1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower in light of reports of energy and business costs leading firms to defer hiring and trim benefits (a) what is the Government’s assessment of the impact on hiring prospects for jobseekers, including graduates and mid-career entrants; (b) whether there are signs of slower entry-level job creation or longer job searches; and (c) what further measures are being considered to support employment opportunities.
2 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the energy crisis triggered by the Middle East conflict and its economic impact (a) whether the Government sees hiring by businesses to be more subdued; (b) what sectors are most affected; and (c) what further measures are being taken to support employment growth.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, good morning. With your permission, I would like to address oral Questions Nos 1 and 2 in today’s Order Paper together. My reply will also cover written Question No 28. And I invite all Members to seek clarifications after.
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Tan See Leng: Members may refer to Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial Statement on 7 April, which described the economic impact of the Middle East crisis.
Energy-intensive industries and outward-oriented sectors saw the most impact from increased energy costs. The crisis has also increased domestic operating costs and compounded challenges for export-oriented sectors, which are already impacted by global trade fragmentation.
While the labour market remains resilient for now, businesses have become more cautious in their hiring plans amid the heightened uncertainty.
Based on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) survey, the proportion of firms intending to hire in the next three months, fell from 54.6% in February 2026 to 44.6% in March 2026. Although expectations remain below February's levels, there were early signs of stabilisation in April. This was supported by data from the Economic Development Board and the Department of Statistics, which suggest that hiring sentiments are likely to further stabilise and improve over the longer term.
All jobseekers who need assistance can tap on Workforce Singapore's and SkillsFuture Singapore's suite of career matching services and programmes. Depending on the economic and job market conditions, MOM stands ready to provide further support to jobseekers, if necessary.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Given reports that some firms are slowing workforce expansion due to cost pressures due to the situation in the Middle East, has MOM observed any corresponding shift in firms hiring preferences between local workers and our foreign workforce? And does the Ministry intend to further calibrate Work Pass policies if Singaporeans, particularly mid-career professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), are facing disproportionately weaker hiring process?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We have not seen any shifts at the moment in firms' hiring preferences. Our resident employment continued to grow in the first quarter of 2026, and we just released the report about a week ago. That growth was higher compared to the first quarter of 2025; so, there is seasonality in terms of the change involved.
If you compare, you would compare the first quarter of this year, 2026, versus the first quarter of 2025; and the resident employment continued to grow.
Our Work Pass policies also ensure that Singaporeans are given a level playing field against foreign workers and we do our level best to ensure that our foreign workers here are complementary to our local Singaporean workers.
We have been continually calibrating our Work Pass policies in response to labour market conditions. For example, at Budget and the Committee of Supply this year, we announced an increase in Employment Pass and S Pass qualifying salaries that will take effect from January 2027. We also regularly review the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) Shortage Occupation List (SOL) to remove occupations that are no longer in shortage.
So, we always seek to strike a right balance between ensuring that our businesses have that space, the latitude to continue to grow, while ensuring that our local Singaporean workers and talent continue to also have the trajectory for them to grow as well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, we hope that there will be peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict soon and that the Strait of Hormuz will be fully open. Notwithstanding, as the Minister has said before on several occasions, even if the conflict is over, the damage it has cost, especially to the oil and gas infrastructure, will have long-lasting impact to the world economy.
Can I further ask the Minister if he sees, as a result of the war, permanent or structural changes to the related industries that will affect the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, and that will affect investments in specific sectors within our economy and hence, job opportunities?
Also, on the reserves, whether the crisis, although it poses risks and challenges to us, whether the Minister also sees new opportunities created as a result of the crisis and worthy of us investing into it or doubling down, for example, in our oil refinery capacity, our position as an oil trading hub or even in the energy transition?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Liang for those two very insightful supplementary questions. I think it is premature today to conclude on long-term structural impact related to the industry transformation, because the crisis, as we speak, is still unfolding. And if you look at the media, it evolves on a daily basis. It is also reflected in the way oil prices and stock prices have moved concurrently.
Our view is that the crisis is likely to accelerate the existing structural shifts that are already underway in the entire global economy. I am talking about supply chain diversification, digitalisation. Yesterday, we spent seven hours talking about artificial intelligence (AI) adoption and, of course, the energy transition and also energy resilience. Our sense is that this will indeed push and test the resilience of countries, of economies, but in crises like these, it also creates a lot of new opportunities for firms to transform, to diversify and to deepen their capabilities.
In the energy supply chain, we are in the entire energy ecosystem. Energy has come to the forefront because it is existential for all of us. And with the move towards a pervasive adoption of AI, there will be a need for even more energy to drive the data centres and the high compute requirements that these AI data centres have.
Energy is really the new currency, and it is existential for all of us.
We are also at a time in our entire civilisations' development where there is actually an abundance of new discoveries in oil and gas, and there are also a lot of accelerated developments towards green energy sources.
What we are experiencing currently are supply chain blockages, chokeholds – for instance, what we are seeing now in the Middle East in the Strait of Hormuz. Our sense is that many countries are moving, not just thinking about diversification but they are also moving into a \"just in case\" mode rather than \"just in time\". For Singapore, because we stand at a very strategic crossroad between the East and the West, I believe that given the decades of goodwill, the trust, the credibility and our reputation that we have built as a very reliable partner to many countries, this crisis will test us and if we are able to prevail, I think, it would cement, reinforce and consolidate our position as a trusted hub.
So, to that end, our Prime Minister has, in recent weeks, committed that we will not impose any export restriction. For downstream refined products, the essential fuel products – whether it is motor gas, diesel and so on – many of the countries depend on our refinery hubs to get access to that downstream supply. And our sectors here will continue to see relevance. And of course, we are equally committed to our decarbonisation targets that we have set for ourselves.
So, I believe that these are new opportunities in the energy space, in the supply chain space that we are able and we have our right to play a role. We have our competitive advantage, and we will continue to build on them, including our port, our maritime hub, our connectivity, our entire logistics, moving into advanced manufacturing, financial services and, of course, healthcare.
So, I hope that gives the Member the overall opportunities available, first and foremost to Singaporeans and, of course, complementary talent who will come here to help us reinforce our position and help us to continue to grow.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister for the response. Building on the earlier response, could the Minister share whether Singapore's workforce planning approach is being further adapted for a more persistent state of structural uncertainty, where workers may face overlapping disruptions from trade fragmentation, technological change and sectoral restructuring, which may occur concurrently over their careers rather than as isolated transitions?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Dr Choo for her supplementary question. The answer is a resounding yes. I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the Economic Strategy Review report. I think it is going to be released soon. Many of the points that she covered will and have been addressed in the report, which I think will be released and shared in due time.
But based on what we have been debating over the last two days – yesterday, seven hours; the previous day, on the formation of the Skills and Workforce Development Agency, five over hours – in an over 12-hour stretch of debate, this is really what the focus is all about. About how we can prepare our workers and how we are going to invest in our workers to further reinforce their competitive advantage in dealing with longer-term structural shifts in our entire economy and in the entire workforce transformation journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installing Solar-powered Fans at Bus Stops to Improve Commuter Comfort","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has considered installing solar-powered fans at bus stops to improve commuter comfort in view of projections that 2026 may be among the hottest years on record; and (b) if so, what are the (i) findings on feasibility, (ii) estimated costs and (iii) implementation plans.
\tThe Minister of State for Transport (Mr Baey Yam Keng) (for the Minister for Transport): Based on earlier trials conducted by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), fans have a limited impact on the ambient temperature in an exposed bus stop environment. Commuter feedback from the trials was also unfavourable. Most bus stops are also shaded by surrounding buildings and trees, reducing the effectiveness of solar installations. We therefore have no plans to install solar-powered fans at bus stops.
LTA will continue to study other options to improve commuter comfort at bus stops, including the use of green roofs which can help lower the ambient temperature.
\t
\t
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.
\tMs Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Compared to 2016, when the trials took place, Singapore today is really experiencing more frequent and also intense heat stress, with 2026 projected to be among the hottest years on record. So, I have a few supplementary questions.
First, whether the Ministry has studied cooler bus stop concepts used overseas for adaptation in Singapore? For example, a solar-powered bioclimatic shelter in Spain that actually can claim to reduce temperatures by 20°C to keep pedestrians cool?
Second supplementary question: as we adapt to a rising urban heat, whether then commuter heat resilience can be a formal consideration in future bus stop designs?
Third supplementary question: may I ask for the progress of the green roofs deployment and how does the Ministry identify and prioritise these bus stops for green roofs deployment? And in Nee Soon South, we have four bus stops surrounding Khatib Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station. And we are happy to partner the Ministry and LTA to deploy the green roofs as early as possible in the area, so that we can beat the heat together.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I thank the Member for her interest in this area. Yes, we are looking at options all over the world, but they need to be commercially viable and available. I had a quick look at what the Member had suggested, the one in Spain. If I am not wrong, it is a university research project. So, it is probably still at an early stage and I understand that it will also require some underground water piping to include mist in the fans. So, this sounds quite expensive and I am not sure whether we will be able to do it and deploy across Singapore at bus stops.
Even though our trial was done 10 years ago, I think certain factors like shading from buildings and trees is still a factor that we have to overcome. In fact, I think the effect would have been more pronounced now because of our continuous greening efforts in Singapore. But we will continue to look at that.
The question about the green roof deployment, it is not just about putting turf or soil on the bus stop roof and planting some seeds because the structure of the roof must be reinforced to handle the additional weight as well as needs for access for maintenance and things like that. So, we will normally do it during the scheduled refurbishment of bus stops. It would be carried out in phases. We note the Member's interest for her area in Nee Soon. I am sure other Members will be interested as well, but we will do it in due course.
On the second point about heat resilience, may I ask the Member to just clarify again? I did not really get the question.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lee.
\tMs Lee Hui Ying: Thank you. Essentially, for future bus stop designs, whether we will keep in mind solar panel designs or in future then to include heat resilience elements to keep our bus stops cool.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Certainly, Members would remember that over the years and decades, our bus stop designs have evolved. We have to take into consideration various factors, not just the comfort of commuters who are waiting there but also the practicality of sighting of buses coming ahead as well as maintenance, safety, and different factors like that.
So, as we predict more climatic challenges ahead, if we are able to address that and provide a more conducive environment for waiting commuters, that is something that we will definitely look into.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
\tMr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Speaker, just a quick supplementary question for the Minister of State. Can I seek the Minister of State's confirmation whether there is actually a plan to green roof all the new bus stops from now on?
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: I would say that the greening of bus stop roofs may not be something that is practical across all bus stops. I do not have the exact figures, but I am sure we must have tens of thousands of bus stops in Singapore. So, there is a cost element. And as mentioned earlier, whether it is practical because the vegetation there also needs sunlight and water. So, if the surrounding has a lot of tall buildings or tall trees that do not provide enough sunlight, then the green roof will not grow well. So, we will have to look at the conditions, whether they are favourable for a green roof to succeed and flourish. And then, as I said, it will also be done in tandem with the regular schedule of bus stop rejuvenation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Barriers to Deploying Solar Panels in New Buildings, and Private Residential and Commercial Spaces","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the policy basis for providing the Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive (EEAI) but declining equivalent capital subsidies for residential rooftop solar panel installation; (b) what are the (i) take-up rates of the EEAI and (ii) proportion of private households that have installed solar panels; and (c) whether the Ministry will introduce comparable capital grants or property tax rebates for residential solar panels.
5 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the energy crisis, whether the Government will consider (i) mandating the installation of solar panels for all new buildings and estates and (ii) providing greater incentives for existing building owners to install solar panels.
6 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what has the Ministry assessed to be the key barriers to deploy solar panels in private residential and commercial spaces, including spaces managed by Management Corporations Strata Titles; and (b) whether additional measures, such as grants, financing support, property tax reliefs or regulatory adjustments, are being considered to address these barriers.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, may I provide a combined reply to oral Parliamentary Question Nos 4 to 6 as well as written Parliamentary Question No 4 in today's Order Paper as they cover the same subject?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Thank you. Mr Speaker, there has been strong growth in solar adoption over the last few years. We have achieved two gigawatt-peak of installed solar capacity islandwide and have set an increased target of three gigawatt-peak by 2030. For private residential buildings, the number with solar panels has increased more than four times in the last five years, from around 1,400 in 2020 to around 6,900 in 2025. This corresponds to about 8% of all private residential buildings.
The growth in solar deployment has been driven by favourable economics. Solar panel costs have come down over the years and the payback period for rooftop solar can be five years or even less. The Government has also introduced measures that can help to further reduce the payback period for eligible building owners. For example, eligible private buildings can tap on the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0, which helps building owners lower the upfront cost of energy improvement works, such as solar panel installation. Depending on the overall carbon abatement achieved, eligible building owners can benefit from grant support of up to 50% of the cost of their energy improvement works, capped at $1.2 million.
Some jurisdictions have made it mandatory for new buildings to install solar panels. In Singapore, we have no plans at this stage to mandate solar panel installation on buildings because some building owners may prioritise other rooftop uses, such as greenery, or their rooftops may not be suited to solar installation due to factors, such as shading from neighbouring tall buildings.
The Government strongly encourages all building owners to install solar panels if this is feasible. With ongoing global uncertainty in energy prices, solar installation can provide building owners with savings and greater predictability on their electricity bills while contributing to Singapore's overall energy resilience. In recent weeks, some solar vendors locally have reported an increase in interest in solar panels among private building owners. This could be partly because of the recent increase in the regulated tariff for electricity and also perhaps some anticipation of further increase in the tariff.
For building owners who may be concerned about the costs of installing solar panels, some solar vendors offer “rent-to-own” or “solar leasing” models that allow building owners to enjoy the benefits of solar installation with little to no upfront cost.
Mr Kenneth Tiong has asked on the Electric Vehicle Early Adoption Incentive (EEAI). The EEAI was implemented in January 2021 to encourage the early adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) by reducing the gap in total upfront cost between an EV and equivalent internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. The EEAI parameters have tapered with narrowing upfront costs capped over the years and will cease from 1 January 2027. As of March 2026, more than 55,000 electric cars and taxis have benefited from the EEAI.
The Government will continue to push for solar deployment in Singapore and will consider further measures if necessary to accelerate solar adoption in Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Residential rooftop solar generates clean energy and reduces household dependence on imported natural gas and provides a hedge against energy price shocks – benefits that EVs, which add demand to the same gas-dependent grid, do not provide. I note that the Minister of State has mentioned the Green Mark scheme. Despite the Green Mark scheme, 92% of eligible rooftops are still without solar panels.
So, my first supplementary question is, why does she believe that that is currently the case? And my second supplementary question is, would the Ministry consider providing more of the same type of upfront support available for EV purchases to accelerate residential solar adoption?
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, as I have mentioned earlier on, the economic conditions now are actually very favourable for private property building owners to consider solar installation, primarily because the solar technology has improved in terms of efficiency and also the cost of installation has come down substantially. So, if you compare it with a few years ago, there was hesitancy in private building owners to adopt solar deployment. But now we are, indeed, seeing a much higher interest among private building owners, including residential properties. And we believe that the economics will drive faster adoption.
Having said that, we will monitor closely the rate of adoption, and the Government is prepared to consider additional measures, if necessary.
On the point about EEAI, actually EEAI works in a certain way. It assumes that the consumer wants to buy a vehicle and is choosing between different types of vehicles. And in this case, the EEAI nudges the consumer to consider an EV, even though an EV could be more costly than an ICE vehicle.
But for building owners, here, we are talking about catalysing a purchase, a new purchase. And there are various considerations. It is not just about the cost. It is not just about whether there is an incentive from the Government. But some of the private residential building owners have also expressed some other considerations. For example, some are concerned about whether it will affect the integrity of the waterproofing for the roof. Others have also said that they are unsure about the reliability of the solar panel installation vendors. And of course, there are some building owners who prefer to keep their rooftops for other purposes and preferring not to install solar panels. Even if you have a grant, it may not nudge them to go for the purchase.
I think it is important that we understand the issue closely and look at what it takes for us to be able to effectively nudge private building owners to go towards solar installation.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling. \t
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State for the response. I have three supplementary questions.
First, as a small country that cannot take energy security for granted, could the Minister of State share whether Singapore may increasingly move towards designing future developments and estates to be more solar ready from the outset, so that we strengthen our long-term resilience rather than rely on retrofitting later on?
Second, could the Minister of State also elaborate on whether there are opportunities for closer collaboration and coordination across agencies involved in energy planning, urban development and building design, so that solar deployment can be integrated more systematically upstream in future developments?
And third, as Singapore scales up solar deployment over time, how is the Ministry strengthening our local ecosystem of manpower, technical expertise and supply resilience to support this transition in a sustainable and long-term fashion?
\t
\t
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, the first two supplementary questions are somewhat related, so I will answer them together. Indeed, the Government agencies are working closely together to look at how we can make solar installation in Singapore easier and more cost-effective for the building owners. New buildings are required to meet standards under the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA's) Code for Environmental Sustainability of Buildings, with solar being recognised as one of the acceptable carbon-reduction measures under the Code.
The broader theme is about sustainability. Solar installation is certainly one of the means. There are also other things that building designs can take into account, where it is more practical, for example, energy consumption, the building design and ventilation. There are several things that building owners can adopt and not be limited to just solar. Of course, we believe that solar, because of its cost effectiveness, going forward, there will be more adopters of this technology.
We will continue to push the boundaries whenever possible and to explore more innovative solar deployments in Singapore, such as at car parks and bridges and even in between buildings.
I also want to highlight another example of how our agencies are working together to simplify regulations to make it easier to install solar panels. Last year, the Singapore Civil Defence Force reviewed the fire safety requirement for one-hour fire separation for roof-mounted solar panel installations. The simplified fire safety requirements exempt more than half of all solar panel installations on metal-roofed buildings, and this basically allows eligible business owners to save up to 30% on total construction costs. So, it is both regulatory codes and also review of existing regulations for us to move both new buildings and existing buildings toward higher adoption of solar as well as other environment sustainability measures.
On the third question on strengthening our local ecosystem, that is a really good question. We have been working on that for a long time with our institutes of higher learning (IHLs), both for pre-employment training for the graduates as well as for continuing education and training for adults who have graduated from our IHLs. There is a skills framework for energy and power that is developed jointly by the Government, industry, the unions and the IHLs.
Specifically, for solar, SkillsFuture Singapore also partners Sembcorp Solar as a SkillsFuture Queen Bee since 2024. This is to uplift other companies in this sector in training their workers and for us to be able to generate that talent pipeline that is needed to sustain this ecosystem.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. I received feedback from private property owners and Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) on concerns and uncertainties with regard to procurement, financing structures and even things like warrantees on waterproofing, reliability and maintenance, something which the Minister of State alluded to earlier, in the case of MCST, the high threshold for approvals to adopt solar energy.
So, hence, I would like to ask the Minister of State, will the Ministry first assist to streamline the MCST approval process so that we can drive and accelerate solar adoption on private property, such as condominiums? Second, for all private property owners, to develop a simple starter kit with standard templates on procurement; financing option, such as power purchase agreements; also matters on maintenance, roles and responsibilities of vendors and warrantees; and also, importantly, provide a wide list of vendors so that private property owners will have the confidence to engage vendors. This will all drive a wider adoption and accelerate solar adoption in private properties.
\tMs Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, BCA had conducted a public consultation to review various aspects of the Building Strata Management Act, and this includes the proposal to lower the resolution requirement for third-parties solar ownership models. They are exploring a reduction from 75% to possibly 50%. This will be helpful and we are awaiting BCA's completion of this review. On the suggestion to have a starter kit for private property owners, especially residential owners, that is a very good idea. We will seriously consider it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Constraints that Prevent Scaling of Hydrokinetic Turbine Arrays in Singapore Strait","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the National University of Singapore (NUS) March 2026 research indicating that tidal energy could meet about 22% of Singapore's electricity demand (a) what is the Government's plan or strategy regarding tidal energy; and (b) what maritime constraints prevent the scaling of hydrokinetic turbine arrays in the Singapore Strait.
\tThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, studies have been conducted on the potential to deploy tidal energy in Singapore, but there are no current plans to deploy tidal energy. There is limited sea space for the deployment of tidal energy devices because much of Singapore's territorial waters is already used for ports, anchorage and shipping lanes.
The study cited by the Member did not take into account these existing uses of sea space or the cost-effectiveness of tidal energy when estimating the amount of electricity that could be generated from tidal energy in Singapore. Given the limited sea space available, the amount of tidal energy that can realistically be harnessed domestically is estimated to be less than 1% of Singapore's energy needs.
8 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the dropout rates among learners in SkillsFuture Singapore-funded programmes by stage and course category; (b) how many appeals by learners to waive course fees or penalties upon non-completion or failure are received annually; (c) what proportion of such appeals succeeded; and (d) what is the employment or certification rate based on all enrolled learners rather than graduates alone.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi) (for the Minister for Education): In 2025, more than 90% of learners completed their SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) courses. SSG does not process course fee waiver requests for learners who fail to complete their courses. Such waivers are subject to the contractual agreement between learners and training providers. In circumstances where learners face difficulties completing the course, SSG encourages training providers to work with learners to find a mutually acceptable solution, which could include course deferments, make-up lessons or reassessments.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) and SSG track the employment outcomes for placement programmes. For example, of the learners who enrolled in our place-and-train work-study programmes, more than nine in 10 graduates were employed six months after programme completion. These statistics exclude learners who did not complete the programme.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Cai.
\tMr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. A learner who fails or cannot complete a course through no fault of their own due to illness, family circumstances or a programme that was poorly matched to their needs currently has no clear published appeals process to help recover their course fees.
I note the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's response was that it should be a mutually made arrangement between the learner and the training provider. But given that some of these learners are mid-career workers who took a significant financial and personal risk to upskill and the published appeals process to recover their course fees is not clear and formalised, will the Ministry consider having clear appeal criteria and committing to a minimum review standard, so that deserving cases are not simply disheartened by the process of recovering?
\tDr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: I thank the Member for his supplementary question as well as his deep concern over individuals who may have difficulty completing the SSG courses. Indeed, even after committing to the course, some individuals do have challenges managing the training load, juggling work or study, health complications as well as unforeseen commitments. It remains the case that SSG continues to encourage our training providers to work with learners for mutually acceptable solution.
As mentioned earlier, once the payment has been made, any refunds will be subject to the training provider's refund policy, and successful refunds of the SkillsFuture credits will then be reinstated into the learner's wallet if it is indeed the case that it came from the SkillsFuture credits. That being said, we do our level best to encourage a mutually beneficial outcome, whether they be through course deferments, make up lessons or reassessments and to the extent where that is possible, that is where we try to get the training providers to meet in the middle with the learner who wishes to upskill themselves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Efficient Use of EV Charging Infrastructure Located in Different Premises Across Different Times of Day","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Transport with reference to electric vehicle (EV) charging facilities at public carparks and other Government-managed premises, how the Ministry is ensuring the efficient utilisation of EV charging infrastructure across different times of the day given Singapore's land and energy constraints.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): We are deploying electric vehicle (EV) chargers in tandem with growing demand, within the constraints of space and electricity. As EV technology is continuously improving, we are also mindful not to overbuild as chargers can become obsolete quickly. We monitor utilisation rates closely and will deploy more chargers when utilisation is high, electrical capacity permitting.
EV Charging Operators (EVCOs) implement various incentives and disincentives to optimise usage throughout different times of the day. Some EVCOs impose idle fees during non-overnight hours to deter unnecessary occupancy of EV charging lots. Other operators charge lower prices during off-peak hours. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will work with EVCOs to explore other measures to encourage charging during off-peak periods.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Thank you, Speaker. The Senior Minister of State also pointed out that at some point Singapore will have a land constraint, and looking at the constraints, we, therefore, need to look at maximising the available EV charging infrastructures and, therefore, utilisation rate.
So, my first supplementary question is whether the Ministry is actually monitoring the utilisation at every individual EV charging stations and using this as KPIs in evaluating operators for future tenders and contract renewals? Second, whether the Ministry will consider mandating differentiated charging fees to encourage more efficient utilisation of EV chargers across peak and off-peak periods, and really, my questions are because I have received feedback from residents that, most of the time, these chargers are actually not utilised. But when they come home at night, when it is during peak hours, it is, therefore, over-utilised. So, can we smoothen out demand across the day so we can encourage better utilisation rates?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions, and also very helpful feedback as to how we can better optimise our electrical infrastructure to support EV charging. Indeed, we do face constraints, land constraints, electrical capacity constraints.
So, on his suggestions, firstly, on his question as to whether we monitor utilisation at the individual charger level, most of the time, we see that the chargers are grouped together in a cluster in a car park. So, currently, we monitor utilisation for the car park rather than at the individual electrical charger level because we feel that this is more useful for us to analyse if the charging provision in the car park is sufficient.
He had also had a question as to whether or not the charger utilisation is currently being accounted for when evaluating future tenders or contract renewal. Currently, that is not our position.
As to his suggestion as to whether or not we should mandate scheduled charging, there are various ways for us to look at how we can better optimise electrical charging throughout the day. I had talked about the idle fees that some of the EVCOs actually implement. There are also other possibilities, such as load balancing and scheduled charging, which can help us better distribute how the electrical capacity is distributed across chargers and across buildings, and also tying that to software. So, all in all, there are other methods for us to look at how we can better make use of electricity, given our grid constraints.
At the same time, we are also exploring with the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Energy Market Authority on electrical capacity upgrades. So, we are doing that all together. As to whether or not there is a need for us to mandate certain measures, we will consider that after we have exhausted all these other possibilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Screening Process for Those Applying for Licences under Massage Establishment Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Singapore Police Force will consider enhancing the screening process of applicants for a licence under the Massage Establishment Act (MEA), especially for association with persons who have breached MEA licensing conditions or are facing ongoing investigations.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) amended the Massage Establishment Act (MEA) to expand the Police's consideration when assessing massage establishment (ME) licence applications to include assessments of the responsible officers of the business entity and all persons with a substantial interest in, or have control or direction over the business.
\t
Responsible officers include business partners if the business entity is a partnership, members of the governing body if it is an unincorporated association, and directors or officers holding similar managerial executive positions if it is a corporate body. If these persons are not fit and proper, the Police can refuse to grant an ME licence.
In assessing the fitness and propriety of a person to be granted a ME licence, the Police would consider, but is not limited to, criminal antecedents, past breaches of ME regulations, if the person is facing ongoing investigations and if granting the person a licence is likely to affect law and order or give rise to social disamenity. If the Police assess that a person's association with others who had previously breached ME licensing conditions could cause law and order concerns, the Police can also refuse to grant an ME licence.
Mr Speaker: Mr Foo.
\tMr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. With the expansion of the licensing regime for the MEA, can I also confirm that the considerations she has just described, in terms of Police screening, will also apply to the new category of MEs which, today, they are not licensed under the Act?
\tMs Sim Ann: Yes, that is the plan.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Unutilised Child LifeSG Credits Disbursed in July 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"
11 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what proportion of the 2025 Child LifeSG Credits disbursed in July 2025 has not been utilised to date; and (b) where utilisation is lower than anticipated, whether the Ministry will consider extending the 12-month validity period while expanding outreach efforts to improve awareness.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): As of April 2026, 83% of the Child LifeSG Credits (CLC) disbursed in July 2025 have been utilised.
The Ministry has been issuing reminders to utilise the credits via our social media platforms, as well as via the LifeSG app and SMS messages. We will also send a final reminder to recipients with unused credits in June, before the credits expire in July 2026. As there has been ample notice, there will be no extension.
Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am heartened to hear the take-up rate. In fact, it is a very good take-up rate. This is also what I observed in my house visits with residents. Against this backdrop, I have two supplementary questions.
First, does the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) have an initial sensing of the reasons for the 17% that have not started utilising the CLC?
My second question is, through my house visits, would MSF also consider expanding the CLC to children beyond 12? This is because parents often tell me that older children, like their teenagers, are at the phase of their life that they happen to eat more and this would also help to manage the household expenses and child-raising costs.
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. I will take the second one first.
I would like to highlight that CLC was designed to support our parents with young children with their child-rearing costs. We have done public consultations, and we have heard feedback from parents, especially those of younger children, that in those ages, the diapers and the milk powder cost quite a bit more, and therefore the CLC was designed to better support our parents with young children on that front.
Having said so, together with this tranche of CLC, Budget 2025 also announced that there was, and it has already been topped up, a $500 credit to children above 12 years old; those aged 13 to 16, a $500 top-up to their Edusave Account, and aged 17 to 20, to their Post-Secondary Education Account. So, I think that the Government, in that Budget announcement, has tried to do something for all our children and youths.
On the other question on the utilisation rate, I thank the Member for the encouragement. I think is a healthy take-up rate, although there is still some ways to go. We do want the number to be higher, but we also note that there are some months left. I thank the Member for asking the question because this allows us the opportunity to then raise public awareness of the CLC and, more importantly, the upcoming expiry.
There are various reasons for the portions yet to be used. In some cases, parents and families are still in the process of utilising it. They have budgeted it. They spread it out over the year, so we still have a couple of months. In some cases, there is inertia. Families leave it until the very last minute to claim and to use. In some cases, families are overseas. Or, in some cases, as the Member has pointed out, they may be simply unaware. So, we know the number is healthy but we will want to do more, and we think the final reminder and the various public information announcements are useful in that regard.
I would like to take the opportunity to also share with the House, with Members, that in this year's Budget, we also announced a further tranche of CLC. So, this July, there will be another tranche to all our children of $500. And last month, we have also disbursed the Large Family LifeSG Credits for eligible families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expected Time Lag for Sing Dollar Policy Adjustments to Have Visible Effect on Exchange Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the recent strengthening of the Singapore Dollar (a) what is the expected time lag for this adjustment to have a visible effect on exchange rates; (b) what is the effect of global shifts away from the US Dollar on the S$ Nominal Effective Exchange Rate (S$NEER) index basket's currency weighting; and (c) how do these changes impact the Singapore Dollar's stability over time.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development, and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Sir, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) conducts monetary policy by managing the Singapore dollar nominal effective exchange rate (S$NEER). Since October 2021, the S$NEER has been on a gradual appreciating path against its trade-weighted basket of currencies. And this is consistent with the policy stance at each quarterly policy announcement. This strengthening trend will continue following the most recent April policy statement.
The United States (US) dollar continues to be the major currency used in international trade, including for most commodities, and the US is one of Singapore's largest trading partners. The diversified currency composition of the S$NEER basket reflects the pattern of Singapore's trade with its main import sources and export markets. These are structural factors that only evolve gradually over time. The weights in MAS' currency basket are periodically reviewed and updated to reflect Singapore's evolving trade patterns. No single currency dominates in the S$NEER basket or unduly affects the broad stability of the Singapore dollar against the basket.
Sir, the stability of the Singapore dollar is underpinned by the strong fundamentals of our economy, including sound macroeconomic management and a credible monetary policy framework that has delivered good inflation outcomes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): I thank the Minister of State for his reply. While the US dollar remains dominant, some economists have suggested that the global monetary system may gradually become more fragmented and multi-polar over time. Given that Singapore relies heavily on exports and use the exchange rate to manage inflation, could the Minister of State explain how such global currency shifts may affect the Government's ability to keep imported cost stable for Singaporeans, particularly in essentials, such as food, energy and daily necessities?
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, as I have always said in this House, when it comes to our monetary policy, it is always long term, and its objective is to keep inflation low.
With regards to the US dollar, I know there have been many discussions regarding its role as an international currency, but if you look at the facts, the US dollar continues to remain the central currency in the international monetary and financial system and continues to be the world's dominant reserve currency.
If you take international trade and if you look at which currency is the invoicing currency, the US dollar, in fact, is used by many countries as the invoicing currency of international trade. In fact, many commodity prices, like oil and gold, are denominated and still are denominated in the US dollar. If you think about trade invoicing, most global trade is also invoiced in just a few currencies, like the US dollar, which accounts for about 40% of global exports, and the Euro, albeit to a much lesser extent. If you look at other currencies, despite some growth in, for example, the Renminbi's share in global trade invoicing, it remains very low, at less than 2%, although that is increasing in the Asia Pacific and in the European region.
So, if you think from a larger perspective, the US dollar continues to be dominant. Our monetary policy instrument, the S$NEER, is weighted against a basket of currencies of our major trading partners, and the Singapore dollar has been on an appreciating path since we tightened monetary policy in October 2021. The S$NEER has since increased by 12%. And that has the effect of dampening imported inflation in Singapore and a downstream impact on our economy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Patterns in Scams Targeting Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any recent patterns have been observed in scams targeting seniors; and (b) if so, what these patterns are.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, my reply will also cover Question No 7 for written answer filed by Dr Choo Pei Ling for today's Sitting.
In 2025, seniors aged 65 and above made up about 15% of all scam victims, the only age group to register an increase in the number of victims between 2024 and 2025. Each senior lost about $37,000 on average, the highest among all age groups. About two in five scam victims who are seniors fell prey to investment or government official impersonation scams.
The Police do not track the amount of scam proceeds recovered by age group, and we have explained in this House before why the recovery of scam proceeds is very challenging. Once the monies exit Singapore, the odds of it being recovered is very low.
Notwithstanding, the Police have implemented several measures to improve asset recovery, including strengthening international collaboration among law enforcement agencies and enhancing cryptocurrency tracing capabilities. The Member may wish to refer to the Annual Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025 for more details on these recovery initiatives.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State. I have three supplementary questions.
One, given the increasing sophistication of scams targeting seniors, including cross-border and multi-step operations, could the Minister of State share how Singapore is strengthening its overall system design to stay ahead of rapidly evolving scam typologies rather than responding only after patterns emerge?
Two, could the Minister of State also share how coordination across banks, telecommunication companies (telcos) and enforcement agencies is being further optimised to shorten the critical time between scam detection and intervention, including the freezing of funds or disruption of scam flows, given how quickly losses can occur once victims are engaged?
And three, beyond systems and enforcement, could the Minister of State share how Singapore is further strengthening safeguards against increasingly sophisticated social engineering tactics that exploit trust, urgency and fear, particularly among our seniors, so that we can better protect vulnerable individuals before irreversible financial harm occurs?
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. I will try to take them together as one reply.
Firstly, I would like to share with the House that, indeed, scams are a very challenging situation for Singapore and, in fact, not just Singapore but around the world. It is a global challenge. One report has it that last year, more than US$440 billion were lost to scams globally. And the financial incentive for scammers and for perpetrators is immense and, therefore, they will try their very best to continuously innovate and get ahead. The incentives are very, very strong.
But having said so, indeed, I fully agree with what the Member has raised, in terms of the key thrusts that we should adopt in our anti-scam strategy – being proactive, going upstream, taking a risk-based approach and collaborating with partners. I think these are all very useful perspectives.
And, indeed, that is the approach that we have taken as a whole-of-Government and a whole-of-society anti-scam strategy, multi-agency and multi-pronged, and let me take the chance to share some of the key thrusts of how we have approached this problem.
Firstly, using the powers enabled by the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA), we have moved upstream. We are working very closely with our online service providers to make sure we reduce the overall threat surface area that these platforms put on.
Second, we work very closely with our telcos, our banks and also the recognised and authorised crypto service providers to make sure we are able to prevent upstream as well as interdict after scams have taken place.
\t
Third, we have also enhanced our penalty framework to deter perpetrators from operating in Singapore and also making sure that we work closely with overseas partners to pursue overseas where possible. We have also put in place a penalty framework to deter scam mules.
Fourth, public education – extensive public education, including for our seniors – to make sure that we share the latest modus operandi as well as the best anti-scam preventive practices that our citizens and our seniors can adopt.
And fifth, we are stepping up international collaboration with governments with jurisdictions, with law enforcement agencies sharing best practices as well as making sure we cooperate and share intelligence closely and to also shape how global norms approach scams.
I think we have taken a very extensive approach. Of course, we can do more and we want to continuously spare no effort in making sure we fight scams.
I would also like to refer the Member to the Home Affairs Ministry's Committee of Supply debate speech just a few months ago. We have given a fuller account of all the various initiatives that we have taken and will be taking to fight scams. And, of course, we welcome any further suggestions the Member may have.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams? I believe, earlier, the Minister of State said that the Police does not collect that information, but I am wondering whether that was specific to the different age groups? Does the Police or the Ministry have a global figure of how much actually has been recovered? Because that may help Singaporeans understand that if you are a victim of scams, the prospect of recovering your money is actually very low.
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. Yes, indeed, the Police do track the amount of scam proceeds recovered. We just do not track them by age group. Yes, the amount of scam proceeds that have been recovered are a small proportion compared to the overall amount of monies that is lost.
I do not have the exact figures, but it is a smaller percentage. And I think that is also a useful reminder that, indeed, prevention is better than the follow-up pursuit of recovering monies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tighter Controls and Real-time Anomaly Detection for SIM Card Purchases, Re-Registration Patterns and GSM Gateway Misuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government will consider tighter controls and real-time anomaly detection for (i) bulk SIM card purchases (ii) SIM re-registration patterns and (iii) GSM gateway misuse, given their role in enabling overseas scam calls to appear local.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): The Government takes a proactive stance against scam calls and has put in place upstream controls to deter the abuse of SIM cards and GSM gateways.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has worked with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to tighten SIM card registration rules. Since 1 October 2025, scam mules are barred from subscribing to new mobile lines. From 28 February 2026, each person is limited to 10 postpaid SIM cards across all telecommunication companies (telcos), on top of the existing cap of three prepaid SIM cards per person across all telcos.
In 2025, SPF disrupted more than 105,000 scam-related mobile lines across all telcos. The IMDA, the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) and SPF are using data analytics to detect suspicious SIM card purchase and registration patterns to prevent the misuse of SIM cards for criminal activities.
The import, sale and use of GSM gateways are regulated by IMDA. Gateway devices with five or more SIM card slots are prohibited without IMDA's prior approval for import since 1 February 2025.
The Government will continue to review and strengthen our multi-layered anti-scam measures as scam tactics evolve. Those who enable scammers by providing SIM cards or GSM gateway devices will be dealt with severely under the law. Mules who supply SIM cards to scammers may be liable for imprisonment of up to three years and caning of up to 12 strokes.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lye.
\tMr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I also want to refer to the earlier Parliamentary Question, where the Senior Minister of State made a very important point – that prevention is better than cure – in the case of scams.
With regard to what IMDA and the Ministry is doing, may I ask two supplementary questions?
First, is there real-time monitoring – and as was referred to earlier, done as a cross-agency effort and a whole-of-Government effort – to fight scams? Is there a real-time monitoring of unusual data usage, use of GSM gateways and so on?
My second question is, who mandates the monitoring thresholds and the data criteria? Is it set at the macro level or is it left to the individual telcos to determine?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Building on what Minister of State Goh Pei Ming had said earlier on the replies to the earlier two Parliamentary Questions, this is a multi-agency effort across different Government agencies – the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, the Ministry of Home Affairs, IMDA, GovTech, SPF and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, on the import of GSM gateways – so, it is a multi-agency effort. On top of that, I should also mention the Monetary Authority of Singapore, which is an important player.
And on top of the multi-agency effort, it is also an effort that involves the private sector. We work closely with telcos, financial institutions and banks. We also work together with other important players, including e-commerce platforms. It is a scourge against society, and it requires a whole-of-society effort.
So, when the Member talks about the thresholds on SIM cards and prohibition, it is something that we look at together across the different agencies – building on the data that has been collected, certainly by SPF and other agencies as well, and finding the right threshold and refining the threshold depending on the scam tactics involved. So, it is something that is not static but is dynamic, alive and something we look at on a regular basis.
In Chinese, there is a saying: \"道高一尺，魔高一丈\". Scam tactics are evolving, the bad actors are evolving; and we, the good guys, the defenders are also evolving our tactics.
In that spirit, I want to assure the Member that we are using different tools, including data analytics, to look at scam tactics and the patterns of how they are evolving. But because of operational security considerations, we do not want the bad actors to know what we are doing. Hence, I will not share any of the operation details. But certainly, we are using technology, data analytics, including leveraging technologies like AI.
I also want to make two quick points.
One, a point about the number of cases coming down. The number of cases with phone calls as the first contact method has actually decreased, based on the recent publicly available Annual Scams and Cybercrime Briefs. The number of cases with short message service (SMS) as the first contact method has also decreased about 65% – from 1,285 cases in 2024, to 450 cases in 2025. So, that is progress. But we are not resting on our laurels and we must continue to monitor and take action.
And related to that, I know that some prevention is better than the pursuit of recovery of assets. I know that a number of Singaporeans are also wondering: would my number and name be used to register for SIM cards by mules or by bad actors? IMDA, together with GovTech, has jointly developed a new tool, SIMCardHowMany, you can Google it and look at it online, which allows mobile phone users to check the number of postpaid SIM cards currently registered under their names. This allows the members of the public to check their registered SIM cards included within the postpaid limit of 10 SIM cards. Persons who discover discrepancies or suspects that postpaid SIM cards have been fraudulently registered under their names should inform their telcos immediately.
So, prevention is better than pursuit of losses after that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Adoption Leave from 12 Weeks to 16 Weeks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministry will consider increasing adoption leave from 12 weeks to 16 weeks, to align it with maternity leave; and (b) if not, what are the policy considerations militating against such an enhancement.
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah): Biological mothers are entitled to 16 weeks of maternity leave while adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of adoption leave. The duration of maternity leave is longer, by a month, as biological mothers require more time to recuperate physically from childbirth.
Adoptive parents, otherwise, receive the same parental and childcare leave benefits as biological parents today. This includes the new 10-week Shared Parental Leave scheme, which was introduced last year to encourage shared parental responsibility and provide more time for parents to care for and bond with their newborns.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Foo.
\tMr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister. We celebrate Mother's Day over the weekend. I said it once and I will say it again – our parents of adopted children are super parents and the moms are certainly super moms. So, I would like to ask the Ministry whether it will consider the perspective that, notwithstanding the adopted mom not being the birth mom, would we not give them more time to bond with their baby or with their child?
After all, the Ministry of Social and Family Development's policy is also to encourage parents who would like to adopt a second child, a gap of nine months from the first child, precisely so that they can bond more with the first child.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt. We are not closed to considering fresh ideas or initiatives, but I think the key consideration must always be what is the need and what we want to support, and what is actually required.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Singapore's Water Security Due to Rising Demands from Data Centres, Urban Expansion and Climate Variability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with rising water demands from data centres, urban expansion and climate variability affecting local reservoirs (a) what is the latest assessment of Singapore's water insecurity risks, particularly ahead of the 2061 Johor Water Agreement expiry; and (b) what accelerated measures are being planned to ensure the Four National Taps meet future needs without compromising food production or household supply.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, PUB continues to plan ahead and invest in water infrastructure to meet future demand, taking into account economic and population growth as well as the impact of climate change. We have diversified our water supply through the \"Four National Taps\". These include desalinated water and NEWater, which are weather-resilient sources that strengthen our water security amid the effects of climate change.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two buckets of supplementary questions. With the background that water scarcity has been intensified by climate change and the estimate is that there would be possible implications of up to 6% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050, an impact on the GDP and also, given that the World Bank has recently stated that the water will shift from a background resource to a binding constraint, then also, bearing in mind that if there is not good water management, there will also be constriction or a negative impact on the economic growth, and given our expected increase in demands, including plans to build databanks and climate change driven increases, how is this systemic risk framing being incorporated into our fiscal and also forward estimates for public infrastructure demand planning parameters?
And the second supplementary question relates around the current Middle East conflict and the war in the Middle East. The current one in the Middle East has driven up the cost of energy, and the cost of oil and natural gas has been extremely volatile. Given that a lot of our water supply comes from very energy-intensive sources, like desalination, what is the impact that that increase in energy cost have had on the cost of our desalinated water? And how are we responding to this prolonged energy price volatility, to moderate impact that the energy cost is having on our desalination cost modelling?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I believe that my question has addressed the first part of Ms He's supplementary questions, which is, really, the impact of climate change resulting in global water scarcity and its impact on water supply. And in Singapore, I would like to think that we have planned ahead, and we are always looking at the impact of climate change, as I have mentioned in my answer, and incorporating the impact of climate change in our long-term planning for our water infrastructure.
With regard to cost of energy, it is definitely a driver that we have always paid attention to. We have looked at ways to reduce our energy efficiency for water treatment. In fact, we set that as our goal so that our PUB colleagues will focus their attention on always searching for new technology that will reduce the overall costs of producing water, including energy. And, of course, it has been exacerbated by recent events in Middle East, but that does not change our long-term focus on bringing down the costs of producing water, including the use of energy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":" Reducing Rate of Fatal and Major Injuries among Platform Workers ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has any plans to introduce additional measures to (i) further reduce the rate of fatal and major injuries among platform workers and (ii) enhance financial protection for work injury, given the relatively high rate of fatal and major injuries for such workers.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash) (for the Minister for Manpower): To reduce injuries among platform workers, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has convened a Platform Worker Safety Workgroup comprising relevant Government agencies, platform operators, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and platform work associations. The Member may wish to refer to the combined reply to Question Nos 29, 30 and 31 for oral answer at the 8 April 2026 Sitting for more details.
From 1 January 2025, platform workers are entitled to work injury compensation at the same level of coverage as employees. This includes reimbursement for medical expenses, income loss compensation for medical leave and hospitalisation leave, and lump sum compensation for permanent incapacity or death. To ensure that compensation keeps pace with income growth and rising healthcare costs, MOM regularly reviews the compensation limits stipulated under the Work Injury Compensation Act. The latest changes came into effect on 1 November 2025, which saw maximum coverage increased to $53,000 for medical expenses, $346,000 for permanent incapacity and $269,000 for death.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Minister of State for the answer, as well as forming a workgroup to look into this issue. I think it is worrying that platform workers have a much higher rate of workplace injuries than many other groups and I think compensation is one component, but does the Minister of State think any interim measures are needed while the workgroup is working out the longer-term solutions?
\t
\tMr Dinesh Vasu Dash: I thank the Member for the comments. I do fully agree with him that, indeed, we need to increase, for example, firstly, the detection of such unsafe behaviours, finding ways at which we can do so and allowing them to also make a livelihood in the process as well; and to increase awareness of the safety risks and practices that are available. Sometimes, these may involve education of how they should move around, particularly in areas where there are civilians, as well as where there are residents and traffic, and particularly focused on our platform workers who may be operating off two-wheeled devices and bicycles.
I do also think that we should start to think about – and that is something that the workgroup is looking at quite actively – areas at which we can allow for positive safety behaviours, rather than just to look at compensation, which is after the fact, or punitive measures alone. So, that is another area that we are looking at very closely. I would be happy to discuss further and find ways at which we can further improve our system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Flat Types and Locations for Recent Moderation in HDB Resale Prices ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the recent moderation in HDB resale prices is broad-based across flat types and towns, or concentrated in selected segments; and (b) what additional measures, if any, is the Ministry considering to assist first-time buyers who are still unable to secure affordable housing near their parents or workplaces.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, in the first quarter of 2026, Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale prices declined by 0.1%, following five consecutive quarters of price growth moderation. The moderation is broad-based across flat types and towns.
HDB has implemented several key measures in recent years to support first-time buyers to stay near their parents for mutual care and support.
First, we have increased the supply of Plus and Prime flats, which come with additional subsidies.
Second, we introduced the Family Care Scheme in 2025 to strengthen intergenerational family support.
Third, we have significantly enhanced housing grants for both new and resale flats. Eligible first-timer families can benefit from grants of up to $120,000 to buy new flats, and $230,000 to buy resale flats. Those purchasing a resale flat can tap on the Proximity Housing Grant of up to $30,000.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.
\tMr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the response. I am glad to hear that it is across-the-board in terms of the moderation, though it is just one datapoint. In responding to many residents who, as the Minister said, would like to live with their parents, I think the Government has provided a lot of support and incentives.
However, would it be possible to have more granular data so that children or parents wanting to stay in specific areas can have better guidance as to whether to go for the resale route or the Build-To-Order (BTO) route? As we know, the BTO route is not commonly available throughout Singapore?
Further to that, another question is if we have studied the impact of the ageing population, because we have come across more residents who want to right size and whether that, if not now, in future, could contribute to a greater supply, perhaps in the mature estates even, leading to impacts on resale prices and therefore, guidance to our younger families in choosing where to live?
\t
\tMr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, for data, this is something which HDB publishes. For a buyer, you can go in and take a look at the application rates for the different projects in different parts of Singapore. And, of course, some projects will have higher application rates than others because they are more popular. Or for example, in certain areas where we have not been building BTO flats for a while and when there is a BTO project being launched, it is popular and, therefore, the application rate will be higher.
But if you look at the latest BTO application in February this year, we saw an improvement in the application rates for first-time families for 3-room and larger flats. In some projects, the application rate for first-time families was actually below one, which means, subject to the Ethnic Integration Policy constraints, virtually everybody will be able to get a BTO flat if you are a first-timer family. We will continue to build HDB BTO flats to ensure a robust supply because we understand the demand is strong and we want to be able to meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans.
The same applies to the seniors who want to right-size. Many of them would be looking, for example, at buying a 2-room Flexi flat. And for this category, the people who are singles are also applying for 2-room Flexi flats. That is why I shared at the Committee of Supply earlier this year that we will increase the supply of 2-room Flexi flats by about 50% from 2026 to 2028.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Times at Polyclinics for Walk-in Patients and Plans to Redistribute Patient Load","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what are the average waiting times at polyclinics for walk-in patients during peak and off-peak hours; and (b) whether there are plans to redistribute patient load across off-peak hours.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Health): In 2025, for walk-in patients, the median and 95th percentile doctor consultation waiting times were eight minutes and 72 minutes respectively. However, the Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track waiting times by peak versus off-peak hours, but it is likely that 95th percentile waiting times happened during peak hours.
That is why it is important for us to operate on an appointment basis as much as possible, to optimise capacity and patient waiting times and to spread out patient arrivals across the day. That said, we always schedule fewer appointments than full capacity to accommodate walk-in patients with acute medical needs.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
\tMr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I think it is an improvement from the last time this question was asked two years ago, which was 17 minutes and 164 minutes. So, there is improvement. But a one-and-a half-hour waiting time is still quite long. I am wondering whether there are any plans to maybe introduce more capacity for polyclinics.
