those gaps.
Is the culture of lifelong learning improving? The data would suggest it is, if you look at the number of courses, number of training providers and the demand for that type of effort on the supply side. And there, we do also have to look at some component of utilisation of the SkillsFuture Credit, perhaps as a marker of the take-up of lifelong learning opportunities. I take his point that that is not the only metric that we should focus on.
We also look at job posting data. We do research together with the economic agencies to then make sure that we are achieving the kind of outcomes that he articulated. Of course, the provision of training through SkillsFuture is not the only thing that then leads to the economic outcomes that he has focused on, but it is something that we have to contribute towards. We review our policies, we review our programmes to enhance the accessibility, quality and outcomes of our SSG-supported careers. So, I thank him for his suggestions and indeed, these are things that we are working towards.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publishing Detailed Findings of Nuclear Technology Study","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Poh Li San asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in respect of the study to understand nuclear technology, safety of nuclear power plant technologies and their viability for Singapore (a) whether the study will include (i) an estimate timeframe for deployment of nuclear energy and (ii) potential sites for the reactors, where it is found to be viable for Singapore; and (b) whether the key risks identified in the study will be published.
9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry on the Government’s recent setup of dedicated nuclear teams at the Energy Market Authority and the National Environment Agency (a) what is the readiness to deploy nuclear energy in Singapore; and (b) what is the staff strength of the nuclear team at these two respective agencies.
10 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the dedicated nuclear teams set up at the Energy Market Authority and the National Environment Agency, whether the Government will consider including representatives from other sectors and the public in these teams to address common concerns, such as safety and perceptions.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Question Nos 8, 9 and 10 in today's Order Paper?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Tan See Leng: The Government has not made any decision on deploying nuclear energy in Singapore. We are studying the potential for nuclear energy deployment as it is a low-carbon energy source that enhances our energy security.
As part of our overall efforts to build capabilities to assess whether the latest nuclear technologies could be suitable for deployment in Singapore, we have set up dedicated nuclear energy teams in the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA). The EMA and NEA teams are made up of Public Service officers. They will be adequately resourced to carry out their roles and will be collaborating with partners from other governments, as well as with industry and academia.
The study commissioned by EMA is focused on helping Singapore understand the safety and the viability of various advanced nuclear power plant technologies. It will not focus on potential sites or deployment timelines. As I have shared right at the beginning, because we have not made any decision on deploying nuclear energy in Singapore.
We will engage the public regularly on the latest developments in nuclear energy to build an informed understanding on nuclear energy. On 27 October 2025, we published a “Background Paper on Singapore’s Nuclear Energy Capability Building Journey” to share more about the work we have done thus far.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. Many people are quite concerned about the health and also the safety impact of nuclear energy. I would like to understand what the communication and engagement strategy is to reach out to more members of public on this aspect.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Poh for her supplementary question. As I have said earlier on, we have not made the decision on whether to deploy nuclear energy technology. However, in the run-up, we have got the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Institute (SNRSI); we have just upgraded it to an institute. They have actually conducted public education dialogues.
At the same time, given the fact that we have just published the background paper to showcase what our journey has been thus far, we will continuously work with different governments and different jurisdictions.
And as the updated safety profiles of this advanced nuclear technology come on, we will share them with the public to build background knowledge and also to socialise our larger population. Even if we eventually decide that we will not go down the pathway of deploying on our shores, it does not preclude our neighbouring countries from deploying on their shores. And that education would involve getting big parts of our population to be socialised to the idea that our neighbours may also deploy that, and what are the safety considerations and measures that we should be undertaking. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive reply. Can I ask a supplementary question? If Singapore were to build a nuclear reactor for the purpose of power generation, whether it would be located in the far part of Singapore or on the offshore islands.
A second supplementary question is, if we were to decide to build a nuclear plant, what is the timeframe? Does it take 10 or 15 years to build?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Ang for his two supplementary questions. Perhaps, the Member missed the earlier part of the answer. We have not decided whether to deploy nuclear energy technology. So, I think it is premature for us, given the fact that we have not decided, to talk about potential deployment sites and also whether it is going to be on an offshore island, in the sea or underground.
The journey over the next few years will allow us to understand many of these advanced nuclear energy technologies, the promise they hold and while the current thinking is the physics, the engineering works, the commercial feasibility and the viability has still yet to be proven. So, as result, the study is quite focused on comparing the different types of advanced nuclear technology and whether the safety profile, whether the type of outputs that they generate, how efficient they are, will eventually benefit us or not.
So, as far as the timeline is concerned, we have not even made the decision. I think the timeline is even further out. So, I cannot comment in a very definitive manner as to what kind of timelines we are looking at. What I can safely say is from the results of the 2012 study that we have completed, and if the Member could look back at the report that was released, is that conventional nuclear power and nuclear energy technology, the conventional ones, those that involve very large conventional reactors is not suitable for Singapore. And hence, we have no plans to even look at deploying those. I hope that gives the Member that clarity that he needs.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. Public engagement is a strategic activity for building trust, understanding and the concerns of the community, and ensuring that local needs and preferences are considered in nuclear project planning. My supplementary question is, could the Ministry elaborate more on plans to enhance public literacy on nuclear technologies, especially among youths and non-technical communities, so that future discussions are informed and inclusive?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Dr Choo for her supplementary question. Today, as I have shared over the last couple of minutes, the Government is in the process of building capabilities and this is in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) Milestones Approach, and we are supported by international partners to study this potential deployment with very high standards of safety, security and safeguards.
Given that in Singapore, we have a very densely populated, very urbanised environment, we want to also not alarm the public. We want to continually engage them regularly on the latest developments in nuclear energy.
As I have said earlier on, even if we ultimately decide not to deploy here, it does not mean our neighbours will not deploy. So, as the regional interest in nuclear powers continues to grow, we want to contemporaneously and progressively prepare our fellow Singaporeans for the potential deployment of nuclear energy in the region. After all, we have a very small footprint. Like what they always say in Mandarin, \"我们是弹丸小国\". We are a very small country. We have to prepare our population. And what are the mitigating actions that could be taken in the unlikely event of an accident in nuclear energy facilities in the region? That is what we will proceed with on very sure-footed steps. I hope that gives you the reassurance that you need, Dr Choo.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question, Mr Kenneth Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Given the safety concerns around small modular reactors, which are light-water reactors, under what conditions would the Ministry consider training a cadre of experts in thorium or molten salt reactors, which have better safety characteristics like running near atmospheric temperature?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Tiong for his supplementary question. I think it is important to note that today, we have embarked on a slow and steady series of steps for us to first gain understanding on a comparative analysis of the different types of technologies that is available.
The ones that he alluded to, the molten salt reactor, light-water, including thorium, we also need to consider the supply chain. Today, given our understanding of the supply chain for thorium, the concentration risk in terms of the procurement of the supply of thorium is actually quite limited. Today, our focus is still on a number of the newer ones, the small modular reactors, the new generation thermal high-pressure reactors.
We have committed Mott MacDonald to do that study for us. And when we get the results of that study some time down the line, we will be able to make a more meaningful comparison. And I am sure by that time, Parliamentary Questions will be filed, and I am happy to update the House again.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Additional Silver Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether there are plans to designate additional Silver Zones beyond the planned 50; (b) if yes, when is the next phase of implementation; and (c) if no, whether LTA will review the Silver Zone plans, given the needs of our continually ageing population.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Acting Minister of State for Transport): Beyond the completion of the planned 50 Silver Zones island-wide, there are currently no plans to designate additional Silver Zones.
In its place, we have launched the Friendly Streets initiative. Introduced in 2023, Friendly Streets encompass and build on existing efforts, such as Silver Zones. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to make commutes in our neighbourhoods safer, more convenient and comfortable for all by expanding the Friendly Streets initiative to all towns by 2030.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lee.
\tMs Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I just have two supplementary questions.
First is, there was an 80% drop in traffic accidents involving senior pedestrians in Silver Zone areas. Can I ask about the Friendly Streets pilot, whether it has also been effective in ensuring and improving safety of the neighbourhoods?
Second, in Nee Soon South, about one in three residents is a senior above 50 years old, but also at the same time, like Punggol, we have a growing young family population. So, I am happy to hear that Family Streets is the way forward to improve safety of the different neighbourhoods, catering to the different needs. May I ask, what are the parameters and considerations in determining the selected Friendly Streets? And also, maybe, can I ask the friendly Senior Minister of State to consider Nee Soon South, to be included in the friendly list of the next batch of Friendly Streets?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Friendly Streets will be implemented in high-pedestrian flow, high-activity areas. So, for instance, near hawker centres, near markets, near Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, near community clubs. We have completed five Friendly Street projects earlier this year in Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio, West Coast, Bukit Batok West and Tampines. We have received strong support and feedback from the residents. Average vehicular speeds at these Friendly Streets have dropped by about 20% and this contributes toward pedestrian safety.
On her second question, indeed, under the Friendly Streets initiative, we could incorporate elements, such as signalised pedestrian crossing, kerbless crossing, reduce speed limits. These were, for example, launched in Punggol just last weekend. These are initiatives which will benefit both the elderly as well as young families. As I have shared earlier, we will expand the Friendly Streets initiatives to all towns by 2030. And within each town, the Friendly Streets initiatives will be launched in areas with high pedestrian flow and close to amenities. And I have heard her feedback, so we will continue to identify more areas to implement Friendly Streets and also, potentially, Nee Soon South, as suggested by Ms Lee.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Opening Tengah Link to General Traffic during Off-peak Hours to Improve Connectivity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider opening Tengah Link which is a bus-only road to general traffic during off-peak hours to improve connectivity; (b) what traffic modelling has been done to assess the impact of such partial access; and (c) how the Ministry plans to balance public transport efficiency with residents’ desire for more flexible road access.
\tThe Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, Tengah Link is a single-lane road built for the express purpose of enabling buses to enter and exit Tengah town from Bukit Batok Road quickly. More buses will use Tengah Link as a dedicated bus corridor, as more bus services are introduced in tandem with Tengah's public transport-centric development. Opening up Tengah Link to cars is not possible, as it will lengthen travel time for bus commuters and will also result in long traffic queues for surrounding roads even during off-peak hours. This is because the single-lane road is designed as a bus lane and is not designed to accommodate general traffic.
Motorists can use Tengah Drive and the Pan Island Expressway (PIE) interchange with Tengah Boulevard to get in and out of Tengah town quickly. To better guide motorists, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has improved road marking and signages. The PIE interchange will also be upgraded by 2028, to provide motorists more options to access Tengah town.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for his response. Tengah is Singapore's first town built entirely anew in 20-plus years and ensuring strong connectivity is key to its success. As residents settle in, improving road access, even on a trial basis, these can greatly enhance daily convenience and support a smoother transition as longer-term transport infrastructure is built.
My supplementary question is, would the Ministry consider implementing a pilot scheme to open Tengah Link during selected off-peak hours, with close monitoring of its impact on both traffic flow and bus service efficiency?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Choo Pei Ling for her strong advocacy of Tengah residents' interests. I have discussed extensively with LTA the Member's suggestion on whether we can open up Tengah Link during a select period or on an interim basis. Try as we might, it is not possible for us to do so because we have the intention to introduce more bus services for Tengah town, and Tengah Link will become a lot busier.
By keeping it as a dedicated bus corridor, we also have the intention of adding bus stops to facilitate transfers for residents on Tengah Link. And as a consequence, that road will become more crowded and it is not possible for us to then allow it to be open to private cars.
We have also considered the option of widening the road, but because of infrastructure and utilities on either side of Tengah Link, that, too, is not possible.
So, I ask for the hon Member's understanding as well as Tengah's residents understanding on this issue, that we have tried our best, but it is unfortunate that we cannot open up the road to private vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Clean and Green Singapore Day Events to More Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with respect to the projects and events for NEA's Clean and Green Singapore (CGS) Day 2025 (a) whether NEA will consider extending such projects and events islandwide to encourage more Singaporeans to adopt sustainable practices, conserve biodiversity, and foster a more gracious society; and (b) whether NEA intends to set targets and objectives for these projects and events.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Clean and Green Singapore (CGS) is a year-round national environmental sustainability drive. This year, it featured over 1,200 ground-up community events, workshops and activities organised at various locations island-wide, with or by partners, like the Public Hygiene Council and Community Development Councils, culminating in an annual CGS Day celebrating our collective environmental commitment.
Beyond CGS, Singaporeans can also participate in the other campaigns by the National Environment Agency (NEA), such as Clean Tables and Say Yes to Waste Less.
NEA has no plans to set specific targets for the campaigns, but the objectives are to engage and shape public attitudes towards environmental sustainability.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Soh.
\tMs Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have three supplementary questions in this regard.
First, are the participation rates at the CGS Drive, or the CGS Day, to NEA's satisfaction? How can NEA further cultivate greater interest and involvement of our Singaporeans towards the objectives that we have set in relation to CGS? And finally, whether NEA can consider, as part of the annual celebrations at the CGS Day, to consider setting some targets or begin to start tracking in relation to how much carbon footprint reductions, energy waste efforts reductions we have been doing in the community? On the day itself, we can, then, present and share with fellow Singaporeans the powerfulness of the community coming together to do green and go green.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, we do, indeed, have data on the participation rates. But CGS is a movement, and it involves a large number of events across Singapore. The number of events have increased, from 400 in 2023 to 1,200 in 2025, involving over 400,000 participants. The number of stakeholders, non-governmental organisations and community groups has also been increasing. So, we do indeed track participation, but it is not so clear what the correct number to target is for any given event. At each event, you may do it one year, you may not do it the next year, depending on the needs.
I think the key thing is that, overall, the awareness of the need for reduce, reuse and recycle, the interest from stakeholders in stepping forward and the participation of the public in these sustainability efforts is what is important – rather than necessarily whether the number of people at any given event increasing every year. In actual fact, the number of people participating in CGS and NEA-related events each year has, indeed, increased. But that is not necessarily the absolute target that we should strive for.
How can NEA cultivate further interest and engagement? Indeed, there are a number of funds. The SG Eco Fund is one of several funding mechanisms and there are partnerships that we are developing with schools, educational institutions, NGOs and the private sector. And all of this is towards the idea of increasing interest and engagement in initiatives that can help us to reduce, reuse, recycle, and improve our sustainability.
The idea of looking at carbon savings and energy savings around each event is an interesting one. It is worth studying. It sometimes takes quite a lot of effort to be able to do so. But actually, that is a skill – a capability – that we will increasingly need, across a variety of organisations, to be able to then improve our carbon footprint and increase our sustainability. So, we will continue to study ideas, such as the one that Ms Hany Soh has suggested.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Manage Price Volatility of Liquefied Natural Gas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry has any information on (i) whether Singapore GasCo will be building spot trading capabilities to manage price volatility of liquefied natural gas, or any other alternative mechanisms to buffer against short-term price volatility and (ii) whether Singapore GasCo will collaborate with financial institutions or commodity exchanges to develop such capabilities.
15 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry will ensure that Singapore GasCo places safeguards during procurement to prevent an overreliance on any single liquefied natural gas (LNG) source; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that Singapore GasCo's procurement of LNG does not expose Singapore to reputational, financial or legal risks arising from sanctioned entities or jurisdictions.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 14 and 15 in today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tDr Tan See Leng: The Singapore GasCo is a Government-owned entity that was established in April this year to centralise the procurement of natural gas for the power sector in Singapore. GasCo will construct and maintain a diversified and resilient gas supply portfolio to enhance gas security and mitigate gas price volatility. In addition, GasCo will put in place systems and processes to ensure that it does not procure natural gas from sanctioned entities or sanctioned jurisdictions.
We are unable to go into details on GasCo's procurement approach owing to commercial sensitivities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin.
\tMr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, whether the Ministry is aware, whether Singapore GasCo will maintain a strategic liquefied natural gas (LNG) reserve to buffer against supply disruptions and whether this will require an expansion of the current Singapore LNG Corporation (SLNG) terminal? Second question, whether Singapore GasCo will be subject to the same SLNG tariffs and charges as other terminal users?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. Actually, I think, there are three.
GasCo's core business activity is to build a secure, reliable and diverse portfolio of natural gas contracts at stable and competitive prices. GasCo's Board will enable, because they are experienced members who have come from a very diverse range of companies, with many of them having many years of experience in gas procurement companies. So, it would provide oversight of GasCo's hedging strategies through its risk management committee.
As I have said earlier on, the GasCo portfolio is diversified and it is resilient in terms of price index, tenure and source. As to further details, because of the commercial sensitivities, please understand that and I beg for the Member's indulgence that I would not go into it any further.
As far as the buffer for extreme price volatilities, in 2022, we set up a standby LNG facility. I think that two months before that, in November 2021, this House actually approved an amendment to the Bill for us to set up that standby LNG facility.
When the standby LNG facility was set up at the end of January, and we made that storage of supplies, about a month later, hostilities broke out in Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia. And I think that helped to tide us over a period of extreme volatility. Till now, that standby LNG facility has served us well.
To the Member's point about the whether we are increasing our SLNG terminal. We have, indeed, gone on, we have committed to constructing a second LNG terminal. Just about a week and a half ago, the steel-cutting ceremony has started. We are on track to complete the terminal between 2028 and 2030. So, once that is done, we would have another 50% increase; not just in throughput, but also in storage, building up our SLNG capabilities.
As far as tariffs is concerned, it is spread across all the different sectors and the prices, like I said, because of our very diversified portfolio that we will be starting from 2026 onwards, we believe that we will be able to manage the volatility in terms of pricing. I hope that gives you the reassurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detecting and Preventing Misuse of SkillsFuture Credits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what measures are in place to proactively detect and prevent the misuse of SkillsFuture credits, especially by operators using multi-level marketing tactics or exploiting the credit expiry timeline; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure training quality and learner protection against the marketing tactics by such operators.
17 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what steps are the Ministry and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) taking to pro-actively monitor and enforce compliance with marketing requirements and practice guidelines by training providers to better protect all learners, including low-income and older workers; and (b) whether the Ministry would consider mandating public disclosure of provider-level data, such as drop-out rates and course-to-job conversions, to strengthen these safeguards.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, under SkillsFuture Singapore's (SSG's) Terms for Training Providers, there are strict marketing guidelines which prohibit training providers from making exaggerated claims, offering monetary incentives in exchange for course sign-ups, or engaging in aggressive marketing tactics. For example, SSG has reminded training providers to focus on promoting the merits of the courses, and not use the expiry of the SkillsFuture Credits to hard-sell their courses to individuals.
Given the large number of training providers, SSG supplements its own monitoring of their marketing behaviour by relying on feedback and whistle-blowing by the general public and learners. When SSG guidelines are flouted, SSG takes enforcement actions. These include suspension or termination of a training provider's registration with SSG. SSG publishes the list of training providers who have flouted the terms and were subject to enforcement actions.
From 1 December 2025, SSG will disallow registered training providers from engaging, requesting or procuring any third party to market courses directly to learners. This is necessary given an increase in public feedback on undesirable marketing practices involving third parties over the past year. This new prohibition will reduce the risk of the public being subject to misrepresentation, over-promising or undue influence when third parties are involved in the marketing of training programmes. It can also avoid the compromise of personal data when third parties ask for such data to facilitate course sign-ups.
The majority of our training providers comply with SSG's marketing guidelines, and the practice of engaging third parties for direct marketing is not widespread. Nevertheless, SSG has taken action to address public feedback to avoid such undesirable practices from proliferating, which could bring the training sector into disrepute and harm the interests of learners.
Publishing performance data of training providers is another safeguard for learners. SSG requires learners taking SSG-funded programmes to give feedback on course quality and how well the training supports their career growth. The ratings of each course are published on the MySkillsFuture Portal to help learners make informed training decisions.
Safeguarding public trust and confidence in our lifelong learning system is a key priority for SSG. We will continue to monitor training providers' marketing behaviour, adjust our guidelines and take fair and proportionate enforcement actions where necessary. We remind our training providers to abide strictly by the marketing guidelines. We also seek continued support from the public, to be vigilant and to provide feedback on non-compliant marketing practices.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil, I assume your reply is also in response to Oral Question No 17?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: My apologies, Mr Speaker. Yes, please, if you do not mind, I would like to address oral Question Nos 16 and 17 together.
Mr Speaker: Alright. Dr Chen.
\tDr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Many Singaporeans, including our residents in Tampines, are anxious about employability. Skills upgrading must be built on trust to protect our learners and we need to ensure that training providers are credible, relevant courses are provided and public funds are used responsibly. I have a couple of supplementary questions.
Number one, what avenues are available for whistle-blowers, especially those who are not digitally-savvy to report unethical course practises? And number two, if participants find that courses fall short of the promised content, what recourse or mechanisms are there? And lastly, will there be regular audits besides relying on feedback from course participants?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for the questions. There are a number of reporting mechanisms. Not all of them are online and digital, and we do engage directly with training providers to make sure that they also are looking for feedback, as well as the institutions that are curating the courses. So, the feedback can be about the service provider as a whole – the faculty, for example, or the course. We have several lines of communication to make sure that we do receive feedback.
The recourse will depend very much on what the nature of the complaint is. It is not always possible to get a refund, if that is what Dr Chen is asking about. But indeed we want to get the feedback so that we can take remedial action to make sure that the course, the subject, the approach and the assessment techniques, for example, are fit for purpose and serve learners as a whole. And indeed, we do conduct audits so that we have various methods of assessing the quality and to verify that the training that is stated is actually being delivered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on NCSS' Job Fit Assessment and Referral Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health for updates on the progress of the job fit assessment and referral framework by the National Council of Social Service as shared in the National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) has established a referral framework with the employment support agencies, the Workforce Singapore and the Employment and Employability Institute. The referral framework helps to identify and provide customised employment support for jobseekers with mental health conditions. It will be rolled out in June 2026.
NCSS is also developing a vocational assessment framework across the employment support agencies to assess the work readiness and support needed by persons with mental health conditions. NCSS is in the process of standardising the assessment tools to be used and the type of professionals who will be conducting the assessment.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. My follow-up questions are really around what sort of mental health conditions will this framework cater for, in terms of the availability of jobs? And is there a planned duration for which support will be provided for persons with mental health conditions and in recovery who are seeking jobs?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. I think mental health conditions encompass a very wide spectrum, so the key thing is to make sure that in our support rendered, it will be individualised to the needs of the individual. Not every individual with a mental health condition will want to seek employment. But I think our aim is to make sure that those who desire to do so, we will do our best to support them, in terms of vocational training and maybe support measures, so that they can become equipped with the necessary skills and the ability to get into employment.
As for the duration, again, it is going to be individualised, because different individuals with different conditions will have different needs as well. The professionals will have to assess each and every one of them on an individual basis. I would suggest we give the professionals time to come up with a framework because that will be something that will be useful as a guide to what they can do. Clearly, there will be certain individuals where the condition will be quite unsuitable for employment and therefore, regardless of what the duration is, it may not reach a point where the person can reach capability to be deployed meaningfully in a workplace; in which case, other measures to support the individual's needs will have to be considered.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Education Efforts on Nuclear Energy for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what are the main areas of public education that the Government will embark on as it assesses the viability of nuclear energy for Singapore, in view of the release of the 2025 background paper on Singapore’s considerations for nuclear energy deployment and the 2018 paper on the public perception of nuclear energy supported by the Singapore National Research Foundation.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, our public education efforts will cover both the benefits as well as the risks of nuclear energy. I have said it many times – while Singapore has not yet made a decision on nuclear energy, a number of countries in the region have already announced plans to adopt nuclear energy within the next decade.
Of course, whether they can do it or not, that is a function of how the technical aspects will pan out.
It is important, therefore, to help the public understand how with the advancements in nuclear energy technologies, the deployment of nuclear energy can now be carried out in a safer way. We also need to educate the public on how including nuclear energy in our energy mix can enhance our energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately, benefit Singaporeans.
While the Government had ruled out conventional nuclear energy technologies in the 2012 Pre-Feasibility Study, the newer nuclear technologies, such as the small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactors, incorporate new safety features that can significantly reduce the risks and mitigate the impact of accidents, compared to many of the plants operating around the world today.
We will also help the public to understand the capabilities, first and foremost, that Singapore is building up, to enable us to take a considered decision on whether eventually to deploy nuclear energy. And if we should decide to do so, how we will manage this safely.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. It appears to me that the question on safety involves two distinct issues. One is Singapore's own decisions insofar as SMRs and Gen IV technology is concerned; and the other question is the regional roll-out of nuclear technologies. So, the public education process has to address both these issues.
On the matter of announcements made by countries in the region, can the Minister confirm: what is the extent of that progress? And is the technology that is being considered by these regional partners of ours of the new generation nuclear technologies or of the old generation technologies?
That aside, the other question, of course, is in terms of the Government's plans, specifically in terms of public education. The paper that I referred to, which was in my Parliamentary Question, the 2018 paper, which was funded by the Singapore National Research Foundation, suggests that there may be a lot of misunderstanding with regard to nuclear technology amongst Singaporeans, that has to be overcome. Granted, the sample size was small, which is 39, but the suggestion is that there is quite a bit of work to be done on the public education front.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Singh for his supplementary questions. It has flowed into a trend of thought, so I would try to follow according to the same wavelength and frequency. But in event that I drop a few beats, please give feedback on some of the points that the Member is raising.
First and foremost, perhaps, I can provide a glimpse as to what the Government is thinking of, in terms of the set-up. There are two teams today: a team at the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and one team at the National Environment Agency (NEA). EMA's Nuclear Energy Office falls under my portfolio of coverage within the Ministry of Trade and Industry family. The EMA's Nuclear Energy Office will primarily assess the feasibility of deploying advanced nuclear energy technologies for power generation in Singapore. NEA's Nuclear Safety Division will focus on nuclear safety and safeguards for potential deployments in Singapore, as well as in the region.
And I note that there is a lot of interest surrounding the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, in terms of their deployment. I cannot commit for sure as to their timelines, although what we have gleaned are from official, public newspaper reports out there. There have been some exhortations by our neighbours that they want to develop it in 10 years, some 15, some 20 years.
They have not stated what type of technologies they are going to deploy, whether it is conventional ones or whether it is going to be the advanced nuclear energy technologies. If it is the advanced nuclear technology type, the newer types like the SMRs, the Gen IV, then I think pretty much the assessment level, the readiness level, we are probably on par.
Having said that, within the countries in the region, many of them actually have already developed and they have planted research reactors within their respective countries. I do not have the total numbers of the research reactors. I suppose there are some in Indonesia, in Malaysia, I believe in Vietnam, possibly even in the Philippines as well.
\t
For us, what is important to note is that, as I have said earlier on in my reply to the other Members in the House: today, the physics work, the engineering works. I think the last big step is whether it can be commercially viable, because the physics, the engineering can work, but if the costs are so high, are so prohibitive, then it really would not be pragmatic, feasible, nor would it be practical for us to deploy here. Hence that comparison and the undertaking of that feasibility study today by Mott MacDonald, it is out there to assess this.
Having said this, what we know today is that, the advanced nuclear technology is significantly safer than the conventional ones, because a lot of the safety systems are passive and they are inherent. They do not need an external active operator to go in and intervene. The public – myself included, in the early stages of my entry into Government – was also pretty much affected by what we read about in Fukushima, in Chernobyl. But those systems were the first and second generation ones. They were built many, many decades ago. I think that engineering, the safety design has significantly improved since then. That is why we are undertaking this feasibility study.
So, I beg your indulgence. For some of the questions Members asked pertaining to our neighbours, it would be very difficult for us to comment on what they are doing. We have heard anecdotal announcements that there could be potential need for sitings 500 kilometres south of us. There are also need for more remote areas for small modular reactors, for instance, in Kalimantan, or even over in the eastern part of Indonesia. We cannot confirm what is the state or the level of maturity in terms of their thinking or their discussions.
Suffice to say, we work very closely with international agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for instance; together with the IAEA. And with that, we understand from the data and we try to triangulate, but these are very early stages. Hence, that is why I said that we will try our best to answer, but a lot of that information is just not out there.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I note the two agencies within the Government that Minister Tan mentioned as well, as the recently set up nuclear research and safety institute within the National University of Singapore (NUS). Notwithstanding how the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not restrict peaceful uses of nuclear technology, I am wondering if the Minister would be able to share what challenges the Government has faced in acquiring top end talent in nuclear science and engineering, given the traditional guardedness that leading nuclear nations have had in disseminating the frontier of such knowledge.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Prof Lim for his supplementary question. First and foremost, the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Institute (SNRSI) was incorporated sometime back. I do not have the date off-hand with me. This year it was upgraded. It used to be SNRSI – the \"I\" was for \"Initiative\". But what the agencies have recognised is that because of the enhanced interest in advanced nuclear technology, they have decided to upgrade it from an \"Initiative\" into an \"Institute\". So, it resides within NUS. It is an independent body and it does all of the simulation framework, it does a lot of the public education and it continues to be so.
For the type of technologies that would be suitable for Singapore, we have concluded as a result of that pre-feasibility study in 2012, that conventional nuclear technologies would not be possible for us, nor is it even practical, nor feasible – because the emergency safety zones means that there is nowhere in Singapore we can site it.
