Hansard, Monday, 11 November 2024

1 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health (a) what preventive and oversight measures are in place to ensure telehealth providers meet patient care standards consistently; and (b) whether additional regulatory frameworks will be developed to monitor the quality and duration of teleconsultations to safeguard patient outcomes.

2 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health in light of the Ministry's announcement on 24 October 2024 to revoke a medical clinic's licence (a) how may the Ministry assure the public that teleconsultation services provided by medical clinics meet the appropriate standards; and (b) whether the Ministry has been receiving feedback on potentially errant medical clinics.

Sir, may I answer Question Nos 1 and 2, and also oral questions filed by Mr Melvin Yong1 and Mr Yip Hon Weng2, and a written question filed by Dr Wan Rizal3 for a subsequent Sitting, on the regulation of telemedicine services, please?

Please proceed.

Telemedicine providers are required to be licensed under the Healthcare Services Act, or HCSA, and comply with requirements and standards. In the case of healthcare, medical practitioners themselves also need to adhere to the ethical and professional standards set out in the Singapore Medical Council's (SMC's) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG). Under the guidelines, they must obtain sufficient information from their patients, conduct appropriate clinical assessment and ensure that any provision of medical care, prescription of medicines and issuance of medical certificates (MCs) are justified on proper medical grounds.

In other words, the regulation of telemedicine is not different from regulation of all other economic activities. We set standards, we require licensing, we conduct periodic audits for each clinic, investigate complaints and take offenders to task. Such regulatory frameworks cannot eradicate offenders – that is not possible. But instead, it ensures that when practices have gone astray, especially with the advent of new technology and business models, they can be corrected promptly.

This is exactly what happened with the MaNaDr case. The doctors were issuing medical certificates in a way that fell foul of HCSA and the Ministry of Health (MOH) had made known our intention for MaNaDr's outpatient medical service licence to be revoked. Several doctors also appeared to have breached the SMC guidelines and are therefore referred to SMC for further disciplinary actions.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing on this issue on the MaNaDr. I do believe quality assurance mechanisms are important. In that regard, how does the Ministry currently assess the quality of telehealth consultations? Are there metrics or periodic audits in place to monitor performance? And are these criteria laid out specifically to all these telemedicine providers?

The other question I have, Sir, is really on patient feedback. I have had students who used telemedicine as the form of them getting a medical certificate (MC) in school; and sometimes, I do hear they have complaints and feedback. Could the Minister share if there are specific feedback mechanisms or complaint channels in place for telehealth services and how patients' concerns are addressed within this framework?

The Member asked if there are standards, if there are audits and if we receive complaints and feedback. The answer is yes, yes, yes.

I would say, in terms of standards and audits, all the clinics know – we have some doctors in the House – you know the standards, you know we audit you. And if, despite knowing all these, you still fall foul of the regulations and the SMC's Ethical Guidelines, then, you are in trouble, because we will catch you. And even if we do not catch you, people will complain – which is the case here, people complained about MaNaDr, that the turnaround was too fast and MCs are issued; employers are suffering, particularly, because their employees are not coming to work, applying for MCs, sometimes, while they are overseas through telemedicine. So, we took prompt action.

Be mindful that while the offence went on for awhile, it was not a long while. It was a matter of months. We investigated, took action and corrected the situation.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank the Minister for the response. I have two supplementary questions. The first is, for the purposes of the audit, whether the Ministry has been conducting any mystery shopping consultations? Otherwise, is this something that it will consider doing amongst other measures for auditing purposes?

Secondly, understanding from Minister that the medical practitioners are subject to SMC's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines, but in view that we are recognising that there are more telemedicine consultations that are happening now, post-COVID-19, are we also looking to review the existing ethical code and guidelines to specifically address some of these concerns that may arise from telemedicine?

I am not entirely familiar with the operational aspects of enforcement, but I think we take the attitude that if mystery shopping is required, we will do so, bearing in mind the public are our eyes and ears. When they see something is wrong, they will usually whistle-blow and let us know. And when you see a pattern of complaints, we will take action quite promptly, which is what happened in this case.

Whether there needs to be a review, I do not think so. While telemedicine is due to new technology, post-COVID-19, and it is a new business model, the principles and standards and requirements lay out – whether under HCSA or SMC's Guidelines – I think they are still applicable. For that matter, HCSA was just recently enacted, taking into account technology and taking into account a post-COVID-19, ageing population healthcare system, where technology is being used.

I should add one more point. In the polyclinics, we were hesitant to allow telemedicine for acute treatment precisely because we want to be quite careful about the issuing of MCs. So, if you want an MC from the polyclinics, you would still have to turn up in person.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Many of my Yio Chu Kang residents are seniors and many of them have mobility issues. Hence, telehealth services would be useful for them. In fact, we are working with National Healthcare Group (NHG) Polyclinic to get some of my seniors to use telehealth services rather than make a physical trip to the polyclinic. I hope this incident will not hinder the push for telehealth services, which will benefit many residents on the ground.

My question is, given this incident, can the Ministry share how we can continue to promote telehealth services amongst the seniors and continue to build trust and confidence in this mode of service delivery?

I thank the Member for raising this. It is actually the key point here.

I thank the Member for working with NHG to use telemedicine for the benefit of his, especially, senior residents. I think when we have new technology, we have an opportunity to make service better, to serve patients and residents better. But just like all new technology, all new business models, someone will try to abuse it. And then, questions will be raised: is the Ministry stepping up audit, enforcement, regulation, doing a clamp-down? There is always a temptation to do so. When you do so, you stop being able to seize the opportunities that new technology can present you.

That is why I want to be quite honest with Members. I think the current requirements and standards are valid and our enforcement has been effective. So, something gone wrong, we corrected it straight away. MaNaDr has been notified that their outpatient licence will be revoked. Now is still the period for them to appeal.

So, I think it is by good enforcement, following up on our standards, enforcing them, taking necessary actions, then we can fully utilise and leverage opportunities that new business models and technology can offer us. And what Mr Yip Hon Weng mentioned, I think, can come true.

3 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the progress of the upgrading works of the Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit (LRT); and (b) when can the dual-loop service be fully resumed.

4 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current progress of the Bukit Panjang LRT upgrade project, particularly with regard to the resumption of the daily double loop service; and (b) what is the status of the replacement of the first-generation train cabins on the Bukit Panjang LRT line.

5 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether an update can be provided on the cause of the recent LRT train breakdown between Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang LRT stations; and (b) what regular checks are train operators mandated to conduct on LRT trains including on its tyres to prevent breakdowns.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 3 to 5 of today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. On 22 October 2024 at about 5.08 pm, a Bukit Panjang Light Rail Transit, or BPLRT, train moving in the direction of Choa Chu Kang station stalled before Teck Whye station. To preserve service along the affected stretch, SMRT activated a shuttle train service using the other bound of track between Bukit Panjang and Choa Chu Kang LRT stations at 5.19 pm. SMRT also activated free regular bus services to provide commuters with another alternative travel option between the affected stations.

BPLRT loop services between Bukit Panjang and Petir stations via Service A, and between Bukit Panjang and Senja stations via Service B, were not affected and continued throughout the evening.

In accordance with standard operating procedure, SMRT deployed an empty recovery train to couple with the stalled train. To ensure commuter safety, all passengers on the incident train disembarked onto the station platform at Teck Whye station by 5.40 pm. Thereafter, the recovery train proceeded to move the empty incident train back towards the BPLRT depot, where further checks could be done. During this movement, a power trip occurred and the coupled trains stalled due to a loss of traction power.

Investigations are ongoing. Based on the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) initial findings, the incident was caused by a gear failure in one of the wheel assemblies of the incident train. As a consequence, the pair of wheels on the damaged wheel assembly were unable to rotate normally.

LRT trains run on rubber tyres. As the affected wheels on the incident train were unable to rotate, the friction between the rubber tyres and the guideway caused the tyres to deflate. This then resulted in a bar below the carriage of the incident train to come into contact with the power rail, which caused damage to the power rail and led to the power trip.

For the safety of commuters and repair workers, SMRT assessed that recovery works on the stalled train and damaged power rail should only take place after the affected stretch of the BPLRT is shut down. To complete recovery works before service commencement the following day, SMRT decided to end the shuttle train service along the affected stretch earlier at around 10.00 pm, compared to the usual closing time of 11.30 pm. Free bus services between the affected stations continued until 1.00 am.

SMRT carried out repair works throughout the night. Thorough checks were then conducted to ensure safety before BPLRT services resumed at 5.00 am the following morning.

Mr Edward Chia and Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the progress of BPLRT renewal works and the resumption of double loop service. The BPLRT renewal works are progressing well. First, LTA is bringing in new trains and upgrading existing ones. Second, we are upgrading all the BPLRT core systems such as power and signalling.

We have four new third-generation vehicles that have entered passenger service, with another two currently undergoing testing. The remaining 13 new vehicles will arrive progressively over the coming year. The second-generation vehicles are also being enhanced – six of these have completed their upgrades and are in passenger service, while the remaining seven will be progressively upgraded over the next 12 months. We target for the new and upgraded vehicles to enter service by end-2025.

The power supply system for the BPLRT has been fully upgraded with increased capacity, including enhancements such as dedicated power supply monitoring and control systems. LTA is currently upgrading the Operations Control Centre and replacing the power rails to improve operations and system reliability.

To support these upgrading works, LTA recently announced the need for early closure of the BPLRT from 14 November 2024 to 31 October 2025, where train services would end one hour earlier every Thursday to Sunday, excluding public holidays. When in operation, the new signalling system will allow better control of train speeds, so that commuters can enjoy smoother and more reliable rides.

We have fully resumed dual-loop services on BPLRT for all hours on weekends and public holidays since 28 September 2024. LTA aims to resume dual-loop services for all hours on weekdays in the coming months.

We are on track to complete the BPLRT renewal programme in 2026. We recognise that the improvement works have been a long journey, but we have to go through this process to fix the legacy problems and deliver better service for our commuters. We thank commuters and residents for their understanding and patience during this period when we are carrying out the renewal programme. When completed in 2026, the upgraded BPLRT will provide commuters with a more reliable, more comfortable and smoother travel experience.

Mr Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to give some updates on the safety and reliability of our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) network since my Ministerial Statement on 15 October 2024.

First, SMRT has formed a tripartite Rail Safety and Reliability Review Workgroup to review its systems and processes, including its maintenance practices and lifecycle management of assets. SMRT has invited representatives from LTA and the National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) to join this Workgroup and will also engage overseas metro operators in Guangzhou and Taipei for mutual learning. LTA welcomes this initiative and will work together with SMRT and NTWU in this tripartite workgroup to identify areas for improvement and maintain safety and reliability standards for the benefit of commuters.

I would like to inform the House that the overall mean kilometres between failure, or MKBF, for our MRT network up to end October 2024 has improved from about 1.8 million train-kilometres in end September, to almost two million train-kilometres as at end October this year. Importantly, all the MRT lines have continued to achieve our target MKBF of at least one million train-kilometres.

Sir, my colleagues and I will continue to pay close attention to keeping MKBF above the one million train-kilometre target as we know that safety and reliability are important for commuters. This is a priority for the One Transport Family. I thank our tripartite partners for the support, especially our workers and union leaders for their hard work and dedication, to provide a safe, reliable and resilient rail system for Singapore. This is our common mission and our shared goal, and we will work closely together and do our best to achieve it.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Mr Speaker, I was hoping that the Minister would give us a firm date on when the dual-loop services can be fully resumed. So, maybe my first question for the Minister is whether he can give us a clearer timeline, instead of just saying the coming months.

Secondly, with the resumption of the dual-loop services in the coming months and also with the adding on of the new train cars into the system, I would like to ask the Minister whether that would improve the overall stability of the system or it can pose more risks.

And if, indeed, there could be more risks, how can LTA and SMRT be better prepared for this very critical phase and also to reduce any inconveniences to our commuters should there be any disruption?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Liang for raising these important questions. If I could give him a more specific date, I would be happy to do so. But I think it is important for us to monitor the progress closely. And along the way, we will certainly provide updates to Mr Liang and to the other grassroots advisors who are looking after the Bukit Panjang area.

The commitment I want to give to Mr Liang and to the House is that we will do our best to expedite the upgrading works. But we want to do so in a manner which is safe for the workers and also for commuters. So, we will do our best.

Mr Liang also asked about the services and the reliability during this period. Indeed, this upgrading journey has been a long one and it involves bringing in new trains, upgrading existing trains, as well as upgrading all the BPLRT core systems, such as power and signalling.

And because it is done on multiple fronts, we need to make sure that this is done safely and, to make it even more challenging, because you have to run the BPLRT services during the operating or revenue hours, we could only do some of the maintenance and some of these works during the engineering hours. So, that is why we seek the understanding of our residents and commuters, that we will need to have early closure during this period to give more time for the upgrading works to be completed.

I want to also assure Mr Liang that commuter safety is a top priority. That is why we want to plan the renewal works very carefully and to cater for thorough and comprehensive testing. And we will certainly try to do so with minimal impact on the existing BPLRT operations so that the renewed BPLRT system will become even better and the rides will be more reliable, smoother, more comfortable for commuters.