\t
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I think that is a question that many patients also ask.
Let me explain what exactly happens in a clinic because it is not such a straightforward issue as trying to stick to increased capacity. Because in the midst of increasing capacity, we also want to optimise the use of that capacity. We could actually leave a lot of empty slots just in case there are walk-in patients, but that means there will be a lot of time wasted that will not be used if there are no walk-in patients. In the sense, there will always be a trade-off there.
When we do schedule appointments, we hope that we can stick to the time. When the patient arrives, we then serve the patient within that allocated time. But as you can imagine, it is often not so straightforward to determine ahead of time how that conversation and the consultation with each particular patient will go. Even if we allocate, say, 15 minutes for what we think is a reasonable consultation time, sometimes the patient that comes in that time slot may have a very complex issue or multiple medical problems that takes a far longer conversation and examination to complete. In which case, it may take half an hour and, therefore, it eats into the next patient's consultation time. In a busy clinic, sometimes, such long conversations, on a particular day, you may have quite a few complicated patients that come in sequentially. That means that there will, therefore, be a snowball effect and patients who are seen at the later part of the session, of the morning session or afternoon session, will therefore end up experiencing a longer waiting time, even though they have been given a scheduled appointment.
So, there are quite a lot of complicated dynamics happening in a clinic on a day-to-day basis and it is very hard to predict ahead of time how each day will pan out.
What we are trying to do is to stick as much as possible to more scheduled appointments, so, we minimise that variance as far as we can. We see that for scheduled appointments, the median waiting time in 2025 for a scheduled appointment is about 10 minutes. So, you can see that the medical staff tries as far as they can to complete a consultation and conversation within an allocated timeframe so that they minimise the snowballing effect.
But the 95th percentile waiting time in 2025 for a scheduled appointment can go as high as 52 minutes. Again, like I said, if you are towards the end of that morning session where the prior patients before you had longer conversations, that snowballs into a much longer waiting time for those at the end of that session.
This is what a healthcare clinic usually goes through, and we will try our very best to resource with more consultation slots to actually meet all those demands. What the clinic tries to do is that, for those who turn up in a walk-in manner, and for which the staff triage that this is actually not something that is an emergency or extremely urgent, they will try to schedule the next day's appointment for this resident, so that he or she can come back the following day without having to be subjected to a long waiting time as a sudden walk-in patient.
I hope that kind of gives the Member a sense of how complicated it is, but how the efforts are still being made to try and reduce waiting time.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible.
I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period. But can I ask the Senior of Minister, is the Ministry taking note of how many people are actually walking in vis-a-vis making scheduled appointments?
I ask this in the context of a super aged society, because there is also the added problem of difficulty in making appointments for certain individuals, especially those who live alone, for example. So, over the longer term, does the Ministry have a datapoint for us to understand whether there are individuals who are making appointments or is that really going to be an extant problem that the healthcare system has to deal with and has to accept?
\t
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his question. I do not have the numbers for the percentage of walk-in versus scheduled appointments. But I think, in general, most patients who do not have pressing issues will try to fix an appointment because they want certainty of time and to also reduce their waiting time.
But healthcare being the way it is, there will always be a sudden onset of discomfort and unwellness that will prompt a walk-in appointment.
That is why we do not work just based on polyclinic resources alone and we have resourced many of our general practitioner (GP) clinics with Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), so that patients have an additional option to go to a nearby GP clinic and get subsidised treatment at the GP clinics as well, even if it is a walk-in situation.
It is about actually working with the entire resources of what we have in the entire healthcare ecosystem and not just focusing on polyclinics per se. And I think, over time, as we improve on our Healthier SG enrolment, there will be better relationships between the patient and their enrolled GP so that that stronger nexus and better understanding between the patient and the GP will hopefully also spread the load out for each individual patient to the GP clinics where they also have easier access to care and nearer their homes as well.
The Chairman: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Info-communications Media Developmemnt Authority (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [6 May 2026], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time.\" – [Minister for Digital Development and Information]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I will deliver my speech in Mandarin and conclude in English.
For a start, I rise to support the Info-communications Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): In this digital age, how do we ensure that the flow of information is fair, that market competition is orderly and that the public interest is protected? This Bill is close to our daily lives.
In the past, we drew clear distinctions between media, such as newspapers and magazines, and telecommunications services, such as telephone lines, mobile networks and broadband. But today, those lines have blurred.
A smartphone is no longer just a communication tool – it is also a news portal, an entertainment platform, an advertising channel and even a starting point for doing business. A single platform can simultaneously influence content distribution, user choices, advertising revenue, business visibility and public discourse.
The media industry today, therefore, is no longer a purely content-driven industry. In other words, it has become a \"digital highway.\" Whoever controls the entry points and key resources can influence competition and can also shape what the public sees and how they understand the world.
The market has changed. Technology has changed. Business models have changed. And the regulatory framework must keep pace. The rules must be updated.
I have six points to elaborate on.
First, this Bill brings greater consistency and clarity to the regulation of competition in both the media and telecommunications sectors. In real life, no one distinguishes between a \"media issue\" and a \"telecommunications issue.\" What people care about is: why am I seeing this content? Why are my choices narrowing? Why are certain platforms growing ever more dominant?
From a business perspective, whether the market is fair affects innovation. For consumers, whether choices are adequate affects everyday experience. For society, whether the information ecosystem is healthy affects public trust.
If we continue to apply the old, separate frameworks to today's converged market, it is like using an outdated map to navigate a new city – we will easily lose our way.
Second, this Bill strengthens oversight over changes in control, and that is necessary. An ordinary business transaction is a commercial matter. But when it involves a significant media platform, it is no longer just about business – it also concerns the flow of information and public interest.
\tIt is like a community with only one main road – if the management changes, it could affect how everyone gets around. In such circumstances, regulation is warranted.
Third, I also support reducing unnecessary burdens even as we strengthen regulation. Not every transaction requires rigorous approval. Some involve only formalities with no change in actual control, and these can be handled through a notification process.
Good regulation is not about more being better – it is about being precise, clear and predictable.
Fourth, the management of key resources is very important. If a small number of parties control resources that are difficult to replicate and the rules of access are unfair, the market will lose its dynamism. Like a bridge that everyone needs to use, the rules governing it must be fair and transparent.
Fifth, this Bill also introduces the power for the Minister to issue separation orders in specific circumstances.
While this is a fairly strong power, it is not an entirely new concept. Under the Bill, where a regulated person owns or controls certain significant media resources that are difficult to replicate, that may create barriers to market entry or that other competitors require in order to compete, and where actions taken or likely to be taken by IMDA are insufficient to address the problem, the Minister may issue a separation order where it is in the public interest to do so.
I support the Government retaining such a tool. There are situations where, if the market structure itself has given rise to serious problems, ordinary directions or financial penalties may simply not be enough.
That said, I hope that in exercising this power, three principles continue to be upheld.
First, it should be used as a last resort. Second, it should be proportionate. Third, the process should be clear, the reasons well-founded and affected parties given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Markets need regulation, but they also need certainty. This is especially true for Singapore as an international business hub. Many investors choose Singapore precisely because our institutions are clear, our laws are stable and our regulators are credible. We must protect competition – but we must also protect confidence in our institutions.
Sixth, I also support the inclusion of review and appeal mechanisms. Regulation must not only carry authority; it must also be accompanied by due process and oversight. Only then will businesses have confidence and the public have trust.
Mr Speaker, this Bill concerns the information we encounter every day, the platforms we use and whether the market is fair.
I have a few questions and suggestions for consideration.
First, will IMDA provide clearer and more accessible guidance on key concepts, such as \"effective control\" and \"public interest\"? This is particularly important in the context of corporate investments, mergers and acquisitions, equity restructuring and business acquisitions. Clear guidance would help reduce uncertainty for businesses navigating these situations.
Second, for transactions that do not require prior approval but must be notified to IMDA, will the relevant subsidiary legislation set out clearer categories and examples? If practical case illustrations are provided, businesses will find it much easier to comply.
Third, can IMDA prepare a plain-language guide specifically for small- and medium-sized media enterprises and emerging digital media companies? Large corporations typically have legal and compliance teams, but smaller businesses may not have the resources to work through complex provisions. For rules to be effective, people must first be able to understand them and act on them.
Fourth, for stronger powers, such as the divestiture order, will the Government elaborate further on the circumstances under which it would consider invoking such powers? It would also be helpful to explain how the Government will ensure that this remains a measure of last resort, applied in a manner proportionate to the situation.
Fifth, even as we promote fair competition, how do we continue to maintain Singapore's attractiveness as a hub for digital media, technology platforms and regional content? Regulation should not only prevent problems; it should also give healthy, well-run businesses the confidence to grow.
Today's digital ecosystem is like a large marketplace. A good marketplace is not one without rules. It is one where the rules are clear and fairly enforced, where large players can grow, small operators have a chance and consumers can participate with confidence.
As the saying goes, \"Clear waters let fish swim freely; clear rules give people peace of mind.\"
When market rules are clear, competition thrives. When regulatory boundaries are well-defined, businesses have confidence. When the public interest is safeguarded, society has trust.
(In English): Beyond these provisions, the Bill also needs to be seen in a broader global context. Around the world, regulators are grappling with similar challenges, such as how to deal with powerful digital platforms while keeping markets open and innovative.
Singapore must continue to take a calibrated approach. We must protect our information environment. But at the same time, remain a trusted and attractive hub for investment and innovation. We should recognise that influence today is not just about ownership, but also about algorithms.
What people see online is often shaped by automated systems with recommendation engines ranking models and content creation tools. These systems are not always visible, but they are very powerful. So, moving forward, issues like transparency, accountability and trust in these systems will become increasingly important.
Another key point is inclusion. As we strengthen regulation, we must ensure that smaller players, like startups, independent creators and community platforms, are not crowded out. A healthy media ecosystem is not just about a strong major player but also about diversity – diversity of voices strengthened innovations, and it strengthens public disclosure.
Finally, regulation alone is not enough. An informed and discerning public is just as important. Media literacy and digital awareness are long-term safeguards. When people are able to question, evaluate and think critically about what they see, they become an active part of a trusted digital ecosystem. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, the Info-communications Media Development Authority (Amendment) Bill seeks to further harmonise and align the competition frameworks governing the telecommunications and media sectors.
This Bill builds on substantial public consultations that concluded in January 2026 and follows from the introduction of the converged Code of Practice for Competition in the Provision of Telecommunication and Media Services in 2022. I support this Bill.
Unlike many other industries, the regulation of media companies is not only about economics, it is fundamentally about the role media plays in society. Media companies shape public discourse and influence how citizens understand and form opinions. For these reasons, competition rules in the media sector are essential not just to ensure efficient markets. But also, to prevent excessive concentration of influence over information.
If left unchecked, high levels of concentration in media markets may result not only in economic dominance but also in gatekeeping power over what information reaches the public. In this context, the Bill's strengthening of competition oversight is particularly in relation to ownership, control and market conduct and this is both timely and necessary.
At the same time, the Bill reflect the Government's responsiveness to industry feedback and its willingness to refine legislation to better reflect market realities, particularly in the media services sector.
One significant amendment, for example, is the treatment of anti-competitive agreements. Previously, where an agreement was found to be anti-competitive under section 62 of the Info-communications Media Development Authority Act (IMDA Act), the entire agreement could be rendered void. Under the proposed amendments, only the provisions found to be anti-competitive will be void, with the remainder of the agreement continuing to be valid and enforceable. This represents a more calibrated and commercially sensible approach to competition enforcement.
The Bill, however, focuses, on traditional media companies, publishers and broadcasters.
My question is therefore whether there is a possibility of an expanded scope of the Bill, that is, regulating content creation companies that do not fit within the traditional entities that are regulated by the IMDA Act.
The media landscape is undergoing profound transformation. We are witnessing the rapid rise of digital and social media ecosystems where news and current affairs content are increasingly consumed online through non-traditional channels such as social media. Indeed, audiences, particularly younger ones, rely heavily on news outlets, like Mothership, to receive news.
What we are seeing is the emergence of local companies that are media producers and content-driven businesses that do not necessarily operate traditional newspapers or broadcast channels. They, nevertheless, produce and disseminate large volumes of content that are consumed and trusted by the masses. Yet, they may not always fall neatly within the categories of regulated persons under existing legislation.
Given the increasing role of local digital media companies and content businesses in disseminating news and shaping public discourse, could the Minister share whether the Ministry is considering whether aspects of this competition framework may in time need to extend to entities that perform media-like functions even if they do not fall within traditional licensing categories?
In this context, as IMDA and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) continue to review and update the regulatory framework, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would share any updates on whether it is considering any further developments in relation to the regulation of social media use by adolescents and youths.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank Members for their support of the Bill and their comments.
I will address Members' comments in four broad themes: first, the scope of powers in this Bill and considerations that will guide the Government in exercising these powers; second, the benefits to consumers from fairer, more competitive market conduct; third, the implications on the workforce; and fourth, how this Bill facilitates the growth and development of our media sector, including smaller and diverse players.
To recap what I said yesterday, the amendments are technical in nature but they are nonetheless important. They strengthen our regulatory toolkit to ensure fair competition and market conduct in the media sector and protect consumer interests.
As Mr Sharael Taha noted in his speech, this Bill is not about content regulation. It is also not about the quality of content. Instead, it focuses on market structures and practices and consumer protection measures. It is to ensure fair access and to keep the market vibrant.
While Members are entitled to have different views on the quality of our media entities and the quality of content that they produce, these are not pertaining to the amendments in this Bill. But let me just make a few points.
Today, mainstream media outlets are trusted and have worked hard to hold their own against much larger global players. A 2025 survey by the Reuters Institute found that our mainstream media outlets remained the most trusted news brands in Singapore. And consumers in Singapore have choices. We have access to an ever-expanding range of content and media services from global online and streaming platforms, and often consume media from multiple sources.
So, our local media outlets for news, current affairs, entertainment are working hard to hold their own. I am proud to say that they are doing so. That is my first point.
My second point is I think there was confusion about the scope of the Bill, about market structures and concepts of competition. These fundamental approaches and principles cut across many sectors. It is not just telecommunications, it is not just media, but also energy, power, financial services. Competition and consumer protection matters arise across many other sectors. While there will always be sector-specific nuances, the underlying principles and objectives are consistent, namely, to constrain the abuse of market dominance, facilitate fair competition and protect consumers.
Likewise, this Bill supports these objectives. I do not believe that the Members would disagree with the merits of adopting good practices from the telecommunication sector, as well as any other sector, so as to strengthen our regulatory toolkit in the media sector.
This Bill reinforces our longstanding commitment to keep Singapore a business-friendly and attractive place for investment. We have always exercised our regulatory powers proportionately and fairly, with appropriate checks and balances. And beyond IMDA's regulatory remit, there is also recourse to the Courts through judicial review.
It is precisely this measured and judicious approach to regulation that has underpinned Singapore's positions as a digital hub, with strong international connectivity and sustained investments by leading global companies. And we work hard to make sure that we maintain this reputation globally. We can direct regulatees, we can pass regulations, but we cannot force people to invest here. And maintaining that regulatory professionalism and our trusted reputation as pro-business, with regulators that are professional, unbiased and objective, is important.
That sets the context in which I will try to answer some of the questions from different Members.
Members have asked about the scope of certain defined terms in the Bill and emphasised the importance of ensuring that the new powers introduced are exercised judiciously, transparently and on a clear basis, so that we maintain a fair and pro-innovation environment and ensure business certainty. Dr Choo Pei Ling, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Dr Hamid Razak, Mr David Hoe, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Andre Low, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng raised these points.
At this juncture, Sir, I just want to also note that Ms Mariam Jaafar was unfortunately unable to speak on this Bill because she had to rush to the airport for an overseas work trip. She sent to me her speech in advance before she left for the airport so that I can take note of her comments and points. Where appropriate, I will address her points in my speech.
Let me first clarify the definitions in the Bill.
The definitions of \"associate\" and \"effective control\" are not new. They mirror existing definitions in the Telecommunications Act. These definitions support our objective of ensuring fair market competition and prevent abuse of market dominance, as I have outlined earlier.
The definition of \"essential resources\" is in substance the same as the existing definition in the current IMDA Act. The amendment provides that IMDA may communicate the designation of an essential resource in a manner to secure adequate publicity or notice rather than solely by notification in the Gazette.
I say that because I think there was some confusion to think we are no longer publishing in the Gazette. We are, but in addition to that, we are publishing on IMDA's website and sending the notification directly to the affected party.
This is to be more pro-industry because, Sir, unfortunately, not all global companies and investors pay attention to our Government Gazette all the time. So, we put it on IMDA's website so that affected parties know about it. We send a notification to them. Interested parties, licensees included, can refer to them on IMDA's website. So, that is the intent of the change.
We will engage the owner and controller of such essential resources before the official designation and inform them of such designation by serving notice on them and also publishing on our website, as I mentioned earlier. This is the same practice for the telecommunications sector for similar designations. So, it is a good practice. We are adopting it for the media sector.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the updated definition of \"regulated person\" will be applied in practice to avoid over-capture beyond key media entities. Our regulatory intent remains unchanged. As I shared earlier at the start of my speech, the scope of the powers articulated in this Bill and the regulatory intent remain unchanged. The definition continues to be targeted at key media entities and only covers entities specified by the Minister in the Gazette. The updated definition is meant to fill potential gaps in coverage as the market evolves.
Really, the Bill aims to target large players that are dominant and to make sure they do not abuse their dominance. It is for large entities, key media entities. The regulatory intent has not changed.
As I explained in my Second Reading speech yesterday, there may be key media entities which may fall outside the existing definition of \"regulated person\" in the IMDA Act. So, the amendments are aligned with the approach for the telecommunication sector, for example, in capturing business trust structures, which is a fairly recent corporate structure.
Mr Hoe, Mr Low and Mr Sharael asked about the powers to issue directions in the public interest under the new section 61A. To be clear, the power to issue directions must be read in the context of the full provisions. Thus, the power is limited to maintaining fair market conduct and effective competition and safeguarding consumer interests. Therefore, this power is neither a catch-all nor unconstrained.
Under the new section 61A(4), IMDA is required to give prior written notice to the person concerned except where it considers not practicable or desirable. We will attempt to always do so. In stating the proposed direction and its effect, IMDA allows for representations to be made. IMDA must then consider these representations fully before deciding whether to issue the direction. It is a well established process.
On the powers under the new section 65A, raised by Mr Yip, this provision allows IMDA to require the disposal of shares or the relinquishment of control. A similar power already exists under the Telecommunications Act and is intended to address scenarios where a party, for example, provides false or misleading information or documents to IMDA in order to obtain IMDA's approval.
Mr Yip asked about the proportionate exercise of IMDA's information gathering powers in the new sections 65B and 71A. The Bill specifies that these are to enable IMDA to obtain information relating to the holding of equity interest and control of voting power in a regulated person and information relating to a media resource where IMDA has reason to believe that it should be designated as an essential resource respectively. So, it is constrained and it is read in that context.
Dr Choo, Mr Fadli, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Low, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Sharael and Ms Jessica Tan had questions on the exercise of powers under the new section 69A, which allows the Minister to order structural separations.
We fully recognise the gravity and impact of separation orders on affected entities. While the provisions mirror existing powers in the Telecommunications Act, those powers have not been exercised to date. It is our intent that structural separations are only imposed as a last resort and in exceptional cases. To this end, this power has strict legal limits. All three of the following requirements must be met before a separation order can be issued. These are articulated in the Bill.
First, there must be a qualifying market condition. Either the regulated person owns a media resource so costly to replicate that it blocks competitors from entering the market or the regulated person holds significant market power and competitors cannot realistically provide media services without access to their services. That is the first.
Second, a separation order cannot be invoked by the Minister unless conventional regulatory remedies by IMDA have already been exhausted or are demonstrably inadequate.
Third, the Minister must be independently satisfied that issuing the separation order is in the public interest. In making this assessment on public interest, the Minister is required to work within the confines of the law and consider whether the order is necessary or desirable to promote fair and efficient competition in the media sector, to enhance the efficiency and international competitiveness of Singapore's media industry, to eliminate or reduce barriers to competition arising from the regulated person's ownership or market power, or to promote transparency, non-discrimination and equivalence of supply in the provision of media services.
Even after deciding to issue an order, the Minister's discretion remains constrained. The new section 69A(4) will require the Minister to ensure that the specific directions included in the separation order are proportionate. In assessing proportionality, the Minister must consider how contestable the relevant media services market is, and whether the directions will effectively eliminate or minimise any incentive or opportunity for the regulated person to distort competition in that market.
All of these legal requirements must be satisfied, and no single requirement alone is sufficient. This reflects a clear legislative intent: a separation order is a last resort. The Bill therefore ensures such powers may be exercised in defined circumstances, for defined purposes, and only after all regulatory tools have failed and only with directions that are proportionate to the competitive harm being addressed.
Precisely because this is a serious intervention, it is important that the necessary powers are available should the situation arises. Their existence also send a strong signal to the market that the Government will act decisively to safeguard fair competition and market conduct. This, in turn, helps deter abusive market behaviour before it takes hold.
Sir, this House also spoke about the AI Motion yesterday for more than seven hours. That discussion underscored the need for us to be prepared for future uncertainties. The powers to issue separation orders are framed in the same spirit, to ensure that we are not caught unprepared in addressing significant market risks should they emerge.
I have also said in my Second Reading speech that it is appropriate for a decision of this gravity to be taken at the Ministerial level. In addition, this process is also amenable to judicial review.
To address Dr Choo, Mr Fadli and Mr Yip's questions on the new section 65, including how IMDA will assess major acquisitions, IMDA will consider whether the acquisition would likely result in a substantial lessening of competition or is against the public interest. At the same time, we recognise that acquisitions, mergers or consolidations may generate economies of scale or introduce innovation, with potential pro-competitive effects and consumer benefits.
These considerations will be assessed against our primary objective of maintaining competitive markets that protect consumer interests as part of the broadened oversight of major acquisitions. Let me also add, that the procedures and timelines for the process are outlined clearly in the Telecom and Media Competition Code.
Dr Choo, Mr Fadli and Mr Hoe asked about the intent, design considerations behind both the reconsideration and appeal mechanisms, including if there could be room for independent review. Both mechanisms are already well established in the telecommunication sector, since the market was fully liberalised in April 2000. This reconsideration process allows parties to ask IMDA to review decisions if new information or considerations arise. The appeal mechanism provides process flexibility, allowing parties to choose whether to appeal directly to the Minister or seek reconsideration first. The provisions for both processes, including the timeline, process and requirements are stated clearly in the new sections 67A and 68.
So, it is about providing additional options. Sometimes, the parties may want for IMDA to reconsider the decision because new material information has come up. So, it gives the parties an additional option to seek the regulator's reconsideration rather than directly appealing to the Minister in the first instance. So, it is an additional option, but parties can still decide to go straight to the Minister for appeal. So, this reconsideration amendment provides that option. It is meant to be pro-industry and also facilitate timely resolution of issues.
Members should also note that appeals to Minister are independently assessed from IMDA's regulatory decisions. Furthermore, parties can seek judicial review. Taken together, this framework provides multiple levels of checks and safeguards for a regulatory decision, including review by the Courts. As mentioned, the Minister also needs to be accountable to the public and to this House, to Parliament.
Mr Yip asked how both public and industry interests would be considered under the new section 61, where IMDA can approve documents prepared by a person other than IMDA as a code of practice or standard of performance for the media sector. Let me explain the intent. The amendments provide additional flexibility for IMDA to benefit industry players.
If there are codes of practice or standards of performance by others that meet IMDA's regulatory requirements, there should not be a need for IMDA to \"reinvent the wheel\". It saves time and resources for all stakeholders. IMDA will consult industry and the public before issuing any new codes, as its current practice.
Broadly, Dr Choo, Mr Fadli, Mr Hoe and Ms Jessica Tan, also raised the importance of transparency in the exercise of powers under the Bill, to both industry and the public. I agree with Members.
Generally, written notice will be issued to the affected party ahead of regulatory decisions and there are opportunities for the party to make representations, to then be considered by IMDA or the Minister before they decide. Secondly, the Bill spells out clear considerations or criteria for provisions, for example the scope of powers to issue directions under the new section 61A and the conditions to issue a separation order and potentially award compensation under the new section 69A.
We intend to inform the public when major regulatory decisions are made, given their impact on the media landscape, and to explain the key considerations. I would also make clear that notifications by IMDA on matters, such as the specification of essential resources will continue to be published on the Gazette for information, in addition to other channels, like on our website and direct notifications to the affected party.
We are committed to being open and transparent. This is a reputation that we build up, over years and decades. The litmus test is the business community, global investors, international players wanting to invest in Singapore and continuing to invest in Singapore, because they trust the Government, they trust the regulatory environment and they trust the professionalism and transparency of our processes.
On this particular point, as mentioned by Mr Low, MDDI and IMDA conducted a public consultation for the Bill. By the close of the consultation, MDDI and IMDA received one submission from a law firm directly relevant to the Bill. As per usual practice, IMDA has published the response received on IMDA's website. I took a look at it, it is a three- or four-page paper by a law firm. I looked through the details of it before and I looked at it again because Mr Low raised it.
The submission had broadly raised the same points that many of the Members suggested, to more clearly define key terms, such as \"essential resources\" and also noting similar comments on the phrasing of section 61A, which confers powers on IMDA to issue directions. These comments are similar to what many Members had raised, and I believed have addressed them in my Opening speech of the Second Reading as well as my Closing speech. So, rest assured, before any major decisions are taken, we consult, we take a look very carefully at what responders have provided to us and look at what their suggestions are.
On the exercise of powers, MDDI shares Members' commitment to ensuring these powers are exercised properly. Importantly, as I have explained, such powers are not new to IMDA – it has been exercising equivalent powers judiciously in the telecommunications sector for years. Members can be assured that the same rigour and care will apply in this context.
Let me now turn to the second theme of how this Bill benefits consumers. Dr Hamid Razak, Mr David Hoe, Ms Mariam Jaafar, and Mr Yip Hon Weng noted that the amendments should translate into benefits for consumers.
We are mindful of this objective. These amendments in this Bill aim to do so by strengthening the regulatory framework for the media sector. The amendments proposed in this Bill help ensure that Singapore's media market remains competitive, dynamic and fair. They contribute to public confidence in the media sector, good content, reasonable prices and a vibrant information environment for every Singaporean.
As I have laid out in my Opening Speech, the Bill also gives IMDA the tools to act swiftly when fair market conduct is threatened and where the actions of service providers may hurt consumer interests for example the powers under the new section 61A.
Ms Cassandra Lee asked whether the Government is considering further developments to the regulation of social media use by adolescents, in the context of increasing use of such platforms.
We are deeply concerned about ensuring a trusted and safe online environment for everyone, and we approach this on many fronts. Over the years, we have introduced various laws to ensure that Singaporeans go online safely. For example, in 2022, we amended the Broadcasting Act, which allowed IMDA to issue directions to social media services to prevent Singapore users' access to egregious content on their platforms. IMDA also introduced Codes of Practice for Online Safety in 2023 and 2025 for designated social media services and app stores respectively.
These Codes require the designated services to put in place systems and processes to mitigate their users' risks of exposure to harmful content on their platforms. Last year, this House passed the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act, establishing the Commissioner of Online Safety to provide victims of online harms with timely relief and redress.
Earlier in this Sitting, on 5 May, we have also answered questions on the regulation of social media. As the amendments of this Bill do not pertain to these specific matters, I would refer Ms Lee to those replies and to raise subsequent Parliamentary Questions if needed.
Let me now turn to the third theme on implications to the workforce. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Yip Hon Weng spoke about the workforce impact and the need to support workers during organisational changes from mergers or restructurings. We recognise the disruptions and anxiety that workers may face, and the importance of whole-of-Government oversight of such shifts.
I would stress that while the amendments in the Bill focus on fair markets and consumer protection in the media sector, that does not mean that we are not supporting our workers through disruptions and transitions. MOM's legislative frameworks and guidelines that are broad-based and applied across the various industry sectors will continue to be in force.
For MDDI and IMDA, in dealing with the telecommunication and media sectors, we encourage unionised companies embarking on or undergoing major organisational restructurings to engage the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and their unions early, and work closely with them to manage the impact on staff. We will also work closely with NTUC and unions in the telecommunication and media sectors to support affected members during those periods.
I would like to thank Mr Tay for his specific suggestions, and we will share them with MOM as these are matters which would apply beyond the telecommunication and media sectors.
Importantly, we are not passively waiting for disruption to happen. IMDA actively partners with NTUC and unions to train and skill our workers, so that they remain relevant and competitive in the fast-changing telecommunications and media sectors that are being transformed by AI.
Mr David Hoe, Ms Mariam Jaafar, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Andre Low asked whether the Bill facilitates an open and diverse media landscape with independent perspectives, where new entrants can grow and compete in a fair market. Ms Cassandra Lee also asked if we would update our competition framework to include non-traditional media entities. The regulated persons under the IMDA Act are intended to be specific entities. These include major players, including SPH Media Trust, Mediacorp and our Pay TV operators. We are not making changes to this approach.
In this context, as I emphasised earlier, the regulatory focus of the IMDA Act is not on the smaller players in the media sector and media consumption is non-exclusive. Singaporeans have access to a wide variety of content and media services through global online and streaming platforms. The amendments in this Bill are related to ownership and control, and are scoped to cover very specific regulated key media entities. Seen in this light, these amendments act to prevent unfair competition and potential abuse of market dominance by large players that may frustrate the entry and growth of other players in the media sector.
And we certainly recognise that the media landscape has transformed and grown significantly with the internet and social media. This is a fast-moving space and we will continue to monitor developments closely. I thank Members for raising this issue.
I would also like to add that IMDA wears a number of hats, in addition from a regulator point of view, it also plays a role of the media industry developer. It has put in place schemes and programmes to support local players and grow the diversity and vibrancy of our media ecosystem. For example, IMDA's International Co-Production Fund supports local production houses and is awarded to local media companies to co-produce high quality drama series that are infused with a Singapore flavour and made for a global audience.
In fact, I recently joined a trip with NTUC and brought a group of almost 30 content creators, freelancers, small media businesses, on a business development trip to Hangzhou and Hengdian, China, and brought another group of more than 10 larger local media companies to Seoul, Korea to look at collaboration opportunities. And we will continue to do more to support our local media players.
Let me speak in Mandarin, Sir, to address the points made by Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Dr Choo Pei Ling in their Chinese speeches.
(In Mandarin): Today's amendment Bill draws on good practices from the telecommunication sector to ensure more effective regulation, promote fair competition and continue safeguarding consumer interests in the media sector. In a rapidly evolving media environment, it is important to ensure that our regulatory framework remains effective and forward-looking.
As Mr Lee Hong Chuang has noted, any new regulatory measures must be proportionate to the issues – neither excessive nor inadequate. The Bill has established clear procedures to ensure that these powers are exercised only when necessary and in a measured manner, promoting a fair market environment while also providing businesses with certainty and confidence.
I also agree with Dr Choo Pei Ling that we must remain transparent in our approach to regulation, so as to ensure that industry players and the public continue to have confidence in our regulatory framework.
(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions. This Bill is necessary to promote fair competition and to continue safeguarding consumers' interests. In a rapidly evolving media landscape, it is important that our regulatory framework remains effective and forward looking. Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I have several clarifications for Senior Minister of State Tan. Sorry, I have not counted them, so I seek your forgiveness for that.
I thank the Senior Minister of State for the correction. Firstly, I appreciate that there was only one law firm that submitted a response to the consultation. I believe I was mistaken. The other law firm had published an article on the website, but had not directly responded to the consultation.
My first clarification is to my specific question on the scope of designation. I appreciate that the Senior Minister of State has responded in broad terms that the scope of the legislation is meant to cover large players, key players in the middle media landscape. And subsequently, he also confirmed that the intent is not to address the small players. We appreciate the definition of what the Ministry is considering a \"small player\" and where exactly where the threshold lies, because I think this speaks to our concerns about the chilling effect of the legislation.
I also specifically had asked if this IMDA Bill, together with the Broadcasting Act that also is being amended, read together, does the scope of the regulated persons potentially include social media companies, foreign players, but that have a local presence?
Also, I specifically asked if entities, like blogs, social media accounts, podcasts and so on, are covered or within the scope. And I asked this because now, you hear about podcasts being acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars. So, it is well within conception that podcasts might well fall under a type of company or entity that may need to be regulated under these provisions.
I also had a specific concern about the \"in the public interest\" line, in section 61A, para 1C. And I appreciate that Senior Minister of State Tan has clarified that this needs to be read in the context of the full provision, so it is not meant to be a catch-all. I would just like to add that the drafting in the Bill is quite vague, because in para B(2), which immediately precedes the phrasing of \"in the public interest\", it ends with an \"or\". So, if you read that together in context, it does seem like 61A(1), para C is meant to be read independently. And if it is read independently, it can seem like a broad all-encompassing power to direct \"in the public interest\". So, I would appreciate if Senior Minister of State Tan can clarify that that is not the intent.
I also had questions about transferee selection. I had asked specifically if the Government will commit to not directing independent media companies that have been subject to a separation order, to then have that business transferred to a Government-linked media company.
And I also have a specific question on the newspaper permit, and similarly for the broadcasting permit. If you read section 69A (3)b(ii) of the Bill, it seems to imply that companies that have been subject to a separation order will be obligated to reapply for their newspaper licence or broadcasting licence as the case may be. I wonder why it does not just transfer, as a matter of course; and is this an opportunity for the Government to then subsequently deny the successor entity a newspaper or broadcasting licence?
I think that covers the scope of my clarifications. I would just finally add that I still have some overarching concerns about the potential for this Bill to have a chilling effect. I think the Senior Minister of State Tan has mentioned that investor confidence in Singapore is broadly high, and I accept that point.
But I think specifically for the media industry, Singapore's media industry is currently – I would not say it is a bastion of a free and open market. We are dominated by two major media companies that are within the Government's orbit. So, I would push back on that suggestion that within the media landscape, that investors have high confidence investing in Singapore companies.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, the Member has a number of clarifications and I will attempt to go through them. I ask the Member to let me know if I have missed out some things.
Let me first talk about the scope of definition. Let me just clarify, he mentioned that we are amending the Broadcasting Act. We are not. Nothing in this amendment Bill touches the Broadcasting Act. So, that is the first factual clarification.
Second, it is about the scope of definitions of regulated persons under the IMDA Act. The regulatory intent is clear and when you read the different provisions and amendments, it should be in the context of the scope of powers envisaged under this Act and debated here in Parliament. And that was the IMDA Act that was passed some time ago. The regulatory intent is for fair market competition and protecting consumer interest. And that overarching intent should be one guiding how we interpret the different clauses and provisions and powers in the Act. So, the exercise of these powers, whether through the regulator, like IMDA, or in certain circumstances, by the Minister, it should be read in a context of how it will enable better fair market competition and protect the consumers, especially against large players who abuse the position of dominance.
Whether it is articulation of the clause of \"public interest\", or in terms of thinking of who are the regulated persons defined under the Act, it should be seen in that context – larger players that may abuse their dominance to frustrate new entrants.
That is really the thrust of the IMDA Act – market structures, market practices, consumer protection. And nothing in this amendment Act changes the other Acts that govern the media sector, whether the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act or the Broadcasting Act.
So, I just wanted to be very clear how we should interpret the provisions. That is important because our exchange here will be in the Hansard and will be relied on if there are further challenges in the courts or elsewhere. So, I just want to make that point very clear.
And so, that is on scope, definition, public interest.
As for the specific scenario of transferee selection in the event of a structural separation order, and why, under the Act, it is envisaged that the entity may have to apply for a newspaper licence at a point in time.
Let me start by reiterating what I have just said. I took some time in my opening Second Reading speech, as well as the closing speech, to articulate that structural separation orders by the Minister is not to be taken lightly. It is not just about the telecommunication or media sector, where these powers are now embedded, but it sends a broader signal to the global investment community, the international businesses – many of them international businesses, listed companies. Many, many options of not just investing in Singapore, many places for them to invest. Why do they invest here in Singapore? And these are large companies with robust corporate governance, institutional investors, shareholders; and they look at where to invest their resources, their money. Our regulatory certainty and pro-business environment gives us the competitive advantage. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is a reputation that we husband, we shepherd, we safeguard.
So, that is really one context in how we think about structural separation orders. We do not take it lightly. Only in exceptional circumstances where all existing measures have failed – and I listed the three legal requirements for that before the Minister decides – and after the Minister decides and issues the order, the decision can be challenged; and the Minister needs to defend it publicly. So, these decisions are not taken lightly at all and we have not exercised such powers.
With that as a context, let me go into next point. The Member was talking about a hypothetical example or situation where a separation order has been issued, what happens? Well, it is a lot of conjecture and hypothetical scenarios, because we have not even envisaged a scenario where it will happen and we have not yet exercised such powers.
But most importantly, it is really in the exercise of such powers and the next level of details. What are the considerations? The considerations must go back to the policy intent of the Bill, which is about: \"Does it enhance competition? Does it protect consumer interest?\". And that should guide the decisions of the structures after that.
Those structures also need to involve the affected parties who are receiving the direction. And the affected parties may be large companies with their own shareholders, their own set of investors. These issues need to be talked through and discussed. And I think at that point in time, if they need to apply for licences, if they need apply for a permit to operate, they should do so.
The same criteria to evaluate any permit application are already embedded in the existing laws and regulations. And they will continue to apply. So, I hope that explains the context to Mr Low.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order.
I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar.
I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament. Because on the Hansard, we will not have the hon Member's speech. But the Senior Minister of State has referred to her, I believe, at least once at the beginning and once in the course of his speech.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, you are right. First, a Member has to be present to make his or her speech. Ms Mariam Jaafar is not present. So, her speech that Senior Minister of State Tan referred to will definitely not be in the Hansard. That is the first point. Any Member who wishes to make a point must be in Parliament to make his or her speech. So, the references are not correct. This is a good reminder to all Members that you have to be present in the Chamber to make your speech and make your points.
Any other clarifications?
[(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 Tan Kiat How]. (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":"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Minister for National Development.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill contains 21 clauses and makes miscellaneous amendments to several Acts. These amendments are largely technical and operational in nature. The amendments fall within the following five groups.
The first set of amendments found in Part 1 of the Bill clarifies and expands the functions and duties of the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).
Clause 2 amends the Building and Construction Authority Act 1999 (BCA Act) to confer the following functions on BCA.
BCA will act as the Government's agent in managing programmes such as the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) for private residential estates and the Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme.
BCA will also take on the function of maintaining foreshore structures belonging to the Government and erected on any part of the foreshore that is state land allocated to the Ministry of National Development (MND). These foreshore structures will not include coastal protection measures as defined in the Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act 1999 (SDCPA), as renamed by the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Act 2026.
Sir, I would like to highlight that MND will be moving a Notice of Amendment during the Committee stage to update the title of the SDCPA reflected in clauses 2(e) and 20(11) of the Bill when the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Act 2026, which is passed but not in operation yet, comes into operation.
Thirdly, BCA will provide administrative support to the Professional Engineers Board and Strata Titles Boards in the performance of their respective statutory functions.
Clause 3 amends the Urban Redevelopment Authority Act 1989 to confer the following functions on URA.
URA will undertake and coordinate the planning of infrastructure for transport, utilities and other infrastructure in Singapore. It will also inform and advise the Government on matters relating to the planning of such infrastructure and the planning and implementation of projects to provide and upgrade such infrastructure.
URA will also provide administrative support to the Board of Architects and the Street and Building Names Board in the performance of their respective statutory functions as well as the Controller of Housing in relation to the administration of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1965 and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act 1979.
The expanded functions and duties of BCA and URA will enable our agencies to better serve Singaporeans more effectively.
The second set of amendments provides for the deletion of certain provisions of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (or COTMA) and related matters. These COTMA provisions have served their purpose and are no longer required.
Clause 4(b) deletes Part 8C of the COTMA, which provided support to property developers who faced construction delays due to reasons related to COVID-19 and allowed affected purchasers to seek partial reimbursement from the developers for qualifying costs incurred due to the delay in delivery of possession. Clause 5 provided for saving and transitional provisions to preserve the validity and legal effect of determinations made under Part 8C.
Clause 4(c) deletes Part 10A of the COTMA, which facilitated an equitable co-sharing between contractors and developers of increases in the cost of engaging foreign manpower due to COVID-19. Clause 6 is a saving and transitional provision to preserve the validity and legal effect of certain determinations made under Part 10A.
Sir, the third set of amendments found in Part 3 of the Bill is meant to shorten the runway for students with relevant practical experience to obtain professional qualifications.
Clauses 7 and 8 will amend the Architects Act 1991 and Professional Engineers Act 1991. These amendments allow the Board of Architects and Professional Engineers Board to recognise relevant pre-graduation internship and working experience as part of the practical experience required for registration as Professional Engineers and Architects.
Moving on to Part 4 of the Bill, the fourth set of amendments perform essential legal housekeeping by validating the collection of various fees and charges charged by BCA, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the National Parks Board (NParks) and URA.
These include fees for existing operational costs, including for the expedited inspection of buildings and the processing of Temporary Occupation Permits (TOP) by BCA, NParks' animal permits and species certifications, administrative fees charged by HDB and recovery of expenses by HDB and URA for the immobilisation, towage and detention or storage of illegally parked vehicles. These fees and charges are essential to recover operational costs incurred by our agencies in providing services to the public.
When originally introduced, these fees and charges were regarded as administrative charges for specific services or enforcement activities. However, following a comprehensive internal review, MND was advised that the fees and charges should have been prescribed in legislation.
Therefore, clauses 9 to 12 validate fees and charges collected by our Statutory Boards, namely BCA, HDB, NParks and URA in the ordinary course of their operations. The necessary subsidiary legislation to prescribe the fees has either been made or will be made when this Bill is enacted to provide the agencies with the relevant powers and clear legal basis for the continued collection of these fees.
Clause 13 provides that the validation of the fees and charges made by clauses 9 to 12 do not affect any decision or judgment of the Court given and any Court proceedings commenced before the First Reading of the Bill in relation to the liability of any person to pay any of those fees and charges.
I will now move on to the last set of amendments.
Clause 14 amends section 31(5) of the BCA Act so that the maximum licence period for BCA Aggregate Importer's Licence is increased from the current two years to five years as a pro-enterprise measure.
Clauses 15 and 16 are housekeeping amendments. Specifically, clause 16(a) updates definitions regarding \"floor area\" to reflect the current position set out in subsidiary legislation. Clause 15 deletes an amendment to the Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 previously passed in Parliament in 2017 and clause 16(b) to (f) re-enacts that amendment in such a way that it can be brought into force in different stages. These pertain to the use of management funds for social and cultural activities, sporting events, engaging legal services or remunerating an official manager where necessary.
Clause 17 expands the definition of \"scheduled species\" in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 2006 (or ESA) to include hybrid plants. This addresses a practical trade issue where countries may require documentation for artificially propagated plant hybrids even when exempted under Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) annotations. Including hybrid plants in the definition of \"scheduled species\" allows NParks to issue the necessary documentation to facilitate trade.
Furthermore, clause 17 empowers the Director-General of Wildlife Trade Control to inspect, analyse and certify both scheduled and non-scheduled species. By providing official certification that exported or re-exported products do not contain scheduled species or their parts and derivatives, we provide our legitimate local exporters with the legal certainty they need to meet strict international trade requirements.
Clause 18 amends the Housing and Development Act 1959. HDB will be empowered to prescribe fees in respect of anything done by or on behalf of HDB under the Act and the rules made under the Act. Further, the amendments will expressly allow HDB to recover charges and expenses related to the immobilisation, removal and storage of unlawfully parked or abandoned vehicles in HDB common property and open spaces. This ensures that the costs of managing such disamenities are borne by the errant owners rather than the public.
HDB will also be allowed to recover fees, charges, expenses and legal costs incurred in vesting property in the HDB under section 59 of the Act or in compulsorily acquiring property for the reasons listed in section 63(1) of the Act.
Clause 19 raises the maximum penalties for wildlife feeding offences under section 5A(3) of the Wildlife Act 1965. Maximum fines have been increased for both first-time and repeat offenders. Further, imprisonment for a term of up to 12 months may be imposed on repeat offenders. This will provide stronger deterrence against illegal wildlife feeding and better safeguard public health and safety.
Clause 20 provides for the necessary updates to various Acts arising from the 2020 Revised Edition of Acts.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this Bill makes miscellaneous and minor amendments in the manner that I have just described. These amendments collectively strengthen our regulatory framework and ensure our Statutory Boards can continue serving Singaporeans effectively with proper legislative backing. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Speaker, in my constituency, I represent residents across both HDB estates and private developments, from families living in Pasir Ris flats to those in condominiums across Upper Changi and Flora estate. While their housing contexts differ, their expectations are the same: clear rules, fair enforcement and well-managed living environments.
My approach to this Bill is guided by a simple principle. As we expand powers, whether for public agencies or management bodies, we must match them with clarity, fairness and accountability.
Sir, I will focus on two areas. First, certain HDB-related provisions; and second, condominium issues and Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) matters.
On HDB-related provisions, I note the clauses validating past fees and charges collected by HDB and URA, including those arising from enforcement actions.
While I understand the intent of providing legal certainty, I seek clarification on policy considerations behind these retrospective provisions. Were there legal gaps that necessitated this approach, and how will the Ministry ensure future enforcement actions are firmly grounded in law from the outset? Retrospective legislation should remain the exception, and not the norm. Maintaining public confidence requires enforcement frameworks that are clear, prospective and robust from the start.
I am also concerned about the fairness of the cut-off date of 7 April 2026, which limits affected persons' ability to commence legal proceedings. Those who incurred charges shortly before that date may not have had a reasonable opportunity to seek advice. Did the Ministry consider alternatives, such as pegging the cut-off to when charges were incurred, or providing a short grace period? I would appreciate the Ministry's explanation.
Sir, I now turn to condominium issues and MCST matters.
I welcome the clause 2 amendments placing BCA's administration of programmes, such as the Estate Upgrading Programme and the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme on a statutory footing.
I have long supported the EASE programme, and I am glad it is now extended to private estates, because ageing does not discriminate and neither should our policies when it comes to helping seniors age safely.
I also support the clause 16 amendments to the Building (Strata Management) Act. Expanding permitted uses of management funds to include community-building activities can strengthen social cohesion, while allowing MCSTs to engage legal services and remunerate appointed managers reflects today's governance realities. However, I seek three clarifications.
First, while access to legal advice is important, there is a risk of increased or prolonged disputes, with costs borne collectively by subsidiary proprietors. Are safeguards being considered, such as approval thresholds or avenues to challenge unreasonable legal expenditures?
Second, the expanded uses of management funds may strain smaller MCSTs with limited reserves. How does the Ministry intend to ensure financial prudence, and will there be guidance on balancing community activities with long-term sustainability?
Third, as responsibilities expand, council members, many of whom are volunteers, will need greater support. If mandatory training is introduced, will it include practical guidance on financial management, governance and planning community initiatives?
Sir, this Bill moves us in the right direction. But as we expand powers, whether for public agencies or MCSTs, we must match them with clarity, safeguards and accountability. With these clarifications, I support the Bill and look forward to the Ministry's response.
Mr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin Malik.
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Sir, the Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill spans a wide range of topics, many of significant concerns to Singaporeans. Today, I will speak four amendments especially relevant to my work in Sengkang.
First, the empowerment of BCA to administer private estate upgrading programmes; second, increased penalties for wildlife feeding; third, the expansion of scope for MCST management fund utilisation; and finally, HDB's cost recovery for compulsory acquisitions.
Sir, I am happy to see that Jalan Merdu in Sengkang has been shortlisted as one of the private estates earmarked for the EUP. The maintenance of estate amenities has always ranked high in the list of concerns among both private and public estate residents.
With respect to this amendment, I would like to raise two specific questions for MND.
First, on Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme, clause 2 amends section 8(1) of the Building and Construction Authority Act 1999 to confer on BCA the duty \"to act as an agent of the Government in managing, implementing and administering programmes, such as the Enhancement for Active Seniors (Private Housing) programme\".
Currently, the EASE programme for public estates falls under the HDB. With BCA now undertaking management of the EASE programme for private estates, I would like to seek clarity on the implementation framework.
How does BCA plan to partner with MCSTs to implement the installation of fixtures? Will BCA appoint contractors directly to coordinate installations and maintain quality control across all private estates? Or will MCSTs retain the discretion to hire their own contractors? If the latter, what quality assurance mechanisms will BCA put in place to ensure consistent standards across diverse contractors and estates, given that MCSTs have varying levels of capacity and expertise.
Sir, as of January 2025, the EASE programme for public estates has benefited 340,000 households. As the programme is extended to private estates, it is important that robust implementation and quality assurance frameworks are in place to ensure similar positive outcomes.
Second, on post-completion maintenance of the EUP, the same amendment confers on BCA the duty to act as an agent of Government in management, implementation and administration of programmes established and funded by the Government for the upgrading of public spaces, infrastructure and facilities in private estates.
While the BCA is given a role in consultations and site assessments, the Bill does not clearly address who bears responsibility for estate maintenance and upkeep after upgrading works are done. I will ask the Ministry to clarify whether this responsibility continues to rest with BCA and if so, whether commensurate support will be extended to them.
Sir, neighbourhood estates are shared spaces that form a collective memory for all Singaporeans. Ensuring a fair, transparent and sustainable allocation of resources is critical to the longevity of such programmes.
Sir, now, I would like to speak about the increased penalties for wildlife feeding.
Clause 19 amends section 5A(3) of the Wildlife Act 1965, to \"increase the penalties for an offence that relates to the intentional feeding of any wildlife in any place\". Over the past year, I have raised several Parliamentary Questions on the management of our pigeon population. Residents regularly flag concerns about pigeons roosting on aircon ledges, and some even have birds fly into their kitchens and balconies. I therefore welcome the Bill's stronger stance on wildlife feeding.