However, the way the newer types of nuclear energy development that we have seen, offers promise, because that buffer zone is significantly reduced; and some of these small modular reactors allow for the potential and the possibility of it stacking. So, to that end, we look at it with a lot of interest, because it could offer, potentially, if we make that decision – and it would take us some years to come to that decision. For us, it is one way of diversifying our energy mix and at the same time, it offers us security. Security in terms of supplies. And to your colleague, Mr Kenneth Tiong's earlier point about thorium, we also need to think about the supply chain, because today, that concentration risk is very, very high.
So, these are all the factors that we have taken into consideration.
The nuclear talent that the Member was alluding to, from now to the time, if ultimately, we should choose to deploy, the deployment part would take a different level of talent versus those with regard to just making sure that we have a safe environment, we take the necessary precautions, should our neighbours decide to deploy.
So, we are really talking about different scenarios.
Having said that, we have made some plans to start to train our own core group. We have got nuclear trained scientists, both on EMA, as well as within the NEA's perspective, and also in academia. And we will continue to work with international bodies. I have also made the announcement that we recently signed the US 123 Agreement with the United States. We are working, stepping up engagements with the French and learning from the Idaho National Labs, learning from the different institutes in France, even working with the United Kingdom. That would allow us to train to provide that runway, to train the type of talent that we would need. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employer's Awareness on Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"20 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of employer awareness of the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, particularly for parents with children born premature, with congenital conditions or as part of multiple births; (b) how many employers have adopted this Standard from 2023 to date; and (c) what further outreach or support is planned to raise adoption of this Standard.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, from January 2023 to October 2025, 880 new employers have adopted the Tripartite Standard (TS) on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, bringing the total number of adopters to more than 4,500 employers.
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), tripartite partners and other agencies encourage employers to implement progressive employment practices, including adopting the TS on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs. This is done through its various websites. The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) has also conducted close to 20 workshops since 2020 to guide employers in implementing leave benefits, including adopting this TS. To create greater awareness, tripartite partners recognise organisations that have successfully implemented progressive employment practices, such as work-life programmes, through the biennial Tripartite Alliance Awards.
\tMr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Senior Parliamentary of State for his response. Given that pre-term infants often face prolonged Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) stays and require follow-up appointments, has MOM studied whether the four weeks of unpaid leave per year under the current standard, is sufficient in duration and flexibility?
Next, could MOM also consider publishing a public registry of adopters with opt in, so parents can identify supportive employers?
Lastly, when might MOM intend to review the effectiveness of the TS and what indicators will it use?
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. We have been progressively enhancing parental leave provisions to better support parents with young children, including the recent enhancements of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave, and the introduction of the new shared parental leave scheme. And with these enhancements, eligible parents can receive up to 30 weeks of parental leave in their child's first year.
Parents with multiple or pre-term births, or whose children have congenital conditions, can tap on these enhanced leave provisions to have more time to care for their children or settle caregiving arrangements. Beyond these leave provisions, flexible work arrangements can support all workers, including parents, to more effectively balance their caregiving responsibilities and career aspirations.
The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests implemented in December 2024, sets out the process for employees to formally request for flexible work arrangements and for employers to consider and respond to these requests on reasonable business grounds. Parents can discuss suitable flexible work arrangements with their employers if they require more time to care for their children.
With regard to the TS adopters, it is already available on Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices' (TAFEP's) website.
And on Member's third question, MOM will continuously monitor these indicators and make necessary adjustments if required in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Processing Time for Bus Travellers at Land Checkpoints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"21 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the average number of seconds taken to process travellers at the bus halls of the land checkpoints using (i) QR code clearance and (ii) passport clearance, respectively; (b) what percentage of clearance lanes are QR code clearance only; and (c) how is this percentage determined.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): On average, QR code clearance and passport clearance at the bus halls of the land checkpoints take approximately 10 seconds and 13 seconds respectively.
All Automated Border Clearance System lanes at the bus halls are enabled for both QR code and passport clearance. The lanes will be designated to offer QR code clearance only if there is an operational need to do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Fadli.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you for the reply. Does the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) change the percentage of clearance lanes that are QR only during peak hours, or when there are a lot of travellers who may not have downloaded the MyICA Mobile app, such as leisure or elderly travellers? And what steps is the ICA taking to encourage downloading of MyICA Mobile app for QR code clearance?
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: I thank the Member for the two questions. Firstly, in terms of all the lanes, as I have said earlier my response, all the lanes are enabled for QR code and passport clearances. We are still in the process of encouraging more members of public to use QR code, because QR code clearance is faster than passport clearance.
We do find that having to designate, perhaps QR code only or passport only clearances is not the most practicable, because there are certain members of public who may not have gotten the QR code application done properly and actually, the process of going back to using only passport takes even longer.
I reassure the Member of the House that the ICA is constantly reviewing our operational processes to ensure that checkpoint operations are smooth and that we will do as much as we can to enhance the traveller experience. All these, taking into account the need to balance and make sure that we do not compromise border security.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Road Traffic Accidents and Fatalities Involving Motorcyclists and Pillion Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"22 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what benchmarks and targets has the Ministry set for road traffic fatality rates; and (b) what additional measures are being contemplated to address the rise in accidents and casualties involving motorcyclists and pillion riders.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): The Ministry has a range of measures, both legislative and relating to public education to encourage drivers and riders to be more careful. The Ministry has for example raised penalties for speeding, to try and reduce accidents. Ultimately, whether these measures succeed depend on all our road users.
In terms of benchmarks and targets in all of these areas, whether relating to crime, or to accidents, or other matters as such, the Government must approach on the basis that there is zero tolerance and that we should aim to prevent such accidents completely. Every fatality is one too many.
\t
But we should also be realistic to accept that in any society, there will be crime. In every society, there will be accidents, and there will be other such incidents going forward. Some people will get into accidents, commit crime, regardless of the penalties. And attempts to prevent them from doing so, will not deter some.
To enhance road safety for all motorcyclists, the Traffic Police (TP) recently updated the standards for motorcycle helmets, which will take effect from 1 November 2025. In addition, the Land Transport Authority will require all newly registered motorcycles to be equipped with an Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) from 1 April 2027. This will reduce the risk of skidding and maintain vehicle stability during sudden and hard braking.
TP also runs public education campaigns targeted at the riding community. TP launched the Singapore Ride Safe campaign in conjunction with the Singapore Road Safety Month in 2025, which reached out to more than 13,500 people, and public awareness campaigns such as the \"Reward the Sensible Motorist\". These campaigns overall encourage motorcyclists to adopt safe riding habits and don protective riding gear.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I understand from the latest mid-year traffic situation report that the number of speeding-related accidents has declined. That is some relief. But at the same time, the number of accidents involving motorcyclists have still risen by close to about 10% year-on-year, in the first half of the year.
The ABS requirement from 2027 onwards is a welcome addition. At the same time, will the Minister of State be able to share, based on his analysis of past motorcycle accidents, what are some of the key reasons for these accidents and fatalities, and any other preventive measures that the TP is considering implementing?
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Indeed, the recent mid-year statistics on overall road accidents have indicated that the number of accidents involving motorcyclists increased about 9.5% from about 1,900 in the first half of last year, to about 2,088 in the first half of this year.
The number of motorcyclists who get involved in traffic accidents is high, and in fact they constitute a disproportionately larger proportion of overall accidents in Singapore. I quote, specifically 54.7% of accidents in the first half of 2025 involved motorcyclists and pillion riders. So, it is an area of concern for us and we do want to keep our motorcyclists, our riders safe.
A whole series of measures are in place. Both the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as our TP colleagues have been working very hard, be it from the aspect of public education, going upstream; be it in terms of licensing; be it in terms of penalties downstream; be it in terms of putting in place reminders on the roads, reminder messages in terms of getting people to pay attention to the speed, to ride safe and be considerate, for example, as well as enforcement measures on the streets, we have put in all the measures that we think are effective.
As I mentioned in my earlier response, some of these measures are effective, but there will still be accidents that will take place.
The two initiatives that we recently promoted in terms of the standards for the motorcyclist helmets, as well as the ABS are the newest initiatives that we are putting out to do our part to make sure that we bring the accident numbers down.
We will continue to review whether there are new technologies available in the market for us to adopt. I welcome the Member to share if there are other suggestions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Peak Capacity of ActiveSG Gyms and Considerations for Building New Ones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"23 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how the peak capacity of each ActiveSG gym is determined; (b) which are the most crowded ActiveSG gyms; (c) whether there are plans to increase the supply of gym facilities where demand is high; and (d) if not, why not.
\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 peak capacity of each ActiveSG gym is set with a view to maximise access to the gym facilities while ensuring that each user has sufficient space and time to exercise and that the prevailing fire safety requirements are complied with. This will be reviewed from time to time.
Our ActiveSG gyms are generally well-utilised, with larger gyms seeing higher visitorship. Some examples of gyms that experience higher visitorship relative to their size include Senja-Cashew ActiveSG gym and Clementi ActiveSG gym.
We plan that every residential town has at least one gym, which is situated in the town's ActiveSG Sport Centre. In general, towns with larger populations have more sport facilities, including more or larger gyms. Existing ActiveSG gyms within our sport centres may be expanded when the centres undergo renovation or comprehensive redevelopment. We will continue to monitor demand when planning the supply of gym facilities.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you for the replies. I have two supplementary questions. What are the considerations taken before the construction of an ActiveSG gym is decided on? And the second one is, would the Government consider establishing ActiveSG gyms in other locations, such as shopping malls and community or community centres?
\tMs Goh Hanyan: I thank the Member for his questions. First, on the considerations before building an ActiveSG gym, for the Urban Redevelopment Authority's planning areas that have populations above 130,000, there will be a town sports centre with a gym. So, this is the planning parameter.
And in terms of the second question on other locations that we might consider for such gym facilities, we will continue to review different formats as part of our Sports Facilities Master Plan. For now, the planning parameter stays as what we will go by for our planning considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Permanent Baby Gift to Support New Parents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"24 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider permanently introducing a baby gift, similar to Singapore's SG60 Baby Gift and Finland's baby box scheme, to support new parents with parenting essentials.
\tThe Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the SG60 Baby Gift is an initiative to commemorate Singapore's 60th year of Independence. There are currently no plans to introduce such gifts on a permanent basis as the purpose of these gifts is to mark special milestones in our nation's journey. However, we will continue to review how we can celebrate and support families.
We have enhanced and introduced new measures in the Marriage and Parenthood package over the years to provide greater financial support for parents. For instance, parents have flexibility in using the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, which ranges from $11,000 for the first and second child, to $13,000 for the third and subsequent children, to purchase baby essentials. We have also introduced the Large Families Scheme, under which parents with three or more children will receive $1,000 of Large Family LifeSG Credits each year for every third and subsequent Singapore Citizen child, from the year that the child turns one to the year that the child turns six.
The Government remains committed to promoting marriage and parenthood, and we will continue to review our policies to ensure they remain relevant in supporting parents.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lee.
\tMs Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. I had a SG58 baby, so I did not have the privilege of getting a SG50 or SG60 gift pack. But I know of many mothers and parents were delighted to have them. I have two supplementary questions.
Would the Ministry or Government be open to exploring a pilot programme in specific regions or demographics, to assess the feasibility and impact of the Baby Gift on a smaller scale? My second supplementary question will be was there any formal survey or feedback done on the impact of the Baby Gift for both the SG50 and SG60 cohorts?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary question. On the first suggestion to have a pilot within specific regions, have a Baby Gift on a smaller scale, just two things. Singapore is already quite small, and I am fairly sure that if we were to give a Baby Gift to, let us say the central region, and not to the others, the other regions will very quickly put up their hands.
But I think that the more important point is this: the Baby Gift is meant to be a commemoration. It is meant to be something to mark a milestone. But in terms of the essentials and what is needed, what most parents actually need is the cash. And hence, that is why we have the Baby Bonus Cash Gift. And also, why we have the First Step Grant, which puts cash into the hands of the parents and then, they can choose what they want.
The other thing also – and we went through this when we were preparing the SG60 gift – different parents want different things. So, when we were road-testing it, some came back and said, \"Can I change this gift for something else, because I already have this?\" So, you will run into those issues and therefore, the general policy is we give the parents cash; they can buy what they want, but for special occasions we have something to mark that special occasion.
As to whether any survey or study was done on the impact of the Baby Gift, not that I am aware of. I may stand corrected, but not that I am aware of, simply because the Baby Gift was not intended to be a policy measure to achieve a certain outcome. It was just intended to be a nice thing to commemorate a special occasion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Environmental and Biodiversity Studies of Forest along Sungei Serangoon in Light of Construction Works","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"25 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether any Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out or any Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan has been put in place prior to the start of the construction works for the bus depot at the forest along Sungei Serangoon between Tampines Road and Buangkok East Drive.
26 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether URA would consider conducting baseline biodiversity studies of the forest along Sungei Serangoon from Tampines Road to Serangoon East Dam to study the biodiversity of the area for future planning purposes before any other project is approved on the site.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Question Nos 25 and 26 in today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, as part of our planning process, developments which may cause significant environmental impact must undergo environmental studies, including baseline biodiversity assessments, before they are allowed to proceed. This applies to any future developments in the Sungei Serangoon area.
The bus depot will be constructed on a brownfield site comprising non-native vegetation and is not near any sensitive nature areas. As such, the potential impact on sensitive habitats was assessed to be limited and an environmental study was not required.
To mitigate any localised environmental impact, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will put in place earth control and wildlife management measures during the construction.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his answers. Sir, a number of my residents, especially those living in Kingsford Waterbay condo, asking whether the Government can relocate the proposed bus depot site from the current position, which is in the middle of the forested area between Buangkok East Drive and Tampines Road, to shift to the area at or around the current heavy vehicle park along Tampines Road. I will share some of the reasons for this consideration.
Firstly, I note from the Minister of State's answer was that the bus depot site is away from residential area, if I heard him correctly. Actually, at the at the beginning of construction, it appears that the site is directly opposite Kingsford Waterbay condo, as well as Cape View HDB Estate, and another condo next to Kingsford Waterbay. If you are looking from the condo across the Sungai Serangoon, it is actually much nearer. And so, some of the feedback given by my residents include noise and dust disamenity. In fact, at this beginning, onset of the construction, and when the bus depot is eventually constructed, there will also be noise and dust disamenity, bearing in mind that bus depot operations typically end late in the evening and start early in the morning.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tan, we are approaching the end of Question Time. Do give the Minister of State some time to reply to you.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, Sir. Please do indulge me, because these are very important concerns. I will hurry on next. The forested area in this eastern bank of the Sungei Serangoon is a nice, forested area grown over the last 20 over years, notwithstanding the Government regarding it as a brownfield site. So, as per my previous appeals and my previous Parliamentary Questions in 2023, this is the only remaining significant track of green spaces on the eastern half of Singapore of such a size, literally from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1 and to Serangoon East Dam. By preserving it, we will allow continual connectivity for migratory birds to fly between the Northern Islands and other parts of Singapore. It will also allow the flora and fauna, and even the wildlife that may dwell in these green spaces, including migratory birds in their annual migration journeys between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres as they fly through Singapore —
Mr Speaker: Mr Tan, are you coming to the question? We are actually at the end of Question Time.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, Sir. One last point. The redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase site into a huge Housing and Development Board estate – I believe 800 hectares, 150,000 homes – just next to this area to this area will have significant environmental —
Mr Speaker: You should be asking your question. Mr Tan, Mr Tan. I have given you a lot of leeway. We are actually at the end of Question Time.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Sorry, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So, I will have to cut you off there and allow the Minister of State to answer to give a short reply. We are out of Question Time.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I am sorry, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I will give as short a reply as possible. I wanted to clarify that I did not say to the Member that it was near the residential sites. I in fact said that it was not near any sensitive nature areas. So, just a point of clarification.
The other part was also that this site has been zoned for industrial use since 1998 and it is intended to be developed into a new node in the area to provide for jobs closer to homes and for residents of the nearby towns such as Hougang, Sengkang and future residents as well.
This was also briefed to the Members of Parliament (MPs) back in February 2018 so that MPs are aware of this.
With regard to the potential disamenities as a result of the construction of the bus dept, LTA will work with the contractor to mitigate any of these. And I understand that there are already discussions about how to mitigate disamenities arising from the construction.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Minister Indranee, I believe you have a clarification to make.
[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":"Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification.
At 26 September 2025 Sitting, Ms Denise Phua asked supplementary questions on Singapore's recent drop in the International Institute for Management Development's World Talent ranking. In my response, I had said that Singapore's ranking in terms of our total public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product had gone from 63rd in 2024 to 65th in 2025. It is actually the other way round. Our ranking had gone up, from 65th in 2024 to 63rd in 2025.
I had also said that the perception-based indicators on whether our primary and secondary and university education meets the needs of a competitive economy, had improved. I would like to clarify that our ranking for these indicators had fallen slightly, but nonetheless remained high. For primary and secondary education, Singapore's ranking had gone from second in 2024 to third in 2025. For university education, it had gone from second in 2024 to seventh in 2025. [Please refer to \"Response to Singapore's Drop in 2025 World Talent Ranking\", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Ministerial Statement. Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"The Government’s Intention to Preserve the Site of 38 Oxley Road","subTitle":"Statement by Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr David Neo): Mr Speaker, a Notice of Intention was issued on 3 November 2025 to the owner and occupier of 38 Oxley Road, stating that the Government intends to preserve the site under the Preservation of Monuments Act 2009 (PMA). As outlined in the joint National Heritage Board (NHB) and Singapore Land Authority (SLA) media release on 3 October 2025, the Government intends to acquire the site of 38 Oxley Road under the Land Acquisition Act if a Preservation Order is made. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth\", Official Report, 6 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Clarification section.]
In my Statement today, I will explain the Government's fuller considerations for making this move and set out the next steps forward.
Sir, history gives a nation its soul. Our history is an integral part of our identity as Singaporeans. Current and future generations of Singaporeans need to know where we came from, the challenges we have overcome together and the sacrifices our forefathers have made to build Singapore. When we are grounded in our history and we share a strong identity, we will build our future purposefully as one people, one nation, one Singapore.
Historic sites, buildings and structures connect us to our past and to our heritage. They bear witness to historic events that shaped our nation and allow us to be in the same space as the people who played key roles in shaping our history.
NHB is the Government body charged with the role of preserving these historic sites and buildings under the PMA. It ensures that our National Monuments remain in our urban fabric and are present in our collective memory as physical representations of key milestones in Singapore's historic development. We have gazetted historic buildings as National Monuments, like the Former Parliament House and the Former City Hall. We have also gazetted the Padang site as a National Monument because it has hosted key historical events, including our first National Day Parade in 1966 and celebrations of the installation of Singapore's first Yang di-Pertuan Negara Encik Yusof bin Ishak.
As a young nation, we have 76 National Monuments in Singapore. They collectively convey different aspects of the Singapore Story and identity. Some represent our religious diversity while others are important civic and cultural buildings. Most have their roots from the colonial period. Only a precious few, like the ones I shared earlier, embody Singapore's struggle for self-determination after the Second World War, and our aspirations as a newly independent nation post-1965. We therefore need to carefully steward monuments that reflect this phase in our national history, and protect this cultural inheritance for our future generations. They collectively connect Singaporeans with our Singapore Story.
In land-scarce Singapore, preservation is something we enter into only after a rigorous assessment process administered by NHB. NHB conducts thorough research on the history and significance of the identified site, including the events and people associated with the site, as well as their impact on the trajectory of Singapore's history. This research is then assessed by the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSMAB). This is an independent board consisting experts in fields relevant to National Monuments, such as history and architecture.
The PSMAB considers the merits of each case holistically and objectively, based on its historical significance, architectural and design merit, and authenticity. If the PSMAB finds the identified building or site to be worthy of preservation and NHB supports the assessment, NHB will submit its recommendation to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth for decision. If the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth agrees with the recommendation, a Notice of Intention will be issued to notify the owner and occupier of the site of the Government's intention to preserve the building or site. And as stated under the law, the owner and occupier will be provided a reasonable period to submit any objections to the intended preservation. NHB will consider all objections received and make further recommendations on whether to proceed with this preservation. Thereafter, the Government will make a final decision on whether to proceed with the preservation.
Let me now address the site of 38 Oxley Road. The matter has received considerable attention over the years and extensive discussions in this House. I will not recount the background in detail, but let me do a quick recap of the salient points.
First, it was Mr Lee Kuan Yew's preference for the house on 38 Oxley Road to be demolished. It was also Mdm Kwa's wish for the family's living spaces to remain private.
Second, Mr Lee understood that he had to abide by the processes and the systems that he had built, and that the Government has a duty and a responsibility to consider the public interest, and not just those of private individuals. And that was why on 27 December 2011, he had written to the Cabinet, and he had stated, and I quote, \"If 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay.\" In March 2012, he had also applied to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to renovate the house. This would had kept the structure of the original house and added other spaces to it.
Third, there was no need to make any decision on 38 Oxley Road prior to this, as Dr Lee Wei Ling was residing in the house. The Government had made it very clear that we would not do anything to affect her right to live in the house. But after Dr Lee Wei Ling passed away in October 2024, the URA received a demolition application for the building at 38 Oxley Road. Hence, NHB launched a formal assessment of the site in line with established processes under the PMA to determine if it was worthy of preservation.
NHB and PSMAB have since completed the process to determine the site's eligibility and suitability for preservation under the PMA, and NHB has made its recommendation to me as Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth. For this case, public officers on PSMAB recused themselves during the assessment to ensure that the site was considered independently.
The PSMAB have assessed 38 Oxley Road to have strong national significance, worthy of preservation as a National Monument. They note that the site bore witness to pivotal events in the 1950s that marked Singapore's transition from a colony to an independent nation. Impactful and consequential decisions were taken there. The site also served as the venue for conversations, activities and decisions of our founding leaders, which profoundly influenced the trajectory of Singapore's independence movement and our subsequent national history.
It was the gathering point for activists and trade unionists who came to seek help and legal consultations with Mr Lee. It also hosted regular meetings, often in the basement dining room, where key individuals such as Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr S Rajaratnam and Mr KM Byrne discussed the feasibility of forming a political party to contest the Legislative Assembly elections.
These meetings progressively grew to include other individuals involved in the anti-colonial struggle, such as Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan, who later split away to form the Barisan Sosialis. Prominent Malayan leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tan Cheng Lock also visited the site for discussions.
The site witnessed discussions where these key individuals formulated their vision, plans and values for Singapore, leading to the formation of the People's Action Party and its landslide victory in the 1959 Legislative Assembly Elections, resulting in Singapore's first fully independent Government. This makes the site a unique and foundational part of the story of Singapore's independence. And hence, the PSMAB concluded that the site is of national importance with great historic merit. If preserved, the site would allow current and future generations of Singaporeans to reflect upon these significant events and the ideals and the values that have shaped Singapore.
In my capacity as Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, I have received the recommendations, and I agree with them. It is the confluence of people, place and events that gives a site its historical significance. We have very few such sites in Singapore where there is such a confluence. And 38 Oxley Road is one of them.
As a young nation, we need to retain this unique site for it bears witness to the birth of independent Singapore and to key moments in our history. Preserving and acquiring the site means that it cannot be redeveloped for residential, commercial or other private uses. Preserving the site means we will be able to avoid a situation where private parties attempt to purchase 38 Oxley Road in future, just to have an address that is associated with Mr Lee's residence. I am sure all of us in this House and the vast majority of Singaporeans will want to make sure that that situation does not happen.
I would also like to clarify that the Government's considerations were for the entire site, and not for the buildings or structures within it. If the site is to be eventually preserved and acquired, the Government's thinking is for it to be developed into a public space, such as a heritage park, so that Singaporeans can have access to it and it can be a park of our shared memories.
Preserving the site does not obligate the Government to keep the buildings and structures within the site in their current condition. In fact, the relevant authorities have not had the chance to enter the site to assess the conditions of the buildings and the structures. And that is a key reason why we are opting to preserve the site, rather than just specific buildings or structures.
If access to the site is obtained, the Government will undertake a detailed study of the buildings and the structures within the site. We will take into account factors like the existing condition and weigh the potential benefit of retaining them against the costs. The Government will consider all options, including those proposed by the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road in 2018 which include partial or full demolitions of the buildings and structures.
Regardless of the option taken, the Government will respect Mr Lee and Mdm Kwa's wishes to protect their family's privacy by removing all traces of their private living spaces from the interior of the house. Under no circumstance will the interior of the house, as Mr Lee and Mdm Kwa knew, be displayed or recorded or remodelled or duplicated elsewhere.
In fact, many other countries around the world have preserved and converted sites associated with their nation's independence as spaces for public education and appreciation. For example, there is the Gandhi Ashram in India. This marks the site where Mahatma Gandhi lived from 1917 to 1930 and was the centre of Gandhi's non-violent resistance movement against British colonial rule of India.
There is also the Independence National Historical Park in the United States (US), which includes buildings that witnessed the country's key historic milestones, like the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
In many such instances, they have made changes to the sites, including modifying or adapting the original buildings with new interpretive structures to better enable the public to experience the site as a park or a heritage space. And that is why we are keeping an open mind as to the treatment of the buildings and the structures within the site.
We will keep all options open and strive for a solution that will unite us as a country, rather than allow this to become a point of contention or division in our society. If 38 Oxley Road is indeed preserved and acquired, the Government fully intends to conclude its plans on the exact use and configuration of the site, including the treatment of the buildings and the structures on the site well within this term of Government. In the interim, there will be no public access to 38 Oxley Road.
Mr Speaker, let me now explain the next steps.
Following the service of the Notice of Intention, due process under the PMA will be accorded to the owner and any occupier. In line with existing practice, a notice period of 14 calendar days will be provided for them to submit objections to the NHB. NHB will then submit any objections received and their recommendations to me, in the capacity of Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, to decide whether to proceed with the preservation of the site. All objections submitted and recommendations made will be considered objectively and fairly as part of due process.
If, having heard and considered the objections, the decision is to proceed with the preservation, a Preservation Order will be made. The Government will then commence the process for the acquisition of the site as part of the plans to eventually make it accessible to the general public. Such acquisition will be done in accordance with established processes and compensation will be made in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.
The owner, any occupiers and any other persons interested will be given the opportunity to submit their claims to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to determine the compensation. A professional private valuer will also be appointed to assist SLA in determining the market value of the land, taking into consideration any claims submitted.
If the owner or any person interested is not satisfied with the compensation awarded, a Notice of Appeal can be filed with the Land Acquisition Appeals Board.
If preserved, the acquisition will allow the Government to take all necessary steps to safeguard the site and preserve it in keeping with its historic significance and national importance. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] National identity is the bedrock of a nation. Especially for a young nation like Singapore, we must ensure that this and future generations are deeply rooted in our history and our sense of self.
What the Government is preserving is not just any particular building, but a site which has witnessed an important part of our road to Independence. What we are remembering is not a leader, but our struggle towards independence. This is something that is not represented by any other site or monument.
The Government intends to preserve the site, but this does not mean the buildings will be kept in exactly the same form. In fact, if we preserve it, we commit to remove all traces of Mr Lee's and his family's private spaces. We will study the sensitive and suitable treatment of the structures on site to turn the site into a potential place for educating our young on our national history so that they have a deeper understanding of what it means to be a Singaporean.
Yesterday's Lianhe Zaobao editorial pointed out that the Government's decision is based on national interests. It transcends politics, family and individuals. The preservation of the site seeks to ensure that the story of our nation-building journey lives on for generations to come.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has arrived at this approach for 38 Oxley Road, because this is the most responsible approach.
In its 2018 report, the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road stated that a future government will have to make an informed and considered decision on the matter when it becomes necessary. This is the future government, and the time is now. We will take the deliberate steps to decide and we will do so in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans now and for the future.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I began this speech explaining the importance of preserving our collective memory, because this is what makes us one people. Our history and journey from immigrants with no rights to an independent country of Singapore Citizens is fought for by key people and through key events that shaped our destiny. The physical spaces that bore witness to these events are our only links to these pivotal moments in our history.
There will come a time when no one who has lived through Singapore's struggle for independence will be around to recount these stories first-hand, but the sights and markers that we choose to keep today will continue to speak for them. They will remind us of our hard-fought path to become a multiracial, multireligious and sovereign nation. In preserving the site, we are not memorialising any single leader. We are safeguarding the grounds where future generations can stand to understand where we came from, who we are and what we overcame together.
We do this so that our children, our grandchildren and their children after them will know the story of Singapore, not as something distant or abstract, but as something lived, earned and entrusted to them. Then, our Singapore spirit will endure and it will grow stronger with every generation. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: I see many Members raising their hands. But before I call hon Members for clarifications, I wish to point out that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. In other words, no long mini speeches as well.
Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise so that the Minister can answer as many clarifications as possible. I would like to ask Minister Neo to also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Minister. We had an intense debate on this in the same House in 2017. Given the same sensitivities surrounding 38 Oxley Road, will the Government consider structured public engagement or consultation when developing the interpretative plans to ensure that the eventual design fosters unity and avoids reopening old political disputes?
Secondly, the Minister also mentioned that the Government intends to come to a decision within this term of government. For the sake of public clarity, could the Minister outline the key project milestones that Singaporeans can expect from now until the final configuration, if the site is decided to be preserved?
