Hansard, Thursday, 6 November 2025

1 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how stockpiled food is drawn down on; and (b) whether steps are taken to avoid food wastage in the process.

2 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how frequently are food items in national stockpiles replaced to ensure nutritional value is not diminished; (b) whether the food items released from stockpiles can still be sold or distributed to reduce food wastage; (c) whether the cost of freezing the stockpiles in sub-zero temperature warehouses is borne by food suppliers; and (d) if so, how are they compensated.

3 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the current national food stockpiling (a) by whom and how are stockpiling decisions made on food products that are not mandated by law; and (b) whether alternative proteins are currently stockpiled in addition to traditional proteins.

4 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in respect of the cold rooms used for national food stockpiling (a) what are the measures to ensure an uninterrupted power supply; (b) whether such measures are legally mandated; and (c) whether the Ministry conducts regular inspections to ensure compliance.

5 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the cost of prevailing food supply prices are taken into consideration when deciding whether food which are stockpiled should be drawn down to mitigate any sudden or anomalous spikes food supply prices.

Mr Speaker, my response will address Question Nos 1 to 5 for today's Sitting.

Please proceed.

The Government works closely with the private sector to maintain adequate stockpiles of essential food items to serve as a buffer to ensure that our basic needs can be met in times of food supply disruptions. Our stockpiles are not intended as a mechanism to influence food prices.

Our national stockpiles consist of a range of items including rice, frozen protein and canned vegetables. We do not stockpile alternative protein.

The Government works closely with the private sector to optimise our stockpiling operations, including to ensure proper storage conditions and conduct regular churning to ensure that the stockpiled food is safe for consumption while minimising food wastage. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) conducts regular inspections of our food stockpiles to ensure compliance with requirements. The operating cost of maintaining the Government-owned food stockpiles is borne by the Government.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad. I would like to know what are the considerations for selecting or mandating some of these food suppliers to set aside food for the stockpiling and also, how may they be compensated, especially when some of these food may have to go into the stockpile? Also, what are the considerations in terms of sustaining the freshness of the food that is in the stockpile?

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Member for her questions. I just want to assure the Member that our stockpiles provide a critical buffer, especially when you think about food resilience in Singapore and how we may need to draw down in times of crises.

As Minister Grace Fu shared a few days ago, we have now embarked on the Singapore Food Story 2, in which the stockpile is just one of four pillars. We will often try to diversify and rely on our local imports first, to ensure that we are food-resilient, before drawing on the stockpiles. There is also "Grow Local", in which we want to ensure that we have enough local supply before we draw down from the food stockpiles. Lastly, we are now embarking on a new pillar, "Global Partnerships", in which we are working with other countries to ensure food resilience.

Therefore, where stockpiling is concerned, we draw down only when it is most critical.

As I mentioned in my reply earlier on, SFA conducts regular inspections to ensure that our food is safe, they are not expired and more importantly, that we do regular churns as well in the system to ensure that there is adequate, safe supply of food in our system. In doing do, we want to minimise food wastage, to ensure where possible, we try to get towards zero food waste. I want to assure the Member that food waste is kept to a minimum in this regard.

On the stockpiling of food through the private sector, today, we have the Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR). But that is only just for rice. So, the rest of it is Government stockpile. I cannot reveal too much, as it involves national security concerns, as the Member may be familiar with. Our stockpiles are in consideration of not just the disruptions that could occur in the short term, such as pandemics or other forms of disruption, but also long-drawn situations where you have decisions, such as war blockades and other matters. So, we will keep it as that. There are certain details I cannot reveal. Rest assured that the Government does its best to minimise impact to food prices, to minimise impact to the private sector, but at the same time keeping food safe in our stockpiles.

Mr Foo.

Thank you, Speaker. Sir, my question to the Senior Minister of State is this: given the stockpile's aim is to be able to provide for the entire nation, I can imagine that the volume of food that is stored is significant. I note the Senior Minister of State's assurances that there is zero food wastage, but he also shared that there is churn to make sure that the food is kept fresh and suitable for consumption. So, my question is whether he can share a little bit more in terms of what are the strategies to ensure zero food wastage? Because we do not want to also impact the market; so, are the food used for community purposes, for example?

I thank the Member for his question and his concern about food wastage and how we manage this effectively. In my reply, I spoke about how we work with the private sector, commercial operators, where this is also quite efficient. Through them, there is offtake, there are ways in which we can minimise food wastage. As food expires, you also want to – I would not say on the very last date – but there are ways to churn them through the system.

I think that is important because that is an efficient market measure, in which we churn and at the same time, not impact food supply and food prices here.

There are occasions in which we may also dispose of them through food donations, but those are typically on a large scale, like humanitarian efforts, for example. So, those are things that we do sometimes. At the same time, how we dispose and how we do that, I cannot give you too much detail again because of national security concerns. But I want to assure the Member that we work towards zero waste. I am not going to say zero waste today, but we are working towards zero waste as we minimise some of the food churn.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I understand that the cost of prevailing food supply prices are currently not taken into consideration at this point in time, but whether moving forward, we can take this into consideration and consider working closely with the Ministry of Trade and Industry?

While I understand that we want to ensure sufficient food supplies for food security purposes, we also want to take care of our merchants and hawkers in trying to mitigate their operating cost. And there has been feedback that there has been a sudden surge in some of the protein items, for example, like chicken, which, as a result, they are deliberating whether to transfer this cost to the consumers. As a result, it will invariably become a concern in terms of the cost of living.

I think we should separate the two. Our stockpiles are not meant to be a mechanism to influence food prices, not to find ways to flood the market so that prices of chicken or other meats come down. Ultimately, today, the main stockpile that involves private sector stocking would be just rice.

Having said that, as I said, it is really about stockpiling. We churn out through the commercial players, aiming not to disrupt the market. I think that is one of the key considerations for us. And therefore, we try to do it efficiently as much as possible without having to disrupt the market.

We should distinguish between stockpiling and price mechanisms for food and other supplies, because we should not then mess around with our stockpiles to try to influence food prices across Singapore. So, I just want to assure the Member that we do our best, but at the same time as well, let us keep the two separate: stockpiling and food price mechanism.

Thank you to the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have a few clarifications. I note that no alternative proteins are being stockpiled now. Is it a reason of cost?

My second supplementary question is, in my Parliamentary Question, I do not think I got an answer on the measures of sites and the audits on the sites available, especially for frozen food. Will you be looking at uninterruptible power supplies and how often will you do the audits? Because, as you mentioned, with the MSR coming on board, there will be more sites allocated for such stockpiling measures.

On the food audits, as I said in my reply, SFA does regular audits on the food quality and food safety to ensure that the food, when drawn down, is safe for consumption. That is one. So, those are regular audits to ensure that our food supply is adequate and at the same time as well, safe.

On the locations, I cannot disclose where they are, but I can assure the Member as well that as we pick these locations, we look into storage capability standards, making sure that they are able to stock our food stockpiles in a safe manner without having to worry about supply interruptions. But I think for Singapore, touch wood, we have been quite okay with our energy and power supplies.

But I am quite sure with some of these warehouses, like the one I visited, for example, they have such measures in place because we are not the only customer that they have. They are also managing it for other multinational firms and local firms as well who require such food stockpiles. For locations that we pick, I think we have to ensure that they are of sufficient standards. And I can assure the Member that is the case.

We are moving on.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Ang Wei Neng –

6 To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Nutri-Grade labelling system has led to lower consumption of pre-packaged food high in sugar and saturated fat in Singapore; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider placing restrictions on the advertising of pre-packaged food high in sugar and saturated fat, similar to the United Kingdom’s restrictions on the advertising of food high in fat, salt and sugar.

Question No 6.

Mr Speaker, Nutri-Grade measures were applied first to beverages, as they contribute to more than half of Singaporean’s sugar intake. Beverages containing the highest levels of sugar and saturated fat are graded "D" and are subject to advertising prohibitions across all media platforms.

We have seen encouraging results with the Nutri-Grade measures in place. The median sugar level of pre-packaged beverages has decreased from 7.1% in 2017 to 4.6% in 2023, and the average daily sugar intake of residents has fallen from 60 grammes in 2018 to 56 grammes in 2022.

To reduce sodium intake and further reduce saturated fat consumption, Nutri-Grade measures will be extended to key contributors of sodium and saturated fat intake sold in the retail setting from mid-2027. Similarly, advertisements promoting the sale of products including prepacked salt, sauces, seasonings, instant noodles and cooking oil that are graded "D" will be prohibited.

We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Nutri-Grade measures on the dietary habits of Singapore residents, as well as developments around the region and internationally, before considering any further measures.

7 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Education (a) what proportion of courses taken in 2024 with support from SkillsFuture Credits have had direct relevance to the respective individuals' ongoing or future areas of employment; and (b) whether the Ministry has considered introducing conditions for the use of Credits to ensure such relevance, such as requiring courses to be recommended by Government-appointed Skills Development Partners.

Mr Speaker, I invite the Member to refer to the Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) response to Question Nos 40 and 41, filed by the Member for written answer in the Order Paper for 5 November 2025, where MOE has addressed this issue in detail.

But I will provide some further details, specific to the question that Mr Shawn Loh has also filed for today.

There are conditions imposed on the types of courses that the SkillsFuture Credit can be used for, to ensure that the courses taken meet our policy intent. For example, the $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up targets mid-careerists aged 40 and above, and can only be used for curated courses with stronger employment objectives. On the other hand, immediate relevance to employment is not the objective of the opening SkillsFuture Credit of $500, which is intended to encourage lifelong learning and skills development across different life stages. Overall, across SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG)-supported training, eight in 10 learners find the course content relevant to their work.

Mr Loh.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. And I have read in the earlier replies over the last few days. I have also read the responses to other Parliamentary Questions filed by other Members of Parliament (MPs).

Many MPs across both sides of the aisle have focused on the utilisation of SkillsFuture Credits and how to increase the utilisation. I think that is a wrong question. I think we should be asking how SkillsFuture Credits are helping to address the greater economic challenge of this time, which is how it improves the culture of lifelong learning so that it leads to better skills acquisition for better jobs.

I take the Senior Minister of State's point that the SkillsFuture Credits are first and foremost, meant to improve the culture of lifelong learning. To that end, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry or the Government has measured the improvement in the culture of lifelong learning and whether it can also measure the translation from that culture of lifelong learning to a culture of skills acquisition that is industry relevant.

And for future tranches of the SkillsFuture credits, would the Senior Minister of State agree that it would be better for our taxpayers' dollars to help encourage Singaporeans to acquire those skills that can help them get good jobs?

Sir, I thank Mr Loh for his questions as well as his considered view on what the SkillsFuture Credit and its interventions should be targeted to achieving. The short answer to all of his questions is yes and we will continue to try to do better and develop more data on these issues.

We do already work along this track. Indeed, we have part of the funding focused on developing the culture, and then part of the funding focused on employment opportunity development; in other words, in mid-career to create the opportunity for someone to transition into another career and have fulfilling employment as a result. We work with the sector agencies and with industry partners. We map out manpower needs to identify jobs and skills gaps. And we do want to then curate the training programmes with the training providers to close those gaps.

Is the culture of lifelong learning improving? The data would suggest it is, if you look at the number of courses, number of training providers and the demand for that type of effort on the supply side. And there, we do also have to look at some component of utilisation of the SkillsFuture Credit, perhaps as a marker of the take-up of lifelong learning opportunities. I take his point that that is not the only metric that we should focus on.

We also look at job posting data. We do research together with the economic agencies to then make sure that we are achieving the kind of outcomes that he articulated. Of course, the provision of training through SkillsFuture is not the only thing that then leads to the economic outcomes that he has focused on, but it is something that we have to contribute towards. We review our policies, we review our programmes to enhance the accessibility, quality and outcomes of our SSG-supported careers. So, I thank him for his suggestions and indeed, these are things that we are working towards.

8 Ms Poh Li San asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in respect of the study to understand nuclear technology, safety of nuclear power plant technologies and their viability for Singapore (a) whether the study will include (i) an estimate timeframe for deployment of nuclear energy and (ii) potential sites for the reactors, where it is found to be viable for Singapore; and (b) whether the key risks identified in the study will be published.

9 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry on the Government’s recent setup of dedicated nuclear teams at the Energy Market Authority and the National Environment Agency (a) what is the readiness to deploy nuclear energy in Singapore; and (b) what is the staff strength of the nuclear team at these two respective agencies.

10 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry regarding the dedicated nuclear teams set up at the Energy Market Authority and the National Environment Agency, whether the Government will consider including representatives from other sectors and the public in these teams to address common concerns, such as safety and perceptions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Question Nos 8, 9 and 10 in today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

The Government has not made any decision on deploying nuclear energy in Singapore. We are studying the potential for nuclear energy deployment as it is a low-carbon energy source that enhances our energy security.

As part of our overall efforts to build capabilities to assess whether the latest nuclear technologies could be suitable for deployment in Singapore, we have set up dedicated nuclear energy teams in the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA). The EMA and NEA teams are made up of Public Service officers. They will be adequately resourced to carry out their roles and will be collaborating with partners from other governments, as well as with industry and academia.

The study commissioned by EMA is focused on helping Singapore understand the safety and the viability of various advanced nuclear power plant technologies. It will not focus on potential sites or deployment timelines. As I have shared right at the beginning, because we have not made any decision on deploying nuclear energy in Singapore.

We will engage the public regularly on the latest developments in nuclear energy to build an informed understanding on nuclear energy. On 27 October 2025, we published a “Background Paper on Singapore’s Nuclear Energy Capability Building Journey” to share more about the work we have done thus far.

Ms Poh.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. Many people are quite concerned about the health and also the safety impact of nuclear energy. I would like to understand what the communication and engagement strategy is to reach out to more members of public on this aspect.

I thank Ms Poh for her supplementary question. As I have said earlier on, we have not made the decision on whether to deploy nuclear energy technology. However, in the run-up, we have got the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Institute (SNRSI); we have just upgraded it to an institute. They have actually conducted public education dialogues.

At the same time, given the fact that we have just published the background paper to showcase what our journey has been thus far, we will continuously work with different governments and different jurisdictions.

And as the updated safety profiles of this advanced nuclear technology come on, we will share them with the public to build background knowledge and also to socialise our larger population. Even if we eventually decide that we will not go down the pathway of deploying on our shores, it does not preclude our neighbouring countries from deploying on their shores. And that education would involve getting big parts of our population to be socialised to the idea that our neighbours may also deploy that, and what are the safety considerations and measures that we should be undertaking. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker. Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive reply. Can I ask a supplementary question? If Singapore were to build a nuclear reactor for the purpose of power generation, whether it would be located in the far part of Singapore or on the offshore islands.

A second supplementary question is, if we were to decide to build a nuclear plant, what is the timeframe? Does it take 10 or 15 years to build?

I thank Mr Ang for his two supplementary questions. Perhaps, the Member missed the earlier part of the answer. We have not decided whether to deploy nuclear energy technology. So, I think it is premature for us, given the fact that we have not decided, to talk about potential deployment sites and also whether it is going to be on an offshore island, in the sea or underground.

The journey over the next few years will allow us to understand many of these advanced nuclear energy technologies, the promise they hold and while the current thinking is the physics, the engineering works, the commercial feasibility and the viability has still yet to be proven. So, as result, the study is quite focused on comparing the different types of advanced nuclear technology and whether the safety profile, whether the type of outputs that they generate, how efficient they are, will eventually benefit us or not.

So, as far as the timeline is concerned, we have not even made the decision. I think the timeline is even further out. So, I cannot comment in a very definitive manner as to what kind of timelines we are looking at. What I can safely say is from the results of the 2012 study that we have completed, and if the Member could look back at the report that was released, is that conventional nuclear power and nuclear energy technology, the conventional ones, those that involve very large conventional reactors is not suitable for Singapore. And hence, we have no plans to even look at deploying those. I hope that gives the Member that clarity that he needs.