That said, I would urge the Ministry to also address the deeper social dimension of this behaviour. A recent CNA article highlighted that the habit of feeding birds can go beyond mere recalcitrance. It can reflect social isolation and a lack of purposeful engagement, particularly among seniors. Penalising behaviour without understanding its root causes risks addressing the symptom while leaving the underlying issue unresolved.
With this in mind, I would ask the Ministry to consider two complementary measures. First, to strengthen partnership with social service agencies to engage residents, especially isolated seniors, on the consequences of wildlife feeding, and to connect them with more meaningful social activities. Second, to pay the increased penalty regime with a corresponding uplift in enforcement efforts so that the deterrence is not only higher in principle but felt in practice.
Sir, I turn now to the proposed expansion of the MCSTs' management funds permitted uses. In clause 16, the amendment to section 38(3) of the Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 states that \"monies from a management fund may be disbursed for the following additional purposes: (a) to organise any social, cultural, educational or sports activity, or any similar activity, that benefits all subsidiary proprietors and occupiers; (b) to engage any legal services for the management corporation\". In short, management fund monies may now be applied towards social, cultural, educational and sports activities, as well as engagement of legal services on behalf of the management corporation.
Management funds are, at their core, contributions made collectively by the subsidiary proprietors, residents who trust that their money will be managed prudently and in the interest of the estate. Any expansion of how these funds can be used, therefore, warrants careful scrutiny. Under the current framework, expenditures above a prescribed threshold must be authorised through an ordinary or a special resolution at the annual general meeting, ensuring that residents have a say in significant financial decisions.
I would like to ask the Ministry whether these same safeguards apply equally to expenditures under the newly expanded scope. If a management corporation wishes to draw on the management fund for a social event or legal engagement, would the existing resolution requirements still govern that decision? I raise this because the expansion, while bearing good intentions, opens the door to potential misuse if oversight mechanisms are not clearly extended to cover these new categories.
The use of management funds for legal services is of particular concern. Without clear parametres, there is a risk that funds could be directed towards legal proceedings that serve the interests of a few rather than the collective. I would ask the Ministry to clarify what safeguards are in place to prevent such outcomes, and whether additional disclosure or reporting obligations will accompany this expanded scope.
Sir, expanding what the management fund can be used for is a meaningful shift in financial governance for strata communities. Getting the safeguards right is just as important as getting the scope right.
Sir, I wish to raise a final point concerning cost recovery by HDB in compulsory acquisition exercises. The clause in question amends sections 59, 63 and 67 of the Housing and Development Act, \"enabling HDB to recover fees, expenses and legal costs from any compensation payable, whether in cases of property vesting under section 59 or compulsory acquisition under section 63\".
According to figures released by MND, 203 HDB flats were compulsorily acquired between January 2020 and June 2022. Of this, 82% involved mortgage arrears. While this represents a small fraction of the broader home ownership population, each case is not merely a statistic, but a family in genuine financial distress.
In light of this, I would like to pose two questions to MND. First, will there be a cap on the amount that may be clawed back from compensation payable to affected households. Second, for families who face not only mortgage arrears but other concurrent financial obligations, whether the Ministry will include a statutory floor below which compensation cannot be reduced by deductions, to ensure that no family walks away from compulsory acquisition with an amount insufficient to secure alternative housing. To prevent abuse, the floor will be activated as long as the Government is satisfied that the family is truly in dire straits through standard evaluation procedures already in place for assessing means.
Sir, the Singapore Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill introduces meaningful changes across multiple domains, affecting residents of all walks of life. My remarks today have centred on four areas of concern. First, the need for a robust implementation framework governing the EUP; second, the increased penalties for wildlife feeding are accompanied by a proportionate social support; third, establishing clear safeguards around the expanded use of MCST management funds; and fourth, securing compassionate support for families facing compulsory acquisition by HDB.
Taken together, these are not merely technical amendments. They have real consequences for real Singaporeans. I urge the Ministry to address these concerns directly so that the Bill's intentions are realised, not just in letter, but in spirit, delivering outcomes that are fair, sustainable and humane for all.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, most of this Bill is uncontroversial housekeeping. Hence, I focus my remarks on Part 4, which is of a rather different character.
Part 4 asks this House to declare that the sums collected over a period of years by four agencies under MND, namely HDB, NParks, URA and the Commissioner of Building Control were always validly collected.
When a statutory body has collected fees without the clear rule-making authority to do so, the responsible course is to come to Parliament, put the position right, and ensure that the underlying functions continue on a sound legal footing.
That said, Mr Speaker, I think this House should take a moment of genuine interest in how we came to need Part 4 at all. These are not minor agencies charging obscure fees. Three of them are Statutory Boards with long histories and well-resourced legal and policy functions behind them.
The list of affected collections include some of the most routine transactions a citizen in Singapore will have with the state, paying to expedite a TOP application, paying to register as a renovation contractor, paying a release fee after a vehicle has been clamped in the car park at the foot of one's block. For each of these fees were being levied and collected over a period that the Bill, itself, implies ran for years on a legal basis that the Government now concedes was inadequate.
It is a significant thing for this to have happened across four agencies under four different parent Acts, and to have gone undetected for as long as it did. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister a few a few questions, because this House and the public deserve clarity.
First, what is the aggregate quantum of the sums being validated under Part 4? How much money in total was collected under each of the four validating clauses and over what period? Moreover, how many Singaporeans have been affected by these collections? This is information this House should have before it is asked to put the matter permanently to rest.
Second, on what legal basis did each of these agencies think they had the authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place? Every one of these validated categories was presumably charged pursuant to something – a rule, a subsidiary instrument, an administrative direction or an internal policy. It would assist this House and bolster public confidence in the Bill to understand what the legal basis was in each case, and why it was thought at the time to be sufficient? These are questions about how the relevant agencies arrive at the view of their own powers.
Third, how and when did the Government come to realise that there was a problem?
Fourth, what has the government done to satisfy itself that this problem is confined to four agencies and the categories listed in Part 4? A defect of this kind arising across four agencies under four different parent Acts is not the sort of thing one expects to find in isolation. Are there something specific to the internal processes of these agencies that led to all four of them to independently arrive on a mistaken view of their rulemaking authority, or is there a possibility that the rulemaking frameworks of our statutory bodies have a common weakness, which has now been exposed in these four cases, but may still be present in others?
Fifth, has a cross-Government review been commissioned in response to the discovery that led to Part 4? If so, who conducted it, what was its scope and over what timeframe? Are there other agencies, other fee regimes or other categories of collection which the Government has reason to believe may sit on similar uncertain legal foundations? Should this House expect further validating legislation in future sessions? If no such review has been undertaking, I would be interested to know, why not?
Sir, before we sign off on a retrospective validation covering years of collections under four separate statutes, I believe it is reasonable for the House to be informed about how and what else the Government knows about the matter and what it is doing about it.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen, not here. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun. Sorry, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Mr Speaker, while amendments can be technical, outcomes are real for families, seniors and residents who interacts with public agencies everyday, including my Fengshan residents in the private estates who will be undergoing our Estate Upgrading Programme (Silver Estate), the first of its kind; and my Fengshan residents in the heartlands who has had to deal with pigeon populations.
Sir, I will focus on the following three areas seeking clarity for my residents and for Singaporeans. The ambit of the BCA and its resources, enhanced custodial sentencing for feeding wildlife and retrospective validation of fees and charges.
Mr Speaker, Clause 2 amends section 8, one of the BCA Act to confer the BCA to act as an agent of the Government in managing, implementing and administering programmes, such as the EASE programme, as well as to facilitate fixtures and enhancements, including the EUP as well for public spaces and infrastructures. Another member had also earlier mentioned this.
I understand, however, that operationally, much of this work has already been done by BCA in partnership with other agencies. The question is beyond primarily formalising existing practice alone, to what extent would it materially expand BCA's ambit, and how will BCA's mandate complement rather than overlap with the functions of existing agencies as well as town councils? In particular, what gaps or needs were identified that BCA is especially well placed to address, given regulatory and industry-facing expertise?
More importantly, I also seek clarification on how resident-facing roles will be effectively managed between BCA, Town Councils, agencies and HDB to avoid duplication and redirection. I also look forward to an update as to how this change will make a difference on the lives of our residents on the ground. To what extent can we see increase in efficiency as well as expediency? Will BCA be increasing its headcount, vendors or contractors, for the agency to be able to keep pace with its expanded functions as well as its key functions, including approving authority for build projects moving ahead?
I will move on next to the enhanced custodial sentencing for feeding wildlife.
Mr Speaker, Sir, pigeons, crows, koel or the \"uwu birds\", are but only some of the bird species who have found themselves enshrined in the Hansard. For some Members, they continue to be a mainstay in our appeals and petitions, and top of mind to manage and tackle. Of course, these amendments to protect public health and safety are critical and much welcome.
While the enhanced custodial penalty signals the Government is committed to tackling disamenities caused by invasive bird species, it may lead to unintended consequences, especially among seniors and the vulnerable. In the past year, I met several seniors who were fined for feeding pigeons. One even built a DIY bird bath at his kitchen ledge, so the birds could have a drink or for when temperatures rise.
Awareness is still lacking and education is key. Many feeders were acting out of habit or compassion, mostly seniors or persons with cognitive impairment. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary please share the Ministry's renewed plans to partner with social service agencies to engage and educate the public, particularly seniors, about the dangers of feeding wild animals ahead of the enforcement?
While a Member called for a similar move earlier, I also would like to share some concrete examples of intervention that can be considered. For example, will the Government consider ramping up efforts to refer cases involving the elderly or cognitively impaired persons to social services agencies for support, including interventions, such as engaging individuals through frequent home visits, counselling, finding alternative activities or interactions with family members or volunteers, so that the offenders would make themselves feel less socially isolated?
Finally, would the Ministry also consider publishing data on warnings, prosecutions and custodial sentences disaggregated where possible by age or profile, so Parliament can review effectiveness of the suite of measures that are being implemented, and how impactful social support would be to mitigate illegal bird feeding. With clear thresholds, a graduated enforcement approach, strong social safeguards and proactive outreach, the amendment's intent can be achieved.
Finally, retrospective validation of fees and charges. I note that the Bill confirms the legality of fees collected before specified dates, while preserving the effect of existing Court decisions or ongoing proceedings, and barring new lawsuits commenced after 7 April 2026. While such validation clauses may be necessary to provide legal certainty, they should also prompt reflection.
I would, therefore, like to ask the Ministry whether any of these retrospectively validated fees were previously subject of legal challenge or adverse judicial comment? If so, what lessons have been learned from these episodes, and more broadly, what steps have been taken to strengthen internal processes and legal review, so that statutory powers to levy fees and charges are consistently clear, properly authorised and transparent going forward.
Mr Speaker, I raise these clarifications to underscore the importance of maintaining public trust in statutory administration as well as the safeguards in place to prevent similar issues from arising in future. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): In any amendment Bill, the key question that must be asked is –what difference will it make to the people, and how will it benefit them?
I had earlier sought clarification on the expanded role of the BCA, the penalties for feeding wildlife as well as the retrospective validation of fees and charges.
Regarding the BCA, an explanation of how these amendments change the way BCA works with other agencies, such as HDB and Town Councils, would help Singaporeans identify which agency to approach. How should they go about doing so?
In addition, it is important for the public to understand how BCA will enhance the capacity of its staff and contractors, so as to ensure more efficient implementation, particularly in the approval of building projects.
Meanwhile, on the doubling of penalties for feeding wildlife, I acknowledge that such efforts to protect public health are important and must be given priority. However, preparatory measures should also be strengthened, so that the impact on seniors and those with cognitive needs can be addressed.
I recommend an integrated approach – early engagement, education and awareness, as well as collaboration with Social Service Agencies are all important. For instance, cases involving seniors or persons with disabilities could be referred through home visits, counselling as well as support in identifying alternative activities. I also suggest that information be shared openly so that we can collectively review the effectiveness of these amendments.
Finally, on the retrospective validation of fees and charges. What aspects will be strengthened to ensure transparency and understanding?
Mr Speaker, though technical in nature, these amendments have a real impact on the lives of residents. That is why explanation, raising awareness, having the right approach and public education are important.
(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill appears to be technical, but it is necessary to understand how provisions will be implemented as they are implications for governance frameworks, coordination between agencies, public confidence as well as awareness. I look forward to the Ministry's responses.
Notwithstanding the clarifications, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. I am not going to speak on every part of the Bill, but instead, I wish to focus on five specific areas where the amendments directly affect residents' lived experience, professional pathways and public understanding.
My first point, it is about the expanded role of BCA in private residential estate. This Bill allows BCA to act as an agent of a government in managing, implementing and administering programme for upgrading of public spaces, infrastructure and facilities in private residential estates. The stated aim is to improve the quality of life of residents in those estates. I welcome this move.
Very often when we talk about estate upgrading, our mind turns to HDB estate, and this is understandable because HDB houses about 80% of our resident population. But ageing in place, mobility and safety, are not only issues faced by people who live in HDB but also many seniors who live in private estates too.
When I visit Faber Hills Estate in my constituency, I meet sizeable number of seniors there. And this Bill matters to them because it affects their daily living. This senior shared with me that even as they age, they no longer want to drive. They want to walk. They want to take public transport. They want to rely just on their legs.
Therefore, I welcome this Bill, the role that BCA plays in private estates to improve quality of lives. However, I would like to ask the Minister if we could clarify what does quality of life? How is it defined in this case, and how do we measure? Because this phrase sounds simple, but it really can mean different things to different people. For one resident, quality of life could mean nicer landscaping. For another, it is better lighting at night. For an elderly resident, it is about being able to safely walk from the home to the bus stop. For those on wheelchair and walking aid, it is whether the pavements are even and whether they are safe enough for crossing.
So, I hope the Ministry would be able to share what indicators are we looking at to assess quality of life impact and such upgrading works. In other words, the question should not be, \"Did we build something?\" but it should be \"Did we make life meaningfully better for our residents as a result of all these things that we are building?\"
My second point concerns about the Bill's provision of BCA to provide administrative support services to bodies of the professional engineer board and strata title board. Could the Ministry also clarify what does this entail in practice? For example, does this refer to secretarial support, shared services, case administration, IT system service or operational functions? This will help us to better understand how this amendment improves efficiency while preserving substantive independence and professional judgment of these bodies.
Administrative support can sound mundane, but it shapes how efficiently and responsively public facing bodies will operate. If a professional board or tribunal has a good administrative support, applications can be processed faster, correspondence may be clearer and members of public may receive more timely response. At the same time, administrative support should also strengthen efficiency without blurring the roles of relevant boards. So, I appreciate clarification on how BCA support will be structured.
Third, I would like to talk about URA's expanded role in coordinating transport utilities and other infrastructure planning. This, in my view, is an important amendment.
So, allow me to now return back to the issue of mobility, especially for our seniors. In my constituency, residents have shared their concerns about overhead bridges not having lifts. At Faber Hills estate, many residents have been asking for years whether we could build a lift in the overhead bridge linking from Faber Drive to NEWest Park because, honestly, they will prefer just to walk across the bridge to have their breakfast there.
Furthermore, residents have also requested for a lift for the overhead bridge at Block 343 Clementi for more than 10 years.
Mr Speaker, Sir, it pains every single time when I go on house visits, residents say the same thing. They say, \"David, every time I take a bus, and I stop in front of Block 343 there is a flight of stairs, we just stand there and wait for someone to come and help us to carry our groceries up.\" These lifts matter to the seniors because they have to climb up a flight of stairs. Hence, if we are able to build lifts on overhead bridge – this matter to our seniors.
My main point here is this – whether seniors living in private estate or public estate, the need for better infrastructure to support mobility matters to our seniors. This is especially true, as I said, for elderly seniors, residents with mobility issues, parents with prams or caregivers accompanying someone frail. An overhead bridge, without lift access, can be a real obstacle, especially in our mature estate.
So, when URA takes a clearer coordinating role in transport and infrastructure planning, will this help agencies, including LTA, where relevant, identify, prioritise such accessibility gaps more systematically, including overhead bridges without lifts?
I appreciate the agencies, such as LTA will continue to lead many of these efforts, but I hope the Minister can clarify how URA's enhanced role will improve coordination and responsiveness to the ground.
If URA's role is to coordinate the planning of transport, utilities and other infrastructures, then I hope the coordination will be felt not just in master plans or major development, but also in the small practical improvements that affect daily lives. Because sometimes the most meaningful infrastructure improvement is not the most dramatic one. It is the one that allows elderly residents to be able to make their journey independently, safely with dignity.
My fourth point concerns recognising pre-qualification of practical experience for architects and professional engineers. Let me just make this clear. I support this move.
For young people, entering the built environment, the path to professional registration can be a long and demanding one. It is not that after you graduate with an engineering degree, you immediately become a professional engineer. That is not true, because it is a long and demanding one today. Practical experience matter, because their practical experience helped to shape judgement, confidence and professional competency.
If a person has acquired relevant experience before formal qualification, then it is sensible whether this experience should be counted. This is especially important because if we want to attract and retain talent in the built environment sector because many young people want meaningful careers, but they also look at how long the pathway takes and whether the system recognises the work they have already done. So, in principle, I actually support this view and this direction.
However, the built environment is also one where public safety is directly at stake. Let me explain. Because architects and professional engineers make decisions that will affect building infrastructure and safety of our public.
So, while we make pathways more flexible, we must be careful that we do not dilute standards. Will the qualifying assessment remain robust enough to assure the public that the flexibility in pathways does not mean dilution in professional standards?
In my view, the right balance should be this: do not make pathways are unnecessarily long or rigid but also do not make flexibility to become ambiguous. If pathways are shortened, then public assurance must be strengthened.
My fifth point concerns the inclusion of hybrid plants under endangered species framework. I understand the intent. If hybrid plants derived from scheduled species are not covered, then there might be loopholes that could be exploited in illegal wildlife and plants trade, and Singapore has a role to play in preventing such trade and supporting conservation. I support this intent.
But I would also like to point out from a practical point of view, from an ordinary consumer, especially those who buy plants online. Many might not exactly know what a hybrid plant is. I will be honest to confess to everyone while preparing for this Bill, I also do not understand what exactly a hybrid plant is and I had to Google – \"Oh, so this is how a hybrid plant looks like.\"
So, what am I trying to say here? Many consumers who are just buying plants, they really might not know what constitute a hybrid plant. So, they may not know its origin, whether it is derived from a regulated species.
So, I would like to ask the Government – how will the Government ensure that ordinary individuals do not unknowingly break the law? Will there be public education efforts explaining what kind of plants are affected? Will there be simple consumer-facing guidance with pictures or example?
More broadly, could the Ministry clarify where the responsibility would lie in common scenarios when a consumer buys plant from an online overseas store or a local retailer sells plant without clearly indicating whether it might be a regulated hybrid? I raise this because strong regulation should go in hand with strong awareness.
I just like to make a brief point on the validation of past fees and charges. The views validate various fees and charges previously collected by agencies as BCA, HDB, NParks and URA. In plain English, this means that Parliament is asked to confirm that certain sums collected in the past are to be treated properly and legally collected.
I understand that from time to time legislation that may need to regularise technical gaps or clarify legal basis for administrative practice. But whenever Parliament is asked to validate past collections, it will be helpful for the Government to number one, explain clearly what happened; number two, whether any members of the public were materially affected?
While I have trust in the integrity of our public servants to do good by Singaporeans, public trust must continue to be sustained and strengthened when such matters are explained clearly and candidly.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by saying that I support the Bill. As in many views of this nature, the real test is whether the resident will feel the difference if BCA were to take on estate upgrading in our private estate – when our private residential estate residents should feel that their daily mobility, safety and comfort have improved.
If URA is coordinating infrastructure planning, seniors should feel that agencies are working together to solve real access issues on the ground. If professional pathways are made more flexible, young people should feel that their experience is recognised while the public must remain assured that standards are not diluted. If hybrid plants are brought in within the regulatory framework, the ordinary consumer should be educated clearly so that compliance is practical and not confusing. And where past fees and charges are validated, the public should receive clear explanations, so trust is preserved.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, my colleagues have addressed other provisions in this Bill, including estate upgrading programmes, wildlife and strata management changes and updates to HDB's cost recovery framework. I have nothing to add on those parts.
My concern is Part 4, the retroactive validation of past fee collections. Parliament sometimes has to correct administrative mistakes when an agency has been collecting fees without proper legal basis and foundation, and that gap is discovered. This House may need to regularise that position.
This is unremarkable in itself. What is not unremarkable is the full scope of what Parliament is being asked to do. We are not simply being asked to validate past collections, we are also being asked to simultaneously extinguish citizens' rights to challenge those collections in court – permanently – for anyone who had not commenced proceedings before 7 April 2026, the date of the First Reading of this Bill.
This Is not mere legal housekeeping. It is a significant step and Parliament deserves the information to assess whether it is a justified one. We have not been given that information.
In 2023, when this House debated the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill, a Bill to enable President Tharman to hold international appointments in his private capacity with its operative provisions backdated to the date of his inauguration, then Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong stated that \"backdating upsets expectations and prejudices individuals who rely on the existing law\". He went on to argue that backdating in that Bill was acceptable because no one was actually prejudiced.
That is one possible test for when retrospective legislation may be appropriate and a reasonable one and it is precisely a test that Parliament cannot apply today because the Government has not told us who was affected by these collections, by how much or for how long. We are being asked to bar citizens from bringing claims without knowing whether those claims have could have had merit.
There is a second point that the Government needs to address. In the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2024, which addressed wrongly charged Goods and Services Tax (GST) on Government fees, the Government drew a principled line. The 18(?) fees acknowledged as genuinely wrongly charged, collected against its own policy intent were refunded.
Validation was reserved for a separate category. Fees the Government maintained were correctly charged in substance where the legal basis was uncertain due to inconsistent agency interpretation. Refund for what was wrong in substance validate for what was ambiguous in law.
This House approved that approach and now consider where the agencies referred to in this Bill sit on that spectrum. They did not merely charge fees on uncertain legal ground, they collected fees and in HDB's case made deductions from acquisition compensation without proper statutory authority.
By the Government's own logic in 2024, that is closer to the category that warrants restitution. Instead, Parliament is being asked to validate without refund and without any account of what was taken.
Mr Speaker, I am not asserting that large numbers of people suffered serious harm. I do not know. Neither does this House because Government has not said.
For each of the four agencies in Part 4 – BCA, HDB, NParks and URA – Parliament has not been given the duration of the lapse, the total amounts collected, or deducted without authority, or any account of how many individuals were affected and to what extent.
We are being asked to permanently bar legal proceedings without knowing the claims we are extinguishing.
The HDB compulsory acquisition deductions are where this matters most. When HDB acquires a resident's flat, the resident is owed compensation as of right. If HDB was deducting its own administrative and legal costs from that compensation without statutory authority, then affected residents receive less than what the law entitled them to.
Clause 18 prospectively authorises that deductions going forward. That is Parliament's prerogative. But Part 4 simultaneously declares that past deductions were always lawful and closes the door on any legal challenge. Those who had already commenced proceedings before 7 April retained their rights, but everyone else is permanently shut out from that date, an arbitrary line drawn at the moment of First Reading.
I would add only this. If the deductions were trivial and affected very few people, the Government can say so. The information exists. If the answer is reassuring, disclosure costs nothing. Its absence is harder to explain.
I will not dwell on this, but it warrants a brief observation. Four Statutory Boards under one Ministry have simultaneously been found to have operated outside of their statutory remit. The Bill regularises the legal position. It does not explain how this came about across all four agencies at once and it puts no mechanism in place to prevent a recurrence. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Bill that we are debating today touches a very fundamental question of fairness. In simple terms, certain Government agencies have been collecting fees from members of the public without legal authorisation. The Government now seeks to amend the law to retrospectively legalise these charges and to permanently close the avenue for affected citizens to seek recourse through the Courts.
What concerns me most is that among these unlawful charges are fees deducted by HDB when compulsorily acquiring flats. As my colleague, Mr Abdul Muhaimin, has pointed out, families facing compulsory acquisition of their homes are often already in very difficult circumstances. For these families, every cent that has been deducted is money that they can ill-afford to lose.
The Workers' Party recognises that administrative errors made by Government agencies can be corrected, but the way to correct a mistake should not be to use legislative power to wipe the slate clean on past wrongdoings or, worse, to strip ordinary citizens of their right to seek justice.
The Government must be transparent and forthcoming. It must clearly state how many people have been affected by this error and the total sum involved. It should also explain why it is not considering refunding the fees that were wrongly collected.
The Government owes the public a clear and honest account of what has happened rather than using legislation to quietly draw a line under the matter.
(In English): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party's position is not that administrative lapses can never be retrospectively corrected. They can, and this House has approved such corrections before.
The concern now is more specific. Parliament is being asked to extinguish citizens' legal rights without being given the basic information to assess whether that is appropriate, who was affected, by how much and why restitution, that is, refunds to the affected individuals, especially those whose flats have been compulsorily acquired, was not considered. That information has not been provided.
The Government's own standard, set as recently as 2024, requires more than this.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, in particular, three sets of changes. These are the clearer mandates for the BCA and URA, the provisions that enable Government-funded upgrading in private residential estates, and the formal certification framework for endangered species under our environmental laws.
At first glance, these amendments may appear technical and disparate, but taken together, they speak to a deeper responsibility – the duty of stewardship, stewardship of our built environment so that our city remains liveable and humane, stewardship of our neighbourhoods so that no community is left behind as we renew and upgrade, and stewardship of the natural world that our children will inherit.
In a small and highly urbanised country, like Singapore, stewardship is not an abstract ideal. It is a daily discipline of care, planning and restraint. It requires us to think not just as users of our spaces, but as custodians of what we will pass on to the next generation. It is in this spirit that I support the amendments before us today.
First, on the changes to BCA and URA.
Good urban life does not happen by accident. It is the outcome of deliberate planning, careful coordination and the steady work of many public officers whom residents rarely see. The amendments confer new statutory functions on BCA as the Government agency for upgrading programmes in private residential estates and expand URA's statutory mandate to coordinate not just land use but transport, utilities and other infrastructure planning.
This clarity of mandate is what allows agencies to act decisively instead of passing issues from one agency to another in a way that frustrates the public. Citizens do not experience the world in terms of which agency is in charge of which function. They experience whether the footpath is shaded and barrier free, whether the bus stop is sensibly located and whether a new development minimises disruption to daily life.
In a land-scarce city, like Singapore, this kind of integrated planning is essential to our quality of life. It determines whether an elderly resident can move independently using ramps and lifts, whether a parent pushing a stroller can reach the MRT station without navigating an obstacle course and whether we preserve green spaces as our city becomes denser.
I support these changes because they move us toward a model of urban governance where agencies are empowered to collaborate and to solve problems together. That is how we make a dense city feel humane, gracious and liveable.
Second, I support the policies that enable upgrading for private residential estates.
For many years, we have rightly invested in upgrading and renewal for public housing estates. This has kept older HDB towns liveable and vibrant and it reflects our social compact that public housing should remain a good home throughout a person's life.
However, good urban life does not stop at the boundary of an HDB precinct. Many Singaporeans live in older private estates, in walk-up apartments, strata developments or landed homes where common spaces are ageing and accessibility features are lacking. By giving clearer statutory powers for Government-driven upgrading programmes to extend to private residential estates, we recognise that the quality of the environment in these neighbourhoods also matters for social cohesion and inclusion.
In some older estates, residents have shared concerns about uneven pavements that are dangerous for seniors or the lack of resting points between bus stops and homes on slopes. Some management corporations struggle to gather enough resources or consensus among owners to implement barrier-free access or senior friendly-features or even upgrading lifts.
These amendments provide a stronger legal footing for the Government to step in with structured upgrading schemes. This can support improvements that benefit the wider community, such as accessible paths, safer crossings, greened walkways, better drainage as well as intergenerational fitness and play areas and green spaces where young and old can come together, enjoying enriched social connections and a rejuvenated local community.
Of course, we must design cost sharing, co-creation and citizen consultation arrangements carefully so that homeowners are treated fairly and the voices of tenants, seniors and caregivers are properly heard. Done well, this is an investment in making every neighbourhood, public or private, a place where people of different ages and abilities can live well together.
Third, I strongly support the provisions that formalise certification for endangered species and related products.
Singapore is a small country, but we are a significant node in regional and global trade. These amendments add weight to our existing commitments under international frameworks, such as CITES, and ensure that our participation is not symbolic. They carry real responsibility to ensure that our ports, airports and marketplaces do not become conduits for the exploitation of endangered wildlife.
But beyond regulations, we must also confront the profound suffering endured by the trafficked animals.
When animals are trafficked, they are exposed to terrible conditions. They are crammed into carriers with poor ventilation for days if not weeks, with many dying from stress, dehydration and suffocation during transit. Those that make it into our homes suffer from physical and psychological trauma. The reptiles with spinal issues from overbreeding and the Indian star tortoises who struggle to adapt to tropical humidity are all examples of the cruelty inflicted on sentient beings if we allow such trade to take place on our shores.
A clearer certification framework, including for hybrid plants or products derived from scheduled species, gives traders, travellers and enforcement agencies a common understanding of the rules. It will help legitimate businesses to prove that their goods are compliant and it helps the authorities to act swiftly and fairly when there is suspicion of illegal wildlife trade.
As markets for exotic plants, animals and derivatives become more complex with hybrids, online trading and niche collectors, we cannot rely on outdated or vague definitions. Can we aspire to be a city that prospers while setting high standards for environmental stewardship? By tightening our endangered species regime and making certification more robust, we signal that Singapore chooses to acknowledge the incredibly hidden but rich native biodiversity.
Our precious and sensitive ecosystems support some of the rarest species on Earth – the Sunda pangolin, Singapore freshwater crab and straw-headed bulbul. Each illegally trafficked animal carries more than suffering on the individual level, but the potential to change our natural habitats and change our biodiversity and landscape forever. We must instead strive to upkeep the gentle balance of our natural world so that our children and many more after them may continue to marvel at natural wonder and the wisdom it brings to our society.
Last but not least, I would like to speak on the amendments made to the Wildlife Act 1965 with regard to wildlife feeding.
Our current penalty framework has not been updated in decades and no longer reflects the seriousness with which we treat wildlife crimes or the subtle ways we harm the ecosystem through our actions, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. With this amendment, we solidify our stance on wildlife feeding and strengthen enforcement, sending a clear message – wildlife crimes are serious harms.
But more importantly, they also reflect a growing understanding that not all harms to wildlife come from malice. Many come from misguided kindness.
When residents feed pigeons and crows in our parks and public spaces, they often do so out of genuine compassion and love for animals. However, these birds are remarkably well adapted to urban life and are fully capable of foraging for their own food. In fact, it has been observed that pigeons often forage for food on open fields if they are not given human food.
Artificial feeding can disrupt the ecosystem, leading to increased competition with native birds and eventually culling in massive numbers when populations start to affect our human environment. The cruelty is beyond the feeding and culling, but the cascade of consequences onto our native wildlife and neighbours due to our actions. This amendment hopefully invites us to reflect more broadly on our relationship with the way we view urban wildlife.
Are these animals that we complain about encroaching into our spaces or have we rather encroached into theirs? Who truly belongs where and what does genuine co-existence look like? Can we truly be a city in nature if our greenery is sterile, quiet and homogenous?
We need more serious, ongoing conversations in our spaces. We must learn that kindness takes many forms and sometimes restraint is compassion and consideration.
Some may have noticed some banners that we have recently put up in Bishan East-Sin Ming trying to address these issues, with poems written in four languages reminding people that the truly kind act is not to feed the birds as they are able to forage for food on their own. Some described the posters as Shakespeare in the Wild.
I would like to thank Urban Birds Initiative Singapore for their collaboration with me to engage and educate our residents through these creative posters. But moving forwards requires not just poetic words but deep conviction and a willingness to change our attitudes and behaviours to understand that protecting wildlife often means stepping back and allowing wild animals to remain wild instead of feeding them. Only when we can peacefully co-exist with our wild neighbours can we honour our urban environments.
That said, I would like to put forth some clarifications about the amendments within this Bill.
First, on the changes of scope to the URA and BCA Act. How will the enhanced statutory coordinating role of URA interact with existing planning functions of agencies, like LTA, HDB and PUB, and what mechanisms will be used to resolve disagreements in priorities or timelines? Could the Government provide clearer criteria or examples of the types of projects where URA will now take the lead in coordination, versus where sectoral agencies remain the primary drivers? On the amendments pertaining to upgrading of private estates, what are the key criteria that will be used to identify which private residential estates can benefit from Government-funded upgrading and will there be a transparent application or nomination process?
How will the Government ensure that less well-off or older private estates, which may have weaker management corporations or more vulnerable residents, are not left behind compared to more organised and better-resourced estates? What types of works will be prioritised under these upgrading programmes, for example barrier free access, safety features, environmental sustainability or amenities and how will trade-offs be decided? How does the Government intend to maintain a fair balance between long-standing commitments to HDB upgrading and the extension of support to private estates, so that perceptions of equity are preserved?
On the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, has the Government assessed the compliance costs and administrative burden on small traders, nurseries, pet shops and logistics operators, and, if so, what were the key findings? Will there be phased implementation, grace periods or targeted support, for example, guidance materials or clinics, to help smaller players adapt to the new certification regime?
While the amended penalties under the Wildlife Act serve as important financial deterrents, we must recognise that many bird feeders act out of genuine kindness. A CNA report on 17 March this year stated that, on average, there were nearly 320 cases of illegal bird feeding this year, with half of them involving seniors. Will the Government consider alternative forms of penalty for repeat offenders, such as corrective community service alongside psychological and social support?
This is crucial since illegal feeding often reflects a deeper issue: an epidemic of senior loneliness. For many elderly seniors, feeding birds provides purpose, connection and dignity. One of my recalcitrant bird feeders told enforcement officers from NEA that he continues to feed birds because his wife had appeared in a dream and tell him to do so.
Rather than only punishing this expression of unmet need, should we not address the loneliness itself through befriending programmes and community services? Enforcement can then become an act of care, protecting both wildlife and our lonely seniors. Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): A CNA report on 17 March this year stated that, on average, there were nearly 320 cases of illegal bird-feeding a year, with half of them involving seniors. Will the Government consider alternative forms of penalty for repeat offenders, such as corrective community service alongside psychological and social support?
This is crucial since illegal feeding often reflects a deeper issue – an epidemic of senior loneliness. For many elderly citizens, feeding birds provides purpose, connection and dignity.
One of my recalcitrant bird feeders told enforcement officers from NEA that he continues to feed birds because his wife had appeared in a dream to tell him to do so. Rather than only punishing this expression of unmet need, should we not address the loneliness itself through befriending programmes and community services? Enforcement can then become an act of care, protecting both wildlife and our lonely seniors.
This Bill reminds us that the law is not only about prohibitions and penalties but instead, helps us to be better stewards – about shaping and safeguarding the conditions for a good life, not just for ourselves but for those who come after us.
Good stewardship means well-planned and inclusive neighbourhoods, liveable homes across both public and private estates and a natural environment that we protect, recognising that we are not its masters but its caretakers.
(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill reminds us that the law is not only about prohibitions and penalties, but instead, helps us to be better stewards – about shaping and safeguarding the conditions for a good life, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after us. Good stewardship means well-planned and inclusive neighbourhoods, liveable homes across both public and private estates and a natural environment that we protect, recognising that we are not its masters, but its caretakers.
I support the amendments before the House and I am confident that if we carry forward this spirit of stewardship across Government, communities and individuals, we will continue to build a Singapore that is not only efficient and liveable, but also deeply cared for, responsibly governed and worthy of being entrusted to future generations.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments on the Bill. Please allow me to address Members' comments in six broad areas.
The first area is on the expanded functions and duties of the BCA and URA.
Mr David Hoe asked about URA's expanded coordinating role and how it will interact with existing planning functions of agencies, like LTA, HDB and PUB.
First, let me clarify that URA already coordinates infrastructure and land use planning as part of its role as Singapore's national urban planning authority. URA works with different agencies through existing inter-agency platforms and administrative processes to ensure that infrastructure is implemented ahead of time. These are large-scale infrastructure which are planned and implemented to support developments, such as industries, public housing and transport facilities and train lines. URA's role here is to coordinate and resolve differences in priorities and timelines across different projects to ensure quality infrastructure can be delivered in an optimised way.
Therefore, what the amendments seek to do is to formally recognise URA's role and give it a clear mandate to coordinate the planning of infrastructure. As individual agencies, each have their own development timelines and priorities, URA will coordinate the planning and implementation of major infrastructure, such as road viaducts and underground utilities, such as water, gas and electricity networks above a certain scale, to ensure underground space is used efficiently and public disamenities, such as repeated road openings, are kept to a minimum.
The amendments do not supersede the primary planning responsibilities and functions of agencies, like LTA and HDB. These agencies will continue to lead planning and implementation of their development and infrastructure within their respective domains, such as for smaller-scale, municipal infrastructure. For instance, to Mr David Hoe's query, the retrofitting of lifts in overhead bridges will continue to be led by LTA. Agencies will continue to work together to resolve issues which require cross-agency collaboration.
With regard to BCA's expanded functions in managing upgrading programmes in private residential estates, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked about how BCA's role will complement that of other agencies, as well as about the resourcing for BCA. Mr David Hoe asked about the criteria for selecting private estates for upgrading, how works are prioritised and coordinated and how their impact is measured.
BCA will manage infrastructure upgrading projects in private residential estates. The respective roles of other agencies, such as HDB and NParks, remain unchanged. When needed, BCA will work with agencies to coordinate upgrading works, as well as engagements with residents. And on resourcing, we will resource BCA as necessary to carry out its functions.
Private residential estates are selected for upgrading based on a range of factors. For instance, under the EUP which enhances the publicly accessible common areas in private estates, MND considers factors, such as the estates' age and physical condition, the urgency of works needed and whether there is meaningful scope for improvement. The prioritisation of upgrading works is based on the specific conditions and needs of each estate, with a focus on improvements that directly enhance residents' safety, accessibility and liveability.
To Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik's question about the maintenance and upkeep of the completed works in EUP, the maintenance of upgraded infrastructure and facilities is undertaken by the respective agencies, such as NParks and LTA.
A resident-centred approach is adopted for the evaluation of upgrading works, to assess whether the upgrades make a meaningful difference to residents' daily lives. For example, under the recently launched EASE (Private) programme, BCA has introduced a post-installation feedback process to seek residents' views on their satisfaction with the application and installation process and to identify areas for improvement.
To Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik's question about the EASE (Private) programme, I wish to clarify that BCA appoints the contractors to install the senior-friendly fittings for eligible seniors to improve mobility and safety within their homes. MCSTs are not involved in this process. After installation, the owners or occupants would be responsible for the maintenance of the fittings. We have announced the details of the programme in February 2026 and the Member may wish to refer to the details of the programme on the EASE (Private) website.
Mr David Hoe also asked about the nature of BCA's administrative support to the Professional Engineers Board and the Strata Titles Boards, and the governance arrangements which will be put in place to ensure that the independence and judgement of the Boards is preserved.
I wish to assure the Member that BCA's role is strictly administrative. BCA provides routine back-office administrative support to the Professional Engineers Board Singapore and the Strata Titles Boards, such as in book-keeping and payroll processing. All regulatory, decision-making and adjudicative functions remain solely with the respective Boards. These arrangements allow the Boards to focus on their core functions, while benefiting from BCA's sectoral expertise and the economies of scale from shared administrative resources.
The next area is on the recognition of pre-qualification experience for professional engineers and architects. Mr David Hoe asked whether recognition of pre-qualification experience might dilute professional standards. The answer is no.
To be clear, this set of amendments allow the Professional Engineers Board and the Board of Architects to consider recognising relevant pre-qualification experience. Before doing so, the Boards will assess whether the pre-qualification practical experience is relevant and adequately contributes to candidates developing the competencies and skills expected of a professional engineer or registered architect.
The third theme of questions surround the validation of fees collected by MND's Statutory Boards, which Mr David Hoe, Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Andre Low and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim raised.
The fees and charges in question were introduced over the years by various Statutory Boards for the provision of specific services to support residents' and industry's needs. The policy intent is clear and consistent with cost recovery principles, but the fees were not formally prescribed in subsidiary legislation or the parent Act at the time of implementation, as they were first regarded as administrative charges.
Upon a 2025 review conducted by MND, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), MND was advised that it is better for these identified fees to be provided for in legislation. I wish to assure Mr David Hoe that the fees were appropriate and charged in good faith for services that were duly provided, based on the principles of cost recovery.
We also disagree with how Mr Andre Low and Mr Fadli Fawzi have characterised the issue. MND has chosen to bring this issue to Parliament as we are open and transparent about the matter. The fees charged were appropriate, not wrongly collected and we are validating to ensure that this is, moving forward, aligned with legislation.
Mr Andre Low also mentioned that 18 fees were acknowledged as genuinely wrongly charged, collected against policy intent and were subsequently refunded as part of the Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2024. However, in those cases, only the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was refunded and not the actual fee itself, as they were collected in line with policy intent. In the specific case of compulsory acquisition by the HDB, GST was not charged as part of the fees, and the fees were also collected in line with policy intent.
To Mr Muhaimin's point on compulsory acquisition of HDB flats, compulsory acquisition cases are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and some cases are not just due to mortgage arrears, but are due to the violation of the HDB lease, such as renting out the entire flat during the Minimum Occupation Period.
On Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim's queries, the fees are validated up to the date on which the fees are regularised and not 7 April 2026. The cut-off date of 7 April 2026 is the date of the First Reading of the Bill. If the Bill is passed, legal proceedings with respect of the collection or payment of the fees will be prevented from being instituted between the First Reading and the date which the Bill comes into force.
This approach aligns to that for validations under previous Bills, such as the Transport Sector (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. None of the validated fees were previously subject to legal challenge or adverse judicial comment. Moving forward, the agencies will assess if new fees or charges being introduced are related to the carrying out of statutory or regulatory functions, and properly prescribe them in legislation if needed.
Fourthly, Mr David Hoe has asked about how the Government will ensure that ordinary individuals do not unknowingly break the law under the expanded endangered species framework,
Mr Speaker, NParks' approach is to tackle the issue upstream, through regulating traders and businesses alongside public education and outreach, so that ordinary consumers and hobbyists are not left in the dark. Information is available on the NParks' website and members of the public are welcome to reach out to NParks for clarity on whether permits or certificates are needed.
On the amendments to the Wildlife Act, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim and Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked about the Government's plans to educate the public about the impact of feeding wildlife and partnership with social service agencies, particularly for seniors. Ms Elysa Chen asked whether the Government would consider alternative penalties for repeat bird-feeding offenders, given that some offenders are seniors whose behaviour is linked to loneliness and a need for social support.
As repeat offences will no longer be punishable only with a fine, the Court will have other sentencing options under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, including community-based orders, such as mandatory treatment orders.
To Mr Abdul Muhaimin's question, NParks will continue to partner agencies, such as the People's Association and Town Councils, on enforcement and surveillance efforts to deter illegal wildlife feeding. We do need appropriate penalties to deter errant behaviours, but our approach is not merely to penalise. NParks will continue its public education efforts and partner with the Agency for Integrated Care, Town Councils and other agencies to engage elderly offenders and those with mental health or psychological needs, to understand their underlying needs and motivations that drive such behaviour to address misconceptions and to raise awareness on the negative impacts of bird feeding.
NParks offers feeders with mental health needs nature-based activities, like community gardening and bird watching, as alternatives to feeding. To Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim's question on whether the Government would publish data on illegal bird-feeding, we have previously shared data with this House and will continue to do so where appropriate.
Moving on to other miscellaneous amendments, Member of Parliament Ms Valerie Lee asked about the use of management funds of MCST. To clarify, the present amendments that are part of the Bill had already been passed under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management (Amendment) Act 2017, and do not introduce new policy. The amendments reenact these provisions, moving them into the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to facilitate staged commencement. The substantive policy intent remains unchanged.
Mr Speaker, Sir, although this Bill is largely technical in nature, it does play an important role in maintaining a clear and reliable legal framework to support the work of public agencies and delivery of services. I seek the House's full support for the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications. Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: I would like to thank the Ministry for the clarifications. To begin with, I would like to clearly frame my concern with the Bill. The effect of the Bill is to, now and forever, extinguish the ability of those affected to claim any sort of financial restitution from the Government should they need be.
Against this, we also have no idea about the size of the people who are affected. We also do not know the quantum affected. Are we talking about hundreds of thousands, or hundreds of millions of dollars? So, I hope the Ministry can understand why there is this deep concern with me, especially since as I have said before, these are not obscure transactions, but routine transactions which affect a huge number of people, a huge number of citizens of Singapore.
And again, these are things, like paying to expedite a TOP application, paying to register a renovation contractor, so I hope the Ministry understands why it is, one, important to get a sense of the numbers, both in the sense of the total amounts that need to be claimed and the total amount of people affected. So, I would like to reiterate the questions that I have asked: how much money in total was collected under each of the four validating clauses and over what period? How many Singaporeans have been affected by these collections? How many are we talking about? It is important to know this information before we decide on this matter.
The other thing that sort of makes me apprehensive is that, on what legal basis did each of the agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges? Because if I am not wrong, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that it was classified under administrative fees. But what was the legal basis of enabling them or allowing them to understand that they were allowed to charge these administrative fees?
So again, I reiterate my second question: what legal basis did each of these agencies think that they had authority to impose these fees and charges in the first place?
And of course, lastly, it would be good for this House to reflect on why is it that this happened. So, I would also like to reiterate my last question on whether a cross-Government review has been commissioned in response to the discovery, because if it has happened for such a routine manner for over a long period of time, one can easily think or suspect that it may re-occur in other areas, so that we can nip this problem in the bud early.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the clarification. First of all, it is important that we frame this Bill amendment appropriately. The Member frames it as having those affected, whereby it seems to suggest that there was a mistake made in the past, and therefore we are trying to correct it, and something that we have done in the past seem to be egregious in that sense. But the spirit of this Bill is really about making sure that we move forward with the legislative backing and mandate for our agencies.
Previously, these everyday charges, with regard to allowing the four Agencies to fulfil their statutory functions, were regarded as administrative charges. And services were indeed duly provided by the Agencies, and tomorrow, services will still be provided for by the Agencies. And in the course of providing these services, they had expended additional resources to deliver the services to the end user, manpower cost, administrative cost, system cost, with a view towards delivering services for the public.
And on top of that, these fees were charged on the basis of cost recovery for the provision of such services, and as I have mentioned earlier in my Opening Speech as well as the Round-up Speech, that the review was conducted by the Ministry in 2025 in consultation with AGC, and it was advised that it is better for the fees charged for carrying statutory and regulatory functions to be provided for in legislation, which is what we are doing today.
So, the framing of what Mr Fadli is saying that it is something that we are trying to claim back or claw back, it is not the right framing for which we are actually moving this Bill forward. And essentially, it seeks to validate past collections of the same identified fees, which then further ensures that the fees are then subsequently legislated. The agencies are given the legislative backing to further promulgate these fees, and going forward, the fees will be regularised through subsidiary legislation under relevant parent Acts.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarification. I just would like to make it clear. I have no problems going forward about regularising such provisions. My concern is that we have no idea about the actual numbers that are being involved, and we are asked to extinguish the rights of these people to claim any monies. So, would the Minister agree with me that the numbers are important, especially when assessing the risk of any oversight that has occurred with regard to the regulation of this Bill.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: I would like to reiterate back again to the Member that the nature of the fees that were charged previously was on account of the service that was rendered by the four agencies. The fees were openly prescribed to the extent to where the services were required by Singaporeans, as well as consumers.
And therefore, to that end, the services were indeed duly provided for by the agencies, and on top of that, it was on the basis of cost recovery. I hope that reassures the Member that whatever fees that were rendered were indeed transacted appropriately through the different agencies, in accordance with their desire to make sure that the services were rendered for the public good, as well as that of the industry.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation. Because if I heard him correctly in his Opening Speech, he said that there was a comprehensive internal review, after which MND was advised that the fees and charges should have been prescribed in the legislation – should have been prescribed – but in his Round-up Speech, he appears to be shifting to say that MND was advised that it is better to do it. So, which is it?
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: It should have been prescribed, and therefore, it was better that it would have been in legislation.
An hon Member: [Inaudible.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, if you like to respond —
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, sorry, Sir. I should have stood up. On that clarification, then, we are given to understand that the collections were actually not legally authorised.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: The fees, which were previously considered as administrative charges, have been advised to MND to ensure, moving forward, requires legislative backing to continue. Because it is in the service of the statutory functions of the four agencies that are part of this amendment.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My questions to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary are in three parts. The first is a bit of a repetition of what my colleague, Mr Fawzi previously asked; but I do not believe his clarifications have been adequately addressed. It is simply about the numbers. Are numbers going to be forthcoming? Are they available? I would really appreciate a straight answer.
Second, on the nature of the fees collected, I think my colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim has alluded to this. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned earlier that fees and charges should have been prescribed in legislation – \"should have been\" being operative term. Now the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is using a number of different terms: \"duly\", \"appropriate\", \"not wrongly collected\", \"good faith\". I think the simple question is: were the fees illegally collected?
On a reading of the fact that this Bill is before us today that we are regularising the position prospectively, it goes to follow logically that previously, it was not legal. So, perhaps, if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could clarify.
And finally, it is a very simple question – will there be refunds? If there are not going to be any refunds, why no refunds?
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun has explained several times that the fees were previously considered as administrative fees. And he also explained services were provided and these fees were collected on a cost recovery basis, which is the correct principle.
So, if the Workers' Party agrees that that is the correct approach – where we provide service, we should recover the cost, which would otherwise have to be funded by taxpayers if we do not do that – then there is really no refund to talk about. Because this is not a wrong collection. So, I think that is the first point we go to be clear about.