Lastly, Sir, Minister has also taken pains to explain that the preservation decision concerns national memory and not personalities. Could the Minister elaborate how the Government will communicate this to the public so as to avoid misconception that this is an attempt to memorialise any individual rather than our shared independence journey?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his three clarifications.
First is regarding structured public engagements. If the site is preserved and acquired, the agencies will look to identify possible stakeholder groups and conduct engagements to help shape the future of the site and to ensure that the potential of the site for public education is maximised. This is something we do with all our National Monuments.
Some of the possible stakeholder groups include heritage enthusiasts and educators, to ensure that the site can enhance their efforts to enhance public education of our history. Other groups that could potentially be engaged would also include people who represent target demographic groups, for example, the youths or our seniors, to ensure that the stories and the memories are also captured within the use of the site. And most importantly, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, we want to ensure that some of these stories are able to be handed down to the next generation and the generation after that.
Given the technical expertise of the PSMAB in these fields, including history, architecture and conservation, the advisory board will also be consulted to ensure that the treatment of the buildings and the structures on the site befit the historical importance and the national significance of this site.
To the Member's second clarification about key project milestones, Sir, I had earlier outlined to Members some of these key milestones from the issuance of the Notice of Intention to the intended acquisition of the site, if a Preservation Order is made.
If the site is acquired and access to the site is obtained, our agencies will proceed to assess the condition of the site, and that of the buildings and the structures. This will inform our study on the potential options for future uses of the site, which will also include a holistic assessment on the impact of the surrounding neighbourhood, including possible options for public access, parking, traffic impact. And as I mentioned earlier, we will also conduct engagements with stakeholders and residents, and take in their feedback on the eventual use and the design of the site. These are all prudent and necessary steps that any agencies take in evaluating any potential developments.
However, at this point in time, because a Preservation Order has not been made, it will be premature for us to provide any firm timelines on the site.
For the Member's third clarification regarding how we will communicate this, especially to younger Singaporeans that this is something that intends to commemorate our shared independence journey. As I mentioned earlier in my Ministerial Statement, the reason why the PSMAB has recommended the site for preservation is because of its close association with our struggle for self-government in the 1950s, and this is a very rare location, where it is place, people and events – the confluence – and it is also something that is associated with most, if not, all the key participants in this anti-colonial struggle.
If the site is preserved and it is acquired, we will convert it into a public space, possibly a heritage park through which we will educate the current and future generations on this very significant part of Singapore's journey.
The focus of this education, therefore, is on the pivotal historical events that happened there, one that brought us from colonial to self-rule to independence, rather than the lives of those people who lived there.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Speaker. Sir, there are Singaporeans who felt strongly that the founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew's original wish to have the house demolished should be respected. It is not just because this is his personal wish but also the values that he espouse, which is not to have personal monuments. So, my first question to the Minister is whether the Government has taken this aspect into consideration in coming to the decision?
Secondly, it relates to the Founders' Memorial which is now being built. Can I ask the Minister would the Founders' Memorial be able to encapsulate the historical and national significance of our founding values and ideals, without having to preserve 38 Oxley Road?
And thirdly, in the light of NHB's recommendation and MCCY's decision, can I ask the Minister if he can update if there has been any change in the Government's policy position with regard to preserving and creating National Monuments?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. On the first one about Mr Lee's wish, I would like to reiterate to this House that at this moment in time and at this stage, no decision has been made yet. The issuance of a Notice of Intention is a process under the PMA, allowing for the owner or occupier of a proposed National Monument to submit any objections of the intention to gazette the proposed National Monument, before a decision has been made.
As I stated in my Ministerial Statement, Mr Lee clearly wanted to protect the privacy of his family. Mdm Kwa had also felt strongly about this. And Mr Lee was also quite adamant in his life that he did not want to be idolised or memorialised, and therefore I believe that the approach as outlined in my Ministerial Statement is the best for way forward, given the circumstances. Because given the site's historic significance and national importance, the Government has a duty to consider this, not just from the lens of a private individual, but also from a good public policy lens – what is good for current and future Singaporeans. It is our duty to allow future Singaporeans to have the opportunity to visit the site and to appreciate the gravity of discussions that took place at the site, discussions that brought us to our independence.
In committing to removing all traces of Mr Lee's and his family's private living spaces, we respect Mr Lee's wish for privacy. And we are also clear that it is our intention that we are not preserving the site and using it to showcase the personal effects of Mr Lee or his family. We are focusing on the nationally significant events that took place at the site and not memorialising his life. In keeping an open mind regarding the buildings and the structures, we would then be able to best consider how best to strike the balance between preserving the historical significance of the site and maximising its public value to Singaporeans, and respecting Mr Lee's wishes.
Mr Speaker, on the Member's second clarification regarding the Founders' Memorial, historic sites are preserved because they provide us with an authentic connection to the important events and the people of the past. What is unique is that it gives us an opportunity to stand on the same grounds and be in the very same space where pivotal events in national history took place and we are walking in the same footsteps of those who came before us. And therefore, it provides us with a certain frame of reference, a certain sense of place, to appreciate how far we have come.
That is also the reason why we have preserved several sites in Singapore, such as City Hall, Padang and more recently, the former Kandang Kerbau Hospital, as they help us and the future generations recollect and connect with this critical history that we share as a nation.
This sense of place, this being in the same space as those who came before us, it is not something that can be captured by replication at another site. The Founders' Memorial is a site that is reconstructed. It does not share that same sense of place, that same place that housed all the critical events. The Founders' Memorial is a place that is meant to allow our future generations to learn from the shared values that our founding generation, had which is quite different from the site of 38 Oxley Road. And if preserved, this site will then help to augment the Founders' Memorial by providing a site that gives our visitors a first-hand appreciation of the things that took place at the very same site and provides that historical context and background to some of these ideals that the Founders' Memorial is commemorating.
Mr Speaker, on the third clarification by the Member about the Government's policy position on National Monuments, there is no change in the Government's policy. The NHB and the Government has always sought to identify sites of national significance to be assessed as potential National Monuments, particularly if they attest to parts, key parts, pivotal parts of our national history that is under-represented by existing National Monuments.
As a young nation in our 60th year, it is not unexpected that most of our National Monuments originate from before our independence. But this also means, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, sites that attest to our founding independence and our nation building, there are only those a very precious few, which is why it is so important for us to look at this site with all the full considerations of handing it down to future generations, and what is good for Singapore and Singaporeans, both current and future.
And as important events in our national history, it is important that we continue to look for these sites and to preserve them if they are assessed to be worthy in a way that can allow it to better contribute back to society and to enhance the public's appreciation of some of these very pivotal events.
Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister.
First, given that the Government already intends to issue a Preservation Order to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, why is there still a need for the Government to acquire the site?
Second clarification, can I seek confirmation from the Minister, point blank, that the paramount reason for the Preservation Order is not because the site is the family home of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but because it is a historical site where political meetings, activities, decisions which led to the establishment of Independent Singapore, that that was where it took place? In other words, it is not about the private life of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but about the fight for independence of our people.
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his two clarifications.
First, on why is there a need for Government to acquire, the Government has assessed that if the site is preserved, the public interest is best served by acquiring the site to safeguard it and to maintain it in keeping with its historical significance and national importance.
For example, the Government has the resources and the expertise at its disposal to ensure that the site is properly maintained and it is maintained in a manner that will be able to benefit Singaporeans. This is the most responsible course of action to ensure that our future generations of Singaporeans can appreciate the significance of the site, and it can be a part of a collective memory and help to build our shared identity.
On the second question, the point-blank question, well, I want to restate, as I had stated in my Ministerial Statement that the site has been objectively and independently assessed by the PSMAB. And I would also like to quote the Statement of Assessment by the PSMAB, \"the site was more than just the home of Singapore's founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who lived and worked there from 1950 until his death in 2015. It bore witness to pivotal events in the 1950s that marked Singapore's transition from a colony to an independent nation. The modest buildings contrast with the impactful and consequential decisions taken there.\"
It is very clear that the historical significance of this site is not solely about Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The individuals that participated in these meetings and the discussions at the site, they came from across the political spectrum. There were journalists. There were students. There were trade unionists. So, the reason for the preservation of the site is because it bore witness to pivotal events that brought Singapore from colonial to self-rule to our independence as a sovereign nation.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. I have two questions for the Minister. First, this matter has been very long running. I am glad that the Government is making efforts to bring this chapter to a close. The Minister said that the Government intends to conclude its plan for the site, \"well within this term of Government.\" Can the Minister provide more clarity on the timeline moving forward? In terms of: the possible acquisition, further study needed to be done and the Government's final decision.
My second question, I understand that one of the possible outcomes for 38 Oxley Road is to turn it into a heritage park. While we understand that further study and planning have yet to be conducted, would the Minister be able to share the following and I have got the following points.
First, how this may look like? The second point is, if residents in the immediate vicinity be one of the parties who will be consulted, but I think just now Minister did mention that they will be consulted, so I thank Minister for that. My third point, Oxley is a very narrow road and there is a lot of illegal parking in the surrounding condominiums too. So, I would like to know if any potential impact to the traffic parking and congestion of the surrounding areas be seriously studied and considered as well.
Mr David Neo: Sir, I thank the Member for her clarifications.
As stated in my Ministerial Statement, we have currently only issued a Notice of Intention to preserve the site, which was done on 3 November. Under the law, the owner and the occupier of the site has to be given a reasonable period to raise any objections and then, thereafter, the Government has to carefully consider any such objections before deciding whether to make a Preservation Order on the site.
This is the established process for all National Monuments and we are adhering to this same process for the site as well. Therefore, for this reason, as I also mentioned to Member Mr Alex Yam, no decision has been made yet on whether or not the site will be preserved. Therefore, it is very premature for the Government to commit to any timelines in terms of the future milestones and timelines. And this is also the point that I made in my Ministerial Statement, where I said my colleagues and the relevant technical experts have not had access to the site for quite a while. We need to gain access to look at the condition of the site, the buildings, the structures of the site, and weigh the costs and benefits, before we can make a decision and before we can commit to a key timeline.
But the point I made remains that this Government intends to make a deliberate decision on the exact configuration well within this term of Government.
I thank the Member, also, for her second question. If the site is preserved and acquired, like I said earlier for the first clarification, our agencies will conduct a holistic feasibility study on the potential options and the future use. That is not just for the use of the site within itself, but it also includes other agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority, to look into things, such as the traffic impact, parking impact, public access, so that this is more holistic. And then, we can look at doing it in a way that befits its importance and significance, and in a way that allows the public to be able to appreciate the site and at the same time, not create disamenities. We will also engage residents, and we will consider their feedback as part of this process. And we will also be very happy to work with the Member, if acquired, if preserved, on how to be able to develop this site in a way that is in harmony with its surroundings.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, before I begin, I declare that the Workers' Party (WP) has received financial contributions from certain members of the Lee family that are associated with the Oxley property, although these were declared under all relevant regulations. Nevertheless, we have received neither requests nor guidance to speak on this matter, and the statements and questions that follow are entirely our own.
Let me start with a very brief preamble. I understand the fundamental policy tension that the advisory board must confront: the site has clear significant historical meaning for our nation and in this sense, it is as much private property as it is one that metaphorically belongs to all of us; and also, the Government has previously intervened to gazette private property as National Monuments in the past, so in this regard, the decision is not unprecedented.
However, the personal desire of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the original owner, to demolish the site is well-known as well as the application by the site's current owner, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, to proceed with the demolition. I note that the Government has yet to decide on whether, gazette notwithstanding, the site's buildings and structures will be preserved in the present form. And I also note the preservation will take at least the minimal step of removing all private living spaces, in accordance with Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes.
My clarifications may be bucketed into two main themes: first, how NHB weighs the tension between public benefits and private preferences in their deliberations; and second, the options NHB is considering going forward.
On the first question, will the Minister share if there is a system that the advisory board follows in evaluating public interest versus private ones, prior to invoking eminent domain to gazette a site? How are significant elements, such as the property's architectural value or socio-cultural significance weighed against development considerations, such as potential future land use and development restrictions implied by the gazette? How much weight would the preferences of the owner for how the property should be treated, since there have, historically, never been any previous objections to an intended gazette?
On the second, will the Government consider future course of action for the site that heavily favours privacy, while preserving the decision to gazette? In particular, will it not consider not demolishing the buildings, but nevertheless, closing the site to visitors, unless explicit permission of the current owner has been granted? Alternatively, will the Government consider dismantling the site's main structures and reconstructing these at the Founders' Memorial? These approaches strike me as more respectful of both the public interest benefit of preserving elements of the site for posterity, while also accommodating the private property rights of the owner to do with the property as he or she wishes.
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his two clarifications.
On the first point, I just want to make a point that PSMAB is an independent board made up of experts from different fields that are relevant to this subject matter, and their job is to assess the merits of each case independently. So, there is no policy tension on their part. They do not consider other things, like individuals' wishes; they are just scoring it based on technical merit. The established process for which all national monuments are assessed includes both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the identified sites' national significance, historical merit and architectural design merit. These criteria are all based on international best practices for heritage assessments.
The PSMAB will first consider if the identified site is nationally significant, such as whether it is directly linked to key events or people who have had a significant impact on our history. If it is assessed to have national significance, the PSMAB would then deliberate the site's historic and design merit from a technical perspective. For example, sites that have been assessed to be deeply relevant to these historic events or individuals would have to be considered to have strong historic merit. And sites which have been assessed to be of national significance and of exceptional historic and/or architectural design merit would then be considered worthy of preservation.
For the Member's suggestion about the different configurations that can take place as part of subsequent developments, I want to reiterate, first of all, that it is still premature for us to state, because at this moment in time, the Government has not made a decision as to whether it will be preserved, and if preserved, it will be acquired.
I think the second point is that, as I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, our colleagues and our technical experts have not had the chance to visit the site. They need to go in, they need to assess all the different buildings and structures of the site, weigh the cost and benefits before coming to a recommendation.
And the third point, as I stated in my Ministerial Statement, at this moment in time, all options are open when it comes to the final configuration. So, some of those options that the Member suggested could well be possible. But at this point in time, it is premature to comment.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, my clarification will be in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First of all, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for explaining very clearly the development options for 38 Oxley Road. I have three questions regarding 38 Oxley Road, the preservation of the home of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and how it will be handled.
Given its historical, cultural and national significance, what objective criteria and expert consultations has the Government used in accessing the property’s heritage value?
Secondly, if, in the future, we decide to preserve, redevelop or modify the site, how will the Government ensure the decision making will be transparent and maintain a balance with public interest?
Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing an independent advisory team that will comprise historians, architects and community representatives to make recommendations on the future use of 38 Oxley Road, so as to foster social consensus?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his three clarification questions. Please allow me to respond in English. On the first question, when it comes to the objective standards and independent assessments, I think I had sort of covered those in my response to the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim; and I would not repeat those answers here.
On the second question about how we ensure that this decision process is in the public interest and it is done in an open, transparent and accountable way, if the site is preserved as a National Monument, our agencies will engage with all the relevant stakeholders, such as heritage enthusiasts, educators, conservation experts as well as some of the target demographic groups, like youths, seniors, to explore possible options for the future use of the site. Therefore, this whole process will be something that is open, transparent and it also ensures that it will be accountable. And then, given their technical expertise in fields, including history, architecture, conservation, the PSMAB will also be consulted to make sure that the treatment of the buildings and the structures of the site befit the assessed historical significance and national importance.
On the third point about forming an independent committee, I think covered that in the second clarification. This is also similar to the clarifications I have given to Member Mr Alex Yam as well as Member Joan Pereira, that we will be involving Members, relevant technical experts as well as important stakeholders and some members of the public in consultations to look at the future use of the site.
Mr Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.
Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, I have two clarifications. I understand that the Government has to act because a demolition application has been submitted. Now that we are at this point where the Government has announced the intention to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, our focus should be on future plans. On the practical note, may I ask the Minister if the Landed Housing Areas zoning of the area will remain unchanged or will there be a review of zoning rules in the neighbourhood?
My second question to the Acting Minister, is it truly necessary to arrive at a decision on what to do with this site in this term of Government? I ask this because of my disquiet at some of the options listed in the 2018 Ministerial Committee report, which included options to demolish everything except the basement dining room. We must remember that what is demolished cannot be undemolished. I note that the Ministerial Committee report also noted that there may be a loss of historical context under this option. Would it not be better to leave these decisions on future developments of the site to future generations?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her two clarifications. On the clarification about area zoning, as I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, while the Government intends to preserve the site, there is still a due process that the Government has to follow as required of us under the Act. Any decision on the preservation will only be made after considering any objections received during this notice period. Until a decision on this preservation has been made, it will be quite premature for the Government to review the planning and development controls for the neighbourhood.
On the Member's second question on whether it is necessary, the 2018 Ministerial Committee has always said that it has prepared the drawer plans and the options for a future government to decide on what to do with the site when the time comes. I agree with the Member that we should make an informed and considered decision, because what is demolished, what option is taken away, can never be brought back. But at the same time, I think this Government has a duty to make a deliberate decision to decide. Because, as I said in my Statement, the time has come, this is the relevant time. And we do fully intend to make a decision well within this term of government and make a final decision that will be for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans now and for the future. It will be an informed and considered decision.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Lee Kuan Yew was our founding Prime Minister and played an important role in Singapore's nation-building journey. Many residents I have spoken to describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the nation's \"Founding Father\". I would like to know how the cultural and historical significance of 38 Oxley Road will be integrated into educational and outreach activities to ensure that its significance can be passed on to our young people and future generations? Will the Government actively take measures to continuously remind the public of the importance of this place to Singapore's history and culture?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her two clarifications and please allow me to respond in English. On her first clarification about the significant role of this site. If the site is preserved and acquired, we will leverage on it to educate the current and future generations on this significant part of Singapore's history. And this is the main reason why the Government intends to make the site publicly accessible, to be a place for all Singaporeans, to allow our future generations to visit and to foster their own connection to the site. There is nothing quite like being in the same place as our forefathers had been, those who had played a key role in our struggle for self-determination.
And in doing so, the NHB will engage potential users of the site, as I have mentioned to other Members before, such as educators and heritage groups, on the different ways in which we can help shape the most appropriate future use of the site for public education purposes.
And if the site is preserved as a National Monument, the site and its historic significance could also be profiled and featured, as part of NHB's efforts to celebrate our National Monuments. In terms of different ways and different programs to remind Singaporeans of the significance of the site, I think that these are things that either NHB or the Ministry of Education can subsequently think about and look at. But it is our intention to fully allow Singaporeans to really come and appreciate those pivotal events that took place at the site, so that we can enhance our understanding of what it means to be Singaporean and build on our collective and shared identity, so that we can become stronger as a nation.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I just have one clarification for the Acting Minister. Will an independent valuation of the site of 38 Oxley Road be done before acquisition? And will the Government commit to releasing the full evaluation report and provide transparency on the acquisition cost to the public purse?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for the clarification. As I stated in my Ministerial Statement, the acquisition will be done in accordance with established processes and any compensation will be made in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. And as part of this, the owner, occupiers, any other persons interested, will be given the opportunity to submit their claims to SLA to determine the compensation amount. And then a professional private valuer would also be appointed to assist SLA in determining the market value of the land, and taking into considerations any claims submitted.
If any owner or person is not satisfied with the compensation awarded, a Notice of Appeal can be filed together with the Land Acquisition Appeals Board, and all these will be taken as part of the due process that is stated under the Land Acquisition Act.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.
Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Speaker. It is wise to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, because if left to free market forces, 38 Oxley Road could be redeveloped into a condominium or a commercial building that will tout it as a prestigious address as the former residence or address of our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and they can profit from this prestigious address.
I would support the recommendation to remove all traces of Mr Lee and his family's private living space from the building at 38 Oxley Road to respect his wishes. I would like to clarify with the Acting Minister, what does it mean by removing all traces from the building and is the underground dining room considered part of Mr Lee's private space?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification. While the site has witnessed discussions and meetings that proved to be foundational in the course of Singapore's history, we also recognise that the site was the private residence of Mr Lee and his family.
To his question about the private dining room, there are spaces within the buildings that have been widely documented in different forms of media in the past, and all these were done prior to Mr Lee's passing, the basement dining room being one of them, that we would consider less private. But there would be other spaces, such as bedrooms, which do not have any association with the historically significant events that took place at the site, and to respect Mr Lee's wishes, such personal spaces would then be reconfigured or removed, and it will range from removing furnishings, fixtures or any objects still left, to potentially also tearing down such spaces, while taking into consideration issues like structural integrity and the safety of the buildings.
And the exact nature of the removal will only be determined subsequently when we are able to access the site and the relevant officers have had a chance to go through, as well as the eventual treatment of the buildings and the structures within the site. But I would like to reassure the Member and all Members in this House, that the measures that we are putting in place are not exceptional measures.
All historic sites, generally, will involve some modifications to some extent, to allow for adaptive reuse, and this also ensures that the site remains something that is beneficial and useful to current and future generations of Singaporeans. Some examples include the former Supreme Court, currently the National Gallery of Singapore, and the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall. They have all had their interiors somewhat significantly altered, although the exteriors have been preserved.
Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. The Minister is correct that there will come a day in the future when no living Singaporean remembers the period of independence. Could he share what additional heritage value or visitor experience, beyond the sense of space, would a demolished and subsequently landscaped heritage park at 38 Oxley Road provide, that will not be more effectively delivered through the experience at the $335 million Founders' Memorial, which is purpose-built to honour Singapore's founding values and nation-building journey, including our early nation building years of 1950s to 1970s, and telling the story of how our founding fathers and the founding generation overcame the odds to build an Independent Singapore, establishing it on values and ideals, such as multiculturalism, openness and integrity?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. I think the answer I had given earlier to another Member, which is that there is something different about being in the same place, where these events took place.
Like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, we have very precious few sites, where there is a confluence of people, events and place. The Founders' Memorial is recreated on reclaimed land. It is not the same space where the events took place. It is not the same space where the people came together. It is not the same space where the struggles took place.
There will not be that same sense of authenticity and which is why, like I explained early in my clarification, this site is unique, and it behooves us to preserve it. If the preservation were to go through, this site will augment the Founders' Memorial to give Singaporeans a fuller understanding of what it means to be Singaporean, our sense of national identity and how we can forge forward as one people.
Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): First, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for a heartfelt response to this very difficult topic. My clarification revolves around how we debated this extensively in 2017, over two days. It was a very difficult debate; emotional. Mr Lee had only passed two years prior to that. Our then-Prime Minister responded and then, then-Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, at the time, gave what I thought was an excellent conclusion that a future Government, in the fullness of time, on the passage of time, will have to make that decision.
Here we are today and the Minister is now speaking, on behalf of that Government, albeit at an initial stage.
So, here I speak and seek clarification that as we move forward, that we realise there are many different interpretations of Mr Lee's wishes and preferences. And when eventually the Government, the good government of the day, makes this decision, to – I humbly request – be sensitive, be tactful in the explanations, as to why we are doing, or why it is doing what it is doing.
I listened to Ms Chong's question and I also listened to Mr Liang's question, and I think they are both very good questions. We have a parallel Founders' Memorial, which actually is suppose to give the history, the ethos, the value system of our founding fathers. And I understand that the authenticity of the location of 38 Oxley Road differentiates itself from the Founders' Memorial, but I ask also for a deeper explanation, as the time comes, as to why the Government eventually makes its decision.
And here I say this, with the House's interest at heart, with Singapore's interests at heart and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's interests at heart and overall, the Government's. I do apologise for going on a little bit more, but for those of us who were not in the House, I can say that it was certainly one of the most difficult speeches I gave. And we have now come to that situation where we have to make a decision in a future government. I hope it is done sensitively and tactfully, and with Singaporeans' best interests at heart.
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his points and indeed, it is the Government's intention to make sure that if the property, if the site is preserved and if it is eventually acquired, that we will make a decision that is sensitive, one that is tactful and one that will benefit not just the current, but also future generations of Singaporeans, and one that is keeping and befitting of the site's historic importance and national significance. So, it is my assurance to the Member that all these things will be taken on board, and the Government will make an informed and responsible decision, for the best of Singapore.
Mr Speaker: One final clarification, Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I think the Acting Minister has not fully answered my earlier clarification question. I understand that due process will be followed for the acquisition. I am not sure if that process requires the cost of the land acquisition of 38 Oxley Road to be publicly released. But even if not, will the Government commit to still disclose that cost, given the public interest in this matter?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the subsequent clarification. Unfortunately, I am not the Minister for National Development. I am not totally au fait with what is required under the Land Acquisitions Act, but my commitment to the Member is that due process will be given and it will follow the requirements under the Land Acquisitions Act, and an independent valuation will be done. If the Act requires a disclosure, the disclosure will be done as well.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Finance (Income Taxes) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow) (for the Second Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, we are operating in a much more challenging global economic landscape. Geopolitical rivalries have intensified. Economic competition has sharpened. Many countries are home-shoring key industries and companies. The competition for investment is fiercer than ever before. At the same time, global tax and tariff rules continue to evolve, creating uncertainty and complicating companies' decisions on when and where to invest.
For Singapore to continue to be a choice location for businesses to expand and invest, we must keep our tax system up-to-date, responsive to industry needs and aligned with global tax developments.
The Bill today serves two purposes. First, the amendments to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act incorporate updates to the Pillar Two rules under the international Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 initiative. Second, the Bill also brings into legal effect several tax measures already announced in this year's Budget Statement, as well as other changes to our tax system, following close consultations with the industry.
I will now briefly outline the amendments to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act.
Last year, Parliament approved the enactment of the Act to implement the Domestic Top-up Tax and the Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax under the Pillar Two rules. The rules require large multinational enterprises to pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15%, wherever they operate.
Our implementation of the Pillar Two rules is aligned with the global implementation of these rules. Major economies, such as the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) and Japan have already implemented them. Both top-up taxes apply to businesses' financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2025.
Since the enactment of the Act, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Inclusive Framework has published new technical clarifications on the Pillar Two rules.
Clauses 56 to 70 of the Bill will incorporate these and other technical clarifications into our legislation, so that our regime remains up-to-date and consistent and is recognised by other jurisdictions. This will provide certainty to businesses, ease their compliance burdens and most importantly, relieve them from having to pay Pillar Two taxes elsewhere in respect of their Singapore operations.
Meanwhile, we are closely monitoring international developments. Negotiations on the parameters of Pillar Two have re-opened following the June 2025 G7 statement on the development of a \"side-by-side\" system that will exempt United States (US)-parented multinational enterprises from specific Pillar Two rules.
At this point, discussions at the OECD Inclusive Framework are ongoing. It is unclear what the final outcome will be, and how other jurisdictions and affected businesses will respond.
For the moment, our considerations for the implementation of the Domestic Top-up Tax and Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax remain valid. We are, therefore, proceeding with the implementation of Pillar Two taxes, so that we do not cede tax revenues to other Pillar Two-implementing jurisdictions, and at the same time, we provide tax certainty for multinational enterprises to plan their investments. We will continue to monitor global developments and if necessary, review this approach.
Sir, I will now highlight key amendments to the Income Tax Act, which cover changes to our corporate income tax and personal income tax regimes.
The corporate income tax amendments ensure that our tax system remains responsive to business needs and practices.
Clause 19 provides for a 100% tax deduction for expenses incurred by businesses on green certificates or credits. This is in response to feedback from businesses for more support in their sustainability journeys. Currently, tax deductions are only available when certificates or credits are surrendered or retired to meet statutory requirements. But with this amendment, tax deductions will now also apply if these certificates or credits are used to meet sustainability commitments.
Clauses 27, 34 and 42 introduce tax incentives recommended by the Equities Market Review Group, set out at Budget this year. These incentives aim to encourage new listings in Singapore's equities market and increase investment demand for Singapore-listed equities.
First, companies that complete a primary or secondary listing with shares offered in conjunction with the listing will enjoy a 20% or 10% Listing Corporate Income Tax Rebate, respectively, subject to caps. Second, we will also introduce a 5% concessionary tax rate on qualifying income for new fund manager listings in Singapore. And third, we will introduce a tax exemption on fund managers' qualifying income from funds with at least 30% allocation to Singapore-listed equities.
Moving on to personal income tax, the amendments relate mainly to changes that provide stronger support to our workers.
Clause 55 provides for all tax-resident individuals to receive a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 60% for the Year of Assessment 2025, capped at $200 per taxpayer. This was announced in Budget 2025 as part of the SG60 package and is granted automatically to eligible taxpayers.
Let me conclude. Mr Speaker, the provisions in the Bill will update our tax regime to strengthen our economic competitiveness, provide more clarity to businesses and give more support to companies and individuals amidst a challenging global economic landscape. Sir, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill 2025. While the Bill may appear technical, its implications are wide-ranging. It keeps Singapore's tax system fair, forward-looking and aligned with global developments and it affects the daily lives of our families, small businesses and workers.
This Bill delivers on the intent of Budget 2025: to strengthen fiscal sustainability while easing cost pressures on Singaporeans. It provides immediate relief through a 60%personal income tax rebate, capped at $200; and a 50% corporate tax rebate, capped at $40,000, to help both households and firms manage near-term costs.
For individuals, this rebate will especially benefit lower- and middle-income households. Mr Speaker, I have a few questions to ask.