During the early closure, we will also put up information, such as posters, at the affected stations to inform commuters of the service adjustments. And there will be public address announcements in the stations and trains to remind passengers to make alternative travel arrangements, if needed.

To Mr Liang's other question, we will certainly do our best to ensure that the testing and the integration works can proceed smoothly and as planned. And if, touch wood, we were to experience any disruptions during this period, we will certainly do our best to respond quickly and effectively.

The rail operators have in place robust response plans in the event of a service disruption. These include the incident recovery procedures as well as the provision of alternative transportation options, such as free buses, that will serve the journey between the affected stations.

And we will certainly take on board the learning points from past incidents and also when we do exercises and reviews that can help LTA and our operators to be able to make continual improvements to our incident response plans. And this will include the timeliness and clarity of our public announcements in the event of a disruption and also how we can better manage the crowd that will be affected during the disruptions.

Sir, I want to end by saying that while I am unable to give Mr Liang a more definite date at this point in time, the assurance I want to give him is that we will do our best to not delay this further, but we will also want to do it in a thorough manner, for safety and for reliability. And we are grateful to commuters and to residents for their kind understanding and patience during this period because our end outcome is something that I hope will lead to a more reliable, safer and more comfortable ride for our commuters.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, before I begin, I would like to declare that I am the Deputy Executive Secretary of the NTWU.

I thank the Minister for the reply. In the investigations done, was there a root cause analysis done to ensure that there were no systemic issues with the breakdown? And given that there will be new dual-carriage trains coming into the Punggol LRT loop next year, what updates to the maintenance and checks standard operating procedures will be added? And what measures have been taken to ensure that our engineers and station operators are sufficiently trained to ensure that they are safe during repair works?

Mr Speaker, I want to, first, clarify that investigations are still ongoing. So, I cannot quite give a definite answer on what is the root cause. I have explained what we have gathered so far in my main reply. But if we look at the past track record of the BPLRT, the last time we had a similar incident that affected the gears of the wheel assembly was in 2010. So, that was quite some time ago and it has not recurred since.

So, this more recent episode, we will have to look into exactly what was the root cause. But I think it does not suggest that there is something systemic in this particular instance. We will take a look more closely during the investigations.

To Ms Yeo's second question regarding the two-car trains to be added to the Sengkang-Punggol LRT, LTA has procured 25 new two-car trains for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT, with the first new two-car trains arriving in December this year. These trains will undergo rigorous testing and commissioning before they are put into passenger service starting from the second half of 2025.

When all the new trains are delivered, it will double the number of two-car trains in the Sengkang-Punggol LRT fleet, which will allow the Sengkang-Punggol LRT to be operated entirely with two-car trains by mid-2028, increasing passenger capacity to better serve our residents.

Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker, as I have received feedback from Zhenghua residents regarding morning peak hour wait times and also crowd issues, I would like to ask the Minister, with all the upgrades, especially with the signalling system upgrade, how will these actually impact or improve waiting times and overall system capacity as well, especially at downstream stations, such as Senja LRT station?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Chia for raising this question on behalf of his residents. Indeed, I think we are aiming to see how we can do better with the system upgrades and also the train upgrades. With a better signalling system, we can certainly run the trains with a higher frequency and that will then help to cater more capacity for our commuters.

But we have to go through a period of the upgrading works before we are able to arrive at that outcome. So, I want to thank Mr Chia as well for working with us to explain the situation to his residents and also to continue to share the feedback from the residents with LTA.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, I am going to just put a question with regard to the last part of the Minister's reply to the Parliamentary Question which covered the MKBF data as an overall update on some of the breakdowns that have happened over the last few weeks. Just to confirm with the Minister that the one million-threshold for MKBF was set a number of years ago, about five years ago now.

The Minister shared some data of the reliability of certain lines and that reliability figure has obviously gone higher than one million MKBF. Can I confirm whether the Ministry of Transport is considering raising the threshold and, if it does, what would be the reasons why it would do so and whether it is sustainable going forward.

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Singh for asking this question about the MKBF. Indeed, the target of one million was set some years ago, I think by the then-Minister Khaw Boon Wan, as a focus for the One Transport Family to work towards a shared goal. It is also a meaningful indicator because it allows us to then benchmark against the other operators, especially those who are top of class around the world.

So, the one million was chosen because that represents – and I think it is still relevant today – what the best, most reliable operators, like Taipei, Guangzhou and others, have managed to achieve in their system. If we look at it today, I think it is still a relevant and valid target, something that is useful for us to focus on and that is something which we will continue to work towards.

But whether we should raise it further, I think that is something that we have to assess carefully because there is a trade-off between raising MKBF further and what is the cost incurred, which would then ultimately have to be borne by either taxpayers or commuters. So, we will study this carefully.

At the moment, I think that one million is still a relevant and valid target, and that is something that the One Transport Family will work towards, will continue to maintain, to ensure that our system can keep above this one million target.

6 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how does Singapore assess the increasing alignment of ASEAN and Asia Pacific countries with security and economic blocs dominated by major powers; (b) what strategic considerations guide Singapore's approach to alignment with these blocs; (c) how sustainable is Singapore's stance of "not choosing sides" in the current geopolitical landscape; and (d) whether Singapore anticipates the need for closer ties with specific blocs over others to safeguard our interests, while still avoiding overdependence on any one major power.

Mr Speaker, the creation and expansion of the various multilateral groupings, including those driven by the major powers, are not actually a new phenomenon in our region. Groupings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and Five Power Defence Arrangements – each of these has a different and overlapping configuration of members. And in fact, these have been around for many years, decades. More recently, we have also seen the emergence of the Quad, AUKUS and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and of course, even more recently, the expansion of BRICS.

These recent developments, in fact, are part of a response to a transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar world. Consequently, countries are hedging through these different configurations, amidst a more divided and uncertain global environment.

We will keep an open mind on these new constructs and we will continue to watch developments closely, insofar as the impact on Singapore.

Ultimately, our decision on whether or not to join a specific grouping must be carefully considered and must be clearly defined by our national interests. We must be guided by the fundamental objectives of Singapore's foreign policy – and it is worth reiterating what these are.

First, to protect our independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Second, to secure access to essential supplies – food, water, energy – and to keep air and sea lines of communication open for this purpose. Third, to expand economic opportunities for Singaporeans and Singapore companies in order to maintain our relevance to the world and to make a living.

In a more volatile world that is increasingly inimical to the security and survival of small states, like Singapore, we must try to shape global norms by making common cause with as many friends and partners as possible, in order to support multilateralism, the rule of law and, of course, the United Nations (UN) Charter. Singapore does not take sides; but we will uphold principles, even if this means, from time to time, having to say "no" to other states, some of which can be our close partners or even superpowers. This long-standing, consistent and principled approach to foreign policy has served us well and has afforded us the strategic manoeuvring space.

In line with these principles, we have joined, and in fact, played a facilitative role in groupings, such as APEC, IPEF and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership. These diverse groupings have allowed us to expand our economic space and to create more opportunities for Singaporeans.

Singapore is not presently a member of groupings like the Quad or AUKUS or BRICS, but actually, we share excellent ties with the individual members in all these groupings. Many of their members also attend the various ASEAN and international fora where we engage one another and work closely on a wide range of issues. What is important for Singapore is that these new emerging arrangements, especially where they intersect with our region, do not undermine ASEAN centrality, and that these arrangements support an open and inclusive regional architecture and promote a rules-based order based on international law.

In particular, we want ASEAN to continue to play a central convening role and for our region to have the centre of gravity which brings all the key players together to find common ground and to harness ASEAN's full economic potential. The East Asia Summit, for example, allowed ASEAN to play this role for the last two decades and is, in fact, the only platform driven by ASEAN, which brings all the key players in our region together; even when these key players do not necessarily get along.

Singapore has thus been a strong advocate for strengthening collaboration within the East Asia Summit under the framework of the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. And Singapore will continue to be a credible, reliable and predictable partner to all and we will always act in our long-term national interests.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, how sustainable is the Government's stance of not taking sides in an increasingly polarised world, where more and more countries in our region are doing exactly that? How does the Government ensure that Singapore does not become isolated in a world of rival alignments strongly opposed to each other?

Sir, there is a tendency for some countries to dismiss certain international norms and laws, often because they were set by strategic competitors or do not serve their interests. These laws are also unenforceable because we do not have a global policeman. Is the Minister concerned that international law maybe diminishing in reliability as a tool to protect our economic and security interests?

And finally, Sir, the Prime Minister recently said that we have to work harder to strengthen our network of friends and partners, to work with like-minded countries to shape international norms and rules, and to find common ground on issues of shared concerns. Can the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) make it clearer in its outreach to Singaporeans, including new citizens, which these like-minded countries are, in order to build a stronger understanding of Singapore's strategic interests, especially when external actors may be sowing doubt among our population?

Mr Giam has asked how sustainable is this posture that we have always adopted of not taking sides but upholding principles.

I would submit that in fact, this is the most sensible position for Singapore, a multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual city-state and an island in the heart of Southeast Asia, in which all the superpowers, and indeed, middle powers, have a stake. And because of our geography, because of our economic role, we do best when we can engage everyone; not by aiming to take sides or be a vassal state or be a proxy state, which in fact, I think it will be a recipe for disaster and invite the recreation of Southeast Asia as an arena for proxy wars.

So, I will make the point that our current posture is the correct one, is the essential one, given our national circumstances, our geography, our economic and strategic role.

And let me also say with the benefit of some experience that because all the superpowers and regional and middle powers know that Singapore does not aim to take sides, Singapore is always looking for relevance and being constructive, Singapore always calculates things rationally with a long-term horizon and is always an advocate for international law, they also know that therefore, sometimes we will disagree. And when we disagree, it is not because I am taking the side of your opponent or your rival, but we disagree because that contravenes a principle that Singapore holds dear.

And I would say, from my experience, that adopting this posture, in fact, has led to less pressure on us because people know simply hectoring us, pressurising us is not likely to bear fruit, and in fact, it is more likely to make us dig in and hold the line.

I would also say that in order for us to take this position of not taking sides and upholding principles, we need domestic cohesion and consensus, including in this House. Because if foreign powers believe that they can erode our resolve by dividing us, they will. There is no doubt about that. And all the more so, because in fact, all the major civilisations and religions are represented here. So, I am making the point that there needs to be domestic consensus and our domestic politics must stop at the water's edge, that we have been able to do so for 59 years, and the point I am making is that we must continue to do so.

The Member is quite right that as far as global norms are concerned, security is concerned, there is no global policeman. If we were ever to get into a security or military conflict, no one is going to rescue us. We will be on our own. And do not ever believe for a moment in foreign affairs that friendship is a shield, that friendship makes you immune to threats. That is why we continue to have National Service. That is why we continue to spend a significant proportion of our budget on defence. And that is why in a paradoxical way we have no enemies, but we have lots of friends. Because people know that our relationship is not one of dependency, is not one of sycophancy, is not one of acting on other people's behalf. We pay for what we need, we defend our interests and we are united in doing so.

Given that we are getting into a more volatile, complicated and threatening world, this ability to stand on our two feet, united as one people, and with sufficient reserves and the wherewithal, both fiscal and strategic, is all the more crucial.

Finally, the Member asked what are the like-minded countries? And I would say, we make common cause in concentric circles. The most important immediate construct is ASEAN. We are all in Southeast Asia. We all have a common economic agenda. Even at a time when the world is turning negative on trade, in ASEAN, we still believe in lowering barriers, promoting economic integration, facilitating more investments in our infrastructure and preparing us for a digital age when we also need to be sustainable and green. So, ASEAN remains that innermost concentric circle.

Beyond that, it is the dialogue partners of ASEAN. For instance, if you look at the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which again, creates a zone of greater economic integration with China, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and us. Separately, we are also building our ties and our economic ties with another rising middle power called India.

And you would also notice that the Prime Minister and indeed, all Members of Cabinet have had very extensive travel itinerary. This week, the Prime Minister will be first, in Peru for APEC, then he will go across to Brazil for the G20. And in all these fora, we try to find like-minded partners depending on the issue concerned.

Finally, at the UN, we are the convenors of this forum called the "Forum of Small States", which in fact, is the majority of the membership of the UN. And for other small states, they find Singapore to be a dependable, reliable resource. I do not mean a resource just financially, but a resource of thought, leadership, sharing, capability development, human capacity development, teaching a man to catch fish rather than just giving him a fish.

So, I have given a long, extended answer, but I hope Members understand that the posture and the avenues that we have pursued for decades are still fundamentally sound and in fact, all the more relevant, given the current global environment. I thank the Member for his question.

7 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport with the recent increase in oil spill or leak incidents (a) whether a fundamental review is required for oil sighting and alert mechanisms given the local oil and gas industry and Singapore's status as a global bunkering hub; and (b) how should the cost and workload incurred by multi-agencies involved to manage each incident be dealt with.

8 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport in view of the three recent oil spills into Singapore waters (a) what is the impact on our seawater quality and marine ecosystem; and (b) what are the mitigation measures that will be imposed by MPA to prevent and treat further occurrences of an oil spill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 to 9 for oral answer and Question 35 for written answer in today's Order Paper together? These questions pertain to the recent oil spill and leak incidents that occurred on 14 June, 20 October and 28 October this year.