The second point is, we did this review ourselves together with the AGC. It was not due to a complaint or a question posed by a Member of Parliament. We initiated this review and we decided that, to be upfront, to be open, to be transparent, we want to bring it to the House and do it properly.
Going forward, we want to make sure that we put it into legislation so that there is clarity. And for those fees that were collected in the past, and as I have explained, not wrongly collected – they were appropriate and they were correctly collected. We want to make sure that we validate and we do this through this Bill.
So, I hope we understand what this debate is about and what it is not about.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Minister, do you have the number of people affected and the quantum of money we are talking about? Does the Government have that information and is it prepared to share that information in Parliament, before we vote on the Bill?
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I do not have the full number, the extent of the collective amount as asked by Mr Pritam Singh. But I can give him some indication in terms of what are the current numbers that we are looking at for specific agencies.
In terms of the fees charged by HDB, the fees range from $3.27 for the renewal of a policy under the HDB Fire Insurance scheme for owners who default in renewing the policy, to $545 for an application for HDB's consent to sell a commercial property not under the lodgement scheme.
We have other administrative fees, which are also levied. But in in total, specific to HDB, as an example, the total annual amount collected — Give me a minute just to make sure my numbers are right.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun, do you need more time to gather the numbers? Because we have been — Yes, Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I would like to explain to Mr Singh and the hon Members of the Workers' Party that it is not that we do not want to give them a number. It is that I hope they understand, these fees were collected over a long period of time – if I am not wrong, I think, since Independence when we first started. So, we may not have the full accurate record of all the amounts collected that we are able to share with them precisely. And that is why my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun was struggling a little bit to look for the exact information.
But let me put it this way. If we agree that that amount that was collected is not incorrect, inappropriate and wrongly collected, but it is because it was regarded as an administrative fee that was charged, then I think whatever that amount is – and we will certainly try our very best to see whether we can arrive at that number accurately – whatever the amount is, it is something which we are trying to do what is right going forward, validating the past collections and going forward, putting it into legislation.
So, I do seek Mr Singh's understanding that we are dealing with a situation which goes back decades and it is not the last three years or the last five years, that we are able to obtain the information easily and accurately.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions. Hence, those questions were asked not once, but they were asked repeatedly, I believe. They were not answered.
Hence, we had to put that question out, even though I accept what the Minister is saying in terms of how far back it goes – like in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, we did not know that these charges went back to Independence. So, this is where we have to ask those questions – or some of them, I beg your pardon.
But I note Minister's points, and I hope that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have also understood the arguments that have been mounted by the Workers' Party Members of Parliament.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Singh for his comments and his understanding of the difficulty that my colleagues in MND have in trying to put the data together.
I also understand, certainly, where the Workers' Party is coming from.
I think it is correct that we be clear what we are putting before the House. And that is why we took effort to explain what this issue is, what is the objective, what are the steps that we are taking, in an open and transparent way. That is something that will be helpful for people to understand.
So, if we are able to come up with the information subsequently, to the best of our ability, we will certainly be happy to share this with Mr Singh and with the House. But for today, I do seek the support of Members from the Workers' Party that if they agree with the intent of what we are trying to do with this Bill, not just this provision, but the others as well, and the spirit of what we are trying to achieve and the explanations that we have given in terms of what happened, the nature of these fees, what steps we are taking going forward, I do hope to have their support too for this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies. I understand the difficulty in getting the exact numbers. But is there an order of magnitude that the Government can provide as to how many such fees were collected and what is the total quantum? Just an order of magnitude, does not have to be an exact number.
And secondly, given the difficulty, is the Government prepared to refund these fees which were illegally collected? And is Government prepared to provide at least a window of time for the claimants to make a claim for these fees which were not correctly collected?
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot agree with the way Mr Giam has characterised the issue with his latest remarks.
I have explained earlier that these fees were not illegally or wrongly collected, and they were not inappropriately collected. I have explained why: services were provided, costs were incurred. We were trying to recover the costs for providing these services. So, this is not a wrong collection that we are required to refund or we should refund.
This is quite different from the previous case that Mr Andre Low cited about the GST, where indeed, some of the amounts were wrongly collected. And for that one, the Government provided the refund. And in cases where indeed that mistake was made and the wrong collection happened, I think that is the correct thing to do. We have done it and we will do it.
But in this situation, I hope Mr Giam understands the explanation that I and my colleague Senior Parliamentary Secretary Harun have been providing, which is that these were actual services that were provided, fees were collected based on cost recovery; and so, it was not a wrong collection.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: I thank the Minister for the question. I just would like to again state my concerns with the issue.
Firstly, if these fees go a long way back and they affected a large number of people, because these are very routine things, then, would the Minister agree with me that there is a real risk of some kind of administrative oversight? That is one.
I think this is in contrast with the finality of the extinguishing of the claims. Because my concern is that there is a real risk of oversight due to the amount and people involved. We should not have such a finality of extinguishing their claims. And we should give them some time, or at least the option of refunds. So, that is one part of it.
The other part is a question that I raised earlier about how they decided they had the statutory basis to charge administrative fees. Because going forward, this will be useful as a process issue, to avoid being in such a similar situation, going forward.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had explained to Mr Fadli and to other Members that the fees were not wrongly or inappropriately collected.
On the issue of administrative oversight, I am not sure what he meant by that. If what he meant was that we wanted to make it clearer, yes, I agree. And that is why we are here. Because we want to make sure that going forward, the situation is clearer, there is less ambiguity. So, if that is what Mr Fadli meant, then, yes, we are on the same page. Because that is what we are trying to do with this Bill: make the situation clearer for the fees moving forward.
But we still need to deal with the past collections. What we are proposing, coming to this House in an open manner, a transparent manner, to explain what the situation is, is that we want to validate those collections which were done in the past because they were treated as administrative fees. That is what this Bill is about.
I thought we had arrived at a position where there is some level of common understanding when I heard Mr Pritam Singh. So, I hope the Workers' Party Members could also agree with our explanation. Like what Mr Pritam Singh said, we understand where the Workers' Party is coming from as well.
If we could seek your support for this Bill based on the explanations that we have given, and as I had said earlier, we will go back and see to what extent is possible for us to put together the data that you have requested, we will try our best.
We will share this data with you, to the best of our ability, to put it together so that you have a sense of the quantum, you have a sense of the amount that we are talking about every year. That is something that we will attempt to do.
But for now, I seek your support for this Bill. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: I am starting to hear the same questions and the same responses. If there are further clarifications, I will allow it, but let us not repeat the same questions because you will get the same answers. Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi: I think the Minister asked me what I meant by administrative oversight. What I mean is human error. In all systems, no system is perfect. I think it is perfectly understandable if people make mistakes. If this issue affects a large number of people, there is a larger chance that a mistake would be made. That is what I mean by administrative oversight.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Fadli for his clarification. I think we are talking about two separate things.
Today, we are not here to present a case where there was human error, because the fees were wrongly computed or wrongly collected. Today, we are here because the nature in which these fees were prescribed, they were treated as administrative. But going forward, we will put them into legislation.
And then there is this issue of what to do with the past collections, which we are proposing through this Bill, for Parliament's agreement, to validate.
So, two separate issues. That is why I said I do not think this is an issue of administrative oversight, in a way which Mr Fadli had described. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefitted from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.
But would the Minister also not agree really that it is an important safeguard for citizens that the Government acts in accordance with its legal authority? And one of those principles is that if the Government is going to collect money like taxes, fees from the citizens, then it has to be properly authorised by Parliament?
The fact of the matter is that those past collections were not authorised. That is why AGC has said that they should have been prescribed. That is why we are here today.
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Please allow me to clarify Ms Lim's point.
It depends on how the fees are being classified. If they are classified as administrative fees, the fees can be collected by the agencies. In this case, they are considered regulatory, therefore the advice is that it is more appropriate, it is better if we put it into legislation going forward. So, that is what we have done.
I think that is an important point that I need to clarify. It is not that for these administrative fees, we are unauthorised to collect. That was not the case.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Minister, I do not want to belabour the question. Was MND advised, after the review with AGC, was it the AGC's position that collections before the First Reading of the Bill were illegal?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Speaker, my understanding from the review was that AGC felt that rather than leave it as an administrative arrangement, it is better, given the nature of these fees, for us to put it into legislation. So, that is what we are doing.
But AGC also supported – we would not be able to present this Bill if it is not with the support of the AGC – that we come to Parliament and seek Parliament's approval for the Bill to validate the past collections. That is what we are doing.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, that does not really answer the question. Was it the AGC's position that the collections hitherto were illegal?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: I have explained this earlier, Mr Speaker, that AGC's advice to us was that these fees, because we considered them as administrative, it is better going forward from a legal point of view to put them into the legislation. That is what we are doing.
We do not want to leave this loose end unaddressed about the past collections. The way in which we address this is to bring the Bill before the House in an open manner and to explain to the House this is what happened, this is what we are proposing, and to validate these past collections. Because they were treated as administrative fees in the past – not that they were illegal or inappropriate or wrongly collected, as a few Members have used those terms. That is not the case. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister for National Development\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Correction By Written Statement section.]
But for avoidance of doubt and to reduce ambiguity, it is better to bring it before the House and to validate these fees through this Bill.
That is the approach that we are taking. I hope, as I said, to be able to get the support from the whole House in terms of how we deal with this so that we can move forward. But going forward, the fees will be part of the legislation. So, we will be in compliance with the advice from AGC, arising from the review.
Mr Speaker: Let me put the question to the House now. The question is, \"That the Bill be read a Second time\". Those who agree, say \"Aye\".
Hon Members: Aye.
Mr Speaker: Those who disagree say \"No\".
Some hon Members: No.
Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, obliged if you can record our dissent, please.
Mr Speaker: Okay, we will have that recorded. Could those who want to have their dissent recorded, please stand?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat stood for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Okay. You may sit. I think the \"Ayes\" have it, the \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 2 –
Mr Speaker: Clause 2. Minister for National Development.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 2 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.
[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 4, line 13: to leave out “Sewerage and Drainage Act 1999” and insert “Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act 1999”. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 3 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 20 –
Mr Speaker: Clause 20. Minister for National Development.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 20 standing in the Minister's name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for the amendment has been explained in my Second Reading speech.
[(proc text) *The amendment read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 24, line 10: to leave out “Sewerage and Drainage Act 1999” and insert “Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act 1999”. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendment agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendments. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The question is, \"That the Bill be now read a Third time\". Those who agree, say \"Aye\".
Hon Members: Aye.
Mr Speaker: Those who disagree say \"No\".
Some hon Members: No.
Mr Speaker: Those who wish to have their dissent recorded, could you please stand?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat stood for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: You may sit. Thank you. I think the \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Bill 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":"Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
The Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill introduces a new legislative framework to facilitate dual listing arrangements on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) as part of the efforts to enhance the competitiveness of our equities market and strengthen Singapore's position as a leading financial centre.
This Bill aims to attract more quality listings in Singapore by enabling issuers to tap local and overseas capital conveniently. It will support the new Global Listing Board (GLB), an innovative listing bridge with Nasdaq, which was announced by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and SGX in November last year. The GLB provides issuers a direct pathway to access capital across both markets with one prospectus and a harmonised set of rules.
This framework for dual listings puts in place the option for SGX to enhance its connectivity with other markets. It also streamlines our regulatory requirements for dual listings. Other initiatives announced by the Equities Market Review Group last year to support the demand and supply of capital include the Equity Market Development Programme, which will allocate up to $6.5 billion directly and also to crowd in private capital to deepen local fund management capabilities and enhance trading liquidity, as well as measures to strengthen equities research coverage.
Following the announcement of these measures, the Singapore market has seen some positive momentum. Liquidity and valuations have improved. Trading volumes in the first quarter of 2026 rose 32% from the previous quarter to $126 billion, and the volumes in March were the highest in almost 20 years. The Straits Times Index has risen by over 20% over the past year and over 100% over a five-year period, which is among the strongest performers in Asia Pacific.
Moving forward now with the GLB will help us to capitalise on this momentum to further raise Singapore's standing as a listing venue of choice, where issuers with good potential can access funding to grow into regional and global champions.
Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on the rationale for the Bill, before going through its key features.
Currently, issuers who wish to concurrently list on SGX and another overseas exchange may face differing requirements across jurisdictions. There is a duplication of effort to meet two sets of requirements, even in the case where the general regulatory principles that underpin the listing process are broadly similar across the jurisdictions. In this context, \"same-same but different\" is not as ideal as \"exactly same-same\" because the former still increases compliance costs.
The proposed legislative framework addresses this concern by harmonising and streamlining requirements for concurrent dual listings on SGX and an eligible overseas exchange. The approach reduces regulatory compliance costs while upholding high standards.
Dual listings can bring benefits for many stakeholders in Singapore's equities market ecosystem. In the case of the GLB, regional issuers will have easier access to complementary sets of investors on both exchanges, while benefiting from better brand recognition. Through this, the GLB can attract more diverse issuers to list in Singapore, which will add energy and dynamism to our equities market. This in turn creates opportunities for local service providers, including lawyers, accountants and other financial intermediaries. Investors will also gain access to a broader range of high-quality investment opportunities.
The Bill will position Singapore to capture future opportunities, where dual listings from other reputable jurisdictions, with comparable disclosure requirements and which adhere to international standards, can be facilitated. There has been broad industry support for this Bill and the GLB. MAS has considered the feedback received and taken them on board where appropriate.
Sir, I will now go through the key features of the Bill, which proposes two sets of amendments to the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). A new section Part 13A, which sets up a framework to support dual listing arrangements between SGX and an appropriate overseas exchange, such as in the case of the GLB. Other amendments to the SFA, which will support all listings, including listings on the GLB.
These amendments are needed to facilitate the harmonisation of key aspects of the fundraising and listing process for dual listings, and to reduce the friction and compliance burden faced by issuers while maintaining robust standards.
Mr Speaker, the first set of amendments introduces a new Part 13A to the SFA. This provides a framework to support dual listing arrangements, such as the GLB. Part 13A has two main elements. First, it sets out the key criteria that such partnerships for dual listing arrangements must satisfy. Second, it empowers MAS to set regulations to close differences in the securities laws of Singapore and a foreign jurisdiction to facilitate the dual listing partnership, subject to safeguards and maintaining robust regulatory standards.
The new Part 13A defines the nature of any dual listing arrangement between Singapore and another jurisdiction that can be supported by new MAS regulations. MAS will exercise the powers under the new Part 13A only if the following considerations are met. First, the dual listing arrangement in consideration enhances issuers' access to a larger pool of liquidity and a broader range of investors. Second, the overseas exchange is from a jurisdiction with securities laws consistent with the International Organisation of Securities Commissions' (IOSCO) international standards and principles, particularly regarding enforcement, regulatory cooperation and disclosure requirements.
In the case of the GLB, Nasdaq and the United States (US) meet these conditions. Nasdaq is one of the largest stock exchanges globally, providing access to deep pools of capital. The US, like Singapore, adopts IOSCO's international standards and principles for financial markets regulation. These qualifying criteria also apply to future arrangements with compatible jurisdictions.
Part 13A empowers MAS to make regulations to vary the application of specific market misconduct and offer-related provisions in Part 12 and 13 of the SFA. Part 13A directs that the manner of modification is to align offering and listing-related practices between Singapore and another jurisdiction which, as I had explained earlier, has securities laws that are consistent with international standards. It enables MAS to formulate and make adjustments to regulatory requirements in a timely manner.
Based on engagements with market practitioners and prospective issuers, three main areas have been identified where modifications will be made to the existing SFA regulatory regime for dual listing arrangements. These areas are intended to facilitate a smooth dual listing process and post-listing operations.
First, prospectus disclosures. Currently, issuers seeking concurrent listings must prepare two sets of prospectuses based on two sets of disclosure requirements, one for each jurisdiction, resulting in additional complexity and costs. The Bill addresses this, by enabling MAS to set regulations to modify offer-related provisions to facilitate the use of a single set of offer documents.
In the case of the GLB, MAS will make regulations under Part 13A to incorporate the applicable US prospectus disclosure requirements. MAS and SGX will review the prospectus and listing application under these aligned requirements. This minimises friction when preparing the offer documents while maintaining information value for investors, since both the US and Singapore's disclosure requirements are aligned with international standards.
Second, the listing timeline. Issuers seeking a concurrent listing may encounter significant friction from different filing requirements and timelines. Under Part 13A, MAS can make regulations to address procedural and timing differences between two jurisdictions. In the case of the GLB, MAS will align Singapore's listing timeline with that of the US by varying provisions relating to the prospectus registration process.
Third, post-listing activities. Differences in permitted market practices can create friction and uncertainty for dual-listed issuers. For the GLB, there are certain standard US market practices, such as the issuance of forward-looking statements, which are permitted by well-established US safe harbours.
The Bill will enable MAS to set regulations to adopt safe harbours as defences to the market misconduct provisions in the SFA. Sir, to be clear, these safe harbours are intended to facilitate genuine post-listing activities. They do not provide a valid defence against criminal liability for fraud or dishonest conduct.
MAS and the relevant Singapore authorities will retain full discretion to enforce against any misconduct that occurs in Singapore. Our regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities remain unchanged. If there is a cross-border misconduct, MAS and the relevant Singapore authorities will work with foreign regulators and law enforcement counterparts to coordinate our investigation and enforcement actions. Singapore investors will also continue to be able to seek recourse for losses arising from such breaches under the investor recourse provisions in the SFA.
Mr Speaker, the changes I have outlined thus far are scoped within Part 13A to apply specifically to dual listing arrangements. This Bill also contains other amendments to the SFA which will facilitate the offering process for all listings in Singapore.
First, issuers will be allowed to engage retail investors based on preliminary prospectuses rather than only using the final prospectuses. Industry feedback shows that this will be useful to enable a better gauge of market demand and for investors to have more time to familiarise themselves with an initial public offering (IPO). This change will apply to all IPOs, including those on the GLB.
To protect investors, such engagements will be subject to safeguards. For example, no offers can be made on the basis of the preliminary prospectus, and the document must also state clearly that its content is subject to further changes.
Second, we have received feedback that the regulatory treatment for Depositary Receipt (DRs) offerings involving new underlying shares requires greater clarity. With DRs, companies raise funds by issuing shares that are deposited with a financial institution or depositary. The depositary issues DRs representing the underlying shares, which are then offered and sold to investors.
For avoidance of doubt, the Bill clarifies that it should be the company issuing the underlying shares that is the entity required to lodge its prospectus for registration, instead of the financial institution that acts as an intermediary when issuing the DRs.
This is to ensure that investors receive information directly from the company whose shares they are investing in. This will facilitate the disclosure of relevant information for all DR offerings on SGX, including those on the GLB.
Sir, the amendments in this Bill represent a considered approach to enhance the competitiveness of Singapore's equities market, by attracting more quality listings while maintaining our commitment to robust regulatory standards.
The dual listings framework and the GLB are parts of a broader strategic move to reinforce Singapore's position as a leading financial centre and a vibrant hub for capital market activities. We are creating new pathways for issuers to access deeper pools of international capital while broadening investors' access to new opportunities. We will lay the groundwork for greater market depth and maturity, and open the door for future partnerships and possibilities for SGX, issuers and investors alike. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. We have been in the Chamber for about five hours, so, I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.59 pm until 4.20 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am working in a foreign bank in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill primarily seeks to introduce the GLB for new IPO candidates and existing Nasdaq-listed issuers to simultaneously list on SGX and Nasdaq Global Select Market (Nasdaq GSM). It is part of the suite of recommendations by the Equities Market Review Group, chaired by Minister Chee Hong Tat, in its final report issued in November 2025. The recommendations are a timely intervention to revitalise our equities market by capitalising on our strengths in connectivity and a high starting base of robust regulation.
I, therefore, speak in support of the Bill.
It has been announced that the dual listing bridge is targeting companies in Asia with market capitalisation of $2 billion and above to simultaneously access growth capital and liquidity across the US and Asia. This can allow us to capture smaller and mid-sized enterprises which are not well served by the US markets alone, as those markets are driven by mega-cap firms.
Just as a sample size, may I ask the Minister how many Asian companies had a market capitalisation of at least $2 billion in each of the last 10 years? By way of illustration, what are some examples of the \"smaller and mid-sized enterprises\" that we are looking to attract?
May I ask also: have there been engagements with specific companies to come onboard the SGX-Nasdaq dual listing bridge once it goes \"live\"? Being a novel mechanism, attracting notable companies to list as \"poster child\" listings could have a significant effect in encouraging issuer and investor interest. If there has not been firm commitments or interest by companies to come onboard, what specific publicity avenues are being planned so that we can attract issuers to utilise this new mechanism? Would there be further incentives to stimulate issuer interest?
More broadly, beyond the number of listings, how will MAS assess whether dual listings will translate into sustained liquidity and meaningful price discovery in Singapore, rather than trading activity gravitating primarily to the larger overseas market?
I hear Minister Chee's opening remarks just now and he has alluded to the ancillary services benefiting and others, but this is a more specific question in terms of price discovery and sustained liquidity.
Next, the new Part 13A has also been drawn up in a non-exhaustive manner, as MAS may prescribe other tie-ups with overseas exchanges as Dual Listing Boards. One essential safeguard is that the overseas exchange must operate in a jurisdiction whose securities laws are consistent with IOSCO principles.
Can the Minister clarify if the SGX-Nasdaq tie-up is intended as a pilot exercise, whose outcomes will be assessed before further dual listing arrangements are pursued? Or are we already in advanced discussions with other exchanges to broaden this network?
Next question is whether the proposed legislative provisions is sufficiently flexible to facilitate listings across three or more exchanges in future, for example, a triple listing involving SGX, Nasdaq and an European exchange, or would further legislative amendments be required?
As we expand such cross-border arrangements, how will MAS guard against regulatory arbitrage, where issuers may structure offerings to benefit from the most lenient aspects of different jurisdictions, and ensure that our standards of disclosure, governance and enforcement are not diluted over time?
Mr Deputy Speaker, while the Bill would enable MAS to make regulations to streamline procedures and allow issuers to use the same offer information and timelines to achieve simultaneous listings, the detailed regulations will be pivotal to the success of such arrangements. Is there a timeline by which such regulations will be ready, so that the dual listing bridge can be operational?
I would commend the explicit power under the new section 309G(2) to incorporate foreign securities laws by reference. This reduces administrative burden and allows us to leverage established regulatory frameworks. However, may I clarify whether foreign precedents and case law would guide the interpretation of these provisions locally, or whether Singapore will retain full autonomy in applying these rules within our own legal context?
There is also the issue of compatibility with broader legal frameworks. For instance, the US market is supported in part by class action mechanisms that enable investor recourse, which are less developed in Singapore. Will we be reviewing such areas as part of strengthening investor protection, in line with the Equities Market Review Group's recommendations? Related to this, in cases involving cross-border misconduct, where key management, assets or evidence may be located overseas, how will MAS ensure effective enforcement and accountability?
The move to allow earlier engagement with investors, including retail investors, is a notable shift too. It broadens access and allows more inclusive participation, which is positive. However, at early stages, information is still evolving, disclosures are not finalised and retail investors may be more susceptible to sentiment or incomplete narratives.
The question I have is: how will MAS ensure that retail investors are not unduly influenced by preliminary or incomplete information? And will there be enhanced investor education or disclosure safeguards to help retail investors better understand the limitations of such early-stage information?
Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is on Sponsored Depositary Receipts (SDRs).
The clarification on sponsored depositary receipts is a sensible and important step. By placing responsibility on the issuer of the underlying securities, the Bill aligns legal accountability with economic substance and reduces ambiguity for investors.
That said, I would like to better understand how MAS intends to operationalise this in practice. How will MAS ensure that disclosure standards for SDRs remain fully aligned with those expected of primary listings, so that investors are not exposed to uneven information standards?
Further, given the cross-border nature of such instruments, how will MAS ensure effective enforcement and accountability where the underlying issuer is based overseas? Will there be sufficient safeguards to ensure that Singapore investors have clear avenues of recourse in the event of misconduct or disclosure failures? And does MAS see SDRs as a transitional pathway towards fuller listings, or as a parallel structure that could grow in significance over time?
Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, the GLB is but one of many recommendations by the Equities Market Review Group. As the Review Group has recognised, there is no \"silver bullet\", a holistic ecosystem-wide approach is required.
The implementation of these recommendations appears to have been phased, with announcements across February, July and November 2025.
Now that the final report has been published, will there be a more structured and coordinated roadmap for implementation? Are we seeing measurable outcomes from the earlier initiatives and what review timelines are in place to refine or recalibrate policies?
Finally, as we strengthen our capital markets and attract global listings, how will the Government ensure that these reforms translate into tangible opportunities for Singaporean investors and market participants, not just in attracting listings, but in deepening liquidity, research, intermediation and broader participation? In other words, a bit more other than what Minister Chee has already alluded to earlier in his opening speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): This Bill may appear to be merely a set of technical amendments to securities law, but it is, in fact, responding to a very real problem.
Today, when a company decides where to raise capital, it is not simply a question of whether it can list – it is a question of where the money is, where the investors are, where the analysts are and whether the processes are smooth and the rules are clear. Simply put, competition in capital markets is not just about having the right institutions in place; it is about whether the market is large enough, active enough and accessible enough.
If a company feels that listing on another market would give it greater visibility, more active trading and a fairer valuation, it will naturally choose to go there. That is the reality and we cannot avoid it.
I therefore believe that the significance of this Bill lies not merely in amending a few laws, but in helping to clear the path and build the bridges for Singapore's capital market, so that capital, companies and investors are more willing to come. But if these things are not done properly, even the best conditions will attract few takers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few points.
First, this Bill aims to create clearer and smoother arrangements for dual listings between the Singapore Exchange and overseas exchanges.
The problem many companies face today is not that they are unwilling to comply with rules, but that they have to do the same thing twice or even three times. Listing documents have to be prepared in multiple sets; approval processes have to be gone through multiple times.
Anyone who has run a business knows that it is rarely one big problem that slows things down – it is the accumulation of many small, repetitive ones that makes everything feel increasingly burdensome. Over time, companies are not deterred by strictness; they are deterred by repetition and hassle.
So, if we can reduce this unnecessary duplication and make processes smoother, it would be a very practical help to companies and would also attract more of them to list in Singapore. That said, as we simplify processes, we must also preserve Singapore's longstanding strengths – transparency, clarity and trustworthiness. We cannot just be fast; we must also be steady and precise.
Second, the Bill allows companies to begin engaging investors at an earlier stage of the listing process. This is good for everyone in the long run. The earlier a company helps the market understand what it does, how it makes money and what its risks are, the easier it is for investors to make informed judgements and the more likely it is that pricing will be fair. It is like buying a flat – if the buyer gets to see the information early, they can form a clearer picture.
But there are risks here too. If communication happens too early and only the positive aspects are presented, investors may be unduly influenced and by the time the risks become apparent, it may be too late.
The key principle, therefore, is this – earlier engagement is acceptable, but it must not become earlier promotion. Companies cannot lead with only the good news and leave the important risks to be disclosed later.
I would therefore suggest that the regulatory authorities, in addition to setting legal minimum standards, also provide clearer guidance so that companies, intermediaries and advisers all know what is and is not permissible.
At the same time, in today's environment where social media spreads information very quickly, we must ensure that \"earlier investor engagement\" does not become \"earlier market sentiment-making.\"
Third, this Bill also clarifies the legal liability relating to depositary receipts. In simple terms, investors sometimes hold not shares directly, but a certificate representing those shares. The Bill makes clear that if there are errors or omissions, the primary liability lies with the underlying company, not with the intermediary that issued the certificate.
This is reasonable. The party that best understands the company's business and risks is the company itself. It is like sending a parcel – if the contents were mislabelled to begin with, you cannot simply blame the delivery person; the responsibility lies at the source.
In practice, however, cross-border structures can be very complex. A company may be incorporated in one country, the intermediary based in another and the investors located elsewhere still. If something does go wrong, figuring out who investors should approach and how to seek redress may not be straightforward.
I would therefore suggest that as the Government clarifies legal liability, it should also strengthen cross-border regulatory cooperation and enhance investor education, so that people not only understand what the law says but also know what to do when problems arise.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, beyond market structure and efficiency, this Bill is also an opportunity to strengthen Singapore's position in sustainable finance. As more investors globally allocate capital based on environmental, social and governance considerations, our regulatory framework should continue to support high-quality, consistent sustainability disclosures. This will not only protect investors from greenwashing but also give credible companies greater confidence to raise capital here.
Another area worth considering is the role of technology and digitalisation in capital markets. With increasing use of digital platforms, algorithmic trading and tokenised securities, regulatory clarity must keep pace with innovation. While we support efficiency and accessibility, safeguards must remain robust to manage new forms of risk, including market volatility and cybersecurity threats.
We should also take this opportunity to further strengthen retail investor participation in our market. A vibrant capital market is not driven only by institutions, but also by informed individual investors. Continued efforts in financial literacy, transparency of products and accessibility of information will help build broader and more resilient participation over time.
Finally, as competition among global finance centres intensifies, Singapore must continue to differentiate itself not just on efficiency but on trust and governance. Our reputation has been built over decades, and it remains one of the strongest advantages. Any reforms we pursue should reinforce this foundation, ensuring that growth in our capital markets is matched by equally strong standards of accountability and integrity. Mr Deputy Speaker, conclusion in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Because this Bill has identified an important key point – if Singapore is to continue as an international financial centre, it cannot rely solely on its past strengths, nor simply on \"the stability we have always had.\"
Stability is important, but markets also need vitality. Openness is important, but responsibilities must be clearly defined. Efficiency is important, but investor trust matters even more.
As the saying goes, “Water can carry a boat, but it can also capsize it”.
What is most critical is that implementation gets three things right: one, reducing unnecessary duplication in processes; two, improving the efficiency of market communication without compromising fairness and transparency; and three, as we pursue greater international connectivity, ensuring that responsibilities are clear and investors are protected.
If all three are achieved, I believe this Bill will help Singapore's capital market can achieve long-term steady growth.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm with publicly listed assets.
I rise in support of this Bill, and I commend MAS and the Ministry of Finance for moving this Bill with urgency. The GLB represents Singapore's most ambitious structural intervention in its equity markets in a generation. That ambition is necessary, but ambition alone will not deliver outcomes. It must be matched by execution in the realities of our market.
I note that the regulatory appetite for this move reflects a shift. A decade ago, MAS often maintained a broad scepticism toward special purpose acquisition companies and novel fund structures. Today, it is more prepared to engage with innovation in a calibrated way. That shift, while long overdue, is nevertheless welcome. But this House has a responsibility not only to support ambition, but to test it. I speak today not to oppose the Bill, but to provide constructive views so that it delivers genuine market vibrancy, rather than the appearance of it.
Let me be direct. The fundamentals of our equity market remain fragile. SGX's securities daily average value stands at around $2.4 billion, or US$1.8 billion. Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange records an average daily turnover of HK$304 billion, approximately US$39 billion. In terms of cash equity trading, the Hong Kong market is more than 20 times more liquid than our own.
This disparity extends to capital raising. In the first quarter of 2026, Singapore's IPOs raised US$967.1 million. In that same period, Hong Kong's secondary listings alone raised US$8.5 billion. These are not peripheral comparisons. They are the baseline realities against which this Bill must be measured. I have several clarifications on the Bill.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the GLB. The new Part 13A allows MAS to modify and align regulatory requirements with overseas exchanges to support dual listings and streamline offer documentation. This is a meaningful step if Singapore is to compete for international listings. However, several structural concerns raised by market practitioners need to be addressed.
First, the $2 billion market capitalisation threshold. I understand its rationale. But in practice, only a small number of Southeast Asian companies will meet this bar. According to market practitioners, about eight Southeast Asian tech firms would meet the threshold, with another two to three potentially close to achieving that. It is a narrow universe when set against the ambitions of the GLB.
The companies large enough to qualify are precisely those that may choose to list directly on Nasdaq, without the need for a Singapore leg. I ask whether MAS will consider a tiered threshold, or a review mechanism as the market matures. Given that Part 13A allows MAS to partner with different overseas exchanges, it would also be helpful to understand which segments of issuers we are prioritising, and how Singapore intends to position itself relative to other listing venues competing for the same pool of companies.
Second, liquidity fragmentation. Institutional investors will trade where liquidity is deepest. In a dual listing structure, that is likely to be the primary overseas exchange. If Singapore trading volumes remain thin, issuers will question the purpose of maintaining a listing here. We need clarity on how Singapore intends to support meaningful trading activity on the SGX leg, beyond existing measures, such as retail allocation.
Third, legal exposure. Issuers are concerned about the risk of US class action litigation. This is a material deterrent. Without clarity on how Singapore-based issuers can navigate these risks, we may deter the very firms we seek to attract. This is particularly relevant in a dual listing framework where issuers are subject to multiple legal regimes. Greater clarity on how these cross-border liabilities are managed will be important for issuer confidence.
Fourth, structural dependency. Under the framework, an issuer delisted from the overseas exchange must also be delisted from the Dual Listing Board. This creates a structural dependency on that foreign exchange.
I do not question the good faith of any partner exchange. But I ask the Minister what safeguards exist for investors holding shares on SGX if such a partnership is disrupted, and whether extending the framework to other exchanges provid a sufficient hedge?
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the expansion of retail investor access. The amendments to section 251 allow the issuers to present preliminary offering materials to any person before a prospectus is registered, subject to safeguards. This levels the playing field between retail and institutional investors and gives Singaporeans earlier access to investment opportunities.
But let me add a caveat. Earlier access to information is a meaningful change. Yet, access alone does not guarantee better outcomes. If investors receive a preliminary prospectus without the corresponding ability to evaluate it, they are exposed to increased risk rather than be empowered to act. The safeguards in the Bill, including disclaimers and restrictions on application forms, are necessary, but they do not address this underlying gap in financial literacy.
So, what accompanying measures will be introduced? Will MoneySENSE be expanded? Will investor education be strengthened? Will simplified prospectus summaries be made available? A preliminary prospectus in the hands of an unprepared investor is not empowerment. It is liability.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must be candid about what this Bill cannot do. The Bill is fundamentally a supply-side measure. It seeks to attract more issuers and introduces mechanisms, such as SDR, where the issuer of the underlying securities assumes responsibility for disclosure and liability.
That is appropriate. But a chronic weakness of the SGX is a demand-side problem. Our retail investor base is smaller and more conservative. There is a long-standing preference for dividends, bonds and property over equities. No legislative amendment can manufacture trading appetite.
Without sustained participation, liquidity will remain limited. Without liquidity, even strong listings may struggle to gain traction. We need a whole-of-lifecycle approach to capital markets. From early-stage funding to public listings. Across asset classes including credit, infrastructure and real estate. MAS has begun moving toward this ecosystem model. I urge the Minister to accelerate this effort and to ensure it is implemented in a coordinated way.
Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I offer three specific suggestions to strengthen the implementation of this Bill.
First, settlement and stabilisation mechanics for the GLB must be clarified. Current consultation materials do not prescribe how settlement, closing and price stabilisation will operate across Nasdaq and SGX. These are foundational issues. Uncertainty here will deter issuers.
Second, the GEMS Research Grant Scheme should be expanded to cover GLB companies from the point of listing. Early research coverage is essential to building investor confidence, especially for companies unfamiliar to Singapore investors.
Third, the pipeline below the GLB threshold must be developed more deliberately. The S$6.5 billion Equity Market Development Programme and the S$1 billion Startup SG Equity top-up are important initiatives. But the path from a start up to a GLB eligible company takes years. I ask MAS and Enterprise Singapore to identify the cohort of companies that could realistically reach this stage within five to seven years, and to publish a framework that allows this House to track progress.
Tracking progress is important. I assume the Ministry already has a set of internal key performance indicators (KPIs) for this initiative. If so, I would encourage that these KPIs be made clear, measurable and where possible, transparent to this House, so that we can assess whether this Bill is delivering its intended outcomes over time.
Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, timing matters. We are introducing these reforms at a moment of global market uncertainty. Geopolitical tensions and tariff risks are already affecting IPO pipelines. If the GLB is launched into weak market conditions, we risk building a well-designed framework with limited participation. A framework without issuers is not a market. I urge the MAS to consider contingency measures, including bridging capital through platforms, such as ADDX and other flexible funding solutions, so that near IPO companies are not lost due to timing.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I began by noting that this Bill reflects ambition. However, ambition alone will not deliver outcomes unless it is matched by execution in the realities of our market. This debate has made clear what that execution requires.
On the GLB, we must ensure that design choices do not constrain the pipeline or weaken Singapore's position in global capital markets. On retail participation, we must ensure that earlier access is matched by investor capability. On market structure, we must address the demand side constraints that continue to limit liquidity. On implementation, we must resolve operational uncertainties and build a credible pipeline under realistic market conditions.
These are not technical issues. They go to the heart of why this Bill matters. Singapore's position as a leading financial hub has never been accidental. It has been built through deliberate policy choices, strong institutions and our ability to connect global capital with regional opportunity.
Our financial sector is not peripheral to our economy. It is a core driver of growth, a source of high value jobs and a gateway through which international capital flows into Southeast Asia.
If we do not continue to strengthen our markets, capital will not stand still. It will move to where liquidity is deeper, where ecosystems are stronger and where execution is clearer.
Ultimately, this is not only about introducing a new framework. It is about whether Singapore remains a place where global capital chooses to come, where regional companies choose to list and where Singaporeans themselves choose to participate.
If we match ambition with execution, and follow through with discipline in addressing these gaps, then this Bill can do more than improve our market structure. It can reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted financial centre, a gateway to Asia and a platform for long-term growth. But at the end of the day, we should also be clear about how success will be measured in practical terms. How much incremental daily trading volume are we seeking to generate? Because that will be one of the clearest indicators of whether these reforms are making a meaningful difference to market activity.
We must ensure that access leads to understanding. We must ensure that participation leads to liquidity. And we must ensure that ambition leads to outcomes. And on that basis, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare that I am a technology entrepreneur, I invest and create technology ventures.
The GLB and the link-up with Nasdaq is a really good move. For technology entrepreneurs, the Nasdaq is like a Mecca, dream land, where we go and do listings and if we look at the Magnificent Seven, starting with the letter \"A\" in the alphabet, which is Amazon; Apple; Google; Tesla; Meta, which was Facebook; Nvidia – they are among the top capitalisation of Nasdaq.
So, tying them brings our exchange into a good situation or environment for a very tech-driven future.
As of May 2026, I did a check, there are about more than 40 companies listed in Singapore that are more than S$2 billion in valuation, primarily in financial services, quite a bit of them in Real Estate Investment Trusts and a couple of them in industrials and engineering.
The market is dominated by players including the banking services, such as DBS Group, Singtel and ST Engineering. The capitalisation of the financial services in our stock exchanges is about 40%; 20% for real estates; for IT, 5%. So, are we going to maintain that? Or do we also want to build ourselves as the next Nasdaq, where we can actually have more tech and innovation-driven companies on our exchanges?
And if we are looking into the future, with our eye on investments, and all the investment in technology and R&D, I believe that we can actually try to move into that direction.
The GLB is a new regulatory framework, and I hope that it enables high-growth companies, especially deep tech, such as biotech, med-tech or innovation tech-driven company, to do their listing here.
Sir, $2 billion is quite a tall order. There are a couple of questions that I would like to ask. First, will the Government target a certain percentage, in terms of quantity and market cap, for deep-tech companies as part of our new listing companies' landscape, such as to build up a hub of technology and innovation?
Based on what we have right now, and it is not really big enough for us to have a lot of companies that are \"unicorns\", grown generically from Singapore, we might have to attract a lot more from the region, or as far as China, or perhaps US.
So, what are the strategies? What are the competitive advantages and benefits to attract such deep-tech companies overseas to list or to join the GLB?
Will we be encouraging special purpose acquisition companies for GLB? For example, in my trade, in the electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) or flying car areas, there are two companies: one is Joby Aviation, and one is Archer Aviation. They listed in 2021, on either NYSE or Nasdaq, as special purpose acquisition companies, before they have a certified product. So, they are at the pre-commercialisation stage. When they are listed, they were about $6 billion. At the end of the hype, they were down to $2 billion, probably $3 billion. But now, with the products being on the way to certification, they are probably worth between $12 billion.
Do we have the policy to stomach that, losing but very high valuation, because of very high potential, and highly scalable?
So, come to all these highly scalable companies or tech ventures. Would you consider a special pathway for such pre-commercialisation, deep-tech companies, especially in pharma and biotech. And biotech is really one of our key R&D areas in our RIE 2030 plan.
One of the things I am really concerned with is that this $2 billion, how can we help our company, our deep-tech ventures here, slowly move up to being that \"unicorns\". I think that on average, it takes 10 years to build a \"unicorn\". So, in the near term, would we consider a possible dual listings, maybe not in the $2 billion category, but maybe in either the small cap or slightly higher than micro-cap – for them to list here and then transition into Nasdaq?
So, those are the possible options that we can explore for companies based here or developed from our RIE 2030.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, I believe that this Bill constitutes part of the continued effort by the MAS to implement measures suggested by the Equities Market Review Group to improve market liquidity in the SGX. The Bill has two main elements – legislative changes to facilitate dual listings and refinements to improve regulatory oversight, especially concerning sponsored DRs.
I am sympathetic to the objectives of the Bill, and for this reason, I see little justification in not supporting it. But I will offer some serious points of caution and reprise the broad case that my Sengkang colleague, Mr Louis Chua, and I offered in our joint Adjournment Motion delivered in this House some three months ago, on making Singapore Equities great again.
I will also state at the outset that I am the chief economist emeritus of a wealth management and advisory firm, and own a very small number of shares on the SGX.
As context is perhaps helpful to look at how our local stock market has performed of late. For decades, our local exchange had, in the minds of many observers, underperformed. Listings were woeful and delistings generally far exceeded new listings.
With the Main Board dominated by financials and real estate, liquidity has been weak, especially compared to other developed markets. This translated into the benchmark Straits Times Index (STI) going sideways for the better part of the past decade. Things began to look brighter from the middle of 2024, as rising geopolitical tensions and the shift to a more multi-polar world appear to have triggered a structural shift in international financial flows. The STI was reinvigorated and hit new highs and even outperformed global benchmarks like the S&P 500.
In this setting, the SGX's value proposition. It could be a safe harbour for global capital, in the otherwise troubled world. The trick then is to sustain this momentum with concrete policy action that truly shore up liquidity and keep it here.
The STI was reinvigorated and hit new highs and even outperformed global benchmarks like the S&P 500. In this setting, the SGX's value proposition. It could be a safe harbour for global capital, in the otherwise troubled world. The trick then is to sustain this momentum with concrete policy action that truly shore up liquidity and keep it here.
The amendments proposed in this Bill seek to do so, but I fear that they do not go far anough.
Let me start with clause 8, which sets out rules that make it much easier for issuers to comply with the distinct stipulations of two jurisdictions – the Nasdaq Global Select Market and SGX, while pursuing dual-listings on both exchanges. For me, there is little to quibble with in terms of the language in the new part 13(A).
Rather, I will focus on whether the ostensible goal of dual-listing to stimulate greater liquidity, especially in our local boards, may actually be accomplished. The evidence suggests caution in arriving at this conclusion. Research does generally support the notion that cross- listings do improve liquidity while boosting valuations.
But, and this is the key \"but\", trading and hence the associated liquidity boost tends to concentrate in one dominant exchange. The one with more liquidity to begin with. Between the SGX and Nasdaq, this will invariably be the latter. Our moves to push for dual-listing then may paradoxically result in our already scarce local liquidity leaking away into foreign shores.
Recent events lend further credence to this argument. In September 2025, AvePoint announced a dual-listing between Nasdaq and the SGX Main Board, keeping in mind that these are still early days. The stocks trading volume on the SGX has been modest at best. While the listing generated substantial interest, the offering was more than three times over subscribed.
Price discovery remains firmly rooted in the US and average trading volume, as of April this year, was just around 83,000 shares. Contrast this to volumes of close to two million in its primary US market.
Even in cases where the SGX collaborated with smaller exchanges, the experience has been disappointing. Secondary listings since 2010 have all been by way of introduction with no new share issuance or capital raising. Cross listings with Hong Kong, the exchange with the largest share of cross listings on the SGX have underperformed here in strict contrast to the Hong Kong exchanges Stock Connect with the Chinese mainland; which raised HKD78 billion Hong Kong in the first half of 2025 alone.
The dual listing of SP AusNet in Singapore and Australia saw limited interest by SGX investors, despite solid trading volumes on the ASX, before eventually being delisted in 2018.
Moreover, increased trading volumes may be accompanied by higher variability in stock market returns. This means, especially for our already low liquidity market, that we may also be inviting greater volatility due to this arrangement. Taken together, we must surely be careful for what we wish for when we promote cross listing, especially with a bigger partner.
Indeed, the motivation for cross listing itself appears rather lukewarm, even in the eyes of the Equity Market Review Group. The final report does highlight the importance of cross-border partnerships, but it makes only two explicit references to cross-listings in a 39-page 15,000-word report. Of these, only one speaks to a support measure of 180,000 for cross listed Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) in the broader context of the GEMS scheme. For me, this does not strike one as a ringing endorsement.
The natural question then, is how we think this latest foray into cross listing might be different. What mechanisms are there to this round to ensure that the SGX sustains genuine trading volume rather than being relegated to a secondary venue in all, but name? What allow Singapore to become a price setting market rather than being a pale mirror of the main exchange? As written, the Bill grants MAS the authority to declare a foreign exchange prescribed, as long as its disclosure standards are comparable to IOSCO's 1998 cross-border disclosure standards.
This document is nearly 30 years old and the term comparable is discretionary, since MAS' determination faces no defined parliamentary check. We risk anchoring ourselves to standards that may align on paper, but diverge in practice. After all, once a pairing is declared, regulations can replace, modify or disapply core liability provisions, including market misconduct in sections 197 to 202 and prospectus liability in sections 253 to 254.
Parliament is effectively being asked to authorise in advance and without details, regulatory changes whose content will only be revealed much later.
While I understand that such discretion maybe necessary for operational efficiency, the only investor protection floor given in section 9G(VII) which preserves liability under any law not modified, replaced or disapply, appears somewhat circular.
Furthermore, the Bill may potentially allow foreign defences to be imported and used against local investors. Section 309H permits MAS to substitute defences drawn from the foreign jurisdictions' law.
A Singaporean retail investor bringing a misrepresentation claim could potentially face a defence rooted in the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules, or those of another foreign regime, which may presently be unavailable under Singaporean law. This effectively leaves us as a standard's taker, rather than standard setter.
Similarly, the regulatory refinements that allow issuers to disseminate preliminary prospectus is directly to retail investors, outlined in clause 3, and which require the issuer to assume responsibility for registering the prospectus in clause 2, do promote informational exchange. The ostensible goal here is that by increasing accountability and transparency, liquidity will be further deepened, especially among retail investors.
While I appreciate the desire to rope in more retail investors and indeed, I had pushed for this in our joint Adjournment Motion by suggesting that Central Provident Fund's (CPF's) impending lifetime retirement investment scheme, consider including the local indexes a means of promoting retail ownership, there is nevertheless a risk that preliminary prospectus made available to less sophisticated retail investors may open the door to aggressive marketing and foster excessive hype.
Sir, what sort of safeguards will the Government be implementing to ensure a balanced presentation and mandatory risk disclosures for oral and written documents are yet to be finalised by definition? Is there a place for statutory safeguards, especially plain language risk disclosures that highlight differences between American and Singaporean domestic market practices? More generally, has MAS examined evidence from comparable jurisdictions on the sort of safeguards that have been applied to protect retail participants if indeed they were to receive preliminary material?
As with cross listings, these rules are unobjectionable on their face. But let us recognise them for what they are, facilitative procedural amendments, rather than deep-seated structural reforms. If we truly want to improve accountability and transparency, we need to move beyond ensuring the quality. We need to move toward ensuring the quality of post listing disclosures.
My hon friend, Louis Chua, had previously outlined how such value up assessments will look like – mandatory disclosure of returns on equity or invested capital targets, cost of capital and dividend and stock improvement plans. These remain conspicuously absent thus far in our securities laws.
This Bill offers an ideal opportunity to redress this on a small scale. For firms seeking a listing on the GLB, we can mandate such disclosures. After all, these are already large global companies which should well be able to afford the additional cost of such compliance. Doing so, will ensure that such large cap listings actually deliver long-term value to Singaporean shareholders.
Sir, I will close by looking to the future. While this Bill is focused on cross-listings with the Nasdaq, one is left to wonder if there are yet more exchanges the MAS is contemplating extending dual listings too. Will Parliament have any role in scrutinising the credibility of these other exchanges before they are designated or liability provisions altered? Similarly, how does the Government expect the dual listing board framework to cater to potential transfers from either the SGX Main Board or catalyst when its $2 billion market cap minimum appears structurally designed for larger listings than realistically possible for local or regional firms?
As I mentioned in my Adjournment Motion speech two months back, where the capital raising cycle appears to have fallen short is in building market liquidity for raising funds for mid-cap and growth companies. Despite the Bill's merits, Singapore's challenge of growing our domestic market in such companies, for me, remains largely unresolved.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill. Before I begin, I declare that I am the Group Managing Director of Commonwealth Capital Group, a Singapore global enterprise operating a conglomerate of businesses.
The move to provide for dual-listing arrangements and for the GLB is unobjectionable.
First, global firms with an Asian nexus will benefit from the option of getting the best of both Nasdaq and SGX liquidity pools. While Nasdaq offers a deep pool of global capital, investors there may not necessarily have the understanding of the Asian growth story. A dual listing on SGX would allow such firms to tap our local liquidity pools, where investors have a better understanding of regional prospects and nuances.
Second, a more vibrant ecosystem of listings will benefit the financial services industry and create some good jobs for Singaporeans. In short, the financial services sector will not experience jobless growth. It will also benefit the SGX as one of our local companies.
Third, this could be the first of many other dual listing arrangements, that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim alluded to, which could make the SGX a regional hub for such listings in the future. And perhaps, not just in the technology sector. However, like Yip Hon Weng, I believe it is equally important to talk about what dual listing arrangements do not provide on their own. This is so that we can manage our expectations and can continue to strive towards additional ways to support our equities ecosystem and the growth of our Singapore businesses.