First, may I ask how many Singaporeans are expected to face zero income tax liability this year, and how much less personal income tax revenue the Government expects to collect overall? In the longer term, could the Ministry study whether the lowest income tax brackets might also be reduced? We can make our system more progressive not only by raising rates at the top, but by easing them at the bottom if fiscal space permits.
Another welcome change is the tax exemption for allowances under the Workfare Training Support Scheme, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and the Workfare Skills Support (Level-Up) Scheme. This rightly ensures that training and upskilling benefits are not taxed.
However, I note that individuals who previously paid tax on these payments must apply to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) for refunds before 31 December 2029. Would the Ministry consider an automatic refund instead, and share how many individuals and how much tax collected, since 2013, will be affected by this retrospective exemption?
Mr Speaker, in my conversations with residents and business owners, many appreciate these rebates but remain concerned about complexity. Small enterprises often lack dedicated accounting staff and self-employed workers. Our freelancers, drivers, tutors and hawkers manage their own filing. They can deduct legitimate business expenses. Yet, many remain unfamiliar with the process.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
I urge Ministry of Finance (MOF) and IRAS to pair legislative reform with practical support: clearer guidance, simpler e-forms and accessible digital tools. Tax compliance should be simple, not stressful; and reliefs should be inclusive, not confined to those who can afford professional help.
For companies, I note that those not profitable will receive a $2,000 cash grant if they made Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for at least one local employee in 2024. May I confirm that this CPF contribution requirement applies only to the cash grant component, not a precondition to get the corporate income tax rebate? If so, what is the reason for this distinction? And what situations would the Comptroller regard as \"just and equitable\" to waive this condition under section 92L(5)?
Mr Deputy Speaker, my third point is on enhancing transparency and global alignment.
The Bill also amends the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act to allow the Board of Review to publish case details with consent, a small but meaningful step that enhances transparency and consistency in tax administration.
More broadly, the Bill aligns Singapore with the OECD's BEPS 2.0 framework. Large multinational groups will now be subject to a global minimum effective tax rate of 15%. These changes ensure Singapore remains trusted, competitive and compliant as global rules evolve.
Given that the US has withdrawn from Pillar Two, does MOF foresee any adjustment to Singapore's implementation timeline or commitments under BEPS 2.0, and how will we maintain our competitiveness if other major jurisdictions slow or reverse their adoption? So, I encourage MOF to continue providing clear guidance and transition support to affected firms, ensuring that the implementation remains proportionate and predictable.
The Bill also refines our fund-management regime, reinforcing Singapore's position as a trusted global financial centre. It enhances the tax exemption scheme for fund managers that launch and manage funds investing substantially, at least 30%, in Singapore-listed equities. A 5% concessionary rate will apply for qualifying new fund manager listings, alongside a listing tax rebate to encourage more companies to list and grow here.
While deductions for listing expenses remain non-deductible as they are capital in nature, Singapore supports enterprises through non-tax measures, such as the GEMS Listing Grant Scheme, which co-funds up to 70% of eligible Singapore Exchange (SGX) Mainboard listing costs.
These measures reflect that Singapore's appeal rests not on low rates, but on stability, transparency and innovation in our ecosystem of global capital. They also strengthen emerging areas, such as sustainable finance and wealth management, which create skilled jobs and long-term opportunities for Singapore.
Assuming Singapore proceeds with Pillar Two, can the new Listing Corporate Income Tax Rebate under section 92K remain effective once the global minimum tax rules take full effect? How often will these incentives be reviewed for effectiveness?
I also note that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Equity Market Review Group are exploring non-tax measures to boost market vibrancy. I look forward to further announcements on these initiatives and their timelines.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while I support the direction of the Bill, there are a few areas that could be refined for greater fairness and long-term effectiveness.
First, the new Listing Tax Rebate may not be easily accessible to smaller issuers. Its short eligibility window and administrative requirements could discourage participation, especially among emerging or innovative firms. A more flexible framework with consistent criteria would help broaden the base of Singapore-listed companies
Second, the growing number of overlapping incentive schemes adds compliance burden and complexity. Although our headline corporate tax rate remains 17%, multiple concessionary regimes co-exist under different rules and timelines.
In addition, the amendments to sections 105L and 105K of the Income Tax Act are in preparation for the implementation of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), for the automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets for tax purposes. Is there a projected timeline for any update of reporting requirements that IRAS may be carrying out, and for the release of any guidance or training to ensure that affected entities will be in a position to comply with updated requirements? So, a more integrated and transparent structure would improve clarity and efficiency.
Third, while Ministerial discretion allows flexibility, it should be balanced by regular public reporting to ensure accountability and Parliamentary oversight.
And finally, as global tax norms evolve under the OECD's 15% minimum tax framework, we should move beyond rate-based incentives and prioritise productivity- and innovation-driven measures in research and development (R&D), workforce skills and digital capability. This will safeguard fiscal integrity and sustain Singapore's competitiveness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, some may ask what all this means for the average Singaporean.
When our businesses stay competitive, they invest and hire. When compliance is simple, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can focus on growth instead of paperwork. When revenues are stable, Government can fund programmes that uplift Singaporeans – from Workfare and SkillsFuture to the Majulah Package's Earn and Save Bonus.
I note that this Bill also ensures these social payouts remain tax-exempt, providing direct help to lower-income workers and seniors. Looking ahead, we should continue simplifying compliance through digital tools, expanding tax education in partnership with trade associations and community groups and reviewing new rules annually to stay both competitive and far.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill fortifies the architecture of Singapore's fiscal system – combining prudence, fairness and adaptability. Taxation is not only about numbers. It is about trust – trust that our regime is fair, that growth benefits all and that compliance is manageable for every taxpayer.
Sir, as we align with global standards, we must ensure no resident, freelancer or SME feels left behind. If we continue to pair global alignment with domestic inclusion, we will preserve Singapore's fiscal strength and social solidarity for businesses, families and future generations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Finance (Income Tax) Bill before this House seeks to implement tax changes announced in Budget 2025 by amending the Income Tax Act and related legislation.
While this may appear to be a procedural exercise to give legal effect to the Budget measures, I see it also as an opportunity to do much more. It is an opportunity to refine our tax system so that it continues to work well for Singaporeans and to ensure that our broader national objectives are met, particularly given the critical redistributive role that taxes play in fiscal policy. It is also an opportunity to look ahead to make constructive suggestions for the upcoming Budget 2026.
As I have emphasised in my past Budget speeches, we must move beyond transitional cost of living measures and strengthen structural support through lasting tax changes that achieve greater redistributive efficiency.
As we look towards Budget 2026, how can our tax system best serve Singaporeans, especially at a time of persistent cost pressures and growing inequality? How can our fiscal architecture reinforce fairness, resilience and growth? Can our tax policies play a stronger role in redistribution, support for families and domestic capital formation?
I will focus my remarks on three themes.
First, the importance of putting in place structural changes rather than relying on recurring one-off measures. Second, the potential role of refundable tax credits in improving equity and efficiency. And third, how we can better align our tax system with our ambition to strengthen Singapore's equities market.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in both my Budget 2024 and Budget 2025 speeches, I emphasised the importance of structural rather than episodic fiscal measures. Let me reiterate that call once more today. Our tax system should automatically adjust to reflect the economic reality Singaporeans face rather than depending on annual ad hoc adjustments that create uncertainty and administrative complexity.
Under clause 55 of the Bill, a personal income tax rebate worth 60% of tax payable, capped at $200, will be granted for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2025. This is similar to the rebate in YA 2024, where it was 50% of tax payable, but capped at $200, and also to the one granted in YA 2019.
Should such rebates become a recurring feature of every budget, they would effectively raise the tax-free threshold for the current $20,000 of chargeable income. But the Government has framed this as part of the SG60 package, which would suggest that this is only temporary. Instead of offering periodic rebates, I believe we would be better off instituting a mechanism to regularly review both the personal income tax brackets and basic relief quota to avoid bracket creep, so that the system keeps pace with changes in wages and price over time. After all, the last time the personal income tax brackets were last updated was more than 24 years ago in 2001. This was a point I had raised in my Parliamentary Question in 2022 and again, in last year's Budget debate.
Based on my estimates, close to 80% of resident taxpayers will only receive the $200 cap, which means that the headline 60% rebate appears more generous than it really is. Another example is the earned income relief. For workers below 55 years of age, this relief has remained at $1,000 for as long as I can recall. For older workers aged 55 to 59, the relief stands at $6,000. And for those aged 60 and above, $8,000. These figures have not been revised since Budget 2012, more than a decade ago. For handicapped workers, the reliefs are also unchanged.
Given the rise in the cost of living, wages and labour participation since then, it is long overdue for a comprehensive update. In addition, I agree with the exemption from tax of a wide range of initiatives, such as Workfare Training Support Training Allowance, SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance and Workfare Skill Support.
Again, in the spirit of making scheme-specific changes each time, it would be better for us to introduce a broad-based skills investment relief allowing individuals to claim a capped deduction for out-of-pocket training expenses, and this would be an expansion of the existing course fees relief, which only provides relief for specific approved academic, professional or vocational qualification, or courses relevant to a person's current employment, trade, business, profession or vocation. But at the same time, it does not reward initiatives to better position oneself for an alternative career especially in the current era of rapid change and disruption, as it has no linkages to his or her current profession.
Turning to clause 43, which introduces a new section 92L, providing for a 50% corporate income tax rebate. This continues a familiar pattern of annual corporate rebates, varying from 20% to 50% over the last decade, with caps ranging from $10,000 to $40,000. While such rebates can provide short-term relief, they do not offer the long-term certainty and predictability that businesses, especially SMEs, do require.
As I argued in my speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2021, I suggested that we consider introducing more structural progressivity in our corporate income tax regime, particularly to better support local SMEs.
Even as other forms of enterprise support are strengthened, the Government could consider raising partial tax exemption limits or introducing two-tiered corporate profit tax system, similar to Hong Kong's model introduced in 2018. Such an approach could offer greater certainty than the current system of fluctuating rebates.
To illustrate, an SME earning $300,000 in chargeable income today pays around $34,000 in corporate income tax before rebates, an effective tax rate of roughly 11%, compared to about 8% before the exemption restrictions introduced in Budget 2018. Building these reforms directly into the tax regime, rather than relying on discretionary rebates would send a clearer signal of support to our local enterprise base.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to next turn to a topic that deserves greater attention in Singapore, and that is of the refundable tax credits. These function as a form of negative income tax, providing benefits through the tax system, but paying out the difference in cash to those with insufficient tax liability to benefit otherwise. In doing so, they allow the Government to extend supports to lower and middle-income households more efficiently without distorting work incentives or relying on other specific schemes.
Refundable credits are widely used in advanced economies, such as the US' Earned Income Tax Credit and Canada's various Refundable Credit Systems, for example.
In Singapore, one promising area to consider refundable tax credits is in relation to child relief or the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR).
As I have shared previously, this relief was restructured for children born on or after January 2024 from a percentage-based formula to a fixed dollar amount of $8,000 for the first child, $10,000 for the second and $12,000 for the third and subsequent children.
While this change benefits some lower-income mothers marginally, my estimate suggests that roughly 80% of working mothers will either be unaffected or worse off with the formula change.
I have spoken previously about how Singapore's total fertility rate, which fell below 1.0 in 2023 and remained there in 2024, represents an existential challenge. President Thaman has pledged that this term of Government will do more to help parents better manage their work and family commitments and to foster a culture that celebrates families.
In that spirit, we should consider whether the revised WMCR structure truly achieves its intent of encouraging married women to stay in the workforce or whether it inadvertently discourages some from doing so.
I acknowledge that the Government has said that when the WMCR changes are considered alongside the one-off $2,000 increase in the Child Development Account First Step Grant, about 97% of mothers will be no worse off in the year of birth. But I would also ask what about the next 15 years of tax assessments? Perhaps a reversion of WMCR or its reform into a refundable tax credit could be explored as part of future Budget changes. After all, this concept is not new to Singapore, with the refundable investment credits already introduced.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the final theme of my speech – aligning our tax regime more closely with the goal of strengthening Singapore's equities market.
My colleague and Member of Parliament for Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC), Mr Kenneth Tiong, will be elaborating further on this point.
Let me also declare that I am an equity analyst working in a financial institution here in Singapore.
Clause 54 operationalises the 13O and 13U Fund Tax Incentive schemes for family offices. The schemes aim to offer a conducive operating environment for Singapore-based fund managers and family offices.
In my earlier Parliamentary Question in 2022, I had asked about the number of family offices, their aggregate business spending, assets under management (AUM) and local investments. Back then, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) shared that it does not have estimates on aggregate business spending, aggregate AUM help and the amount invested locally by Singapore Family Offices (SFOs). Do we now have such data?
Otherwise, how do we assess the effectiveness of the capital deployment requirement rules?
Under current rules, family offices must invest the lower of 10% of AUM or $10 million in designated investments. However, the definition of invested-locally is broad. Even an investment into a global fund distributed by a financial institution with a Singapore presence can qualify. This means that the actual capital deployed into Singapore's productive economy may be far smaller than the headline numbers intended.
I would urge the Government to strengthen this capital deployment requirement, perhaps, by raising it to at least 15% to 20% of AUM and/or tightening the definition of eligible investments to require a minimum portion in Singapore listed equities, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITS) or funds with domestic exposure even as I note that there is a 1.5 to two times multiplier applied to certain investments. Greater transparency and periodic reporting of aggregate investment data will also help the public to assess whether these generous tax incentives are delivering tangible benefits to Singapore's economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I conclude, allow me to recap the three themes I have raised.
First, we should move away from recurring one-off measures towards structural reforms, indexing tax brackets and reliefs to inflation, updating outdated reliefs, like the Earned Income Relief, and embedding greater progressivity into our corporate tax regime. Second, we should consider introducing refundable tax credits to make our fiscal system more equitable and efficient, particularly, in supporting working families and working mothers and lower-income Singaporeans. And third, we must align our tax incentives more strategically with our goal of strengthening Singapore's capital markets and ensuring that incentives like those for family offices deliver meaningful local benefits.
Ultimately, our tax system is more than a means of raising revenue. It reflects our values as a society – fairness, resilience and solidarity. As we look ahead to Budget 2026, I hope we can take this opportunity to refine our fiscal architecture to serve Singaporeans better, strengthen inclusivity and build an economy that works for all.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill.
The Bill makes several changes to legislation, including to provide for the changes already announced at the landmark Budget 2025. I will focus only on the segment of the Bill that pertains to how Singapore is preparing to adapt to global minimum tax rules.
We have already implemented the Domestic Top-up Tax and the Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax from January 2025. We should not underestimate the impact that the global minimum tax rules may have on our collective future.
There are two areas that I will share on. First, the impact on Singapore's competitiveness, to be able to attract future foreign investments and create good jobs. And second, the impact on the Government's future revenue collections to support its policy agenda.
On competitiveness, I believe we will very likely be worse off.
I spent two years at the Economic Development Board. Tax incentives were a major way to attract multinational enterprises to invest in us, despite our higher labour and land costs, and our smaller market.
The global minimum tax rules have started to render our tax incentives almost useless. It will be like fighting with not one, but both hands tied behind our back and perhaps, with our legs tied together, too. How can we start preparing for this new future, and what new tools and value propositions can we create, so that we remain an attractive investment destination?
The Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), is a step in the right direction.
The Bill makes amendments to the Income Tax Act to facilitate RIC's implementation and I fully support it. But in my view, the RIC is helpful; alone it will be insufficient. Because its benefits, as I understand it, do not scale with an enterprise's growing profits, unlike tax incentives.
That said, we should not sell ourselves short. Tax incentives are not the only reason why multinational enterprises come here and create jobs for Singaporeans. We have a clear and established rule of law. We have good global connectivity from a physical and digital perspective. And we have an ecosystem of local and global talent that is sticky, because it has been developed over time and our city can provide a high quality of life.
I, therefore, urge the Government to be relentless in developing new value propositions for Singapore. This includes investing ahead of demand in world-class industrial infrastructure that could support the faster deployment of high-tech manufacturing. It includes making other factors of production more competitive, for example, through investments that make clean or green energy more affordable, more available and more resilient. It also includes a deepening innovation ecosystem, as well as a preferred base for a reasonable number of global talents that can value-add to our economy and grow our local talent base.
In short, if the most sophisticated and high-value products can be invented and made only in a few places in the world, Singapore must be one of them. We will then be able to transcend cost competitiveness.
At the same time and this is something I feel very strongly about, and I continue to champion strongly for: we should do more to support and grow our local companies because these companies will be more rooted to Singapore even as our cost disadvantages become more apparent. With such value propositions, multinational enterprises would be happy to pay these global minimum taxes in Singapore and be rooted here to provide good jobs for Singaporeans.
Allow me to move on to my second point. The Government will need to think harder about the impact on our fiscal system, especially on its revenues.
Many issues are debated in this Parliament Chamber. Almost all colleagues, including myself, are asking the Government to do more and to spend more, almost never to do less. To support its agenda, the Government needs to be on a solid fiscal footing so that its revenues can support its expenditures.
In terms of Government revenues, we do not yet know how the global minimum tax system will affect us. On the one hand, some enterprises will pay more tax. On its own, this will lead to more revenues, at least, in the short term. But on the other hand, enterprises may also choose to pay tax in other jurisdictions or move out of Singapore entirely. And then, the Government's revenues will be lower.
No one knows the net fiscal impact and the world is not waiting for us to make an assessment. New pronouncements come up from time to time. The Senior Minister of State for Finance spoke about it, like the \"side-by-side\" framework between Pillar Two rules and the US tax system.
MOF echoed this uncertainty in their reply to my Parliamentary Question last month. In their own words, they could only say that the impact on our fiscal outlook was uncertain and that they were monitoring the issue closely and would review their approach once there is greater clarity. Once there is greater clarity.
I would submit, however, that we will not get greater clarity on our Government's projected revenues anytime soon and this is reasonable. But the less we know, the more we need to prepare. And I believe we can adopt a fiscal strategy that provides for different fiscal futures.
By default, we should be fiscally conservative so that if corporate income tax revenues are low, we would still have enough for our expenditure, especially on our expanding social programmes.
But should there be unexpected upsides in corporate income tax revenues, we should think of a structure to share this systematically with all Singaporeans, both in current and in future generations. To that end, in some circumstances, I also agree with Mr Louis Chua that we should have some structures that do it systematically.
There have been previous instances of such surplus-sharing initiatives, but they have been only on an ad hoc basis.
Just imagine a system where if Singapore's economy does well and our tax collections are more buoyant than expected, Singaporeans will all be assured beforehand that they will benefit directly from our country's economic success. These are but some ideas that can be developed further in time to come, perhaps, at future Budget debates. And for now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak today on section 92K of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill which is part of the Government's emerging strategy to improve the attractiveness of Singapore's equity market. It provides time-limited tax incentives for both primary and secondary listings.
Before I begin, let me preface by saying I will use the term SGX as shorthand for SGX's equities business. SGX, as a whole, is a multi-asset exchange that has great strengths in foreign exchange (FX), commodities and other derivatives. I think those parts of the business, including BidFX and Iron Ore, have been doing a good job.
On section 92K, my overall view is that these measures, a time-limited experiment in tax incentives, are in themselves unlikely to move the needle on improving the SGX's competitiveness, for good or bad. Although I have some general reservations about some of the Bill's principles, on balance, since it is tightly scoped by being both limited in time and capped in subsidy, I support the Bill to give this Government latitude to experiment.
Section 92K introduces a tax rebate to encourage companies to list their shares on SGX. Companies that list their ordinary shares on the SGX between 19 February 2025 and 31 December 2027, new listings or re-listings, both primary and secondary listings, will qualify. Shares must be offered to the public in conjunction with the listing.
The company receives a tax rebate for five years, 20% corporate tax for periods of a primary listing; and 10% for a secondary listing. These are capped at $6 million a year, if the market cap is at or above $1 billion on listing date; and $3 million a year if below that figure. The company must remain listed throughout the entire five-year period and must apply for approval by 31 December 2027.
The principles on 92K which I have reservations about are:
First, the extension of rebates toward secondary listings. From the company's perspective, academic research shows secondary listings work primarily when listing in the US, where companies gain from purported superior governance standards or valuation premiums. It is debatable if Singapore offers either advantage. The advantages are not of secondary listings in general but of the US in particular.
I can understand why SGX might want to encourage secondary listings. They are a prelude to secondary offerings. In Financial Year (FY) 2025, SGX had six new listings, raising $25.7 million. This was dwarfed by secondary offerings, which was a hundred times larger at $4.3 billion.
SGX's function as a capital raising venue for already listed companies is currently much more significant than its listings. SGX Chairman Koh Boon Hwee, has argued for the need to take calculated first-mover risks to build liquidity. Presumably anchoring more secondary listings is one of those first-mover risks.
But from Singapore's perspective, I do not see much benefit in giving incentives to attract secondary listings, especially combined with a disclosure-based regime, which may result in a bigger slate of lower quality companies. At the point of entry, many may just make the number of listings and market cap look better, while not creating broad local employment since their operations are overseas. Some may disagree on the basis that these secondary listings may improve liquidity and generate turnover. But how much of this is sticky, multi-year liquidity, and how much is transient event-driven volume?
I ask: what is the basis of the Government's belief that it will lead to high-quality liquidity? For me, the bigger philosophical questions from first principles – why would a company want to do a secondary listing in Singapore? Why would Singapore benefit overall from more secondary listings in a disclosure-based regime? – remain inadequately answered.
Overall, I would rather we focus on attracting quality primary listings over extending incentives to secondary listings. But since the trial is limited in time and scope, we will support the Bill scope in toto. We hope the results will be published and guide future market development.
The Bill addresses three key technical problems regarding secondary listings.
Many secondary listings come by introduction, meaning no new shares sold, which leaves little local free float and tends to depress local turnover. The Hong Kong Exchange (HKEX) warns that secondary listings can suffer from failure to develop or sustain an active trading market, which is why they flag such stocks prominently with an \"S\" marker.
SGX currently has 29 secondary listings. Multiple high-profile SGX secondary listings were by way of introductions, meaning no new shares. This includes a 2010 listing of Prudential and the 2022 SGX listing of electric vehicle company, Nio Inc, which GIC is now suing for securities fraud in the Southern District of New York. These secondaries have had thin local trading versus their primary venues, with exception of the Jardine Group. So far, secondary listings have been a mixed bag.
I will return to this point about poor quality listings later. But technically, 92K insists that shares must be offered to the public, ensuring some float, so listings by introduction are excluded from rebates. This is prudent.
And while this is not in the Bill, I note that MAS has the Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS) Research Development Grant, which provides a top-up per research report, more if it covers pre-Initial Public Offering and newly-listed names. This will help strengthen the value proposition of a listing here in Singapore, even if we cannot offer much valuation premium.
The tax rebates are also tied to the profitability of the company. If the companies are loss-making, they will not qualify for the rebates. If it were not the case, we could be attracting rebate tourism from dubious companies.
Last, and most importantly, these measures are time-limited until the end of 2027.
The second principle I have reservations on is this whole idea of giving listing incentives at all. I could not find much evidence that having listing incentives will improve the quality of companies or long-term performance. In fact, the converse was more likely true. The Quebec Stock Savings Plan, which offered taxpayers generous tax write-offs for investment in new public stock issues of companies, drove a short-term surge in small company primary issues. But many issuers later disappeared or posted weaker earnings. The impact on capitalisation was short-lived and overall, stimulus effects were limited.
For listing incentives, from the company's perspective, it may be unsustainable once incentives end and these companies may fail or simply delist when that time comes. What we are likely to see is a short-term pop in the numbers, because without answers to permanent questions around liquidity disclosure, quality, investor depth and regulatory credibility, strong secular headwinds remain.
Some say it is a chicken-and-egg problem, building liquidity and investor depth. I understand this view, but I believe that raising the quality of listed companies is pre-conditional to building this two-sided market.
Other jurisdictions are not focusing on financial incentives. Hong Kong is focused on raising corporate governance standards, enforcement and improving processing efficiency, which is, in my view, a more correct approach. Hong Kong's listing rules have historically been stricter than SGX in areas such as independence of directors, remuneration disclosures and related party transactions, and their regulators have been much more aggressive in enforcement actions, including against directors.
Hong Kong recently introduced a new Corporate Governance Code with stricter requirements: limiting independent non-executive directors to six listed directorships, mandatory continuing professional training, broad skills matrices and performance reviews. They are raising standards without using financial incentives.
On 29 October, SGX RegCo announced it would remove the financial watchlist and introduce more flexible listing rules under a \"disclosure-based approach.\" This is a bit paradoxical to me. The watchlist itself was disclosure. It flagged financially distressed companies to investors. Removing it does not increase disclosure; it removes a critical warning signal. What SGX calls a more \"disclosure-based approach\" can actually mean more disclosure for poor companies while keeping them listed and trading, but less actionable disclosure and actionable information for the market as a whole. I therefore disagree with the removal of the watchlist.
Industry players supporting its removal may of course benefit from more trading volume, even if low-quality. Their incentives may not align with retail investor protection. Taiwan's 54% retail participation versus our 21% shows what happens when retail investors have confidence – confidence built on quality signals like watchlists and Investor Protection Centres.
I will now move on to a few remarks on the principles that should underlie our stock market. At its core, a stock market strikes a \"domestic bargain\": savers get high-quality asset appreciation and local enterprises get capital and exit opportunities. All other functions, such as foreign capital allocating to Singapore, or overseas companies listing in Singapore, are extensions of this core.
Four structural realities constrain our equities market. First, the \"ASEAN gateway\" strategy is becoming obsolete. It may have worked for Singapore when other Southeast Asian countries did not have a strong local market, but today, Thailand and Vietnam have their own mature and highly liquid markets with domestic brand recognition. ASEAN companies no longer have as many compelling reasons to list on the SGX, vis-a-vis their home exchanges.
Second, our regulatory reach is limited over other foreign markets. This means for foreign companies, we are exposed to information asymmetry and governance risks we cannot adequately mitigate, such as, for the fraud-accused Nio.
Third, passive capital demands quality indexes. The tidal force of passive investment is a secular supertrend. Sovereign wealth funds like Norway's leading Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) have demonstrated that low-cost passive investing outperforms the active management approach. I believe passive strategies will form the basis of significant portfolio allocations going forward. But passive investment requires something fundamental, high quality indexes or baskets worth buying. Investors must be able to trust that the baskets of stocks they are purchasing represent genuine value, not a random collection of mediocre companies.
By lowering listing standards and removing investor protections like the financial watch list, the risk is that the quality of the SGX and Straits Times Index (STI) is allowed to degrade precisely when global capital is demanding higher quality for passive allocation. Let us not forget that active management, to weed out mediocrity, is an expensive endeavour. You will pay an active manager above and beyond to do due diligence to separate weed from chaff, and these active management fees are a drag on any future returns. You cannot attract passive capital by diluting the quality of your index. Any slackening in market shaping and maintaining quality standards cuts directly against one of the most important structural trends in modern finance. I am bearish on any cutting of standards.
Fourth, passive capital also demands coherent indexes. Without quality and coherence, we cannot articulate what our market represents. Big allocators need clarity about what each allocation represents in their portfolio. But look at the STI: Financials – 54%, Real Estate Investment Trusts or REITS – 16.4%, Industrials – 9.8%, Telecom – 7.5%, Utilities – 4.9%. Almost entirely defensive.
There is also leakage. Secondary listings like Jardine Matheson and Hongkong Land, both managed from Hong Kong, comprise 5% of the Index, but represent neither Singapore operations nor \"Singapore Inc's\" core capital-formation interests. Defensiveness and leakages are headwinds in building a future coherent story to ultimately increase SGX's valuation premium.
What would a future coherent story look like? Not mimicking NASDAQ's high-beta growth, not remaining purely defensive, but rather a foundation of quality SMEs, profitable, well-run, the \"domestic bargain\" in action, complemented by selective growth engines from a robust R&D industrial policy.
The local stock market is currently dominated by Government-linked Companies (GLCs). However, Singapore has a long tail of well-run profitable SMEs, which do require growth capital. They are not super growth companies, but they deserve capital and can anchor our index. We need to meet our economy where it is. SGX should become an exchange that looks out for growing SMEs and cultivates a pipeline for listing.
This should include overhauling the sponsor-based Catalist board, to be replaced by a non-trading, capacity-building \"incubation board\" which graduates to OTC-style boards as a prelude to mainboard listing. SMEs are the companies that will benefit most from a supportive exchange ecosystem, including the long-tail of research needed to cover them.
The second layer will be selective growth from R&D. Commercial offshoots from our Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) masterplans in Pharmaceuticals, Advanced Manufacturing and Deep Tech should be able to list an earlier stage, in order to access domestic capital.
The collapse of Tessa Therapeutics in 2023, despite raising over US$200 million, illustrates the brittleness of relying solely on late stage venture funding without domestic capital market support. Without opining on the commercial validity of that specific decision, I believe capital intensive R&D ventures could benefit from accessible public markets. Earlier stage listings would build local investor familiarity with science-based companies and allow incremental capital raising as milestones are met, and would perhaps have improved the odds for some of the first generation Biopolis companies which failed. That is why I support SGX RegCo's amending of admission requirements for life sciences companies.