Sorry, Question Nos 7 to 8. My apologies, Mr Speaker. Not Question Nos 7 to 9.

Yes, Question Nos 7 and 8.

My response today will also cover related questions that have been filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for subsequent Sittings, and if the hon Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the underlying causes of the incidents. Allow me to, first, emphasise that the nature and scale of each incident were different and the cause of each incident was unrelated to the others. The 14 June incident, as the Minister for Transport explained in great detail in his Ministerial Statement on 2 July 2024, was due to an allision between a dredger and a bunker tanker at Pasir Panjang Terminal. This led to a sudden discharge of an estimated 400 tonnes of oil into the sea.

The 20 October incident was the result of a leak in Shell's land-based pipeline at Pulau Bukom. This led to an estimated 30 to 40 tonnes of slop, which is a mixture of oil and water, leaking into the sea.

The 28 October incident occurred due to an overflow of bunker fuel in the receiving vessel during a bunkering operation off Changi. This led to an estimated five tonnes of oil overflowing into the sea, which is a much smaller amount compared to the 14 June incident.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Hany Soh asked how our response times to the October incidents compare with our response to the incident in June, and whether the response to the 28 October incident was more efficient than the response to past incidents. Given the very different natures, scales and locations of the three incidents, the time and resources required to monitor, clean up and mitigate the spread of oil from these three incidents were different. It is, therefore, not as useful to compare the response times for these incidents.

Suffice it to say that in each of the three incidents, our Government agencies responded in a coordinated, swift and effective manner. Once they became aware of the incident, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) coordinated with other agencies, such as the National Environment Agency (NEA), National Parks Board (NParks), Public Utilities Board (PUB), Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), Singapore Food Agency (SFA) and JTC to activate resources and capabilities to respond.

For the oil leak and overflow incidents on 20 and 28 October respectively, agencies activated an emergency operations team which implemented precautionary measures to monitor and prevent the further spread of oil. These measures included the activation of craft to spray dispersants, the deployment of current buster systems, the installation of oil absorbent booms to protect our beaches and biodiversity sensitive areas, and the use of drones and satellite capabilities to assist with oil sightings.

For the oil leak on 20 October, Shell activated resources to clean up the leaked slop in the channel between Pulau Bukom and Pulau Bukom Kechil. Clean-up operations were completed on 29 October.

Thanks to the close collaboration and efforts amongst agencies and industry players, we were able to ensure smooth clean-up operations and prevent the further spread of oil in our waters. There have also been no other oil sightings at sea and ashore arising from these incidents. Agencies have since stood down seaward oil response assets and the booms that were earlier deployed.

To Mr Dennis Tan's question about the timeline for the discovery of the oil leak on 20 October, the leak in Shell's pipeline reportedly occurred at about 5.30 am that day. At around 1.00 pm, Shell alerted MPA, which, in turn, alerted NEA shortly after. NEA and MPA are conducting investigations into the incident, including the time taken before Shell notified the agencies. According to the rules, Shell is supposed to inform MPA and NEA as soon as possible when they detected the leak. If there are lapses by Shell, the agencies will take the necessary enforcement actions against the company.

Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Joan Pereira asked about our alert and monitoring systems for such incidents. Once there is a discharge of oil into our waters or land, the responsible parties are required under our legislation to immediately notify MPA and NEA respectively. In our waters, MPA has a surveillance system in place to identify and monitor oil sightings, including regular patrols by MPA patrol craft and close collaboration with other Government agencies, industry partners and ships at sea. Aerial drone flights and satellite imagery may also be deployed when there are reports of oil spills.

Concurrently, MPA also informs agencies to be on standby to deploy resources to prevent further pollution or facilitate clean-up operations for seaward spills. Under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Regulations, oil handling facilities or offshore installations in Singapore are required to have containment booms, oil skimmers and dispersants. If necessary, MPA may ask that these resources be deployed to oil spill incidents to supplement resources from MPA and our contractors.

So, there is a system in place comprising a network of stakeholders and capabilities to detect, monitor and respond to oil spills or leaks into our waters. It is also important that our maritime partners and companies with assets close to shore alert the relevant agencies as quickly as possible once there is an incident so that resources can be mounted to mitigate the impact of the incident.

Mr Dennis Tan and Ms Poh Li San asked about the environmental impact of these three incidents on our marine ecosystem, coastal areas and seawater quality. Thus far, NParks has not observed any immediate impact on our marine and coastal ecosystems and wildlife, and SFA has not observed any immediate impact on fisheries. No oil from the October incidents has landed on any of our recreational beaches. PUB is also monitoring the seawater intakes at its desalination plants and readings remain normal.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for updates on our investigations into the recent incidents. Mr Yip, Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the responsibility for costs and losses incurred.

Following every incident, agencies carry out investigations as to whether any applicable laws have been breached and legal action may be needed to be taken where appropriate. Where agencies and private parties have incurred costs in the incident response or losses from the incident, they may also have civil recourse to recover these. Processes would differ depending on the nature and circumstances of each incident. But allow me to provide some examples from the incident that occurred on 14 June.

Agencies are consolidating their claims for compensation under the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. MPA has also completed its investigations and assessed that key crew members of Vox Maxima, the dredger that allided with the bunker tanker Marine Honour, failed to discharge their duties properly on the day of the incident. Four crew members have just been charged in the State Courts for contraventions under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Court proceedings are ongoing.

As investigations by agencies into the incidents on 20 and 28 October are ongoing, we are unable to share more details at this juncture.

Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the learning points from past oil spill incidents. We conduct regular oil and chemical spill exercises to test our contingency plans with industry partners and agencies and improve our plans to take into account learning points from these exercises and past incidents. This has helped us to strengthen communication and coordination among agencies and with the public. New technologies, such as drones and satellite imagery, have also been incorporated as part of MPA's response to oil spills in our waters.

Separately, the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) is also conducting safety investigations into the incident on 14 June to identify safety lessons with the aim of preventing future transport accidents and incidents. The TSIB investigations are not meant to apportion blame or liability. Upon completion of its investigations, TSIB will publish its investigation report.

Ms Poh Li San, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about measures to prevent the occurrence of oil spills or overflow from bunkering operations into our waters. As a major hub port, it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of oil spills or leaks and we must expect that there will be such incidents from time to time.

A key pillar of our strategy is to ensure our readiness to respond through our regular exercises and a robust contingency plan, which I mentioned earlier. We have also taken steps to enhance the safety of vessels, bunkering operations and industrial facilities to minimise the risk of accidents and oil spills or leaks in Singapore. For example, we have: (a) safety guidelines and random spot checks to ensure that bunkering players follow proper procedure and reduce the risk of oil spills during bunkering operations; (b) ensured mandatory safety training and shipboard drills for vessel crew on incident response as well as inspections for vessels in our port to comply with international conventions; and (c) inspections at industrial facilities to ensure compliance with water pollution control requirements.

We take every oil spill incident seriously and expect companies and individuals involved to play their part and adhere to requirements that are imposed to keep our shores and waters safe from oil spills and leaks. We will hold parties accountable for any lapses or wrongdoings which may surface during the investigations.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Speaker, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I want to ask the Minister of State, given the fact that we do this environmental impact study, will there be a study that will be conducted for every single oil spill and, if so, how long would the monitoring period be?

Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question that Miss Cheryl Chan posed, the answer is yes. After every oil spill, every incident, there will be a study to see what are the lessons that can be drawn and then we look to see how we can improve our plans that are in place as well and also engage the respective stakeholders. And through the cooperation of all the stakeholders, we aim to ensure that we minimise the risk of oil spills. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister of State for Transport", Official Report, 11 November 2024, Vol 95, Issue 145, Correction By Written Statement section.]

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answers. I have two supplementary questions. First, what regular checks are required to be carried out by owners of oil pipelines to ensure the integrity of oil pipelines and how does MPA ensure that these inspections and checks are carried out so that repairs and maintenance can be carried out in advance of oil breakages and leakages?

My second supplementary question is, following MPA's experience of the various oil spills this year, are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil response contractor to all future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?

I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his two supplementary questions. In relation to the first question, I believe the hon Member may be referring to the Shell incident. So, the hon Member would know those pipelines that the Member was referring to are on land; and MPA's responsibility, of course, are in relation to maritime waters. So, in relation to the specific checks, that would be something that NEA would specifically be looking into or, rather, it is part of NEA's area and perhaps this is something that can be taken up with NEA.

But what I could say is that, as far as MPA is concerned, in relation to protecting oil spills into maritime waters, whenever there are such incidents that occur, it would work with these industry players to ensure that the risks are minimised. If it is something that is land-based, they will work with the relevant Government agencies to have a system put in place that protects from land to sea as well.

In relation to the second supplementary question, which Mr Dennis Tan has referred to, it is something about continuing — May I just clarify, he referred to oil response, would that be correct?

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, just to clarify my question: are there any plans to continue to improve the response time of MPA's oil spill response contractor to future incidents of oil spills in our port waters?

I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. We have worked with industry players to develop a robust contingency plan, which we rehearse and refine regularly, including during our inter-agency exercises for oil spills every two years. Our standard operating procedure was tested in these incidents and was effective.

It is important for us to recognise that every oil spill incident is different as there are a variety of external factors, such as tidal and current conditions, the location of the incident and the time of the incident. Some tailoring of our response to each incident will be needed.

In relation to proposals to prepare more equipment in Singapore, locating equipment nearer to the port or requiring bunker vessels to carry out oil spill response equipment, these proposals are carefully being assessed to determine the impact on navigational safety, efficiency and competitiveness of our port.

Singapore, as the hon Member Mr Tan knows, is an island with anchorages along the entire southern coastline. As specialised equipment is required for oil spill response, it may not be practicable to have multiple sets of equipment located close to any potential incident site along the entire coastline. Oil spills may originate from many types of vessels too. So, again, it may not be practical or feasible to require all vessels to carry their own booms as it may be costly. In addition, these vessels would likely be equipped with lightweight booms, which might not be suitable to deal with all types of oil spill incidents.

Currently, the MPA Guardian is equipped with 260 metres of lightweight booms to aid in dealing quickly with small-scale and localised oil spills, such as oil spills during bunkering operations.

We are only at Question No 8 after 65 minutes, so I am going to ask Ms Hazel Poa to move the next question.

9 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government will be checking the structural integrity of all oil pipelines in Singapore's waters; (b) what other measures can be taken to prevent the occurrence of future oil spills in Singapore's waters; and (c) whether any penalties will be imposed on the company responsible for the oil leak on 20 October 2024.

Mr Speaker, in relation to the earlier reply by the Minister of State Murali Pillai on the Parliamentary Questions on the recent oil spill incidents, let me say that for the October 24 oil spill incident, 30 to 40 tonnes of slop, which is a mixture of oil and water, leaked from a pipeline belonging to Shell at Pulau Bukom. Clean-up works have been completed and there have been no oil sightings, both at sea and ashore.

Investigations by the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) into the incident are ongoing. It is an offence under the Environmental Protection and Management Act for any person to discharge any polluting matter into a watercourse.

It is also an offence under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, to discharge any oil or oily mixture into Singapore waters from any place on land or from any apparatus used for transferring oil from or to any ship. Industrial facilities typically conduct regular maintenance and inspections of equipment, including oil pipelines, to reduce the risk of leaks or failure. NEA also conducts regular inspections of facilities with oil pipelines, such as refineries and petrochemical plants, to ensure compliance with environmental pollution standards' control requirements. As part of the investigation, NEA is reviewing the measures that Shell has put in place at their facility and whether additional measures are needed to minimise the risk of oil leaks further.

As an interim measure, NEA has directed Shell to carry out a comprehensive pipeline integrity check across their Bukom plant. As investigations are still ongoing, it is premature to discuss whether and what enforcement measures will be taken. But NEA takes a serious view on the importance of businesses and individuals fulfilling their obligations to protect our environment and we will not hesitate to take enforcement action in accordance with the law against any party found responsible for negligence or wrongdoing.

After it has conducted its investigations, NEA will share relevant learning points with other industrial facilities to review and strengthen their measures and standard operating procedures and to perform checks on their systems, where needed. On the other measures to minimise the risk of oil spills, the Member may refer to the earlier response by the Minister of State for Transport, Mr Murali Pillai, to Parliamentary Questions on the recent oil spill incidents.

Ms Hazel Poa.

I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for her reply. She mentioned that there are regular inspections of the equipment. Can I clarify, what frequency that would be? Secondly, it was announced that researchers will be conducting a 15-month plan to monitor the impact of the 14 June oil spill on biodiversity in the intertidal areas. Will this plan now be extended to cover the recent oil spills in October?

First, let me say, as I have noted earlier in my response, the industrial facilities will typically conduct regular maintenance and inspections of their equipment, including the pipelines, to ensure there are no leaks or failures. In fact, the onus is actually on them to conduct this regular maintenance and checks on their equipment. But NEA also conducts regular checks on these facilities with the oil pipelines, including petrochemical plants and refineries, to ensure that they comply with environmental pollution control requirements to make sure that the measures that they put in place for pollution control is effective. Generally, we will check at the run-off of the discharge points, because if there is oil leak in any facility, the run-off will be contaminated.