First, the arrangements do not guarantee spillovers beyond the financial services sector. We are unlikely to require overseas firms to have a Singapore presence before listing. This is understandable; we do not want to increase the barriers for quality growth companies to list here. That said, I hope that other Government agencies, like the Economic Development Board, can use this new opportunity to create new jobs for Singaporeans, by encouraging these firms to move some headquarters functions to Singapore after listing. And for Singaporean firms looking to dual list, I hope that a local listing encourages them to further anchor their headquarters and high value-added functions in Singapore for the long term.
Second, the arrangements do not, in and of themselves, mean that a greater number of Singapore companies will benefit from the equities market. But fundamentally, we must ask ourselves what we want our Singapore stock exchange to accomplish for our broader economy and society – and what it should not accomplish.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me answer my own question. We want an avenue for quality Singapore companies to raise growth capital by issuing equity. Larger, high quality Singapore companies that can achieve a Nasdaq listing already do so and they would continue to do so. They could perhaps be encouraged to dual list in Singapore, with the benefit of some additional liquidity from Asian-focused investors.
But mid-sized companies with a more local or regional presence are unlikely to benefit from this arrangement, as they would not typically be considered for listing on global exchanges like the Nasdaq. Such companies also need a vibrant SGX. And so, we should also continue to focus on helping ambitious, high-growth mid-sized companies to raise the capital they need, so that we can accelerate their growth and create more good jobs for Singaporeans.
That said, we should resist the temptation to lower the quality bar and avoid companies with poor business fundamentals or bad corporate governance to list on the SGX. The uncle and auntie in our heartlands should not be seen as the retail investors providing exit liquidity for private capital owners, whether businessmen or fund managers, looking to make a quick buck.
The foundation of a vibrant stock exchange is built on quality companies that attract more investors because these companies are well run, well governed and growing. We should therefore continually endeavour to raise standards for companies listed on the SGX so that investors continue to come to it to invest in high quality listings.
Some may suggest that we do not have enough quality Singapore companies because we do not have a vibrant SGX. I beg to differ. It is the other way around. We do not have a vibrant SGX because we do not yet have enough quality Singapore companies that meet the standard.
So, we should focus on further improving corporate governance, disclosures and minority investor protections. Over time, these efforts will make our SGX one that all Singaporeans and Singapore companies can be proud of.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments are a move in the same direction towards this larger vision. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is part of a larger equities market review, which includes programmes like the Equity Market Development Programme. I am heartened to hear Minister Chee's opening speech that trading volume has increased.
But it is still worth asking what impact this Bill will bring to our market and how we bring more private investors in so activity does not just start here, but continues here.
The question we are facing is whether companies will actually come and whether real activity will follow. I will focus on three areas: (a) the positioning of the GLB; (b) the development of our financial ecosystem; and (c) whether our market is ready.
Sir, first, on the positioning of the GLB. From the consultation, the thresholds for the GLB are very high, at around $2 billion in market capitalisation. This is aimed at a narrow group of large, mature and credible companies. That is understandable, given how the board is positioned and the quality we want on SGX.
This Bill creates a clearer pathway than before. But the question is how many companies who meet these criteria are willing and ready to take it up.
The key constraint is whether companies see real value in listing here, given the additional requirements. Were pre-IPO firms consulted or have any expressed concrete interest in listing under this framework? Just as my Government Parliamentary Committee Chairman Mr Saktiandi asked, I would also like to check with MAS if they are able to provide an estimated number of companies that are potentially eligible under the GLB framework.
The proposed focus on companies with an Asian or regional nexus further narrows the pool. While I understand the intent to anchor relevance to our region, having an Asian nexus is one thing, but having a reason to raise capital in Singapore is another.
While the Bill could help address the long-standing gap in late-stage capital and exit pathways, it will only work if companies see Singapore as a viable place to raise capital at scale. If many of these companies are already anchored in Nasdaq or other exchanges, are we building liquidity here or just plugging into it? What are the opportunities Singapore can seize as companies, especially those exposed to geopolitical tensions and are looking for diversification, choose where they are listed?
The pipeline is likely to be limited in the near term, so we should be clear that this is a targeted, niche strategy rather than a broad expansion of our market.
This then leads to a broader question about market structure. Today, we have the Catalist, the SGX Main Board, and now potentially the GLB. This effectively creates a three-tier system.
A strong capital market should not just have multiple boards, but a clear role for each. Where does this leave the SGX Main Board in the overall structure? Is there a meaningful difference between the GLB and the SGX Main Board?
Is the GLB meant to be an aspirational pathway for companies that grow through SGX or is it primarily a separate lane to attract already mature issuers from outside? Because depending on the answer, it will shape how companies view SGX as a place to start and grow.
Sir, second, on the development of our financial ecosystem. More activity at the top end will naturally create spillover demand for banking, research, asset management and other services. But based on the Bill, much of the immediate work will be in compliance, governance and advisory functions.
If this Bill is to make a real difference, we also need to see deeper capabilities develop in research, investing and capital deployment. It may also be useful to build capabilities here, for example, by allowing more use of forward-looking statements under safe harbour provisions and in how analysts and investors assess businesses that are still loss-making but growing. Otherwise, we may end up servicing these listings, but not really building the depth of understanding needed to value them properly.
Importantly, where will these activities and jobs sit? Will they be anchored here in Singapore or will the core activities still take place elsewhere?
I would also like to seek clarification on whether MAS has consulted companies on the regulatory landscape improvement and support network that the GLB prospects may have raised prior to this Bill.
Sir, third, on whether our market is ready. Companies do not just choose markets based on liquidity. They choose where investors understand their business. In markets like the US, investors are more familiar with R&D-heavy companies, deep tech firms and founder-led businesses with longer growth horizons. That shapes how these companies are valued.
If we want to attract similar companies, it is not just about creating a new board, but whether companies and investors choose to be active here and whether our own market is ready. Are we building enough investor depth, research coverage and understanding of these sectors?
At the same time, it is noted that MAS will retain much regulatory discretion in the administration of the GLB. Whilst discretion is a normal feature of any listing regime, investors and issuers will need clarity on how that discretion will be exercised in the dual-listing context, particularly in relation to disclosure recognition and the circumstances in which SGX RegCo may suspend or delist a company from the GLB.
We need to ensure that this flexibility and discretion do not come at the expense of clarity and investor confidence because Singapore has always competed on clarity, not ambiguity. Otherwise, uncertainty over the applicable compliance framework may affect confidence, liquidity and valuation.
In conclusion, this Bill is a necessary step if Singapore is to remain relevant in global capital markets. But success is not how many names we bring onto the board. It is whether we bring real activity here – real trading, real capital and real investor participation. Because in the end, markets are not defined by structure, but by where activity takes place. With these points, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill.
Historically, exchanges competed as destinations. Companies chose where to list and in doing so, they chose where value will be created, where liquidity would sit and where their story will be told.
But that mode has shifted. Today, broad capital is global, deep liquidity is concentrated and the companies shaping the future, particularly in technology and innovation, are not bound by geography. They go where capital is deepest, coverage is strongest and where they are understood.
This creates a structural challenge for Singapore, not because we lack strong institutions or capability or credibility, but because the gravitational pull of global capital, particularly for high-growth and technology companies, is traditionally not centred here due to investor culture, risks, platform dominance, regulatory infrastructure and talent, among other factors.
The GLB offers a response to this reality. It is not an attempt to out-compete the largest capital markets in the world. It is a recognition that we must evolve our role within them. In a more uncertain and fragmented global environment, it is imperative that Singapore continues to strengthen our position as a trusted and relevant financial hub.
Listings typically involve overlapping and sometimes disjointed disclosure standards, liability frameworks and regulatory timelines. These can add significant coordination, complexity and cost. So, I appreciate the intent of these amendments to better align processes and reduce duplication. These are practical steps that can reduce friction.
I would like to focus on four areas.
First, how we position Singapore, particularly, as a bridge for high-growth companies in Asia.
Second, how we prepare our companies for the realities of operating within these markets, where expectations, scrutiny and standards are different.
Third, how we ensure that this integration translates into tangible progress and economic value for Singapore through capital participation and ecosystem development.
And finally, how we ensure market integrity through seamless mutual enforcement and timely information sharing.
First, Singapore as an Asian bridge. As Southeast Asia continues to produce high-growth firms, particularly in tech, many seek listing opportunities in the US. The GLB ensures that even as these companies pursue global capital, they can do so without losing access to regional investors, proximity to core markets and the strategic appeal that comes from being anchored in both Western and Asian ecosystems. It is also hoped that it will boost SGX's IPO pipeline and competitiveness.
The framework requires that companies raise a portion of their capital through Singapore – $75 million or 15% of the global offering, whichever is higher. This ensures that our market is not merely a point of access but a point of participation where Singapore has a stake in the growth of these companies. Rather than accessing such opportunities only through foreign markets, our capital can engage through our own infrastructure.
By enabling companies to access US capital markets while maintaining a listing presence on SGX as well, we position Singapore not as an alternative but reinforce our role as a gateway economy. We have long positioned ourselves as a hub for flows of capital, talent and ideas. The GLB extends that logic into capital markets.
But we must be clear-eyed about the risks and limitations. Under the current structure, the listing on Nasdaq is an anchor. The listing on SGX is not designed to stand independently.
I have four questions.
If price discovery generally happens in the US due to deeper liquidity, what role can Singapore play beyond access?
If trading volumes concentrate in the US, how can we ensure our market also remains active rather than symbolic, given lower trading liquidity?
Has the Government assess whether the Singapore institutional and retail investor base can consistently generate sufficient demand for GLB issuers to meet the minimum threshold? Otherwise, the requirement may become a hurdle that limits uptake and the default may be reallocation.
Give the the volatility in the world, is the MAS considering other prescribed dual-listing arrangements as it stands with other markets that could further open up new sources of capital and cooperation?
Second, preparing companies for the realities of the US market. The draft listing rules set out a minimum $2 billion in market capitalisation at listing threshold, among other criteria. This means that the pool of companies which qualify for the GLB may not be large.
But it goes beyond market capitalisation. The question is also whether these companies are ready to go live as a public company in a US-led market environment. That means having the governance disclosure controls, investor relations capability and financial reporting discipline to withstand a cadence of scrutiny from sophisticated analysts, investor base regulators and the media. Companies must also get used to new success metrics beyond revenue, especially tech firms.
If the GLB is to succeed, readiness cannot be treated as a compliance checklist, but instead be complemented with a capability building agenda. The expectations of US markets may not always be aligned with the realities of companies emerging from Asia, many of which operate in different languages and times zones.
While operating in this environment will force companies to demonstrate a different level of robustness that is recognised more globally, whether by investors, partners or talent, I would like to ask how we are preparing our Singaporean companies for this transition beyond simply exposing them to the opportunity. Is there a supporting role that Singapore can play for Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) companies which intend to pursue a GLB listing?
While the Government should not be actively interfering or shaping a company's entry into capital markets, where possible, will we consider partnering with industry to develop structures to bridge capability gaps? This leads to my third point: translating listings into tangible economic value for Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the success of GLB should not be measured by the number of quality listings alone. It should be measured by the extent to which those listings translate into tangible economic value for Singapore and Singaporeans. When a company lists, value is created across multiple areas, including capital formation, professional and support services, investor participation and longer-term ecosystem development.
I am heartened to see that there are mechanisms within the GLB that seek to anchor value locally. For example, as I earlier mentioned, the requirement that companies raise a meaningful portion of their capital through Singapore.
This is not trivial. It ensures that Singapore-based investors are not merely trading these securities but are participating in the formation of capital itself. It creates allocation to local institutions and engagement with regional investor base.
The listing activities itself generates ecosystem value – from due diligence to legal structuring, underwriting and advisory, accounting and compliance, research and coverage. These create new professional opportunities, build expertise and deepen Singapore's capabilities in handling cross-border listings.
A listing presence combined with investor engagement can, hopefully, encourage the development of regional headquarter functions and closer integration with Singapore's financial and business ecosystem. While not guaranteed, these are pathways through which listing activities can translate into longer-term economic contribution.
But we must be realistic about the limits. If trading volumes concentrate in the US, then market-making activity, derivatives trading and a significant portion of financial intermediation will also concentrate there. If analysts' coverage, investor engagement and prospectus requirements are primarily US-led, then much of the influence over valuation and requirements for US capabilities and professional services will sit outside of Singapore.
I would like to ask beyond the initial capital raised, what mechanisms ensure that economic activity continues to accrue to Singapore over the life of these listings? Do we have any plans to deepen local participation, both from investors and institutions attracting capital from other parts of Asia so that Singapore's role can grow?
For professional services, given familiarity with US laws and systems, would be necessary, how can we support local professionals to secure a share of the work generated?
And do we have any plans on an inter-agency effort that focuses on translating listing presence into broader corporate activity within Singapore?
Finally, a brief point on cross-border regulatory enforcement.
While the draft Bill and rules provide for regulatory cooperation and timely disclosure across both markets, there remains practical, operational questions of how this will work in moments of stress. How will cross-border investigation and enforcement operate in practice when the same event affects investors in both jurisdictions, depending on whether it is first detected in the US or in Singapore? Will there be any new bodies formed or other laws harmonised to oversee investigations and information transfer decide on trading halts as well as coordinate reviews? Does Singapore plan to conduct independent investigations?
While the framework recognises time zone differences by requiring ongoing disclosures made on the SEC EDGAR system by the issuer to be announced via SGXNet, at the same time; and other material disclosures made by the issuer will be required to be released in Singapore via SGXNet within one trading day after the date they are filed in the US, timeliness for market's sensitive information is crucial and I look forward to future operational guidelines on how this will be coordinated and decided. If we are building a bridge between two markets, then market integrity must be able to travel across that bridge in real time that suits both investor bases, not only after the fact.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not the first market to explore such an approach. Other exchanges have pursued dual, listings and cross-market linkages.
The experience has been mixed. While these frameworks generally reduce friction and improve access, they have not always translated into influence. Some companies eventually opt out of dual listing as a hitch, but it is timely that we are pursuing the GLB now while strengthening the vibrancy and depth of our markets. This will further Singapore's place in our currently fractured world as a trusted stable bridge.
If the GLB is to succeed, we must ensure that Singapore remains relevant to the companies that will define the future, that our firms are equipped to compete on a global stage, that investors are educated and equipped to understand the implications of the GLB and that our economy benefits meaningfully. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.
Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise in support of the Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill. In doing so, I declare my interest as the CEO of an investment management company.
This Bill offers flexibility to calibrate how our Securities and Futures Act applies to dual-listed issuers. But I believe the harder challenge lies beyond the listing stage. Listing is not the same as liquidity. Liquidity determines market relevance. If companies list here but trading migrates overseas, Singapore captures the ceremony of listing but not the economics of liquidity.
We may gain the headline but lose the heartbeat.
Therefore, success should not be measured only by the number of companies that list here, but whether liquidity – measured by sustainable trading activity, research coverage, investor participation and price discovery are deeply anchored, creating jobs in Singapore.
To strengthen our capital markets heartbeat, I offer three essential considerations.
First, adopt a liquidity focused development framework. Why not require liquidity KPIs, such as turnover, bid-ask spreads and market depth; ensure viable market-makers support mechanisms; and why not monitor closely that Singapore is indeed gaining value-added post-listing activities?
Second, sharpen the end-investor value proposition. Investors must find it worthwhile, more worthwhile to trade in Singapore than in the other overseas exchange. We must offer convenience, cost efficiency, time-zone relevance, trusted custody and products that are tailored to the Asian investor.
Third, continue calibrating carefully our regulatory stance with close eye on competitiveness. In a competitive global environment, we should continue to adjust our regulatory settings to remain proportionate in response to competing markets. This Bill is in the right direction.
The opposite direction of purely restricting domestic regulated entities from certain products will lead to regulatory arbitrage – as Singaporeans can already access such restricted products via overseas entities digitally, even if they are unregulated. So, to be clear, investor protection cannot mean shielding investors from all risk. It must mean enabling and equipping investors to understand risk.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I add three clarifications regarding investor protection.
One, about shareholder rights: when an overseas incorporated company is dual-listed on SGX and, say, on the Nasdaq, Singapore investors may face weaker legal recourse than US investors. US investors can participate in securities class actions. Singapore has no comparable collective redress. How will such differential shareholder rights be addressed?
Second, currency risk: dual-listed equities trade typically in different currencies. Will disclosure of currency and settlement risks be mandated at the point of investment?
Third, retail versus institutional investor asymmetry. Large institutional players can arbitrage efficiently across different exchanges and time zones. Retail investors cannot. If price discovery migrates overseas, how can we address the situation where Singapore investors end up in a thinner and less efficient market?
Sir, the Bill is in line with my strategic concept of Singapore as a networked economy – positioning Singapore as a trusted node connecting capital flows across regions. That is where our competitive and comparative advantage lies.
This Bill is oriented towards alignment with Nasdaq. This is understandable given its scale and depth. However, instead of tagging onto other leading bigger markets, can we consider a more innovative tweak to our approach and position Singapore as a key node in the broader capital markets ecosystem.
In this regard, I offer two strategic tweaks.
First, we should seek similar interoperability arrangements with other financial centres – where we can, perhaps, add relatively more value, such as our friends in New Zealand and other key market exchanges.
Second, given the $2 billion minimum market cap threshold, can we identify bottlenecks across the capital chain – from startup funding to growth capital before reaching public-markets – so the GLB is not just a listing window, but the end to a strong Singapore pipeline of growth companies.
Why? As I said at the beginning, listings do not define the market. Liquidity does. Listings do not begin at IPO. They begin with early and growth-stage capital.
Sir, a bridge is only useful if there are roads leading to it. The public market is not the start of the capital journey – it is a later chapter. While this Bill addresses public markets, we must continue strengthening the full capital lifecycle, from early-stage funding to growth capital before reaching public-markets.
This Bill opens an important door, a willingness for us to adapt. But a door alone does not create a destination.
If issuers list here but trading happens elsewhere, we will have presence without depth, activity without influence and listings without leadership. If we are merely a Singapore window shadowing another liquid overseas market, we have not succeeded. But if we become an Asian time-zone node for global price discovery, anchored by genuine investor protections, supported by self-sustaining liquidity and part of a broader network connecting capital across regions that can benefit from the Singapore as the capital umbrella – then we will have created something of lasting value. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, which strengthens Singapore's position as a global capital markets hub.
The amendments to the Securities and Futures Act – particularly the introduction of the sponsored depositary receipt framework and the GLB – are forward-looking. They facilitate cross-border listings, expand investor access and align our regulatory framework with international practices.
Enabling access is an important first step. The real test is whether we can convert that access into liquidity, confidence and sustained market participation.
Allow me to raise three areas.
First, on future-proofing the framework. Section 239AA provides a clear definition of sponsored depositary receipts based on established custodial structures. But capital markets are evolving rapidly. Tokenised securities are emerging, and major market infrastructures, such as Nasdaq and DTCC, are already developing new settlement architectures.
The key question is whether this framework can adapt to structural change.
If tokenisation reshapes custody, ownership and settlement, will the SDR framework remain relevant? Or will we need to rework it to keep pace with market evolution? Tokenisation also presents clear advantages. It can enable faster settlement, reduce intermediation costs and lower barriers to entry for both issuers and investors. It can support fractional ownership and broaden participation, strengthening liquidity and price discovery.
What steps will MAS take to ensure that this framework is forward-compatible with tokenised representations of securities, and how will we leverage these developments to strengthen liquidity, reduce transaction costs and expand investor access over time?
Second, on the strength and structure of the supporting ecosystem.
The effectiveness of this regime depends on the depth and diversity of intermediaries. There is a strong capacity among global and local financial institutions. The next step is to ensure diversity and competition. A broader base of intermediaries will drive better pricing, innovation and access – core conditions for a well-functioning market. What steps will MAS take to expand participation among qualified intermediaries and service providers and ensure the ecosystem supports efficient and competitive market activity over the long run?
Third, on dispute resolution and investor's recourse.
The GLB simplifies access by allowing Singapore investors to invest in Singapore-listed instruments under our regulatory framework and legal system. This is a clear improvement over the current model, where investors must navigate foreign jurisdictions directly.
To realise this benefit fully, investors need clarity on how recourse works in practice, especially where issuers maintain primary listings overseas. What guidance will MAS provide to ensure investors have a clear understanding of their rights, governing law and dispute resolution pathways? Clarity reduces uncertainty, and in capital markets, uncertainty is often the greater deterrent.
Clear frameworks will also strengthen Singapore's position as a leading hub for cross-border dispute resolution, supported by institutions, such as the Singapore International Commercial Court, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and the Singapore International Mediation Centre. Legal clarity is not just protection. It is a competitive advantage.
Finally, Sir, on a broader strategic point.
This Bill expands access and facilitates listings. But listings alone are insufficient to anchor capital. Trading activity gravitates toward deeper, more liquid markets, even where secondary listings exist. Singapore must build liquidity deliberately.
I would like to ask the Minister what concrete steps MAS will take to build liquidity in these instruments, specifically, how MAS intends to support market-making to ensure continuous pricing and tighter spreads, and to facilitate their inclusion in institutional and longer-term capital pools, including through index inclusion and schemes, such as the proposed CPF Life-cycle Investment scheme and the Supplementary Retirement Scheme.
There is a need to strengthen regional investor connectivity. Singapore can anchor ASEAN capital markets by attracting large-cap companies with significant regional operations. We must attract both issuers and investors from across Southeast Asia. This will deepen liquidity, improve price discovery and strengthen market vibrancy. It also reinforces Singapore's role as a wealth management hub, positioning us as a gateway for capital and investment flows across ASEAN. In the long run, liquidity will depend on how effectively we connect regional capital to regional opportunities through Singapore.
Investor familiarity is equally important. SDRs are less intuitive for retail investors. Clear disclosures and investor education are essential.
Liquidity also depends on research coverage, brokers and market intermediaries. MAS should track success through clear indicators: trading volume, liquidity, investor participation and capital raised through Singapore, not just the number of listings. So, I would like to ask the Minister: how will the MAS define success for this framework and what benchmarks will guide its implementation?
Sir, this Bill is a strong step forward. Its success will depend on building credible, liquid instruments that are fully integrated into Singapore's capital markets ecosystem. With continued focus on adaptability, ecosystem strength and investor clarity, Singapore can realise the full potential of this framework.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee Hong Tat.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support of the Bill and for their clarifications and suggestions. It is good to see the commitment in this House to build a competitive equities market in Singapore, and to strengthen our role as a leading financial centre and growth capital hub.
Members have raised several important considerations relating to the Bill. These can be categorised in three broad themes: first, the broader strategic considerations for the proposed amendments; second, whether the proposed arrangements would enable the GLB to succeed; and third, how do we ensure that regulatory standards and investor protection remain robust.
First, let me address the questions from Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Shawn Loh on whether the SGX-Nasdaq listing bridge could be the first of many similar collaborations. Mr Edward Chia also suggested that we can strengthen our linkages to ASEAN capital markets to allow large-cap companies to tap into a common pool of capital.
Indeed, Singapore has thrived as an economic and financial hub by positioning ourselves at the intersection of global capital flows. Cross-border partnerships were one of the recommendations by the Equities Market Review Group, and the intention is to enable future win-win collaborations beyond the SGX-Nasdaq bridge.
The new Part 13A of the SFA is intended to facilitate future partnerships with other overseas exchanges, which can provide access to deep pools of capital and a broad range of investors, and are governed by securities laws that adhere to international standards. I mentioned these points in my opening speech.
Our immediate focus is to facilitate the success of the GLB. With this experience, MAS and SGX can then consider further partnerships in the future.
Next, let me explain how the proposed arrangements would enable the GLB to succeed.
Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked what profile of issuers the GLB hopes to attract, and Dr Neo Kok Beng noted that it could be attractive to deep-tech companies. Mr Ng Shi Xuan also asked whether the $2 billion market capitalisation threshold would limit the pool of eligible issuers for GLB.
Sir, the GLB welcomes companies from different countries and sectors. There could be keener interest from firms with an Asian nexus and strong growth potential that are seeking access to deep US capital markets while appealing to a complementary investor base in Asia. The choice of the $2 billion threshold reflects what SGX and Nasdaq have assessed to be the conditions for such a simultaneous listing to succeed, so that GLB issuers have sufficient scale and interest from investors in both the US and Singapore markets. GLB issuers must also meet a minimum fundraising requirement in Singapore, as this will help to anchor a good level of trading liquidity in Singapore. I should add, Sir, that the $2 billion applies to the GLB, which is the collaboration that SGX is having with Nasdaq. It is not a general requirement that will tie our hands for future collaborations with other exchanges.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we believe that with Asia's continued growth, there will be a pool of companies that can meet the requirements and benefit from this arrangement. SGX and Nasdaq will work together to engage these potential issuers and build up a pipeline of quality companies for the GLB. I certainly do not want to count our chickens before they hatch but let me just put it this way – there has been healthy interest from potential issuers on this GLB collaboration.
Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Victor Lye, Assoc Prof Lim, Mr Yip and Mr Saktiandi have also asked how trading activity will be sustained in Singapore. Mr Chia emphasised the importance of building liquidity and deepening investor participation.
Sir, we agree with these views, as growing the equities market cannot, as Mr Saktiandi said, rely only on one silver bullet. It requires a suite of measures that help to build up the ecosystem steadily and sustainably.
To address the point that Assoc Prof Lim mentioned about proposed listing disclosures, SGX recently put out a consultation paper to propose mandating certain disclosures for Main Board companies.
This is the approach – building the ecosystem – that the Equities Market Review Group took. We recommended a comprehensive set of measures aimed at strengthening the demand from investors and also the supply of new listings. And to support investment and trading activity in Singapore listings, we are also implementing several measures. They go beyond what is covered in this Bill, but these are things which MAS, SGX and other players in the industry are working on.
First, we are improving price discovery through better information and coverage. MAS' Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS) scheme was enhanced last year to develop the research coverage and pool of analysts in Singapore. We agree that this is important.
Second, specific investment funds in Singapore, such as the $6.5 billion Equity Market Development Programme and the $3 billion Anchor Fund are growing the pool of institutional investors in Singapore who can potentially act as cornerstone investors for Singapore IPOs, including those on the GLB.
Third, MAS and SGX will be putting in place targeted measures to improve our market-making ecosystem which will facilitate tighter trading spreads and better trading liquidity. These measures will apply to GLB and SGX's other boards. In addition, \"Value Unlock\" initiatives seek to strengthen investor confidence, by helping listed companies to better formulate and communicate their strategic plans to shareholders.
MAS and SGX have formed an Equity Market Implementation Committee to oversee the execution of these measures, because we know policy must be matched by good implementation. We will track the progress and continue to take feedback from industry stakeholders, as the process of improving our competitiveness is an ongoing marathon. We are definitely not saying that whatever we have recommended, including what is presented in this Bill, will be the final set of measures that will be required.
It is an ongoing, never-ending marathon because whatever we do, we must expect our competitors to also up their game. And so, we have to continuously invest in building stronger capabilities and to up our competitiveness. And that is what we will do together with the industry.
Sir, since this is the Year of the Horse, if I may just use some horse-related Chinese phrases to describe our approach: 快马加鞭, 马不停蹄, 才能一马当先, 马到功成. (In English): \"Press forward with speed, without pause or rest, only then can you lead the pack and achieve success.\"
Sir, we are complementing the improvements in our public markets by forming the Growth Capital Work Group in February this year, to identify strategies to support the provision of financing solutions to companies across the various growth stages before they are ready to access the public equities market. A few Members spoke about this. We should not just look at the public equities market alone; it is part of the larger ecosystem. Our aim is to support entrepreneurship and develop Singapore as a growth capital hub, for both local and foreign companies to use Singapore as a launchpad to grow their business.
Mr Yip asked about the operational aspects of the GLB, such as settlement procedures across both exchanges. SGX and Nasdaq have been working out the detailed operational arrangements for smooth trading and settlement. They are working closely with industry participants and building on their experiences with existing dual listings, to ensure that investors will be able to trade with confidence.
Mr Ng asked how the GLB will sit alongside the SGX Main Board. Ms Nadia, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Loh asked whether the GLB will translate into opportunities for the rest of the Singapore financial ecosystem. The GLB expands the range of fund-raising options that Singapore can offer to both domestic and international companies. By attracting a diverse range of issuers to list in Singapore, the GLB increases the opportunities and dynamism in our equities market and provides more options for Singapore investors. A successful GLB will bring more investor interest and liquidity into the Singapore market and help increase the pipeline of listings on SGX. This, in turn, creates business opportunities for local service providers, including lawyers, accountants and other financial intermediaries.
Of course, Sir, I acknowledge the point that a few Members have made that we cannot be certain whether a move like this will succeed. Nobody can give that guarantee, but it is back to something that we discussed before in this House – are we prepared to take calculated risks, identify what are the possible opportunities and try, even though we know it may not be a guaranteed success? Because if you do not try, the probability of success is zero; if you try, it is not 100%, but at least, we have a shot at it. So, that is the attitude that we are taking and, of course, we will do our very best to work together with industry partners to increase the chances of success.
Sir, Mr Ng asked if MAS had consulted on the regulatory landscape for the GLB. MAS and SGX have been engaging closely with the industry throughout the development of the GLB framework. From January to February 2026, we conducted a public consultation on the proposed regulatory amendments to facilitate dual listing arrangements that would include the GLB. Respondents and market participants strongly supported the proposed framework and provided useful feedback to improve harmonisation of the regulatory requirements. The regulations that the MAS will be issuing around middle of this year will focus on the rules that apply to the GLB. And as I mentioned, if there are potential collaborations with other exchanges in the future, MAS will similarly do a public consultation to get views from our stakeholders before we firm up the arrangements.
Sir, let me now turn to questions pertaining to the regulatory framework.
Members emphasised the need to preserve our standards of disclosure, governance and enforcement. We fully agree. We will only permit dual listing arrangements with exchanges that operate in an overseas jurisdiction whose securities laws are consistent with IOSCO's international standards and principles. MAS will study each new jurisdiction and their relevant laws carefully before any new arrangement is launched. MAS will also provide for necessary safeguards and ensure that regulatory standards are maintained. We reserve the right to reassess the arrangement should a partner jurisdiction change its rules significantly, and where necessary, adjust our regulations to maintain a high level of corporate governance and disclosures for investor protection.
So, we are not without agency. We will do what we need to do as the regulator in Singapore to uphold high standards – both corporate governance and disclosure standards – and to provide adequate protections for investors.
The core responsibilities of GLB issuers and the professionals that support them remain the same as with all other listings. They must ensure that disclosures satisfy the applicable standards and support informed decision-making by investors at the initial public offering and on an ongoing basis. Apart from the specific modifications to align regulatory requirements to facilitate the GLB operations, all other protective and investor recourse provisions in the SFA – including those relating to market misconduct, continuous disclosure and investor compensation – will continue to apply.
MAS and the relevant authorities in Singapore will retain full discretion to investigate, and where appropriate, to take enforcement action against any breaches of disclosure obligations or market misconduct that arise in Singapore. I mentioned this in my opening speech too. SGX RegCo, as frontline regulator, will conduct real-time surveillance and take the necessary actions against issues of serious trading irregularities, market manipulation or disclosure breaches and where necessary, refer cases to MAS and the other relevant authorities for enforcement action. Specific to the GLB, SGX RegCo will work closely with Nasdaq on regulatory measures. MAS also has in place longstanding information sharing and enforcement cooperation arrangements with the relevant US authorities.
Turning to investor protection, Mr Chia and Mr Lye asked about investor recourse options against a GLB issuer. An investor who invests in capital market products listed on the GLB can utilise the existing investor recourse options that are provided under the SFA to seek compensation for losses arising from breaches of disclosure requirements and market misconduct in the Singapore Courts. The procedure to be followed in Singapore remains unchanged.
MAS has separately consulted on enhancements to investor recourse avenues for investors under Singapore law. This is not part of this Bill, it is something that we are doing separately and this was a recommendation from the Equities Market Review Group. The enhanced investor recourse will apply to investors on the GLB and SGX's other boards. MAS has consulted on proposals that would expand investors' ability to obtain civil compensation for losses arising from market misconduct. These include facilitating self-organisation of investors looking to take civil action, providing access to funding and reducing legal barriers to action. These avenues will be balanced with appropriate safeguards to prevent vexatious litigation.
Mr Yip asked about the safeguards for investors should an issuer delist from Nasdaq, and consequently the GLB. As SGX's GLB listing framework has been developed with reference to the Nasdaq listing rules, delisting would follow established Nasdaq processes, which include advance notice to the market and, where applicable, prescribed cure or compliance periods that allow companies to remediate any issues and continue to be listed. The same delisting procedures apply whether the investors invest in the dual-listed stocks on GLB or directly through Nasdaq.
Mr Saktiandi and Mr Chia asked how disputes arising from Dual Listing Boards may be resolved, including how securities law of a foreign jurisdiction which is incorporated by reference would be interpreted. Sir, any disputes relating to regulations issued under the new Part 13A would still be determined by the Singapore Courts. These regulations include those which incorporate foreign securities law by reference. Handling such disputes is something that our Courts are familiar with, based on established legal principles relating to the interpretation of foreign law, with reference to foreign legislation and the accompanying case law.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip asked about the safeguards around permitting issuers to engage retail investors at an earlier stage with their preliminary prospectus, and Mr Lye asked if MAS will strengthen investor‑education efforts. Sir, MAS will require issuers to clearly state in their preliminary prospectus that it is subject to further amendments and completion, and investment decisions can only be made based on the final prospectus.
When the final prospectus is registered, investors must be alerted and informed on how to access the most up-to-date information before they make their investment decisions. The prospectus must disclose all material information and risks, to allow investors to make informed decisions. MAS and MoneySense will continue to work with key stakeholders, such as SGX and SIAS, on investor education, to equip investors with the knowledge and skills to evaluate investment opportunities. This is an ongoing work, and I see a lot of potential for us to continue this partnership.
Let me also address Mr Chia, Mr Lee and Mr Saktiandi's questions on sponsored DRs. DRs have been traded in Singapore and in other markets for some time, and the industry has developed to facilitate the smooth and safe issuance and trading of these instruments.
In terms of regulation, where DRs have been used to accord similar rights and interests to DR holders, as shares do for shareholders, the same principles that protect the rights and interests of shareholders have been extended to DR holders. The amendments in this Bill clarify one aspect of this, which is that the issuer of securities that are represented by the DRs will be responsible for compliance with disclosure standards. Clarity on the responsibilities of parties involved in DR issuance is important, as DRs are commonly used for dual listings from the US.
On a related note, Mr Chia and Mr Lee made the point that our regulatory framework should be forward-looking and provide the necessary safeguards for the emergence of tokenised representation of securities. Indeed, our regulatory framework is designed to be technology-neutral and it is able to accommodate both tokenised and non-tokenised securities – the regulatory requirements are premised on the principle of \"same activity, same risk, same regulatory outcome\".
To further support responsible innovation in Singapore's digital asset ecosystem, MAS has recently issued the Guide on Tokenisation of Capital Markets Products to provide clarity for the issuance and offerings of tokenised capital markets products. We will continue to explore further efforts to support tokenisation and other forms of innovation in Singapore's capital markets.
Sir, please allow me to conclude by thanking hon Members once again for their support of the Bill. The questions raised by Members reflect a shared desire to ensure that Singapore's equities market is not only well-regulated and robust, but also dynamic and growing.
The amendments in this Bill are to support a bold and innovative step forward to facilitate dual listings and serve the fund-raising needs of entrepreneurs and companies, both local and from around the world. The proposed framework we have put in place, anchored on strong international standards and with appropriate safeguards in place, is a timely move to enable Singapore to seize new opportunities while ensuring sufficient protection for investors.
The positive momentum we are seeing in our equities market since the Equities Market Review Group submitted our recommendations last November is encouraging, but as I mentioned earlier – never stopping here, this is our ongoing marathon, we will keep going. Because we know that the competition is intense and we must keep moving forward to stay ahead, and in some areas that we are still lagging behind, to improve and catch up with our competitors.
We are quite clear-eyed about this. There are some areas for improvement and we will work on these areas to continue to do better. This Bill will build on our solid foundation and further raise Singapore's standing as a listing venue of choice and provide a vital bridge with regional and global capital markets. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you have a clarification? Please proceed.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Sir. Just a quick clarification on my part, which concerns the $2 billion threshold. Minister Chee explained that this was arrived after joint negotiations between Nasdaq and SGX. Given their relative sizes, my assumption is that these are more aligned with Nasdaq's expectations of market cap rather than our own. I am therefore left with my original concern that we might potentially shut off a pathway for SGX's Main Board firms to step up to the GLB.
Minister Chee did confirm that this threshold does not bind us from future cooperations with other exchanges. I am gratified to hear that and I am just wondering will that mean that there will be new parallel GLBs for future arrangements or agreements of this form?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chee Hong Tat, would you like to respond to that clarification?
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Assoc Prof Lim had a two-part question. So, the first part is whether the $2 billion will be too high a threshold, including for some of the companies that are currently on our Main Board and who are looking to list, but may not meet this threshold.
I accept that the threshold means that not all companies can qualify to come onto the GLB. But when we discussed this with Nasdaq, one of the key considerations is that we do want the company, once they are listed on the GLB through this simultaneous listing arrangement, to also be able to do well, not just in Nasdaq, but also here, in Singapore.
To do that, we need to bear in mind that while $2 billion may look like a big number in Singapore, actually in Nasdaq, $2 billion is not that big. You will end up becoming a small fish in a very big pond for Nasdaq.
That is why there is a certain balance to be struck. If you lower the threshold too much, sure, you may have more companies, but post listing – which many Members have spoken about as well, it is not just the listing, but post listing – some of these companies may have more difficulties subsequently. If your threshold is too high, say, you set it at $10 billion or $20 billion, there will be too few companies.
So, this is really a judgement call, where to strike this balance. After some discussions, we felt that, as I explained in my response speech, $2 billion would be about the right level.
I am not at liberty to share more because of commercial sensitivity, but as I mentioned earlier, we do have healthy interest from a good pipeline of potential issuers. I do not think this is something which is too far off from what the market has judged to be an appropriate threshold.
Assoc Prof Lim's second question is for future such similar arrangements, have we looked at it? I did explain this earlier in my response speech. For now, we will focus on getting the GLB up. It is quite a big task for SGX and the team to work on this together with Nasdaq to make sure that we get it up, we get it running, achieve some positive momentum.
Certainly, we are open to discussing with other exchanges, like-minded partners, who want to do this together with us. We are very open, because Singapore's value proposition, part of it, lies in our ability to serve as a hub and to be able to connect different markets.
So, certainly, if there are other exchanges that would like to work with SGX, we will be very happy to explore these opportunities and to discuss with them, provided they meet those two important safeguards that I outlined in my speech – high standards, they are able to benefit from adequate coverage; and we will then discuss with the overseas exchange on some of the details. We may not end up with a $2 billion threshold because it depends on the size of the other exchange.
For Nasdaq, $2 billion was the threshold that we agreed on. But if this is another exchange, the threshold may not be $2 billion, it may be something else. We will have to judge, case by case.
But certainly, we look forward to more of such collaborations because that will help to boost our overall standing as a financial centre. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Any further clarifications? None? I will propose the question to the House.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Chee Hong Tat]. (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":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Manpower.
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I now move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has assessed that there is no conflict of interest for Members holding Singtel shares to participate in this Debate and to vote on the Bill. In the interest of transparency, I declare that I am a holder of Singtel Special Discounted Shares (Singtel SDS) as a Central Provident Fund (CPF) member.
The CPF is a key pillar of Singapore's social security system and has been updated over the years to meet our members' changing needs and ensure its continued effectiveness. This Bill is one such effort. It updates a legacy arrangement by enabling the transfer of Singtel SDS from the CPF Board to the Central Depository (CDP) accounts of SDS holders. This will benefit SDS holders by enabling them to manage their shares directly.
The SDS scheme was introduced in 1993 to give Singaporeans a stake in Singapore's economic success through share ownership. During Singtel's initial public offering (IPO) that year, where 11% of its total shares were traded for the first time, CPF members were offered the opportunity to buy Singtel shares at a discounted price using their CPF savings, first in 1993 and again in 1996. This was an option given to CPF members. And though it was not compulsory, many chose to take this up.
At that time, many CPF members were unfamiliar with share ownership. Hence, to support them, the CPF Board was appointed as the trustee to facilitate these purchases. Since then, these Singtel SDS have been held in CDP accounts under CPF Board's trusteeship.
The landscape has since evolved. Today, Singaporeans are more financially savvy and familiar with share ownership. Many have their own CDP accounts and are experienced in trading shares.
Over the years, the SDS scheme has benefited many CPF members, the youngest of whom are now above 50 years old. In 1993 and 1996, SDS holders were able to buy their Singtel SDS with an upfront discount. Those who held on to their shares also received loyalty shares equal to 40% of their initial holdings, along with regular dividends.
Prior to the start of this exercise in April, there were around 615,000 SDS holders, whose SDS holdings collectively represented less than 5% of Singtel's total shareholdings. The median SDS holder had around 1,360 shares that were worth about $6,800 in equity value.
In other words, every $100 invested back then would have accumulated about $600 in dividends and equity value to date. This does not include the interest earned on those dividends. In fact, their total dividends received alone would have exceeded both the CPF savings used to purchase the Singtel SDS and the interest they would have otherwise received in their CPF Ordinary Account.
Following the Singtel Group's proposal to transfer the Singtel SDS from the CPF Board to SDS holders, MOM and the CPF Board consulted relevant agencies to assess the proposal's impact on SDS holders and whether this would be beneficial to CPF members.
The SDS scheme has already achieved its intent of building up assets of CPF members. The legacy arrangement where the CPF Board is the trustee for members' SDS is no longer necessary, given that Singaporeans are more financially savvy and familiar with share ownership. Amongst the current Singtel SDS holders, close to three in five now have their own individual CDP accounts.
With the transfer, SDS holders can hold and manage their shares directly. They will also benefit indirectly as the Singtel Group will have greater flexibility to carry out corporate actions in a timely manner for them.
We have worked and will continue to work with the relevant parties, including MAS and SGX, to ensure a smooth transfer. This includes availing options to SDS holders to ensure that their interests are protected and allowing them the flexibility to decide how they would want to manage their Singtel SDS moving forward.
Let me now outline the options available to SDS holders.
For those who prefer to keep their Singtel SDS, no action is required. The Bill amends the CPF Act to effect the automatic transfer of the shares to CDP accounts under the respective SDS holders' names, thereby ensuring that the process is seamless for SDS holders. The transfer is planned for November 2026.
For the three in five who have their own individual CDP accounts, also known as direct accounts in the Bill, we will automatically transfer their Singtel SDS to their individual CDP accounts. This consolidates all Singtel shares of an SDS holder into one account, making it easier for the holder to monitor and manage their shares.
For the remaining two in five who do not have CDP accounts, we will automatically transfer their Singtel SDS to designated CDP accounts under their respective names, also known as \"designated shares account\", in the Bill. This account will be created specifically to only hold Singtel SDS and its related entitlements.
Singtel SDS in designated CDP accounts will remain under the SDS scheme, which means that these SDS holders will largely continue to receive similar treatment and support as they do today. They will continue to receive future dividends in their CPF Ordinary Accounts. If they sell their Singtel SDS at any point of time in the future, they can opt to receive the sale proceeds either in their CPF Ordinary Accounts or in cash.
For SDS holders who prefer not to retain their Singtel SDS, they may choose to sell and receive their sale proceeds either in their CPF Ordinary Account or in cash.
Given that the SDS scheme has achieved its objective of allowing SDS holders to benefit and share in Singapore's development, the CPF Board has reviewed its rules and decided to allow those who sell their SDS to withdraw their proceeds in cash if they wish to do so without having met CPF withdrawal conditions.
We have effected this from 8 April 2026 through subsidiary legislation amendments. Those who wish to keep their proceeds in their CPF Ordinary Accounts to earn higher interest may continue to do so.
SDS holders have ample time of around seven months to decide if they want to sell their shares before the planned transfer in November. Those who do not wish to make a decision now will still have the option to sell at any one point in time in the future, including after the transfer exercise.
We have worked with CPF Board and Singtel Group to reach out to all SDS holders regarding the proposed transfer. All SDS holders would have received a hardcopy notification letter in April 2026, issued jointly by the CPF Board and Singtel Group. It informs them of their Singtel SDS holdings, the options available to them and where they can seek clarifications and assistance.
Dedicated touchpoints have been set up to assist SDS holders on enquiries and sales. These span multiple channels, including a dedicated hotline, website, SingPost branches and CPF service centres across Singapore. SDS holders who wish to sell can do so either online, in-person at SingPost branches or through select SGX brokers.
In addition, we have identified over 20,000 SDS holders who may require greater assistance. We will conduct targeted outreach to help them understand their options. We have also put in place safeguards to help protect all SDS holders from potential scams.
Through these efforts, SDS holders will be able to make an informed decision as to which option best meets their needs, while ensuring that whichever option they choose – either to sell or to keep their shares – the process is kept simple and safe.
Allow me to conclude. The objective of the SDS scheme has already been achieved. CPF members who have purchased the discounted Singtel SDS have made significant gains over the years. This Bill updates a legacy arrangement by transferring Singtel SDS from CPF Board to individual CDP accounts or designated CDP accounts of SDS holders, thus allowing those who prefer to keep their Singtel SDS, to hold and manage their shares directly. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The transfer of Singtel SDS from CPF Board to SDS holders' CDP closes a chapter of a scheme that helped ordinary working Singaporeans build up assets, not just get by. I declare my interest as an SDS holder. I welcome the move to waive CPF withdrawal conditions for sale proceeds, so SDS holders, especially those who may need the money for daily needs or healthcare, have more flexibility.
About 615,000 SDS holders will be affected by this transfer. The median SDS holder paid about $2,000 for the shares; they are worth about $6,800 as at April and have received about $5,000 in cumulative dividends. These are not abstract numbers. This is real money that can help a worker's family and make retirement a bit more secure. That is why we must make this transition safe, simple and supportive.
SDS was a simple but powerful idea: give Singaporeans a stake in our economy through share ownership. In other words, it helped workers turn wages into wealth, step by step, over time.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
In the 1990s, Singapore was in a period of rapid growth and optimism. Today, the pressures are different: job insecurity, higher costs and longer retirements. For many workers, the worry is straightforward, can I still make ends meet today and have enough for tomorrow? As SDS comes to an end, we should renew a worker-first promise: growth must translate into security, and no Singaporean should be left behind simply because they are less financially confident.
SDS worked because CPF Board served as a trustee, putting guardrails in place for first-generation retail investors, many of whom were workers with little experience in the markets. Today, more Singaporeans invest. But a worker-first approach means we must still ask: who may be left behind, especially the older workers and those with lower financial literacy? We cannot build a \"me first\" economy where only the savvy benefit.
Looking ahead, are there plans to refresh broad-based ownership models, like SDS, so that as Singapore invests heavily in artificial intelligence (AI) and new technologies, workers can benefit – not just through wages, but also by sharing in the upside? I welcome the earlier Budget announcement on enabling long-term investment, and potentially stronger returns for CPF members.
On the transfer exercise, I have three practical points to raise.
First, on selling. After the shares are moved into CDP accounts, some holders may end up with odd lots. Will this make it harder for them to sell without topping up? What guidance will CPF Board provide to help SDS holders transact smoothly and avoid unnecessary costs? I believe there will be sales charges if they want to sell their shares now, or in the future when it is ported over to their CDP account. Will these sale charges be higher than what they enjoy today when held via CPF Board?
Second, on safeguards. Scams will follow wherever money is involved. Many SDS holders are older, indeed, the youngest are in their fifties, and about half are 65 and above. A worker-first approach must also be a senior-safe approach. What measures are in place to protect them from scammers who may exploit this entire transfer exercise? Does CPF Board expect an uptick in related scams and how will it pre-empt them?
Third, on communications. I note CPF Board has sent notification letters, set up a dedicated hotline and conducted door-to-door visits for vulnerable SDS holders. Will CPF Board also notify SDS holders with clear anti-scam advisories, whether via SMS or any other means, especially with emerging modus operandi by scammers? This is so that the message reaches them properly and reduces confusion.
Mr Speaker, Sir, with these questions, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, at the outset, let me state that the objective of this Bill, which seeks to provide Singaporeans with greater flexibility and ownership over their Singtel shares that they hold in their CPF accounts, is a good one. The SDS scheme is a legacy scheme introduced in 1993, and many Singaporeans who bought shares under the scheme would be seniors now.
The proposed transfer would enable SDS holders who hold shares in their individual CDP accounts to consolidate all their holdings and make it easier for them to track and trade these shares. This is a positive move. However, there are several aspects of the implementation that warrants closer scrutiny.
First, more than two in five SDS holders do not have individual accounts. I would like to ask why the Government has chosen to create designated CDP accounts for the sole purpose of holding Singtel SDS for these SDS holders, instead of simply seeking the consent of SDS holders to create standard individual CDP accounts and transfer the SDS into these accounts for them? A designated account appears to be a workaround rather than a fully empowering solution. If the policy intent is to give shareholders true ownership and control, then enabling them to hold these shares in regular individual CDP accounts would seem more consistent with the goal.
Second, I note that only a select list of brokers has been authorised to facilitate the sale of these shares. What is the rationale behind limiting participation to this group? In today's market, there is a wide range of brokerage platforms offering competitive commission rates lower than the commission rates currently cited for selling Singtel SDS. Currently, the commission rates are 0.24%, if the shares are sold through Philips Securities, or a flat fee of $17.95 cents if sold through SingPost.
Meanwhile, low-cost brokers in the market offer rates as low as 0.03%, or even flat fees of around $1 to $2. Why were these lower-cost options not included in the list of approved brokers? By allowing SDS shareholders to sell their shares only from a short list of brokers, competition may be reduced. This may, in turn, disadvantage shareholders, especially those who are already unfamiliar with accessing financial services.