Dr Choo Pei Ling.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. Public engagement is a strategic activity for building trust, understanding and the concerns of the community, and ensuring that local needs and preferences are considered in nuclear project planning. My supplementary question is, could the Ministry elaborate more on plans to enhance public literacy on nuclear technologies, especially among youths and non-technical communities, so that future discussions are informed and inclusive?

I thank Dr Choo for her supplementary question. Today, as I have shared over the last couple of minutes, the Government is in the process of building capabilities and this is in line with the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) Milestones Approach, and we are supported by international partners to study this potential deployment with very high standards of safety, security and safeguards.

Given that in Singapore, we have a very densely populated, very urbanised environment, we want to also not alarm the public. We want to continually engage them regularly on the latest developments in nuclear energy.

As I have said earlier on, even if we ultimately decide not to deploy here, it does not mean our neighbours will not deploy. So, as the regional interest in nuclear powers continues to grow, we want to contemporaneously and progressively prepare our fellow Singaporeans for the potential deployment of nuclear energy in the region. After all, we have a very small footprint. Like what they always say in Mandarin, "我们是弹丸小国". We are a very small country. We have to prepare our population. And what are the mitigating actions that could be taken in the unlikely event of an accident in nuclear energy facilities in the region? That is what we will proceed with on very sure-footed steps. I hope that gives you the reassurance that you need, Dr Choo.

Last supplementary question, Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. Given the safety concerns around small modular reactors, which are light-water reactors, under what conditions would the Ministry consider training a cadre of experts in thorium or molten salt reactors, which have better safety characteristics like running near atmospheric temperature?

I thank Mr Tiong for his supplementary question. I think it is important to note that today, we have embarked on a slow and steady series of steps for us to first gain understanding on a comparative analysis of the different types of technologies that is available.

The ones that he alluded to, the molten salt reactor, light-water, including thorium, we also need to consider the supply chain. Today, given our understanding of the supply chain for thorium, the concentration risk in terms of the procurement of the supply of thorium is actually quite limited. Today, our focus is still on a number of the newer ones, the small modular reactors, the new generation thermal high-pressure reactors.

We have committed Mott MacDonald to do that study for us. And when we get the results of that study some time down the line, we will be able to make a more meaningful comparison. And I am sure by that time, Parliamentary Questions will be filed, and I am happy to update the House again.

11 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether there are plans to designate additional Silver Zones beyond the planned 50; (b) if yes, when is the next phase of implementation; and (c) if no, whether LTA will review the Silver Zone plans, given the needs of our continually ageing population.

Beyond the completion of the planned 50 Silver Zones island-wide, there are currently no plans to designate additional Silver Zones.

In its place, we have launched the Friendly Streets initiative. Introduced in 2023, Friendly Streets encompass and build on existing efforts, such as Silver Zones. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will continue to make commutes in our neighbourhoods safer, more convenient and comfortable for all by expanding the Friendly Streets initiative to all towns by 2030.

Ms Lee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. I just have two supplementary questions.

First is, there was an 80% drop in traffic accidents involving senior pedestrians in Silver Zone areas. Can I ask about the Friendly Streets pilot, whether it has also been effective in ensuring and improving safety of the neighbourhoods?

Second, in Nee Soon South, about one in three residents is a senior above 50 years old, but also at the same time, like Punggol, we have a growing young family population. So, I am happy to hear that Family Streets is the way forward to improve safety of the different neighbourhoods, catering to the different needs. May I ask, what are the parameters and considerations in determining the selected Friendly Streets? And also, maybe, can I ask the friendly Senior Minister of State to consider Nee Soon South, to be included in the friendly list of the next batch of Friendly Streets?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Friendly Streets will be implemented in high-pedestrian flow, high-activity areas. So, for instance, near hawker centres, near markets, near Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, near community clubs. We have completed five Friendly Street projects earlier this year in Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio, West Coast, Bukit Batok West and Tampines. We have received strong support and feedback from the residents. Average vehicular speeds at these Friendly Streets have dropped by about 20% and this contributes toward pedestrian safety.

On her second question, indeed, under the Friendly Streets initiative, we could incorporate elements, such as signalised pedestrian crossing, kerbless crossing, reduce speed limits. These were, for example, launched in Punggol just last weekend. These are initiatives which will benefit both the elderly as well as young families. As I have shared earlier, we will expand the Friendly Streets initiatives to all towns by 2030. And within each town, the Friendly Streets initiatives will be launched in areas with high pedestrian flow and close to amenities. And I have heard her feedback, so we will continue to identify more areas to implement Friendly Streets and also, potentially, Nee Soon South, as suggested by Ms Lee.

12 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry will consider opening Tengah Link which is a bus-only road to general traffic during off-peak hours to improve connectivity; (b) what traffic modelling has been done to assess the impact of such partial access; and (c) how the Ministry plans to balance public transport efficiency with residents’ desire for more flexible road access.

Mr Speaker, Tengah Link is a single-lane road built for the express purpose of enabling buses to enter and exit Tengah town from Bukit Batok Road quickly. More buses will use Tengah Link as a dedicated bus corridor, as more bus services are introduced in tandem with Tengah's public transport-centric development. Opening up Tengah Link to cars is not possible, as it will lengthen travel time for bus commuters and will also result in long traffic queues for surrounding roads even during off-peak hours. This is because the single-lane road is designed as a bus lane and is not designed to accommodate general traffic.

Motorists can use Tengah Drive and the Pan Island Expressway (PIE) interchange with Tengah Boulevard to get in and out of Tengah town quickly. To better guide motorists, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has improved road marking and signages. The PIE interchange will also be upgraded by 2028, to provide motorists more options to access Tengah town.

Dr Choo.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for his response. Tengah is Singapore's first town built entirely anew in 20-plus years and ensuring strong connectivity is key to its success. As residents settle in, improving road access, even on a trial basis, these can greatly enhance daily convenience and support a smoother transition as longer-term transport infrastructure is built.

My supplementary question is, would the Ministry consider implementing a pilot scheme to open Tengah Link during selected off-peak hours, with close monitoring of its impact on both traffic flow and bus service efficiency?

Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Choo Pei Ling for her strong advocacy of Tengah residents' interests. I have discussed extensively with LTA the Member's suggestion on whether we can open up Tengah Link during a select period or on an interim basis. Try as we might, it is not possible for us to do so because we have the intention to introduce more bus services for Tengah town, and Tengah Link will become a lot busier.

By keeping it as a dedicated bus corridor, we also have the intention of adding bus stops to facilitate transfers for residents on Tengah Link. And as a consequence, that road will become more crowded and it is not possible for us to then allow it to be open to private cars.

We have also considered the option of widening the road, but because of infrastructure and utilities on either side of Tengah Link, that, too, is not possible.

So, I ask for the hon Member's understanding as well as Tengah's residents understanding on this issue, that we have tried our best, but it is unfortunate that we cannot open up the road to private vehicles.

13 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with respect to the projects and events for NEA's Clean and Green Singapore (CGS) Day 2025 (a) whether NEA will consider extending such projects and events islandwide to encourage more Singaporeans to adopt sustainable practices, conserve biodiversity, and foster a more gracious society; and (b) whether NEA intends to set targets and objectives for these projects and events.

Mr Speaker, Clean and Green Singapore (CGS) is a year-round national environmental sustainability drive. This year, it featured over 1,200 ground-up community events, workshops and activities organised at various locations island-wide, with or by partners, like the Public Hygiene Council and Community Development Councils, culminating in an annual CGS Day celebrating our collective environmental commitment.

Beyond CGS, Singaporeans can also participate in the other campaigns by the National Environment Agency (NEA), such as Clean Tables and Say Yes to Waste Less.

NEA has no plans to set specific targets for the campaigns, but the objectives are to engage and shape public attitudes towards environmental sustainability.

Ms Soh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have three supplementary questions in this regard.

First, are the participation rates at the CGS Drive, or the CGS Day, to NEA's satisfaction? How can NEA further cultivate greater interest and involvement of our Singaporeans towards the objectives that we have set in relation to CGS? And finally, whether NEA can consider, as part of the annual celebrations at the CGS Day, to consider setting some targets or begin to start tracking in relation to how much carbon footprint reductions, energy waste efforts reductions we have been doing in the community? On the day itself, we can, then, present and share with fellow Singaporeans the powerfulness of the community coming together to do green and go green.

Sir, we do, indeed, have data on the participation rates. But CGS is a movement, and it involves a large number of events across Singapore. The number of events have increased, from 400 in 2023 to 1,200 in 2025, involving over 400,000 participants. The number of stakeholders, non-governmental organisations and community groups has also been increasing. So, we do indeed track participation, but it is not so clear what the correct number to target is for any given event. At each event, you may do it one year, you may not do it the next year, depending on the needs.

I think the key thing is that, overall, the awareness of the need for reduce, reuse and recycle, the interest from stakeholders in stepping forward and the participation of the public in these sustainability efforts is what is important – rather than necessarily whether the number of people at any given event increasing every year. In actual fact, the number of people participating in CGS and NEA-related events each year has, indeed, increased. But that is not necessarily the absolute target that we should strive for.

How can NEA cultivate further interest and engagement? Indeed, there are a number of funds. The SG Eco Fund is one of several funding mechanisms and there are partnerships that we are developing with schools, educational institutions, NGOs and the private sector. And all of this is towards the idea of increasing interest and engagement in initiatives that can help us to reduce, reuse, recycle, and improve our sustainability.

The idea of looking at carbon savings and energy savings around each event is an interesting one. It is worth studying. It sometimes takes quite a lot of effort to be able to do so. But actually, that is a skill – a capability – that we will increasingly need, across a variety of organisations, to be able to then improve our carbon footprint and increase our sustainability. So, we will continue to study ideas, such as the one that Ms Hany Soh has suggested.

14 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry has any information on (i) whether Singapore GasCo will be building spot trading capabilities to manage price volatility of liquefied natural gas, or any other alternative mechanisms to buffer against short-term price volatility and (ii) whether Singapore GasCo will collaborate with financial institutions or commodity exchanges to develop such capabilities.

15 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry will ensure that Singapore GasCo places safeguards during procurement to prevent an overreliance on any single liquefied natural gas (LNG) source; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that Singapore GasCo's procurement of LNG does not expose Singapore to reputational, financial or legal risks arising from sanctioned entities or jurisdictions.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 14 and 15 in today's Order Paper together?

Please proceed.

The Singapore GasCo is a Government-owned entity that was established in April this year to centralise the procurement of natural gas for the power sector in Singapore. GasCo will construct and maintain a diversified and resilient gas supply portfolio to enhance gas security and mitigate gas price volatility. In addition, GasCo will put in place systems and processes to ensure that it does not procure natural gas from sanctioned entities or sanctioned jurisdictions.

We are unable to go into details on GasCo's procurement approach owing to commercial sensitivities.

Mr Muhaimin.

Mr Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, whether the Ministry is aware, whether Singapore GasCo will maintain a strategic liquefied natural gas (LNG) reserve to buffer against supply disruptions and whether this will require an expansion of the current Singapore LNG Corporation (SLNG) terminal? Second question, whether Singapore GasCo will be subject to the same SLNG tariffs and charges as other terminal users?

I thank the Member for his two supplementary questions. Actually, I think, there are three.

GasCo's core business activity is to build a secure, reliable and diverse portfolio of natural gas contracts at stable and competitive prices. GasCo's Board will enable, because they are experienced members who have come from a very diverse range of companies, with many of them having many years of experience in gas procurement companies. So, it would provide oversight of GasCo's hedging strategies through its risk management committee.

As I have said earlier on, the GasCo portfolio is diversified and it is resilient in terms of price index, tenure and source. As to further details, because of the commercial sensitivities, please understand that and I beg for the Member's indulgence that I would not go into it any further.

As far as the buffer for extreme price volatilities, in 2022, we set up a standby LNG facility. I think that two months before that, in November 2021, this House actually approved an amendment to the Bill for us to set up that standby LNG facility.

When the standby LNG facility was set up at the end of January, and we made that storage of supplies, about a month later, hostilities broke out in Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia. And I think that helped to tide us over a period of extreme volatility. Till now, that standby LNG facility has served us well.

To the Member's point about the whether we are increasing our SLNG terminal. We have, indeed, gone on, we have committed to constructing a second LNG terminal. Just about a week and a half ago, the steel-cutting ceremony has started. We are on track to complete the terminal between 2028 and 2030. So, once that is done, we would have another 50% increase; not just in throughput, but also in storage, building up our SLNG capabilities.

As far as tariffs is concerned, it is spread across all the different sectors and the prices, like I said, because of our very diversified portfolio that we will be starting from 2026 onwards, we believe that we will be able to manage the volatility in terms of pricing. I hope that gives you the reassurance.

16 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what measures are in place to proactively detect and prevent the misuse of SkillsFuture credits, especially by operators using multi-level marketing tactics or exploiting the credit expiry timeline; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure training quality and learner protection against the marketing tactics by such operators.

17 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what steps are the Ministry and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) taking to pro-actively monitor and enforce compliance with marketing requirements and practice guidelines by training providers to better protect all learners, including low-income and older workers; and (b) whether the Ministry would consider mandating public disclosure of provider-level data, such as drop-out rates and course-to-job conversions, to strengthen these safeguards.

Mr Speaker, under SkillsFuture Singapore's (SSG's) Terms for Training Providers, there are strict marketing guidelines which prohibit training providers from making exaggerated claims, offering monetary incentives in exchange for course sign-ups, or engaging in aggressive marketing tactics. For example, SSG has reminded training providers to focus on promoting the merits of the courses, and not use the expiry of the SkillsFuture Credits to hard-sell their courses to individuals.

Given the large number of training providers, SSG supplements its own monitoring of their marketing behaviour by relying on feedback and whistle-blowing by the general public and learners. When SSG guidelines are flouted, SSG takes enforcement actions. These include suspension or termination of a training provider's registration with SSG. SSG publishes the list of training providers who have flouted the terms and were subject to enforcement actions.

From 1 December 2025, SSG will disallow registered training providers from engaging, requesting or procuring any third party to market courses directly to learners. This is necessary given an increase in public feedback on undesirable marketing practices involving third parties over the past year. This new prohibition will reduce the risk of the public being subject to misrepresentation, over-promising or undue influence when third parties are involved in the marketing of training programmes. It can also avoid the compromise of personal data when third parties ask for such data to facilitate course sign-ups.

The majority of our training providers comply with SSG's marketing guidelines, and the practice of engaging third parties for direct marketing is not widespread. Nevertheless, SSG has taken action to address public feedback to avoid such undesirable practices from proliferating, which could bring the training sector into disrepute and harm the interests of learners.

Publishing performance data of training providers is another safeguard for learners. SSG requires learners taking SSG-funded programmes to give feedback on course quality and how well the training supports their career growth. The ratings of each course are published on the MySkillsFuture Portal to help learners make informed training decisions.

Safeguarding public trust and confidence in our lifelong learning system is a key priority for SSG. We will continue to monitor training providers' marketing behaviour, adjust our guidelines and take fair and proportionate enforcement actions where necessary. We remind our training providers to abide strictly by the marketing guidelines. We also seek continued support from the public, to be vigilant and to provide feedback on non-compliant marketing practices.

Senior Minister of State Janil, I assume your reply is also in response to Oral Question No 17?

My apologies, Mr Speaker. Yes, please, if you do not mind, I would like to address oral Question Nos 16 and 17 together.

Alright. Dr Chen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Many Singaporeans, including our residents in Tampines, are anxious about employability. Skills upgrading must be built on trust to protect our learners and we need to ensure that training providers are credible, relevant courses are provided and public funds are used responsibly. I have a couple of supplementary questions.

Number one, what avenues are available for whistle-blowers, especially those who are not digitally-savvy to report unethical course practises? And number two, if participants find that courses fall short of the promised content, what recourse or mechanisms are there? And lastly, will there be regular audits besides relying on feedback from course participants?

Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for the questions. There are a number of reporting mechanisms. Not all of them are online and digital, and we do engage directly with training providers to make sure that they also are looking for feedback, as well as the institutions that are curating the courses. So, the feedback can be about the service provider as a whole – the faculty, for example, or the course. We have several lines of communication to make sure that we do receive feedback.