How regularly do we check? We do it regularly, through the course of the year. It may depend on the assessment by the agency as to how often they will need to do checks on these facilities.

With regard to the study on the impact of the oil spills, the National Parks Board (NParks) monitors the impact of any oil spill incidents on the marine and coastal ecosystem, as well as on the wildlife. Thus far, for the October incident for instance, NParks has assessed that there has been no immediate impact on the marine and coastal ecosystem as well as the wildlife. I understand that they will continue to monitor this.

10 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) what eligibility criteria will determine access to subsidised Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) consultations under Healthier SG; (b) whether medical certificates issued by TCM practitioners will be accepted; (c) what quality assurance measures will ensure TCM treatments within Healthier SG meet the required standards; and (d) what steps will be taken to boost Healthier SG enrolment among older residents, including through partnerships with TCM practitioners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will also cover the matters raised in the questions by Dr Wan Rizal1 and Mr Yip Hon Weng, which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. I will invite Members to seek clarifications at the end of my answer, if need be. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary for them to proceed with the questions for future Sittings.

Please proceed.

In my speech at the Public Free Clinic Society's 50th Anniversary Charity Dinner, I announced the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) plan to carefully integrate selected Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) interventions into our mainstream Western-centric healthcare system, as we have done for acupuncture for lower back and neck pain. Our effort will focus on two areas: first, for preventive care under Healthier SG; and second, for acute settings in hospitals.

Let me start with preventive care. About 20% of Singapore residents aged 40 and above visit TCM practitioners every year. TCM clinics are hence, useful touch points to engage residents to join Healthier SG and practise good preventive care.

I mentioned in the speech that under Healthier SG, health screening, vaccinations, chronic disease management, being Western medicine interventions, will have to be performed by general practitioners (GPs). Where TCM practitioners can play a useful role is lifestyle changes, given the holistic approach to health in TCM. MOH will consult Western doctors and TCM practitioners on how they can collaborate to care for our residents.

The training and support for TCM practitioners under Healthier SG will depend on the eventual model of collaboration. A fruitful collaboration should lead to an increased uptake of preventive care, such as screenings and vaccinations, as well as adoption of healthier lifestyles among Singaporeans.

MOH and the TCM Practitioners Board will be launching a voluntary accreditation system to accredit TCM service providers that can participate in Healthier SG collaboratively with Healthier SG clinics. The accreditation will ensure good governance, adherence to established protocols and the maintenance of professional competencies for high quality and safe TCM practice.

At present, under the Employment Act, employers are legally required to recognise medical certificates issued by registered medical or dental practitioners after proper clinical assessment for the purposes of granting paid sick leave. Although TCM practitioners are not registered medical and dental practitioners under the Act, employers have the discretion to also recognise medical certificates issued by them.

Next, is acute hospital settings. Today, only acupuncture for lower back and neck pain are integrated into our public health institutions. There has been much scientific research on TCM and we should review them and explore the possibility of further integration, provided that the interventions are proven to be safe, efficacious and cost effective. If and when we decide to do so in a public hospital setting, proper referral and review protocols will be established, no different from the integration of medical subspecialties that are ongoing.

Mr Giam.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir, in addition to the elderly citizens who are consulting TCM practitioners, anecdotally, I know that not just senior citizens, but also younger Singaporeans, many non-Chinese residents and even competitive athletes are consulting TCM practitioners. So, when will the accreditation framework be in place to identify qualified TCM practitioners within Healthier SG?

Will employers be required to accept medical certificates (MCs) from these accredited practitioners? Because this could assure Singaporeans who prefer using TCM, that their medical choices will be recognised and respected.

Can patients be given more flexibility to combine TCM and Western treatments, especially for chronic conditions, and receive government subsidies or use MediSave for both treatments? This could allow the preventive and lifestyle-focused approach of TCM to complement Western interventions.

Lastly, could MOH facilitate opportunities for TCM practitioners and Western-trained doctors to receive some cross-disciplinary exposure and training in each other's medical principles, as is done in places, like China and Taiwan? This could foster mutual respect, encourage collaboration and strengthen confidence in each other's standards.

I did not realise there are four questions. So, I am now trying to take stock what are they.

The first question is about accreditation, when will it be done? As you know, TCM is a self-regulatory system, so it comes under the TCM Practitioners' Board chaired by Dr Teo Ho Pin. So, they are working very hard. I am afraid I have to give you an answer not different from how Minister Chee gave the answer on Bukit Panjang LRT which is, I think, as soon as possible, hopefully, next year, sometime next year.

I do have to clarify even with the accreditation system, this is an accreditation system under a self-regulatory framework. So, it does not follow that if you are accredited, your MC will be recognised.

Be mindful. We are taking a very practical approach here. All round the world including in China, the regulatory system is a Western-centric one. It is a result of the Renaissance. But TCM, on the other hand, lots of people use it, I agree. I use it myself. But if we say let TCM be regulated under today's healthcare regulatory regime, I think it will wither and die because the Western regulatory system is just not compatible with TCM.

Therefore, we take a practical approach to say "take you out of the system and you self-regulate" and then you can thrive. But it comes with some catches. Once you are outside of the mainstream system, there is no subsidy, there is no MediSave, your MCs are not recognised. So, it is part of the arrangement. It comes as a package. You are allowed self-regulation, you can thrive, you can serve a quarter of Singaporeans but some of these privileges, including recognition of MCs, do not follow.

But what I mentioned earlier, if there is accreditation and people are confident of TCM practitioners' assessment, employers are free to exercise discretion to recognise them. These are the Member's first two questions.

The next two questions are what I had addressed in my speech recently and in my reply. I will just reiterate the key points. There is now a lot of research, scientific research on TCM. We will review them. And some of them, I think if we can study them and ensure that they are safe, efficacious, cost-efficient, we can start to integrate them into our mainstream regulatory system, mainstream healthcare system, including the management of chronic disease. It is possible.

As we do so, it is quite an involved process. For every disease, we need to bring TCM and Western doctors together, work out referral protocols. They cannot contradict. We must make sure it is well integrated and we can implement them; and when we implement them, if they are integrated just like acupuncture for lower back and neck pain, it is and it can be subsidised. It is subject to MediSave withdrawal.

So, we are taking this step by step and as we do so, I think they will also learn from each other, which is a good thing.

11 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the root causes of the 8 October 2024 disruption on Singtel's telecommunications network; (b) whether existing business continuity and redundancy requirements for key telcos are adequate for instances where the telco supports hotlines and landline networks for essential services including SCDF, SPF, public healthcare institutions and major banks; and (c) what will be done to ensure key telcos provide adequate redundancy and back-ups amidst increasing cyber threats.

12 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the lessons learned from the disruption of Singtel's telecommunications network on 8 October 2024 to ensure that robust redundancies and back-up systems are in place to minimise the impact on critical essential services from such disruptions; (b) what caused the fault and whether penalties will be imposed on Singtel; and (c) whether there will be an independent inquiry to identify vulnerabilities and prevent future incidents.

13 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what were the causes of the 8 October 2024 disruption on Singtel's telecommunications network; (b) whether Singtel is required to have operational continuity plans in place to address disruptions and, if so, why did it not work; and (c) how will the Ministry ensure that all telecommunications service providers achieve operational continuity and resilience so that essential services are unaffected at all times.

14 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with regard to the disruptions to essential services caused by SingTel's outage on 8 October 2024 (a) how has businesses and the public been impacted; and (b) whether the contingency plans have been effective in mitigating the impact.

15 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the estimated number of calls to 995 and 999 that have been impacted by the Singtel landline outage on 8 October 2024; and (b) what penalties, if any, have been imposed by IMDA on Singtel for this outage.

16 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the outcome of the investigation into the disruption of calls to emergency services hotlines that occurred on 8 October 2024; and (b) what actions will be taken to prevent such disruptions from happening again.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 11 to 16 on today's Order Paper, as well as written Question No 23 on today's Order Paper filed by Ms See Jinli Jean together, as they relate to the same incident.

Please proceed.

Sir, on 8 October 2024, Singtel's fixed line voice service faced intermittent service disruption. This affected some residential and corporate users, including Government emergency phone lines such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) 995 and the Singapore Police Force's (SPF's) 999 lines, and customer service lines for some Government agencies, healthcare organisations and companies. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Health (MOH) will be responding to queries on the service impact on their respective sectors arising from the incident.

During the disruption, it is estimated that half of the calls could still be connected. All services were progressively restored over a four-hour time period from the start of the incident.

The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) takes a serious view of this incident and is investigating the cause of this disruption and whether Singtel's incident response was adequate. Preliminary findings suggest that there was a technical issue which affected the proper functioning of a network component in one of the two systems supporting Singtel's fixed line voice service. The two systems, located in separate telephone exchanges, are designed to immediately take over the full load of the other system when one system malfunctions. However, in this instance, the failover did not happen seamlessly, which caused the intermittent service disruption. There is no evidence to suggest that the incident was related to a sabotage or cyber-attack. IMDA is continuing its investigations.

The telecommunication network in Singapore is a key infrastructure that supports our nation's connectivity needs and requirements. IMDA holds key service providers, like Singtel, to high service standards and requires them to conduct regular audits on their network and infrastructure. This includes ensuring the security of network design, redundancy measures and business continuity plans. Service providers must also ensure that their networks are resilient against disruptions.

IMDA will not hesitate to take strong action under the Telecommunication Act, including imposing financial penalties, should any lapses be identified. IMDA is working with MHA, SCDF and SPF to conduct a comprehensive review on the availability of our emergency hotlines when disruptions occurred.

Dr Tan.

Mr Speaker, I thank Senior Minister of State for his answer. Let me declare first, there was a fire at my Clementi resident's home on the morning of that day, 8 October 2024. Neighbours called 995, SCDF responded. One resident was trapped in the flat. SCDF saved his life. I visited the site later, met with residents who recognised the importance of immediate 995 availability. Had the same fire happened during the outage, if emergency services were delayed, the outcome might have been different.

Can I ask Senior Minister of State two follow-up questions?

Firstly, for landlines which supply critical essential life-and-death situation services, are the telecom companies (telcos) required by IMDA to take the very highest level of reliability, because minutes can make the difference between life and death?

Second, across the whole of Government, in our crisis and scenarios planning, is there room to be even bolder in testing our assumptions and our imagination? For example, has the scenario of a single telco failure been modelled and gamed in scenario planning and red team planning? If not, why not? And if that scenario had been considered before, why was it that a critical landline like 995 or 999 not better protected from a single telco failure becoming a broader interruption to service?

Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his three questions.

The landlines are regulated at the system level. So, Singtel is a key service provider, as there are the other telcos. This is a very important infrastructure. They are regulated and are required to provide a very high level of service reliability.

Dr Tan was asking from the perspective then of the 995 line or 999 line – and there, they have a sectoral requirement for communications in general which is not just only about a single telco.

I will have to leave MOH and MHA to answer the specifics for 999 and 995 lines. But the reality is that the landlines are not the only channel of communications. I think it was SCDF and SPF who put out a public notice about other alternative means for the public to contact them. And I will leave MHA and SCDF to answer that question.

So, from IMDA's perspective, we look at the system as a whole and, indeed, Singtel is held to a very high level of reliability through our regulatory framework.

Dr Tan also asked about whole-of-Government crisis planning and we, indeed, do model, red team and think through a number of scenarios, including what happens if our telecommunications infrastructure is affected. There is a certain level of redundancy required within a given network at the level of various points that they have and the infrastructure they have. There is internal redundancy that is required and internal resilience that is required. But, then again, across our nation we have resilience by having more than one network. So, indeed, we do model and red team a number of different scenarios.

Sir, as I said, I will leave the MHA to answer about the specifics of the 995 and 999 lines.

Minister of State Sun.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I will just add to what Senior Minister of State Janil has just shared.

When the SCDF and SPF learned of the technical difficulties faced by some callers, the public was informed to contact SCDF via SMS 70995 and SPF via SMS 70999. They could also report incidents via the SGSecure app.

The SCDF and SPF are conducting a comprehensive review with IMDA to evaluate additional resiliency measures including the feasibility of telco diversity for our emergency hotlines.

Just to also add, arising from that incident, there was no feedback from the public on SCDF and SPF's failure to respond to any urgent or life-threatening incident.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State and Minister of State for their replies.

Incidents like this can affect public trust in telecommunications as a reliable service. So, in assessing future response strategies, is the Ministry considering any initiatives to improve public awareness or preparedness in such outrages?

For example, I think earlier there was mention about these alternative lines. Are there plans to better educate the public on these alternative ways to assess emergency services if similar outrages affect these public channels in the future?

Sir, the work of engaging the public and educating the public on responses to crises, whether of a personal nature or a social nature, continues. We know we have a number of initiatives including, for example, Emergency Preparedness Days, we do table-top exercises around, for example, incidents that can affect our social harmony, including those involving in race and religion. A key component of all of these is, indeed, the act of communicating: how is it that we make sure that we have access to reliable information, we are able to connect with appropriate services and disseminate the information out.

So, the very short answer to Mr Yip's question is yes, and as he is aware, we are doing many of these things already, but we will continue to learn from every single incident. So, as I have noted, we are conducting a review. As Minister of State Sun has noted, MHA and IMDA are working very closely on the review of this particular incident. If there are lessons that we can extract, we will then engage with some of our efforts around public education and do that better; and it is certainly something that we will do.