With your indulgence, Sir, before I end, as this Bill touches on the stock market, I would like to correct some statements about the Workers' Party (WP) stock market proposals.
Minister Chee Hong Tat, at the DBS hosted a fireside chat on 22 October 2025, said, I quote, \"Over the past year, we have worked closely with the industry to come up with proposals that could enhance the liquidity and competitiveness of Singapore's equities markets. We decided not to go for quick fixes, such as asking GIC or Temasek to pump-prime the market by mandating them to invest a certain amount in local equities. I explained in Parliament previously, in response to similar calls by the Workers' Party, that I do not believe such superficial measures will be effective and sustainable. This is what the Chinese call, \"治标不治本\", solutions that may sound good in theory but actually do not solve the underlying problems facing our equities markets.\"
I am not sure what calls the Minister was referring to. I have looked around and asked my colleagues, but have drawn a blank. My colleague Louis Chua did speak in this year's Committee of Supply about our stock market, but he suggested two things: letting more of Temasek's GLCs list on SGX; and strengthening corporate governance standards. He did not suggest what the Minister has called \"pump-priming\".
But I did manage to find this exchange while digging in the Hansard, a Parliamentary Question from 2 July 2024, \"Asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will review its investment mandates with GIC to consider the suggestion from some industry players for GIC to allocate part of its investments to securities listed on the Singapore Exchange to revitalise our local stock exchange.\" The source of that \"pump-priming\" question was Member of Parliament Liang Eng Hwa, who is not a WP Member of Parliament.
So, respectfully, I would like to ask the Minister to please clarify and source his comments. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Finance (Income Tax) Bill may be split into three sets of changes: those pertaining to the Income Tax Act and also related to the Budget this year; Income Tax Act changes that are not directly related to the Budget; and refinements to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act, that aim to clarify definitions and rules related to the OECD's BEPS 2.0 project and specifically, Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBe) Rules in Pillar Two.
My colleagues, MP Louis Chua and MP Kenneth Tiong have dealt with the first and second elements of the Bill. I will confine my reactions to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act and parts of the Income Tax Act related to multinational enterprises. While I support the Bill, I have a few specific concerns about several legislative elements. I will also speak more broadly about what it means to stick to BEPS 2.0 in a Trump 2.0 world.
Parts G and H of clause 56 of the Bill, insert subsections that define \"securitisation entities\" and \"securitisation arrangements\", established by multinationals to help investors manage insolvency risk. On its face, this is unobjectionable. Securitised entities and arrangements are ubiquitous in modern enterprise design and operation and I understand that these may have been introduced as a result of public feedback requesting greater clarity on their treatment when it comes to domestic top-up tax calculations.
My concern has to do with the role that securitised entities have historically played in modern finance and especially how securitisation allowed financial institutions to carry far riskier portfolios than otherwise possible; which contributed in turn to the 2007/2008 Global Financial Crisis. This is because securitised products, such as the infamous collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), CDO-squared and other forms of asset-backed securities, increased the informational distance between regulators and banks, which then elevated the fragility of the system and set the stage for a full-blown crisis.
While there is little reason to believe that similar securitisation arrangements are inducing the sort of undesirable risk-taking in the context of multinational enterprises' (MNEs') approach to BEPS, it is nevertheless useful to keep in mind the key lesson from that earlier episode that corporations can and do employ securitisation to skirt rules and regulations.
Hence, it is important that our authorities be alert to the possibility that MNEs may choose to park otherwise taxable assets in such arrangements and special purpose vehicles, which this legislation explicitly accommodates. Will the Ministry confirm that it will impose GloBe reporting obligations for such associated entities, which are often off-balance sheet as well?
Clause 45 of the Bill deals with RICs. I had, in the debate on last year's Budget Statement, raised my concern that RICs could potentially be used as a strategic loophole by MNEs to shield themselves from their tax liabilities, specifically through recording all innovation activities in a subsidiary located in a jurisdiction with generous R&D credits. In his response at that time, Prime Minister Wong assured the House that \"the RIC is compliant with BEPS.\"
Singapore's approach to transfer pricing currently takes strong reference from the OECD's own guidelines. In practice, this requires that intellectual property (IP) to be valued at arms-length, open-market prices. Presumably, then, this implies that RICs must likewise conform with transfer pricing of intangible IP, including hard-to-value intangibles.
In scrutinising clause 45 of the Bill, however, I did not find any such restrictions written into the language of the proposed legislation. The requirement for arms' length conditions do, however, appear in the original Income Tax Act. May I confirm, then, that this selfsame stipulation on pricing applies with equal force to RICs, via reference to Income Tax Act section 34D?
All in this House are undoubtedly aware that we appear to be transitioning from what had hitherto been a robust, US-led, rules-based international economic order, toward one that is much more transactional, where might makes right, and the US – rather than being a global caretaker – comes across instead as an economic bully. Small countries, such as Singapore, are unavoidably at a disadvantage in such a Machiavellian system. This applies to an international project such as BEPS, which is heavily reliant on the buy-in of nations to sustain it.
Does the exit of the US from the system irreparably undermine BEPS and the multinational minimum tax? This is, of course, the fear that many have. In my view, however, the future of international tax rules is likely to unfold in much the same way that the global trading system has been evolving: steadily grinding forward, even in the absence of the US.
To date, more than 50 countries already have Pillar Two rules in force and the passage of this Bill will further consolidate our nation's own position within this group of like-minded economies. After all, the ability of countries to proceed with top-up taxes, even without the acquiescence or compliance of other countries is largely built into the design of global rules. Admittedly, unilateral action performed without the cover of a treaty may invite retaliatory responses. But given how US has already chosen to proactively wield the terrorist stick under the Trump administration in violation of World Trade Organization rules, the threat of such a tit-for-tat response becomes much less credible.
That said, I note that we have yet to adopt certain elements of Pillar Two, such as the Under-Taxed Payments Rule (UTPR), in Singapore. This is, perhaps, somewhat for fortuitous, since UTPR has been a sore point for the Trump administration. There may yet be room for reconciliation of the disparate positions between US and the rest of the signatories of BEPS. One possibility is, as mentioned by others in this House, a side-by-side regime where American-owned groups receive some form of exceptional treatment vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
This could entail, for instance, the recognition of idiosyncratic MNE minimum taxes, such as the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) for controlled foreign corporations, such that they are consistent with those prescribed by globe rules. Another might grant US entities permanent safe harbour instead of just a temporary one.
There is some text in the Bill, notably on clause 59, that speaks to safe harbours. But only to the extent that it aligns the timing of elections of globe safe harbours with no real mention of their permanence. Similarly, there is no mention of how GILTI will be addressed in the present legislation. These considerations have yet to be weaved into the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act, which is, at this point, appropriate. I believe it would be premature to do so, given the volatile nature of the Trump administration's policymaking and the BEPS roll out process, more generally.
Still, that does not preclude us from planning ahead. To that end, I hope that the Ministry will share whether, in its view, there is a more plausible or likely scenario among the various possibilities for how the global minimum corporate tax regime will play out and if it has sketched out a tentative plan for how we might revise the legislation as these different potential outcomes unfold.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.
Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill. I wish to declare that I am the chief executive officer of an investment management company.
The Bill proposes amendments to the Income Tax Act 1947 and effects the measures announced in Budget 2025. These include the Equities Market Review Group recommended tax incentives. These incentives support our capital markets and can create skilled jobs in analysis, research and compliance – jobs that many young Singaporeans can aspire to.
A key change concerns section 13W of Income Tax Act, which exempts gains on the disposal of ordinary shares. Investors welcome clarity where under the new group-basis rule, the divesting company and its group members must collectively hold at least 20% of the investee for 24 months before disposal in order to qualify. Separately, preference shares will qualify if accounted for as equity under the investee's standards or under the International Financial Reporting Standards.
However, registered business trusts and variable capital companies are not included in this 20% shareholding threshold definition. As these structures are key to our capital markets ecosystem, I urge the Government to consider extending the definition to registered business trusts and variable capital companies.
The Bill also proposes amendments to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act 2024. This is to align our laws with the OECD's Pillar Two Global Minimum Tax framework. Pillar Two backstops the original BEPS 2.0, which acts as a global minimum tax rate, which sets a global minimum tax rate of 15% to curb tax avoidance and a senseless race to the bottom-style tax competition.
Singapore has long had a pro-enterprise, relatively low-tax environment, which helps attract good investment, fund management, corporate listings and regional headquarters. However, with the global minimum tax framework, centralising business operations into low-tax jurisdictions will no longer be as straight-forward as before.
With Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act, Singapore's adoption of the global 15% minimum tax ensures parity across jurisdictions. And for Singapore, it gets its fair share of this minimum global tax. This Bill ensures that our tax base remains defensible while preserving our attractiveness for high-quality investments. By refining definitions in the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act, we align our fiscal framework with international norms, reinforcing Singapore as a transparent and rules-based jurisdiction.
With global minimum taxes, non-tax competitive advantages become more critical. My concern is to ensure that Singapore remains attractive as a business hub via excellent infrastructure, a skilled workforce and political stability, notwithstanding the US decision not to fully not to fully implement the OECD Pillar Two global tax framework affects Singapore's relative competitiveness as a regional hub, particularly for US multinational corporations, headquartered and operating in Singapore.
Therefore, I seek clarification of how the implementation of Singapore's domestic top-up tax under Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act will interact with the US' GILTI and what safeguards are in place to prevent overlapping or duplicative taxation of US MNEs operating in Singapore?
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we add new global tax rules and local incentives, compliant costs can grow disproportionately. Therefore, I offer five suggestions: one, issue comprehensive transitional guidelines early and provide simplified tax computation tools or advisory clinics; two, publish a clause-by-clause table of effective dates, listing which provisions are retrospective, prospective or transitional to reduce ambiguity; three, provide transitional or good faith relief, allow self-correction in the next assessment year without penalty for companies that relied on prior law; four, review Pillar Two compliance costs to ensure reporting obligations remain proportionate for multinationals headquartered here; and finally, five, harmonise definitions across tax laws via consolidated glossary, ensuring consistent interpretation across the Income Tax Act, Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act and GST Act.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the above, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State for Finance.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill and for their varied comments and suggestions to improve it. I ask for, first of all, for everybody's understanding that I will not be able to address everybody's suggestions today, and this includes Mr Kenneth Tiong's suggestions on equities market improvements, which are outside the scope of this Bill.
In line with the Standing Order 70(2), specifying that the Second Reading should be on the general merits and principle of the Bill, let me first respond to some of the points that are more specific to the Bill that other colleagues have raised.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Victor Lye have asked whether we would adjust our implementation of Pillar Two top-up taxes if other jurisdictions slow or reverse their adoption and whether this would affect our economic competitiveness. Let me try to briefly recap how Pillar Two rules work without ChatGPT.
When a multinational enterprise is taxed below the minimum effective rate of 15% in a jurisdiction, other jurisdictions will have the right to impose a top-up tax on the multinational enterprise. This design ensures that the multinational enterprises pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% wherever they operate, even if some jurisdictions choose not to implement the rules. Therefore, if we do not implement the Pillar Two taxes, we will cede tax revenue to other jurisdictions as the affected multinational enterprises would have to pay these taxes to other jurisdictions that have implemented Pillar Two rules.
The reopening of negotiations on Pillar Two, including the side-by-side solution, seeks to exempt US multinational enterprises from some of the Pillar Two rules has, indeed, created some uncertainty. But our key consideration for imposing the Pillar Two taxes, to avoid ceding tax revenue, remains valid for now.
It is far from clear what the final arrangement will be. As Mr Shawn Loh said, the less we know, the more we should prepare. And so, MOF will continue to monitor developments very closely and recalibrate our approach, if needed, if and when the situation changes.
Mr Louis Chua asked if companies that received the RIC are required to adopt the arm's length principle. The answer is, yes, the RIC recipients must ensure that qualifying expenditures incurred from transactions with related parties are at arm's length. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Finance\", Official Report, 6 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Correction By Written Statement section.]
Mr Shawn Loh spoke about the importance of enhancing Singapore's value proposition to global enterprises and let me assure Members that this is a key priority for the Government. While Pillar Two may reduce the room for tax competition amongst jurisdictions, the competition for foreign investment has intensified.
The Prime Minister explained during past Budget debates that, although BEPS 2.0 was meant to tilt the playing field in favour of governments and to make MNEs pay more taxes, in reality, such enterprises wield considerable leverage, and this is why governments everywhere are, therefore, still spending significant sums to attract investments. Fortunately, our economic competitiveness is not based solely on tax incentives, but on the strength of our overall business ecosystem. And this includes many factors – a deep pool of human capital, strong rule of law, long-term investments in infrastructure and connectivity, and our capacity to deploy and diffuse new technologies.
We are confident about Singapore's economic future. But at the same time, we are under no illusions to the fact that we have to compete harder in this new world where the rules matter less and strategic heft matters more. This is why we established the Economic Strategy Review Committee in August to refresh our economic blueprint.
I chair one of the committees on global competitiveness with Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling. We are developing ideas to strengthen Singapore's value proposition in the global economy to build new growth sectors, such as advanced manufacturing precision medicine and artificial intelligence; to attract fast growing companies from the US, China, India and elsewhere; to strengthen Singapore's position as a global hub in the flows of goods, capital, talent, data, energy and ideas. The objective, as always, is to secure good growth for Singapore and good jobs for Singaporeans. And this is why our tax system will have to complement the strategy too.
At the company level, we do regularly review the tax system to ensure that it is responsive to industry needs and feedback, and that is why MOF has consulted extensively with SMEs, trade associations and chambers for this Bill. I would like to thank Mr Saktiandi and Mr Lye for their suggestions on tax compliance and support for businesses. Facilitating businesses' tax compliance has been, and always will be, a priority for IRAS.
In this regard, IRAS has been publishing e-tax guides and updating its website to provide clearer guidance for businesses. IRAS has also simplified the tax filing processes for small businesses, such as by reducing the amount of information that they need to submit in their tax returns.
Pillar Two rules are complex, and to help taxpayers better understand and comply with these rules, IRAS has also set up a dedicated mailbox and published e-learning videos and an e-tax guide on the top-up taxes for the businesses to refer to.
Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked on the compliance requirement for securitisation entities. Our approach to the top-up tax on such entities, or how we would impose the top-up tax is similar to the treatment in other jurisdictions, including in Australia and Hong Kong. This is to avoid ceding tax revenue to foreign jurisdictions that impose Pillar Two taxes on securitisation entities income. To ensure that securitisation transactions remain viable in Singapore, securitisation entities will not be liable for unpaid tax liability of the multinational enterprise or appointed as a filing entity unless it is the only constituent entity here,
MOF and IRAS will also work closely with businesses and industry associations to address other remaining areas of concern and to further ease the compliance burden for businesses. Mr Saktiandi asked about Singapore's implementation plans for the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework. This framework provides for the automatic exchange of information on crypto assets for tax purposes with partner jurisdictions. IRAS has announced that Singapore expects to commence these exchanges in 2028 and has been in close consultation with the industry since last year, and it will provide further guidance to the industry in due course.
Mr Saktiandi further highlighted that the short window of the listing corporate income tax rebate incentive and its administrative requirements could discourage participation, and he asked whether or not as well whether the rebate would be effective given our implementation of Pillar Two taxes. While tax measures may be less relevant for large multinational enterprises that are affected by Pillar Two, they will still benefit small businesses or smaller businesses. Ultimately, it is up to each enterprise to consider its own circumstances before applying for any incentive. MOF will monitor the effectiveness of these incentives and we will be open to making further adjustments if necessary.
Mr Chua spoke about how we should review our tax incentives for family officers to strengthen their economic outcomes for Singapore. Indeed, this is what Singapore does for all of our incentives on a regular basis, and I agree with him and I thank him for his feedback.
Mr Victor Lye suggested setting a clear timeline to extend the enhancement to the 20%-shareholding condition for section 13W tax exemption of disposal gains to registered business trusts and variable capital companies. MOF will indeed study the feasibility of his suggestion, but please give us some time as the ownership structures of registered business trusts and variable capital companies are complex.
I would like to also inform Mr Saktiandi that the employment condition does not apply to the corporate tax rebate. This is because a tax-paying company would be considered an active company, and this approach allows for greater administrative efficiency while still meeting our intent of supporting active companies. However, section 92L(5) does give the Government the flexibility to adjust the employment condition if companies are unable to meet it due to unforeseen circumstances.
Finally, I would like to thank Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Chua for their views on providing more support for our workers. Indeed, we have shared the upsides of Singapore's economic growth, including through tax rebates with Singaporeans. The SG60 package this year includes a 60% personal income tax rebate to all tax resident individuals. This rebate is estimated to cost almost $400 million.
Mr Saktiandi and Mr Louis Chua suggested making structural changes to our tax system to provide more support for individuals, such as reducing the rates for the lowest income tax brackets, or to increase the quantum of our tax reliefs. Mr Chua also suggested reviewing our personal income tax exemption threshold of $20,000. Our personal income tax exemption threshold is already higher than jurisdictions like Australia and Malaysia, where thresholds range from $1,500 to $16,000. Taken together with our progressive tax rates, tax reliefs and rebates, already around 40% of workers do not pay income tax in Singapore. For those who do, about 80% have an effective tax rate of less than 6%. I thank Mr Chua for his various suggestions to enhance the personal tax regime, and we will continue to regularly review the personal tax regime to ensure that it remains fair and progressive.
I would like to share with Mr Saktiandi that the training allowances provided under the Workfare Skills Support - Basic scheme will not be taxed so that the lower-wage workers who undertake training can receive the full benefits of training allowances. Most lower-wage workers, as I said, do not already pay income tax, but in the event that any worker has paid income tax on the training allowances received, the amendment allows them to obtain a refund of the taxes paid, and this will be publicised by Workforce Singapore, so that such individuals can come forward to do so,
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, as a small open economy, Singapore must remain nimble and responsive to global developments. Our fundamentals are strong, and we are well placed to seize opportunities amidst the shifts in the global economic environment, this Tax Bill will update our tax regime to provide more clarity to businesses and to respond to industry feedback, and this is a key part of our overall effort to strengthen Singapore's economic competitiveness as the global landscape continues to evolve. Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State for Finance? None.
[(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. – [Mr Jeffrey Siow]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee Hong Tat.
","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 National Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Sir, earlier, Mr Kenneth Tiong asked if I could clarify that remark that he mentioned. I believe it was a DBS closed-door dialogue.
I would like to refer to the following excerpts from Hansard, referring to what Mr Louis Chua said at the Committee of Supply earlier this year. This is what Mr Chua said: “On the launch of the $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme, addressing demand issues, it is a case of better than nothing. As we all know, the Government has long held that directing GIC to invest in locally listed firms is not the solution to improve the attractiveness of the local equity market, and its mandate specifically includes the Singapore market. This is unlike Malaysia's Employees' Provident Fund, EPF, which is the largest investor in its domestic market, supporting Malaysian companies, capital needs and the economy as a whole”. Unquote.
Sir, I had that impression about the remarks that Mr Chua made. But after hearing what Mr Tiong clarified earlier, that the Workers' Party is also of the same view that we should not be pump-priming the market by asking GIC and Temasek, to mandate them to invest in local equities, then, I think we are on the same page.
So, I would like to thank Mr Tiong for the clarification. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): : I thank Minister Chee for his clarification and I appreciate it. So, could I just ask him to please formally withdraw those comments so that it is clear for the record?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Sir, I believe I did not say those remarks in Parliament. That was, as I mentioned, a closed-door session organised by DBS. And I also explained why I formed the impression, based on what Mr Louis Chua said earlier. So, I may have misunderstood what Mr Chua said, but I read out what Mr Chua said. Because he put the two side by side, I had the impression that that was what he was advocating.
But as I said, if that is not the case – I think that is the important point – if that is not the case, if the Workers' Party’s position is the same as ours, that is, we should not be asking Temasek, GIC to be pump-priming the market, to mandate them to invest in local equities as a way of pump-priming, then, we are on the same page. And I hope that clarifies. Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm. Order. Order.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.43 pm until 4.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Mr Speaker, as a small and open economy, our businesses' ability to move goods swiftly and securely across borders is crucial for maintaining our competitive edge as a global trade hub.
Today, we are proposing amendments to the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act 1995 to strengthen the integrity of our trading processes and enforcement capabilities. This will reinforce Singapore's status as a trusted and reliable global trade hub.
Allow me to share the two key proposals of this amendment Bill. First, the Bill will strengthen our regulatory framework for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates (TICs). Second, it will facilitate Singapore Customs' investigative powers to uphold the integrity of Singapore's trade regime.
Our first proposal is to introduce a new Part 3 to the Act to provide further legal and regulatory certainty for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates. Trade Information Certificates are documents used by businesses in international trade to ascertain certain information about goods. An example would be information on the \"Country of Origin of goods\".
To be clear, Trade Information Certificates issued locally are not mandated by the Singapore Government for the trade of goods. However, our local exporters often require them, as the certificates can be requested by the regulatory agencies of other countries or their commercial partners.
Currently, Singapore Customs and relevant regulatory agencies in Singapore issue these certificates. Trade Information Certificates may also be issued by authorised non-governmental organisations. For example, Singapore Customs has authorised five trade associations and chambers to issue Certificates of Origin to businesses that require them for commercial purposes.
The Bill provides for other eligible entities to be authorised as alternative issuers of Trade Information Certificates, while ensuring the integrity of the certificate issuance process.
The Bill also introduces offence provisions for furnishing false or misleading Trade Information Certificates or tampering with these certificates. This is to deter any person who has an intention to falsify or tamper with Trade Information Certificates. In addition, with the amendments, it will be an offence if an individual makes false declaration or provides false information to Singapore Customs or authorised certificate issuers in their application of Trade Information Certificates.
Under the existing Act, an appeal may be made to the Minister in respect of any matter mentioned in the Act.
The new Part 5 of the Act expands on this and enables the Minister to designate a representative to hear and determine any such appeal to ensure that appeals may be dealt with expeditiously. Such representatives may include Second Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary.
Essentially, these amendments help to preserve Singapore's reputation as a credible trade hub by ensuring the legitimacy of our Trade Information Certificates.
Our second proposal seeks to enhance Singapore Customs' operational effectiveness through amendments to facilitate the investigation of offences and expand the scope of situations for granting a search warrant.
Currently, Singapore Customs can apply to a Magistrate for a search warrant to enter premises to investigate offences under the Act. To do so, Singapore Customs is required to reasonably prove that the premises contain goods relevant to the investigation. However, there have been instances where Singapore Customs was not able to obtain a search warrant, as it was only made aware of the potential offence after the goods had left Singapore.
Nonetheless, the premises may contain other evidence useful for the investigations, such as books, documents and records related to the potential offence.
Clause 10 of the Bill expands the scope for granting a search warrant to include circumstances where Singapore Customs have reasonable proof that the premises contain other forms of evidence related to the potential offence under this Act.
Foreign jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Australia, have similar laws.
Clause 10 also enables Singapore Customs to inspect relevant computers or associated devices found at the premises; and preserve any relevant books, records or cash, that could be evidence of an offence under the Act or its regulations.
Clause 13 builds on existing provisions of the Act to make it an offence to alter, suppress, conceal or destroy books, records, documents or other articles with the intent to delay or obstruct the conduct of an investigation.
The amendments to Singapore Customs' enforcement powers under the Bill are aligned with similar provisions in the Customs Act. I would like to assure Members that such powers will only be exercised in the interest of facilitating Singapore Customs' investigation of offences.
The amendments will enable Singapore Customs' regulatory and enforcement operations to be more effective and also strengthen the deterrent effect for offences under the Act.
In closing, the amendment Bill seeks to strengthen legal and regulatory framework for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates in Singapore as well as to facilitate Singapore Customs' investigation of offences. These efforts will ultimately strengthen Singapore's status as a trusted and reliable global trade hub and a responsible trade partner on the global stage. Sir, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.
Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill 2025. The Bill strengthens Singapore's trade certification framework and customs enforcement. It safeguards the trust that underpins our open economy and modernises enforcement powers for a digital trading age.
Mr Deputy Speaker, some people think that Singapore does not impose tough enough penalties for customs offences just because of our imports are duty-free. This perception is misplaced.
Singapore may be trade facilitative but let it be known we take trade compliance seriously. This Bill makes that very clear. We expect importers and exporters to keep their trade operations in order. By clarifying authority and imposing penalties for false or misleading certificates, this Bill protects Singapore's standing as one of the most trusted certification regimes in the world.
In this speech, I would like to touch on four aspects: one, trust in Singapore’s trade ecosystem; two, ensuring accountability and deterrence; three, supporting our exporters; and four, strengthening digital enforcement.
One, trust in Singapore's trade ecosystem. Singapore's trade is powered by trust – that goods bearing our name are genuine, properly declared and lawfully certified.
The Bill introduces the concept of a Trade Information Certificate, covering certificates of origin, export, re-export and processing. It establishes clarity on who can issue such certificates and the conditions they must meet.
This is not theoretical. In June 2025, a logistics coordinator in Singapore was fined for falsifying and tampering with Certificates of Origin. Such acts undermine confidence in Singapore-issued documents and threaten our exporters' preferential access to foreign markets.
One concern under the new framework of Trade Information Certificates is to ensure that businesses get clear guidance on which existing trade documents fall within the new regime. Implementation will require transitional arrangements, training or outreach programmes to help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and trade associations adapt to the new trade certification regime. Financial or advisory support should be provided for businesses that must update internal systems or documentation procedures.
Two, ensuring accountability and deterrence. Fraudulent trade certification undermines legitimate global trade. The Bill's new offences for issuing or altering false trade information, with fines and imprisonment for repeat offenders, provide real deterrence. Those who misuse Singapore's name for gain must face the full weight of the law.
Three, supporting our exporters. The Bill supports our manufacturers, logistics operators and freight forwarders who depend on a smooth and credible certification process. This Bill recognises existing authorised self-certification schemes under regional agreements, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Wide Self-Certification Scheme. It grants continuity to currently authorised persons while having a fit-and-proper framework for new issuers. The detailed criteria and \"fit and proper\" processes to authorise certificate issuers, including what fees, renewal conditions and processing timelines, should be made known.
Four, strengthening digital enforcement. Trade documents are now digital. Fraudulent certificates can be created or modified electronically within minutes. The Bill empowers authorised officers to search and seize digital devices related to suspected trade offences. This is vital to investigate sophisticated cross-border schemes that rely on encrypted messaging and online platforms. With these expanded powers, my concerns are safeguards to protect privacy and commercially-sensitive information. Will there be independent oversight or audit mechanisms to ensure the proportional use of such powers?
I hope that SMEs, in particular, are not unduly burdened by compliance costs or uncertainties. How will the impact of these changes on Singapore's trade competitiveness be monitored? Will there be unintended trade diversion or increased documentation delays as a result of the new framework? How will such findings be reported and reviewed to address and mitigate any adverse effects?
I suggest that annual statistics on the number of Trade Information Certificates issued, rejected or found to be false, be published. There should be a formal review within two years of implementation to assess compliance cost, trade competitiveness impact and regulatory effectiveness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as global supply chains grow more complex, our advantage lies in trust – that a document issued in Singapore can be accepted anywhere in the world without question. This Bill protects Singapore's name, supports legitimate trade and ensures that enforcement keeps pace with the digital world. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill is a necessary legislative measure to safeguard the integrity and reputation of Singapore's trade ecosystem.
The Bill primarily seeks to prevent the fraudulent issuance and misuse of Trade Information Certificates, which are official documents that are like a passport for goods. The fraudulent misuse of Trade Information Certificates, ultimately, damages our nation's status as a trusted global trading hub. False Certificates of Origin and other Trade Information Certificates undermine the integrity of global trade data, facilitate customs duties evasion and allow unsafe or substandard goods to enter markets under false pretenses. This abuse, whether involving exports to foreign markets or goods transiting through Singapore, is a clear threat to our national trade integrity and reputation.
The amendments also rectify operational gaps by explicitly expanding the scope for search warrants to include documents and records, recognising that the critical evidence in fraud cases is often digital or paper, rather than physical goods. These are important steps, but their implementation requires careful scrutiny.
The Bill appears to be a response to the problem of trade circumvention, sometimes pejoratively referred to as \"Southeast Asia washing\", where traders exploit major global trading hubs, like Singapore, to circumvent foreign trade restrictions and tariffs. It tackles this by directly regulating Origin and Non-Manipulation Certificates, introducing a new offence for knowingly issuing false Trade Information Certificates and mandating strict record-keeping for preferential Certificates of Origin.
Complex, high-volume trade circumvention schemes are almost certainly orchestrated by sophisticated actors who command the necessary supply chains. If the Bill's primary purpose is to stop this high-level fraud, we must ensure that the severe compliance burden does not fall disproportionately on our SMEs.
Could I ask the Minister of State, of all the instances where Singapore Customs has detected trade circumvention via fraudulent Trade Information Certificates, what percentage of these cases involved small local traders versus large multinational companies or their subsidiaries? How will the Ministry ensure that the compliance burden under this Bill does not become an unintended barrier to trade for the low-risk majority?