The recourse will depend very much on what the nature of the complaint is. It is not always possible to get a refund, if that is what Dr Chen is asking about. But indeed we want to get the feedback so that we can take remedial action to make sure that the course, the subject, the approach and the assessment techniques, for example, are fit for purpose and serve learners as a whole. And indeed, we do conduct audits so that we have various methods of assessing the quality and to verify that the training that is stated is actually being delivered.

18 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health for updates on the progress of the job fit assessment and referral framework by the National Council of Social Service as shared in the National Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy.

The National Council of Social Service (NCSS) has established a referral framework with the employment support agencies, the Workforce Singapore and the Employment and Employability Institute. The referral framework helps to identify and provide customised employment support for jobseekers with mental health conditions. It will be rolled out in June 2026.

NCSS is also developing a vocational assessment framework across the employment support agencies to assess the work readiness and support needed by persons with mental health conditions. NCSS is in the process of standardising the assessment tools to be used and the type of professionals who will be conducting the assessment.

Ms Nadia.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. My follow-up questions are really around what sort of mental health conditions will this framework cater for, in terms of the availability of jobs? And is there a planned duration for which support will be provided for persons with mental health conditions and in recovery who are seeking jobs?

Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. I think mental health conditions encompass a very wide spectrum, so the key thing is to make sure that in our support rendered, it will be individualised to the needs of the individual. Not every individual with a mental health condition will want to seek employment. But I think our aim is to make sure that those who desire to do so, we will do our best to support them, in terms of vocational training and maybe support measures, so that they can become equipped with the necessary skills and the ability to get into employment.

As for the duration, again, it is going to be individualised, because different individuals with different conditions will have different needs as well. The professionals will have to assess each and every one of them on an individual basis. I would suggest we give the professionals time to come up with a framework because that will be something that will be useful as a guide to what they can do. Clearly, there will be certain individuals where the condition will be quite unsuitable for employment and therefore, regardless of what the duration is, it may not reach a point where the person can reach capability to be deployed meaningfully in a workplace; in which case, other measures to support the individual's needs will have to be considered.

19 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what are the main areas of public education that the Government will embark on as it assesses the viability of nuclear energy for Singapore, in view of the release of the 2025 background paper on Singapore’s considerations for nuclear energy deployment and the 2018 paper on the public perception of nuclear energy supported by the Singapore National Research Foundation.

Mr Speaker, our public education efforts will cover both the benefits as well as the risks of nuclear energy. I have said it many times – while Singapore has not yet made a decision on nuclear energy, a number of countries in the region have already announced plans to adopt nuclear energy within the next decade.

Of course, whether they can do it or not, that is a function of how the technical aspects will pan out.

It is important, therefore, to help the public understand how with the advancements in nuclear energy technologies, the deployment of nuclear energy can now be carried out in a safer way. We also need to educate the public on how including nuclear energy in our energy mix can enhance our energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately, benefit Singaporeans.

While the Government had ruled out conventional nuclear energy technologies in the 2012 Pre-Feasibility Study, the newer nuclear technologies, such as the small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactors, incorporate new safety features that can significantly reduce the risks and mitigate the impact of accidents, compared to many of the plants operating around the world today.

We will also help the public to understand the capabilities, first and foremost, that Singapore is building up, to enable us to take a considered decision on whether eventually to deploy nuclear energy. And if we should decide to do so, how we will manage this safely.

Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. It appears to me that the question on safety involves two distinct issues. One is Singapore's own decisions insofar as SMRs and Gen IV technology is concerned; and the other question is the regional roll-out of nuclear technologies. So, the public education process has to address both these issues.

On the matter of announcements made by countries in the region, can the Minister confirm: what is the extent of that progress? And is the technology that is being considered by these regional partners of ours of the new generation nuclear technologies or of the old generation technologies?

That aside, the other question, of course, is in terms of the Government's plans, specifically in terms of public education. The paper that I referred to, which was in my Parliamentary Question, the 2018 paper, which was funded by the Singapore National Research Foundation, suggests that there may be a lot of misunderstanding with regard to nuclear technology amongst Singaporeans, that has to be overcome. Granted, the sample size was small, which is 39, but the suggestion is that there is quite a bit of work to be done on the public education front.

I thank Mr Singh for his supplementary questions. It has flowed into a trend of thought, so I would try to follow according to the same wavelength and frequency. But in event that I drop a few beats, please give feedback on some of the points that the Member is raising.

First and foremost, perhaps, I can provide a glimpse as to what the Government is thinking of, in terms of the set-up. There are two teams today: a team at the Energy Market Authority (EMA) and one team at the National Environment Agency (NEA). EMA's Nuclear Energy Office falls under my portfolio of coverage within the Ministry of Trade and Industry family. The EMA's Nuclear Energy Office will primarily assess the feasibility of deploying advanced nuclear energy technologies for power generation in Singapore. NEA's Nuclear Safety Division will focus on nuclear safety and safeguards for potential deployments in Singapore, as well as in the region.

And I note that there is a lot of interest surrounding the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, in terms of their deployment. I cannot commit for sure as to their timelines, although what we have gleaned are from official, public newspaper reports out there. There have been some exhortations by our neighbours that they want to develop it in 10 years, some 15, some 20 years.

They have not stated what type of technologies they are going to deploy, whether it is conventional ones or whether it is going to be the advanced nuclear energy technologies. If it is the advanced nuclear technology type, the newer types like the SMRs, the Gen IV, then I think pretty much the assessment level, the readiness level, we are probably on par.

Having said that, within the countries in the region, many of them actually have already developed and they have planted research reactors within their respective countries. I do not have the total numbers of the research reactors. I suppose there are some in Indonesia, in Malaysia, I believe in Vietnam, possibly even in the Philippines as well.

For us, what is important to note is that, as I have said earlier on in my reply to the other Members in the House: today, the physics work, the engineering works. I think the last big step is whether it can be commercially viable, because the physics, the engineering can work, but if the costs are so high, are so prohibitive, then it really would not be pragmatic, feasible, nor would it be practical for us to deploy here. Hence that comparison and the undertaking of that feasibility study today by Mott MacDonald, it is out there to assess this.

Having said this, what we know today is that, the advanced nuclear technology is significantly safer than the conventional ones, because a lot of the safety systems are passive and they are inherent. They do not need an external active operator to go in and intervene. The public – myself included, in the early stages of my entry into Government – was also pretty much affected by what we read about in Fukushima, in Chernobyl. But those systems were the first and second generation ones. They were built many, many decades ago. I think that engineering, the safety design has significantly improved since then. That is why we are undertaking this feasibility study.

So, I beg your indulgence. For some of the questions Members asked pertaining to our neighbours, it would be very difficult for us to comment on what they are doing. We have heard anecdotal announcements that there could be potential need for sitings 500 kilometres south of us. There are also need for more remote areas for small modular reactors, for instance, in Kalimantan, or even over in the eastern part of Indonesia. We cannot confirm what is the state or the level of maturity in terms of their thinking or their discussions.

Suffice to say, we work very closely with international agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for instance; together with the IAEA. And with that, we understand from the data and we try to triangulate, but these are very early stages. Hence, that is why I said that we will try our best to answer, but a lot of that information is just not out there.

Last supplementary question, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker. I note the two agencies within the Government that Minister Tan mentioned as well, as the recently set up nuclear research and safety institute within the National University of Singapore (NUS). Notwithstanding how the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not restrict peaceful uses of nuclear technology, I am wondering if the Minister would be able to share what challenges the Government has faced in acquiring top end talent in nuclear science and engineering, given the traditional guardedness that leading nuclear nations have had in disseminating the frontier of such knowledge.

I thank Prof Lim for his supplementary question. First and foremost, the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Institute (SNRSI) was incorporated sometime back. I do not have the date off-hand with me. This year it was upgraded. It used to be SNRSI – the "I" was for "Initiative". But what the agencies have recognised is that because of the enhanced interest in advanced nuclear technology, they have decided to upgrade it from an "Initiative" into an "Institute". So, it resides within NUS. It is an independent body and it does all of the simulation framework, it does a lot of the public education and it continues to be so.

For the type of technologies that would be suitable for Singapore, we have concluded as a result of that pre-feasibility study in 2012, that conventional nuclear technologies would not be possible for us, nor is it even practical, nor feasible – because the emergency safety zones means that there is nowhere in Singapore we can site it.

However, the way the newer types of nuclear energy development that we have seen, offers promise, because that buffer zone is significantly reduced; and some of these small modular reactors allow for the potential and the possibility of it stacking. So, to that end, we look at it with a lot of interest, because it could offer, potentially, if we make that decision – and it would take us some years to come to that decision. For us, it is one way of diversifying our energy mix and at the same time, it offers us security. Security in terms of supplies. And to your colleague, Mr Kenneth Tiong's earlier point about thorium, we also need to think about the supply chain, because today, that concentration risk is very, very high.

So, these are all the factors that we have taken into consideration.

The nuclear talent that the Member was alluding to, from now to the time, if ultimately, we should choose to deploy, the deployment part would take a different level of talent versus those with regard to just making sure that we have a safe environment, we take the necessary precautions, should our neighbours decide to deploy.

So, we are really talking about different scenarios.

Having said that, we have made some plans to start to train our own core group. We have got nuclear trained scientists, both on EMA, as well as within the NEA's perspective, and also in academia. And we will continue to work with international bodies. I have also made the announcement that we recently signed the US 123 Agreement with the United States. We are working, stepping up engagements with the French and learning from the Idaho National Labs, learning from the different institutes in France, even working with the United Kingdom. That would allow us to train to provide that runway, to train the type of talent that we would need. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.

20 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of employer awareness of the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, particularly for parents with children born premature, with congenital conditions or as part of multiple births; (b) how many employers have adopted this Standard from 2023 to date; and (c) what further outreach or support is planned to raise adoption of this Standard.

Mr Speaker, from January 2023 to October 2025, 880 new employers have adopted the Tripartite Standard (TS) on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs, bringing the total number of adopters to more than 4,500 employers.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), tripartite partners and other agencies encourage employers to implement progressive employment practices, including adopting the TS on Unpaid Leave for Unexpected Care Needs. This is done through its various websites. The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) has also conducted close to 20 workshops since 2020 to guide employers in implementing leave benefits, including adopting this TS. To create greater awareness, tripartite partners recognise organisations that have successfully implemented progressive employment practices, such as work-life programmes, through the biennial Tripartite Alliance Awards.

Mr David Hoe.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I thank the Senior Parliamentary of State for his response. Given that pre-term infants often face prolonged Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) stays and require follow-up appointments, has MOM studied whether the four weeks of unpaid leave per year under the current standard, is sufficient in duration and flexibility?

Next, could MOM also consider publishing a public registry of adopters with opt in, so parents can identify supportive employers?

Lastly, when might MOM intend to review the effectiveness of the TS and what indicators will it use?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. We have been progressively enhancing parental leave provisions to better support parents with young children, including the recent enhancements of the Government-Paid Paternity Leave, and the introduction of the new shared parental leave scheme. And with these enhancements, eligible parents can receive up to 30 weeks of parental leave in their child's first year.

Parents with multiple or pre-term births, or whose children have congenital conditions, can tap on these enhanced leave provisions to have more time to care for their children or settle caregiving arrangements. Beyond these leave provisions, flexible work arrangements can support all workers, including parents, to more effectively balance their caregiving responsibilities and career aspirations.

The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests implemented in December 2024, sets out the process for employees to formally request for flexible work arrangements and for employers to consider and respond to these requests on reasonable business grounds. Parents can discuss suitable flexible work arrangements with their employers if they require more time to care for their children.

With regard to the TS adopters, it is already available on Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices' (TAFEP's) website.

And on Member's third question, MOM will continuously monitor these indicators and make necessary adjustments if required in the future.

21 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the average number of seconds taken to process travellers at the bus halls of the land checkpoints using (i) QR code clearance and (ii) passport clearance, respectively; (b) what percentage of clearance lanes are QR code clearance only; and (c) how is this percentage determined.

On average, QR code clearance and passport clearance at the bus halls of the land checkpoints take approximately 10 seconds and 13 seconds respectively.

All Automated Border Clearance System lanes at the bus halls are enabled for both QR code and passport clearance. The lanes will be designated to offer QR code clearance only if there is an operational need to do so.

Mr Fadli.

Thank you for the reply. Does the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) change the percentage of clearance lanes that are QR only during peak hours, or when there are a lot of travellers who may not have downloaded the MyICA Mobile app, such as leisure or elderly travellers? And what steps is the ICA taking to encourage downloading of MyICA Mobile app for QR code clearance?

I thank the Member for the two questions. Firstly, in terms of all the lanes, as I have said earlier my response, all the lanes are enabled for QR code and passport clearances. We are still in the process of encouraging more members of public to use QR code, because QR code clearance is faster than passport clearance.

We do find that having to designate, perhaps QR code only or passport only clearances is not the most practicable, because there are certain members of public who may not have gotten the QR code application done properly and actually, the process of going back to using only passport takes even longer.

I reassure the Member of the House that the ICA is constantly reviewing our operational processes to ensure that checkpoint operations are smooth and that we will do as much as we can to enhance the traveller experience. All these, taking into account the need to balance and make sure that we do not compromise border security.

22 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what benchmarks and targets has the Ministry set for road traffic fatality rates; and (b) what additional measures are being contemplated to address the rise in accidents and casualties involving motorcyclists and pillion riders.

The Ministry has a range of measures, both legislative and relating to public education to encourage drivers and riders to be more careful. The Ministry has for example raised penalties for speeding, to try and reduce accidents. Ultimately, whether these measures succeed depend on all our road users.

In terms of benchmarks and targets in all of these areas, whether relating to crime, or to accidents, or other matters as such, the Government must approach on the basis that there is zero tolerance and that we should aim to prevent such accidents completely. Every fatality is one too many.

But we should also be realistic to accept that in any society, there will be crime. In every society, there will be accidents, and there will be other such incidents going forward. Some people will get into accidents, commit crime, regardless of the penalties. And attempts to prevent them from doing so, will not deter some.

To enhance road safety for all motorcyclists, the Traffic Police (TP) recently updated the standards for motorcycle helmets, which will take effect from 1 November 2025. In addition, the Land Transport Authority will require all newly registered motorcycles to be equipped with an Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) from 1 April 2027. This will reduce the risk of skidding and maintain vehicle stability during sudden and hard braking.

TP also runs public education campaigns targeted at the riding community. TP launched the Singapore Ride Safe campaign in conjunction with the Singapore Road Safety Month in 2025, which reached out to more than 13,500 people, and public awareness campaigns such as the "Reward the Sensible Motorist". These campaigns overall encourage motorcyclists to adopt safe riding habits and don protective riding gear.

Mr Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I understand from the latest mid-year traffic situation report that the number of speeding-related accidents has declined. That is some relief. But at the same time, the number of accidents involving motorcyclists have still risen by close to about 10% year-on-year, in the first half of the year.

The ABS requirement from 2027 onwards is a welcome addition. At the same time, will the Minister of State be able to share, based on his analysis of past motorcycle accidents, what are some of the key reasons for these accidents and fatalities, and any other preventive measures that the TP is considering implementing?

Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Indeed, the recent mid-year statistics on overall road accidents have indicated that the number of accidents involving motorcyclists increased about 9.5% from about 1,900 in the first half of last year, to about 2,088 in the first half of this year.

The number of motorcyclists who get involved in traffic accidents is high, and in fact they constitute a disproportionately larger proportion of overall accidents in Singapore. I quote, specifically 54.7% of accidents in the first half of 2025 involved motorcyclists and pillion riders. So, it is an area of concern for us and we do want to keep our motorcyclists, our riders safe.

A whole series of measures are in place. Both the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as our TP colleagues have been working very hard, be it from the aspect of public education, going upstream; be it in terms of licensing; be it in terms of penalties downstream; be it in terms of putting in place reminders on the roads, reminder messages in terms of getting people to pay attention to the speed, to ride safe and be considerate, for example, as well as enforcement measures on the streets, we have put in all the measures that we think are effective.