Last supplementary question. Ms Poa.

I have a supplementary question for Minister of State Sun. How many people use the alternative SMS numbers 70999 and 70995 to contact the emergency services? And are other plans to raise awareness of these alternatives?

I thank the Member for the question. I do not have the specific numbers that she requested for as the Parliamentary Question (PQ) was originally directed at the Ministry of Digital Development and Information. I will come back to her if the Member were to file a separate PQ on this.

But specifically, on her comment as to the publicity around the SMS numbers, the numbers are not new. The numbers have been around for some time. There have been marketing efforts. Every time when we go out and we tell members of the public in times of emergency you can call the hotlines, we also append the SMS numbers. But I think, arising from this incident, we will be even more enthusiastic about putting out the numbers when it comes to the SMS numbers.

Order. End of Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Minister for Law.

[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.]

[(proc text) "to amend the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai) on behalf of the Minister for Law, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend certain Acts to provide for an authoritative electronic Gazette and authoritative electronic versions of revised editions of legislation, to abolish the use of the Gazette as an instrument of appointment and for related purposes", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) for the Minister for Digital Development and Information, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Customs Act 1960", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Chee Hong Tat), read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to establish the Communicable Diseases Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Minister for Health, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Road Traffic Act 1961 and the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, and to repeal the School Crossing Patrols Act 1955", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to protect persons from scams conducted remotely by empowering specified officers to issue restriction orders to banks in Singapore prohibiting certain bank transactions and the grant and use of credit facilities temporarily", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament and to be printed. (proc text)]

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill amends the Act to implement some tax incentive changes that were introduced in Budget 2024. There are three sets of legislative changes contained in the Bill.

The first set of amendments introduces an additional concessionary tax rate tier of 15% for the Development and Expansion Incentive (DEI). This DEI scheme, which was introduced in 1997, is intended to encourage companies to grow capabilities and conduct new or expanded activities in Singapore. It currently offers two concessionary tax rate tiers of 5% and 10%.

Clause 2 introduces a new concessionary tax rate tier of 15% under the DEI and provides for other features of the DEI to be applied to the new 15% tax rate tier. This arises from our periodic review to ensure that our tax incentives remain relevant to companies with different circumstances and needs. For instance, a company affected by the global minimum effective tax rate of 15% might find the new 15% tax rate tier sufficient for its needs.

The second set of amendments expands the scope of companies eligible for a DEI award tenure of up to 40 years to include non-headquarter service companies. Today, this feature is only available to headquarter companies. The inclusion of non-headquarter service companies will provide flexibility for our economic agencies to support deserving companies that make long-term plans to develop capabilities and improve their service offerings from Singapore. Some examples of companies that could benefit from this expansion are those that provide payment technologies and solutions or artificial intelligence (AI) solutions and aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul services.

Then, clause 3 expands the scope of companies eligible for a DEI award tenure of up to 40 years and extends this sub-scheme up to 31 December 2028.

Sir, the third set of amendments provides the Government with greater flexibility to respond to the fast-changing economic landscape. Today, adjusting the qualifying project types under the Investment Allowance Scheme requires amending the main EEIA legislation. Clauses 4 to 6 provide for the qualifying project types to be introduced, updated or removed via subsidiary legislation. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the last Sitting in October, Members on both sides of the House supported the need for us to enhance our investment toolkit as we implement the minimum effective corporate tax we have committed to under Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0.

The multilateral commitment to impose a 15% floor on effective tax rates for large multinational enterprises (MNEs), groups with annual group revenue of $750 million or more in at least two of the four preceding financial years, will restrict tax competition and reshape the manner in which countries will have to compete for foreign direct investment (FDI), and the jobs and stimulus that come with FDI. One of the two main changes in the amendment Bill relates to the DEI.

The DEI allows businesses engaging in high value-added goods or services to apply for a certificate entitling them to a concessionary tax rate for the income from one or more qualifying activities stated in the certificate. Currently, the concessionary tax rates on qualifying income may be 5% or 10%.

May I ask the Minister what are the criteria applied to determine whether a business will be granted a 5% or 10% concessionary tax rate in respect of its qualifying activity? What number and proportion of applications under the DEI have been granted a 5% concessionary tax rate and what number and proportion of applications have been granted a 10% concessionary tax rate?

The amendment Bill will also introduce a new tier where a 15% concessionary tax rate can be granted in the certificate. Is this change in light of the 15% floor on minimum effective tax rates under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0? If so, am I correct to understand that the entities belonging to large MNE groups caught under Pillar Two will no longer be granted 5% or 10% concessionary tax rates under the DEI going forward? And what is the number and percentage of successful DEI applicants that such entities account for?

Considering that a 15% concessionary tax rate, even putting aside the prescribed 0.5% step-up during the tax relief period, is not too far from our statutory corporate income tax rate of 17%, is it necessary to create this new tier, as opposed to simply excluding all entities caught by Pillar Two from the DEI?

On the flip side, does that mean that applicants who are not entities caught under Pillar Two, such as small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and smaller MNEs, can still expect to be granted the 5% and 10% concessionary tax rates as a norm?

Mr Speaker, the amendment Bill will also extend the DEI for another five years until the end of December 2028. May I ask also the Minister, what metrics has the Government used to measure the efficacy of the DEI relative to the costs to the Government over the two years? And how much corporate tax have we effectively forgone from corporates through the DEI?

The other main change under this amendment Bill relates to the Investment Allowance Scheme, under which businesses can enjoy a tax exemption of up to 100% of fixed capital expenditure incurred. While the qualifying fixed capital expenditure has so far been defined by reference to clearly circumscribed types of projects under the principal Act, the amendment Bill now seeks to add a sweep-up category of any project and related capital expenditure as may be prescribed. May I ask the Minister also, what is the intent of adding such a sweep-up category now when it was not necessary before?

What is the amount of capital expenditure investment allowance that has been granted thus far and how are they broken down by project type and by expenditure categories? Will there be a broader exercise to review the list of qualifying project types against our strategic national priorities today, such as our green economy and the push to make it more AI- and data-centric?

Mr Speaker, beyond the specific tweaks contemplated in this amendment Bill, I wonder if we are due to relook our whole investment attraction toolkit in the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967 as a whole, given the significant change in landscape brought about by the Multinational Enterprise and Minimum Tax Act passed last month.

From time to time, we have been amending and tweaking the Act to modify, add or remove the various incentives led by our agencies such as the Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore. However, with Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0, there is now much less room for below-the-line tax incentives such as concessionary tax rates or deductions that potentially reduces a company's effective tax rate.

This is not even taking into account the potential impact of Pillar One, which has not been implemented yet. From a more macro level, how should we look to redesign our investment incentives and toolkit in this post-BEPS 2.0 world? Given the involvement of various different Ministries and agencies, who would take the lead in this regard?

I would be grateful for the Minister's insights on how we are going to do this and to assure Singaporeans that we will still be able to attract good companies to anchor themselves in Singapore and create good jobs and flow-on opportunities as a result. Instead of a piecemeal adaptation of the Act, should we expect an overhaul in the form of a new, consolidated Act in the near future?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is well accepted that to secure our future in the world, we must continue to maintain Singapore's advantages in having a stable political climate, reliable infrastructure, strong legal framework and a highly educated workforce. But in business, you ultimately cannot ignore the dollars and cents. It is imperative that we navigate how to give businesses the right monetary incentives while remaining true to our international commitments. Notwithstanding the clarification sought, I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Sir, this Bill is a reprise of the theme of making our corporate tax environment more competitive in the aftermath of the roll-out of BEPS 2.0, which was debated last month in Parliament. I spoke on the joint debate on the Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill and associated Income Tax (Amendment) Bill then, as did my Sengkang teammate, Louis Chua. But I will offer some additional thoughts here. In particular, I will speak about the nature of incentives for corporations and more generally, about the principle of effective taxes on businesses.

The overarching economic objective of incentives offered via tax breaks is to encourage firms to expand their investments and scale up their operations. In Singapore, this is targeted at high value-added products and services, and the pathway begins with, initially, schemes such as the Pioneer Certificate Incentive or Start-Up Tax Exemptions, which offer a tax holiday of three to five years.

When this expires, it may be followed by the DEI, which grants a concessionary tax rate of between 5% and 15%, at least today, based on earnings that exceed the average of the prior three years. Schemes such as these have allowed Singapore to keep its effective tax rates (ETRs) relatively competitive.

The rates that companies actually pay, rather than what on the face they owe, of course, are different, and in the case of the statutory tax rate, it has been in place at the 17% rate since 2010. Businesses, on average, however, paid less than a third of that: 5.1% in that year and an even lower 4.3% in 2019.

This need not be a bad thing per se. Economists know that low taxes on capital promotes investment from both domestic and foreign sources, which, in turn, can drive growth. But it is worth reflecting a little on why we accept this trade-off. After all, we do not willy-nilly grant tax relief to income on labour or land, believing that workers and landowners, rich and poor, should pay their fair share, at least in paying for the public goods that we all enjoy.

Here, at least, we must be convinced that such tax reliefs generate benefits of additional investment that will lead to new jobs or create new competitive industries or yield greater opportunities for other companies that exceed the costs of the forgone tax revenue, which could have been directed to myriad other purposes.

Whether these tax rates do so, however, is far from established. To be fair, the Government does require that a certain number of jobs be created as qualifying conditions for these schemes, but it is not known whether these jobs would have been created anyway. Nor do we know if, in the absence of these incentives, there may have been some gaming of the criteria with temporary or ghost positions created to meet the conditions, only to be extinguished thereafter.

I would be curious to know if the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), or Ministry of Finance (MOF) for that matter, has ever conducted rigorous studies that show how low ETRs are causally linked to job creation or spillover effects and, if so, if they would be willing to share them with this House and the public.

Sir, regardless of what one thinks about the efficacy of keeping effective taxes low, the reality is that the global roll-out of BEPS 2.0 threatens to upend this comfortable arrangement, at least for larger corporates here. New legislation being passed around the world, such as our own Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill just passed last month, will now allow top-up taxes to be levied by other jurisdictions, should they view our effective taxes as unjustifiably low. The stipulations of BEPS, of course, only apply to the largest MNEs. This offers some leeway for us to marginally improve the corporate tax environment for the corporations that are not among the largest. This is where the present Bill plays an important role. Still, in my view, some aspects merit deeper questioning.

First, the amendments to section 22 propose to limit the favourable tax treatment to five years, through to the end of 2028. This sort of built-in deadlines to tax holidays, often referred to as sunset clauses, are now standard fare in public policy surrounding corporate tax incentives.

Indeed, even special economic zones, the traditional preserve of tax freedom worldwide, have now begun to routinely incorporate sunset provisions. However, it is crucial that sunset clauses not be prolonged indefinitely, because doing so could give rise to opportunities for politicking and quid pro quo rent-seeking, as firms lobby for extensions of special treatment.

I will note that in the Bill, in clause 2J, it seems to suggest that DEIs have been in place since 2012. It will be useful for this House to understand if there might yet again be an extension of the DEI for qualifying firms, or if the Government will, indeed, commit to adhering to the 2028 date as a genuine sunset.

Second, the proposed amendments to section 41 include, under the definition of fixed capital expenditure, in Part 4A2, the "acquisition of know-how or patent rights". While I understand the motivation behind why one might wish to include such expenses as part of fixed capital, the immediate concern is that this could be used as a loophole to creatively transfer existing intangible assets from one corporate entity to another as a means of reducing taxable income.

This sort of potential abuse in transfer pricing was, after all, one of the motivating drivers of the BEPS project to begin with. It would be ironic if our laws inadvertently provided yet another reason for countries to accuse us of seeking a role as a tax haven, albeit on the smaller scale than the MNEs covered by BEPS.

Third, I observe that there is a distinctive treatment of the conditions associated with accessing concessionary tax rates when it comes to manufacturing versus services, at least as documented in the existing DEI literature. For example, to qualify for a tax rate of 5% in the former, a firm must expend an additional $13 million in fixed asset investment and employ an additional 30 skilled employees by the fifth year.

In contrast, while the equivalent qualifying expenditures for the latter group are the same in the fifth year, it adds further requirements that $8 million be invested and 18 skilled employees be hired by the third year. It will be helpful to understand the justification between this disparate treatment of the two sectors.

Mr Speaker, the end result of this Bill will be, I believe, a better lock on the balance of taxation between the ETRs paid by our largest companies relative to our smaller ones. To be clear, the Minister for Finance had, in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by my hon friend, Louis Chua, previously stated that the ETR for SMEs over the past decade runs between 4% and 5%, while that for larger corporations amounted to between 10% and 11%.

While one may take issue with the precise way that this calculation is made, my sense is that the combination of BEPS-related stipulations embedded in last month's Bills, alongside the Bill that we are debating today, will go a significant way towards redressing any residual bias in favour of granting large corporations excessively generous tax relief.

This is welcome because, as I shared last month, we really should be weaning ourselves off a growth model that is excessively reliant on foreign capitals and MNEs and moving towards one that is conducive to entrepreneurship and supporting the development of homegrown SMEs as much as possible.