This Bill is no simple administrative update. It is a significant shift in regulatory liability that demands substantial internal investments from every trader. While I support the Bill's intent, I wish to focus on the significant statutory compliance burden this Bill introduces, specifically for our SMEs.
The introduction of an entirely new statutory framework for Trade Information Certificates converts what was often an administrative arrangement into a formal, highly regulated process with severe penalties for non-compliance. More accurately, the new record-keeping offence for manufacturers and exporters who issue preferential Certificates of Origin is a substantial shift. This provision formalises a duty with clear legal consequences, compelling traders to guarantee the proactive quality and accuracy of their records to substantiate the certificate claim, moving well beyond the simpler duty of document retention.
Furthermore, the Bill expands Singapore Customs' enforcement powers, directly linking the integrity of Trade Information Certificates to the potential seizure of physical goods. This means that the quality of a single document can now potentially stall an entire shipment, placing immense and immediate operational risk on every trading firm. The severe penalties, reaching up to $100,000 for a first offence, risk deterring smaller firms from participating in complex preferential trade, which requires them to issue or obtain these high-liability certificates.
The Bill could expose the inadequacy of many traders' existing internal information systems, their expertise and organisational control.
The Networked Trade Platform, the national digital business-to-Government platform for regulatory compliance, and the Singapore Trade Data Exchange (SGTraDex), a business-to-business platform for operational data exchange, both allow traders to digitally transact with our trade ecosystem. While these platforms are excellent for data exchange, they cannot automate the internal corporate hygiene now mandated by law. The expanded Government powers under this Bill, which include searching for books, documents and records, necessitate significant investment in internal corporate governance.
SMEs face a significant administrative cost of interpretation as well. These include hiring consultants or dedicating management time to fully understand the legal nuances of the new offences and record-keeping obligations. This requires a mandatory upgrade to auditable Document Retention Mechanisms to secure, systematically organise and retrieve records for five years or more. The documentation complexity is far beyond the existing trade permit submissions. Therefore, the true compliance costs are not in the permit fees, but in the internal process control required to prevent an honest mistake from becoming a high-penalty offence. Furthermore, the severity of the new penalty regime necessitates substantial human capital investment and training.
To mitigate these foreseen problems and ensure the Bill does not become an unintended barrier to trade, I urge the Government to provide robust, targeted assistance to traders to help them comply with the Bill's obligations.
First, Enterprise Singapore should create a Trade Compliance Technology Grant. It could expand on the existing Enterprise Development Grant, specifically for technology adoption by SMEs related to this Bill's requirements. This funding could cover up to 80% of the cost of the adoption or upgrade of traders' Enterprise Resource Planning systems and specialised Document Management Systems to meet the new requirements under this Bill.
This grant should also extend financial support to a trader's internal information technology (IT) department, should they wish to implement the enhancements themselves without engaging third-party vendors.
Second, technical support to traders must be bolstered. Singapore Customs and the Infocomm and Media Development Authority must ensure all the necessary Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are made available for traders to interface between their ERP systems and both Networked Trade Platform and SGTraDex. These APIs must be accurately and comprehensively documented and supported by a responsive and competent technical and functional help desk service.
Third, we need to provide specialist advisory support needed to help local traders bridge the compliance knowledge gap. I propose a Trade Compliance Advisory Grant that SMEs can tap on to subsidise the cost of engaging trade lawyers or consultants. These experts can help draft the necessary Standard Operating Procedures and establish a robust corporate governance framework demanded by the Bill.
Fourth, Customs could also partner with trade associations to offer heavily subsidised specialised training subsidies for SME traders, with a curriculum focused on managing internal compliance systems, enhanced record-keeping obligations and risk management related to the Bill.
This Bill could also open up career opportunities for Singaporeans wishing to specialise in trade compliance or pivot from another industry. SkillsFuture Credit and other training grants must be made available to individuals wishing to upskill themselves in this area. If Singapore is to champion ASEAN digitalisation and lead in digital trade infrastructure, we must first ensure our local traders have the necessary resources, systems and trained personnel to meet the highest standards of trade data integrity.
Finally, the Ministry should adopt a \"fix, do not fine\" approach for initial or inadvertent breaches. It should be formalised as a clear, tiered enforcement framework designed to differentiate between genuine error and deliberate fraud.
Tier 1 should cover honest mistakes by first-time offenders and minor breaches. Singapore Customs should issue only a Notice of Advisory or impose a Mandatory Remediation Period. The trader must submit a corrective action plan and leverage the proposed grants to implement a system upgrade, with no financial penalty at this stage. This encourages self-correction and transparency. Tier 2 would cover negligence, repeated minor breaches or first-time significant breaches. A composition sum and mandatory training would be a more proportionate and effective response. The full penalty regime, including the severe statutory fines, must be reserved strictly for Tier 3, which covers fraud or gross negligence, where the breach involves knowing falsehoods, deliberate tampering or clear intent to evade duties.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill's success hinges on how well traders comply with these requirements. We must ensure that deterrence is targeted at the fraudulent few, while genuine traders are supported with the tools and clarity necessary to meet these new stringent requirements.
In summary, the bill addresses serious harm to our trade integrity, but risks imposing disproportionate burdens on SMEs. To mitigate these burdens, I propose the Government support through targeted grants for enhancements to internal systems, consultancy services and a commitment to a tiered, fixed loan fine and enforcement framework to guide honest traders into compliance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, the amendments to the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act have a twofold aim: to introduce a Trade Information Certificates, which I will go ahead and call it as TICs – it is an unfortunate acronym, I noticed that the Minister of State Gan skillfully avoided this – and to expand the scope of search authority for customs officials.
My hon friend, Gerald Giam, has just spoken on the importance of further empowering traders, especially smaller ones, through targeted assistance, as they navigate the new stipulations that they would have to comply with resulting from this proposed legislation.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
On my part, I will take a step back and focus mainly on implications of clause 3 which provides the framework for a more robust and comprehensive trade monitoring regime and what this will have on our international trading relations. Specifically, I will probe more into whether how, even as TICs improve our importing and exporting firms' adherence to our international trading obligations, they also carry additional costs, without fully resolving certain concerns.
Rules of Origin have long been required to ensure that free trade agreements (FTAs) signed between contracting nations do not inadvertently undermine those that are not party to the same agreement. Without Rules of Origin, goods from, say, Turkiye, that entered Singapore preferentially may then subsequently be exported to the Philippines tariff-free as a result of ASEAN, even though the latter did not agree to the rates set forth in the Turkiye-Singapore FTA.
The problem, however, is that the proliferation of FTAs has contributed to a so-called \"spaghetti bowl\" of messy, overlapping, and hard-to-enforce duties and barriers, which has been criticised by some as undermining the multilateral trading system. Singapore has been somewhat more guilty than most, given our penchant for signing FTAs, resulting in our own char kway teow of interweaving trade agreements, several times more than the average economy, and incorporating a host of non-harmonised trading rules.
Managing this web of interlocking trading relationships, therefore, necessitates a decisive system of monitoring and reporting Rules of Origin. Singapore had previously implemented this administratively, using Certificates of Origin. Such Certificates of Origin carried limited oversight and enforcement were prone to error or differences of interpretation and relied on honest and accurate self-declarations.
The statutory backbone provided by the TIC regime will, undoubtedly, make some headway in tightening Rules of Origin, although elevated reporting and accountability requirements, along with expanded enforcement powers.
Still, Rules of Origin may be circumvented under the revised legislation. For example, TICs cannot preclude a situation where an importer deliberately overstates the cost of local material or labour used to determine origin. This is fraudulent, of course, but detection would only be heightened under the new regime if there were also additional resources dedicated to effect random scrutiny of TIC submissions, perhaps with the use of AI-enhanced fraud detection methods.
But slippages may result even when the intent is not nefarious. For instance, third-party invoicing, the practice of using preferential Certificates of Origin issued by a third country that may not be a member of FTA, has, historically, been accepted by Singapore Customs. Still, there is no immediate assurance that the standards for Rules of Origin applied by the third country would be as stringent as those that we are now developing here.
In such cases, it would be helpful to understand how Customs plans to deal with these inadvertent violations of Rules of Origin. The suggestion by Member Gerald Giam for a tiered enforcement framework may assuage concerns among those who fear excessive punishment for first-time offences.
Similarly, Mr Gerald Giam has pointed to the need for technical and financial support to small traders that may be overwhelmed by their now more-burdensome reporting obligations. On my part, I would also suggest that the Ministry consider some form of streamlined submission or automatic reporting process for regular importers which bring in essentially the same set of goods, similar to how income tax reporting is more straightforward for wage income earners that have not undergone changes in jobs recently.
The balance between the two objectives – punishment for intentional misrepresentation, tempered by some degree of leniency for unwitting mistakes – will have practical implications not only for our traders and businesses, but also for how Singapore navigates its ongoing trade negotiations with the rest of the world.
After all, earlier this year, there were accusations that Singapore was being used as a transshipment hub to bypass sanctions, resulting in our classification as a Tier Two nation for the purposes of access to AI technology from the US. This was a matter that was discussed in Parliament then, but a thorough revision of the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act was not mooted then, with only a reference to the Strategic Goods Control Act. Notably, since that time, new reports have emerged to suggest that such illicit activity appears somewhat undeterred, as evidenced by firms, such as Singapore-registered Megaspeed and its Malaysian subsidiary Speedmatrix.
Similarly, we know that trade in goods and services is accompanied by corresponding financial flows. Over the past two years, this House has passed related legislation to further curb illicit financial flows. Yet, it has not appeared to have deterred the activities of Cambodian businessman Chen Zhi and the Prince Group.
It would be helpful to have a better understanding of how the Ministry now believes that the revised Certificates of Origin and Non-Manipulation will help avoid repeating such outcomes. Relatedly, will the decision by the US to suspend the de minimus exemption which the Bill does not appear to address directly, require additional subsidiary legislation, or will the information to be reported in TICs be sufficient to ensure future compliance?
Sir, while the new regime will impose a greater regulatory burden on our traders, it is also an important upgrade that will ensure that our nation continues to adhere to its international trading commitments. While the transition may initially be rocky, I believe that, in the longer run, our world-class trading and logistics sector will adapt and new compliance services will potentially emerge to support this endeavour. In a world where the rules-based order is being increasingly threatened, it is essential that Singapore continues to contribute towards sustaining the system that has served our small nation so well. For these reasons, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as someone who runs a business involved in the trading, importing and exporting of goods. Many of the procedures covered in this Bill – Certificates of Origin, transshipment documentation and customs checks – are part of my daily operations.
Singapore's economy has always depended on trade. Every shipment that leaves our port and every document that certifies its origin form what I call our trust chain. This is because trust is required at each stage: the manufacturer trusts that the supplier to provide genuine materials, the importer trusts that the documentation is accurate and ultimately, consumers trust that what they buy is what it claims to be.
This Bill strengthens that chain by tightening how Trade Information Certificates are issued, verified and enforced. I support this Bill because it enhances Singapore's credibility as a trusted trading hub, but I also believe enforcement must remain proportionate and practical for the businesses that keep our trade flowing.
Sir, the way global trade operates is changing. It is no longer just about moving goods quickly or cheaply. Partners now ask where a product was made, how it was produced and whether the supporting documents can stand up to scrutiny.
This Bill creates a clearer structure for Trade Information Certificates. These include Certificates of Origin, certificates confirming manufacture or processing in Singapore and certificates confirming that goods have been transshipped or re-exported here. It also introduces new offences for issuing or using false or misleading certificates and empowers the Director-General of Customs to suspend or revoke authorisation from certificate issuers who fail to meet the required standards. Customs officers will also have stronger powers to inspect premises, seize goods and obtain records where there is reason to believe offences have occurred.
These changes make sense. They help ensure that the documents accompanying Singapore's exports, from electronics to batteries and packaged food, remain trusted worldwide.
Around the world, we are seeing countries tighten their own trade documentation rules in response to growing fragmentation and uncertainty in global supply chains. In Vietnam, customs authorities have stepped up enforcement against false \"Made in Vietnam\" claims. Additionally, authorities in nations, such as South Korea and Thailand, have also increased inspections and seized falsified origin goods.
In Singapore, the upcoming Bill will further empower the Ministry of Trade and Industry and Singapore Customs to be able to better combat these threats. A key part of this Bill is the creation of a predictable system for verifying and issuing trade documents. Previously, certificates, such as Certificates of Origin or Certificates of Free Sale, were governed by different authorities. This amendment provides an overarching legal framework for comprehensiveness.
Also, under current export laws, the process is delegated but fragmented. An exporter may be requested by Customs to approach a certificate issuer, such as the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry or the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to get their Certificates of Origin. In the case of falsification, the issuer might not always be clear of its role and responsibility.
With amendment, if a certificate is found to be false, the enforcement process is clear and consistent.
Just as important, this framework is built for the digital era. It can plug directly into platforms, like TradeTrust and the Networked Trade Platform, allowing verification in real time. That saves businesses time and cost while giving foreign buyers and customs agencies confidence that every Singapore-issued document carries the same trusted signature.
Just last year, in 2024, Singapore's total trade in goods reached $1.29 trillion and exports were $674 billion. Re-exports made up more than half of that figure. That means most of what we trade depends on the reliability of our documentation and the confidence of our partners.
While the intent of this Bill is sound, we must also recognise its practical effects. For large exporters, compliance may simply mean tightening procedures. For smaller businesses, it could mean extra hours checking documents, filing records and verifying that every certificate comes from an authorised issuer.
A forwarder shared his account: that shipment delays can be caused by an oversight of the Harmonised System codes and cargos arranged by shippers, who are often are unfamiliar with requirements, cause delays. These delays could range from one in 30 shipments for experienced forwarders and regular goods to four in 10 for controlled items. The passing of this Bill will help to untie some of these knots.
Sir, for large firms, these are routine adjustments. For SMEs, they can be significant. But how can we help SMEs to transit, especially as 99% of our enterprises are made up of SMEs?
To keep the system pro-enterprise, I suggest three things.
First, Government agencies should make compliance simple and clear. Enterprise Singapore and Singapore Customs can develop plain-language guides, checklists and templates to reduce the learning curve.
Second, there should be active support for capability building. SMEs could tap the Enterprise Development Grant or Productivity Solutions Grant to digitalise their processes. Trade associations and chambers, some of which will be appointed authorised issuers, can conduct courses to bring SMEs up to speed on the new Bill and required actions.
Third, enforcement should be proportionate. The strongest penalties should be reserved for deliberate fraud, not for first-time or administrative mistakes. Customs can start with education and correction before escalation.
Sir, I want to touch on one important procedural issue. The Bill expands Customs' power to obtain search warrants for books, records and digital documents.
This is a serious power. However, seizing goods in a warehouse is one thing; searching a company's office and taking computers or client records is another. I suggest that, where operationally feasible, only copies of books and digital records should be taken, to minimise business disruptions on potentially innocent businesses while investigations are still ongoing. We should be firm on fraud, but fair on process.
Sir, this Bill is part of a wider shift in global trade, from speed and volume to trust and traceability. We want Singapore to remain known not just for efficiency, but also reliability. In an age where trade is increasingly fragmented, Singapore's strength lies in making order out of complexity, not through bureaucracy, but through clarity and trust. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Regulation of Import and Export (Amendment) Bill. The new Bill strengthens regulation of trade documentation and certificates, making our export documents more credible and preventing issues with false certificates and false declarations.
However, when enforcing the law, we must also consider the practicalities of business operation. For SMEs, the new procedures will increase compliance costs and time. Hence, Government agencies should provide guidance and support, so businesses view compliance as an asset rather than a burden.
I would also like to suggest that searches of company documents or computers only be carried out when necessary to safeguard business operations and trust. Overall, as long as we find a balance between being strict and pragmatic, this Bill can help Singapore maintain its position as a trusted partner in global trade.
(In English): In closing, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. It strengthens Singapore's reputation as a trusted and responsible trading hub. But as we build this stronger trust chain, we must make sure it does not tie the hands of those who keep it running.
We should pair stronger enforcement with stronger support and ensure that compliance builds confidence, not fear. If we get this balance right, trade will continue to flow freely through Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan.
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Members Mr Victor Lye, Mr Gerald Giam, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Ng Shi Xuan who have spoken in support of the Bill.
I just want to clarify upfront that this Bill essentially seeks to preserve Singapore's reputation as a credible trade hub by ensuring that the Trade Information Certificates issued in connection with the Act are issued properly and the effectiveness of our enforcement against offences.
Currently, manufacturers and exporters are expected to abide by respective record-keeping requirements stated in the preferential tariff arrangement or agreement. This Bill does not amend or add to these requirements.
The introduction of the offence provision seeks to reinforce this requirement and ensure proper retention of records as specified in the preferential tariff arrangement or agreement. Such records would include copies of documents that were needed for the issuance of those preferential Certificates of Origin, such as commercial invoices and packing lists, which manufacturers and exporters are familiar with. Also, just to reassure Members here, the penalties prescribed are aligned with similar offences regulated under the Act.
Let me cover a few other points that have been raised.
First, on the impact of the Trade Information Certificates framework on businesses. Members have called for facilitative approaches and clear communication with businesses. I agree. I thank the Members for the practical suggestions made and we will consider them and take in feedback and further suggestions, especially from the businesses, trade association chambers, and exporters themselves.
There are avenues for businesses that require assistance to understand their responsibilities and comply with the regulations.
Singapore Customs regularly updates businesses on new information or changes in procedures through its website and circulars. This includes new entities authorised to issue specific Trade Information Certificates and changes to the types of certificates allowed for issuance.
Businesses can also seek information and guidance from the Centre for the Future of Trade and Investment. This is set up by Enterprise Singapore and Singapore Business Federation. Through the Centre for the Future of Trade and Investment, businesses may receive tailored support and practical business solutions. The Centre for the Future of Trade and Investment also regularly organises workshops, forums and seminars to assist businesses in enhancing their trade competencies and capabilities.
Our SME centres will also similarly advise SMEs on grants and support is available for them to be able to comply and be effective in the trade system.
Second, on matters related to non-governmental authorised certificate issuers. Currently, four chambers of commerce and the Singapore Manufacturing Federation are authorised to issue Certificates of Origin. These five organisations are required to carry out their duties in accordance with the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act. Singapore Customs regularly monitors these organisations to ensure that their verification of Singapore-origin goods is sufficiently robust, and this is helpful for businesses.
With the amendment, other non-governmental and private entities can now apply to Singapore Customs to be authorised certificate issuers. This gives businesses more options on where they can obtain Trade Information Certificates.
At the same time, we need to ensure that proper safeguards are in place, to be confident that the Trade Information Certificates are credible. To this end, Singapore Customs will authorise only an applicant that is deemed \"fit and proper\" to issue certificates. In addition, the Minister may make regulations, imposing requirements that applicants must satisfy in order to be authorised certificate issuers.
The amendment also provides for a transparent process under which errant authorised certificate issuers may have their authorisations suspended or revoked.
Another issue highlighted by Members is on deterring and detecting offences related to Trade Information Certificates.
Singapore Customs will continue to take a firm stance against deliberate false declarations on goods and will not hesitate to take action against violations of our domestic customs or trade regulations. For effective enforcement of our laws, Members would agree that Singapore Customs must take a risk-based, multi-prong approach in detecting, deterring and penalising offenders.
To detect non-compliance, Singapore Customs uses data analytics, information received from domestic and foreign counterparts, and non-intrusive cargo screening technology to identify suspicious declarations or shipments. To deter potential offenders, Customs issues circulars to remind businesses on the criteria for determining country of origin of goods and warn companies of the seriousness of committing fraud.
Customs will also be very careful about how they share the information and issue advisories, especially when the mistakes made are administrative in nature and are genuine honest mistakes by people who are not familiar with the rules. Against deliberate offenders, Customs will not hesitate to prosecute them and publicise serious fraudulent cases to reiterate the Government's zero tolerance for deliberate violation of Singapore laws.
Finally, let me address the points raised on ensuring proportionality in the strengthening of Singapore Customs' enforcement powers.
Members had questions and also some suggestions on safeguards and thresholds for granting search warrants for books and digital records.
Providing powers for enforcement agencies to inspect computers and associated devices is necessary in today's digital age. The use of such devices in import and export transactions is now standard practice, with related documents often stored electronically and serving as key evidence. As digitally-stored records can be moved or altered quite quickly, it is crucial to grant investigators the powers to inspect these devices to ensure that the investigations are effective and efficient.
I want to assure Members that every effort will be made to strike a balance between effective investigations and minimising disruption to legitimate business activities, and these are the majority. Most are legitimate. Customs will be very discreet and careful when applying for powers to search or to look through their documents.
Singapore Customs' powers will be exercised solely to facilitate investigations into potential offences committed by businesses with the intent to defraud our trading system.
I was looking through the breaches that Customs had detected in the past few years. The majority of breaches were administrative in nature. Some may be mistakes in the date of transaction or the number of the shipping container. For such mistakes, usually, Customs takes a very light touch. It is just an advisory and a caution issued to the exporters and the businesses.
I want to also reassure Members here that the expanded search powers will not be exercised frivolously. Where a search warrant is required, its application must be made on reasonable proof that the premises contain evidence relating to the offence.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate that this amendment Bill will do two things: first, strengthens Singapore's regulatory framework for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates by authorised certificate issuers; second, strengthens Singapore Customs' investigative powers to uphold the integrity of our trade regime.
Mr Speaker, trade is three times our gross domestic product and is the lifeblood of Singapore's economy. With the support of the House today, this Bill will strengthen Singapore's position as a trusted and efficient trading hub and also maintain the competitive edge of Singapore's economy. Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister of State Gan? No.
[(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 Gan Siow Huang]. (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":"Clarification by Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Acting Minister Neo. I believe you want to make a clarification.
The Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr David Neo): Mr Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that I might have inadvertently stated the wrong date of the Notice of Intention (NOI) in one of my responses to the clarifications.
For the record, I wish to state that the NOI was issued on 3 November 2025, as stated in my Ministerial Statement.
","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":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 4.59 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cessation of Integrated Childcare Programme for Children with Mild Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what evaluation was done to conclude that cessation of the Integrated Childcare Programme (ICCP) that helped children with mild special needs was necessary in 2024; (b) what service gap was projected given that expansion of the Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) will only start from 2026; and (c) what like-for-like interim provisions are in place to ensure in-childcare support for affected children.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the Integrated Childcare Programme (ICCP), which was launched in 2003, resource persons in selected preschools were funded to customise the curriculum for children with developmental needs (DN). However, children who required targeted Early Intervention (EI) support would still have to enrol in separate programmes, such as the Development Support and Learning Support (DS-LS) or Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC).
Since 2012, we have increased accessibility of direct EI support for children with DN within preschool settings. Key enhancements included the expansion of DS-LS to more preschools and the provision of coaching to preschool teachers by EI professionals to support DN children in the classroom. The Inclusive Support Programme (InSP) was piloted in 2021 and will continue to scale to more preschools from next year onwards. Unlike ICCP, InSP provides integrated El services within the preschool setting for children requiring medium levels of El support. With these enhancements, children with DN were able to receive better support in preschools across various levels of EI support. Hence, ICCP was discontinued in 2024.
To better support children with DN in preschools, the Early Childhood and Development Agency has also introduced a requirement for every preschool to appoint an Inclusion Coordinator by 2023 to support the identification of children that may require EI and to refer parents and educators to relevant EI resources and services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Compliance Rates in Respective Progressive Wage Model Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the compliance rate with the wages, training and working hours caps requirements in the respective Progressive Wage Model sectors; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to improve compliance in sectors that fare poorly.
Dr Tan See Leng: About eight in 10 eligible employees received salaries which met the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and Occupational Progressive Wages' requirements. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not track training or working hours requirements by the respective PWM sectors.
MOM will continue to conduct targeted inspections in sectors with lower compliance rates and work with tripartite partners and PWM sectoral leads to educate and help employers meet their PWM requirements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Congestion along Kovan-Serangoon Corridor Given New BTO Project","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Acting Minister for Transport given Kovan Wellspring BTO completion will increase peak traffic demands (a) what are LTA's plans on the congestion towards expressways along the Kovan-Serangoon corridor; (b) what bus and MRT capacity upgrades are planned to address current two-to-three train waits during morning rush in this area; and (c) what is the timeline for MRT-related relief and road improvements along the Kovan-Serangoon corridor.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Road improvement works will be carried out at the junction of Tampines Road and Upper Serangoon Road in tandem with the development of the Kovan Wellspring Build-to-Order.
Kovan mass rapid transit station is currently served by 12 bus services. We are introducing free morning off-peak rail rides on the North East Line from end-December 2025 to help to reduce train crowding during peak periods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Projects Involving Regional Importers Given Conditional Approvals or Licenses by EMA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) for a progress update on the various projects involving regional importers which have been issued with Conditional Approvals (CAs) or Conditional Licenses (CLs) by the Energy Market Authority; and (b) whether any of these projects have proven to be unviable in the course of the Government’s evaluation, post-issuance of the CAs or CLs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Since the start of 2023, the Energy Market Authority has issued Conditional Approvals to eleven projects to import about eight gigawatts of low-carbon electricity from our region, including Australia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. Of these 11 projects, six projects from Indonesia have been awarded Conditional Licences as their projects have made good progress. They have a total capacity of three gigawatts.
The companies behind all eleven projects remain very interested in seeing their projects come to fruition. We will work closely with the governments of the source countries and with the project developers to develop more in-depth assessments of project viability, and to support the development of the most viable projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking and Issuing Guidelines on Listed Prices for Subsidised Procedures at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry tracks and issues guidelines on listed prices for subsidised procedures at public hospitals, particularly given efforts to curb the prevalence of insurance riders.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) provides broad guidance to Public Healthcare Institutions to set fees to recover operating costs, after Government subsidy, and to maintain their quality of care and service to patients. Hospital bill information for surgical procedures and inpatient medical conditions are published on MOH's website.
MOH has explained in the written reply to Parliamentary Question 21 for the Sitting on 14 October 2025 that Integrated Shield Plans and riders are mainly designed for private healthcare, and do not have much impact within public healthcare. [Please refer to \"Preventing Spill-over Effects of Unsustainable Private Insurance Practices into Public Hospital Charges and Keeping Premiums Affordable\", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, 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":"Public Officers Registered as Well-Being@Gov Programme Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many public officers are registered users of the Well-Being@Gov programme to date; (b) what percentage of these actively use the app monthly; (c) what is the average coaching and counselling credit consumption rate per officer; and (d) how does the Public Service Division (PSD) track and assess the programme's efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Well-being@Gov programme is part of the Public Service's broader effort to support the well-being of public officers. Well-being@Gov is an employee wellness programme that provides officers with on-demand access to well-being support measures via an app, including well-being screening tools, self-care resources and personalised coaching and counselling services.
We rolled out Well-being@Gov from March 2024 and, to date, over 100 agencies have onboarded their officers, with an average of 10% actively using the app every month for the past one year. Officers who do use coaching and counselling services consume about 2.5 hours of coaching or five hours of counselling on average.
The Public Service Division evaluates the programme through user satisfaction surveys, usage analytics and agency feedback surveys. The response to the programme has been encouraging.
The work of a public officer is increasingly complex and the speed of change they face is accelerating. The Public Service is, therefore, committed to their well-being. Beyond the Well-being@Gov programme, the Public Service currently has a network of about 1,800 Well-being Ambassadors across agencies to provide peer support and promote mental well-being awareness at the workplace. Training in basic mental health first aid is also available for managers to better support their staff.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework and Duration for Vape Addicts' Treatment and Rehabilitation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health for persons seeking support for vape addiction under the National Addictions Management Service (a) what is the framework and duration for the treatment and rehabilitation of such persons; and (b) whether there can be scheduling flexibility to ensure continuity in the treatment process.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Government has decided to take firm enforcement action against etomidate abuse. Just like drugs, etomidate is very harmful to the individuals and to their families and loved ones.
However, given that many etomidate abusers are young people who inadvertently picked up the habit through peers, the Ministry of Health is providing them a chance to come forward to seek help to quit the habit and no enforcement actions will be taken against them. They can turn over a new leaf. But if caught, they can be subject to severe penalties.
Hence, this is not a medical service, subject to the convenience of the individual seeking support. We hope to see commitment and desire amongst the abusers to correct their mistakes. It must, therefore, follow that appointments are scheduled based on the availability of the National Addictions Management Service professionals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Institutionalising CCA Twinning to Enable Mixing of Students from Different Academic and Socio-economic Profiles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will consider institutionalising regular co-curricular activities (CCA) twinning between schools to enable sustained mixing between students of different academic and socio-economic profiles beyond ad-hoc efforts; (b) whether such CCA twinning between schools has been piloted in the past five years; and (c) what are the outcomes of such pilots.
Mr Desmond Lee: Between 2019 to 2024, 18 co-curricular activities (CCA) partnerships have been initiated by schools. All of these partnerships are still ongoing. While such partnerships incur higher costs and impose some inconveniences, such as increased travel time, students who participate in such multi-school CCAs reported positive experiences and developed CCA-specific skills. They also forge friendships with peers from other schools.