Additionally, senior SDS holders with mobility issues or limited digital savviness are only able to authorise a third party to sell the Singtel SDS on their behalf at SingPost branches. The flat fee of $17.95 charged for this transaction may represent a large proportion of sale proceeds for SDS holders who hold small quantities of shares.
Half of the SDS holders own less than 1,360 shares, or a shareholding of less than approximately $6,000. For those small holdings, these fees will materially erode the value realised. Will the Government consider waiving the fees for the very elderly SDS holders that are selling only small amounts of shares through SingPost, so that they can unlock their holdings for use during their golden years at no cost?
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim. Not here. Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the CPF (Amendment) Bill introduced today marks the closure of an important chapter in the history of Singapore's social security system. Specifically, it facilitates the transfer of Singtel SDS from the CPF Board through the CDP accounts of over 615,000 Singaporeans.
The Workers' Party supports this Bill. Even as Singtel may stand to benefit from the scheme through an easing of its administrative requirements and the ease of undertaking future corporate actions to enhance its own shareholder value, ultimately, Singaporeans will benefit from such an exercise.
However, the closure of the Singtel SDS scheme also presents a timely opportunity to reflect on its successes, its inconsistencies and the broader question of how we truly enable Singaporeans to have a tangible stake in our nation's wealth.
Before I proceed, I wish to declare that I am not old enough to obviously have SDS shares, but I do have regular Singtel shares.
To understand the unique and what appears to be a one-off Singtel SDS scheme, we must look back at what then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated as the goal of his Government – to make Singapore a share-owning society. A statement by Singtel on its website explains it best: that the SDS scheme is a legacy scheme introduced in 1993, as part of the Government's efforts to give Singaporeans a stake in Singapore's economic success through share ownership.
On this note, the 1993 and 1996 SDS exercises were arguably ahead of its time in inclusive wealth creation. By offering shares at a massive discount as low as $1.90 for the ST \"A\" shares in 1993, and $2.50 for the ST2 shares in 1996, the Government ensured that even the smallest retail investor was in the money from day one. This was by design, and then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated the 45% generous discount was to encourage long-term share ownership.
The illustration, as shared by the CPF board in Singtel is clear – for the median SDS holder with approximately 1,360 Singtel SDS shares, a $2,000 investment in Singtel SDS has grown into nearly $12,000 in total value today, comprising $5,000 in cumulative dividends and $6,800 worth of shares as at 1 April 2026.
In contrast, had that same $2,000 remain in the CPF Ordinary Account (OA), earning a base interest of 2.5%, it will be worth only approximately $4,500 today, a mere 38% of the value of the SDS shares, or in other words, the SDS has outperformed the CPF (OA) by a factor of 2.6 times. For many Singaporeans, especially those approaching retirement, this kicker is a vital addition to their requirement adequacy.
Mr Speaker, I have several broad clarifications on this Bill.
First, I note that under section 26E(2) of the Bill, while shares remain in the designated shares account, dividends and sale proceeds must be returned to the CPF Board. However, once the shares are transferred to a direct CDP account and sold, the funds do not need to be returned to the CPF. This is a departure from the standard CPF investment scheme, where sale proceeds must typically be returned to the CPF account.
While I am supportive of this arrangement, what is the Government's rationale for why the SDS proceeds are treated differently? Furthermore, the amount withdrawn for SDS does not require the payment of accrued interest upon sale. This highlights a glaring inconsistency in our system. Why is it that when a Singaporean uses his or her CPF savings for a home, which the Government has called an appreciating asset and a store of value, they must pay back the principle plus accrued interest. Yet, for a CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) investments, no such requirements exists.
The Government's long-standing justification is that this safeguards retirement adequacy. To quote from the frequently asked question (FAQ) section on the CPF Board's website, \"refunding both the principal amount and accrued interest ensures your retirement savings are fully restored to what they would have been if they had remained in your CPF account. Without this refund, your retirement funds would be permanently reduced.\"
Yet, from a financial investment under the CPFIS, which is arguably more volatile and which the Government has itself noted in the past, underperforms the 2.5% OA rate for many CPF members, no such accrued interest is clawed back. Is the Government suggesting that housing is a value-destructive asset that will ultimately permanently reduce the value of one's retirement savings due to its leasehold nature, while financial investments are value appreciating and bear less risk of endangering our retirement funds? I hope the Minister can clarify the policy logic behind the distinction.
Returning to former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's National Day Rally speech in 1992, I note that, in the addition to Singtel, a company was to be set up to run the electricity and gas departments of the PUB, which I believe is now corporatised as the SP Group, and remains wholly owned by Temasek Holdings today. Emeritus State Minister Goh went on further to say that the MRT and the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) will be corporatised and publicly listed. These are well-run profitable enterprises. Their shares will appreciate as long as Singapore continues to be stable and prosperous and good management is in charge of the companies. Fast forward to today, SMRT was listed and then privatised by Temasek Holdings subsequently, but there was no SDS. PSA was never listed, and its real estate arm, Mapletree Investments, continue to be private as well.
In 1994, after the listing of Singtel, former President Mr Ong Teng Cheong even shared in his President's Address, \"The Singapore Telecom flotation was a resounding success: 1.4 million citizens bought Group A shares. Significantly, people are holding on to them as long term investments instead of selling them immediately for quick profit. Other major privatisations will follow Singapore Telecom. The next likely one will be the PUB electricity and gas departments in two to three years' time. The government will use these privatisations to enhance the assets of Singaporeans.\"
The automated creation of CDP accounts under section 26C is a commendable administrative move and could serve as a blueprint for future Government-led asset transfers. However, I am concerned that the closure of the SDS scheme signals an end to the share-owning society vision.
As a Member of Parliament who was only in primary school back then, will the Minister enlighten me on what happened to all these bold and attractive plans to enhance the assets of Singaporeans? Why was it that there was only one SDS scheme? Does the Minister and the Government not see the value and enhancement to Singaporeans' retirement savings with the SDS scheme?
As I have shared in my past speeches, we can give this current generation of Singaporeans a stake in the country via a meaningful IPO of the next wave of various private companies held by Temasek and encourage them to list on the Singapore Stock Exchange to fulfil the promises set more than 30 years ago. The Government will also be leading by example as part of its suite of measures under the recently introduced Equities Market Development Programme.
More importantly, the point here is not just about a one-off distribution of shares and a discount to Singaporeans whenever a company goes to an IPO. The Workers' Party has advocated in our manifesto for enabling Singaporeans to co-invest their CPF savings with GIC. This is not about one-off handouts. It is about giving citizens a stake in the long-term strategic growth of our sovereign wealth.
The middle 20% of households have the majority of their household wealth in property equity, followed by 33% in net CPF balances and only 14% in other financial equity. If you want to generate real net worth for Singaporeans and provide a legacy for their children, you must move beyond being property asset rich but cash poor.
I suggest the Government consider a Temasek or GIC for every Singaporean model. Imagine if every newborn was given a small share in a diversified portfolio held until retirement, similar to what my hon friend, Mr Andre Low, shared in this year's Committee of Supply debates. He proposed that Singapore study the introduction of a baby bond, a universal state endowed account opened automatically at birth, invested in a diversified low-cost portfolio over 18 years. This will not only provide a financial safety net but also foster a generation of financially literate citizens who understand the value of a long-term strategic investment and who have an interest and a stake in national policy.
Allow me to conclude in Mandarin, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in 1993, Singtel was officially listed as a public company, and the Government launched the Singtel Discounted Shares (SDS) scheme, allowing citizens to share in the nation's economic gains through broad-based share ownership. I was only six years old that year. More than 30 years on, at 39, I have only now come to truly appreciate the historical significance and importance of that scheme.
A $2,000 CPF investment made at the time has grown to a total value of nearly $12,000 today, including $5,000 in accumulated dividends. For many Singaporeans, this represents a substantial contribution to their retirement savings, and more importantly, it is more than twice the return that would have been earned by leaving the money in a CPF Ordinary Account at 2.5% interest. Had the Government fulfilled its promise to extend similar discounted share schemes to companies, such as PUB, SMRT and PSA, would our retirement security be considerably more robust today?
What I wish to emphasise today, however, is that we cannot remain confined to a framework of waiting for the Government to occasionally distribute \"one-off\" discounted shares or vouchers. The Workers' Party has advocated in our manifesto for enabling Singaporeans to co-invest their CPF savings with GIC. This is not a call for \"handouts\" or \"red packets\" from the Government – it is about giving citizens a stake in the long-term strategic growth of our sovereign wealth.
It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving what it truly means to keep wealth among the people.
Mr Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.
Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, the People's Action Party (PAP) Government has consistently shared the fruits of our nation's success with our own people. The Singtel SDS scheme, which we are wrapping up today, is one such example. There were others over the years in different forms, such as the New Singapore Shares, the Progress Package and Growth Dividends. These are not simple handouts. They are expressions of a social compact. More than a social distribution, they represent the sharing of the nation's success with our citizens, reminders that we all have a stake in the Singapore story.
But our fiscal landscape is changing. We face structural shifts in our society that are both inevitable and expensive: an ageing population, rising healthcare and social spending, massive investments required for climate resilience. This increases structural pressures mean we cannot rely on budget surpluses to fund this kind of generous redistribution we saw in previous years.
Yet, we must recognise this. Each generation, having contributed to this nation in turn, also deserves to partake in the fruits of their labour. I was actually asked this question: what are the Singtel SDS shares of our generation? I leave this as a philosophical question for the House to ponder.
Sir, I am convinced that the CPF Board is well prepared for this transfer exercise. On the operational aspects, I believe we are in good hands. Instead of the how, I would like to touch on the why.
The amendment before us facilitates the transfer of SDS from the CPF Board to the CDP. There are no issues there. But crucially, for this transfer exercise, CPF withdrawal conditions will be waived, and shareholders have the option of withdrawing proceeds in cash. This is a significant departure from how we have always approached the CPF, a system built on the tight discipline to ensure long-term retirement adequacy.
For years, the fundamental covenant of the CPF system has been clear. Funds utilised from CPF must be returned to the CPF. By allowing a direct cash-out today, we are departing from this long-standing principle. We have upheld CPF principles for decades for good reasons. Are there sufficient reasons to depart from them now? The reason given that the scheme has met its original intent does not fully answer the question. We must remember these Singtel shares are originally purchased using CPF monies. The default expectation has always been clear. Proceeds will be returned to CPF accounts upon sale. That was the understanding from the outset.
Nor can we rely on the reasoning of simplifying \"direct ownership\" under the CDP because even under the transfer plan, specially designated CDP accounts for those who do not already have one. These accounts are under the shareholders' names but restricted in function to only handle transactions and profits from SDS shares and proceeds from those special CDP accounts are automatically channelled back to CPF by default. So, clearly, a path to return funds from CDP to the CPF directly already exists.
Sir, I must make clear here. This is not about trying to meddle in what people do with their own money. It is about protecting the rules of the system that has served us well. By opening this door, will there be further calls for waivers and exceptions under other circumstances for cash-out? This is also about protecting our most financially vulnerable senior citizens.
I understand that SDS shareholders and now in their 50s and above. They are already eligible to withdraw a portion of CPF savings at 55. For those who met their retirement funds, these proceeds are merely an additional bonus. Even if this bonus ends up back into their CPF, they would still have been able to take this additional sum in cash anyway.
I understand all these, but I have reservations for the shareholders who have not even met their basic retirement fund. This is really about them. The media reported about 20,000 members with low CPF balances and no CDP accounts. For them, these shares are not simply a \"bonus\". They may form an important part of their retirement adequacy.
By allowing this cash-out waiver, we must ask ourselves: are we unintentionally encouraging those who can least afford it to drawdown on retirement savings too early, especially as the basic retirement fund raises to $110,200 this year. Would it not be safer for sale proceeds to return to CPF by default as has always been the practice. This would continue protecting retirement adequacy for members who have already met their retirement needs could still choose to withdraw their monies in cash.
Sir, I fully appreciate that for some seniors, these proceeds may help with immediate daily expenses and household needs. Different households will have different realities and priorities.
I also appreciate that some members may prefer to retain flexibility through their OA, particularly for housing, healthcare, education or other long-term financial needs. These are entirely understandable consideration. But I strongly encourage those members who have not yet met their basic retirement fund, if their circumstances allow, to consider transferring part or all of their proceeds back into their CPF.
I would also like to offer a tip for those who decide to do so. For those who have not met the basic retirement sum (BRS), please check your eligibility for the Matched Savings Retirement Scheme (MRSS). Under MRSS, every dollar voluntarily topped up to $2,000 a year, will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the Government. So, for shareholders who do not urgently need to utilise all the proceeds immediately, this scheme can significantly stretch the long-term value of the SDS proceeds. With an average shareholding of about $6,800, eligible seniors who make gradual MRSS top-ups over several years could potentially see these savings effectively doubled through Government matching. This could translate to close to $13,600 in retirement savings over time.
Now that I have highlighted this possible option, this tip, I would encourage the CPF Board to also help communicate this clearly to eligible members so that they can make informed decision based on their financial circumstances and priorities.
Actually, we can go one step further. Can the Government consider automatic Matched Retirement Savings Scheme matching for eligible shareholders who voluntarily choose to sweep part of their proceeds into their CPF retirement savings. This would reduce administrative hassles and help strengthen retirement adequacy for lower balanced members.
Let us do better for our most vulnerable seniors. Sir, I have recorded my suggestions and reservations. But notwithstanding, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, I will begin with a disclaimer. I am the chief economist emeritus of a wealth management and advisory firm. However, unlike the Minister of State, I do not unfortunately hold any shares in SingTel SDS or otherwise although I regret that that does not necessarily make me all that much younger than him. Unlike the declarations of all the other Members in this House, they have gleefully declared that they are too young to receive SDS.
The CPF (Amendment) Bill is in many ways a procedural Bill aimed at facilitating the transfer of designated shares, notably the SingTel SDS, first through Central Depository or CDP Accounts in individual investors' names. This will then allow such shareholders the option of either choosing to receive proceeds from their sale in cash or to direct them back to their CPF Ordinary Accounts. By removing the CPF Board as a trustee, the Bill affords individuals' greater flexibility in how they sell their shares and what they do with their earnings.
Returning agency to Singaporeans is always welcome and even just on the spaces alone, the Bill will have my support.
Still, I have three points that I wish to make which relate to the treatment of stocks for deceased shareholders, whether the Bill may inadvertently open up less sophisticated Singaporeans to scam risk, and most generally, why the Government appears to have retreated on schemes that can expand share ownership of state-linked firms?
First, I believe that that many of us have in our Meet-the-People Sessions encountered cases where the relative of the deceased resident has sought to sell their loved one's SingTel's SDS. Doing so required a special appeal to CPF, an extended and involved process just to recover what was often a relatively small amount of money. Would the process be even more inaccessible now after the transfer to individual CDP accounts?
My understanding is that the CDP account of a deceased person may be accessed by a legally appointed personal representative of the estate, such as the executor of the will or the administrator in the event that there is no will. But obtaining grants or probates or letters of administration are typically costly matters, especially for estates valued at more than $50,000.
Even for smaller estates, the Public Trustee can assist with administration, but there are nevertheless costs involved. This cost could sit easily outweigh the value of the residual Singtel SDS.
After the passage of the Bill, will the Government have a low-cost mechanism to accommodate such eventualities, other than relying on the Public Trustee for smaller estates? Otherwise, we may be left with a situation where SingTel shares are held in CDP accounts in the deceased name with no effective means of transfer.
Alternatively, we may wish for CPF to remain a trustee in such special circumstances and perform the share disposal at the market price before transferring proceeds to the deceased's consolidated CPF balances.
Relatedly, is there a possibility that thousands of these CPF accounts might become zombie accounts should related family members be unaware that their departed relatives actually hold such shares?
Will the CPF nomination originally made by members continue to apply after the shares are transferred to CDP? If not, what mechanism is there to ensure that the Public Trustee's Office can identify and contact potential beneficiaries?
Separate from deceased account holders, I should also point out that the complexity of the transfer mechanism sketched out in the new sections 26C and D may impose a non-trivial, ongoing administrative burden.
I appreciate that this complexity may be necessary to preserve the veracity of shareholders. Still, perhaps, the Minister of State could share with us an estimate of how many such account transfers would need to be affected in future, and if the Civil Service has already transmitted a set of standardised operating procedures to security firms to guide them on practical implementation.
Onto less morbid points, my second point relates to the interaction of clause 12 of the Bill, which establishes CDP accounts for the estimated 40% of shareholders who have never otherwise actively traded equities, with clause 6, which allows a direct cash payout of sales proceeds. Taken together, there is now a clear route to encash these discounted stocks.
Alas, the increased flexibility of allowing the withdrawal of equity sales proceeds were well meaning, also means that there could be a double-edged sword with unscrupulous fraudsters and scammers, potentially already licking the teeth at the prospect of accessing this pool of previously locked up funds. This is exacerbated by how most of the original discounted shareholders are now seniors who may be unsophisticated in the operation of stock trading accounts.
I am unable to conjure up all the possible scenarios for such nefarious actions, but it behoves me to ask how the Government will pursue its duty of care to ensure that this unlocking of wealth does not go awry owing to financial illiteracy.
What measures will CPF and SingTel take to educate their shareholders on the possible risks of scams during this transition period and will there be a dedicated hotline or other channels of assistance that can help this group navigate the CDP system safely? At the very least, we should ensure that basic safeguards aligned with the ones we already have in place for scams, such as cooling off periods, are adapted to this channel.
Third, in the debate surrounding the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore Bill, which formalised the privatisation of SingTel and allocated discounted shares to CPF shareholders, the Government of the time declared that its intention for offering such discounted shares was to, and I quote, \"give an opportunity to share in the success of a national asset, promote long term widespread share ownership, and give Singaporeans a direct stake in the country's success.\"
These are laudable goals and one that even today many of us can get behind. But since that step, first step, there have been no further efforts to offer discounted shares to the public. This is despite how several Government-linked corporations (GLCs) have been listed since – ST Engineering in 1997, SingPost and SMRT in 2000, and Semcorp in 2002, among others.
Despite these further opportunities for more stock ownership by ordinary Singaporeans, the Government had demurred. If anything appears to have gone in the other direction, favouring either privatisation under the rubric of Temasek, or choosing property trust as a listing platform.
The reason cannot simply be because we have already accomplished the goal of making Singapore a shareholding society. After all, this was arguably already achieved back in 1993, when 1.45 million Singaporeans, or about 86% of those eligible accepted the discounted A share offer. In one fell swoop then, the Government had raised the share ownership rate from less than 9% to more than half, which is similar to the rate today.
Yet the Government went ahead with a second discounted tranche of SingTel in 1996, where 1.53 million citizens happily took up the secondary offering.
So, if the goal was to raise the prevalence of share ownership among Singaporeans, this was already achieved in 1993. The decision to further issue discounted SingTel shares must surely then have been motivated by other goals listed by then Finance Minister Richard Hu – to give Singaporeans an opportunity to share in the upside of the country's success and to imbue in them a stronger stake in the country.
If so, then the absence of more discounted share offerings tied to the listings of other GLCs since strike me as missed opportunities. One could alternatively argue that Singaporeans all enjoy indirect exposure to stocks via our sovereign wealth funds – GIC and Temasek. This may be so, but given how these funds operate with little or no direct input from the average Singaporean, it is difficult to see how this very indirect ownership via these funds foster a sense that they have any direct stake in the country's success.
Sir, I will close with some thoughts on the proposed amendments to section 77, which enables the introduction of CPF Investment Schemes (CPFIS). CPFIS, is a mouthful, is not novel, but at the top of mind for most policy observers must be the impending Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme scheduled for 2028.
I believe that more legislation specific to the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme is to follow, and there is a fair degree of excitement over how a more explicit involvement of CPF account holders in the local stock market might further revive the SGX's fortunes.
I trust that the amendments here, which appear to set the stage for proceeds and benefits that may accrue to any such Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme to be credited back to the members' account, does not preclude a more consequential debate on the details of this scheme within this House when the time comes.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, before I proceed, I declare my interest as President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore.
Sir, the Singtel SDS scheme has served Singapore well. It was a bold initiative, introduced in 1993, that enabled ordinary Singaporeans to participate in nation-building and share in the growth of Singapore's flagship telecommunications provider.
Back in 1993, the scheme was conceptualised with the CPF Board appointed as the trustee, to facilitate Singaporeans' share purchases, as many then were unfamiliar with owning shares.
Today, more than 30 years on, the context has changed significantly. Singaporeans are more financially literate, markets are more accessible and the administrative structures that once made sense may no longer be necessary. In that regard, transferring ownership of these shares from the CPF Board to individual holders and integrating them into the Central Depository system, is a logical and forward-looking step.
However, from a consumer protection standpoint, this Bill is not just a technical amendment. It is a significant shift in responsibility: from the system to the individual.
Previously, these shares were held within a CPF-linked framework. There were built-in safeguards, including restrictions on withdrawals and a trustee structure that provided a degree of discipline. With this Bill, these safeguards are effectively removed.
Singaporeans will now have full control over these assets, including the ability to liquidate them and withdraw cash freely, rather than retaining their sales proceeds in the CPF Ordinary Account. This creates exposure to new risks, which we must mitigate.
Allow me to highlight three key concerns from the perspective of consumers.
First, the risk of premature liquidation. Many SDS holders are not active investors. Some may have held these shares passively for decades. For them, this change may be perceived simply as an opportunity to \"unlock cash\".
Second, the issue of financial literacy and decision-making. Owning shares directly in the market requires a certain level of understanding – of price volatility, timing and transaction processes and costs. Not all consumers have this knowledge.
In our experience at the Consumers Association of Singapore, when consumers are placed in unfamiliar financial situations, they can be vulnerable and may inadvertently make sub-optimal decisions.
Third, and of particular concern, is the heightened risk of scams and mis-selling. Once these shares are directly owned and easily tradable, they become a potential target.
Many in this House would be familiar with salespeople who approach Singaporeans unsolicited, asking consumers to purchase a course or a product using the latest Government grants. What is there to stop bad actors who seek to persuade or pressure individuals to tap on the SDS transfers to convince these shareholders to sell their shares and channel the proceeds into unsuitable or even fraudulent investments. Bad actors could also convince unsuspecting consumers in downloading a fake trading application, and scam victims.
This is not a theoretical concern. We have seen similar patterns whenever consumers gain access to newly liquid assets.
Mr Speaker, these risks do not detract from the merits of the Bill. But they do call for a stronger consumer protection framework to accompany its implementation. Allow me to suggest several practical measures.
First, more targeted and effective consumer education. Communications should be clear, simple and tailored to different groups, especially our seniors. Consumers must understand that once they sell these shares, the proceeds are no longer protected within CPF and decisions taken are not easily reversed.
Second, the introduction of light-touch safeguards at the point of sale. For example, when a consumer attempts to sell their shares for the first time, there could be a clear prompt or a short cooling-off period. This is not about restricting choice but about encouraging informed decision-making.
Third, enhanced vigilance against scams and misselling. We urge the relevant agencies to closely monitor the situation during the transition period. There should also be strong and visible public messaging to warn consumers against unsolicited advice or high-pressure sales tactics. In addition, financial advisers should be required to exercise heightened care when recommending the liquidation of these shares, particularly for vulnerable clients.
Fourth, support for consumers who may need assistance. Not all Singaporeans are comfortable navigating CDP accounts or trading platforms. Accessible help channels, including hotlines and physical touchpoints, will be important to ensure that no one is left behind.
Finally, I would recommend a post-implementation review. This should examine outcomes, such as how many consumers liquidate their shares, whether there are concerning patterns among vulnerable groups and whether complaints relating to scams or misselling increase in tandem. Such a review would allow us to respond quickly and timely if unintended consequences arise.
Mr Speaker, this Bill reflects a broader evolution of our system, one that places greater trust in individuals to make their own financial decisions. This is a positive development. But with greater autonomy must come stronger support and safeguards, especially for those who may be less equipped to navigate these decisions.
At the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE), we strongly believe that consumer empowerment must go hand-in-hand with consumer protection. If we get this balance right, we can ensure that this transition will benefit all Singaporeans and not just the financially savvy, but also the more vulnerable among us.
Sir, with that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has a relatively narrow purpose – to transfer Singtel SDS from the CPF Board to the direct ownership of individual Singaporean holders. I support the Bill, but I have a few clarifications and suggestions.
First, giving Singaporeans a stake in growth. Sir, the SDS scheme has been an extraordinary success story. It gave more than 600,000 – in fact, about 615,000 Singaporeans today – a direct equity stake in our nation's economic growth. For many, the value of these shares has increased several-fold over time, even before accounting for dividends and loyalty shares.
This was not just a financial scheme; it reflected a broader principle – that Singaporeans should have a stake in Singapore's success. That principle remains relevant today. So, I would like to ask, first, why have we not seen much more initiatives since then? And as we invest in new growth areas, such as AI, digital infrastructure and emerging sectors, will there be opportunities for Singaporeans to participate in these national growth engines?
Second, the rationale for the current change. Sir, I welcome the move to transfer these shares to individual ownership. It simplifies the structure and gives members direct control over their assets.
However, I would like to seek clarification. First, what triggered the need for this transfer at this point in time? Were there specific limitations or inefficiencies in the previous trustee arrangement? For those without CDP accounts, how many SDS holders fall into this group? What will be the practical experience for them under the designated accounts?
Third, waiver of withdrawal conditions. Sir, I also note that withdrawal conditions have been waived, allowing proceeds to be taken out in cash. As the SDS were issued back in 1993 and 1996, SDS holders may be younger than the age of 55. What is the reason for not applying the general rule that assets in the CPF system can only be withdrawn after the member has set aside the Full Retirement Sum at age 55?
Following the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, the increase in prices and in overall uncertainty exacerbating my concern over the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans. What is the policy rationale for this, especially for members below age 55? In today's uncertain global environment, this could have implications for retirement adequacy, which remains an important concern.
More importantly, does this risk sending an unintended signal for holders to sell rather than hold? Since the First Reading of this Bill, the news headlines have been dominated by articles analysing whether individual SDS holders should sell or keep hold of their shares. Should we be concerned with the market signals that are being sent out by this present Bill? What discussions has the Government held with Singtel in that regard?
Fourth, ensuring no one is left behind. Sir, beyond policy design, execution will be critical, especially since many SDS holders are older. Allow me to speak briefly in Malay.
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, a large proportion of SDS shareholders are seniors. For them, these changes may be hard to understand.
We must ensure that no one is left behind. Information must be clear, easy to understand and delivered through appropriate channels – including face-to-face outreach. What matters most is that every citizen is able to make a confident and informed decision.
(In English): Fifth, Sir, practical implementation points. Sir, if I may, I would like to highlight three practical implementation areas, together with one point on timelines.
First, on those who may be unaware. There may be individuals who do not respond to letters or may not even realise they still hold these shares. Could the Minister share how many SDS holders have not engaged with outreach efforts so far and what additional measures are being taken to reach those who may be unaware of their holdings? Additional touchpoints, such as Singpass notifications or CPF statements, may help ensure no one is left out.
Second, on ensuring real understanding. These are not simple concepts. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government is ensuring that key concepts are truly understood, beyond translation into different languages? Understanding is not just about language. It is about making the unfamiliar, familiar.
Third, on behavioural inertia. The default option is to do nothing. Has the Government assessed whether this leads to optimal outcomes or whether some form of guidance or simple decision frameworks could help members make some informed choices?
Sixth, Mr Speaker, timeline and flexibility. Sir, on timing. How long do SDS holders have to decide whether to sell or keep their shares? If they choose not to act now, can they still do so next year or later without losing flexibility? And after the transfer, will they continue to have full flexibility to hold or sell their shares at any time? Clarity on this will be important as many members may prefer to take time before making a decision.
Seventh, Sir, safeguards and scams. Many Members have shared this. I will just keep it short. Sir, with greater flexibility also comes greater risk. What safeguards are in place to protect, in particular, seniors from scams or financial exploitation during this transition? Even broad contours would help provide reassurance.
Eighth, market behaviour and outcomes. Sir, I would also like to understand how members are responding. Could the Minister share how many SDS holders have sold their shares since the announcement and how many have withdrawn proceeds in cash versus retaining them within CPF? This will help us better assess behavioural outcomes.
Sir, lastly, ensuring policies benefit the many. Sir, this Bill also raises a broader principle and I think this is the most important point to me in my speech. When designing policies, we must ensure that they do not result in windfall gains for a narrow group while the majority do not benefit.
Singapore's approach has been, use market mechanisms for efficiency while ensuring broad-based participation and inclusion. This balance is critical not just for economic outcomes, but for maintaining trust and fairness in our system.
Sir, this Bill is a sensible and timely amendment. It modernises a legacy scheme and gives members greater control over their assets. But its success will depend on clear communication, strong safeguards and ensuring that all Singaporeans, especially those less familiar with such matters, are able to benefit. More importantly, it prompts us to think about how future policies can continue to enable Singaporeans to share meaningfully in our nation's growth.
With these considerations, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I am mindful that I am the last speaker on the last Bill on the last day of what has been a very long Parliamentary Sitting. It is also the birthday of one of my daughters, so I am doubly incentivised to make this a short speech.
I support the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. There is no longer a need for the CPF Board to serve as a trustee for Singaporeans' SDS. The Government's approach to sunset this programme is fair and it is prudent. It should save the CPF Board some resources.
I hope that the Ministry can share an evaluation of the programme, both where it went well and areas for improvement. For example, did the scheme achieve its original objectives? Have we become more of a nation of investors? And has financial and investment literacy improved? In addition, can the Ministry share the overall administrative costs associated with the scheme and therefore the resource savings once the scheme is closed?
In terms of the implementation approach, I support the Government's effort to reach out to legacy shareholders, many of whom are seniors, who are not financially savvy and who are more vulnerable to scams. For such seniors, trusted physical touchpoints that provide financial advice are crucial.
Can the Government clarify how long any physical touchpoints will be operating for? I suggest that the CPF Board can provide resources to some of our community centres to set up physical touchpoints, especially those in neighbourhoods with a lot of seniors, such as those in Jalan Besar group representation constituency (GRC).
Can the Government confirm that Silver Generation ambassadors will also be empowered to direct our seniors to channels to receive appropriate financial advice? I believe there is definitely demand for such advice. Even I myself have been approached many times by my residents on what to do with their shares. When they ask me, I will reply: I am only a grassroots advisor, not your financial advisor.
Mr Speaker, taking a leaf from the experience of the SDS programme, I would like to make a few larger points.
First, the spread of policy reviews on the CPF system this year reflects good policy housekeeping. It is a bit like taking care of a 70-year-old tree, since the CPF Board just celebrated 70 years last year. We need to keep pruning our policies – remove the unnecessary ones so that new ones with green shoots will flourish and provide more shade for all in retirement.
One such policy with green shoots is the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS). The scheme will empower Singaporeans to take a larger role in investing for their retirement. With the upcoming LRIS, other schemes which have outlived their purpose should be sunset, like the Singtel SDS.
In my view, it is time to consider closing the CPF Investment Scheme for the Special Account, where three out of four who invested through the scheme have been worse off compared to leaving their savings in the Special Account.
In fact, taking it a step further, the Special Account itself should just be called the Retirement Account from day one, instead of the current system where the Special Account is closed and the Retirement Account is created at age 55. To the CPF member, there is no functional or financial difference between the two. Hence, doing so could simplify the CPF system significantly.
Second, we should continue the spirit of the SDS programme – the spirit of providing ordinary Singaporeans access to the returns from otherwise privileged financial instruments. The spirit of sharing economic success directly with our citizens, who form the backbone and lifeblood of that very economic success.
We have done this in a few ways. Singapore has historically not shied from innovative policies that marry economic objectives with our social compact. HDB flats are a great example. Mr Louis Chua mentioned this just now. Singapore's land increases in value when our economy grows and because Singapore is a nation of property owners, many Singaporeans benefit from this land appreciation through owning HDB flats.
Another way is through surplus sharing programmes. Such as the Growth Dividends of 2006 and 2008. But these surplus sharing programmes have been ad hoc for now. Perhaps we can think of a longer-term programme to allow Singaporeans to have a stake in the economic upside of Singapore, even if they are no longer in the workforce and are not business owners.
Third, we should emulate the attitude of the Government in the 1990s. It was a Government that was not afraid of taking some policy risk. Today, the SDS programme is seen positively because Singtel has done well; well, at least, Singtel shares have done well. But this was not a foregone conclusion when the scheme started. The company could have done poorly or the business environment could have been worse. And shareholders would not be in-the-money. It is not that hard to imagine.
Yet the decision makers of that day decided that it was worth the policy risk. They took a bet. Singaporeans, with their eyes wide open, took a bet with them. And the bet paid off.
I hope this will continue in our Government schemes today. Minister Chee Hong Tat mentioned this in the previous debate for the previous Bill, to be able to take some policy risk. The Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme (LRIS), for example, is also not without policy risk. And I am glad that we are taking this bet together again.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I acknowledge the SDS' positive outcomes for the CPF members who benefitted. It was a good chapter in our nation-building story, with a happy ending. I support the closing of this chapter and look forward to CPF Board writing similar chapters in the future. And may they all have happy endings too.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Dinesh Vasu Dash.
Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their support for the Bill and I would also like to thank the Members for affirming the benefits that the SDS scheme has brought to CPF members and the move to give shareholders greater control and management of their shares, given that the scheme has met its intent.
I also note that two Members, particularly my friends from the Opposition had highlighted my relatively young age in a tongue-in-cheek manner, or rather, my experience, as I would like to see as. And I assure you that I would not use your lack of experience nor youth against you.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Shawn Loh asked whether there would be similar opportunities for younger cohorts. Mr Loh also asked whether the SDS scheme has achieved its original objectives.
Also, in response to Mr Louis Chua's comments, the SDS scheme is a legacy scheme rooted in a very specific context of its time and there are no plans to extend this scheme as of now.
In the 1990s, we took the decision to privatise the telecommunications portion of the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore into what is known as Singtel today. Singtel’s subsequent IPO in 1993 allowed the Government to offer Singaporeans an entry point into share ownership and to give them a stake in the nation’s growth. Over the two tranches in 1993 and 1996, over a million members chose to participate in this voluntary SDS scheme. SDS holders have also benefited from returns of up to six times, not inclusive of interest earned on dividends. By these measures, the scheme had achieved its intended objectives.
Since then, Singaporeans have become a lot more familiar with shareholding. Today, three in five SDS holders have CDP accounts. There is therefore less need for a scheme similar to SDS to serve as an entry point to share ownership.
I want to highlight that beyond Singtel, there are other companies such as ST Engineering and SingPost that were also eventually listed on the Singapore Exchange and were subsequently owned by many Singaporeans among us.
The Government has continued to use a range of measures to allow Singaporeans to share in the benefits of our progress, such as the SG Bonus cash payout in 2018 and SG60 Vouchers last year. Our CPF and housing policies have also enabled Singaporeans to build up assets over time.
Mr Saktiandi asked about the rationale for the transfer of the Singtel SDS to the CDP. CPF Board operates with members’ best interests at heart and a strong duty of care. It is having assessed that it would benefit SDS holders that the Government decided to embark on this exercise.
The upcoming transfer will benefit SDS holders by giving them greater flexibility to consolidate their shareholdings in their CDP accounts. They also have the option to sell and encash their SDS holdings anytime, if they wish.
The transfer will also give Singtel Group the flexibility to carry out corporate actions in a timely manner.
Under the trustee arrangement currently, communication for Singtel’s corporate actions to SDS holders are made through CPF Board. For example, during the scrip dividend exercise in 2020, notification letters to SDS holders were sent by CPF Board and time was required for CPF Board’s system to be changed to allow for the scrip crediting to take place. After the transfer, Singtel will be able to communicate with shareholders directly and execute corporate actions, such as scrip dividends, in a more timely and cost-efficient manner.
SDS holders will also stand to benefit as they will be able manage their shares seamlessly.
So, indeed, as Mr Saktiandi and Mr Loh mentioned, this Bill reflects good policy housekeeping by modernising a legacy arrangement.
As demonstrated by this exercise, CPF Board regularly reviews and finds ways to update and streamline existing schemes and processes.
Mr Saktiandi, Ms Gho and Mr Melvin Yong also asked about the reason for allowing the SDS proceeds to be withdrawn in cash without having to meet the CPF withdrawal rules and if this sends out a signal to sell rather than to hold the Singtel SDS. Mr Yong also spoke about the need for sufficient financial literacy.
When the scheme was inaugurated, CPF members had a choice to be part of the Singtel SDS. Similarly, whether SDS holders should sell or keep their Singel SDS is a private decision that members must take, just as they did when they came onboard the scheme in 1993 and 1996. If they prefer liquidity, they can choose to sell. If they prefer to stay invested and to reap future gains, they can do so.
We decided that the SDS sale proceeds would not be subject to the CPF withdrawal rules given that the SDS scheme has met its intent of enhancing the assets of CPF members. This arrangement also gives SDS holders options, and ensures that those who do not have individual CDP accounts are not disadvantaged; in fact, they can receive their sale proceeds in cash without even needing to open one.
As mentioned, those who prefer to keep their sale proceeds in their CPF Ordinary Accounts to earn higher interest can still continue do so.
We also welcome Ms Gho’s tip to encourage eligible SDS holders to top up their CPF Retirement Account under Matched Retirement Saving Scheme to receive a dollar-for-dollar matching grant from the Government. It is a safe and legal hack, and I would encourage you to let your residents know about it too.
As of end April, around 81,000 SDS holders, or 13%, have sold their shares. Around nine in 10 chose to receive the proceeds in cash.
SDS holders have the flexibility to decide when they would like to sell. As mentioned in my earlier speech, even after the transfer, those who sell their SDS held in designated CDP accounts will still be able to withdraw the proceeds in cash without being subject to CPF withdrawal rules.
We agree with the spirit of Members’ comments, that there are needs to be safeguarded as we update this legacy arrangement, so as not to disadvantage those who are less financially savvy. With this transfer, we have sought to ensure that every SDS holder has access to resources that support them in making an informed decision about how best to manage their Singtel SDS.
For investors who already have individual CDP accounts, they will be able to consolidate shareholdings and manage them within the CDP framework that they are already very familiar with.
For the SDS holders who do not have individual CDP accounts and who may be less familiar with investing, their shares will be transferred to designated CDP accounts. This means that these SDS holders will largely continue to receive similar treatment and support as today, even after their Singtel SDS is transferred to their designated CDP accounts.
Specifically, on the sale process post-transfer, it will largely remain the same as today. Singtel SDS, including odd lots, can be sold through channels such as Phillip Securities at the same rates as today.
On Mr Fadli Fawzi's question about charges, the sales process and charges during the period are the same as what they were prior to the exercise. SDS holders are not limited to selling via SingPost or Phillip Securities as it is up to the Singapore Exchange brokers whether or not they wish to facilitate the sale of Singtel SDS, which also includes costs.
I also wanted to add at this point that for members, particularly the seniors who go to SingPost outlets, about 95% of sales transactions are actually done online by them, and therefore, circumventing the need to even pay the $17 that was raised by Mr Fadli. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Correction By Written Statement section.]
To Mr Fadli's point on why we chose to create designated CDP accounts, this is in recognition that not everyone needs an individual CDP account, especially some of the SDS holders who do not intend to trade or hold other shares. The Government also cannot open individual CDP accounts on SDS holders' behalf. Doing so requires the members to complete comprehensive compliance screenings, including tax residency declarations and risk appetite assessments to ensure adherence to regulatory requirements and international tax obligations are fulfilled. SDS holders without an individual CDP account can apply to open one if they wish to trade actively or transact in other products.
Mr Saktiandi, Mr Loh, Mr Fadli and Mr Yong raised important questions about the special outreach efforts undertaken to ensure that SDS holders who require greater assistance are not neglected. This is also an issue that is close to my heart.
To support different segments of SDS holders, we have a range of measures in place. I thank Members for their suggestions, which will further strengthen our outreach over the coming months.
For SDS holders who are less comfortable with digital platforms, there are accessible, physical touchpoints. SDS holders may go to more than 30 SingPost branches for assistance with the sale of their shares, or any of the five CPF Service Centres for general assistance. Staffing at these centres have been beefed up in anticipation of the higher load from walk-in queries.
I would like to assure Mr Loh that the CPF Service Centres will also continue to assist any SDS holders, even post-transfer. A dedicated hotline – 1713 – has been set up for those who prefer to seek help over the phone.
Information about the exercise is also available in print and via broadcast media, ensuring that it reaches those who may not have easy digital access. Key publicity collaterals and notification letters to SDS holders have also been translated into vernacular languages, ensuring that those who are more comfortable in their mother tongue can access important information clearly and easily.
Some SDS holders may face physical accessibility challenges. CPF Board and Singtel are partnering the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to conduct door-to-door outreach and visits to nursing homes and care facilities. This ensures that even those who are homebound or residing in institutional care settings are personally reached and made aware of their options and the channels for assistance.
Caregivers and family members assisting SDS holders are also welcome to engage any of the service touchpoints on their behalf.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank AIC, their staff and their volunteers for their invaluable support in this important initiative.
On Assoc Prof Jamus Chua's question — I am sorry, on Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's question – forgive me for that; might be the relative age coming in now, I suppose – following the transfer for SDS holders who have designated CDP accounts upon their passing, their Singtel SDS will be handled in accordance with CPF nomination rules. This is no different from today.
For those who have individual CDP accounts, their Singtel SDS will be treated as any other CDP shares and will form part of their estate.
I would also like to highlight Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point on administrative complexity. I want to just highlight that this is really a one-off exercise and the number of SDS to be transferred will be dependent on how many SDS holders who have decided to sell prior to the cut-off point that we have in November. And hence, the complexity is something that we have to balance and ensure that we are reasonable and prudent, and to accept some degree of administrative complexity in the short run, at least.
We would like to emphasise that no action is required for those who wish to retain their Singtel SDS. SDS holders who are uncertain or need assistance can approach the readily available service touchpoints that I have mentioned earlier.
Mr Saktiandi, Mr Yong, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Tay have also raised concerns about the risk of scams during this exercise period. This is a legitimate and important concern today. We have built in multiple layers of safeguards into this exercise to protect SDS holders from potential scams. Let me elaborate.
First, the personalised notification letters containing each SDS holder's specific details will be sent only to their verified addresses on record. This ensures that individualised information is directed solely to the intended recipient.
Second, sale proceeds will be credited only to SDS holders' bank account registered with the CPF Board or via their PayNow-NRIC registered bank account. This ensures that sale proceeds can only flow to a pre-verified account and cannot be redirected to an unknown or unverified third-party account. We have also reiterated in our collaterals that CPF Board and Singtel will never ask or never request bank account details or any payment from SDS holders in connection with this exercise.
Finally, on scam awareness. The CPF Board and Singtel have incorporated clear scam advisories across all communications to SDS holders. SDS holders are reminded to remain vigilant and refer only to official communications and touchpoints. When unsure, SDS holders can always call the SDS hotline 1713, or the 24-hour ScamShield anti-scam helpline for verification.
We are closely monitoring the post-implementation situation and will respond quickly if any situation arises. I wanted to just add that the implementation thus far, has been smooth. The dedicated hotline and physical service touchpoints have been operating well, with queries being resolved promptly and efficiently. Perhaps due to the safeguards against scams, we have, thankfully, not received any complaints about residents being scammed thus far. But we will continue to watch this.
Mr Loh also raised some other questions and suggestions about the CPF system. We note and thank him for his suggestions.
Some Members have also called for more broad-based investment opportunities for CPF members to participate in. In fact, both Mr Loh and Mr Tay had mentioned the upcoming new investment scheme, which would also give Singaporeans another opportunity to benefit from investments schemes more broadly in a structured manner. We are developing the scheme further and will share details and updates in due course.
There were several references to the discussion and policy thinking back in the day, when this particular scheme was raised, and I thought I should just flag up some of the comments that were highlighted by the then-Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, on 9 March 1993, and I quote: \"The Government's primary duty is to build the right conditions for Singaporeans to create wealth for themselves. These conditions include security, law and order, political stability, social discipline, a level-playing field, the free market, meritocracy and rewards in accordance with persons' abilities, both performance and contribution.\" Successive People's Action Party (PAP) Governments have done so. The Singtel SDS exercise is but one example. We have since moved into other programmes as well.
There was a comment also made about whether was it because of the comments that were made in 1993 that we had a jump, in terms of our shareholding culture, in Singapore.
It was precisely that, and I think Singaporeans had responded positively to Mr Goh's clarion call back then. I am also happy to state that as far as the Singtel SDS is concerned, that almost 70% of people who have the SDS Singtel accounts were from HDB background and dwelling, including myself, and 30% belong to the private sector. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Correction By Written Statement section.]
As such, the Singtel SDS had been a success, and successive PAP Governments have built on the success to where we are today.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the SDS holders have benefited from the SDS scheme since inception and this Bill recognises that it is timely to update this legacy arrangement by enabling the transfer of SDS Singtel shares from the CPF Board to their CDP accounts.
This move reflects how far we have come since the scheme’s inception. With the transfer, SDS holders will benefit from greater control and those who do not wish to participate in the transfer can also choose to realise their capital gains that they have made, over the decades. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for Minister of State Dinesh? Looks like there is none.
Minister of State Dinesh, unlike you and the rest of those who spoke, I am happy to say that I am old enough to have received the Singtel shares.
[(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 Dinesh Vasu Dash]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Curiosity Credits: Empowering Informed Post-secondary Choices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I am very happy now to invite Mr David Hoe. He has been waiting to file this Adjournment Motion, I believe, for nine times. This goes to show that persistence does pay. Mr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, after many rounds of balloting, I am grateful for this opportunity to be able to share about this topic.
Before I start, I would like to record my appreciation to the participants of Curiosity Credits Dialogue, organised by South-West Young PAP, at the same time, my Clementi residents during my Clementi community run and also my Meet-the-People Session volunteers. They have helped to refine this idea that I am about to share today.
In my maiden speech, I shared with this House about the idea of Curiosity Credits. It is a means-tested way for children to draw upon so that they can discover their interests beyond academic pursuit: things like songwriting, sports, robotics, and the list goes on. This is important, because if we want to have our own definition of success, the first step, it is really a function of knowing our interest and what our strengths are like.
Since then, I have moved this idea beyond a slogan. I have filed Parliamentary Questions asking whether our Child Development Account (CDA) can be expanded to support enrichment and exposure beyond preschool settings. However, the response I have gotten is that it is not advisable to open up our CDA funds for enrichment programmes that are outside of preschool.
Well, I also then ask the Ministry of Education (MOE), whether could we have an age-appropriate SkillsFuture-like scheme for students from lower-income households to access subsidised out-of-school opportunities with proper guardrails. The response has been useful. They made it clear that we already have many schemes supporting children and students from disadvantaged background.
So, here is my challenge. I then kind of figure out that Curiosity Credit, because it cuts through many different life stages – preschool, primary school, secondary school and beyond – I must admit, it was not too obvious where does this nicely sit under? Is it under the Ministry of Social and Family Development? Is it under the Prime Minister's Office? Is it under MOE, or is it a combination of agencies?
Well, at the same time, I am also happy to report that since my maiden speech, I have seen ground-up pilots suggest that this idea has promise. One of these examples is through the support from a donor, funded through Ray of Hope and carried out by Empowering Families Initiative, for children from lower-income families where they are able to purchase opportunities to try out programmes that they otherwise would not have accessed.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the clerk to distribute the accompanying slides through the MP@SG PARL app?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please proceed.
Mr David Hoe: One participant expressed interest in art. Within a few months, that spark fanned into flame and she produced a drawing reflected in Figure 1, to express thanks to the donor. Others have tried a course and decided not to continue. That, too, is useful, because discovery is not just about finding what one likes. It is also about finding what is not a good fit.
So, to me, Curiosity Credits 1.0 is still about a simple principle – give children the opportunities to discover and ignite a spark.
But today, I want to build on this idea and focus on Curiosity Credits 2.0 – helping secondary school students to make more informed post-secondary school choices.
Mr Speaker, we make many decisions every single day. Some are small. Some are routine. But some decisions shape the directions of our lives. For many of our young Singaporeans, one of this decisions comes very early, that is at the age of 16. After they are done with \"N\" levels or \"O\" levels, our youths than have to decide: \"Do I go to polytechnic? Do I go to ITE? Or do I go to junior college? Or a specialised institution? then what course should I then take?\" If they choose a pathway that is a poor fit, their consequences can be serious.
Let me explain, and I have seen this countless number of times. A student enrols into an engineering course without realising how much mathematics or technical thinking it requires. The student does not lack the ability. But he simply have chosen a pathway that does not match his strengths, interests or learning style.
What then happens is this – he enrols into the course; he struggles; he loses motivation; his grades suffer. Perhaps he can still graduate from the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) or polytechnic, with mediocre results, about 2.0 or 2.5 of Grade Point Average (GPA) out of 4.0.
At this point, he wants to switch out, switch to another course or progress to the next level, but with a GPA of 2.0 or 2.5, he may find that his options are narrowed. A higher Nitec student want to move to polytechnic, but his grades might not qualify because his GPA is not strong enough. Even if his GPA was decent, he is not able to switch course that easily because of the earlier course that he has chosen.
Likewise, a polytechnic student who entered engineering, but later discovered that he wants to do another field, may find that his grades and course background do not support the switch. By then, it feels too late.
Over time, this then contributes to underemployment or mismatch between what he or she studies, and what he or she eventually does at work. At the core, the real issue is really about whether the student had never had enough exposure to choose well in the first place.
Now follow me. Let us take a step back. How does a 16-year-old decide?
In my interactions with youths, I have asked them and they say, some tell me: \"I chose this, because my friend chose this\", \"I chose this course because my grades could qualify for this\", \"I chose this because I was told that this was a safe course\".
And a recent conversation reflects this harsh reality.