As I mentioned in my earlier response, some of these measures are effective, but there will still be accidents that will take place.

The two initiatives that we recently promoted in terms of the standards for the motorcyclist helmets, as well as the ABS are the newest initiatives that we are putting out to do our part to make sure that we bring the accident numbers down.

We will continue to review whether there are new technologies available in the market for us to adopt. I welcome the Member to share if there are other suggestions.

23 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how the peak capacity of each ActiveSG gym is determined; (b) which are the most crowded ActiveSG gyms; (c) whether there are plans to increase the supply of gym facilities where demand is high; and (d) if not, why not.

The peak capacity of each ActiveSG gym is set with a view to maximise access to the gym facilities while ensuring that each user has sufficient space and time to exercise and that the prevailing fire safety requirements are complied with. This will be reviewed from time to time.

Our ActiveSG gyms are generally well-utilised, with larger gyms seeing higher visitorship. Some examples of gyms that experience higher visitorship relative to their size include Senja-Cashew ActiveSG gym and Clementi ActiveSG gym.

We plan that every residential town has at least one gym, which is situated in the town's ActiveSG Sport Centre. In general, towns with larger populations have more sport facilities, including more or larger gyms. Existing ActiveSG gyms within our sport centres may be expanded when the centres undergo renovation or comprehensive redevelopment. We will continue to monitor demand when planning the supply of gym facilities.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Thank you for the replies. I have two supplementary questions. What are the considerations taken before the construction of an ActiveSG gym is decided on? And the second one is, would the Government consider establishing ActiveSG gyms in other locations, such as shopping malls and community or community centres?

I thank the Member for his questions. First, on the considerations before building an ActiveSG gym, for the Urban Redevelopment Authority's planning areas that have populations above 130,000, there will be a town sports centre with a gym. So, this is the planning parameter.

And in terms of the second question on other locations that we might consider for such gym facilities, we will continue to review different formats as part of our Sports Facilities Master Plan. For now, the planning parameter stays as what we will go by for our planning considerations.

24 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider permanently introducing a baby gift, similar to Singapore's SG60 Baby Gift and Finland's baby box scheme, to support new parents with parenting essentials.

Mr Speaker, the SG60 Baby Gift is an initiative to commemorate Singapore's 60th year of Independence. There are currently no plans to introduce such gifts on a permanent basis as the purpose of these gifts is to mark special milestones in our nation's journey. However, we will continue to review how we can celebrate and support families.

We have enhanced and introduced new measures in the Marriage and Parenthood package over the years to provide greater financial support for parents. For instance, parents have flexibility in using the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, which ranges from $11,000 for the first and second child, to $13,000 for the third and subsequent children, to purchase baby essentials. We have also introduced the Large Families Scheme, under which parents with three or more children will receive $1,000 of Large Family LifeSG Credits each year for every third and subsequent Singapore Citizen child, from the year that the child turns one to the year that the child turns six.

The Government remains committed to promoting marriage and parenthood, and we will continue to review our policies to ensure they remain relevant in supporting parents.

Ms Lee.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister. I had a SG58 baby, so I did not have the privilege of getting a SG50 or SG60 gift pack. But I know of many mothers and parents were delighted to have them. I have two supplementary questions.

Would the Ministry or Government be open to exploring a pilot programme in specific regions or demographics, to assess the feasibility and impact of the Baby Gift on a smaller scale? My second supplementary question will be was there any formal survey or feedback done on the impact of the Baby Gift for both the SG50 and SG60 cohorts?

Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary question. On the first suggestion to have a pilot within specific regions, have a Baby Gift on a smaller scale, just two things. Singapore is already quite small, and I am fairly sure that if we were to give a Baby Gift to, let us say the central region, and not to the others, the other regions will very quickly put up their hands.

But I think that the more important point is this: the Baby Gift is meant to be a commemoration. It is meant to be something to mark a milestone. But in terms of the essentials and what is needed, what most parents actually need is the cash. And hence, that is why we have the Baby Bonus Cash Gift. And also, why we have the First Step Grant, which puts cash into the hands of the parents and then, they can choose what they want.

The other thing also – and we went through this when we were preparing the SG60 gift – different parents want different things. So, when we were road-testing it, some came back and said, "Can I change this gift for something else, because I already have this?" So, you will run into those issues and therefore, the general policy is we give the parents cash; they can buy what they want, but for special occasions we have something to mark that special occasion.

As to whether any survey or study was done on the impact of the Baby Gift, not that I am aware of. I may stand corrected, but not that I am aware of, simply because the Baby Gift was not intended to be a policy measure to achieve a certain outcome. It was just intended to be a nice thing to commemorate a special occasion.

25 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether any Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out or any Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan has been put in place prior to the start of the construction works for the bus depot at the forest along Sungei Serangoon between Tampines Road and Buangkok East Drive.

26 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development whether URA would consider conducting baseline biodiversity studies of the forest along Sungei Serangoon from Tampines Road to Serangoon East Dam to study the biodiversity of the area for future planning purposes before any other project is approved on the site.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Parliamentary Question Nos 25 and 26 in today's Order Paper together?

Please go ahead.

Sir, as part of our planning process, developments which may cause significant environmental impact must undergo environmental studies, including baseline biodiversity assessments, before they are allowed to proceed. This applies to any future developments in the Sungei Serangoon area.

The bus depot will be constructed on a brownfield site comprising non-native vegetation and is not near any sensitive nature areas. As such, the potential impact on sensitive habitats was assessed to be limited and an environmental study was not required.

To mitigate any localised environmental impact, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) will put in place earth control and wildlife management measures during the construction.

Mr Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his answers. Sir, a number of my residents, especially those living in Kingsford Waterbay condo, asking whether the Government can relocate the proposed bus depot site from the current position, which is in the middle of the forested area between Buangkok East Drive and Tampines Road, to shift to the area at or around the current heavy vehicle park along Tampines Road. I will share some of the reasons for this consideration.

Firstly, I note from the Minister of State's answer was that the bus depot site is away from residential area, if I heard him correctly. Actually, at the at the beginning of construction, it appears that the site is directly opposite Kingsford Waterbay condo, as well as Cape View HDB Estate, and another condo next to Kingsford Waterbay. If you are looking from the condo across the Sungai Serangoon, it is actually much nearer. And so, some of the feedback given by my residents include noise and dust disamenity. In fact, at this beginning, onset of the construction, and when the bus depot is eventually constructed, there will also be noise and dust disamenity, bearing in mind that bus depot operations typically end late in the evening and start early in the morning.

Mr Tan, we are approaching the end of Question Time. Do give the Minister of State some time to reply to you.

Yes, Sir. Please do indulge me, because these are very important concerns. I will hurry on next. The forested area in this eastern bank of the Sungei Serangoon is a nice, forested area grown over the last 20 over years, notwithstanding the Government regarding it as a brownfield site. So, as per my previous appeals and my previous Parliamentary Questions in 2023, this is the only remaining significant track of green spaces on the eastern half of Singapore of such a size, literally from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1 and to Serangoon East Dam. By preserving it, we will allow continual connectivity for migratory birds to fly between the Northern Islands and other parts of Singapore. It will also allow the flora and fauna, and even the wildlife that may dwell in these green spaces, including migratory birds in their annual migration journeys between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres as they fly through Singapore —

Mr Tan, are you coming to the question? We are actually at the end of Question Time.

Yes, Sir. One last point. The redevelopment of Paya Lebar Airbase site into a huge Housing and Development Board estate – I believe 800 hectares, 150,000 homes – just next to this area to this area will have significant environmental —

You should be asking your question. Mr Tan, Mr Tan. I have given you a lot of leeway. We are actually at the end of Question Time.

Sorry, Sir.

So, I will have to cut you off there and allow the Minister of State to answer to give a short reply. We are out of Question Time.

I am sorry, Sir.

Minister of State.

Sir, I will give as short a reply as possible. I wanted to clarify that I did not say to the Member that it was near the residential sites. I in fact said that it was not near any sensitive nature areas. So, just a point of clarification.

The other part was also that this site has been zoned for industrial use since 1998 and it is intended to be developed into a new node in the area to provide for jobs closer to homes and for residents of the nearby towns such as Hougang, Sengkang and future residents as well.

This was also briefed to the Members of Parliament (MPs) back in February 2018 so that MPs are aware of this.

With regard to the potential disamenities as a result of the construction of the bus dept, LTA will work with the contractor to mitigate any of these. And I understand that there are already discussions about how to mitigate disamenities arising from the construction.

Order. End of Question Time. Minister Indranee, I believe you have a clarification to make.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification.

At 26 September 2025 Sitting, Ms Denise Phua asked supplementary questions on Singapore's recent drop in the International Institute for Management Development's World Talent ranking. In my response, I had said that Singapore's ranking in terms of our total public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross domestic product had gone from 63rd in 2024 to 65th in 2025. It is actually the other way round. Our ranking had gone up, from 65th in 2024 to 63rd in 2025.

I had also said that the perception-based indicators on whether our primary and secondary and university education meets the needs of a competitive economy, had improved. I would like to clarify that our ranking for these indicators had fallen slightly, but nonetheless remained high. For primary and secondary education, Singapore's ranking had gone from second in 2024 to third in 2025. For university education, it had gone from second in 2024 to seventh in 2025. [Please refer to "Response to Singapore's Drop in 2025 World Talent Ranking", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

Order. Ministerial Statement. Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth.

Mr Speaker, a Notice of Intention was issued on 3 November 2025 to the owner and occupier of 38 Oxley Road, stating that the Government intends to preserve the site under the Preservation of Monuments Act 2009 (PMA). As outlined in the joint National Heritage Board (NHB) and Singapore Land Authority (SLA) media release on 3 October 2025, the Government intends to acquire the site of 38 Oxley Road under the Land Acquisition Act if a Preservation Order is made. [Please refer to "Clarification by Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth", Official Report, 6 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Clarification section.]

In my Statement today, I will explain the Government's fuller considerations for making this move and set out the next steps forward.

Sir, history gives a nation its soul. Our history is an integral part of our identity as Singaporeans. Current and future generations of Singaporeans need to know where we came from, the challenges we have overcome together and the sacrifices our forefathers have made to build Singapore. When we are grounded in our history and we share a strong identity, we will build our future purposefully as one people, one nation, one Singapore.

Historic sites, buildings and structures connect us to our past and to our heritage. They bear witness to historic events that shaped our nation and allow us to be in the same space as the people who played key roles in shaping our history.

NHB is the Government body charged with the role of preserving these historic sites and buildings under the PMA. It ensures that our National Monuments remain in our urban fabric and are present in our collective memory as physical representations of key milestones in Singapore's historic development. We have gazetted historic buildings as National Monuments, like the Former Parliament House and the Former City Hall. We have also gazetted the Padang site as a National Monument because it has hosted key historical events, including our first National Day Parade in 1966 and celebrations of the installation of Singapore's first Yang di-Pertuan Negara Encik Yusof bin Ishak.

As a young nation, we have 76 National Monuments in Singapore. They collectively convey different aspects of the Singapore Story and identity. Some represent our religious diversity while others are important civic and cultural buildings. Most have their roots from the colonial period. Only a precious few, like the ones I shared earlier, embody Singapore's struggle for self-determination after the Second World War, and our aspirations as a newly independent nation post-1965. We therefore need to carefully steward monuments that reflect this phase in our national history, and protect this cultural inheritance for our future generations. They collectively connect Singaporeans with our Singapore Story.

In land-scarce Singapore, preservation is something we enter into only after a rigorous assessment process administered by NHB. NHB conducts thorough research on the history and significance of the identified site, including the events and people associated with the site, as well as their impact on the trajectory of Singapore's history. This research is then assessed by the Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board (PSMAB). This is an independent board consisting experts in fields relevant to National Monuments, such as history and architecture.

The PSMAB considers the merits of each case holistically and objectively, based on its historical significance, architectural and design merit, and authenticity. If the PSMAB finds the identified building or site to be worthy of preservation and NHB supports the assessment, NHB will submit its recommendation to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth for decision. If the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth agrees with the recommendation, a Notice of Intention will be issued to notify the owner and occupier of the site of the Government's intention to preserve the building or site. And as stated under the law, the owner and occupier will be provided a reasonable period to submit any objections to the intended preservation. NHB will consider all objections received and make further recommendations on whether to proceed with this preservation. Thereafter, the Government will make a final decision on whether to proceed with the preservation.

Let me now address the site of 38 Oxley Road. The matter has received considerable attention over the years and extensive discussions in this House. I will not recount the background in detail, but let me do a quick recap of the salient points.

First, it was Mr Lee Kuan Yew's preference for the house on 38 Oxley Road to be demolished. It was also Mdm Kwa's wish for the family's living spaces to remain private.

Second, Mr Lee understood that he had to abide by the processes and the systems that he had built, and that the Government has a duty and a responsibility to consider the public interest, and not just those of private individuals. And that was why on 27 December 2011, he had written to the Cabinet, and he had stated, and I quote, "If 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay." In March 2012, he had also applied to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to renovate the house. This would had kept the structure of the original house and added other spaces to it.

Third, there was no need to make any decision on 38 Oxley Road prior to this, as Dr Lee Wei Ling was residing in the house. The Government had made it very clear that we would not do anything to affect her right to live in the house. But after Dr Lee Wei Ling passed away in October 2024, the URA received a demolition application for the building at 38 Oxley Road. Hence, NHB launched a formal assessment of the site in line with established processes under the PMA to determine if it was worthy of preservation.

NHB and PSMAB have since completed the process to determine the site's eligibility and suitability for preservation under the PMA, and NHB has made its recommendation to me as Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth. For this case, public officers on PSMAB recused themselves during the assessment to ensure that the site was considered independently.

The PSMAB have assessed 38 Oxley Road to have strong national significance, worthy of preservation as a National Monument. They note that the site bore witness to pivotal events in the 1950s that marked Singapore's transition from a colony to an independent nation. Impactful and consequential decisions were taken there. The site also served as the venue for conversations, activities and decisions of our founding leaders, which profoundly influenced the trajectory of Singapore's independence movement and our subsequent national history.

It was the gathering point for activists and trade unionists who came to seek help and legal consultations with Mr Lee. It also hosted regular meetings, often in the basement dining room, where key individuals such as Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Mr S Rajaratnam and Mr KM Byrne discussed the feasibility of forming a political party to contest the Legislative Assembly elections.

These meetings progressively grew to include other individuals involved in the anti-colonial struggle, such as Mr Lim Chin Siong and Mr Fong Swee Suan, who later split away to form the Barisan Sosialis. Prominent Malayan leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tan Cheng Lock also visited the site for discussions.

The site witnessed discussions where these key individuals formulated their vision, plans and values for Singapore, leading to the formation of the People's Action Party and its landslide victory in the 1959 Legislative Assembly Elections, resulting in Singapore's first fully independent Government. This makes the site a unique and foundational part of the story of Singapore's independence. And hence, the PSMAB concluded that the site is of national importance with great historic merit. If preserved, the site would allow current and future generations of Singaporeans to reflect upon these significant events and the ideals and the values that have shaped Singapore.

In my capacity as Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, I have received the recommendations, and I agree with them. It is the confluence of people, place and events that gives a site its historical significance. We have very few such sites in Singapore where there is such a confluence. And 38 Oxley Road is one of them.

As a young nation, we need to retain this unique site for it bears witness to the birth of independent Singapore and to key moments in our history. Preserving and acquiring the site means that it cannot be redeveloped for residential, commercial or other private uses. Preserving the site means we will be able to avoid a situation where private parties attempt to purchase 38 Oxley Road in future, just to have an address that is associated with Mr Lee's residence. I am sure all of us in this House and the vast majority of Singaporeans will want to make sure that that situation does not happen.

I would also like to clarify that the Government's considerations were for the entire site, and not for the buildings or structures within it. If the site is to be eventually preserved and acquired, the Government's thinking is for it to be developed into a public space, such as a heritage park, so that Singaporeans can have access to it and it can be a park of our shared memories.