Such CCA partnerships between schools are more sustainable when schools identify suitable partners based on their needs and profiles, and the partner schools find ways to overcome the coordination challenges involved. The Ministry of Education will continue to support schools which are keen to offer multi-school CCAs, along with other ways to promote social mixing between students of different profiles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiting Time for Children and Youths Seeking Mental Health Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the waiting time for children and youths seeking mental health support through the (i) Youth Integrated Team and (ii) CREST-Youth; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider lowering the age limit of these services to include primary school children, given challenges, such as early digital exposure and addiction.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The median waiting time, from point of referral or walk-in to first mental health intervention by Youth Integrated Teams (YITs) and Youth Outreach Teams (CREST-Youth) is about a week. These teams cater to youths aged 12 to 25 years old, who are in secondary schools up to the Institutes of Higher Learning.
Children, including primary school students, who need specialised interventions for addictions may be referred by School Counsellors to the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health (REACH) teams. Alternatively, these youths may attend specialised counselling programmes offered by community service providers, such as TOUCH and WE CARE.
Education and upstream prevention through healthy lifestyle habits remain a key strategy in tackling problematic digital and technology use among children, including primary school students.
In schools, cyber wellness lessons in the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum teach students to maintain a healthy balance of online and offline activities, including managing the use of digital devices and the impact of excessive use on their mental, social and emotional well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demographic Statistics to Determine Intended Intake of New PRs and Citizens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what demographic statistics other than the total fertility rate are being used to determine the intended intake of new Permanent Residents (PRs) and citizens; (b) whether the change in reporting Chart 17 in Population in Brief 2025 reflects a change in the intake determination methodology; and (c) if so, what is the expected impact on future intake determinations.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Our intake of Permanent Residents and Citizens takes into account several factors. Apart from our total fertility rate, we also consider other demographic indicators, such as life expectancy and age profile of our population. Our intake also varies on an annual basis depending on the number and quality of applications we receive.
Starting from the publication of the Population in Brief 2025, we have excluded citizenships granted by descent from being reported as part of the total number of citizenships granted. This is to more accurately reflect immigration inflows, since citizenship by descent is a constitutional entitlement for children born overseas to at least one Singaporean parent. It is akin to how children born in Singapore to Singaporean parents are constitutionally entitled to citizenship by birth. The number of citizenships by descent granted will continue to be reported under the Marriage and Parenthood section of the Population in Brief, and is also available on other open sources, such as the Department of Statistics' SingStat Table Builder.
This is a technical change in reporting and our intake methodology has not changed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unpaid Medical Bills Incurred by Work Permit and S Pass Holders in Public Healthcare Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each of the past three years, what are the total amount and number of cases of unpaid medical bills incurred by Work Permit and S Pass holders in public healthcare institutions; and (b) what further measures are in place to ensure timely payment and financial responsibility among employers and insurers.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2022 and 2024, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) handled an annual average of 19 substantiated cases of unpaid medical bills incurred by Work Permit and S Pass holders. The average unpaid medical bills across the same period was about $12,000. For such cases, we will typically remind employers of their obligations to bear the full cost of their workers' medical treatment. Most employers pay up after the reminder and enforcement actions will be taken against those who fail to do so.
MOM regularly reviews the mandatory medical insurance (MI) coverage to protect employers from large hospital bills. Since 1 July 2023, the minimum annual MI coverage per worker was increased from $15,000 to $60,000, which will cover approximately 99% of inpatient and day surgery bills incurred by Work Permit and S Pass holders. Employers are also encouraged to assess their needs and consider purchasing additional coverage beyond the minimum MI coverage, to safeguard against higher medical expenses.
For insurance policies starting from 1 July 2025, insurers are required to make direct payments to the hospitals upon the admissibility of the medical claims. This is to remove the need for employers to make upfront payment and seek reimbursement from insurers thereafter.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SingLit Books Available for Purchase with SG Culture Pass Credits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the list of SingLit books that can be purchased using SG Culture Pass credits will be made available; (b) how does the Ministry define a SingLit book; (c) whether the definition is based on the author’s nationality; and (d) whether the book must also be published in Singapore.
Mr David Neo: The SG Culture Pass programme was introduced on 1 September 2025. Its main objective is to enhance access of Singaporeans to local arts and heritage and to help local arts and heritage groups.
Earlier this year, the Government announced that we are working to include SingLit books under the SG Culture Pass. The Government is working closely with literary arts sector stakeholders, including bookstores and publishers, to roll this scheme out.
As the intent is to support the local literary arts community, the focus will be on SingLit books, meaning, works of literary arts that are written by locals. More details on the eligibility criteria for SingLit works will be released soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Maintenance of Nature Trails and Typical Downtime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) how frequently does NParks carry out maintenance of its nature trails; (b) for what reasons and for how long are such trails typically closed; and (c) whether there have been any delays in trail-related maintenance projects over the past five years.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As part of the National Parks Board's (NParks') maintenance regime, nature trails are inspected at least once a week. NParks also carries out additional inspections after prolonged periods of heavy rainfall or reports of trail-related issues. Following the inspections, NParks may temporarily close trails to ensure public safety and facilitate maintenance works, as necessary. The duration of trail closure will vary depending on the extensiveness and complexity of works needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Dental Services Offered At Polyclinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether polyclinic dental services will be expanded to include fabricating, repairing and fitting of dentures instead of having patients referred to tertiary institutions for such services; and (b) whether current MediSave rules preventing claims for dentures can be reviewed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Polyclinic dental services already provide denture fabrication, repair and fitting services. However, complex denture cases that require specialist management are referred to tertiary institutions.
The Ministry of Health has recently announced higher subsidies for root canal treatments and permanent crowns. MediSave can be used for these treatments for those aged 60 and above in 2026, once the information technology systems are configured. We will continue to review the coverage of MediSave. It is important to strike a balance between improving affordability and ensuring that individuals have enough MediSave set aside to meet their future healthcare needs, especially major acute episodes that tend to happen in old age.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accreditation of Clinics for Mental Health Treatments under Chronic Diseases Management Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what criteria the Ministry takes into account to accredit clinics for submission of MediSave claims for mental health treatments under the Chronic Diseases Management Programme (CDMP); and (b) whether the Ministry has considered allowing one-off claims from these accredited providers for mental health treatments not under the CDMP.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: General Practitioners (GPs) must be part of the Mental Health General Practitioner Partnership (MHGPP) programme, to be accredited to submit MediSave claims for mental health treatments under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP). The MHGPP programme ensures that GPs have the adequate training and experience to manage patients with mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, in the community. All GPs can apply to this programme, as long as they have the necessary qualifications or clinical experience in mental healthcare.
Mental health conditions beyond CDMP are not MediSave-claimable. However, patients may still receive subsidies of up to 75% at polyclinics and specialist outpatient clinics for such non-CDMP conditions. Patients aged 60 years and above can also tap on Flexi-MediSave to pay for these treatments and medications, up to the prevailing withdrawal limit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring of Home-based Businesses to Ensure Fair Operations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether businesses operated from residential addresses, including those under the Home-Based Business scheme, are subject to monitoring by the Government; (b) whether the Ministry ensures that such home-based businesses operate fairly and are not accorded an unfair advantage over traditional brick-and-mortar retailers which are subject to stricter licensing and regulatory requirements; and (c) if so, how.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Member may refer to the Ministry of National Development's (MND's) written reply to the question asked by Mr Yip Hon Weng on 24 September 2025 regarding the regulations of the Home-Based Business Scheme. [Please refer to \"Defining Criteria and Management Regulations for Home-based Businesses\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, Written Answers to Questions section.]
Regulations for home-based businesses and brick-and-mortar retailers are proportionate to the scale and externalities of the activities involved. Unlike brick-and-mortar retailers, home-based businesses are required to keep their activities small-scale and are not permitted to put up signages or hire persons outside the household.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Penalties under Animals and Birds Act 1965 to Deter Animal Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development (a) how the Ministry determines whether penalties under the Animals and Birds Act 1965 have been effective at deterring animal abuse; and (b) how the Ministry takes into account research on the potential links between animal abuse and psychological disorders in such determination.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's replies to the questions asked by Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr David Hoe, Dr Charlene Chen, and Mr Alex Yeo on 22 September 2025, and the question asked by Mr Gabriel Lam on 15 October 2025. [Please refer to \"Review of Penalty Framework for Animal Cruelty and Abuse Offences\", Official Report, 22 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 2, Written Answers to Questions section; and \"Measures to Manage High-risk Individuals Exhibiting Violence towards Animals\", Official Report, 15 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 8, 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":"Targets and Timelines to Reduce Workload, Work Hours and Stress of Teachers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education given how the OECD TALIS 2024 report showed that administrative work is one of the main sources of stress for teachers and the average time spent by teachers on administrative work remained relatively unchanged since 2018 at four hours weekly despite technology initiatives, what quantitative targets and timelines has the Ministry set to reduce this burden further.
47 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education in light of (i) the OECD TALIS 2024 survey where 27% of teachers report experiencing stress \"a lot\" and (ii) that average term time work hours remain unchanged at 53 hours over the past five years (a) whether the Ministry is concerned; and (b) what specific, measurable targets will the Ministry set to reduce teachers' workload, work hours and stress levels.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed in my response on the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 findings and management of teachers' workload and well-being at the Parliamentary Sitting on 4 November 2025, which will be made available on the Ministry of Education's website. [Please refer to \"Addressing Teachers' Stress Levels and Supporting Their Mental Well-being\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Lodged by Third-party Lift Contractors on OEM Vendors' Non-adherence to Voluntary Commitments for Repairs and Warranty Periods","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many complaints have been lodged by BCA-registered third-party lift contractors since 2019 regarding Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) vendors’ non-adherence to voluntary commitments; (b) how does the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore enforce the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory pricing commitments by OEM vendors; and (c) what improvements in pricing, delivery time, and warranty periods have been observed since 2019.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Building Construction Authority and Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) have not received any feedback regarding Original Equipment Manufacturer vendors' non-adherence to voluntary commitments since 2019.
If there are complaints lodged by third-party lift contractors regarding non-adherence to the commitments, CCS will investigate and take necessary action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Roads with Three or More Lanes in Each Direction That Do Not Have Bus Lanes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the proportion of roads in Singapore with three or more lanes in each direction that do not currently have bus lanes; (b) whether the Government has any plans to reduce this proportion; and (c) if not, why not.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: About 80% of such roads do not have bus lanes today. We expect to decrease this to prioritise public transport and reduce public transport journey times for commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcing Penalties and Interventions against Repeated High-rise Littering Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how does the National Environment Agency enforce penalties or interventions against repeated high-rise littering offences; and (b) what are the measures taken against suspects who refuse to cooperate with NEA investigations.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) works with Town Councils to issue advisories to residents of the block concerned when feedback on high-rise littering at a particular block is first received. Should high-rise littering persist, NEA would take further steps to determine the likely offending unit, including by deploying surveillance cameras, if feasible, to capture violations.
The statutory presumption provision on littering from residential flats, introduced from 1 July 2023, has placed greater onus on flat owners and tenants to prevent acts of high-rise littering. It also ensures that investigations and effective enforcement are not inhibited by uncooperative behaviour. Any individual convicted of high-rise littering is liable to a fine of up to $2,000 for a first conviction. Repeat offenders face fines of up to $4,000 for a second conviction and up to $10,000 for third and subsequent convictions. The Court may also impose a Corrective Work Order, requiring offenders to clean public areas for up to 12 hours.
Each case of a repeat offence is assessed individually and NEA will take into account any valid mitigating factors. For example, where mental health conditions may be a contributing factor, enforcement alone may not resolve the issue. In such cases, NEA works closely with stakeholders, such as the grassroots leaders and family members, to provide appropriate support and implement preventive measures, such as the installation of wire mesh across window grilles to prevent future incidents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proactive Measures of Primary Care Providers to Expand Vaccination and Antiviral Capacity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the earlier-than-usual surge in influenza cases this year, what proactive measures is the Ministry taking with primary care providers to (i) expand vaccination and antiviral capacity, (ii) protect vulnerable groups such as seniors and those with chronic illnesses and (iii) manage the potential strain on hospitals during this extended influenza season.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: As addressed in the written reply to the Parliamentary Question raised by Mr Gabriel Lam at the 5 November 2025 Parliament Sitting, the increase in influenza activity since August 2025 is not unexpected. [Please refer to \"Factors Contributing to Early Seasonal Surge of Influenza Cases and Prevention Strategies\", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Ministry of Health (MOH) works closely with general practitioners and polyclinics to incorporate influenza vaccination into routine preventive care, with subsidy coverage for eligible individuals. In particular, providers have been advised to encourage vulnerable groups, including children, seniors and individuals with medical conditions, to get influenza vaccination. MOH also works with nursing homes to offer influenza vaccination to their residents.
Our public hospitals manage high patient volumes daily. During surges, they tap on alternative care models to manage any strain if they emerge, such as the Mobile Inpatient Care at Home (MIC@Home) for suitable patients, and the Transitional Care Facilities (TCFs) for medically stable patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Cost for Upcoming Free Off-peak Rides Pilot","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what is the expected cost of the upcoming pilot to offer free off-peak MRT and LRT rides for commuters in northeast Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry can share any projections on the impact to ridership patterns.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank the Member for the question. I have addressed this at the 4 November 2025 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Duration of Free Morning Off-peak Rail Rides Scheme on North East Line\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Capacity Constraints in Soil Disposal and Reusing Excavated Soil Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development what are the Government's plans to address capacity constraints in soil disposal and re-use excavated soil waste, given the growing demands for soil disposal capacity in the coming years from ongoing construction and increasing need for soil infill at land reclamation projects.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Excavated materials (EM) generated by the construction industry from excavation and construction works are typically sent through staging grounds on the mainland to reclamation sites across Singapore, to be reused as reclamation infill.
The Government has worked with the industry to provide sufficient capacity to meet anticipated EM disposal needs. For example, we recently commenced a new reclamation project at Northern Tuas Basin, which further increases our capacity for EM disposal.
We will continue to monitor the situation and work closely with the industry to assess if further measures are required for disposal of EM.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lapses Identified in Review Panel's Report on Fatal Child Abuse Incident","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the SPF officers' failure to follow established processes identified in the Review Panel report on the February 2020 fatal child abuse incident, whether internal reviews indicated the lapses were isolated or indicative of broader systemic issues in supervision, training or adherence to protocols.
Mr K Shanmugam: Megan Khung's case was a tragedy. Minister Desmond Lee has earlier set out the Government's views on it.
In 2020, after Megan's death was uncovered, the Police reviewed their handling of the case.
There were two rounds of Police reports filed. The first report was made in January 2020 by Megan's grandmother. Further Police reports were made in July 2020, by Megan's grandmother and father. The Investigation Officer (IO) who dealt with the first Police report and her supervisor, failed to follow Police's procedures to escalate the case to the regular case review sessions for monitoring and guidance.
The IO had assessed this as a case of child discipline with low safety concerns based on the information that she was presented with at that time. Following the report, the IO attempted to contact Megan's mother over the next two weeks but could not reach her. She did not follow up beyond that because she was then deployed for COVID-19-related duties.
Despite this, the case would normally have been followed up if the IO and her supervisor had escalated the case to the regular case review sessions in the first place. The subsequent Police reports concerning Megan were referred to the regular case review sessions. This eventually led to the discovery of Megan's death and arrest of the perpetrators.
Police commenced internal investigations once the case came to light in 2020 and disciplined both the IO and her supervisor. The IO resigned subsequently.
The review panel corroborated these findings.
For missing person reports, the Police have established procedures to guide the follow-up. Specifically, the Police accord priority to missing vulnerable persons as they may be at higher risk, regardless of the duration they have been missing. This includes young children.
Cases of missing vulnerable persons are escalated to the regular case review sessions with supervisors for monitoring and guidance. It is standard procedure for the Police to work with other Government agencies to locate missing persons, including sharing the data of the missing persons. Where necessary, the Police may also issue appeals for information to seek the public's assistance.
The Police do not track the duration taken to close a case. There are many factors that can affect the length of an investigation. This includes the wide range of offences with varying complexities as well as the need to work with different partners as part of the investigation process.
There are internal controls in place to ensure that cases are followed up promptly. These include a daily case review process for supervisors to provide guidance on the cases, and multiple levels of supervision and regular checks throughout the investigation. But the Police continue to strengthen these processes and systems.
In particular, the Police have made several enhancements.
In 2022, they introduced the Family Violence Training Package for all frontline and IOs to adopt a sensitive approach to family violence cases, including child abuse cases and to recognise and escalate high-risk cases to the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).
In 2023, the Police formed Family Violence Teams (FVTs) at all Land Divisions to give focus to family violence cases, including child abuse cases. Specialised training is provided to FVT officers to equip them with the knowledge and skillsets to handle these cases, such as how to engage the victims sensitively as well as on working with other agencies. In particular, when the Police come across a case of suspected child abuse or when MSF receives an urgent report on high-risk cases through their National Anti-Violence and Sexual Harassment Hotline, the Police will work with MSF's Protective Service for safety planning and social intervention for the family and child. This may include the activation of MSF's Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT), a round-the-clock service launched in 2023 to provide immediate help to high-risk domestic violence cases with immediate safety concerns. DVERT officers would respond on-site to conduct a professional assessment and make urgent arrangements for the victims to be relocated or placed in alternative care for their safety, if necessary. DVERT officers are also empowered, under the Women's Charter, to issue Emergency Orders at the scene and to provide immediate safety for the victim.
To strengthen IOs' efficiency and supervisory capabilities, the Police have also harnessed technology for the review of cases. They have implemented technological solutions to trigger automatic notifications to IOs and their supervisors to complete time-sensitive tasks promptly.
Our frontline Police Officers bear a heavy responsibility to protect lives. They take this responsibility seriously and perform their duties with commitment and professionalism. The demands on our Police Officers continue to increase. They often have to make difficult judgement calls every day in the course of their duties. When under pressure, mistakes can happen.
In this case, the lapse arose because two Officers, who were under pressure, did not follow the operating procedure. It was a serious breach and it resulted in a tragic outcome. The Police will learn from this and reinforce procedures and training for its Officers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Leading to Higher Number of Babies in 2024 and Singapore's Long-term Parameter for Infrastructure Planning with Population Crossing Six Million-mark","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what are the factors that have contributed to the higher number of babies born in 2024; and (b) whether Singapore's long-term population parameter that is used for infrastructure planning will remain at 6.9 million given that the population has crossed six million for the first time in 2024.
Ms Indranee Rajah: There were 29,237 Citizen births in 2024, a 1.2% increase from the 28,877 citizen births in 2023.
The overall increase in Citizen births was primarily due to an increase in Chinese births between 2023 and 2024. The increase in Chinese births was due in part to the effect of the dragon year in 2024. However, the dragon year effect has diminished over time, reflecting a shift away from traditional beliefs among younger generations in their childbearing decisions.
Our total population was 6.11 million as of June 2025. Based on current trends and the various scenarios we use to plan for the long term, our total population is expected to remain significantly below 6.9 million by 2030 and this figure continues to remain relevant as a planning parameter for the 2030s.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"First Responder Agency for Enforcing Late Night Noise Violations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development which agency is the first response authority for enforcing noise violations after 10.30 pm, such as cases involving individuals playing excessively loud music in public parks.
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 25 September 2025. [Please refer to \"Measures to Stop Active Mobility Users on Park Connector Networks from Blasting Music When Close To Housing Estates\", Official Report, 25 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 5, 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":"Progress of Adopting Gen AI Tools within Public Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the progress in the adoption of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) tools in the public service; and (b) what training will be provided for public servants in the use of Gen AI tools relevant to their job roles.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government has made artificial intelligence (AI) tools available to public officers in a secure environment. About 80% of our 150,000 officers have used Pair Chat, the Government's general use chatbot. Officers are also using AIBots to create custom chatbots for specific tasks, such as answering human resource queries and providing guidance on budget and procurement processes. Over 20,000 of such bots have been created.
A range of learning and development programmes is available to help public officers of different skill levels understand and use AI tools. This includes courses and webinars organised by the Civil Service College and training partners and they cover a wide range of topics, such as prompt engineering and machine learning techniques. The Government also launched a mandatory AI literacy course for all public officers in October this year. This course helps officers understand AI's potential and limitations and use AI responsibly in their work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measurable Targets for Enhanced Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Australia","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what measurable targets have been set for the enhanced Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) with Australia across its five cooperation objectives; (b) what data illustrates the success of the first CSP, such as trade or investment increases; and (c) what is the Ministry's key factor to determine whether the commitment for essential supplies with Australia will be fully implemented.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore and Australia share a deep reservoir of mutual trust and shared strategic perspectives. This relationship has enjoyed strong bipartisan support from successive Australian governments.
The Singapore-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) was launched in 2015, including more than 110 initiatives across six pillars of cooperation. Between 2015 to 2023, our trade in goods increased by about 30% to $30 billion; trade in services increased by over 170% to $50 billion; while Foreign Direct Investment from Australia grew by over 50% to $25 billion. The Agreement concerning Military Training and Training Area Development in Australia enabled valuable training access for the SAF, including the expansion of Shoalwater Bay Training Area.
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong launched the upgraded CSP (CSP 2.0) with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during his Official Visit to Australia last month. CSP 2.0 has a slate of 80 new initiatives, 20 new Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and Agreements as well as 11 new dialogues across five pillars of bilateral cooperation.
Key initiatives under CSP 2.0 include the enhanced Defence Cooperation (eDC) MOU and MOU on Economic Resilience. Under the eDC MOU, we have: (a) enhanced reciprocal access to defence facilities in Australia and Singapore; (b) strengthened cooperation in defence science and technology, as well as defence logistics and supply chains; and (c) expanded professional exchanges between our militaries. The MOU on Economic Resilience commences negotiations for an Arrangement on Trade and Essential Supplies. We will explore options for a legally-binding commitment in the future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Layoffs in Petrochemical Industries following Retrenchment by US Energy Company of 500 Staff in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government projects further layoffs in the petrochemical industries following the announcement by a US energy company of its plans to retrench up to 500 staff in Singapore by end-2027; and (b) if so, whether the Government is extending support to these companies or to affected workers directly in the transition to a low-carbon future.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may be referring to ExxonMobil's restructuring announcement on 1 October 2025, where the company said that it would be retrenching up to 500 workers in Singapore by end-2027.
The Energy and Chemicals sector is a global industry, and Singapore is subject to global developments in demand and supply. With any mature industry in transition, we also expect to see some churn as companies transform their operations. However, there will be opportunities for re-investment and renewal. For example, as we transition to a low-carbon future, there will be new job opportunities for locals in growth areas, such as specialty chemicals and bio-chemicals. Since 2021, there were over 30 new specialty chemical projects across manufacturing and research and development (R&D) from global companies, such as Arkema, Cariflex and Kuraray. When fully realised, these investments are expected to create more than 1,000 jobs, across roles in manufacturing operations, R&D and innovation, process engineering, sustainability and corporate functions.
Should retrenchments occur, the Government's priority is to support affected workers with employment facilitation. The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, comprising representatives from the Ministry of Manpower, Workforce Singapore, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute, Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore, proactively reaches out to retrenching companies once notified of a retrenchment. For ExxonMobil, the Taskforce has offered career matching services and referrals to career switch programmes if workers wish to move into other growth areas. These include the Career Conversion Programmes and Mid-Career Pathways Programme. We understand that ExxonMobil has also proactively engaged the ExxonMobil Singapore Employees' Union and is committed to working closely with them to support affected workers throughout the restructuring process.
The SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme will also provide temporary financial support of up to $6,000 over six months to eligible retrenched individuals to support them in finding a job that makes better use of their skills and experience. The Government will continue to work closely with companies to support workers in the transition to a low-carbon future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"BTO Projects with Waiting Times Exceeding Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many current BTO projects have been launched with waiting times exceeding five years; (b) what are the typical reasons for the longer timelines; (c) what is the maximum wait time for such long timeline projects; and (d) how is HDB leveraging technology and artificial intelligence to improve construction productivity and mitigate long waits.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: There are currently 120 Build-To-Order projects under construction. Of these, 12 projects were launched with waiting times exceeding five years. Ulu Pandan Banks and River Peaks I and II have the longest waiting times of close to six years. Waiting times for each project are made known to potential applicants at launch.
Waiting times vary based on each project's unique attributes. Reasons for longer waiting times include requirements for more stringent environmental management and monitoring measures and challenging ground conditions which lead to more time required for piling and underground service works.
To reduce waiting times, the Housing Development Board is leveraging technology and artificial intelligence across three key areas: first, greater standardisation and modularisation to streamline construction processes; second, adoption of robotics and automation, such as painting robots; and third, use of digital platforms to streamline design and construction workflows.
Through these efforts, close to 70% of flats launched over the past three years had waiting times of four years or less.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Nutritional Standards of Budget Meal Options","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA will review the nutritional standards of budget meal options to ensure that they include adequate nutrients while remaining affordable; and (b) whether NEA will publish regular data on the accessibility, prices, nutritional composition and participation rates of budget and value-meal schemes to enhance public awareness and understanding of their effectiveness.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: My Ministry does not oversee policies on health and nutrition and has no intention to regulate the nutritional value of hawker food. The National Environment Agency will work closely with the Health Promotion Board to encourage healthier food options and choices at hawker centres.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employing AI Technologies to Review CCTV Recordings to Uncover Wrongdoing in Preschools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of the mandatory installation of CCTVs in preschools, whether the Ministry will consider (i) the use of AI technologies to review CCTV recordings to proactively uncover wrongdoing and (ii) mandating the installation of tamper-proof recording systems to prevent unauthorised deletions and alterations.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: My response will address the question on the implementation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras filed by Mr Ng Shi Xuan. Mr Darryl David has also filed a related question1 for oral answer at a subsequent Sitting and may wish to withdraw his question after this session.
All preschools must install CCTV cameras and comply with Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) regulatory requirements on the installation and maintenance of cameras and the collection, storage and submission of footage. While ECDA does not prescribe the type of CCTV camera system that must be installed, for example, whether it must be a tamper-proof recording system, preschools must provide CCTV footage when requested by ECDA to facilitate investigations. ECDA will take firm action against errant operators or individuals who fail to meet our regulatory requirements. Individuals who refuse to provide the required CCTV footage without reasonable excuse or have tampered with or destroyed CCTV footage can be found guilty of having committed an offence under the Early Childhood Development Centres Act and be fined up to $5,000 or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.
I thank the Member for his suggestion on using artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to review CCTV footage. ECDA has introduced an Early Childhood Industry Digital Plan, which provides funding to help preschools adopt pre-approved digital solutions. ECDA is currently working with video analytics providers to develop AI solutions that can detect safety hazards and potential misconduct in preschools, which could potentially be included as pre-approved digital solutions under the Early Childhood Industry Digital Plan. ECDA will also be deploying AI to improve our review of CCTV footage during investigations.
ECDA does not mandate operators to conduct regular review of CCTV footage, although some may do so as part of their supervisory practices. Mandating regular review of CCTV footage as a regulatory requirement will increase the administrative burden on our educators and potentially take time and attention away from their primary role to care for and nurture our children.
Ultimately, CCTV cameras in preschools are only a part of a suite of existing measures to ensure child safety. Firstly, operators must put in place standard operating procedures for child safety and well-being and ensure that these are implemented effectively by all their centres and staff. Secondly, other forms of supervision of child management practices must be exercised, such as regular walkabouts by principals to observe staff-child interactions. Lastly, operators must empower staff and provide the channels for them to proactively report inappropriate practices to their principal and management team. Everyone must play their part to provide a safe and secure environment in our preschools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development whether there are any standardised protocols in place by the Ministry or its agencies for regularly reviewing CCTV footage in kindergartens, preschools, and other early childhood education centres to minimise the risk of physical and sexual abuse of young children."],"footNoteQuestions":["63"],"questionNo":"63"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Network Quality Maintenance with Greater Infrastructure Investment after Simba-M1 Consolidation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the Ministry's plans to ensure that the consolidated Simba-M1 entity commits to greater infrastructure investment to maintain network quality, should IMDA approve the consolidation deal; and (b) whether the Ministry will require the entity to unbundle or open certain non-core infrastructure or services to Mobile Virtual Network Operators to sustain low-price competition, given its strong market position post-consolidation.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The proposed consolidation between Simba and M1 is being assessed in accordance with the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) Telecom and Media Competition Code. IMDA will review feedback from industry and the public, as well as Simba and M1's commitments to ensure that service quality and consumer interests continue to be met and there is no significant lessening of competition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introducing Clear Disclosure Requirements or Labelling Standards to Identify AI-generated Images on Products or Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether clear disclosure requirements or labelling standards will be introduced to help consumers, including seniors, identify AI-generated images that make representation about products and services; and (b) how the Ministry plans to strengthen public education on identifying such AI-generated content.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act protects consumers against businesses that make misleading or false claims about their products or services, whether or not they are AI-generated. There are currently no plans to introduce specific disclosure requirements or labelling standards for AI-generated content of products and services.
To support a transparent and trusted digital marketplace, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) has worked with e-commerce platforms and industry players to raise industry standards and promote responsible business conduct in the e-commerce space. This includes the use of artificial intelligence (AI) via enhancements to the Technical Reference 76 industry code on e-commerce transactions. CCS has also released an AI Markets Toolkit to help businesses self-assess and identify fair trading risks arising from the use of AI.