I spoke with someone who is a chief executive officer of a private equity and venture capital investment firm. He shared with me how his 16-year-old nephew this year made his polytechnic course selection. His nephew was good at principles of accounts. Therefore, at 15 years old, his very loving uncle decided to help him find an internship at an accountancy firm. His nephew realised that he really does not enjoy the nature of accounting even though he does well at principles of accounts and he decided that accountancy was not something he wanted to pursue.
So, when his uncle asked him this year, \"Nephew, what did you then decide?\"
The nephew replied, \"I chose maritime business.\"
His uncle was perturbed. He asked, \"Why?\"
The nephew said, \"My good friend chose maritime business. Hence, I am going there.\"
His uncle later realised that his good friend's family business was in the maritime sector so that choice made sense for his friend. But it did not necessarily make sense for his nephew.
This example shows two things. Some of our young people have networks that can create opportunities for them to gain better clarity. Second, not every 16-year-old would have this uncle, mentor or family contact who can help them to think through their choices.
At the heart of this Motion, it is a simple point. We can do better to help our youths to make better decisions through better exposure.
Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear that MOE is not starting from zero. In fact, Singapore has built a fairly extensive ecosystem that helps students think about their future.
Students today have access to the MySkillsFuture portal and CourseFinder to explore education and career pathways. We have the Education and Career Guidance (ECG) curriculum in schools. Students can consult their teachers and ECG counsellors. There are open houses by our polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs). And our schools offer CCAs, Learning for Life experiences and, in some cases, internships, externships, job shadowing for some of our integrated programme schools.
All these are important points. However, from the student's perspective, the exposure journey may still be uneven.
Some of this support I mentioned earlier, they are information-rich but lack hands-on.
What do I mean? They can read about courses, but that is different from being able to try them. Some guidance is personalised, but not experiential. Because our ECG counsellors can guide a student through, but it will be even better if they can reflect on something that is more concrete in their experience.
Some students may get internships or job shadowing or informal exposure before making such choices. These opportunities, they are more personalised and more hands-on, however, it is not equally available to all students.
So, in simple terms, students can benefit from personalised information, guidance and hands-on exposure.
Today, we have all three pieces. But what I am asking is can we connect them more deliberately so that every student, especially those who come from less-resourced families, has a fair chance to taste and try before making a major post-secondary school decision.
Some may ask me, David, does it really matter?
It does if we fundamentally believe that every child learns differently. If we believe that some students learn better with hands-on experience, then it matters, because these hands-on experiences are not a nice-to-have. It helps them to make sense of their options.
So, Mr Speaker, I would, therefore, like to ask whether MOE can study and pilot a more structured way to help students who learn best through experience. For now, let me call this Curiosity Credits 2.0.
The idea is simple. From Secondary 1 onwards, students would have this thing that I call a Curiosity Credit wallet. With this particular wallet, they can purchase curated taster sessions to have a flavour of what this course is like. These taster sessions are designed by ITEs, polytechnics, universities or specialised institutions, and schools can bring these tasters into the school and into the classrooms during selected weeks and also allow students to attend them at these institutions during protected exposure periods.
The aim here is not to create an open-ended voucher scheme. The aim is to provide structured exposure.
This is why, in Figure 2, Curiosity Credits 2.0 is not just a passive wallet, it is a school-guided cycle. First, students receive their annual Curiosity Credits. Then, they enrol into one of these courses with guidance from their ECG counsellors or teachers. Now, they experience a short and age-appropriate module. After that, they reflect on what they have learnt and then, use that, record it down, and decide on what the post-secondary choices will look like.
Follow me to Figure 3, because Figure 3 will show Members what it does look like across the secondary school years.
The target is modest but meaningful – not to expose every student to every possible course, but if by Secondary 4, they can have about six to eight structured taster experiences in different clusters, this might help them to make a better decision.
If we do this right, we can help students to enrol into courses with a clearer fit alignment and reduce the risk of course mismatch, disengagement and later pathway regret. More importantly, it is to reduce the possibility of underemployment.
Now that Members understand the broad strokes, let me bring Members through the details of how this work.
What I am proposing is that these taster lessons, it should be age-appropriate. It should designed for secondary school students so that they can understand. One practical model is to expose them by broad cluster rather than an overwhelming list of courses. So, for example, this cluster could be health and care, engineering and the built environment, digital and cybersecurity, hospitality and tourism and the list goes on.
So, how does a taster look like? A taster in engineering could show students not just the final exciting end-product, but to also show them the kind of mathematics, systems thinking and problem-solving required. What does a taster in nursing look like? It could help them to understand the basics of patient care, empathy, clinical discipline and the realities of healthcare work. What does a taster in cybersecurity look like? It could involve a simple hands-on challenge to show them what the field actually demands.
Exposure helps students to make more informed decisions. Course design aside, let us move on to the mechanism.
The mechanism, how it drives this exposure should be simple. First, as mentioned, each student will receive a certain number of credits to be able to purchase approved taster modules. The taster modules could be offered during maybe the last week of the school term or during protected exposure periods.
By going for the taster lessons, it gives our teachers and our ECG counsellors something richer to discuss with the students. This can be linked to our ECG lessons because before the student goes for our taster lesson, the teacher can ask, \"What course do you think you want to do?”
After they have attended, instead of asking \"What did you hope to do?\", the question becomes, \"What have you tried? What did you enjoy? What did you struggle with? What surprised you? What made you want to learn more?\"
This, in my view, is a better ECG classroom conversation.
Sir, this pilot must be designed with safeguards. Let me explain.
First, it should not be cash. It should be credits and entitlement used for approved programmes. Second, it should be curated, not an open marketplace. The first set of providers could be from our ITE, polytechnics, universities or even specialised institutions. Over time, vetted partners can be considered. Third, it should not be used for tuition, exam preparation or academic drilling. The purpose is exposure, not competition. Fourth, it should be easy for schools to administer. The Ministry can build upon the existing applied learning modules infrastructure. Fifth, it must be evaluated properly. The question is not whether every taster leads to a course application. Rather, the question should be – through every taster, does the student become clearer, more confident and more informed about their choices?
With the mechanism done, allow me to also say this. MOE already has something close to this. From my research, it is what we called applied learning modules. I see that as a strength to build upon, not as a reason to stop. What I have proposed and what I am proposing? Four differences.
First, at the student level, every child would have a visible Curiosity Credit wallet from Secondary 1, not Secondary 2. Why is a personalised wallet important? Because a personalised wallet signals ownership. It tells the student – you have the permission to explore, and you have the choices to make.
Second, at the choice level, the tasters should cover a broad spread of clusters, like I mentioned earlier, health and care, engineering and the built environment, and the list goes on.
Third, at the course level, the tasters can be shorter and lower-barrier, perhaps three to four hours for each. Because the current one today, is a multi-day module. While they have value, but shorter tasters will allow students to have a sample of more fields before narrowing down a choice. The goal is exposure and it is to spark.
Fourth, at the system level, such exposure should build into protected curriculum time. Because if curiosity matters, we must create space for it.
At the core, if we agree that every child learns differently, then the broad spectrum of intervention must be able to reflect that. At the heart of it, it is just like Curiosity Credits 1.0. This is fundamentally about helping each child to discover his or her interests. Oftentimes, our ability to discover our interests depends on our access to opportunities.
As we progress as a country, opportunity inequality exists. But we should acknowledge this gap and ensure that our systems and structures seek to reduce it.
Sir, on this note, I also want to make a related appeal.
We should be careful when advising 16-year-olds who are uncertain about their post-secondary pathways. Sometimes, well-meaning adults will tell students who do not know what to study and the easy advice is – just go to junior college first. For some of these students, this might work. If they are academically strong or if they prefer a more academic curriculum or want more time before specialising, junior college could be a good option.
But it is not good advice for everyone. Even if a student qualifies to enrol into a junior college, but the student is not suited to that learning style, pushing him or her into junior college may simply put him or her at a very wrong end of a very competitive environment. The student may or will struggle to obtain the grades needed for university and may emerge out with fewer options than expected.
This same applies to all pathways. The issue is not whether junior college, polytechnic or ITE is better. The issue is fit. This is why exposure matters before the choice is made.
We often tell our youths that you must be able to define success for yourself. But in order to be able to define success for ourselves, we must first have some self-level of awareness. They must know what excites them, what challenges them, what kind of things they are willing to work hard for and what kind of environments will help them to grow.
Self-awareness does not magically happen at the age of 16. It has to be built through exposure, reflection and experience.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, we certainly cannot determine every outcome of young Singaporeans. But I believe we can do more to ensure that every young Singaporean has relevant information, meaningful exposure and a fair chance to make better decisions.
I want to build a Singapore where our youths are able to articulate their aspirations not because someone told them what to choose, but because they have discovered something about themselves in their own journey. If we truly believe in many different definitions of success, then we must allow our students to have the chance to see enough paths, enough possibilities and choose the next step with confidence.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi): Mr Speaker, I thank Mr David Hoe for his suggestions on the use of Curiosity Credits 2.0 to empower our students to make informed choices about their education and their future.
Experience is indeed a great teacher and we are open to ideas, like Mr Hoe's, that can bolster our existing range of programmes to guide our students in their educational journeys. But I would also like to gently offer a different perspective on one aspect of Mr Hoe's Motion – that is not having the perfect fit at 16 means it could be too late.
Certainly, not everyone must have everything figured out in secondary school to succeed in life. In fact, what might look like a suitable pathway at 16 may look very different just several years later.
We must, instead, ready our students with resilience and adaptability towards change through developing their 21st Century Competencies. With this goal in mind, MOE has a three-pronged approach in supporting students to discover their interests and strengths, develop their potential and choose their post-secondary pathways wisely. Members will already see some parallels with Mr Hoe's proposal.
First, MOE offers exposure opportunities for our students at key junctures in their educational journey to understand how their choices today may shape their options tomorrow. Within the school curriculum, MOE supports students in making informed education and career choices and prepares them for lifelong learning.
In secondary school, students explore the diverse pathways available to them through Education and Career Guidance (ECG) programmes. This exploration allows them to develop a deeper understanding of their sense of purpose, their interests and their strengths. Through education and career fairs and learning journeys, students are better equipped to make key decisions on subject combinations and post-secondary education pathways.
Institutes of higher learning (IHLs), offer flexible pathways to give students time and space to explore their interests and strengths. Our polytechnics offer the Polytechnic Foundation Programme and Common Entry Programme, allowing students to choose a broad cluster, such as the sciences, without deciding on a specific diploma programme when they enter polytechnic. With the opportunity to be exposed to different areas and skill sets in their cluster for up to a year, students can make informed decisions about their specialisations, allaying to some extent Mr David Hoe's concern about the risk of course mismatch and its implications.
Beyond the curriculum, MOE provides students with opportunities to get a taste of the next stage of their schooling or working life. As Mr David Hoe has pointed out, a hands-on approach will help students define success for themselves and explore areas that they may wish to grow into and aspire towards.
Our ECG Counsellors and Career Coaches stay current with emerging trends through professional development and networking sessions, to better provide our students with the personalised information and guidance to navigate the opportunities available for them.
To support students’ transition from secondary school, polytechnics and ITE offer three-day Applied Learning Modules (ApLMs), as highlighted by Mr David Hoe earlier, providing students with authentic and immersive hands-on learning experiences that help them to discover their interests and their strengths, and make informed education and career choices. Spanning six broad clusters – Business, Engineering, Information Technology, Hospitality and Tourism, Mathematics and Science, Media and Design – each ApLM module exposes students to at least one related IHL course and industry.
In addition, polytechnics and ITE also conduct school visits and open houses, providing exposure to course offerings and an authentic taste of what student life could be like in these institutions.
Second, MOE works with a network of community and industry partners to offer a wide range of authentic, real-world experiences in higher education and industry. Our Partnerships Engagement Office actively reaches out to schools and industry organisations to identify and support partnerships that enrich learning for our students.
Our partners serve as mentors and role models, offering advice and internship opportunities that indeed expose students to diverse pathways.
The Applied Learning Programme connects classroom learning with real-world applications, providing opportunities for students to appreciate the relevance and value of their learning beyond the classroom. Partnerships with community and industry partners help students explore and develop their strengths and interests further in areas such as business and entrepreneurship, engineering and robotics, and journalism and broadcasting.
For example, Peirce Secondary School has a partnership with Thales Singapore focused on exposing students to engineering and technology careers. This year, students will experience an assembly career talk, visits and a work shadowing programme. This partnership supports students in fostering interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields through authentic industry learning experiences, to help make sense of their options as mentioned by Mr David Hoe.
Secondary schools also organise learning journeys to organisations and dialogues with community and industry partners. MOE welcomes more school-to-industry partnerships to open more opportunities for our students in our schools.
In our polytechnics and ITE too, there are various efforts to help students transition from school to work, with the support of industry and community mentors.
One example is the collaboration between Mentoring SG as well as the polytechnics and ITE, under which mentors work with polytechnic and ITE students to guide them on their longer-term career and life goals. Daryl Thoe, a culinary student at Temasek Polytechnic and a young aspiring chef, went through Mentoring SG's programme last year. His mentor, Irene Hamons, a private dining host and creative entrepreneur provided practical guidance on improving his culinary skills and coached him in goal setting. These helped him gain confidence and clarity on his goals that now drive his culinary aspirations.
Third, MOE dedicates additional resources to support and empower students from disadvantaged backgrounds in their exploration of options and opportunities.
Since 2019, MOE has provided more resourcing for schools with more students from disadvantaged backgrounds. MOE's Opportunity Fund also provides financial support to enable such students to access development opportunities. These include our schools' wide range of co-curricular activities, as well as talent and enrichment programmes.
Students can use the Opportunity Fund for overseas trips, enrichment programmes like leadership camps and creative arts workshops and personal learning devices.
Through MOE's Pathfinder Plus programme, Secondary 3 and 4 students from disadvantaged backgrounds attend workshops that MOE curates according to the students' strengths. These workshops are complemented with job tasters or learning journeys to organisations across various industries.
Schools also work with other Government agencies and community partners like self-help groups, Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Family Service Centres (FSCs) to engage such students to develop their aspirations and broaden their perspectives.
Under MSF's ComLink+ programme, dedicated SSO family coaches and FSC case workers work with lower-income families with children below 21, to support the child's education while helping the family address broader challenges that may affect their progress towards their long-term goals.
Let me come back to something I said earlier, that finding the right post-secondary path does not have to happen all at once, or perfectly, on the first try. Many of us know from our own lives that the journey of learning and discovery rarely unfolds in a straight line. There are moments of clarity, but also moments of doubt, of redirection and most importantly, of growth.
I would like to close by recounting the story of Tan Hock Yang, a student who recently graduated earlier this week from Republic Polytechnic.
Hock Yang initially wanted to follow in his brother's footsteps into Aerospace Engineering, but soon realised that it was not his cup of tea while pursuing a diploma in that field. After National Service, he reflected on his interests and took up a Diploma in Supply Chain Management at Republic Polytechnic.
For his final year project, Hock Yang worked with his team to develop a solution to optimise air freight container space utilisation, a persistent challenge in logistics. He was awarded the LF Logistics Scholarship in 2024 and the prestigious Lee Foundation Scholarship in 2025.
Moving forward, Hock Yang now plans to pursue a degree in Infrastructure and Project Management at National University of Singapore, a far cry from his initial interest in Aerospace Engineering.
Hock Yang's story is just one of many. Some might not take the most direct route to a work-ready qualification or may return as adult learners to upgrade to a diploma or degree at a later stage in life.
This is why we have worked hard to ensure that our education system remains responsive and walks alongside our students at all life stages, as their interests deepen and aspirations evolve. This can only be done with the support of family, community and industry partners.
Let us continue to work together to support our children's curiosity and aspirations, and help them fulfil their potential, regardless of family background or starting point in life – for every child learns differently.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 8.24 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Keeping Teacher and Allied Educators' Salaries Competitive with Planned 2% to 9% Pay Increase","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the planned 2% to 9% pay increase for teachers and allied educators will be sufficient to keep salaries competitive; and (b) what other strategies are in place to attract new teachers amid declining numbers.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has conducted a comprehensive review to ensure that our educators' overall salary package remains market competitive. The salary adjustments of 2% to 9%, which we announced in March 2026, are determined based on the gap between the salary and the corresponding market benchmark at each grade. MOE will continue to conduct periodic salary reviews to keep educator compensation competitive.
Beyond salary adjustments, MOE has broadened recruitment outreach to fresh graduates and mid-careerists, and continues to offer teaching scholarships and awards. MOE and the National Institute of Education are also shortening the Postgraduate Diploma in Education from 16 to 12 months from 2027, enabling faster entry into the classroom without compromising quality. Together, these efforts have contributed to recruiting more than 1,300 teachers in 2025, up from 600 in 2023.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Arbitration Clauses in Contracts to Ensure Freelancers Can Seek Redress before Small Claims Tribunal","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if arbitration clauses in freelancer contracts should be unenforceable to the extent that they prevent individual freelancers from bringing a qualifying claim before the Small Claims Tribunals; and (b) what approaches the Ministry is considering to ensure that such freelancers can still seek redress before the Tribunal where appropriate.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Government recognises the concerns that some freelancers may face where dispute resolution processes become too costly or impractical relative to the value of the claim. At the same time, Singapore's legal framework is founded on principles of freedom of contract and party autonomy, including parties' ability to agree on how disputes should be resolved. Where parties have agreed to arbitration, there is generally an expectation that they will be honoured. Hence, the Government will not lightly intervene in privately negotiated arbitration agreements.
Parties may choose arbitration for a range of legitimate reasons, including confidentiality and the ability to appoint a subject matter expert as arbitrator. There is also procedural flexibility – the market may develop low-cost, expedited and simplified arbitration processes for lower value claims. We should not close these off. Arbitration remains an important tool which supports commercial certainty and effective dispute resolution.
The Ministry is committed to ensuring that there is meaningful and practical access to justice. In some cases, particularly for lower-value claims, the cost and complexity of certain forms of arbitration may make it difficult for freelancers to pursue legitimate claims. The Ministry is working closely with the Judiciary to ensure that court and tribunal processes, including the Small Claims Tribunals, remain accessible, affordable and effective. We are also studying if there can be an appropriate framework which could allow certain claims to be resolved at the Small Claims Tribunal, notwithstanding an arbitration clause, while balancing the various interests and considerations set out above.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Risk of Self-radicalisation among Vulnerable Individuals Arising from Use of Large Language Model Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the risk of self-radicalisation among vulnerable individuals arising from the use of large language models that may produce validating or reinforcing outputs; and (b) what measures are the Internal Security Department and relevant agencies taking or considering to detect and mitigate such risks.
Mr K Shanmugam: Self-radicalisation is often driven by progressive exposure to online radical content, reinforcement within online echo chambers and repeated and sustained consumption of extreme and violent materials. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools like large language models (LLMs) can accelerate and amplify the pathways to self-radicalisation. For example, they can provide personalised and interactive responses which affirm or validate an individual's radical beliefs. Social media algorithms can also drive exposure to reinforcing content, hastening the time taken for self-radicalisation.
Youths are particularly vulnerable due to the significant amount of time they spend online. Some of the self-radicalised Singaporean youths that the Internal Security Department (ISD) has dealt with, have leveraged AI, including LLMs, to facilitate terrorism-related activities. For instance, a 17-year-old detained in September 2024 used an AI chatbot to generate a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and his attack manifesto. A 17-year-old far-right extremist detained in March 2025 had searched on an AI chatbot for instructions on producing ammunition and on 3D-printing of firearms, for his local attack plans.
The Government takes a holistic approach to tackling online radicalisation. We have strengthened our legislative levers through the amended Broadcasting Act and the new Online Criminal Harms Act to block or remove extremist and terrorist content, including those generated by AI. However, it is impossible to detect and remove all such content.
Public education and community vigilance are critical complements to tackling the radicalisation threat. ISD works with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to conduct counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation outreach to schools. These engagements sensitise students and school personnel to the threat of radicalisation, and the importance of early reporting of suspected radicalisation cases. MOE's cyber wellness lessons in the character and citizenship education curriculum aim to equip students with the skills to recognise risks in the digital space and to be safe, respectful and responsible online users. In addition, community partners, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group, have intensified counter-radicalisation outreach in the digital space. The Ministry of Home Affairs also works with digital content creators to raise awareness on the threat of online radicalisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Annual Premiums of Medical Insurance Policies for EP holders by Percentile, and Mandating Companies to Provide Medical Insurance Coverage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government has data on the current (i) 25th percentile (ii) median (iii) average and (iv) 75th percentile for annual premiums of medical insurance policies for foreign employment pass (EP) holders; and (b) whether the Government is considering mandating companies to provide medical insurance coverage for EP holders who do not have existing medical insurance coverage.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not track the annual premiums of medical insurance policies for Employment Pass (EP) Holders.
MOM does not intend to require employers to purchase medical insurance for EP Holders. Unlike Work Permit Holders and S Pass Holders, EP Holders are subject to a higher salary threshold and have the means to purchase their own insurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Holistic Study to Inform Singapore's Path Towards Vision for Zero Road Fatalities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs given that road fatalities have risen for five consecutive years to a 10-year high despite successive enforcement measures, whether the Traffic Police has commissioned or intends to commission a holistic structural study, including road engineering and infrastructure design factors, to inform Singapore's path towards the Vision Zero target of zero road fatalities.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Government adopts a holistic approach to road safety. Besides enforcement, the Traffic Police (TP) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) work together on road infrastructure, regulations and penalties and public education.
On road infrastructure and design, TP and LTA take into account community feedback to implement traffic calming measures, in particular at violation- and accident-prone locations. LTA will also be expanding Friendly Streets to all towns by 2030, which will entail roads with reduced speed limits and road markings to assist vehicle drivers to be more careful.
Vision Zero is an example of successful intervention in road safety in Finland. The Government also approaches road safety on the basis that every fatality is one too many. We will draw reference from the example in Finland, as well as others, in reducing road accidents. However, road accidents are often caused when drivers engage in risky behaviour, for example, drink driving or speeding and other such behaviour. This happens despite the penalties and despite the public education that is going on.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Laws and Liability Frameworks Given Risk of Serious Harm Arising from Large Language Model Outputs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has assessed existing laws and liability frameworks in relation to serious harm arising from the stochastic nature of large language model outputs where residual risks persist even after reasonable precautions have been taken; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering AI-specific or strict liability frameworks to address accountability gaps that arise when such residual risks materialise into harm.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government recognises that generative artificial intelligence (AI), including large language models, brings significant benefits. However, its probabilistic nature means residual risks may persist despite reasonable safeguards. The Model AI Governance Framework for Generative AI provides guidelines to manage these risks, focusing on accountability, transparency and public trust.
There is also existing legislation to protect Singaporeans from online harms and risks, such as the Online Criminal Harms Act and our misinformation laws. They extend to harms that could result from the use of AI and its output. In addition, existing legal principles, such as under tort and contract law, can be applied by our Courts to assess and determine liability in appropriate cases.
That being said, we share the concerns raised by the Member and will continue to study this issue, including consulting with practitioners, academia and industry on whether there are any accountability gaps and if policy, regulatory and legal measures may be needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Success of Healthy Meals in Schools Programme in Cultivating Healthy Eating Habits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what outcome-based indicators does the Health Promotion Board (HPB) use to assess whether the Healthy Meals in Schools Programme is achieving its objective of cultivating healthy eating habits among students; and (b) whether HPB collects data on actual food consumption rates or plate waste in schools under the Programme.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Healthy Meals in Schools programme (HMSP) is part of a broader suite of school-based efforts which complement Grow Well SG to cultivate healthy eating habits from young, such as nutrition education and parent engagement initiatives. As it would not be straightforward to attribute outcomes to the programme in isolation, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) tracks more broadly the eating habits of students under Grow Well SG.
HPB does not collect data on actual food consumption rates or plate waste in schools under the programme. HPB engages regularly with schools and canteen vendors to ensure that meals served continue to meet the required guidelines and incorporates their feedback to refine the implementation of the guidelines. HPB also provides resources, such as the HMSP Toolkit for Schools, which includes sample recipes using healthier ingredients and cooking methods.
HPB will continue to work with stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Education, schools and canteen vendors to strengthen and review the programme and better support students in developing healthy eating habits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Current Structure of National School Games to Better Balance Competitive Excellence and Inclusive Participation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the current structure of the National School Games places excessive emphasis on competition and rankings relative to broad-based participation; (b) what assessment the Ministry has made of disparities in sporting performance and resources across schools; and (c) what steps are being taken to address such disparities while ensuring a better balance between competitive excellence and inclusive participation.
Mr Desmond Lee: The sports ecosystem caters to students of different ability levels. Students can pursue their sporting interests and development through a variety of competition platforms – from inter-class games in school, the School Sports Fiesta and competitions organised by ActiveSG and National Sports Associations, to the National School Games (NSG). These platforms offer students varied opportunities to compete, grow and excel in sport.
Between 2019 and 2024, the NSG's competition and event formats were refined at the primary and lower secondary levels to be more developmentally appropriate and to reduce emphasis on rankings. For example, students in the youngest age division no longer compete for divisional championships. For primary and lower secondary students, teams compete against others of similar ability in their respective leagues, thus encouraging broader participation.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) resources schools equitably and gives them the autonomy to shape their programmes based on their student profiles and interests. Some schools may channel more resources to certain sports while others may have other priorities. Differences in sporting performance across schools are to be expected, given the differences in student enrolment and programming priorities at the school level.
MOE will work with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth to strengthen various sporting platforms to benefit students across all levels of ability and interest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors for Identifying Appropriate Locations for MOE Kindergartens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) how do the Ministry and ECDA identify appropriate locations for new and existing MOE Kindergartens; and (b) whether feedback and common concerns raised by parents and caregivers in nearby residential areas form part of this planning process.
Mr Desmond Lee: Government-supported preschools, such as the Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens (MKs), anchor operators and partner operators provide preschoolers with access to affordable and quality early childhood education. As part of the Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) planning for preschool places across Singapore, MOE regularly reviews our plans for MKs with ECDA.
When planning where to site MKs, MOE and ECDA consider various factors, including projected resident birth cohort, existing supply of preschool places and enrolment trends in each area.
MOE and ECDA will continue to monitor preschool needs to enable access to affordable and quality preschools, and welcome feedback from parents and caregivers on the location of MKs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring and Enforcing against Illegal Freelance Services Advertised on Social Media","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the joint advisory by the Ministry and Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association (Singapore) (VICPA) on engaging foreign freelancers for creative services in Singapore (a) how the Ministry monitors and enforces against illegal freelance services advertised on social media; and (b) whether more proactive measures will be considered to address such listings.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) investigates complaints of foreign freelancers working illegally in Singapore and will take firm enforcement action against those found to have flouted the law. However, our enforcement powers do not allow us to act against those who advertise their services from overseas. If necessary, we may engage social media platforms to assist in taking down listings involving foreign freelancers advertising their services. MOM will continue to monitor the situation and consider further measures where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Principal Levers in Proposed Blind Box Regulations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the principal regulatory levers under consideration for the proposed blind box regulations in relation to sealed packs of trading card game (TCG) products; (b) whether requiring retailers to open sealed packs and sell cards as individually identified items is among the options; and (c) what consultation has been conducted with TCG retailers, collectors and youth-serving organisations.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs will share the specifics of our proposed blind box regulations, which will also cover trading card games later this year. We are currently engaging industry stakeholders. The regulations will aim to mitigate the gambling inducement risk of blind boxes.
We do not intend to require the sellers of blind boxes, of trading cards or otherwise, to open the sealed boxes and sell the contents as individual items. This would effectively ban blind boxes. Any proposed safeguard will need to be proportionate to the gambling inducement risk of the product.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Individuals Claiming Course Fees Relief and Average Relief Granted Per Individual Per Year","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance in each of the last five years, what are the (i) number of individuals who have claimed course fees relief (ii) the average course fees relief granted per individual per year (iii) total amount of course fees relief granted and (iv) total amount of individual income tax foregone from course fees relief.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.
On the last question, the average amount of individual income tax foregone from course fees relief was around $13 million per year over the Years of Assessment 2020 to 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Unregistered Individuals and Companies That Hire Them from Offering Counselling and Therapy Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health with the impending mandatory registration for psychologists, including the subdiscipline of counselling, what measures will be taken to prevent unregistered individuals and companies that hire them from offering counselling and therapy services which remain unregulated.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My reply will also address written Question Nos 9 and 10 raised by the Member in today's Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Defining High-Risk Psychological Services and Mandating Unregistered Practitioner Disclosure Under the Psychology Registration Framework\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The five psychological subdisciplines were selected through structured risk assessments conducted by expert panels of psychologists. These considered the magnitude and probability of harm to clients and patients arising from psychological services provided by clinical, clinical neuropsychology, counselling, educational and forensic psychologists.
Once implemented, the Allied Health Professions Act (AHPA) will protect registered job titles pertaining to the five sub-disciplines and reserve their use for registered psychologists. Unregistered practitioners will not be permitted to use these titles in any context, including in advertisements and service agreements. The Ministry of Health and partner Ministries will also work with the Singapore Psychological Society to raise public awareness of the registered psychological sub-disciplines and their scopes of practice. A register of psychologists will be made publicly available. With this, other unregistered mental health practitioners do not need to explicitly state their status in their advertisements and service agreements.
The Allied Health Professions Council (AHPC) will oversee and enforce psychological practice under the AHPA and AHPC's Code of Professional Conduct. Enforcement action will be taken against errant practitioners or those falsely claiming to be registered psychologists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for PolCam Installations within Landed Estates in Nee Soon South Given Recent Housebreaking and Theft Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs given recent reported cases of housebreaking and theft in landed properties (a) whether PolCam installations are planned for landed estates in Nee Soon South; (b) if so, what is the indicative timeline; and (c) what are the criteria for deployment of PolCam in landed estates.
Mr K Shanmugam: Police cameras are part of the Police's strategy to deter and solve crime in Singapore. When identifying locations for deployment of cameras, the Police will consider their operational needs, the crime situation in the locality and public feedback. More focus is given to public areas with high footfall and crowd congregation.
These same considerations apply when assessing whether and where to install Police cameras in private residential estates, including landed estates in Nee Soon South. That said, in general, the Police will be progressively installing police cameras at strategic entry and exit points of private residential estates over the next several years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Physical and Mental Health Conditions of Children Born Via In-vitro Fertilisation Compared to Naturally-conceived Children","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there are long-term studies on the physical and mental health conditions of children born via in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) in Singapore as compared to children conceived naturally and born to younger couples; and (b) if so, what are the findings.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health is not aware of any long-term studies conducted in Singapore that specifically compare the physical and mental health outcomes of children born via in-vitro fertilisation and those conceived naturally and born to younger couples.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Cyclical Improvement Requirements for Critical Building Systems in Private Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider introducing mandatory cyclical improvement requirements for critical building systems in private developments, such as lifts, roofing and electrical systems; and (b) if not, what safeguards exist to ensure that ageing private estates undertake such improvements in a timely manner under the current voluntary framework.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: There are currently no plans to introduce mandatory cyclical improvement requirements for critical building systems in private developments. Mandatory upgrades at a fixed frequency or when systems meet a certain age may not be practical, as the failure risk of these systems can vary widely in lifespan and usage patterns.
To safeguard public safety, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) requires building owners to carry out periodic inspections for key systems. For instance, lifts must be inspected annually. There are requirements for building facades, including roofs, to be inspected at least once every seven years under the periodic facade inspection regime. Where there are findings from the inspections, building owners are responsible to implement remedial actions. BCA is also reviewing measures to ensure that ageing lifts and escalators keep pace with modern safety standards, such as through the inclusion of features that regulate their speed and movement.
Under the Building (Strata Management) Act (BSMA), the responsibility for the proper maintenance and upkeep of strata developments rests with the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) and collectively, the subsidiary proprietors. As part of the ongoing BSMA review, BCA is studying ways to help MCST plan for and work towards having adequate sinking funds for essential maintenance or upgrades.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulations to Prevent Insurers from Denying Claims on Newer Procedures Not Explicitly Listed in Legacy Policy Wording","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether MAS will review medical insurance contracts to ensure that definitions of surgical procedures are updated to include modern, less invasive medical advances; and (b) what regulatory measures are being considered to prevent insurers from denying claims solely because a newer, more effective procedure is not explicitly listed in legacy policy wording.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): With constantly advancing medical care, it is natural for policyholders to ask if their existing insurance coverage keeps pace with newer, less invasive procedures.
Let me explain how this works for two broad types of health insurance.
MediShield Life pays for medically necessary treatments and surgical procedures that are listed in the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) Table of Surgical Procedures (TOSP). MOH regularly updates the TOSP to keep MediShield Life relevant and adjusts the premiums where necessary. Integrated Shield Plans generally align with MediShield Life.
Critical illness insurance (CI), works differently. Severe-stage CI policies pay a fixed lump sum when a person is diagnosed with an advanced-stage CI or undergoes a specified major procedure. The Life Insurance Association, Singapore (LIA) regularly updates its standardised severe-stage CI definitions to reflect medical advances. Insurers will adopt LIA's latest definitions when issuing new severe-stage CI policies.
Existing policies, however, do not assume the updated LIA definitions, as the updated severe-stage CI definitions and any associated newer procedures and treatments could widen the scope of policy coverage and increase the incidence of claims. Doing so without a corresponding premium adjustment could impact the sustainability of the product.
LIA is studying the feasibility of allowing policyholders of existing CI policies to adjust their coverage to include newer treatments with appropriate premium adjustments. As there are complex implications on the actuarial assessment, the study will take time.
Meanwhile, I encourage consumers to regularly review the type, coverage and affordability of their health insurance policies in line with their evolving needs. As medical technology evolves, some conditions can now be treated through less invasive procedures with shorter recovery times. For coverage of these treatments, insurers offer comprehensive or early-stage CI plans, which cover a broader range of procedures. The scope of coverage and cost for these products varies amongst insurers. Consumers can seek financial advice to help determine the level of protection that suits their needs and budget.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Cases Involving Tenants of HDB-sold Shops Found to be Facilitating Vice Activities and Enforcement Actions Taken","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) what regulatory levers HDB currently has to refuse trade approval for a new tenant at an HDB-sold shophouse where the shop owner has a prior record of facilitating vice-related activities; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider legislative amendments to allow sanctions to be imposed directly on such shop owners.
38 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2025, how many owners of HDB-sold shops has HDB taken action against where tenants have been found conducting vice activities under the guise of beauty and wellness trades; (b) what are the challenges in taking action against such owners; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider legislative amendments to enable HDB to take more punitive and expeditious action against such owners.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Operators who wish to operate a massage establishment are subject to the Singapore Police Force's licensing requirements under the Massage Establishments Act and are required to obtain land use approval from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) before setting up in HDB shops. HDB will reject new land use applications from errant shop owners and operators with prior records of tenants facilitating vice-related activities.
HDB works closely with the Police to enforce against vice-related activities in HDB shops. Owners of privately-owned HDB shops are required to evict the errant tenants if vice-related activities were detected. Since 2025, there have been 36 such cases where the shop owners have taken eviction action.
For privately-owned HDB shops involved in such cases, the challenge lies in establishing the extent of the shop owners' knowledge of, or involvement in, such activities and it requires thorough investigation. If such shop owners are found to be complicit, Police and HDB will not hesitate to take strict enforcement actions against these errant landlords. HDB is also currently reviewing how to strengthen its regulatory and punitive levers for privately-owned HDB shops, particularly against shop owners who knowingly bring in tenants facilitating vice-related activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inter-agency Efforts to Interdict and Deter Vice Activities Operating under Guise of TCM Outlets in HDB-sold Shops","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how has Singapore Police Force (SPF) been working with HDB and the Ministry of Health to interdict and deter vice activities operating under the guise of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) outlets in HDB-sold shops in the heartlands; and (b) how many of such cases has SPF found and acted against in the last three years.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) conduct regular compliance and enforcement checks against massage establishments located within HDB estates, including unlicensed establishments which purport to be traditional Chinese medicine clinics. Between 2023 and 2025, the Police investigated close to 350 vice-related breaches involving unlicensed massage establishments.
The Police also work with HDB to evict massage establishments which have committed offences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of AI Tools to Support Crafting of Civil Service Responses to Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether frontline civil servants engaging with residents utilise artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support the crafting of responses that are accurate, meaningful and tactful; and (b) if so, what safeguards govern the use of such AI tools.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Public officers use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to more effectively serve the public. They are equipped with AI literacy, to understand the risks and benefits of AI.
The Government takes seriously the trust of residents in our interactions. Before they are deployed for public officers' use, AI tools are rigorously assessed, undergo safety and accuracy testing and meet data security requirements.
Officers remain responsible for the replies they draft, even if aided by AI tools. They are not permitted to enter sensitive or classified information into unapproved AI systems, in line with Government information technology security policies. We will continue to monitor how these tools perform, learn from our experience and strengthen our practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Indicators to Measure Effectiveness of Schemes and Grants to Support AI Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what outcome indicators will be used to evaluate whether the free premium artificial intelligence (AI) tool subscription scheme has achieved its workforce objectives; and (b) whether the Training Quality And Outcomes Measurement (TRAQOM) outcomes survey will be extended to cover short-form AI courses eligible for the scheme.\n \n
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government will provide free subscriptions to selected premium artificial intelligence (AI) tools to Singaporeans who participate in eligible training programmes. The subscription will give them the opportunity to have hands-on practice with these tools, by experimenting with and integrating AI in their daily work and lives. This supports our broader objective of raising the overall level of AI literacy in our workforce and giving workers greater confidence to face the AI transformation of the economy and jobs.
To evaluate whether the scheme has met its objectives, we will track a range of indicators on usage and attitudes towards AI. These include aggregate data on the take-up of the subscriptions, patterns of usage and sustained engagement over the six-month free access period and beyond. We may also conduct periodic surveys to assess users' confidence and perceived capability to apply AI at work, to better understand how access to the free AI subscriptions has supported practical workplace use.
The Training Quality and Outcomes Measurement survey is applied to all SSG-funded courses, including the curated AI courses that serve as a prerequisite for the subscription.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for IHL Educators When Using AI Tools for Grading and Assessment Purposes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education in relation to the usage of artificial intelligence tools by educators in Institutes of Higher Learning for grading and assessment purposes (a) what safeguards govern accuracy, bias, confidentiality of student data and human oversight in the final marking decision; and (b) whether the Ministry can share more details of the guidelines issued to educators about its use.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) has shared guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education with all institutes of higher learning (IHLs). These guidelines cover the use of AI in teaching and assessment, as well as how AI use should be aligned with learning outcomes. For details on these guidelines, Members may refer to the response to Question Nos 41 and 42 for oral answer in the 24 September 2025 Order Paper. [Please refer to \"Guidelines Encouraging Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Schools\", Official Report, 24 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 4, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
In line with MOE's guidelines, the IHLs use AI for assessment in a careful and calibrated manner. Before being deployed, AI grading tools are validated for reliability to ensure that the assessment outcomes reflect the intended mastery by students. More importantly, educators retain responsibility for the final grading decision by remaining in-the-loop during the assessment process and reviewing individual assessment outcomes. Educators must also inform their students when AI is used in assessments and communicate the grading criteria clearly.
In line with prevailing Government guidelines for data governance, all IHLs have institutional safeguards to protect the confidentiality of student data. For instance, only institutionally approved AI platforms are used for AI-assisted assessment, and all personal identifiers are removed from student work before it is processed by AI grading systems.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Vice Activities Operating under Guise of TCM Services on Legitimate Practitioners","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the impact that vice activities operating under the guise of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) services in HDB heartlands has had on legitimate clinics, practitioners and the overall TCM sector; and (b) what measures is the Ministry taking to mitigate this impact.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Cases where registered traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners knowingly lend their names as a front for non-registered practitioners to administer massage without a Massage Establishments (ME) licence, or to facilitate vice activities can adversely affect legitimate TCM practitioners and clinics.
The Ministry of Health and the TCM Practitioners Board (TCMPB) work closely with the Singapore Police Force to identify such errant registered practitioners. Since 2018, TCMPB has concluded four disciplinary cases involving registered TCM practitioners convicted of offences under the ME Act. Penalties imposed have ranged from suspension of registration to permanent cancellation of registration.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Progress of Upgrading Electrical Power Supply for HDB Blocks in Nee Soon South","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development (a) for an update on the progress of upgrading the unit electrical power supply from 30 amps to 40 amps under HDB's Electrical Load Upgrading Programme for blocks in Nee Soon South built from the 1980s to 1990s; and (b) what is the expected timeline for completion.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under the Electrical Load Upgrading Programme (ELUP), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will upgrade the unit electrical power supply from 30 amps to 40 amps for about 1,500 older HDB blocks by 2030.
There are about 30 HDB blocks in Nee Soon South that are eligible for upgrading under ELUP. The ELUP design consultants are currently conducting site feasibility studies and developing detailed design proposals. HDB will engage the relevant stakeholders, including grassroots leaders and residents, once the design and upgrading plans are ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Seat Widths and Spacing on MRT Trains and Public Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether Land Transport Authority (LTA) takes into account updated anthropometric data of the Singapore population when specifying seat widths and spacing for MRT trains and public buses; (b) when these specifications were last reviewed; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider revising seating standards given that Singaporeans are now taller and broader.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) requires that seats on all new trains must minimally be 48cm wide. As buses have more space constraints, seats on all new buses have lower requirements, but must still minimally be 42cm wide. Our standards exceed the relevant European Union standards for bus and train seats.
We have no plans to revise the minimum standards for seat width at this time. LTA will continue to evaluate train and bus designs holistically based on commuter feedback and capacity requirements, including to maintain sufficient space for standing commuters and wheelchair users.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Combat Recent Increase in Cases of Outrage of Modesty and Rape","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Vikram Nair asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Singapore Police Force is considering any measures to combat the recent increase in the number of cases of outrage of modesty and rape.
Mr K Shanmugam: Agencies, including the Singapore Police Force (SPF), have implemented a suite of measures to prevent offending, encourage reporting and improve victims' support.
For instance, SPF has been working with schools to teach students to report their concerns and seek help from trusted adults. It has been working with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and social service agencies to provide social and emotional support for victims of violence, including sexual violence. Victim care services are also provided to victims of sexual offences during investigations.
Beyond the legal penalties, society's approbation can also be a powerful deterrent against such crimes. SPF recently launched a public education campaign to drive home this message. The campaign will be rolled out across public spaces, public transport networks, public entertainment outlets and schools.
Most importantly, members of the public who come across any sexual crimes should report them to the Police expeditiously, so that quick action can be taken against the offender and he is prevented from preying on more victims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Transactions on Single Residential Land Lots That Hold Multiple Units Not Yet Strata-subdivided and Foregone ABSD Linked to These Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many transactions since December 2011 have involved a single residential land lot holding multiple units not yet strata subdivided; (b) what is the amount of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) foregone on such transactions; and (c) whether the Government will amend the Stamp Duties Act to base ABSD liability on residential units rather than land lots.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.
Should an owner wish to sell any unit on such land lots individually, subdivision must first occur. Upon subdivision, each unit will count as one residential property for ABSD purposes.
We review the ABSD policy regularly to ensure it continues to promote a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feedback from HDB Flat Dwellers on Low Water Pressure and Information on PUB's Water Pressure Range for HDB Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what water pressure range or service standard does PUB aim to provide to households residing in HDB flats; (b) how many feedback cases on low water pressure from HDB flat dwellers has PUB received in each of the past five years; and (c) whether PUB has reviewed if the current minimum standard remains adequate.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Standard on the Code of Practice for Water Services stipulates the requirements for all plumbing systems. This is a national standard on water services, drawn up and reviewed regularly in consultation with engineering professionals, members of the industries and relevant Government agencies. The Code does not specify a minimum water pressure and there are no plans to change this because water pressure varies significantly across locations, building heights, pipe configurations and usage patterns. Instead, professional engineers work closely with developers, architects and building owners to design water systems tailored to each development to ensure adequate water pressure and supply.
At the national level, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) maintains water pressure that can adequately supply water directly to fittings not exceeding 25 metres above mean sea level. Correspondingly, the Code requires those with water fittings higher than 25 metres above mean sea level to be served by indirect supply from water storage tanks. For the Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks, these tanks are situated at the rooftop and maintained by the Town Councils.
Over the last five years, PUB received an average of 75 cases of feedback per month on low water pressure from HDB units, with this monthly average figure remaining largely the same through the years. Most of the incidents of low water pressure are due to localised issues, such as stoppage of pumps, partially closed service valves or blockages in older service pipes or fittings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ramping Up EV Charging Infrastructure Given Expected Increase in EV Adoption with Elevated Fuel Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed its ramped-up plans for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in light of elevated fuel prices which may increase demand for EV adoption; and (b) if so, what are the updated targets and resources allocated for the deployment of slow and fast charging points.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank the Member for the questions. I have addressed them in my reply for Question No 13 at the 6 May 2026 Parliamentary Sitting. [Please refer to \"Inter-agency Coordination to Support Timely Deployment of EV Charging Infrastructure in New Housing Estates\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, 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":"Average Processing Time for Children of Singaporeans Awaiting Permanent Residency or Citizenship Decisions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many children of Singaporeans await Permanent Residency or citizenship decisions; (b) what is the average processing time; (c) whether the Ministry is aware some of these children are on rolling visitor visas; and (d) whether the Ministry will expedite such cases, given the Government expects to take in between 25,000 and 30,000 new citizens annually over the next five years.
Mr K Shanmugam: As of 31 Dec 2025, there were 914 children who had a pending Permanent Residency (PR) or Singapore Citizenship (SC) application sponsored by their Singaporean parent.
Most applications for PR and SC are processed within six and 12 months respectively. Some applications may take longer to process. It depends on the facts of the case, the need to verify documents and other relevant factors. The SC applications for young children generally take less time. For children born overseas to SCs, their SC applications are expedited because, often, there will be a need to travel. Such applications are generally processed within a month, depending on the case and whether all required documents are submitted and are in order.
While their application is being processed, these children may visit or stay in Singapore on other immigration passes, such as a Short-Term Visit Pass, Long-Term Visit Pass, Dependant's Pass or Student's Pass, subject to the prevailing criteria.
The Government will seek to process such applications as quickly as possible, without compromising the robustness of the assessment and checks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Means-tested University Fee Subsidy Scheme at National Level","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government has any plans to work with other community self-help groups to introduce a means-tested university subsidy scheme similar to MENDAKI's Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy scheme or to introduce such a scheme at the national level; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Desmond Lee: Singaporean students from lower- and middle-income families pursuing an undergraduate degree in our autonomous universities may apply for a Government bursary, which covers up to 75% of the subsidised tuition fees for general degree courses. The bursaries are reviewed regularly to ensure that they are adequate. In October 2025, we announced that the income eligibility threshold will be raised from Academic Year 2026, from the gross monthly household income of $10,000, to $12,000; and gross monthly household per capita income from $2,500, to $3,000.
The autonomous universities also offer other financial assistance, on top of the Government bursaries provided.
MENDAKI’s Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy complements broader national financial assistance schemes by providing additional means-tested subsidies for Malay students from lower- and middle-income households. There are no plans for other self-help groups to offer a similar scheme.
The Government continues to welcome private organisations and individuals, social service agencies and self-help groups to provide additional assistance to meet the needs of specific communities or groups of students in their pursuit of higher education.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Restricting Fishing Locations and Public Education on Responsible Fishing Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of incidents of youths fishing in non-designated areas despite regulations (a) what are the reasons for restricting fishing locations; (b) whether there are plans to expand accessible, youth-friendly fishing areas; and (c) how will agencies better educate and engage youths on responsible fishing practices.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Our reservoirs and waterways form part of our critical water infrastructure in ensuring water security, water quality and flood alleviation. Given Singapore's land scarcity, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has also made suitable areas available to the public for recreational uses, such as fishing, provided that these primary objectives are not compromised.
Many parts of our reservoirs and waterways have inherent hazards, with steep and slippery embankments, as well as fast-rising and fast-moving waters. Safety is, therefore, the key consideration when assessing whether to allow fishing in specific locations. Besides the safety of anglers, we must also make sure that fishing does not risk the safety of members of the public. For example, the casting of fishing lines with hooks could endanger those engaged in water-based activities, such as kayaking and dragon boating.
Information on designated fishing areas and responsible fishing practices are accessible on the PUB and the National Parks Board websites. PUB has also posted educational content highlighting how illegal fishing can jeopardise public safety on social media, to better engage youths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Smoking Prohibitions to Pavilions Adjacent To HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider extending smoking prohibitions to pavilions adjacent to HDB residential blocks where smoking is not already prohibited, such as certain pavilions in Sin Ming Court, given that residents in such blocks are frequently exposed to drifting smoke from smokers using these sheltered spaces.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Smoking is prohibited in pavilions within the common property of residential premises, which are intended to be used for holding funerals, weddings, gatherings, meetings or other communal or social functions. My Ministry will continue to monitor public feedback and consider the Member's suggestion as we continue to review the smoking prohibition regulations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Floor-to-ceiling Heights, Doorway Dimensions and Corridor Widths against Updated Anthropometric Data of Singapore Population","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB and the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) review floor-to-ceiling heights, doorway dimensions and corridor widths against updated anthropometric data of the Singapore population; (b) when such design standards were last revised; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider a periodic review of building codes to account for the trend of Singaporeans growing taller and larger in build.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Building and Construction Authority conducts periodic reviews of building codes, including floor-to-ceiling heights, doorway dimensions and corridor widths, to ensure that our buildings are safe, accessible and meet the needs of building users. These reviews consider relevant anthropometric data where applicable.
There have been no recent revisions to the minimum floor-to-ceiling height, as the average height of Singapore's population has not increased significantly to warrant a revision. Similarly, there have been no recent revisions to the minimum dimensions of doorways and corridors, which take into account the needs of wheelchair users and have been assessed to remain adequate for the build of Singapore's population.