Preserving the site does not obligate the Government to keep the buildings and structures within the site in their current condition. In fact, the relevant authorities have not had the chance to enter the site to assess the conditions of the buildings and the structures. And that is a key reason why we are opting to preserve the site, rather than just specific buildings or structures.

If access to the site is obtained, the Government will undertake a detailed study of the buildings and the structures within the site. We will take into account factors like the existing condition and weigh the potential benefit of retaining them against the costs. The Government will consider all options, including those proposed by the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road in 2018 which include partial or full demolitions of the buildings and structures.

Regardless of the option taken, the Government will respect Mr Lee and Mdm Kwa's wishes to protect their family's privacy by removing all traces of their private living spaces from the interior of the house. Under no circumstance will the interior of the house, as Mr Lee and Mdm Kwa knew, be displayed or recorded or remodelled or duplicated elsewhere.

In fact, many other countries around the world have preserved and converted sites associated with their nation's independence as spaces for public education and appreciation. For example, there is the Gandhi Ashram in India. This marks the site where Mahatma Gandhi lived from 1917 to 1930 and was the centre of Gandhi's non-violent resistance movement against British colonial rule of India.

There is also the Independence National Historical Park in the United States (US), which includes buildings that witnessed the country's key historic milestones, like the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

In many such instances, they have made changes to the sites, including modifying or adapting the original buildings with new interpretive structures to better enable the public to experience the site as a park or a heritage space. And that is why we are keeping an open mind as to the treatment of the buildings and the structures within the site.

We will keep all options open and strive for a solution that will unite us as a country, rather than allow this to become a point of contention or division in our society. If 38 Oxley Road is indeed preserved and acquired, the Government fully intends to conclude its plans on the exact use and configuration of the site, including the treatment of the buildings and the structures on the site well within this term of Government. In the interim, there will be no public access to 38 Oxley Road.

Mr Speaker, let me now explain the next steps.

Following the service of the Notice of Intention, due process under the PMA will be accorded to the owner and any occupier. In line with existing practice, a notice period of 14 calendar days will be provided for them to submit objections to the NHB. NHB will then submit any objections received and their recommendations to me, in the capacity of Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, to decide whether to proceed with the preservation of the site. All objections submitted and recommendations made will be considered objectively and fairly as part of due process.

If, having heard and considered the objections, the decision is to proceed with the preservation, a Preservation Order will be made. The Government will then commence the process for the acquisition of the site as part of the plans to eventually make it accessible to the general public. Such acquisition will be done in accordance with established processes and compensation will be made in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.

The owner, any occupiers and any other persons interested will be given the opportunity to submit their claims to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to determine the compensation. A professional private valuer will also be appointed to assist SLA in determining the market value of the land, taking into consideration any claims submitted.

If the owner or any person interested is not satisfied with the compensation awarded, a Notice of Appeal can be filed with the Land Acquisition Appeals Board.

If preserved, the acquisition will allow the Government to take all necessary steps to safeguard the site and preserve it in keeping with its historic significance and national importance. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] National identity is the bedrock of a nation. Especially for a young nation like Singapore, we must ensure that this and future generations are deeply rooted in our history and our sense of self.

What the Government is preserving is not just any particular building, but a site which has witnessed an important part of our road to Independence. What we are remembering is not a leader, but our struggle towards independence. This is something that is not represented by any other site or monument.

The Government intends to preserve the site, but this does not mean the buildings will be kept in exactly the same form. In fact, if we preserve it, we commit to remove all traces of Mr Lee's and his family's private spaces. We will study the sensitive and suitable treatment of the structures on site to turn the site into a potential place for educating our young on our national history so that they have a deeper understanding of what it means to be a Singaporean.

Yesterday's Lianhe Zaobao editorial pointed out that the Government's decision is based on national interests. It transcends politics, family and individuals. The preservation of the site seeks to ensure that the story of our nation-building journey lives on for generations to come.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has arrived at this approach for 38 Oxley Road, because this is the most responsible approach.

In its 2018 report, the Ministerial Committee on 38 Oxley Road stated that a future government will have to make an informed and considered decision on the matter when it becomes necessary. This is the future government, and the time is now. We will take the deliberate steps to decide and we will do so in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans now and for the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I began this speech explaining the importance of preserving our collective memory, because this is what makes us one people. Our history and journey from immigrants with no rights to an independent country of Singapore Citizens is fought for by key people and through key events that shaped our destiny. The physical spaces that bore witness to these events are our only links to these pivotal moments in our history.

There will come a time when no one who has lived through Singapore's struggle for independence will be around to recount these stories first-hand, but the sights and markers that we choose to keep today will continue to speak for them. They will remind us of our hard-fought path to become a multiracial, multireligious and sovereign nation. In preserving the site, we are not memorialising any single leader. We are safeguarding the grounds where future generations can stand to understand where we came from, who we are and what we overcame together.

We do this so that our children, our grandchildren and their children after them will know the story of Singapore, not as something distant or abstract, but as something lived, earned and entrusted to them. Then, our Singapore spirit will endure and it will grow stronger with every generation. [Applause.]

I see many Members raising their hands. But before I call hon Members for clarifications, I wish to point out that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. In other words, no long mini speeches as well.

Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise so that the Minister can answer as many clarifications as possible. I would like to ask Minister Neo to also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, I have three clarifications for the Minister. We had an intense debate on this in the same House in 2017. Given the same sensitivities surrounding 38 Oxley Road, will the Government consider structured public engagement or consultation when developing the interpretative plans to ensure that the eventual design fosters unity and avoids reopening old political disputes?

Secondly, the Minister also mentioned that the Government intends to come to a decision within this term of government. For the sake of public clarity, could the Minister outline the key project milestones that Singaporeans can expect from now until the final configuration, if the site is decided to be preserved?

Lastly, Sir, Minister has also taken pains to explain that the preservation decision concerns national memory and not personalities. Could the Minister elaborate how the Government will communicate this to the public so as to avoid misconception that this is an attempt to memorialise any individual rather than our shared independence journey?

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his three clarifications.

First is regarding structured public engagements. If the site is preserved and acquired, the agencies will look to identify possible stakeholder groups and conduct engagements to help shape the future of the site and to ensure that the potential of the site for public education is maximised. This is something we do with all our National Monuments.

Some of the possible stakeholder groups include heritage enthusiasts and educators, to ensure that the site can enhance their efforts to enhance public education of our history. Other groups that could potentially be engaged would also include people who represent target demographic groups, for example, the youths or our seniors, to ensure that the stories and the memories are also captured within the use of the site. And most importantly, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, we want to ensure that some of these stories are able to be handed down to the next generation and the generation after that.

Given the technical expertise of the PSMAB in these fields, including history, architecture and conservation, the advisory board will also be consulted to ensure that the treatment of the buildings and the structures on the site befit the historical importance and the national significance of this site.

To the Member's second clarification about key project milestones, Sir, I had earlier outlined to Members some of these key milestones from the issuance of the Notice of Intention to the intended acquisition of the site, if a Preservation Order is made.

If the site is acquired and access to the site is obtained, our agencies will proceed to assess the condition of the site, and that of the buildings and the structures. This will inform our study on the potential options for future uses of the site, which will also include a holistic assessment on the impact of the surrounding neighbourhood, including possible options for public access, parking, traffic impact. And as I mentioned earlier, we will also conduct engagements with stakeholders and residents, and take in their feedback on the eventual use and the design of the site. These are all prudent and necessary steps that any agencies take in evaluating any potential developments.

However, at this point in time, because a Preservation Order has not been made, it will be premature for us to provide any firm timelines on the site.

For the Member's third clarification regarding how we will communicate this, especially to younger Singaporeans that this is something that intends to commemorate our shared independence journey. As I mentioned earlier in my Ministerial Statement, the reason why the PSMAB has recommended the site for preservation is because of its close association with our struggle for self-government in the 1950s, and this is a very rare location, where it is place, people and events – the confluence – and it is also something that is associated with most, if not, all the key participants in this anti-colonial struggle.

If the site is preserved and it is acquired, we will convert it into a public space, possibly a heritage park through which we will educate the current and future generations on this very significant part of Singapore's journey.

The focus of this education, therefore, is on the pivotal historical events that happened there, one that brought us from colonial to self-rule to independence, rather than the lives of those people who lived there.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Speaker. Sir, there are Singaporeans who felt strongly that the founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew's original wish to have the house demolished should be respected. It is not just because this is his personal wish but also the values that he espouse, which is not to have personal monuments. So, my first question to the Minister is whether the Government has taken this aspect into consideration in coming to the decision?

Secondly, it relates to the Founders' Memorial which is now being built. Can I ask the Minister would the Founders' Memorial be able to encapsulate the historical and national significance of our founding values and ideals, without having to preserve 38 Oxley Road?

And thirdly, in the light of NHB's recommendation and MCCY's decision, can I ask the Minister if he can update if there has been any change in the Government's policy position with regard to preserving and creating National Monuments?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. On the first one about Mr Lee's wish, I would like to reiterate to this House that at this moment in time and at this stage, no decision has been made yet. The issuance of a Notice of Intention is a process under the PMA, allowing for the owner or occupier of a proposed National Monument to submit any objections of the intention to gazette the proposed National Monument, before a decision has been made.

As I stated in my Ministerial Statement, Mr Lee clearly wanted to protect the privacy of his family. Mdm Kwa had also felt strongly about this. And Mr Lee was also quite adamant in his life that he did not want to be idolised or memorialised, and therefore I believe that the approach as outlined in my Ministerial Statement is the best for way forward, given the circumstances. Because given the site's historic significance and national importance, the Government has a duty to consider this, not just from the lens of a private individual, but also from a good public policy lens – what is good for current and future Singaporeans. It is our duty to allow future Singaporeans to have the opportunity to visit the site and to appreciate the gravity of discussions that took place at the site, discussions that brought us to our independence.

In committing to removing all traces of Mr Lee's and his family's private living spaces, we respect Mr Lee's wish for privacy. And we are also clear that it is our intention that we are not preserving the site and using it to showcase the personal effects of Mr Lee or his family. We are focusing on the nationally significant events that took place at the site and not memorialising his life. In keeping an open mind regarding the buildings and the structures, we would then be able to best consider how best to strike the balance between preserving the historical significance of the site and maximising its public value to Singaporeans, and respecting Mr Lee's wishes.

Mr Speaker, on the Member's second clarification regarding the Founders' Memorial, historic sites are preserved because they provide us with an authentic connection to the important events and the people of the past. What is unique is that it gives us an opportunity to stand on the same grounds and be in the very same space where pivotal events in national history took place and we are walking in the same footsteps of those who came before us. And therefore, it provides us with a certain frame of reference, a certain sense of place, to appreciate how far we have come.

That is also the reason why we have preserved several sites in Singapore, such as City Hall, Padang and more recently, the former Kandang Kerbau Hospital, as they help us and the future generations recollect and connect with this critical history that we share as a nation.

This sense of place, this being in the same space as those who came before us, it is not something that can be captured by replication at another site. The Founders' Memorial is a site that is reconstructed. It does not share that same sense of place, that same place that housed all the critical events. The Founders' Memorial is a place that is meant to allow our future generations to learn from the shared values that our founding generation, had which is quite different from the site of 38 Oxley Road. And if preserved, this site will then help to augment the Founders' Memorial by providing a site that gives our visitors a first-hand appreciation of the things that took place at the very same site and provides that historical context and background to some of these ideals that the Founders' Memorial is commemorating.

Mr Speaker, on the third clarification by the Member about the Government's policy position on National Monuments, there is no change in the Government's policy. The NHB and the Government has always sought to identify sites of national significance to be assessed as potential National Monuments, particularly if they attest to parts, key parts, pivotal parts of our national history that is under-represented by existing National Monuments.

As a young nation in our 60th year, it is not unexpected that most of our National Monuments originate from before our independence. But this also means, like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, sites that attest to our founding independence and our nation building, there are only those a very precious few, which is why it is so important for us to look at this site with all the full considerations of handing it down to future generations, and what is good for Singapore and Singaporeans, both current and future.

And as important events in our national history, it is important that we continue to look for these sites and to preserve them if they are assessed to be worthy in a way that can allow it to better contribute back to society and to enhance the public's appreciation of some of these very pivotal events.

Mr Foo Cexiang.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister.

First, given that the Government already intends to issue a Preservation Order to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, why is there still a need for the Government to acquire the site?

Second clarification, can I seek confirmation from the Minister, point blank, that the paramount reason for the Preservation Order is not because the site is the family home of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but because it is a historical site where political meetings, activities, decisions which led to the establishment of Independent Singapore, that that was where it took place? In other words, it is not about the private life of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, but about the fight for independence of our people.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his two clarifications.

First, on why is there a need for Government to acquire, the Government has assessed that if the site is preserved, the public interest is best served by acquiring the site to safeguard it and to maintain it in keeping with its historical significance and national importance.

For example, the Government has the resources and the expertise at its disposal to ensure that the site is properly maintained and it is maintained in a manner that will be able to benefit Singaporeans. This is the most responsible course of action to ensure that our future generations of Singaporeans can appreciate the significance of the site, and it can be a part of a collective memory and help to build our shared identity.

On the second question, the point-blank question, well, I want to restate, as I had stated in my Ministerial Statement that the site has been objectively and independently assessed by the PSMAB. And I would also like to quote the Statement of Assessment by the PSMAB, "the site was more than just the home of Singapore's founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who lived and worked there from 1950 until his death in 2015. It bore witness to pivotal events in the 1950s that marked Singapore's transition from a colony to an independent nation. The modest buildings contrast with the impactful and consequential decisions taken there."

It is very clear that the historical significance of this site is not solely about Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The individuals that participated in these meetings and the discussions at the site, they came from across the political spectrum. There were journalists. There were students. There were trade unionists. So, the reason for the preservation of the site is because it bore witness to pivotal events that brought Singapore from colonial to self-rule to our independence as a sovereign nation.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two questions for the Minister. First, this matter has been very long running. I am glad that the Government is making efforts to bring this chapter to a close. The Minister said that the Government intends to conclude its plan for the site, "well within this term of Government." Can the Minister provide more clarity on the timeline moving forward? In terms of: the possible acquisition, further study needed to be done and the Government's final decision.

My second question, I understand that one of the possible outcomes for 38 Oxley Road is to turn it into a heritage park. While we understand that further study and planning have yet to be conducted, would the Minister be able to share the following and I have got the following points.

First, how this may look like? The second point is, if residents in the immediate vicinity be one of the parties who will be consulted, but I think just now Minister did mention that they will be consulted, so I thank Minister for that. My third point, Oxley is a very narrow road and there is a lot of illegal parking in the surrounding condominiums too. So, I would like to know if any potential impact to the traffic parking and congestion of the surrounding areas be seriously studied and considered as well.

Sir, I thank the Member for her clarifications.

As stated in my Ministerial Statement, we have currently only issued a Notice of Intention to preserve the site, which was done on 3 November. Under the law, the owner and the occupier of the site has to be given a reasonable period to raise any objections and then, thereafter, the Government has to carefully consider any such objections before deciding whether to make a Preservation Order on the site.

This is the established process for all National Monuments and we are adhering to this same process for the site as well. Therefore, for this reason, as I also mentioned to Member Mr Alex Yam, no decision has been made yet on whether or not the site will be preserved. Therefore, it is very premature for the Government to commit to any timelines in terms of the future milestones and timelines. And this is also the point that I made in my Ministerial Statement, where I said my colleagues and the relevant technical experts have not had access to the site for quite a while. We need to gain access to look at the condition of the site, the buildings, the structures of the site, and weigh the costs and benefits, before we can make a decision and before we can commit to a key timeline.

But the point I made remains that this Government intends to make a deliberate decision on the exact configuration well within this term of Government.