There are also guides to help businesses advertise their products and services responsibly. This includes the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice issued by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore, which requires all advertisements to be decent, honest and truthful. Just last month, CCS also issued a guide on quality-related claims to help businesses make clear and accurate product claims.
Consumer education and awareness are key to empower the public to make informed decisions. The Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA) SG Digital Office conducts workshops for seniors on how to stay safe and smart online against AI-generated misinformation. IMDA's Digital for Life Portal also contains resources on how the public can stay safe against online misinformation and deepfakes and use AI safely and responsibly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Peer Support Student Leaders Identified and Trained in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Education (a) on average, how many peer support student leaders have been identified and trained in each school; (b) whether these peer support leaders receive training to support their peers in areas of mental health; and (c) how are such trainings standardised across schools to ensure consistency.
Mr Desmond Lee: Schools train about 5% of their students as Peer Support Leaders (PSLs). School staff use training resources from the Ministry of Education to teach PSLs strategies, such as active listening, responding with empathy, positive coping and encouraging help-seeking, in order to provide basic mental health peer support. In addition, school staff check in regularly with PSLs to share good practices and help address concerns that they may raise. There may be some differences in the training provided across schools, depending on the profile and needs of the students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Space Utilisation on New Buses to Accommodate More Assistive Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Acting Minister for Transport given that current bus designs limit dedicated space for wheelchairs, strollers or PMAs to only one or two bays, whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the space utilisation of new buses, particularly those on high-demand routes serving polyclinics and senior centres to increase the dedicated multi-functional standing space beyond two bays to accommodate more essential assistive devices for our ageing population.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority ensures that our public transport is inclusive and accessible to all, based on the diverse needs of our commuters. However, given the limited space on board a public bus, we must often make trade-offs in how we use the space.
Adding one more space for wheelchairs, strollers and personal mobility aids would require us to remove at least four seats per bus. This could make it more challenging to accommodate passengers who do not use mobility devices, but need a seat regardless, such as seniors and young children. We will need to study travel patterns and demand, to see if this is the right solution, or if there are suitable alternatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards and Support for Frontline Professionals to Promote \"Safe Reporting Culture\" to Protect Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what (i) legal or (ii) institutional protection will the Ministry introduce to better safeguard and support frontline professionals like teachers, social workers and Police officers from liability, legal challenges and public condemnation when making difficult, high-stakes decisions involving child safety and based on imperfect information, in the course of their work.
69 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Social and Family Development following the Review Panel report on the February 2020 fatal child incident, (a) what steps will be taken to proactively review past and current child protection cases to identify other children potentially overlooked due to the systemic gaps identified; and (b) what measures does the Ministry plan to introduce to foster the \"safe reporting culture\" recommended for social service professionals.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This question has been answered as part of the Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration's oral reply to Parliamentary Questions at the Sitting on 5 November 2025. [Please refer to \"Current Escalation Protocol for Breaches in Care and Protection Orders Involving Children\", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, 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":"Parties Seeking Endorsement under Healthier Food Donation Recommendation for Food Donation Packs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many parties have sought the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) endorsement under the Healthier Food Donation Recommendation (HFDR) for their food donation packs; (b) how many parties have been certified so far; and (c) whether HPB will consider increasing awareness and adoption of the HFDR in light of rising malnutrition among seniors.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Healthier Food Donation Recommendation (HFDR) guides organisations and individual donors to select healthier food products for donation packs, to promote a balanced and nutritious diet for beneficiaries.
There is no requirement for donation packs to be endorsed by the Health Promotion Board (HPB). However, HPB receives enquiries from donors on meeting the HFDR guidelines. We encourage donors to include items from all main food groups, including sufficient sources of protein and fibre, and to limit discretionary foods, such as beverages, snacks, and sauces and condiments that are high in sodium, saturated fat and sugar.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Personal Disposable Income, Savings and Savings Rate by Citizenship Status and Entity Type over Last 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for each year over the last 10 years, what is the personal disposable income, personal saving and personal saving rate as broken down by (i) Singapore citizens, (ii) Permanent Residents, (iii) Foreigners, (iv) unincorporated enterprises and (v) non-profit institutions serving households.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): There is no disaggregated data on Personal Disposable Income (PDI), Personal Saving (PS) and Personal Saving Rate (PSR), in the manner that the Member has requested for. The Department of Statistics (DOS) compiles the data at the aggregate level, based on information from several administrative and survey sources. These data are available on a quarterly basis since 1980 and can be obtained from the DOS' website at https://www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/table/TS/M016081.
2 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government will consider implementing additional disclosure requirements for SGX-listed entities that are involved in investigations by foreign regulators or law enforcement agencies, regulatory settlements with overseas authorities or convictions by foreign courts to ensure that retail investors are adequately informed of potential risks.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): This question has been addressed in a reply at the Parliament Sitting on 5 November 2025. [Please refer to \"Measures to Ensure Equivalent Corporate Governance Standards Abroad for SGX-listed Entities\", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, 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":"Safeguarding Singapore's Reputation as Clean International Financial Centre with Good Regulatory Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what steps are being taken to safeguard Singapore’s reputation as a clean and well-regulated international financial centre.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): This question has been addressed in a reply at the Parliament Sitting on 5 November 2025. [Please refer to \"Measures to Ensure Equivalent Corporate Governance Standards Abroad for SGX-listed Entities\", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, Written Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Childcare Leave Entitlement Based on Number of Children under Seven Years Old","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider reviewing childcare leave provisions so that the entitlement is calibrated to the number of children under the age of seven, rather than a flat rate per parent.
Ms Indranee Rajah (for the Prime Minister): The Member is referred to the written reply to Parliamentary Question No 2 for the Sitting on 14 October 2025. [Please refer to \"Enhancements to Extended Childcare Leave Scheme and Proposal of New Leave Scheme for Caregivers\", Official Report, 14 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 7, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The Government is committed to supporting working parents in caring for their children and will take the Member's suggestion into account when we next review the current leave provisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Processing Times of Traffic Police Summons and Preventing Repeat Offences and Licence Suspension","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the average time taken for the Traffic Police to issue a summon after a speeding offence; (b) what operational or administrative constraints prevent immediate issuance; and (c) whether the Ministry will review the system to ensure timely summonses that deter repeat offences and prevent demerit point accumulation leading to licence suspension.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) typically takes about two weeks to issue a Notice to Furnish Driver's Particulars to the registered vehicle owner, after the officers have verified the offence and the vehicle number captured by the speed camera. The vehicle owner is required to provide the particulars of the speeding driver within 14 days of the date of notice. TP will thereafter issue a Notice of Traffic Offence to the driver. This process is to minimise wrongful attribution of violations.
There is, however, a backlog because of the sharp increase in traffic violations, and a recent ransomware attack against one of TP's vendors. It could currently take about a month before the registered owner receives the Notice to Furnish Driver's Particulars. TP is addressing these issues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Singaporeans in Critical Care Requiring Land-based Repatriation and Update on Foreign Private Ambulance Operators Accreditation Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) for each year since 2022, what is (i) the total number of land-based medical repatriations of Singapore citizens in critical care from our borders with Malaysia and the (ii) average waiting time for these transfers; and (b) what is the progress update on the implementation of the Foreign Private Ambulance Operators Accreditation scheme.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track cross-border land-based Emergency Ambulance conveyances and the average waiting time for such transfers.
MOH is currently working with relevant agencies to assess the feasibility of a potential accreditation scheme for foreign private ambulance operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful Employment Rates of IMH's Job Club and Employment Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many successful job placements have been made each year since the inception of the Institute of Mental Health (IMH)'s Job Club; and (b) of the successful placements made, what is the percentage of IMH patients who (i) cleared probation and (ii) are still on the job after three years, respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between 2012 to 2024, the Institute of Mental Health's (IMH's) Job Club has emplaced 1,722 IMH patients in various jobs, which is an average of 132 per year. Of these 1,722 patients, 46 remained employed in the same job for at least three years, while others may have maintained employment with various employers during the same period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Residential Noise Complaint Trends for Past Three Years and Comparison of WHO Standards with Singapore's Outdoor Noise Exposure Limits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what has been the trend of residential noise complaints over the past three years; and (b) how do the World Health Organization’s recommended outdoor noise exposure limits compare with Singapore's, particularly the 75 dBA limit for residences near construction sites and the 70 dBA limit for factory premises from 7 am to 7 pm.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Over the past three years, the volume of residential feedback received by the National Environment Agency (NEA) on construction noise has decreased from around 1,040 per month on average in 2022 to around 930 per month in 2024. Feedback received by NEA on factory noise has remained stable at around 30 per month from 2022 to 2024.
In setting the noise limits on construction and factory noise under the Environmental Protection and Management Act and its Regulations, NEA references the World Health Organization's guidelines to safeguard public health while taking into consideration our local context. NEA takes strict enforcement action against parties found to have exceeded these noise limits.
NEA continues to work with agencies and industry stakeholders to review the approach on noise management, including exploring ways to reduce the noise impact from construction sites and factory premises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Prevention, Mitigation and Measures on Serious Child Abuse Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the risk considerations to differentiate excessive disciplining from suspected cases of severe abuse where visible injuries are intentionally avoided before determining that a child cannot be safely maintained within the family and must be removed; (b) whether educators are empowered to request for a medical professional to conduct health assessments for such cases; and (c) what is the procedure.
10 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how does the Singapore Police Force locate parents or caregivers who may hold custody of a vulnerable child but are uncontactable or actively evading authorities in cases of suspected abuse; and (b) what inter-agency protocols have been enhanced to expedite such urgent search process.
11 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with reference to the Report on the Review Panel's Findings and Recommendations to Strengthen the Child Protection Ecosystem published on 23 October 2025, what were the differences in investigative actions taken by the police officers tasked to follow-up on the police reports dated 17 January 2020 and 20 July 2020 which led to starkly different outcomes.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This question has been answered as part of the Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration’s oral reply to Parliamentary Questions at the sitting on 5 November 2025. [Please refer to \"Lessons Learnt and New Processes following Review into Megan Khung Case\", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, Oral Answers to Questions section, and \"Measures for Prompt Police Case Resolution and Mandating Assignment of Police Officers with Child Protection Training in Child-related Cases\", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Non-Stigmatising Terminology for Children Born out of Wedlock and Inheritance Parity Solutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing and replacing the term \"illegitimate\" with non-stigmatising terminology such as \"non-marital child\" across laws, forms, and guidance in the context of children born out of wedlock; and (b) whether the Ministry is studying alternatives to adoption or marriage to secure parental responsibility and inheritance parity for such children of single unwed mothers.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: There are currently no plans to review the term \"illegitimacy\", which is a legal concept with established meaning applied across various statutes. Where benefits or laws differentiate based on legitimacy status, they reflect the Government's efforts to promote strong marriages and parenthood within marriage. This is in line with the prevailing social norms of the family as the building block of society.
Under the Women's Charter, parents are obliged to maintain their children, regardless of their legitimacy status. In the area of inheritance under intestacy laws, an illegitimate child is entitled to inherit a part or the whole of his mother's estate if the mother dies with no surviving legitimate issue. The mother, on the other hand, is entitled to inherit a part or the whole of her illegitimate child's estate, as if the child was legitimate and she was the sole surviving parent. Parents who wish to provide for their illegitimate children can still do so through a will.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Persons under 18 Employed to Support Household Income by Education Type","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many persons under the age of 18 are estimated to be currently employed to support their household income; and (b) of these, how many are (i) in full-time education, (ii) in part-time education, or (iii) not in education or training, respectively.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Only about 0.2% of the resident workforce is aged 15 to 17. Around three-quarters of these were working while schooling, including those on internship or vacation jobs, while the remaining one-quarter were fully engaged in work.
There can be many reasons for them to work, which may also depend on personal and family circumstances. Some may be working to build up skills in their area of interest or to explore opportunities before committing to long-term study. There may also be a subset who work to supplement their families' income. Schools work with community partners to support and encourage students with irregular attendance, including those who forgo their studies for work, to stay engaged in their studies.
The Government also provides financial assistance through ComCare to help lower-income families meet their basic living needs. Vulnerable lower-income families with children below the age of 21 receive additional help through ComLink+, where dedicated family coaches provide customised wraparound support and journey with the family.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Requirements for Dual Gender Supervision for Preschool Staff Interactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in respect of interactions with children in preschools (a) whether there are protocols in place to ensure that both male and female staff are present during all such interactions; and (b) if not, whether the Ministry will implement such protocols.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Centres (ECDC) Act and Regulations do not require both male and female staff to be present during all interactions with children.
Instead, the ECDC Act and Regulations stipulate that all preschools must put in place measures to provide a safe and positive learning environment for children. This includes establishing protocols to ensure activities are conducted by qualified staff who are approved for deployment by the Early Childhood Development Agency and ensuring that staff are briefed and implement appropriate child management practices and safety protocols. All staff, regardless of sex, have to abide by the stipulated protocols when interacting with or caring for infants and children in a preschool.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of Agentic AI Systems in Civil Service and HR Policies to Support Officers Made Redundant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the Government's plans for deploying agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems to automate relevant job functions in the public service; and (b) what human resource policies are in place to assist public servants whose job roles may be made redundant with the adoption of agentic AI systems.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Agentic AI systems are AI tools capable of initiating and carrying out actions, such as sending emails or updating records and software. Such capabilities can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our officers, but risks in implementing them can have cascading consequences.
The Government is thus adopting a careful approach towards agentic AI deployment. We are simultaneously investing in our officers' skills development to collaborate effectively with AI and focus on higher-order responsibilities, such as analysing complex issues and designing solutions that effectively address citizens' needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Structured Review of International Educational Survey Findings and Implementation of Policy Recommendations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has a structured process to (i) review findings from international surveys, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Teaching and Learning International Survey and (ii) formulate and implement any recommendations following its review.
Mr Desmond Lee: Singapore participates in international surveys, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), to benchmark against and learn from practices in other education systems. The survey findings are reviewed and complement other data sources that the Ministry of Education draws insights from to inform our policymaking and programme development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Processing Time for PDGE Applications and Withdrawal Rates Due to Prolonged Application Timelines in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education for each of the last three years, (a) the median and 90th-percentile processing time for Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) applications from submission to final offer; (b) the share of candidates who passed the interview but withdrew before receiving an offer; and (c) whether the prolonged timelines had compelled qualified candidates to seek alternative employment.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) runs a rigorous recruitment process to ensure that only suitable applicants with the desired values, qualities and competencies are selected to be educators.
Shortlisted Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) applicants typically receive an interview invitation within three to four weeks of each application window closing. Those selected after the interview are then put through the proficiency tests (if applicable) and medical checks. Among the PGDE applicants who applied early this year and were selected after the interview, half of them received an offer within two to five months from the date of interview. About 7% of applicants who cleared the interview withdrew their applications before they received an offer.
We acknowledge that the longer wait time after the interview may be a concern for applicants, and we remain in touch with them throughout the process.
MOE is committed to maintaining a high-quality workforce of teachers. We will continue to streamline and improve our processes to increase our recruitment efficiency, so as to attract as many good candidates as possible.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Student Attendance Patterns and Identifying Causes of Absenteeism across Age Groups and Education Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry tracks student absences across different age groups, including children in childcare centres, preschools, and primary schools; and (b) whether the Ministry is able to identify the main causes of such absences within each respective age group.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Early Childhood Development Centres Act requires all preschools to maintain daily records of children's attendance. The Ministry of Education tracks student attendance patterns across all our schools. Most student absences are due to medical reasons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation on Vape Detection Sensors Usage in Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has evaluated the use of vape detection sensors in schools and institutes of higher learning (IHLs); and (b) if so, (i) how many have trialed or deployed them, (ii) whether there are procurement guidelines, vetting and privacy safeguards for such use and (iii) whether such guidelines will be issued to all schools and IHLs.
Mr Desmond Lee: Our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) use a variety of strategies to detect vaping on campus. They have implemented detection protocols, including guidelines to recognise potential signs of etomidate abuse, and coordination with the Health Sciences Authority for swift testing of vapes suspected to contain etomidate.
Some schools and IHLs have also trialled vape detection systems, but these were not scaled up due to issues with false positives. Our schools and IHLs will continue to look out for promising vape detection technologies and, where relevant, assess their effectiveness before considering wider deployment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Measures for Unsupervised Students during Home-based Learning Days","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education when schools conduct home-based learning (a) what support measures are in place for students whose parents do not have flexible work arrangements; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing more on-site or supervised options to ensure equity and care for such families.
Mr Desmond Lee: Regular Home-Based Learning (HBL) Days are implemented only in secondary schools and pre-university institutions, where students are more independent and can conduct HBL without adult supervision. Primary schools conduct HBL very selectively, as they are mindful of the need for adult supervision for younger students and the impact on care arrangements.
For students whose homes are not conducive to HBL or who require adult supervision that is unavailable at home, schools remain open for them to carry out HBL in school with support from teachers. Schools would inform parents in advance of the HBL dates to allow parents sufficient time to make alternative care arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ratio of Teaching to Administrative Staff in Schools across Education Levels in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education in each of the past five years, what is the ratio of teaching to administrative staff in schools at the (i) primary (ii) secondary and (iii) post-secondary levels respectively.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed as part of the oral reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 2 to 5 on 4 November 2025. [Please refer to \"Addressing Teachers' Stress Levels and Supporting Their Mental Well-being\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decision-making Authority for Prosecution of Suspected Offences under Part 9 of Administration of Muslim Law Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the assessment and decision to prosecute suspected offences under Part 9 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act are cleared within Attorney-General's Chambers at the (i) Director level or (ii) higher management level; and (b) whether these offences (i) are considered as more serious or sensitive crimes or (ii) requires Attorney-General's express consent to prosecute.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Under Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the Attorney-General, as Public Prosecutor, exercises prosecutorial discretion. This includes the assessment and decision to prosecute suspected offences. Such decisions are made independently.
The processes by which the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) assesses and makes its prosecutorial decisions, including whether a matter is reviewed at Director or higher management levels, are operational matters within the AGC's purview to determine independently and for AGC to decide based on the circumstances of each case and its assessment of the public interest.
Under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, there is no provision requiring the Attorney-General's express consent to prosecute offences under Part 9.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Revise Minimum Annual Leave Entitlement in Section 88A of Employment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are any plans to revise section 88A of the Employment Act, which provides for a minimum annual leave entitlement of seven days; and (b) if not, why.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Employment Act, employees are entitled to a minimum of seven days of annual leave in their first year of service. This increases by one day per year of service with the employer up to a minimum entitlement of 14 days. Employers may provide more annual leave days to their employees than statutorily required. In 2024, over 90% of full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 had more than seven days of annual leave, and 68.2% had 15 days or more of annual leave.
Annual leave entitlements must be seen alongside other entitlements that similarly support employees in balancing their work and personal needs. These include paid public holidays, sick leave and parental leave. Besides employees' needs, reviews of leave entitlements must also take into account the impact on business costs.
As part of the ongoing review of the Employment Act, tripartite partners will consider the statutory employment provisions holistically to strike the right balance between protections for workers and costs for businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Support for Workplace Leaders and Managers to Develop Competencies in Workplace Mental Well-being","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower whether more can be done to encourage employers to adopt workplace policies or initiatives that equip workplace leaders and managers with competencies in self-care, stress resilience and mental health awareness, given the influence these leaders and managers have on workplace culture and mental health norms.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises the vital role of leaders and managers in shaping a workplace culture that supports mental well-being. MOM has worked with the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council to develop and promote initiatives that are targeted at building workplace leaders' competencies in supporting their own mental well-being, and that of their organisations and teams.
One such initiative is the Handbook on Supporting Employees' Mental Health. Launched recently by the WSH Council, the Handbook includes guidance for senior management and supervisors to undergo training to strengthen their competencies in areas, such as increasing mental health awareness and practising self-care. Another initiative is the Well-Being Champions Network, a community of practice for workplace leaders to share ideas on mental health awareness and management, which has grown from 54 founding member organisations in 2023 to 800 today.
The WSH Council's outreach to industry, together with that of tripartite partners, has helped to encourage employers' adoption of these initiatives. MOM and the WSH Council will continue to encourage employers to participate in relevant programmes for workplace leaders and managers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Separate Sub-categories for Waste and Cleaning and F&B within Services Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will establish distinct (i) waste and cleaning and (ii) food and beverage sub-categories within the Services sector with differentiated dependency ratios and quotas, given their differing manpower requirements.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regularly reviews the Dependency Ratio Ceilings (DRCs) in line with Singapore's economic needs, local workforce outcomes and infrastructure and social constraints. As a general principle, we leverage on the DRCs to nudge firms to raise productivity and create jobs that are attractive to locals by allocating quota to such firms.
Nonetheless, MOM recognises that the Services sector covers a broad range of sub-sectors with differing manpower needs, which could include essential roles that are difficult to automate and recruit locals for. MOM has thus been working with sector agencies to provide targeted flexibilities, such as for landscaping and conservancy. We will continue to review our Work Permit framework to drive transformation and productivity growth while calibrating it to support the needs of businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Youth Unemployment Rates from 2000 to 2024 for Groups Aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 35","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower what is the youth unemployment rate for the 15 to 24 years age group compared to the 25 to 35 years age group from 2000 to 2024.
Dr Tan See Leng: The unemployment rates for residents aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 34 have moved in tandem with economic cycles from 2000 to 2024, rising during recessions and easing thereafter. The relationship between the two age groups has remained broadly unchanged, with rates in 2024 at 6.8% and 3.3% respectively, comparable to the levels in 2000 [Chart 1].
As in most countries, unemployment among youths aged 15 to 24 is higher than that of older age groups due to greater job search activity among new entrants. Nevertheless, Singapore's rates remain among the lowest internationally, ranking sixth lowest among OECD countries for youths and third lowest for those aged 25 to 34.
27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry assess appeals on the actual support received by seniors who are excluded from the Silver Support Scheme (SSS) due to household income levels from residing with their working children; and (b) whether the Ministry will review the SSS criteria to better reflect individual seniors' financial means so that disadvantaged individuals are not deprived of support.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors who had lower incomes during their working years and now have little or no family support and resources in their retirement. The household monthly income per person is indicative of the level of household support and remains a relevant consideration in ensuring the Silver Support Scheme is targeted at seniors with less means.
However, we understand that individual circumstances may vary. For example, despite residing together, some seniors may be estranged from their working children and therefore not receive financial support from them. Seniors facing unique situations such as this can appeal to the Central Provident Fund Board. Each appeal will be reviewed holistically on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances of the senior.
We also enhanced Silver Support this year and raised the qualifying per capita household income threshold from $1,800 to $2,300. This enabled more seniors, some of whom do live together with their children, to qualify for Silver Support. We will continue to review Silver Support periodically so that it targets seniors who need it most.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Publication of Provisional Guidelines for Adequate Support Towards Workers in Pending Cases and/or Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will publish concrete guidelines on employers' obligations to provide acceptable accommodation and adequate food to Work Permit holders, particularly when workers have pending Employ Claims Tribunal cases or Work Injury Compensation claims.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations stipulates that employers are responsible for the upkeep of Work Permit holders who are awaiting resolution and payment of any statutory claims. This includes the provision of acceptable accommodation and food.
The Ministry of Manpower takes a proactive approach of checking with these Work Permit holders to ensure they have adequate food and acceptable accommodation throughout their claims process. Errant employers may face financial penalties of up to $10,000.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Employment Passes' Qualifying Salary Thresholds in Light of CPF Ordinary Wage Ceiling Increase in 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has reviewed the qualifying salary thresholds for Employment Passes in view of the expected increase in the CPF Ordinary Wage ceiling for Singaporean employees from 1 January 2026.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Pass (EP) qualifying salary is benchmarked to the top one-third of resident Professional, Manager, Executive and Technician wages, inclusive of Central Provident Fund contributions. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regularly reviews the EP qualifying salary, taking into account changes to total resident wages, rather than focusing on any specific wage component.
MOM has recently increased the EP qualifying salary in January 2025. We will continue to monitor and update the qualifying salary based on local wage trends to maintain a level playing field for locals. As with past announcements, MOM will also continue to ensure sufficient time for employers to adjust where there are revisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints against Foreign Confinement Nannies for Past Two Years and Mandatory Safety Protocols and Regulations for Work Permit Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many complaints did the Ministry receive regarding safety, fraud or negligence involving foreign confinement nannies in the past two years; (b) whether the Ministry assesses the lack of regulation on direct hires such nannies as posing public safety risks to newborns and postpartum mothers; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider introducing mandatory safety protocols for all related Work Permit applications.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2023 and 2024, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) did not receive any complaints related to safety, fraud or negligence involving confinement nannies.
MOM regulates the employment of foreigners in Singapore through the issuance of Work Passes, including Work Permits, to allow foreigners to work in various sectors, subject to labour laws and conditions of the Work Passes as well as any prevailing standards or licensing requirements set by the relevant authorities overseeing such sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Current Regulations and Guidelines on Overtime Hours and Permissible Work Hours for Employees in Security Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry currently regulates or provides guidelines for employees in the security sector on (i) the maximum permissible work hours per day, given that the Singapore Police Force’s licensing conditions only stipulate a maximum of 72 overtime hours per month and (ii) overtime compensation, given that PWM wage requirements now exclude such officers from Part 4 of the Employment Act.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower does not impose additional regulations on the maximum permissible work hours a day or overtime compensation for employees who are not covered under Part 4 of the Employment Act. These employees remain covered by other Parts of the Employment Act, including Part 10 on holiday, annual leave and sick leave entitlements.
Security agencies (SAs) must comply with licensing conditions imposed by the Singapore Police Force, which state that the SAs must not deploy their security officers to work for more than 72 extra hours per month. SAs can also refer to the Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines on Fatigue Management for recommended measures in areas such as providing rest breaks and limiting the duration of shift work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Name Correction of Berlayer Creek Mangrove Trail at Labrador Nature Reserve to \"Berlayar\" Creek","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for National Development whether the National Parks Board will consider correcting the name of the Berlayer Creek mangrove trail at Labrador Nature Reserve to Berlayar Creek mangrove trail, in light of the new Berlayar estate and historical place names in the area.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The National Parks Board had concluded its review in June this year and is progressively updating the name of its boardwalk to \"Berlayar\" Creek, including on its maps and signage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Weekday Commute Times Based on LTA's Latest Household Travel Survey Separated by Household Types and Income","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr David Hoe asked the Acting Minister for Transport what are the mean and median weekday door-to-door commute times incurred from home to work or school and vice versa, based on LTA's latest available Household Travel Survey, disaggregated by (i) household types and (ii) income quartiles or quintiles.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority's latest Household Travel Survey in 2024 found that for most housing types, (a) mean and median travel times to school was between 30 to 35 minutes, and 25 to 30 minutes respectively; and (b) mean and median travel times to work was between 40 to 45 minutes, and 35 to 45 minutes respectively. There was no significant trend by housing types, other than those living in landed house reporting slightly longer travel times to schools compared to those living in Housing and Development Board flats.
For most income groups, mean and median travel times were between (a) 30 to 35 minutes to school, and (b) 40 to 45 minutes to work. Likewise, there was no significant trend by income types, other than those of the highest income band from the survey reporting slightly shorter travel times to work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Price Monitoring of EV Public Charging Services and Regulating Transparent and Affordable Pricing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry monitors the pricing of EV public charging services; (b) what regulatory measures are in place to ensure fair, transparent and affordable pricing; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider introducing further measures to regulate prices at public EV charging stations.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Charging prices are commercial decisions and vary depending on operator, location and charger power rating. Tenders for deployment at Housing and Development Board carparks were evaluated on a combination of factors, including operators' ability to offer competitive charging prices. The Land Transport Authority monitors the electric vehicle charging prices at public locations and will take steps to introduce more competition, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Land Area Proportion for Roads at Car-Lite Zoned Public Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether the Government's definition for car-lite zoned public housing estates takes into account the proportion of the land area dedicated to roads.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: \tThe proportion of land area dedicated to roads varies across car-lite estates, depending on the type and scale of all land uses in the specific estate. Car-lite estates generally have more bus lanes and dedicated cycling paths, as well as wider footpaths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Commuters Unable to Board First and Second Trains During Peak Hours at North-East Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of passengers who are unable to board the first and second trains during peak hours; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will release this data for the North-East Line.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority tracks such passengers via regular surveys. In general, less than 2% of commuters were unable to board the first or second train along the busiest sections of the North-East Line, incurring less than four minutes of additional waiting time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Renovation Works for Hougang Sports Centre and Possible Usage by Members of Public for Pickleball","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the status of the renovation works for the Hougang sports centre and when in 2026 is the sports centre scheduled to be opened; and (b) whether members of the public will be allowed to play pickleball in the sports centre.
Mr David Neo: The Hougang Sport Centre is targeted to be reopened by June 2026. Residents in the area can look forward to an expanded gym, additional fitness studios and a sheltered teaching pool with ramp access for enhanced accessibility. New additions will include water play features, activity areas, fitness stations along with a refurbished running track, as well as a refreshed indoor sports hall for activities, such as basketball, badminton and pickleball.
The refreshed sport centre will be accessible to all in the community with barrier-free access, sheltered drop-offs and facilities connected by covered linkways.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}