The Housing Development Board designs its flats in compliance with building codes and incorporates universal design principles to cater to the diverse needs of residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detecting Import of Non-compliant Mobility Devices, Spare Parts and Batteries at Checkpoints","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs what are the checks that have been implemented or are being considered for implementation at our checkpoints, including the deployment of technology, to detect the import of non-compliant personal mobility devices (PMD), active mobility devices (AMD), spare parts and batteries.
Mr K Shanmugam: Since June 2021, under the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Act 2020, anyone who brings power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs) into Singapore, including for personal use, must obtain approval from the Land Transport Authority (LTA). LTA works closely with Singapore Customs to ensure that the imported devices meet technical and safety requirements prior to issuing an import permit.
Goods entering Singapore are subject to risk-based checks, leveraging data analytics and screening technology, such as radiographic scanners. Where the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority detect PMDs/PABs without valid import permits at the checkpoints, the cases will be referred to LTA and Customs for investigation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resources for Sports that Are Not Yet Featured in Major Games But Have High Competitive Potential","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the development potential of tchoukball in Singapore; (b) how the Ministry forecasts which emerging sports, like tchoukball, will be included in future major games; and (c) how it allocates resources to sports that are not featured in major games but demonstrate high international competitive potential and have a significant community following.
Mr David Neo: In answering this question, it is important for us to remind ourselves of what sport is and what sports stand for. Sports has the ability to bring people together, imbues character and promotes teamwork. And that is why we constantly promote wider participation in sports among our youths – because it is intrinsically valuable for youth development. It nurtures better Singaporeans.
Broad-based sport participation and high-performance sport are mutually reinforcing and support one another. Developing a wider interest and love for sports through a diverse range of sports expands the pipeline for high-performance sport and means stronger community and national support for our national athletes. When Team Singapore athletes excel on the world stage, it, in turn, inspires our youth to take up sports and strive for excellence.
The Government's approach to promoting sports programmes and competitions in schools goes well beyond those in the Major Games. Because sport serves a broader purpose for our youths – fostering interactions and social mixing among students and developing physical fitness and values, such as resilience and teamwork.
In selecting sports for the National School Games (NSG), the Ministry of Education (MOE) therefore incorporates factors, such as its value to student development, interest levels, school participation patterns and the ecosystem's capacity, including facilities, qualified coaches and officials, and the National Sports Association's (NSA's) ability to support competitions. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and MOE will work with ready, willing and able NSAs to introduce more sports into the NSG to reflect the diverse interests of our youths.
For high-performance sport, the Government places great importance on identifying and developing athletes, and has been increasing investments to help athletes compete better and longer. Developing a strong pipeline of youths in sports included in the Major Games is key to our high-performance strategy. We do this through structured youth pathways, deepening of coaching and specialist expertise, and close partnerships with NSAs to identify and nurture talent early. Just last week, we announced our largest-ever cohort of 247 spexScholars and spexPotential recipients across 41 sports.
As a nation with a small population base and finite resources, we tier our support based on each sport's needs, readiness and potential contributions, with a focus on the Major Games as these are multi-sports and have the largest contingent of Team Singapore athletes, are most watched by and followed by Singaporeans, and most able to rally our nation and inspire the Singapore spirit.
The Government has also been investing in emerging sports. Through the Athletes' Inspire Fund, we have supported athletes in sports, such as pickleball, powerlifting, dodgeball and kickboxing. We have supported NSAs in hosting international competitions, such as the 2023 World Youth Tchoukball Championship. With the Government's support, Tchoukball Association of Singapore attained Charity status in 2024, unlocking access to the One Team Singapore Fund where the Government matches donations dollar-for-dollar. With the formation of SpexSG last month, we will work more closely with and empower NSAs to be strong stewards of their sports.
The sporting landscape is always evolving and the decision on which sports feature in future Major Games rests with international and regional multi-sport governing bodies. Against such a backdrop, we take a practical and long-term view to partner with our stakeholders and invest in sports that show potential, building pathways and community participation, because we value sport and the positive benefits it brings to Singaporeans in and of itself, in addition to being ready should opportunities arise. Emerging sports today can be part of Major Games tomorrow. Floorball is one such example – through sustained effort, community interest and a committed NSA, it was included as an official medal sport at the SEA Games since 2015.
The Government will continue to invest in sports that Singaporeans care about as these are sports with the power to unite us and bring us together as a nation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference between Actual Waiting Times and Initial Projections for BTO Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development for HDB BTO projects completed in the last five years, what have been the realised median and average difference in waiting time compared to initial projections at project launch.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply on 5 May 2026 to the question by Mr Sharael Taha. [Please refer to \"Changes over Past Five Years in Waiting Time from First Unsuccessful BTO Application to Eventual Key Collection\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, 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":"Prescribed Timelines to Resolve Inter-floor Leak Cases for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the current prescribed timelines under existing standard operating procedures for resolving inter-floor leak cases; and (b) if none are specified, whether the Ministry will consider introducing clearer timelines or earlier enforcement actions when one party delays investigation or repairs.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Dr Charlene Chen on 6 May 2026. [Please refer to \"HDB Inter-floor Leak Cases that Remain Unresolved for More than Four or Six Months Due to Uncooperative Parties\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, 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":"Causes for Recent Damage to Underground Fibre Optic Cables During Works for North-South Corridor","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what were the causes of the recent damage to underground fibre optic cables during works for the North-South Corridor, which resulted in a broadband outage including in Ang Mo Kio; and (b) what additional measures will be implemented when engaging contractors to prevent similar disruptions to critical infrastructure.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: I thank the Member for the question. The member may refer to our written reply to Question No 56 for the 6 May 2026 Parliamentary Sitting. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Adequacy of Path Diversity of Passive Fibre Infrastructure Owners\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, 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":"Trees Removed Due To Factors Such As Public Safety Risk, Poor Health and Development Projects","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) what proportion of trees felled from 2024 to date is attributed to (i) public safety risks (ii) poor health or disease (iii) development projects (iv) tree replacement programmes and (v) other reasons, respectively; and (b) under what circumstances, if any, are fruit trees removed or slated for removal.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Ms Valerie Lee on 6 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Data on Net Tree Count and Tree Removals, and Encouraging More Tree Planting Under OneMillionTrees Movement 2020\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, 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":"Restorative Measures Over Punitive Caning in Tackling Root Causes of Bullying in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Education whether more restorative measures have been considered instead of punitive choices like caning in relation to the recent anti-bullying recommendations to be implemented by the Ministry in 2027.
63 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the root causes of bullying in Singapore schools; (b) how the recent measures to tackle the bullying issue address the root causes of bullying; and (c) whether the Ministry has studied the potential impact that bullying has on both bullies and victims in the areas of shame, guilt, and identity formation.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's answer to Oral Parliamentary Question Nos 7 to 29 and Written Parliamentary Question Nos 41 to 49 on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Implementation of Guidelines from Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Disciplinary Framework Against Bullying in Schools\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, 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":"Providing Guidance and Gathering Feedback for AI Use in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education regarding the introduction of AI tools for Primary 4 to 6 students (a) what are the specific AI use cases planned for this age group; (b) what age-appropriateness assessments have been conducted before extending AI tool access to this age range; and (c) what guidance is provided to parents on how their children will interact with AI tools in and beyond school.
65 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has a dedicated formal channel through which teachers, students, and parents can provide feedback on the artificial intelligence (AI) in education strategy roll-out; (b) if not, whether the Ministry intends to establish one; (c) what are the existing channels through which the Ministry has gathered such feedback; and (d) how many pieces of feedback have been received to date.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's answer to Oral Parliamentary Question Nos 2 to 5 on 6 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Monitoring AI Use by Primary School Students\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, 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":"Resource Allocation for Sports that Lack Pathways to Major Games but Maintain Significant Student Participation and Developmental Value","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the National School Games is designed for participation and character development or as a talent pipeline for major Games; (b) how does the Ministry determine which niche sports to retain; and (c) how resources are allocated to sports that lack pathways to major Games but maintain significant student participation and developmental value.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's written answer to Oral Parliamentary Question No 88 on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Criteria for Inclusion of Sports in National School Games\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, 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":"Impact of Non-Traditional Source Occupation List Expansion on Local Hiring, Wage Growth, Turnover and Training Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what specific safeguards are there to ensure that the Non-Traditional Source (NTS) Occupation List expansion will not lower incentives to raise productivity, improve job design or increase wages for local workers; and (b) whether the Ministry will publish the impact of the expanded NTS Occupation List on local hiring, wage growth, turnover and training outcomes in affected occupations.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Non-Traditional Source Occupation List (NTS-OL) gives businesses access to more diverse sources of labour where there are significant manpower shortages. The occupations are carefully selected in consultation with sector agencies and unions, taking into account the degree of shortages in local manpower and from other approved Work Permit sources. In addition to mainstream quotas and levies, employers are subject to a more stringent sub-dependency ratio ceiling of 8% and a fixed monthly salary criterion of at least $2,000 when hiring Work Permit holders on the NTS-OL. These controls ensure that firms remain incentivised to raise productivity, as well as redesign jobs and raise wages to attract local workers.
The Ministry of Manpower publishes detailed wage data across occupations, including those listed on the NTS-OL, through the Occupational Wage Survey. Based on the latest published data, local wages for occupations on the NTS-OL have remained broadly stable over 2023 to 2024. We will continue to review the impact of the NTS-OL on local employment outcomes regularly with sector agencies and unions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Tripartite Guidelines in Improving Caregivers' Access to Flexible Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the Ministry's report regarding overqualification in Singapore 2025 and noting that caregivers are taking roles below their qualifications (a) how effective have the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests been in improving caregivers’ access to flexible work; and (b) whether further measures are planned to support job redesign without harming career progression.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the combined oral reply on overqualification delivered on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Survey Finding of Workers Being Overqualified for Their Roles and Implications on Career and Wage Progression, and Underemployment\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, 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":"Covered Pedestrian and Cycling Pathway on Causeway","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will coordinate with the Malaysian authorities to construct a designated, covered pedestrian and cycling pathway on the Causeway to provide a safer, greener and more efficient alternative to motorised transport on one of the world's busiest land crossings; and (b) what discussions have already taken place on this matter, if any.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: While cycling is permitted on both sides of the Causeway, Malaysia currently prohibits walking along the Causeway. There are currently no plans for a covered pedestrian and cycling pathway along the Causeway.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Sufficient Parking Space within Construction Sites to Prevent Project-related Vehicles from Parking along Public Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport whether LTA will work with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) to mandate that developers and contractors allocate sufficient space within construction sites for parking and waiting for all project-related vehicles during construction to prevent occupation of public road lanes along construction sites, affecting traffic flow and creating disamenities to other road users for the entire period of construction.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: It is impractical to mandate parking or holding spaces for vehicles within construction sites, due to the additional space required and operational constraints during construction.
To manage vehicular movements in and out of the worksites safely and efficiently, contractors may deploy traffic marshals and schedule vehicle arrivals at staggered intervals. Enforcement is conducted against indiscriminate parking or stopping of vehicles along public roads. Hotspots are closely monitored and technology, such as parking enforcement cameras, are adopted.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Annual Six Days of Paid Childcare Leave to Cover Family Members Who Need Help with Three or More Activities of Daily Living","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with elderly caregiving burdens and the emphasis on family being the first stop for care, whether the Government will consider extending the annual six days of paid childcare leave to cover not just workers' children, but also their disabled family members if they need help with three or more activities of daily living, which benchmark is assessed under CareShield Life.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Government recognises the challenges of caregiving, including balancing work responsibilities and caregiving for one's family members.
There is no single solution for all caregivers. For working caregivers, the Government balances the effectiveness of measures to meet diverse caregiving needs sustainably against employers' operational needs and caregiver employability. Extending childcare leave to caregivers of persons with disabilities could help in situations, such as specific bouts of illness, but flexible work arrangements (FWA) offer more sustainable solutions for longer-term caregiving needs. Hence, we focus on encouraging the adoption of FWAs to help caregivers balance work and personal commitments. This is done through the Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests, as well as FWA implementation resources and training by tripartite partners and the Institute of Human Resource Professionals.
The Government remains committed to supporting the needs of working caregivers and will continue to work with tripartite partners to foster more family-friendly workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extensions to ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance Due To Medical Conditions or Permanent Disability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what proportion of beneficiaries under ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) have successfully applied for extended support after the initial assistance grant for three to six months due to medical conditions or permanent disability, for the past three years; and (b) whether SMTA grant periods can be matched to the same periods that individuals have been certified unfit to work for.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does not track if ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) beneficiaries who have past medical conditions return to apply for assistance.
In assessing ComCare applications, MSF will holistically assess the client's household situation, level of support available and may align SMTA to the period for which the client has been certified unfit to work. This is provided that the client does not have any outstanding action plan. For example, some clients will be asked to follow up on insurance claims which, if paid, could be a source of income for the applicant.
If the client is assessed to be permanently unable to work and has no means of self-support, they may be placed on Long-Term Assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Refurbishment Plans for First-generation C830 Circle Line Trains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether there are refurbishment plans for the first-generation C830 Circle Line trains as they approach 20 years of service; (b) what the typical lead time and duration are for such refurbishments; and (c) what technical or cost-benefit criteria determine the choice between refurbishment and full fleet replacement.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority is currently assessing the scope and timing for the refurbishment of the first-generation Circle Line trains. This assessment is based on train performance and condition, the need to replace obsolete parts and whether there are viable upgrades available. Our trains typically undergo one major refurbishment around the 20-year mark, although this can vary according to train condition, before they are replaced with newer trains.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Resilience of Singapore's Port and Maritime Ecosystem to Manage Prolonged Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Acting Minister for Transport in light of recent global shipping disruptions and Singapore's role as a key maritime hub, whether the Ministry can provide more detail on the specific measures being taken to strengthen the resilience of Singapore's port and maritime ecosystem, including contingency planning and system redundancies to manage prolonged disruptions.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: We have put in place measures to help Singapore's port and maritime ecosystem manage ongoing shipping disruptions. These include measures to enhance port capacity and improve reliability and efficiency of port operations.
We are pressing on with our port's capacity expansion plans, which will help address increased demand and volatility arising from unforeseen disruptions. For example, four more berths at Tuas Port are scheduled to commence operations this year. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and MPA are also working with PSA to ensure sufficient manpower and to develop new capabilities to manage the anticipated increase in demand.
In addition, MPA coordinates with shipping lines through the digitalPort@SG Just-In-Time Planning and Coordination Platform to optimise their vessel arrival times in port. PSA also works with shipping lines to support the re-routing of their ships and service recoveries. These measures provide more certainty for shipping lines, reducing the risk of bunching and congestion while enhancing operational efficiency of our port.
Port operations have remained stable thus far. MPA will continue closely monitoring developments and their impact on global shipping. We will continue our efforts to strengthen Singapore's position as a trusted maritime hub in the midst of these disruptions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints and Investigations against Car Dealers for Misleading Financing-related Sales Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there has been an increase in complaints, investigations or enforcement actions in the past three years against car dealers for misleading or unfair financing-related sales practices; (b) whether existing consumer protection frameworks adequately cover dealer-provided financing arrangements outside MAS regulation; and (c) whether safeguards or disclosures are required to address potential conflicts from dealer-linked financing commissions.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: In the past three years, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) and the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received, on average, under 10 complaints a year on misleading or unfair financing-relating sales practices by car dealers.
In addition to the Monetary Authority of Singapore's motor vehicle financing rules, we have other regulatory frameworks and safeguards in place to protect consumers against misleading or unfair sales practices. Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA), businesses, including car dealers, are expected to provide accurate and reliable information about their goods and services. Consumers who encounter misleading or unfair practices may approach CASE for assistance. The CCS can also take action against businesses which persist in egregious unfair practices.
In addition, the Hire-Purchase Act (HPA) protects consumers who enter into hire purchase agreements for cars from unfair terms and hidden costs. For example, the HPA mandates the disclosure of key transaction information, such as the cash price, the applied and effective interest rates, and the total amount payable, so that consumers can make informed decisions. This is also consistent with the provisions under the CPFTA, which require prices and their accompanying conditions to be accurate and clearly communicated to consumers.
Furthermore, under the Misrepresentation Act, consumers may rescind a contract and claim damages against the car dealer if they entered into it because of the car dealer's misrepresentation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"EV Charging Rate Comparisons on Price Kaki App","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore will consider working with Consumers Association of Singapore to include electric vehicle charging rate comparisons on the Price Kaki app, to drive fair and transparent pricing strategies by service providers.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government supports initiatives that help consumers compare prices across retailers more easily and encourage a competitive market. The Consumers Association of Singapore is currently assessing the feasibility of including electric vehicle charging rates on Price Kaki.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration to Provide Additional Paid Childcare Leave for Parents with Preterm Births","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether there has been further consideration of providing additional paid childcare leave for parents with preterm births, given the need for more time and care due to potential health complications.
Ms Indranee Rajah: We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.
In considering further enhancements to leave provisions, we will have to strike a balance between employees' caregiving needs and the operational impact on employers, who are still adjusting to recent parental leave enhancements.
Beyond leave provisions, it is equally important for employers to implement work-life friendly practices, such as flexible work arrangements, and demonstrate understanding towards parents who may require time away from work to care for their children. We will continue to work with tripartite partners to foster work-life friendly workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Biomedical Sectors Resilience and Recalibrating Singapore's Long-term Economic Strategy to Attract and Retain MNC Manufacturers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry following recent announcements on local biopharma plant closures (a) whether the local biomedical sector remains a resilient economic and employment engine; (b) whether Singapore's long-term economic strategy and areas of focus require recalibration; and (c) what is the Ministry's strategy to attract and retain such multinational corporation (MNC) manufacturers amidst rising costs and increasing regional workforce competence.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore remains a leading global hub for biomedical sciences (BMS). We are home to more than 60 BMS manufacturing plants, including eight of the world's top 10 biopharmaceutical companies1.
The outlook remains strong. In 2025, the Economic Development Board attracted S$4.4 billion worth of investments in the BMS sector, which will create 1,775 jobs over the next five years. These investments will strengthen our BMS ecosystem and anchor new capabilities in Singapore. For example, AstraZeneca recently broke ground on a US$1.5 billion end-to-end antibody drug conjugate plant, the first such facility in its global network. The recent plant closures reflect the individual companies' commercial circumstances, rather than a weakening of Singapore's value proposition.
We will continue to strengthen our fundamentals while supporting our manufacturers to innovate, raise productivity and adopt advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, AbbVie and AstraZeneca."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Complaints Against Car-sharing Companies by Company, Type of Complaint Type and Resolution Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry has data on (i) the breakdown of the 547 complaints against car-sharing companies, by company and type of complaint and (ii) what proportion of these complaints have been resolved.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The most common complaints against car sharing received by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) are overcharging (27%), lack of transparency in damage assessments and repair costs (18%), and refunds that were delayed or not properly processed (13%).
Eighty-eight percent of the complaints were resolved with CASE providing advice to the consumers or through CASE negotiating with the companies on the consumers' behalf. Forty-seven of the remaining complaints are pending. Nineteen cases remain unresolved and CASE will advise consumers to seek independent legal advice, where applicable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Examining Measures Adopted in Other Countries to Increase Adopted of Residential Solar Installations on Private Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry will consider examining measures adopted in other countries to increase the adoption of residential solar installations on private properties with a view to adapting them for local implementation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The adoption of residential solar installations on private properties has increased more than four times in five years, from around 1,400 in 2020 to around 6,900 in 2025. This has been driven by favourable economics. Solar panel costs have come down over the years and the payback period for rooftop solar can be five years or even shorter. For residential building owners who may be concerned about costs, some solar vendors offer \"rent-to-own\" models that allow them to enjoy the benefits of solar installation with little to no upfront cost.
Some jurisdictions have introduced measures to increase solar adoption, such as making it mandatory for new residential buildings to install solar panels. In Singapore, we have no plans at this stage to mandate solar panel installation on private residential buildings because some of these buildings have other rooftop uses, such as greenery, or their rooftops may not be suited to solar installation due to factors, such as shading from neighbouring buildings.
The Government will continue to push for solar deployment in Singapore and will consider additional measures to accelerate solar adoption if there is a need to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Opportunistic Price Increases by Retailers and Improve Price Transparency for Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Victor Lye asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has observed any evidence of opportunistic price increases by retailers or service providers beyond actual input-cost increases resulting from rising energy costs in the past two months; and (b) what additional measures, if any, is the Government considering to improve price transparency for consumers to curb cost-of-living pressures arising from the current energy situation.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As a small and open economy that imports most of our essential goods, Singapore is exposed to global supply chain disruptions which can pose an upward pressure on our domestic prices. The Government's approach to guard against profiteering is to promote fair competition, diversify our sources and choices for consumers, as well as help them make informed decisions through greater price and information transparency.
For example, the Government has worked with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to develop Price Kaki, a mobile application that allows consumers to compare the prices of a wide range of cooked food, groceries and other daily essentials across different operators. CASE is currently assessing the feasibility of expanding the range of goods and services on Price Kaki.
Last year, the Government also worked with major supermarkets to pilot unit pricing for common grocery items across more than 180 outlets islandwide. This allows consumers to compare prices more easily across different product sizes and brands. The pilot will be expanded later this year to cover more in-store and online supermarkets, and a wider range of grocery items.
Where there is evidence of anti-competitive conduct among businesses such as price collusion, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) can investigate and take enforcement action against such businesses under the Competition Act. We encourage members of the public to report to CCS, should there be any suspected cases of anti-competitive conduct.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detecting Rebranding Attempts Through SPF Licence Application Background Checks and Cases Identified in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Singapore Police Force's licence application background checks can detect rebranding attempts where a new entity is registered by the same shop owner shortly after enforcement action against the previous entity at the same premises; and (b) if so, how many such cases have been identified in the past three years.
Mr K Shanmugam: Police's licensing application assessment endeavours to detect if a person had previously applied for the same type of licence, whether at the same premises or elsewhere. They do not track the number of such cases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Scam Losses Recovered for Senior Victims in Past Three Years and Measures Improving Recovery Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what proportion of reported losses in scam cases involving seniors over the past three years were successfully recovered; and (b) what measures have most improved recovery outcomes.
Mr K Shanmugam: In 2025, seniors aged 65 and above made up about 15% of all scam victims, the only age group to register an increase in the number of victims between 2024 and 2025. Each senior lost about $37,000 on average, the highest among all age groups. About two in five scam victims who are seniors fell prey to investment or Government official impersonation scams.
The Police do not track the amount of scam proceeds recovered by age group.
We have explained in this House before why the recovery of scam proceeds is very challenging. Once the monies exit Singapore, the odds of it being recovered is very low. Notwithstanding, the Police have implemented several measures to improve asset recovery, including strengthening international collaboration among law enforcement agencies and enhancing cryptocurrency tracing capabilities. The Member may wish to refer to the Annual Scam and Cybercrime Brief 2025 for more details on these recovery initiatives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Keep-Left Summonses Involving Slow Vehicles and Detection of Lane Discipline Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what proportion of summonses issued for failing to keep left on expressways involved vehicles subject to a statutory speed limit of 60 km/h or below; and (b) how such violations are detected given that fixed enforcement cameras are not currently deployed for lane discipline offences.
Mr K Shanmugam: All the summonses issued for the offence of failing to keep left on expressways have involved vehicles with a vehicular speed limit of 60 km/h or slower, since the offence in the Road Traffic (Expressway Traffic) Rules only applies to such vehicles.
These violations are detected through on-road enforcement by Traffic Police officers, reports submitted by members of the public and traffic accident investigations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Defining High-Risk Psychological Services and Mandating Unregistered Practitioner Disclosure Under the Psychology Registration Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in respect of the impending registration framework for psychologists, whether the Ministry will consider requiring all unregistered private practitioners offering mental health counselling services to explicitly state their status in all advertisements and service agreements in the interest of public safety and education.
10 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health with reference to the regulatory framework in the practice of psychology and the five psychological subdisciplines identified as involving higher-risk assessments and interventions, what specific clinical criteria or types of therapeutic interventions, such as trauma-informed care or grief counselling, will be used to classify a counselling service as \"high-risk\" to warrant mandatory oversight in the private sector.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: These questions have been addressed in the oral answer to Parliamentary Question No 32 at the Parliament Sitting on 7 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Measures to Prevent Unregistered Individuals and Companies That Hire Them from Offering Counselling and Therapy Services\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, 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":"Implementation of Integrated Approach to Improve Public Awareness of Death Literacy and End-of-Life Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in light of the low death literacy highlighted by the Singapore Hospice Council's Death Literacy Index, whether the Ministry will consider working with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment and relevant agencies to address gaps in public understanding of end-of-life issues including (i) palliative care access (ii) dying at home and (iii) post-death funeral procedures, through a more integrated whole-of-Government approach.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Singapore scored 5.66 out of 10 for the death literacy index. Similar studies placed the index at 4.7 for Australia in 2019, and 4.76 for the United Kingdom in 2022.
In 2023, we embarked on a national legacy planning campaign. The campaign promotes the adoption of legacy planning tools, such as Advance Care Planning, the Central Provident Fund Nomination, Lasting Power of Attorney and Wills through ground engagements and publicity. To further expand the reach of this effort, we have formed more than 70 partnerships with various commercial, social and community entities. The Singapore Hospice Council also engages the public to normalise conversations on death and advocate for a supportive palliative care environment.
The legacy planning campaign also promotes MyLegacy@LifeSG, a one-stop online portal consolidating information on legacy planning, end-of-life care and post-death matters, such as funeral arrangements from relevant agencies, including the National Environment Agency.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Simplifying HealthHub Terms of Use for Seniors and Residents of All Literacy Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will provide a simplified version of HealthHub's Terms of Use to ensure digital access to health records is not conditional on accepting broad contractual terms; and (b) what measures are taken to ensure that these terms are accessible and easy to understand for seniors and residents of all literacy levels.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: HealthHub's Terms of Use (TOU) is broadly similar to those of other digital health apps. It covers the full range of HealthHub's functions, from access to health records and appointment scheduling to bill payment, the caregiver module and more. The TOUs set out protections and liabilities to safeguard against illegal or inappropriate use that could compromise the platform for all users.
We will continue to review the TOU to ensure clarity for users. Users who require assistance in understanding the TOU or managing their HealthHub access can call 1800 225 4482 or email contact_us@healthhub.sg.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Paediatric and Geriatric Inpatient Care Services at Regional Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether there are plans to expand the suite of (i) paediatric and (ii) geriatric services offered at regional hospitals, in particular to address limited inpatient care services in such hospitals, to better support the demographic distribution of young and old households in such towns.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Geriatric medicine services are available in all public acute hospitals. It is provided by multidisciplinary teams to ensure holistic care for elderly patients.
The planning of hospital-based paediatric services is guided by clinical considerations and demographic trends, which drive demand. Given birth trends and our demography, the KK Women and Children's Hospital (KKH) and the National University Hospital (NUH), and private hospitals, such as Thomson Medical and Mount Alvernia, are adequate to serve the needs of our population. This also ensures sufficient case volume for paediatric specialists to maintain their expertise and provide treatment with good outcomes, particularly for children with rare or more complex conditions.
In addition, General Practitioners are trained to manage a wide range of common ambulatory medical conditions in children, supported by community-based paediatricians. KKH and NUH have also planned for outpatient satellite paediatric clinic services to be sited in some of our regional hospitals, such as Sengkang General Hospital, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital and Woodlands Hospital. Ambulatory child development clinics are also available islandwide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Parental Consent Requirements for Children and Young People Accessing Mental Health Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry can provide an update regarding the study of the requirement for parental consent for children and young people below the age of 18 or 21 to access mental health support.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health has developed draft guidelines for a tiered approach, which includes the provision for young people to obtain basic and preventive care without parental consent. We have sought input from parents, young people and service providers through focus group discussions, and are consulting more stakeholders including professional bodies in the coming months. We will provide further updates later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidance Provided to Mental Health Providers on Minor Referrals and Parental Consent Thresholds for Tier 2 Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what guidance has been issued to mental health service providers on accepting referrals for Tier 2 low-intensity services from minors without parental consent while the parental consent guidelines have yet to be published; and (b) what parental consent threshold are service providers currently directed to apply for Tier 2 services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Currently, mental health professionals who are members of the Singapore Association for Counselling, the Singapore Psychological Society and the Singapore Association of Social Workers are guided by their respective professional codes of practice to seek parental consent before providing care to minors in general.
The Ministry of Health is consulting stakeholders on our draft parental consent guidelines and will share more when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Support for Traditional Sea-Based Fish Farms Through Infrastructure, Funding, Shared Facilities and Biosecurity Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment beyond the recent use of technologies to predict algal blooms (a) what other forms of support are being provided to traditional sea-based fish farms; and (b) whether the support can include, if not already, physical infrastructure upgrades, funding for capability development, access to shared national facilities, and technical, biosecurity and disease management assistance to improve resilience and productivity.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has been supporting aquaculture farms, including traditional sea-based farms, to grow food in a more productive, resource-efficient and climate-resilient manner.
All aquaculture farms can tap on the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund 2, which had a new tranche of funding of S$70 million, to adopt farming technologies and systems and defray equipment costs. The SFA is also supporting aquaculture farms to adopt newer technologies through conducting demonstration projects to showcase their viability.
Furthermore, SFA has invested in research and development to drive research in areas, such as sustainable tropical aquaculture. Research outcomes are translated into practical benefits through SFA's National Broodstock Centre and Hatchery Development and Recognition Programme, which supply our farms with high quality fingerlings that grow faster and survive better. To better prevent and control diseases, SFA implemented the Aquatic Animal Health Services to provide farms with funded veterinary consultations. As water quality is critical for sea-based farms, SFA's Aquaculture Sensing Network and Harmful Algal Bloom Prediction Model will provide farms with timely warnings to minimise stock losses.
In addition, SFA has been working with the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited to aggregate supply and demand of local produce, including locally farmed seafood, so as to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and retailers, as well as food businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Effectiveness of Heat Stress Advisory and Integration into Public Health and Workplace Safety Protocols","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given the projection that 2026 may be among the hottest years on record (a) whether an update can be provided on the effectiveness of the Heat Stress Advisory since its launch; (b) whether there are plans to review its accuracy, localisation and accessibility amid rising heat stress days; and (c) what is its success in integrating into workplace, school and public health protocols.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Heat Stress Advisory was launched in July 2023 to provide simple tips for the public to plan their prolonged outdoor activities based on prevailing heat stress levels. Heat stress information is available on the myENV application. We have observed higher engagements with the application's heat stress feature during the hot season from March to May each year when heat stress risks are elevated.
The Meteorological Service Singapore has expanded its network of Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature sensors from nine in 2023 to 27 today and will install more sensors islandwide to give the public more location-specific heat stress information through the myENV application. Additionally, we will explore enhancements to improve the myENV application's usability and accessibility.
Agencies have also adapted the Heat Stress Advisory for sector-specific needs. This includes the Ministry of Manpower's heat stress framework for outdoor work, the Ministry of Education's guidelines for schools to ensure the safety and well-being of students amid the hot weather, and the Ministry of Health's heatwave response framework for healthcare institutions and eldercare facilities to better manage heat stress risks for both staff and patients.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring Microplastic Concentrations in Singapore's Marine Environment, Reservoirs and Food Chain and Plans to Legislate Bans or Mandatory Labelling","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what monitoring and mitigation measures are in place under the Singapore Green Plan 2030 to detect and address microplastic concentrations in Singapore's marine environment, reservoirs and food chain; and (b) whether the Government will consider legislative bans on intentional microplastics or mandatory labelling similar to those in the EU.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency and PUB, Singapore's National Water Agency, monitor the level of microplastics in our food and across the water loop, including in our reservoirs and seawater used in desalination. Data shows that the level of microplastics in these sources remains low or undetectable.
As microplastics can be produced from the breakdown of larger plastic debris, my Ministry implements measures to reduce plastic waste generation and prevent its leakage into the environment. These include a robust waste management system and strict anti-littering enforcement, complemented by \"3P\" (People, Public and Private) engagement programmes.
Nevertheless, my Ministry is closely monitoring international discussions and scientific studies on this topic. Singapore will continue to take an evidence-based approach and review our policies as scientific understanding and international best practices evolve.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Reports on Illegal Waste Dumping Received since 2020 and Measures to Reduce Illegal Dumping in Residential Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for each year since 2020, what is the number of reports of illegal dumping of waste received by the National Environment Agency; (b) what are the current measures NEA adopts to reduce the incidence of these behaviours in residential areas; and (c) how NEA tracks the effectiveness of these measures.\n \n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Improper disposal of waste in residential areas, including bulky waste items, constitutes a littering offence under the Environmental Public Health Act 1987. From 2020 to 2025, the National Environment Agency (NEA) received an average of about 4,500 feedback per year for improper disposal of bulky waste.
NEA takes a multi-pronged approach to deter improper waste disposal in residential areas. This includes working with Town Councils, which manage the cleaning of the Housing and Development Board estates, to educate residents on proper disposal practices. Town Councils may also deploy larger bins for residents to dispose of their bulky waste. Residents may check with their Town Councils if they provide free removal for certain number of bulky items each month. For persistent hotspots, NEA may deploy surveillance cameras for enforcement purposes.
NEA tracks the effectiveness of these measures through feedback trends, enforcement numbers and recurrence rates at identified hotspots.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding Criteria for Anchor and Partner Operator Preschools, and Proportion of Non-citizen and Non-PR Enrolment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the basis for ECDA's sizing of operator-level funding for Anchor and Partner Operator preschools; (b) whether enrolment is a criterion; (c) if so, whether non-citizen and non-permanent resident (PR) children count toward enrolment; (d) what proportion of enrolment in the past three years have been non-citizens and non-PRs; and (e) whether the Ministry will restrict operator-level subsidies to citizen and PR enrolment.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Early Childhood Development Agency funds Anchor Operator (AOP) and Partner Operator (POP) preschools to improve affordability and quality. Funding is sized based on the number of children enrolled, adherence to fee caps, achievement of quality benchmarks and the provision of competitive salaries for preschool educators.
While AOP and POP preschools welcome children of all nationalities, Government funding for these preschools is designed primarily to benefit Singaporean children and their families. Therefore, the citizenship of enrolled children is taken into consideration in the grant design and requirements. Non-resident children make up a very small proportion of less than 5% of total enrolment in these preschools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Salary Guideline Consistency and Impact on Internal Wage Structures, Staff Deployment and Retention Across Social Service Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the extent to which social service agencies are able to apply the prevailing social service sector salary guidelines consistently across both MSF-funded and non-MSF-funded programmes within the same organisation; and (b) whether the Ministry has studied the impact of any such differences on internal wage structures, staff deployment and retention within these agencies.\n
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Skills and Salary Guidelines published by the National Council of Social Service helps Social Service Agencies (SSAs) attract and retain talent and maintain the sector's competitiveness. We expect SSAs to pay their employees according to the guidelines and ensure fairness in pay structures and salaries. We have found that SSAs generally apply the Guidelines across the job roles in their organisation, regardless of funding source.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Use of Child Development Account Funds to Cover Field Trip and Excursion Expenses Requiring Parental Participation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Government can consider allowing the use of Child Development Account funds to cover field trip and excursion expenses incurred by both parents and children, where parental participation is required or encouraged.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Child Development Account (CDA) can be used to cover field trips and excursion expenses offered by the preschools. As the CDA is intended to support children's direct educational and healthcare needs, it can only be used for the child or his/her siblings' expenses, but not for parents' expenses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Strengthen Local Care Worker Retention and Career Development in Social Services Alongside Recruitment from Non-traditional Source Countries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Victor Lye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the opening of social service occupations to workers from non-traditional source (NTS) countries will be accompanied by measures to strengthen professionalism, retention and career progression for local care workers.\n
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Non-Traditional Source Occupation List (NTS-OL) allows businesses to hire higher-quality non-PMET workers from non-traditional source countries for specific roles with insufficient locals to augment the workforce.
While the NTS-OL will be expanded from September 2026 to include Early Childhood (EC) roles, such as infant educators and early years educators, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has been working with Government-supported preschools to grow their local workforce and retain talent in the sector. We regularly review the salaries of EC educators to ensure their salaries are market-competitive and commensurate with their contributions and professional skills. In addition, ECDA has introduced various initiatives to support the professional development and career progression of our EC educators, such as through the Professional Development Programmes and Continuing Professional Development courses. ECDA has also been working actively to enhance educator well-being. Some of our efforts include designating Teachers' Day and Children's Day as preschool holidays from 2024 and removing the requirement for childcare centres to operate on Saturdays from 2025.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development and ECDA will continue to work closely with relevant stakeholders to attract and retain local EC educators in the sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Usage Rates of MakeIT at Libraries Programme and Facilities in Past Three Years and Expanding Makerspace Facilities to Encourage Participation and Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what has been the take-up and usage of MakeIT at Libraries programmes and facilities at its four libraries in each of the past three years; and (b) whether the National Library Board (NLB) will consider (i) expanding similar makerspace offerings to more libraries as they are revamped, including Clementi Library, and (ii) working with community partners to encourage greater participation and use.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Over the past three years, the National Library Board's (NLB's) MakeIT at Libraries had a total annual participation of about 60,000 across its four locations. Individuals who participated in multiple sessions or activities may be counted more than once.
NLB considers factors, such as patron demand, operational sustainability and availability of space, in deciding the mix of programmes and services across libraries. More details on Clementi Library's upcoming revamp will be announced when ready.
NLB welcomes collaboration with community partners for all its programmes and services. Specifically, for MakeIT, over the past three years, we have worked with a diverse range of partners, including non-profit groups serving persons with disabilities and volunteers from tech, design and engineering sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data Protection Standards for AI Tools Usage in Schools and Assessing AI's Impact on Student Learning Outcomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education (a) what minimum data protection standards schools are required to apply when directing students to use AI tools not hosted on the Singapore Student Learning Space; (b) whether parental notification or consent is required before students use such tools for school-assigned work; and (c) how compliance with these standards is monitored.
26 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the scope of the Ministry's study on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on students' learning, in terms of education levels covered and learning outcomes measured; (b) what is the expected timeline for findings to be published; and (c) how will the findings be used to inform or revise the AI in education strategy.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Education's answer to oral Parliamentary Question Nos 2 to 5 on 6 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Monitoring AI Use by Primary School Students\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, 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":"Data on Enhanced Medical Insurance Annual Premiums for Foreign Workers by Co-payment Option and Percentile Distribution","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government has data on the current (i) 25th percentile, (ii) median, (iii) average and (iv) 75th percentile for annual premiums of policies with and without the 25% co-payment option that meet the enhanced policy requirements, for approved insurers offering enhanced medical insurance for foreign workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower does not track the annual premiums of medical insurance policies for migrant workers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Global Trade Fragmentation Impact on Workers, and Targeted Reskilling and Job Transition Support Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has studied which groups of workers are most exposed to longer-term global trade fragmentation; and (b) how reskilling and job transition support are being designed to support these workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the combined oral reply on the energy crisis and trade fragmentation delivered on 7 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Impact of Energy Crisis on Hiring Prospects\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, 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":"Appeal Outcomes and Potential Policy Refinements to Downsizing Exemption for Seniors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development since introducing the 15-month wait-out exemption for seniors above 55 downsizing from private property to 4-room or smaller resale flats (a) how many appeals have been received from senior households seeking 5-room flats; (b) how many appeals have been approved; (c) what is the policy rationale for capping at 4-room flats; and (d) whether HDB will calibrate rules by household size or caregiving needs.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The 15-month wait-out period for private property owners was introduced as a temporary measure to moderate demand for the Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale flats and prioritise access to public housing for Singaporeans with more urgent housing needs, such as first-time home buyers.
Some seniors may wish to move from their private property to an HDB flat to strengthen their retirement adequacy. To support them, seniors aged 55 and above purchasing 4-room or smaller flats are exempted from this wait-out period. Seniors seeking to buy 5-room or bigger resale flats can approach HDB for assistance. HDB will continue to consider these appeals on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration extenuating circumstances, such as household size and medical needs.
As the Ministry of National Development mentioned previously, we are monitoring the market and when conditions allow, we intend to remove the 15-month wait-out period requirement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Timeline on Reclamation and Development, Land Area Increase and Breakdown of Target Land Use for Changi Bay","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development what is the expected (i) reclamation and development timelines of Changi Bay, (ii) the increase in land area upon full reclamation and (iii) breakdown of the target land use.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Reclamation for Changi Bay commenced in 2023 and approximately 900 hectares of land will eventually be reclaimed. The development timelines and specific land uses for Changi Bay are still under study.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Status and Timeline of Lift Upgrading Programme for Block 128 Lorong Ah Soo and Blocks 230, 234 and 363 in Hougang","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the status of the Lift Upgrading Programme for potential implementation at Blk 128 Lorong Ah Soo, Blks 230 and 234 Hougang Avenue 1 and Blk 363 Hougang Avenue 5; (b) when the lifts are expected to be ready for use; and (c) whether the works can be expedited so as to address the needs of residents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is currently procuring a contractor and consultants for the \tLift Upgrading Programme (LUP) works at Block 128 Lorong Ah Soo, Blocks 230 and 234 Hougang Avenue 1 and Block 363 Hougang Avenue 5. HDB will also work with relevant partners to form a Working Committee to develop the implementation plan and engage residents.
Depending on project planning and resident engagement, LUP projects typically take about three years from announcement to completion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of Detection Methods to Verify Location and Depths of Underground Utilities, and Subsidies for Adoption of Advanced Detection Technologies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will review the adequacy of current methods for verifying the exact locations and depths of underground utilities; (b) how the detection gap for non-conductive and non-metallic assets, such as fibre optic cables and PVC pipes, is being addressed; and (c) whether the Government will provide subsidies to contractors for the adoption of advanced detection technologies.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As most of our utilities are delivered through underground cables and pipelines, there are processes in place to minimise the risks of accidental damage to them. For example, contractors are required to undertake topography surveys and conduct trial trenches to verify the locations and depths of existing cables and pipelines before works can be conducted in their vicinity.
The Government has improved these processes as well as the methods used to verify the locations and depths of underground cables and pipelines over the years. For example, to enhance the detectability of non-conductive assets, such as fibre optic cables, the Government has, since 2015, mandated telcos to implement metallic tracer cables alongside all newly laid fibre optic cables. The Government also required contractors of selected infrastructure projects to adopt advanced non-invasive geo-referenced technologies, such as the Electro-Magnetic Locator (EML) and Multi-Channel Ground Penetrating Radar (MCGPR), to supplement trial trenches and improve the efficacy of detecting different underground utilities.
We will continue to improve the processes and methods for verifying the exact locations and depths of underground utilities, and to study how best to support the industry in scaling up the adoption of these technologies. We will also try out technology solutions that can further enhance the industry’s ability to detect underground cables and pipelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Hindering Switch from Private Transport to Achieve 75% Peak-Period Modal Share and Barriers to Public Transport Adoption","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) with Singapore at around 10 percentage points short of the 2030 target of 75% mass public transport peak-period modal share, whether LTA has studied the factors hindering the switch from private transport, including rail service reliability; and (b) if not, whether LTA will commission such a study, including the effect of rail service reliability, on public transport adoption.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Public transport peak-period modal share has continued to grow steadily over the years. There are several reasons why we have not yet hit the target of 75%. For example, the growth of the private hire car industry has provided Singaporeans with an affordable means of point-to-point transport on a pay-per-use basis. The impact of COVID-19 and the delay to new public transport infrastructure, including new rail lines like the Cross Island Line, Circle Line Stage 6 and the Jurong Region Line, has further slowed public transport adoption. However, there is no evidence that changes in rail reliability have affected public transport adoption. In any case, the reliability of our train system remains above our targets. On improving the attractiveness of public transport, feedback from commuters generally focuses on more direct connections and improved comfort. We expect public transport peak-period modal share to grow over time as new train lines are completed, including the upcoming Jurong Region Line and the Cross Island Line.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulatory Oversight of Car-Sharing Insurance Products and Measures to Address Underwriting Practices and Inflated Repair Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore has specific regulatory oversight of insurance products offered to car-sharing operators; (b) whether the Government is aware of concerns that insurance underwriting practices in the car-sharing sector may incentivise unnecessary or inflated repair claims; and (c) if so, what steps are being taken to address this.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: All motor vehicles, including car-sharing vehicles, must be covered by valid insurance policies and insured against third-party claims arising from death or bodily injury resulting from use of these vehicles. The Monetary Authority of Singapore regulates insurers, including those offering motor insurance products.
The insurance premiums and terms of coverage offered are part of the contractual terms between car-sharing companies and their chosen insurers. The Government does not intervene in such commercial arrangements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for Six-Month Service Disruption at Sengkang LRT’s West Loop","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport why the expected duration of the project resulting in the reduction of service on the West Loop of the Sengkang LRT system is six months.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The closure of the Sengkang West Loop is needed to connect new reception tracks from the expanded Sengkang LRT depot to the existing LRT network.
These heavy works include modification of existing tracks, construction of connections to the new reception tracks and the diversion and replacement of electrical and mechanical systems. These works must be carefully sequenced and carried out for worker safety. The system must also be thoroughly inspected and tested before being reopened for service.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Scope and Rationale of Public Transport Voucher in Offsetting Recent and Cumulative Fare Increases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Public Transport Voucher is intended to offset only the most recent fare increase or also cumulative fare increases since 2020; and (b) if not, what is the rationale for not covering cumulative increases.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) are provided in years where public transport fares are increased to cushion the impact of the immediate cost increase on lower-income households. The PTVs are not intended to offset cumulative fare increases over time.
There are other structural support measures in place to keep public transport affordable. The Government provides over $2 billion in annual subsidies to fund bus and train services. In recent years, the Government has also provided additional subsidies of $200 to $300 million annually, which has allowed the Public Transport Council to defer the bulk of fare increases. Concession groups, like students, senior citizens, Person with Disabilities (PWD) and Workfare recipients, also enjoy discounts of up to 70% off adult per-journey fares.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regular Publication of Data on EV Charger Utilisation Rates Across Public Carparks by Hour and Estate Demand","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can share any data on (i) the average utilisation rates of electric vehicle (EV) chargers across public carparks in HDB, JTC and SLA properties at different hours of the day in the past year and (ii) estates with higher EV charger demands; and (b) whether the Ministry can publish such data regularly.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The average utilisation rate for electric vehicle (EV) chargers at the Housing and Development Board (HDB) carparks is about 20%, with higher utilisation typically at night. HDB chargers in Tengah, Punggol and Sengkang have higher utilisation rates. JTC-managed carparks have an average utilisation of about 9%, with higher utilisation in the day. The Singapore Land Authority has not deployed any charging points.
The Land Transport Authority publishes EV adoption and charger deployment data regularly and will look into doing so for utilisation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quantifiable Safety Metrics and AV Standards Governing AI Decision-Making Prior to Commercial Deployment on Public Roads","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has specific, quantifiable safety metrics in the two-stage Deployment Readiness Assessment that Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) must meet; (b) if so, what are these standards; and (c) whether Technical Reference 68 will be further enhanced or a formal set of AV standards that governs artificial intelligence decision-making protocols will be introduced before the first commercial AVs are allowed on the roads.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The deployment readiness assessment framework for autonomous vehicles (AVs) sets out technical performance and public acceptance metrics that must be met before the AVs are allowed to take passengers and eventually progress to driverless operations. These include clocking sufficient distance within the actual deployment route without the need for intervention by safety operators, and the ability to handle various traffic scenarios presented within the authorised geo-fenced area.
Technical Reference 68, which serves as guidelines for the AV industry in Singapore, was last updated in 2021 and is currently being reviewed. In the meantime, AV deployments will continue under the existing authorisation regime.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Delivery Orders from Participating Hawkers and Heartland Merchants for CDC Voucher Scheme to Benefit Elderly, Homebound and Less Mobile Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth given that CDC Vouchers currently cannot be used for e-commerce or online transactions, whether the Government will consider expanding the CDC Vouchers Scheme to allow residents to use their vouchers for delivery orders from participating hawkers and heartland merchants, so as to benefit elderly, homebound, and less mobile residents who may face difficulties visiting physical outlets.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association.
The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawkers and heartland merchants and to boost the vibrancy of our heartland neighbourhoods and businesses.
Expanding the CDC Vouchers to e-commerce or online transactions would deviate from this dual-pronged intention and dilute its benefits.
We recognise that some residents, including seniors and those with mobility challenges, may need extra help visiting physical outlets. Residents who require assistance may ask family members or caregivers to help them use their vouchers.
","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":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in a reply by the Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat) during the Second Reading of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill at the Sitting of 7 May 2026: (proc text)]
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Because they were treated as administrative fees in the past – not that they were illegal or inappropriate or wrongly collected, as a few Members have used those terms. That is not the case. [Please refer to \"Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Second Reading Bills section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Chee Hong Tat circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 7 May 2026. My statement should read as follows:
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Because they were treated as administrative fees in the past. The Government’s position is not that they were illegal or inappropriate or wrongly collected, as a few Members have used those terms. That is not the case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for Manpower","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statements were made by the Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash) during the Second Reading of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill at the Sitting of 7 May 2026: (proc text)]
(a) The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): I also wanted to add at this point that for members, particularly the seniors who go to SingPost outlets, about 95% of sales transactions are actually done online by them, and therefore, circumventing the need to even pay the $17 that was raised by Mr Fadli. [Please refer to \"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Second Reading Bills section.]
(b) The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): I am also happy to state that as far as the Singtel SDS is concerned, that almost 70% of people who have the SDS Singtel accounts were from HDB background and dwelling, including myself, and 30% belong to the private sector. [Please refer to \"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Second Reading Bills section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5). (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual clarifications to the speech made during the Second Reading of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill at the Sitting of 7 May 2026. It should read as follows:
(a) The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): I also wanted to add at this point that for members, including the seniors who go to SingPost outlets, about 95% of sales transactions are actually done online, and therefore, circumventing the need to even pay the $17.95 that was raised by Mr Fadli.
(b) The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Dinesh Vasu Dash): I am also happy to state that as far as the Singtel SDS is concerned, that almost 70% of people who have the Singtel SDS are HDB dwellers, including myself, and 30% belong to the private estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}