I thank the Member, also, for her second question. If the site is preserved and acquired, like I said earlier for the first clarification, our agencies will conduct a holistic feasibility study on the potential options and the future use. That is not just for the use of the site within itself, but it also includes other agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority, to look into things, such as the traffic impact, parking impact, public access, so that this is more holistic. And then, we can look at doing it in a way that befits its importance and significance, and in a way that allows the public to be able to appreciate the site and at the same time, not create disamenities. We will also engage residents, and we will consider their feedback as part of this process. And we will also be very happy to work with the Member, if acquired, if preserved, on how to be able to develop this site in a way that is in harmony with its surroundings.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Sir, before I begin, I declare that the Workers' Party (WP) has received financial contributions from certain members of the Lee family that are associated with the Oxley property, although these were declared under all relevant regulations. Nevertheless, we have received neither requests nor guidance to speak on this matter, and the statements and questions that follow are entirely our own.

Let me start with a very brief preamble. I understand the fundamental policy tension that the advisory board must confront: the site has clear significant historical meaning for our nation and in this sense, it is as much private property as it is one that metaphorically belongs to all of us; and also, the Government has previously intervened to gazette private property as National Monuments in the past, so in this regard, the decision is not unprecedented.

However, the personal desire of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the original owner, to demolish the site is well-known as well as the application by the site's current owner, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, to proceed with the demolition. I note that the Government has yet to decide on whether, gazette notwithstanding, the site's buildings and structures will be preserved in the present form. And I also note the preservation will take at least the minimal step of removing all private living spaces, in accordance with Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes.

My clarifications may be bucketed into two main themes: first, how NHB weighs the tension between public benefits and private preferences in their deliberations; and second, the options NHB is considering going forward.

On the first question, will the Minister share if there is a system that the advisory board follows in evaluating public interest versus private ones, prior to invoking eminent domain to gazette a site? How are significant elements, such as the property's architectural value or socio-cultural significance weighed against development considerations, such as potential future land use and development restrictions implied by the gazette? How much weight would the preferences of the owner for how the property should be treated, since there have, historically, never been any previous objections to an intended gazette?

On the second, will the Government consider future course of action for the site that heavily favours privacy, while preserving the decision to gazette? In particular, will it not consider not demolishing the buildings, but nevertheless, closing the site to visitors, unless explicit permission of the current owner has been granted? Alternatively, will the Government consider dismantling the site's main structures and reconstructing these at the Founders' Memorial? These approaches strike me as more respectful of both the public interest benefit of preserving elements of the site for posterity, while also accommodating the private property rights of the owner to do with the property as he or she wishes.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his two clarifications.

On the first point, I just want to make a point that PSMAB is an independent board made up of experts from different fields that are relevant to this subject matter, and their job is to assess the merits of each case independently. So, there is no policy tension on their part. They do not consider other things, like individuals' wishes; they are just scoring it based on technical merit. The established process for which all national monuments are assessed includes both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the identified sites' national significance, historical merit and architectural design merit. These criteria are all based on international best practices for heritage assessments.

The PSMAB will first consider if the identified site is nationally significant, such as whether it is directly linked to key events or people who have had a significant impact on our history. If it is assessed to have national significance, the PSMAB would then deliberate the site's historic and design merit from a technical perspective. For example, sites that have been assessed to be deeply relevant to these historic events or individuals would have to be considered to have strong historic merit. And sites which have been assessed to be of national significance and of exceptional historic and/or architectural design merit would then be considered worthy of preservation.

For the Member's suggestion about the different configurations that can take place as part of subsequent developments, I want to reiterate, first of all, that it is still premature for us to state, because at this moment in time, the Government has not made a decision as to whether it will be preserved, and if preserved, it will be acquired.

I think the second point is that, as I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, our colleagues and our technical experts have not had the chance to visit the site. They need to go in, they need to assess all the different buildings and structures of the site, weigh the cost and benefits before coming to a recommendation.

And the third point, as I stated in my Ministerial Statement, at this moment in time, all options are open when it comes to the final configuration. So, some of those options that the Member suggested could well be possible. But at this point in time, it is premature to comment.

Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

Mr Speaker, my clarification will be in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First of all, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for explaining very clearly the development options for 38 Oxley Road. I have three questions regarding 38 Oxley Road, the preservation of the home of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and how it will be handled.

Given its historical, cultural and national significance, what objective criteria and expert consultations has the Government used in accessing the property’s heritage value?

Secondly, if, in the future, we decide to preserve, redevelop or modify the site, how will the Government ensure the decision making will be transparent and maintain a balance with public interest?

Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing an independent advisory team that will comprise historians, architects and community representatives to make recommendations on the future use of 38 Oxley Road, so as to foster social consensus?

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his three clarification questions. Please allow me to respond in English. On the first question, when it comes to the objective standards and independent assessments, I think I had sort of covered those in my response to the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim; and I would not repeat those answers here.

On the second question about how we ensure that this decision process is in the public interest and it is done in an open, transparent and accountable way, if the site is preserved as a National Monument, our agencies will engage with all the relevant stakeholders, such as heritage enthusiasts, educators, conservation experts as well as some of the target demographic groups, like youths, seniors, to explore possible options for the future use of the site. Therefore, this whole process will be something that is open, transparent and it also ensures that it will be accountable. And then, given their technical expertise in fields, including history, architecture, conservation, the PSMAB will also be consulted to make sure that the treatment of the buildings and the structures of the site befit the assessed historical significance and national importance.

On the third point about forming an independent committee, I think covered that in the second clarification. This is also similar to the clarifications I have given to Member Mr Alex Yam as well as Member Joan Pereira, that we will be involving Members, relevant technical experts as well as important stakeholders and some members of the public in consultations to look at the future use of the site.

Ms Gho Sze Kee.

Mr Speaker, I have two clarifications. I understand that the Government has to act because a demolition application has been submitted. Now that we are at this point where the Government has announced the intention to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, our focus should be on future plans. On the practical note, may I ask the Minister if the Landed Housing Areas zoning of the area will remain unchanged or will there be a review of zoning rules in the neighbourhood?

My second question to the Acting Minister, is it truly necessary to arrive at a decision on what to do with this site in this term of Government? I ask this because of my disquiet at some of the options listed in the 2018 Ministerial Committee report, which included options to demolish everything except the basement dining room. We must remember that what is demolished cannot be undemolished. I note that the Ministerial Committee report also noted that there may be a loss of historical context under this option. Would it not be better to leave these decisions on future developments of the site to future generations?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her two clarifications. On the clarification about area zoning, as I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, while the Government intends to preserve the site, there is still a due process that the Government has to follow as required of us under the Act. Any decision on the preservation will only be made after considering any objections received during this notice period. Until a decision on this preservation has been made, it will be quite premature for the Government to review the planning and development controls for the neighbourhood.

On the Member's second question on whether it is necessary, the 2018 Ministerial Committee has always said that it has prepared the drawer plans and the options for a future government to decide on what to do with the site when the time comes. I agree with the Member that we should make an informed and considered decision, because what is demolished, what option is taken away, can never be brought back. But at the same time, I think this Government has a duty to make a deliberate decision to decide. Because, as I said in my Statement, the time has come, this is the relevant time. And we do fully intend to make a decision well within this term of government and make a final decision that will be for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans now and for the future. It will be an informed and considered decision.

Ms Lee Hui Ying.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Lee Kuan Yew was our founding Prime Minister and played an important role in Singapore's nation-building journey. Many residents I have spoken to describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the nation's "Founding Father". I would like to know how the cultural and historical significance of 38 Oxley Road will be integrated into educational and outreach activities to ensure that its significance can be passed on to our young people and future generations? Will the Government actively take measures to continuously remind the public of the importance of this place to Singapore's history and culture?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her two clarifications and please allow me to respond in English. On her first clarification about the significant role of this site. If the site is preserved and acquired, we will leverage on it to educate the current and future generations on this significant part of Singapore's history. And this is the main reason why the Government intends to make the site publicly accessible, to be a place for all Singaporeans, to allow our future generations to visit and to foster their own connection to the site. There is nothing quite like being in the same place as our forefathers had been, those who had played a key role in our struggle for self-determination.

And in doing so, the NHB will engage potential users of the site, as I have mentioned to other Members before, such as educators and heritage groups, on the different ways in which we can help shape the most appropriate future use of the site for public education purposes.

And if the site is preserved as a National Monument, the site and its historic significance could also be profiled and featured, as part of NHB's efforts to celebrate our National Monuments. In terms of different ways and different programs to remind Singaporeans of the significance of the site, I think that these are things that either NHB or the Ministry of Education can subsequently think about and look at. But it is our intention to fully allow Singaporeans to really come and appreciate those pivotal events that took place at the site, so that we can enhance our understanding of what it means to be Singaporean and build on our collective and shared identity, so that we can become stronger as a nation.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, I just have one clarification for the Acting Minister. Will an independent valuation of the site of 38 Oxley Road be done before acquisition? And will the Government commit to releasing the full evaluation report and provide transparency on the acquisition cost to the public purse?

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for the clarification. As I stated in my Ministerial Statement, the acquisition will be done in accordance with established processes and any compensation will be made in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. And as part of this, the owner, occupiers, any other persons interested, will be given the opportunity to submit their claims to SLA to determine the compensation amount. And then a professional private valuer would also be appointed to assist SLA in determining the market value of the land, and taking into considerations any claims submitted.

If any owner or person is not satisfied with the compensation awarded, a Notice of Appeal can be filed together with the Land Acquisition Appeals Board, and all these will be taken as part of the due process that is stated under the Land Acquisition Act.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Thank you, Speaker. It is wise to gazette 38 Oxley Road as a National Monument, because if left to free market forces, 38 Oxley Road could be redeveloped into a condominium or a commercial building that will tout it as a prestigious address as the former residence or address of our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and they can profit from this prestigious address.

I would support the recommendation to remove all traces of Mr Lee and his family's private living space from the building at 38 Oxley Road to respect his wishes. I would like to clarify with the Acting Minister, what does it mean by removing all traces from the building and is the underground dining room considered part of Mr Lee's private space?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification. While the site has witnessed discussions and meetings that proved to be foundational in the course of Singapore's history, we also recognise that the site was the private residence of Mr Lee and his family.

To his question about the private dining room, there are spaces within the buildings that have been widely documented in different forms of media in the past, and all these were done prior to Mr Lee's passing, the basement dining room being one of them, that we would consider less private. But there would be other spaces, such as bedrooms, which do not have any association with the historically significant events that took place at the site, and to respect Mr Lee's wishes, such personal spaces would then be reconfigured or removed, and it will range from removing furnishings, fixtures or any objects still left, to potentially also tearing down such spaces, while taking into consideration issues like structural integrity and the safety of the buildings.

And the exact nature of the removal will only be determined subsequently when we are able to access the site and the relevant officers have had a chance to go through, as well as the eventual treatment of the buildings and the structures within the site. But I would like to reassure the Member and all Members in this House, that the measures that we are putting in place are not exceptional measures.

All historic sites, generally, will involve some modifications to some extent, to allow for adaptive reuse, and this also ensures that the site remains something that is beneficial and useful to current and future generations of Singaporeans. Some examples include the former Supreme Court, currently the National Gallery of Singapore, and the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall. They have all had their interiors somewhat significantly altered, although the exteriors have been preserved.

Ms Eileen Chong.

Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. The Minister is correct that there will come a day in the future when no living Singaporean remembers the period of independence. Could he share what additional heritage value or visitor experience, beyond the sense of space, would a demolished and subsequently landscaped heritage park at 38 Oxley Road provide, that will not be more effectively delivered through the experience at the $335 million Founders' Memorial, which is purpose-built to honour Singapore's founding values and nation-building journey, including our early nation building years of 1950s to 1970s, and telling the story of how our founding fathers and the founding generation overcame the odds to build an Independent Singapore, establishing it on values and ideals, such as multiculturalism, openness and integrity?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. I think the answer I had given earlier to another Member, which is that there is something different about being in the same place, where these events took place.

Like I mentioned in my Ministerial Statement, we have very precious few sites, where there is a confluence of people, events and place. The Founders' Memorial is recreated on reclaimed land. It is not the same space where the events took place. It is not the same space where the people came together. It is not the same space where the struggles took place.

There will not be that same sense of authenticity and which is why, like I explained early in my clarification, this site is unique, and it behooves us to preserve it. If the preservation were to go through, this site will augment the Founders' Memorial to give Singaporeans a fuller understanding of what it means to be Singaporean, our sense of national identity and how we can forge forward as one people.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

First, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for a heartfelt response to this very difficult topic. My clarification revolves around how we debated this extensively in 2017, over two days. It was a very difficult debate; emotional. Mr Lee had only passed two years prior to that. Our then-Prime Minister responded and then, then-Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, at the time, gave what I thought was an excellent conclusion that a future Government, in the fullness of time, on the passage of time, will have to make that decision.

Here we are today and the Minister is now speaking, on behalf of that Government, albeit at an initial stage.

So, here I speak and seek clarification that as we move forward, that we realise there are many different interpretations of Mr Lee's wishes and preferences. And when eventually the Government, the good government of the day, makes this decision, to – I humbly request – be sensitive, be tactful in the explanations, as to why we are doing, or why it is doing what it is doing.

I listened to Ms Chong's question and I also listened to Mr Liang's question, and I think they are both very good questions. We have a parallel Founders' Memorial, which actually is suppose to give the history, the ethos, the value system of our founding fathers. And I understand that the authenticity of the location of 38 Oxley Road differentiates itself from the Founders' Memorial, but I ask also for a deeper explanation, as the time comes, as to why the Government eventually makes its decision.

And here I say this, with the House's interest at heart, with Singapore's interests at heart and Mr Lee Kuan Yew's interests at heart and overall, the Government's. I do apologise for going on a little bit more, but for those of us who were not in the House, I can say that it was certainly one of the most difficult speeches I gave. And we have now come to that situation where we have to make a decision in a future government. I hope it is done sensitively and tactfully, and with Singaporeans' best interests at heart.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his points and indeed, it is the Government's intention to make sure that if the property, if the site is preserved and if it is eventually acquired, that we will make a decision that is sensitive, one that is tactful and one that will benefit not just the current, but also future generations of Singaporeans, and one that is keeping and befitting of the site's historic importance and national significance. So, it is my assurance to the Member that all these things will be taken on board, and the Government will make an informed and responsible decision, for the best of Singapore.

One final clarification, Mr Giam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, I think the Acting Minister has not fully answered my earlier clarification question. I understand that due process will be followed for the acquisition. I am not sure if that process requires the cost of the land acquisition of 38 Oxley Road to be publicly released. But even if not, will the Government commit to still disclose that cost, given the public interest in this matter?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the subsequent clarification. Unfortunately, I am not the Minister for National Development. I am not totally au fait with what is required under the Land Acquisitions Act, but my commitment to the Member is that due process will be given and it will follow the requirements under the Land Acquisitions Act, and an independent valuation will be done. If the Act requires a disclosure, the disclosure will be done as well.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Second Minister for Finance, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, we are operating in a much more challenging global economic landscape. Geopolitical rivalries have intensified. Economic competition has sharpened. Many countries are home-shoring key industries and companies. The competition for investment is fiercer than ever before. At the same time, global tax and tariff rules continue to evolve, creating uncertainty and complicating companies' decisions on when and where to invest.

For Singapore to continue to be a choice location for businesses to expand and invest, we must keep our tax system up-to-date, responsive to industry needs and aligned with global tax developments.

The Bill today serves two purposes. First, the amendments to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act incorporate updates to the Pillar Two rules under the international Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 initiative. Second, the Bill also brings into legal effect several tax measures already announced in this year's Budget Statement, as well as other changes to our tax system, following close consultations with the industry.

I will now briefly outline the amendments to the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Act.

Last year, Parliament approved the enactment of the Act to implement the Domestic Top-up Tax and the Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax under the Pillar Two rules. The rules require large multinational enterprises to pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15%, wherever they operate.

Our implementation of the Pillar Two rules is aligned with the global implementation of these rules. Major economies, such as the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) and Japan have already implemented them. Both top-up taxes apply to businesses' financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2025.

Since the enactment of the Act, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Inclusive Framework has published new technical clarifications on the Pillar Two rules.

Clauses 56 to 70 of the Bill will incorporate these and other technical clarifications into our legislation, so that our regime remains up-to-date and consistent and is recognised by other jurisdictions. This will provide certainty to businesses, ease their compliance burdens and most importantly, relieve them from having to pay Pillar Two taxes elsewhere in respect of their Singapore operations.