After all, MNEs benefit disproportionately more than SMEs from the public goods provided by the taxpayer, our favourable business environment, safe domestic market for skilled labour and stable political climate and have the necessary resources to contribute back towards sustaining the system that they have benefited so much from. We need not fear making these companies pay their fair share, given how their location decisions are driven primarily by the availability of skilled workers, open economic borders, high quality transportation infrastructure and a sound institutional environment, and only secondarily by low taxes on corporate income.

By the same token, we need to help our small firms which are struggling under the burden of high and rising costs, especially as rising rental costs on land snuff out affordable factory facilities and office spaces. And when the high costs of living are eventually transmitted into durable increases in real wages, these firms will also need to manage their ongoing costs of running their businesses amidst a small, cost-conscious domestic consumer market. Tax relief will give them a genuine shot at growing and perhaps flourishing in the long run.

That is an outcome that I am certain all of us in this House would look forward to seeing and for this reason, I support the Bill.

Mr Neil Parekh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. The amendments to the Bill not only align Singapore's tax policies with global trends, but also reinforce our status as a competitive business hub amidst shifting international standards.

As jurisdictions worldwide compete for investments through tax incentives, we must ensure our policies remain competitive and compliant with international norms, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's guidelines fostering both economic resilience and sustainable growth.

Sir, by introducing a new 15% concessionary tax rate and extending the DEI, this Bill strengthens our appeal to high-value investments in advanced manufacturing, AI and green technology. The amendments also encourage foreign investment supporting economic growth through favourable tax incentives for strategic industries, such as finance and logistics.

The amendments support companies involved in regional operations qualifying development projects and capital investments through targeted tax relief. Furthermore, clause 3 of the Bill also extends tax relief periods for eligible projects up to the end of 2028, ensuring sustained support for businesses expanding in Singapore.

I also applaud provisions in the Bill supporting innovation and infrastructure growth with amendments to the capital expenditure allowance which will encourage businesses to invest in new technologies, infrastructure and high-tech industries by widening the scope of eligible activities. In turn, this allows Singapore to position itself as a global leader in high-tech industries.

Also, by streamlining tax relief frameworks, these amendments provide legal clarity and ease of planning, empowering businesses to pursue growth with confidence.

Sir, I have some clarifications for the Minister of State. First, will companies benefiting from existing incentives need to reapply under the new framework or will their current exemptions automatically continue? Second, since BEPS 2.0 primarily targets large multinational enterprises, what specific benefits will SMEs gain from these amended tax incentives and how will they remain competitive in this new environment? Third, under clause 2 of the Bill, are specific thresholds in place for qualifying for the 15% tax rate, particularly for companies managing regional operations? Fourth, how will the new amendments align with Singapore's international tax treaties to prevent double taxation and support cross-border activities? Fifth, what penalties will be imposed for non-compliance with milestone-based relief provisions and will there be an appeals process for this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I fully support this Bill.

Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, previously, I highlighted the need for Singapore to continually refine tax incentive strategies and strengthen non-tax benefits to maintain our competitive advantage amidst evolving global tax trends. This is particularly pressing as the global minimum tax rules take place in various jurisdictions, including Singapore.

The proposed Economic Expansion Incentives Bill introduces enhancements to Singapore's tax framework, specifically targeting the DEI and Investment Allowances for eligible companies. These refinements aim to drive economic growth by supporting business development, innovation and investment, ultimately strengthening resilience and competitiveness in a shifting global landscape.

The Bill introduces an additional 15% concessionary tax rate for certain qualifying income, alongside existing 5% and 10% rates for the DEI. This is applicable to qualifying income derived on or after 1 January 2024.

It is encouraging to see the Government respond very proactively by introducing changes to existing suite of tax incentives to ensure their relevance as part of the overall economic support package to attract foreign investments. I would like to commend Government agencies like the Economic Development Board, which has helpfully published the required economic commitments to be awarded the new 15% concessionary tax rate (CTR) under the DEI. This is useful as it provides certainty to businesses and allows them to plan their operations and apply for the tier of incentive tax rate which is most suitable for their business.

The amendment also allows companies to switch between the 5%, 10% and 15% base rates and their corresponding stepped-up rates, subject to eligibility criteria, thus allowing flexibility to these companies in managing their tax burden over the tax relief period. This flexibility is commendable as it acknowledges the financial volatility that businesses may face. However, I recommend clear guidance be issued as to the process or application timeline for such rate substitutions as it would ensure that the system operates smoothly and avoids potential confusion among businesses.

Tax relief periods for DEI recipients may now be extended up to 31 December 2028, potentially benefiting companies with longer project timelines. I would like to suggest that the Ministry could periodically review these timelines against the evolving economic conditions to ensure that they remain relevant and beneficial.

For the Investment Allowance scheme, or IA, the amendments enable the Minister to prescribe projects in relation to which the IA may be given in regulations. This means that there is greater upfront clarity as to whether a particular project can qualify for the IA. This is welcomed by businesses. However, while broadening the eligibility scope is positive, can the Ministry clarify the timeline and criteria for such inclusions? This will allow companies greater certainty when planning investments in sectors not traditionally supported by investment allowances.

In conclusion, these amendments aim to secure Singapore's attractiveness by providing flexibility of choice in our incentive regimes to cater to companies in different stages of growth and support sustainable business development. By providing flexible and targeted tax incentives, we can continue to attract diverse businesses that contribute to Singapore's economic dynamism. Notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I support the Bill.

Mr Sharael Taha.

Mr Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as, in my professional capacity, I am involved in developing and expanding aerospace and aircraft maintenance, repair and overall capabilities in Singapore.

Singapore's attractiveness for FDIs is underpinned by our robust legal framework, skilled workforce, political stability, excellent transportation system and world-class infrastructure, just to name a few. Our tax incentive frameworks, including the Pioneer Incentive and DEI, give us a competitive edge to attract companies looking to build capabilities globally.

Last month, in this Chamber, during the debate on the Income Tax Bill and Multinational Enterprise (Minimum Tax) Bill, we extensively discussed the increasing global competition to attract investments, the minimum effective tax rates, the importance of continued investments in Singapore and ensuring that MNEs comply with BEPS 2.0 requirements.

This Economic Expansion Incentive Bill further strengthens our investment toolkit by introducing significant enhancements to Singapore's tax incentive framework, something which has also been mentioned by Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Key enhancements include an additional layer of concessionary tax rates aligned with global tax standards introduced by BEPS 2.0; extended tax relief; a revised definition of fixed asset investment; and an expanded scope of qualifying activities under DEI.

First, in clauses 2 and 3, the amendments to section 21 add an additional layer of concessionary tax rates, which is a welcome enhancement. Depending on the structure, companies may not find the current two tax tiers of 5% or 10% useful. Thus, some companies affected by the minimum ETR may still find the 15% rate valuable in developing their capabilities in Singapore.

Second, clause 4 amends sections 41 and 43 on investment allowances, broadening the definition of fixed capital expenditure to support companies developing and expanding capabilities in Singapore. When building new capabilities, the required infrastructure has become increasingly specialised, especially when requirements for particulate control, flatness of building and temperature and humidity regulation are required in the project.

The rising building costs in Singapore, which has increased by over 30% in some cases post-COVID-19, has exacerbated these challenges. Therefore, the inclusion of capital expenditure on structures specially designed for carrying out the project as a qualifying expense is much appreciated.

Expanding the definition of fixed capital expenditure to include the acquisition of know-how or patent rights, can also attract projects where commercialisation or industrialisation builds on acquired intellectual properties (IPs). For example, this will attract companies developing industrialised solutions for additive manufacturing of exotic metals, like titanium, for the medical and aerospace industries or creating quantum computing solutions based on acquired IPs.

Including productive equipment to be used outside of Singapore within the investment framework also reflects the realities of today's supply chains, where value streams often span multiple jurisdictions. This provision allows labour-intensive work in partner countries, while Singapore focuses on higher-value tasks, benefiting our workforce through upskilling and creating high-value jobs. That said, I have several points of clarification.

What criteria will overseas investments need to meet to qualify as allowable fixed capital expenditure? Additionally, what are the asset retention requirements? The Bill also grants the Minister authority to define the list of qualifying business activities. What are the criteria for determining these qualifying activities and how often will this list be reviewed? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Minister of State Alvin Tan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Sharael Taha and, of course, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, for their strong support of the Bill. They spoke about the DEI and Investment Allowance schemes, and on the need for a holistic review of our investment attraction toolkit to ensure Singapore remains attractive to global investors in a post-BEPS world.

Allow me to start, first, with the DEI scheme. The first set of questions relate to the DEI's new 15% concessionary tax rate tier. The questions surround whether we need this when it is not too far from our current corporate income tax rate of 17% or if this responds to the 15% minimum ETR under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 and how will SMEs or the awards of existing in-scope DEI recipients be affected?

Mr Saktiandi Supaat rightly noted that the in-scope MNE groups will be subject to the minimum ETR of 15% under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 and that the difference between the new 15% DEI concessionary tax rate and our statutory corporate income tax rate of 17% is, in fact, narrow. We made these changes as part of our periodic review to ensure our incentives continue to remain relevant.

Notwithstanding the narrow differences in the tax rates, we have received industry feedback, for instance, that a company affected by the global minimum ETR of 15% under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 might find the new 15% tier sufficient for their needs. The new 15% tier may also be useful to other companies, which may only be able to make economic commitments at a level commensurate with this new 15% concessionary tax rate.

Mr Sakthiandi Supaat also asked if SMEs and smaller MNEs could still expect to be granted the DEI of 5% and the 10% concessionary tax rates as a norm. The short answer is yes. The DEI 5% and DEI 10% concessionary tax rate tier will be available to all eligible companies, regardless of their country of origin, the size of the company or whether they are in scope of Pillar Two. This also applies to the new DEI of 15% concessionary tax rate tier.

Mr Neil Parekh asked if companies benefiting from the existing incentives need to re-apply under this new framework. The answer is no. In fact, in line with upholding Singapore's reputation as a trusted and transparent business hub and as a general principle, the Government will not unilaterally amend a company's concessionary tax rate if it continues to meet its incentive outcome.

The second set of questions relate to the use of DEI. What criteria or thresholds are applied to determine whether a business is granted a 5%, 10% or 15% tier, and what are the number and proportion of DEI recipients enjoying the 5% and 10% concessionary tiers?

Our economic philosophy, Mr Speaker, has always been to support all companies that can bring value to Singapore and to have the incentivised companies commit to generating economic contributions to Singapore that are commensurate with the incentive benefit that they enjoy. This is regardless of where they come from, their country of origin or their size.

We systematically assess each application for a new DEI award or the amendment to an existing award considering the merits of each and every case. To be eligible for DEI, the company must engage in high-value-added activities in Singapore, either through a new set-up or if they decide to expand existing activities in Singapore.

Economic agencies will then assess the new or updated project, based on the scale of the project and the projected quantitative and qualitative economic benefits. Quantitative economic benefits include skilled employment, fixed asset investment and total business expenditure committed under the project. Qualitative benefits include the generation of spin-offs for the economy, the quality of jobs created from the project and the commitment to grow capabilities in technology, skillsets and know-how in Singapore.

Based on projected economic commitments by the company, we will then grant the DEI recipient a commensurate concessionary tax rate in respect of its qualifying activities. The take-up of DEI fluctuates from year to year. There is a good mix of both DEI 5% and DEI 10%, with DEI 10% making the bulk of this mix.

Of course, because the new concessionary tax rate tier is new, we will not yet be able to assess the expected take-up rate of this new DEI 15% concessionary tax rate tier. But we are introducing this new tier to continue to anchor new investment commitments amid the tight global competition for investments.

The third set of questions relate to the governance of the DEI awards. Mr Mark Lee suggested having clear guidance on the process or an application timeline for rate substitution to ensure its smooth implementation. In fact, this practice of rate substitution is not new.

Existing DEI recipients can approach economic agencies to discuss any changes in their circumstances and also the impact on their incentive award. For instance, where there are changes in the global business landscape or climate, or if there were shifts in industry trends or corporate restructuring, a company may then need to make changes to their project deliverables. This is over the course of doing business.

This may warrant then a reexamination of the tax incentive and the conditions tied to the tax incentives, which may involve a change in the concessionary tax rate to ensure, again, that the tax benefits remain commensurate with the scale and the impact of the incentivised project. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Mark Lee also mentioned the extension of the DEI scheme until the end of 2028, also a point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned. Mr Mark Lee suggested periodically reviewing the sunset dates to ensure the incentive remains relevant. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the Government measures DEI efficacy and the corporate tax, which we have forgone through DEI. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked about this forgone tax.

The extension of the DEI for another five years to 31 December 2028 is, in fact, in reference to the limited scope of DEI that allows for a DEI tenure of up to 40 years for headquarter and non-headquarter service companies. We are amending the sunset date to align with the rest of the DEI scheme in general, which is already 31 December 2028. So, I would like to assure Members who have asked this question that we review our incentives periodically to ensure that they remain relevant. But this is a point to ensure that these are aligned to the existing 31 December 2028 dates.

Sir, we consider a range of factors when we assess whether to extend an incentive scheme such as DEI. This includes the estimated incremental value-add that the scheme is projected to create and the incremental economic commitments such as skilled employment, fixed asset investments and business expenditure that the supported projects can anchor here in Singapore.

To Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question on corporate tax income "forgone" under DEI, a point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also raised, we consider any tax forgone by the award of the tax incentives to be notional in nature. DEI is not automatically granted to all companies looking to invest in Singapore. Instead, it is offered judiciously, only if our economic agencies assess that the incentive is crucial to land the investment here and that the investment will generate a net benefit for Singapore's economy. In other words, we assess how effective the tax incentive is based on benefits brought forth by the project, for example, the number of good jobs created, and if not for the incentives, whether the investment may land here in the first place.

Mr Neil Parekh asked about penalties that will be imposed for non-compliance with milestone-based relief provisions and if there is an appeals process. I wanted to assure Members that the Government maintains a high bar in terms of the commitments we expect from recipients of these incentives. Where there is a breach of incentive conditions, we will give the company an opportunity to show cause and explain reasons for the breach. And if there are no strong justifications and the intended economic benefits are not realised, we will hold the incentive recipients accountable and not hesitate to either amend or withdraw the incentive, including clawing back the benefits enjoyed.

To Mr Neil Parekh's question on aligning our amendments to Singapore's international tax treaties to prevent double taxation and cross-border activities, I wish to affirm that the proposed amendments do not affect the application of the Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements that Singapore has signed with other countries. Singapore has been and will continue to be committed to fulfilling our international commitments. This trust factor is a key value proposition for companies investing in Singapore.

Let me now move on to questions by Members relating to the Investment Allowance scheme. Mr Sharael Taha sought clarification on the criteria for an overseas investment to qualify as allowable fixed capital expenditure and the asset retention requirements. Typically, the productive equipment that is incentivised under the Investment Allowance scheme is to be used in Singapore. That could be a plant, for example, or productive equipment. The only exceptions to this are space satellite and submarine cable systems, as these need to be obviously deployed outside of Singapore. To qualify for Investment Allowance, the company must hold onto the incentivised equipment for a period of time.

Sir, Mr Mark Lee asked about the timeline and criteria for including a new qualifying project under the Investment Allowance scheme, so companies will have greater certainty when planning investments in sectors not traditionally supported by Investment Allowances.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if we will review the list of qualifying project types against our current strategic national priorities, such as our green economy, data as well as our AI ambitions. Sir, I would like to assure Members that we are periodically reviewing the list of qualifying activities under the Investment Allowance scheme to ensure that these qualifying activities align with our strategic national priorities and are relevant to Singapore's next phase of economic development.

And as Members suggest, given that we have plans to use AI to transform our economy and also our push for a green economy, we are happy and open to consider the Investment Allowance scheme as a potential incentive. MTI will evaluate Members' suggestions more thoroughly. So, I thank Members for their suggestions.

Sir, but when considering the activities we want to continue to qualify for the Investment Allowance scheme or not to include under the scheme, we assess them based on their potential, as I mentioned earlier on for other incentives, to create high economic value-add and positive spin-offs to the rest of the economy. Again, this could be in the form of jobs created or new partnerships with local suppliers.

Sir, Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the rationale to allow the Minister to prescribe categories of qualifying projects now and why it was not necessary before. The short answer is we are doing so to give the Government greater flexibility to respond to the rapidly changing economic landscape by providing for qualifying project types to be introduced, updated or removed via subsidiary legislation. It allows for the Minister to move quicker in a rapidly evolving space.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the amount of capital expenditure investment allowance we have granted thus far and the breakdown by project type and by expenditure categories. Similar to the DEI, the Investment Allowance is offered judiciously and we consider any taxable income forgone by the Investment Allowance award to be notional in nature, as I mentioned earlier on.

Sir, we have awarded the Investment Allowance for a variety of projects and sectors, from manufacturing to specialised engineering and technical services like aircraft maintenance, repair and overhaul. The value of the capital expenditure Investment Allowance that has been awarded is a fraction of the total projected value of investments.

I will now address Members' questions on the need for a holistic review of our investment attraction toolkit to ensure Singapore remains attractive to global investments in a post-BEPS world.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat rightly pointed out that the implementation of Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0 would reduce the effectiveness of certain tax incentives, since MNEs with consolidated annual revenues of at least €750 million will be subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% wherever they operate. Although BEPS 2.0's Pillar Two may reduce the room for tax competition amongst countries, it does not reduce competition for investment. The global economic landscape has become even more competitive, with major economies like the US, Germany and Japan rolling out generous incentives to attract investments.

Therefore, to ensure our incentive schemes remain relevant and competitive, both MTI and MOF have been continuously refreshing our incentive toolkits and updating legislations under our purview as required. The new Refundable Investment Credit scheme, which was debated last month here in Parliament, is one recent example. We have no plans currently to overhaul the EEIA at the moment, but I note the Member's feedback to consider a new consolidated Act.

Let me just look through some other questions.

Sir, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had a question on the sunset clause provision. I think I addressed that already. This is one arrow in our quiver, in our toolkit, to ensure that our incentives have enough levers and to ensure Singapore's continued economic relevance. Having this sunset clause introduces discipline. There is a definite end date. It is a process to ensure that we, as the economic agencies and the Government, will review our incentive schemes periodically. It also sends a message to the businesses to not take for granted that the incentives will continue perpetually. So, I think that is very useful. The alignment to other DEI schemes in general is important for us to do that. It also reduces uncertainty.

The question on the difference in incentives criteria for both manufacturing and services is a good one. Manufacturing, as the Member would know, and services are very different. Our incentive design takes into consideration the competitive landscape we face and the gestation periods of the respective project types.

If you think about manufacturing, a manufacturing company typically takes years to set up a plant, to qualify and to hire relevant workers and also to train their workers for these relevant skills, and then, later on, to ramp up operations. The level of commitment required also recognises, in part, the competition that Singapore faces. That is on manufacturing. And I think, in MTI, we open many of these plants. We know that there is a gestation period and these companies need to hire workers, train them and make sure that the plant is operational. You compare this with the manufacturing sector, for example, to our global headquarters as well as the services sector, the typical project gestation period is much shorter, because you do not need to have those plants. It is not as sticky in that regard. And our incentive requirements must therefore also reflect the differences between manufacturing as well as the services sector.

Finally, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked whether the Minister's ability to add new qualifying categories will encourage companies to abuse the incentives by shifting the assets abroad or around, without generating new economic incrementals or benefits. I want to ensure the Member that the Investment Allowance is given with respect to new substantive projects that our economic agencies have assessed to be in line with our economic priorities. Purely shifting assets around would not pass muster with our robust assessment framework.

Sir, we will continue to do more. Singapore's attractiveness as an investment location does not only depend on tax factors or incentives to anchor investments. The Government will continue to invest in our non-tax, non-incentive advantages such as a highly educated workforce and talent pool, our robust infrastructure, our excellent connectivity, a well-established legal system and a well-developed financial system. These advantages took decades to build and strengthen and are the result of consistent efforts by the Government working alongside businesses and our tripartite partners to create a vibrant and competitive economy for our people.

Sir, I just wanted to take a bigger picture and to share with Members that again, as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned earlier on, the world is becoming more uncertain, the world in becoming more volatile. There has been fragmentation, there has been fractures of what we knew as the trading system, and just because of all of these factors, the global competition for talent, the global competition for investments is heating up, if it is not already at very intense levels.

Singapore is small. We have very limited resources, we have constraints, land, labour, carbon and, for all the strengths that we have – a well-connected financial system, highly educated workforce and the likes – which I mentioned earlier on, these are things that are important strengths and levers that we have.

But, at the same time, we cannot take for granted, because we are small, that MNCs which have a choice to invest their plants or their services or to situate their headquarters anywhere in the world, will choose Singapore. That is why we must be on the forward footing, we must continuously be agile-minded and agile-footed and amend, change, and be flexible with our suite of tools that are available to us to attract these investments into Singapore and to create good jobs for Singaporeans.

With that, Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for this Bill and Sir, I beg to move.

Any clarifications? Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank Minister of State Alvin Tan for his comprehensive responses. Two quick clarifications on my part. The first, if I could verify that the DEI is in fact not automatically granted to any company that commits to meet the qualifying conditions, for example, for the 5% bar, S$13 million additional foreign asset investment and 30 additional skilled workers, but actually is subject to clearance by staff at MTI?

And if so, and if it is possible, to share the success rate of applicants to the DEI in the past or relatedly, how many successful applicants have subsequently experienced termination of the incentive for not meeting the terms of their letter of agreement (LOA) commitments? Or perhaps, if I should file a Parliamentary Question if these numbers are not immediately available?

Sir, I thank Assoc Prof Lim for his questions. For the DEI, as I mentioned, the economic agencies will assess that based on all of the different commitments and it has to be commensurate to those commitments under the qualifying activities.

And again, the whole Bill was meant to ensure flexibility, so that, for example, if there are changes to the external environment, changes to the investment climate, the economic climate, it gives the economic agencies as well as the company itself, scope to negotiate and say, "Well, I am at this tier now, I can do more". Then, you adjust it, commensurate to the incentive.

Or the company can say, "Oh, it's a bit challenging, I need more time". Then, you can tier up as well. So, that flexibility gives companies some certainty and it also allows for economic agencies to work closely with companies to invest in Singapore.

Any more clarifications for Minister of State Alvin Tan? I do not see any.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Alvin Tan]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

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

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

Sir, as this House is well aware, the Government is committed to upholding Singapore's status as an international financial centre and key trading and transhipment hub, built on a clean, robust and credible system. Our system would be undermined if criminals were to abuse our system to carry out illicit activities.

Singapore thus needs to be vigilant. To this end, Singapore has taken a resolute stance against money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. The measures which have been taken include:

adopting the three key pillars of prevention, detection and enforcement, as set out in the report by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Anti-Money Laundering published recently in October 2024. These three strategies are also used to combat terrorism financing and proliferation financing;

continuously reviewing our processes and updating our laws to ensure that they remain effective and in line with international standards. For instance, the Government has passed the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Act 2024, which will enhance the ability of the Government to detect and act against money laundering with enhanced data sharing and strengthened prosecutorial levers; and

supporting global trends to combat money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing. To this end, Singapore has been an active member of the Financial Action Task Force, or FATF for short, since 1992. The FATF sets the international standards for tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing. Singapore has been assessed by the FATF to have a strong legal and institutional framework and we are determined to maintain our good standing.

This Bill is in line with the Government's consistent approach, as it seeks to strengthen our international cooperation regime and framework for trusts. There are two main components to this Bill.

First, Singapore's international criminal cooperation regime will be updated to ensure it remains efficient, effective and in line with international standards. This will enhance our ability to cooperate with other jurisdictions to combat crime. Second, the Trustees Act will be updated to better support Singapore's legal regime by revising the trustees' obligations and imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

I will take hon Members through these two components of the Bill.

First, let me begin with the changes to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, or MACMA for short. Mutual legal assistance is a process where states seek and provide assistance to one another for the purposes of criminal investigations, prosecution and other proceedings.

A strong international cooperation framework is especially vital in our world today, as crime is increasingly transnational in nature. In this regard, it is in our interests to ensure that our laws are updated to allow us to cooperate effectively with other countries to prevent and punish crime.

Mr Speaker, the feedback that we have received from FATF is that our quality of assistance is generally high, often supporting complex investigations and helping to secure convictions. We, however, do not rest on our laurels. The Bill will further improve our processes and capabilities to assist. I will highlight four key amendments that the Bill will make to the MACMA.

First, the Bill will empower our law enforcement authorities to take statements from persons for the purposes of assisting foreign criminal investigations.

Currently, section 21 of the MACMA requires that criminal proceedings have commenced in the foreign country before a witness may be compelled to give evidence to aid in those proceedings. This generally means that prosecution must have been initiated. As such, if the foreign country is still investigating and has yet to commence proceedings, then Singapore would be unable to assist with the taking of evidence under section 21 of the MACMA. In contrast, our domestic authorities are empowered, under our Criminal Procedure Code, to take statements from persons for the purpose of domestic investigations, before the matter reaches our courts. A new section 21A will address this issue to ensure that powers available for domestic authorities are also available for use in response to requests for mutual legal assistance.

Second, with this Bill, Singapore can assist to identify, freeze, seize or confiscate property "intended to be used" in connection with the commission of a foreign offence. This will add to our current powers, which pertain to property "used" in the commission of such offence. This expands the scope of property covered under the MACMA and strengthens our ability to deprive criminals of their property. This is in line with FATF's definition of "criminal property", which covers instrumentalities used and intended for use in money laundering and other offences.

Third, the Bill will clarify when foreign proceedings are deemed concluded for the purposes of enforcement of a foreign confiscation order. While the MACMA already contains examples of when proceedings are considered concluded, such as discontinuance of proceedings or acquittal, the Bill will further clarify that proceedings are concluded when there is no right of appeal following the acquittal, for example, or that all rights of appeal have expired or are exhausted. This clarifies a grey area in determining when proceedings are concluded, such as where the defendant has been acquitted but the foreign state is still pursuing an appeal.