Meanwhile, we are closely monitoring international developments. Negotiations on the parameters of Pillar Two have re-opened following the June 2025 G7 statement on the development of a "side-by-side" system that will exempt United States (US)-parented multinational enterprises from specific Pillar Two rules.

At this point, discussions at the OECD Inclusive Framework are ongoing. It is unclear what the final outcome will be, and how other jurisdictions and affected businesses will respond.

For the moment, our considerations for the implementation of the Domestic Top-up Tax and Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax remain valid. We are, therefore, proceeding with the implementation of Pillar Two taxes, so that we do not cede tax revenues to other Pillar Two-implementing jurisdictions, and at the same time, we provide tax certainty for multinational enterprises to plan their investments. We will continue to monitor global developments and if necessary, review this approach.

Sir, I will now highlight key amendments to the Income Tax Act, which cover changes to our corporate income tax and personal income tax regimes.

The corporate income tax amendments ensure that our tax system remains responsive to business needs and practices.

Clause 19 provides for a 100% tax deduction for expenses incurred by businesses on green certificates or credits. This is in response to feedback from businesses for more support in their sustainability journeys. Currently, tax deductions are only available when certificates or credits are surrendered or retired to meet statutory requirements. But with this amendment, tax deductions will now also apply if these certificates or credits are used to meet sustainability commitments.

Clauses 27, 34 and 42 introduce tax incentives recommended by the Equities Market Review Group, set out at Budget this year. These incentives aim to encourage new listings in Singapore's equities market and increase investment demand for Singapore-listed equities.

First, companies that complete a primary or secondary listing with shares offered in conjunction with the listing will enjoy a 20% or 10% Listing Corporate Income Tax Rebate, respectively, subject to caps. Second, we will also introduce a 5% concessionary tax rate on qualifying income for new fund manager listings in Singapore. And third, we will introduce a tax exemption on fund managers' qualifying income from funds with at least 30% allocation to Singapore-listed equities.

Moving on to personal income tax, the amendments relate mainly to changes that provide stronger support to our workers.

Clause 55 provides for all tax-resident individuals to receive a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 60% for the Year of Assessment 2025, capped at $200 per taxpayer. This was announced in Budget 2025 as part of the SG60 package and is granted automatically to eligible taxpayers.

Let me conclude. Mr Speaker, the provisions in the Bill will update our tax regime to strengthen our economic competitiveness, provide more clarity to businesses and give more support to companies and individuals amidst a challenging global economic landscape. Sir, I seek to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill 2025. While the Bill may appear technical, its implications are wide-ranging. It keeps Singapore's tax system fair, forward-looking and aligned with global developments and it affects the daily lives of our families, small businesses and workers.

This Bill delivers on the intent of Budget 2025: to strengthen fiscal sustainability while easing cost pressures on Singaporeans. It provides immediate relief through a 60%personal income tax rebate, capped at $200; and a 50% corporate tax rebate, capped at $40,000, to help both households and firms manage near-term costs.

For individuals, this rebate will especially benefit lower- and middle-income households. Mr Speaker, I have a few questions to ask.

First, may I ask how many Singaporeans are expected to face zero income tax liability this year, and how much less personal income tax revenue the Government expects to collect overall? In the longer term, could the Ministry study whether the lowest income tax brackets might also be reduced? We can make our system more progressive not only by raising rates at the top, but by easing them at the bottom if fiscal space permits.

Another welcome change is the tax exemption for allowances under the Workfare Training Support Scheme, the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme and the Workfare Skills Support (Level-Up) Scheme. This rightly ensures that training and upskilling benefits are not taxed.

However, I note that individuals who previously paid tax on these payments must apply to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) for refunds before 31 December 2029. Would the Ministry consider an automatic refund instead, and share how many individuals and how much tax collected, since 2013, will be affected by this retrospective exemption?

Mr Speaker, in my conversations with residents and business owners, many appreciate these rebates but remain concerned about complexity. Small enterprises often lack dedicated accounting staff and self-employed workers. Our freelancers, drivers, tutors and hawkers manage their own filing. They can deduct legitimate business expenses. Yet, many remain unfamiliar with the process.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]

I urge Ministry of Finance (MOF) and IRAS to pair legislative reform with practical support: clearer guidance, simpler e-forms and accessible digital tools. Tax compliance should be simple, not stressful; and reliefs should be inclusive, not confined to those who can afford professional help.

For companies, I note that those not profitable will receive a $2,000 cash grant if they made Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for at least one local employee in 2024. May I confirm that this CPF contribution requirement applies only to the cash grant component, not a precondition to get the corporate income tax rebate? If so, what is the reason for this distinction? And what situations would the Comptroller regard as "just and equitable" to waive this condition under section 92L(5)?

Mr Deputy Speaker, my third point is on enhancing transparency and global alignment.

The Bill also amends the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act to allow the Board of Review to publish case details with consent, a small but meaningful step that enhances transparency and consistency in tax administration.

More broadly, the Bill aligns Singapore with the OECD's BEPS 2.0 framework. Large multinational groups will now be subject to a global minimum effective tax rate of 15%. These changes ensure Singapore remains trusted, competitive and compliant as global rules evolve.

Given that the US has withdrawn from Pillar Two, does MOF foresee any adjustment to Singapore's implementation timeline or commitments under BEPS 2.0, and how will we maintain our competitiveness if other major jurisdictions slow or reverse their adoption? So, I encourage MOF to continue providing clear guidance and transition support to affected firms, ensuring that the implementation remains proportionate and predictable.

The Bill also refines our fund-management regime, reinforcing Singapore's position as a trusted global financial centre. It enhances the tax exemption scheme for fund managers that launch and manage funds investing substantially, at least 30%, in Singapore-listed equities. A 5% concessionary rate will apply for qualifying new fund manager listings, alongside a listing tax rebate to encourage more companies to list and grow here.

While deductions for listing expenses remain non-deductible as they are capital in nature, Singapore supports enterprises through non-tax measures, such as the GEMS Listing Grant Scheme, which co-funds up to 70% of eligible Singapore Exchange (SGX) Mainboard listing costs.

These measures reflect that Singapore's appeal rests not on low rates, but on stability, transparency and innovation in our ecosystem of global capital. They also strengthen emerging areas, such as sustainable finance and wealth management, which create skilled jobs and long-term opportunities for Singapore.

Assuming Singapore proceeds with Pillar Two, can the new Listing Corporate Income Tax Rebate under section 92K remain effective once the global minimum tax rules take full effect? How often will these incentives be reviewed for effectiveness?

I also note that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Equity Market Review Group are exploring non-tax measures to boost market vibrancy. I look forward to further announcements on these initiatives and their timelines.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while I support the direction of the Bill, there are a few areas that could be refined for greater fairness and long-term effectiveness.

First, the new Listing Tax Rebate may not be easily accessible to smaller issuers. Its short eligibility window and administrative requirements could discourage participation, especially among emerging or innovative firms. A more flexible framework with consistent criteria would help broaden the base of Singapore-listed companies

Second, the growing number of overlapping incentive schemes adds compliance burden and complexity. Although our headline corporate tax rate remains 17%, multiple concessionary regimes co-exist under different rules and timelines.

In addition, the amendments to sections 105L and 105K of the Income Tax Act are in preparation for the implementation of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), for the automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets for tax purposes. Is there a projected timeline for any update of reporting requirements that IRAS may be carrying out, and for the release of any guidance or training to ensure that affected entities will be in a position to comply with updated requirements? So, a more integrated and transparent structure would improve clarity and efficiency.

Third, while Ministerial discretion allows flexibility, it should be balanced by regular public reporting to ensure accountability and Parliamentary oversight.

And finally, as global tax norms evolve under the OECD's 15% minimum tax framework, we should move beyond rate-based incentives and prioritise productivity- and innovation-driven measures in research and development (R&D), workforce skills and digital capability. This will safeguard fiscal integrity and sustain Singapore's competitiveness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, some may ask what all this means for the average Singaporean.

When our businesses stay competitive, they invest and hire. When compliance is simple, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can focus on growth instead of paperwork. When revenues are stable, Government can fund programmes that uplift Singaporeans – from Workfare and SkillsFuture to the Majulah Package's Earn and Save Bonus.

I note that this Bill also ensures these social payouts remain tax-exempt, providing direct help to lower-income workers and seniors. Looking ahead, we should continue simplifying compliance through digital tools, expanding tax education in partnership with trade associations and community groups and reviewing new rules annually to stay both competitive and far.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill fortifies the architecture of Singapore's fiscal system – combining prudence, fairness and adaptability. Taxation is not only about numbers. It is about trust – trust that our regime is fair, that growth benefits all and that compliance is manageable for every taxpayer.

Sir, as we align with global standards, we must ensure no resident, freelancer or SME feels left behind. If we continue to pair global alignment with domestic inclusion, we will preserve Singapore's fiscal strength and social solidarity for businesses, families and future generations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Finance (Income Tax) Bill before this House seeks to implement tax changes announced in Budget 2025 by amending the Income Tax Act and related legislation.

While this may appear to be a procedural exercise to give legal effect to the Budget measures, I see it also as an opportunity to do much more. It is an opportunity to refine our tax system so that it continues to work well for Singaporeans and to ensure that our broader national objectives are met, particularly given the critical redistributive role that taxes play in fiscal policy. It is also an opportunity to look ahead to make constructive suggestions for the upcoming Budget 2026.

As I have emphasised in my past Budget speeches, we must move beyond transitional cost of living measures and strengthen structural support through lasting tax changes that achieve greater redistributive efficiency.

As we look towards Budget 2026, how can our tax system best serve Singaporeans, especially at a time of persistent cost pressures and growing inequality? How can our fiscal architecture reinforce fairness, resilience and growth? Can our tax policies play a stronger role in redistribution, support for families and domestic capital formation?

I will focus my remarks on three themes.

First, the importance of putting in place structural changes rather than relying on recurring one-off measures. Second, the potential role of refundable tax credits in improving equity and efficiency. And third, how we can better align our tax system with our ambition to strengthen Singapore's equities market.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in both my Budget 2024 and Budget 2025 speeches, I emphasised the importance of structural rather than episodic fiscal measures. Let me reiterate that call once more today. Our tax system should automatically adjust to reflect the economic reality Singaporeans face rather than depending on annual ad hoc adjustments that create uncertainty and administrative complexity.

Under clause 55 of the Bill, a personal income tax rebate worth 60% of tax payable, capped at $200, will be granted for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2025. This is similar to the rebate in YA 2024, where it was 50% of tax payable, but capped at $200, and also to the one granted in YA 2019.

Should such rebates become a recurring feature of every budget, they would effectively raise the tax-free threshold for the current $20,000 of chargeable income. But the Government has framed this as part of the SG60 package, which would suggest that this is only temporary. Instead of offering periodic rebates, I believe we would be better off instituting a mechanism to regularly review both the personal income tax brackets and basic relief quota to avoid bracket creep, so that the system keeps pace with changes in wages and price over time. After all, the last time the personal income tax brackets were last updated was more than 24 years ago in 2001. This was a point I had raised in my Parliamentary Question in 2022 and again, in last year's Budget debate.

Based on my estimates, close to 80% of resident taxpayers will only receive the $200 cap, which means that the headline 60% rebate appears more generous than it really is. Another example is the earned income relief. For workers below 55 years of age, this relief has remained at $1,000 for as long as I can recall. For older workers aged 55 to 59, the relief stands at $6,000. And for those aged 60 and above, $8,000. These figures have not been revised since Budget 2012, more than a decade ago. For handicapped workers, the reliefs are also unchanged.

Given the rise in the cost of living, wages and labour participation since then, it is long overdue for a comprehensive update. In addition, I agree with the exemption from tax of a wide range of initiatives, such as Workfare Training Support Training Allowance, SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance and Workfare Skill Support.

Again, in the spirit of making scheme-specific changes each time, it would be better for us to introduce a broad-based skills investment relief allowing individuals to claim a capped deduction for out-of-pocket training expenses, and this would be an expansion of the existing course fees relief, which only provides relief for specific approved academic, professional or vocational qualification, or courses relevant to a person's current employment, trade, business, profession or vocation. But at the same time, it does not reward initiatives to better position oneself for an alternative career especially in the current era of rapid change and disruption, as it has no linkages to his or her current profession.

Turning to clause 43, which introduces a new section 92L, providing for a 50% corporate income tax rebate. This continues a familiar pattern of annual corporate rebates, varying from 20% to 50% over the last decade, with caps ranging from $10,000 to $40,000. While such rebates can provide short-term relief, they do not offer the long-term certainty and predictability that businesses, especially SMEs, do require.

As I argued in my speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2021, I suggested that we consider introducing more structural progressivity in our corporate income tax regime, particularly to better support local SMEs.

Even as other forms of enterprise support are strengthened, the Government could consider raising partial tax exemption limits or introducing two-tiered corporate profit tax system, similar to Hong Kong's model introduced in 2018. Such an approach could offer greater certainty than the current system of fluctuating rebates.

To illustrate, an SME earning $300,000 in chargeable income today pays around $34,000 in corporate income tax before rebates, an effective tax rate of roughly 11%, compared to about 8% before the exemption restrictions introduced in Budget 2018. Building these reforms directly into the tax regime, rather than relying on discretionary rebates would send a clearer signal of support to our local enterprise base.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to next turn to a topic that deserves greater attention in Singapore, and that is of the refundable tax credits. These function as a form of negative income tax, providing benefits through the tax system, but paying out the difference in cash to those with insufficient tax liability to benefit otherwise. In doing so, they allow the Government to extend supports to lower and middle-income households more efficiently without distorting work incentives or relying on other specific schemes.

Refundable credits are widely used in advanced economies, such as the US' Earned Income Tax Credit and Canada's various Refundable Credit Systems, for example.

In Singapore, one promising area to consider refundable tax credits is in relation to child relief or the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR).

As I have shared previously, this relief was restructured for children born on or after January 2024 from a percentage-based formula to a fixed dollar amount of $8,000 for the first child, $10,000 for the second and $12,000 for the third and subsequent children.

While this change benefits some lower-income mothers marginally, my estimate suggests that roughly 80% of working mothers will either be unaffected or worse off with the formula change.

I have spoken previously about how Singapore's total fertility rate, which fell below 1.0 in 2023 and remained there in 2024, represents an existential challenge. President Thaman has pledged that this term of Government will do more to help parents better manage their work and family commitments and to foster a culture that celebrates families.

In that spirit, we should consider whether the revised WMCR structure truly achieves its intent of encouraging married women to stay in the workforce or whether it inadvertently discourages some from doing so.

I acknowledge that the Government has said that when the WMCR changes are considered alongside the one-off $2,000 increase in the Child Development Account First Step Grant, about 97% of mothers will be no worse off in the year of birth. But I would also ask what about the next 15 years of tax assessments? Perhaps a reversion of WMCR or its reform into a refundable tax credit could be explored as part of future Budget changes. After all, this concept is not new to Singapore, with the refundable investment credits already introduced.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the final theme of my speech – aligning our tax regime more closely with the goal of strengthening Singapore's equities market.

My colleague and Member of Parliament for Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC), Mr Kenneth Tiong, will be elaborating further on this point.

Let me also declare that I am an equity analyst working in a financial institution here in Singapore.

Clause 54 operationalises the 13O and 13U Fund Tax Incentive schemes for family offices. The schemes aim to offer a conducive operating environment for Singapore-based fund managers and family offices.

In my earlier Parliamentary Question in 2022, I had asked about the number of family offices, their aggregate business spending, assets under management (AUM) and local investments. Back then, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) shared that it does not have estimates on aggregate business spending, aggregate AUM help and the amount invested locally by Singapore Family Offices (SFOs). Do we now have such data?

Otherwise, how do we assess the effectiveness of the capital deployment requirement rules?

Under current rules, family offices must invest the lower of 10% of AUM or $10 million in designated investments. However, the definition of invested-locally is broad. Even an investment into a global fund distributed by a financial institution with a Singapore presence can qualify. This means that the actual capital deployed into Singapore's productive economy may be far smaller than the headline numbers intended.

I would urge the Government to strengthen this capital deployment requirement, perhaps, by raising it to at least 15% to 20% of AUM and/or tightening the definition of eligible investments to require a minimum portion in Singapore listed equities, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITS) or funds with domestic exposure even as I note that there is a 1.5 to two times multiplier applied to certain investments. Greater transparency and periodic reporting of aggregate investment data will also help the public to assess whether these generous tax incentives are delivering tangible benefits to Singapore's economy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I conclude, allow me to recap the three themes I have raised.

First, we should move away from recurring one-off measures towards structural reforms, indexing tax brackets and reliefs to inflation, updating outdated reliefs, like the Earned Income Relief, and embedding greater progressivity into our corporate tax regime. Second, we should consider introducing refundable tax credits to make our fiscal system more equitable and efficient, particularly, in supporting working families and working mothers and lower-income Singaporeans. And third, we must align our tax incentives more strategically with our goal of strengthening Singapore's capital markets and ensuring that incentives like those for family offices deliver meaningful local benefits.

Ultimately, our tax system is more than a means of raising revenue. It reflects our values as a society – fairness, resilience and solidarity. As we look ahead to Budget 2026, I hope we can take this opportunity to refine our fiscal architecture to serve Singaporeans better, strengthen inclusivity and build an economy that works for all.

Mr Shawn Loh.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill.

The Bill makes several changes to legislation, including to provide for the changes already announced at the landmark Budget 2025. I will focus only on the segment of the Bill that pertains to how Singapore is preparing to adapt to global minimum tax rules.

We have already implemented the Domestic Top-up Tax and the Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax from January 2025. We should not underestimate the impact that the global minimum tax rules may have on our collective future.

There are two areas that I will share on. First, the impact on Singapore's competitiveness, to be able to attract future foreign investments and create good jobs. And second, the impact on the Government's future revenue collections to support its policy agenda.

On competitiveness, I believe we will very likely be worse off.

I spent two years at the Economic Development Board. Tax incentives were a major way to attract multinational enterprises to invest in us, despite our higher labour and land costs, and our smaller market.

The global minimum tax rules have started to render our tax incentives almost useless. It will be like fighting with not one, but both hands tied behind our back and perhaps, with our legs tied together, too. How can we start preparing for this new future, and what new tools and value propositions can we create, so that we remain an attractive investment destination?

The Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), is a step in the right direction.

The Bill makes amendments to the Income Tax Act to facilitate RIC's implementation and I fully support it. But in my view, the RIC is helpful; alone it will be insufficient. Because its benefits, as I understand it, do not scale with an enterprise's growing profits, unlike tax incentives.

That said, we should not sell ourselves short. Tax incentives are not the only reason why multinational enterprises come here and create jobs for Singaporeans. We have a clear and established rule of law. We have good global connectivity from a physical and digital perspective. And we have an ecosystem of local and global talent that is sticky, because it has been developed over time and our city can provide a high quality of life.

I, therefore, urge the Government to be relentless in developing new value propositions for Singapore. This includes investing ahead of demand in world-class industrial infrastructure that could support the faster deployment of high-tech manufacturing. It includes making other factors of production more competitive, for example, through investments that make clean or green energy more affordable, more available and more resilient. It also includes a deepening innovation ecosystem, as well as a preferred base for a reasonable number of global talents that can value-add to our economy and grow our local talent base.

In short, if the most sophisticated and high-value products can be invented and made only in a few places in the world, Singapore must be one of them. We will then be able to transcend cost competitiveness.

At the same time and this is something I feel very strongly about, and I continue to champion strongly for: we should do more to support and grow our local companies because these companies will be more rooted to Singapore even as our cost disadvantages become more apparent. With such value propositions, multinational enterprises would be happy to pay these global minimum taxes in Singapore and be rooted here to provide good jobs for Singaporeans.

Allow me to move on to my second point. The Government will need to think harder about the impact on our fiscal system, especially on its revenues.

Many issues are debated in this Parliament Chamber. Almost all colleagues, including myself, are asking the Government to do more and to spend more, almost never to do less. To support its agenda, the Government needs to be on a solid fiscal footing so that its revenues can support its expenditures.

In terms of Government revenues, we do not yet know how the global minimum tax system will affect us. On the one hand, some enterprises will pay more tax. On its own, this will lead to more revenues, at least, in the short term. But on the other hand, enterprises may also choose to pay tax in other jurisdictions or move out of Singapore entirely. And then, the Government's revenues will be lower.

No one knows the net fiscal impact and the world is not waiting for us to make an assessment. New pronouncements come up from time to time. The Senior Minister of State for Finance spoke about it, like the "side-by-side" framework between Pillar Two rules and the US tax system.

MOF echoed this uncertainty in their reply to my Parliamentary Question last month. In their own words, they could only say that the impact on our fiscal outlook was uncertain and that they were monitoring the issue closely and would review their approach once there is greater clarity. Once there is greater clarity.

I would submit, however, that we will not get greater clarity on our Government's projected revenues anytime soon and this is reasonable. But the less we know, the more we need to prepare. And I believe we can adopt a fiscal strategy that provides for different fiscal futures.

By default, we should be fiscally conservative so that if corporate income tax revenues are low, we would still have enough for our expenditure, especially on our expanding social programmes.

But should there be unexpected upsides in corporate income tax revenues, we should think of a structure to share this systematically with all Singaporeans, both in current and in future generations. To that end, in some circumstances, I also agree with Mr Louis Chua that we should have some structures that do it systematically.

There have been previous instances of such surplus-sharing initiatives, but they have been only on an ad hoc basis.

Just imagine a system where if Singapore's economy does well and our tax collections are more buoyant than expected, Singaporeans will all be assured beforehand that they will benefit directly from our country's economic success. These are but some ideas that can be developed further in time to come, perhaps, at future Budget debates. And for now, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak today on section 92K of the Finance (Income Taxes) Bill which is part of the Government's emerging strategy to improve the attractiveness of Singapore's equity market. It provides time-limited tax incentives for both primary and secondary listings.

Before I begin, let me preface by saying I will use the term SGX as shorthand for SGX's equities business. SGX, as a whole, is a multi-asset exchange that has great strengths in foreign exchange (FX), commodities and other derivatives. I think those parts of the business, including BidFX and Iron Ore, have been doing a good job.

On section 92K, my overall view is that these measures, a time-limited experiment in tax incentives, are in themselves unlikely to move the needle on improving the SGX's competitiveness, for good or bad. Although I have some general reservations about some of the Bill's principles, on balance, since it is tightly scoped by being both limited in time and capped in subsidy, I support the Bill to give this Government latitude to experiment.

Section 92K introduces a tax rebate to encourage companies to list their shares on SGX. Companies that list their ordinary shares on the SGX between 19 February 2025 and 31 December 2027, new listings or re-listings, both primary and secondary listings, will qualify. Shares must be offered to the public in conjunction with the listing.

The company receives a tax rebate for five years, 20% corporate tax for periods of a primary listing; and 10% for a secondary listing. These are capped at $6 million a year, if the market cap is at or above $1 billion on listing date; and $3 million a year if below that figure. The company must remain listed throughout the entire five-year period and must apply for approval by 31 December 2027.

The principles on 92K which I have reservations about are:

First, the extension of rebates toward secondary listings. From the company's perspective, academic research shows secondary listings work primarily when listing in the US, where companies gain from purported superior governance standards or valuation premiums. It is debatable if Singapore offers either advantage. The advantages are not of secondary listings in general but of the US in particular.

I can understand why SGX might want to encourage secondary listings. They are a prelude to secondary offerings. In Financial Year (FY) 2025, SGX had six new listings, raising $25.7 million. This was dwarfed by secondary offerings, which was a hundred times larger at $4.3 billion.

SGX's function as a capital raising venue for already listed companies is currently much more significant than its listings. SGX Chairman Koh Boon Hwee, has argued for the need to take calculated first-mover risks to build liquidity. Presumably anchoring more secondary listings is one of those first-mover risks.

But from Singapore's perspective, I do not see much benefit in giving incentives to attract secondary listings, especially combined with a disclosure-based regime, which may result in a bigger slate of lower quality companies. At the point of entry, many may just make the number of listings and market cap look better, while not creating broad local employment since their operations are overseas. Some may disagree on the basis that these secondary listings may improve liquidity and generate turnover. But how much of this is sticky, multi-year liquidity, and how much is transient event-driven volume?

I ask: what is the basis of the Government's belief that it will lead to high-quality liquidity? For me, the bigger philosophical questions from first principles – why would a company want to do a secondary listing in Singapore? Why would Singapore benefit overall from more secondary listings in a disclosure-based regime? – remain inadequately answered.

Overall, I would rather we focus on attracting quality primary listings over extending incentives to secondary listings. But since the trial is limited in time and scope, we will support the Bill scope in toto. We hope the results will be published and guide future market development.

The Bill addresses three key technical problems regarding secondary listings.

Many secondary listings come by introduction, meaning no new shares sold, which leaves little local free float and tends to depress local turnover. The Hong Kong Exchange (HKEX) warns that secondary listings can suffer from failure to develop or sustain an active trading market, which is why they flag such stocks prominently with an "S" marker.

SGX currently has 29 secondary listings. Multiple high-profile SGX secondary listings were by way of introductions, meaning no new shares. This includes a 2010 listing of Prudential and the 2022 SGX listing of electric vehicle company, Nio Inc, which GIC is now suing for securities fraud in the Southern District of New York. These secondaries have had thin local trading versus their primary venues, with exception of the Jardine Group. So far, secondary listings have been a mixed bag.

I will return to this point about poor quality listings later. But technically, 92K insists that shares must be offered to the public, ensuring some float, so listings by introduction are excluded from rebates. This is prudent.

And while this is not in the Bill, I note that MAS has the Grant for Equity Market Singapore (GEMS) Research Development Grant, which provides a top-up per research report, more if it covers pre-Initial Public Offering and newly-listed names. This will help strengthen the value proposition of a listing here in Singapore, even if we cannot offer much valuation premium.

The tax rebates are also tied to the profitability of the company. If the companies are loss-making, they will not qualify for the rebates. If it were not the case, we could be attracting rebate tourism from dubious companies.

Last, and most importantly, these measures are time-limited until the end of 2027.

The second principle I have reservations on is this whole idea of giving listing incentives at all. I could not find much evidence that having listing incentives will improve the quality of companies or long-term performance. In fact, the converse was more likely true. The Quebec Stock Savings Plan, which offered taxpayers generous tax write-offs for investment in new public stock issues of companies, drove a short-term surge in small company primary issues. But many issuers later disappeared or posted weaker earnings. The impact on capitalisation was short-lived and overall, stimulus effects were limited.

For listing incentives, from the company's perspective, it may be unsustainable once incentives end and these companies may fail or simply delist when that time comes. What we are likely to see is a short-term pop in the numbers, because without answers to permanent questions around liquidity disclosure, quality, investor depth and regulatory credibility, strong secular headwinds remain.

Some say it is a chicken-and-egg problem, building liquidity and investor depth. I understand this view, but I believe that raising the quality of listed companies is pre-conditional to building this two-sided market.

Other jurisdictions are not focusing on financial incentives. Hong Kong is focused on raising corporate governance standards, enforcement and improving processing efficiency, which is, in my view, a more correct approach. Hong Kong's listing rules have historically been stricter than SGX in areas such as independence of directors, remuneration disclosures and related party transactions, and their regulators have been much more aggressive in enforcement actions, including against directors.

Hong Kong recently introduced a new Corporate Governance Code with stricter requirements: limiting independent non-executive directors to six listed directorships, mandatory continuing professional training, broad skills matrices and performance reviews. They are raising standards without using financial incentives.

On 29 October, SGX RegCo announced it would remove the financial watchlist and introduce more flexible listing rules under a "disclosure-based approach." This is a bit paradoxical to me. The watchlist itself was disclosure. It flagged financially distressed companies to investors. Removing it does not increase disclosure; it removes a critical warning signal. What SGX calls a more "disclosure-based approach" can actually mean more disclosure for poor companies while keeping them listed and trading, but less actionable disclosure and actionable information for the market as a whole. I therefore disagree with the removal of the watchlist.

Industry players supporting its removal may of course benefit from more trading volume, even if low-quality. Their incentives may not align with retail investor protection. Taiwan's 54% retail participation versus our 21% shows what happens when retail investors have confidence – confidence built on quality signals like watchlists and Investor Protection Centres.

I will now move on to a few remarks on the principles that should underlie our stock market. At its core, a stock market strikes a "domestic bargain": savers get high-quality asset appreciation and local enterprises get capital and exit opportunities. All other functions, such as foreign capital allocating to Singapore, or overseas companies listing in Singapore, are extensions of this core.

Four structural realities constrain our equities market. First, the "ASEAN gateway" strategy is becoming obsolete. It may have worked for Singapore when other Southeast Asian countries did not have a strong local market, but today, Thailand and Vietnam have their own mature and highly liquid markets with domestic brand recognition. ASEAN companies no longer have as many compelling reasons to list on the SGX, vis-a-vis their home exchanges.

Second, our regulatory reach is limited over other foreign markets. This means for foreign companies, we are exposed to information asymmetry and governance risks we cannot adequately mitigate, such as, for the fraud-accused Nio.

Third, passive capital demands quality indexes. The tidal force of passive investment is a secular supertrend. Sovereign wealth funds like Norway's leading Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) have demonstrated that low-cost passive investing outperforms the active management approach. I believe passive strategies will form the basis of significant portfolio allocations going forward. But passive investment requires something fundamental, high quality indexes or baskets worth buying. Investors must be able to trust that the baskets of stocks they are purchasing represent genuine value, not a random collection of mediocre companies.

By lowering listing standards and removing investor protections like the financial watch list, the risk is that the quality of the SGX and Straits Times Index (STI) is allowed to degrade precisely when global capital is demanding higher quality for passive allocation. Let us not forget that active management, to weed out mediocrity, is an expensive endeavour. You will pay an active manager above and beyond to do due diligence to separate weed from chaff, and these active management fees are a drag on any future returns. You cannot attract passive capital by diluting the quality of your index. Any slackening in market shaping and maintaining quality standards cuts directly against one of the most important structural trends in modern finance. I am bearish on any cutting of standards.

Fourth, passive capital also demands coherent indexes. Without quality and coherence, we cannot articulate what our market represents. Big allocators need clarity about what each allocation represents in their portfolio. But look at the STI: Financials – 54%, Real Estate Investment Trusts or REITS – 16.4%, Industrials – 9.8%, Telecom – 7.5%, Utilities – 4.9%. Almost entirely defensive.

There is also leakage. Secondary listings like Jardine Matheson and Hongkong Land, both managed from Hong Kong, comprise 5% of the Index, but represent neither Singapore operations nor "Singapore Inc's" core capital-formation interests. Defensiveness and leakages are headwinds in building a future coherent story to ultimately increase SGX's valuation premium.

What would a future coherent story look like? Not mimicking NASDAQ's high-beta growth, not remaining purely defensive, but rather a foundation of quality SMEs, profitable, well-run, the "domestic bargain" in action, complemented by selective growth engines from a robust R&D industrial policy.

The local stock market is currently dominated by Government-linked Companies (GLCs). However, Singapore has a long tail of well-run profitable SMEs, which do require growth capital. They are not super growth companies, but they deserve capital and can anchor our index. We need to meet our economy where it is. SGX should become an exchange that looks out for growing SMEs and cultivates a pipeline for listing.

This should include overhauling the sponsor-based Catalist board, to be replaced by a non-trading, capacity-building "incubation board" which graduates to OTC-style boards as a prelude to mainboard listing. SMEs are the companies that will benefit most from a supportive exchange ecosystem, including the long-tail of research needed to cover them.

The second layer will be selective growth from R&D. Commercial offshoots from our Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) masterplans in Pharmaceuticals, Advanced Manufacturing and Deep Tech should be able to list an earlier stage, in order to access domestic capital.