Fourth, Singapore will be able to enforce foreign confiscation orders made by "a competent authority", in addition to such orders made by a Court. A foreign confiscation order is an order made in connection with the foreign offence for the recovery, forfeiture or confiscation of any payment or property. Currently, we can only enforce foreign confiscation orders made in judicial proceedings. However, not all countries follow this system.

A number of jurisdictions, especially those with civil law systems, have confiscation orders which may be issued by an authority other than a Court. There is thus a need to take a broader approach. Recognising confiscation orders made by a "competent authority" will enhance Singapore's ability to deprive criminals of their illicit proceeds.

Mr Speaker, in addition to amending the MACMA, the Bill also covers a couple of amendments to the Extradition Act. We have updated the amendment of "foreign state" to clarify that it is within Singapore's sovereign power to make an extradition request to any territory and not only those listed in the Third Schedule.

The Bill also contains other technical amendments, all intended to improve Singapore's international cooperation regime – to make it clearer, smoother and more efficient. For example, the Bill will allow an overseas document to be deemed, to be authenticated under the MACMA or the Extradition Act, when it is sealed with an official or public seal, or stamped with an official stamp of that country, or of a minister, a department or official of the government of that country. This is in line with our intent, as mentioned earlier, to take into account the varying practices of foreign countries, where processes for sealing or stamping may differ.

Sir, we will continue to review Singapore's international cooperation regime to ensure that our processes remain relevant and effective. As we continue to do so, we will ensure that robust safeguards are in place to ensure that Singapore will only act in meritorious cases.

With that, I conclude the first part of my speech on international criminal cooperation. I now turn to my next part on key changes to the trust regime.

I will first explain the background of how trusts may be misused. I will then detail how our legal regime aims to combat such misuse. I will end by going through the amendments that the Bill seeks to make to bolster our legal regime.

Generally, a trust is created when a person, the settlor, transfers legal title of certain identified property to another person, the trustee. The trustee is obliged to deal with that property for the benefit of another, the beneficiary. Trusts can be used for a wide variety of legitimate purposes, including succession planning, protection of vulnerable persons and charitable giving.

However, trusts can also be misused by criminals. While the trustee is the legal owner of the trust assets, the trust assets are held for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trusts can thus be used to conceal the person who is ultimately entitled to benefit from the asset, particularly when they are used as part of a complex structure.

How do we combat such misuse? As part of our three-pillar framework, we have enacted laws which require gatekeepers of the financial system, such as banks and other financial institutions, to obtain information as part of customer due diligence or CDD checks, thereby detecting and preventing misuse.

Where the customer is a trustee, the CDD checks should also be applied to persons with ownership or control over the trust, such as the settlor and the protector, as well as the beneficiaries, or persons who will benefit from the trust. These CDD checks would include enhanced measures, such as checking on the source of funds for the settlor, in cases of higher money laundering or terrorist financing risks.

For these CDD checks to work and for the banks to be able to obtain the information needed to prevent money laundering, financing of terrorist and proliferation activities, trustees must be required to obtain and hold information about the trust that they administer.

Similarly, if a law enforcement agency is conducting an investigation and wishes to find out more about the source of certain funds, and who the ultimate beneficiary is, their investigations would be facilitated if trustees are required to hold the relevant information. Thus, an obligation on trustees to hold such information complements the gatekeepers' CDD obligations and the powers of investigation of the law enforcement agencies.

The obligations imposed on trustees depends on the type of trust and their risk profile. Some trustees, such as trust companies that are in the business of providing trust services professionally, are licensed and regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). This is to ensure that the trust companies adhere to high standards of integrity, professionalism and business conduct, and observe anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism requirements similar to other financial institutions providing wealth management services.

Trust companies may be involved in administering complex trust structures and dealing with high value assets and transactions, which exposes them to greater risk of being used for money laundering and other financial crimes. Trust companies' obligation to obtain and hold relevant information is found under the Trust Companies Act, the supporting subsidiary legislation and binding Notices issued by the MAS.

The risk profiles of trustees that are not regulated by MAS are normally lower. These lower risk trusts are typically not complex, as setting up a complex structure would typically require the assistance of professionals such as a trust company. To illustrate, a trust set up by an aged parent by transferring assets to a trusted family member to provide for a disabled child would fall under this category. Such trustees' obligations are generally found in the Regulations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. The amendments to the Trustees Act being moved today are primarily to Part 7 of the Trustees Act.

I will now turn to detail each of the key amendments to the Trustees Act: first, the scope of information which the trustees will need to obtain; second, an update to the sanctions for non-compliance with the obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act; and third, on the powers to investigate trustees that breach their obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act.

On the first point of the scope of information. Part 7 of the Trustees Act requires trustees to obtain and hold information on each person who is a "relevant trust party". This includes the settlor, the trustee, the beneficiaries and any person who has any power over the disposition of any property that is subject of the trust.

The amendments to the Trustees Act will expand the scope of the information to be collected. With the amendments, the Trustee will now be required to collect the basic information of the trust. This includes the identifier of the trust, for example, the name of the trust, or its tax reference number. It also includes the trust deed and the place where the trust is administered.

The term "relevant trust party" will be expanded to include the "class of beneficiaries" and "natural persons exercising ultimate effective control over the trust". A "class of beneficiaries" refers to a group of individuals who are not yet known or identified in a trust instrument. One example of a group may be the future descendants of the settlor.

Trustees will likely already have such information. This information will usually be set out in the trust instrument which the trustees would likely have in their possession. The trust instrument is the document setting out the terms of the trust and how the assets of the trust are to be managed or administered for the beneficiaries.

On the second point on sanctions for non-compliance, the Trustees Act currently provides that any contravention of the obligations introduced under Part 7 shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding S$1,000. However, the maximum fines that may be imposed for comparable breaches in other pieces of legislation are higher. In the Accountants Act, as well as other pieces of legislation that this House has passed – the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act and the Business Trusts (Amendment) Act – the maximum fine for similar breaches is S$25,000.

To ensure alignment with the maximum fine for other similar offences and that the sanctions for breaches of obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act are dissuasive and effective, we will update the maximum fine provided for in Part 7 of the Trustees Act to S$25,000.

The amendments also introduce the power of composition. Thus, in appropriate cases, a composition sum of up to one-half of the amount of the maximum fine may be levied in lieu of prosecution.

The third set of amendments will grant a public officer called the Commissioner of Trust Enforcement (CTE) under the Ministry of Law the power to investigate offences under Part 7 of the Trustees Act. Previously, this power lay with the Police. With these amendments, the CTE and any authorised officers he may appoint will be empowered to investigate any breach of the trustees' obligations, introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act.

This transfer of investigative functions from the Police to MinLaw will develop MinLaw's subject matter expertise and allow investigators to more effectively address any breaches of the obligations introduced under Part 7 of the Trustees Act.

Beyond this, the CTE will also be empowered to issue codes of practice, guidelines or standards of performance if and when required. These codes and guidelines or standards, if issued, will help to guide trustees of relevant trusts on how best to comply with their obligations.

Collectively, these amendments will bolster Singapore's national strategy for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism and proliferation financing by preventing trusts from being misused by criminals.

In conclusion, Sir, the Bill will strengthen Singapore's international cooperation regime, bolster its national strategy against money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing, and align itself with international standards. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents another critical step forward in strengthening our enforcement against complex financial crimes. However, the Bill needs examination to ensure we balance effective crime control with the rights of Singaporeans. Today, I would like to raise several clarifications.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have concerns regarding privacy and safety. The proposed changes, particularly those broadening cooperation and permitting statements for foreign criminal probes, raise important questions. How can we ensure that we balance international cooperation with our citizens' fundamental right to privacy? Striking this balance is challenging. We need strong assurances that the privacy rights of Singaporeans will not be compromised.

Additionally, what is the plan for cooperating with non-prescribed foreign countries? While broad cooperation can be beneficial, it must come with reciprocity and robust safeguards. Moreover, how will the Government protect sensitive information shared with foreign authorities, ensuring it is used only for its intended purpose? Can the Minister of State outline these safeguards and explain how they will be enforced?

It is important that residents are informed if and when their information is shared, and that they have avenues for recourse if they believe their rights have been violated.

Cooperation is key to tackling cross-border crime. However, it should not come at the expense of our residents' privacy. I urge the Minister of State to address these concerns to alleviate the worries of Singaporeans and ensure that the right safeguards are in place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point addresses the confidentiality of banking information. The updated regulations permit financial institutions greater access to customer data, which can be a sensitive matter for many residents. What protections are in place for Singaporean and Permanent Resident customers when their financial data is requested by foreign entities? There is considerable variation in data protection standards globally. How can we ensure that our citizens' financial data will be safeguarded, regardless of the requesting country?

Additionally, the Bill must promote transparency. There should be a clear and transparent process for residents to be informed of any data requests involving their accounts. Ideally, they should have the right to contest these requests. Singaporeans place great trust in our financial system. We must not allow unchecked access to customer data by foreign entities to erode that trust.

Residents deserve assurances that their privacy and financial security are protected. Furthermore, as Singapore is recognised as a safe haven for global investments, can the Minister of State confirm that our banks have the authority to refuse financial disclosures if complying would harm their reputations? We need to understand whether they can decline unjust requests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point pertains to property confiscation orders. This is an issue that directly affects Singaporeans with assets or ties overseas. What safeguards exist to protect residents from unjust foreign confiscation orders? Given that foreign legal standards can vary widely, how can Singaporeans contest potentially unfair seizures based on foreign laws? I also propose implementing a cap or stricter criteria for enforcing foreign confiscation orders. Will there be a review process to ensure that foreign orders are sound or even in line with our local laws? This additional layer of protection could prevent disproportionate or unjust seizures originating from other jurisdictions.

Supporting international justice is essential, but we must also safeguard Singaporeans from potentially unjust claims on their property. I urge the Minister of State to address these concerns and confirm that the fundamental property rights of our citizens will not be compromised.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past two years, we have witnessed an alarming rise in money laundering cases, not only globally, but right here in Singapore. I have consistently advocated for stronger measures against financial crime, both inside and outside this House. I appreciate the Government's firm stance demonstrated through recent Bills like the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill and the Corporate Service Providers Bill.

With each of these Bills, I have raised questions in Parliament regarding major financial crimes and our strategies for tackling them. Tightening our laws, collaborating closely with international partners and enhancing due diligence are vital in today's landscape. Staying vigilant and proactive is our only means to ensure Singapore remains a trusted financial hub. Protecting their integrity is paramount.

This is why I am glad this Bill is being tabled. It represents another critical step forward in our enforcement against complex financial crimes. I fully support our fight against cross-border crime. These issues are significant concerns for all Singaporeans, especially as criminals grow increasingly sophisticated. If implemented with care, these amendments will substantially bolster our enforcement efforts.

However, I have raised several clarifications. Firstly, maintaining a balance between international cooperation and privacy, safeguarding customer data held by financial institutions, ensuring protection against unjust foreign confiscation orders and lastly, reinforcing transparency in how residents' data and property are managed in international criminal cases. As we move forward, it is essential to uphold the delicate balance between justice and privacy. I hope the Government will carefully consider my clarifications.

Let us work together to build a system that not only strengthens our defences, but also respects and protects the rights of every Singaporean. Only then we can truly create a secure, resilient and trusted nation. I support the Bill.

Mr Neil Parekh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. The amendments in this Bill aim to bolster Singapore's framework for international cooperation on criminal matters. Sir, earlier this year, this House discussed Ministerial Statements on this matter and subsequent legislation to strengthen our detection of financial crimes and the recovery of ill-gotten gains.

The Bill before us further demonstrates the commitment of the Government and policing authorities to exhaust every effort in combating financial crimes. By aligning with the updated FATF recommendations, the Bill strengthens Singapore's position as a compliant and cooperative jurisdiction in the global fight against financial crimes. This, in turn, can reinforce the country's position as a trusted financial centre, attracting investors and multinational corporations looking for a secure and transparent business environment.

The amendments also enable quicker and more effective cooperation in criminal matters with other nations. Singapore's capacity to support international law enforcement in asset confiscation, extradition and information sharing can make it a key player in global financial crime investigations. Stricter regulations on trustees and asset management enhance Singapore's defense against money laundering, promoting a stable and secure financial system.

However, we must also acknowledge the challenges these changes may bring. Compliance and operational costs are likely to rise, particularly for financial institutions and businesses. These sectors will face increased administrative and regulatory burdens, which could necessitate investment in staffing, technology and legal resources.

Also, the balance between privacy and cooperation is another challenge we must carefully manage. Heightened obligations to share information with foreign authorities may raise privacy concerns, particularly for clients who prioritise confidentiality. While we are committed to international cooperation, we must also ensure that we protect the data privacy of our clients to maintain Singapore's attractiveness as a financial hub.

There is also the issue of international reciprocity. While Singapore is committed to fulfilling international requests for assistance, these amendments will only be effective if there is a reciprocal commitment from other jurisdictions. If other countries fail to uphold their side of the bargain, Singapore could find itself disproportionately bearing the burden of international cooperation.

Finally, we must remain mindful of the impact on smaller financial entities. Smaller firms, particularly those with limited compliance resources, could find it difficult to meet the new standards, leading to a possible consolidation of the market. We must ensure that these changes do not inadvertently push smaller players out of the market, as diversity in our financial ecosystem is essential to the continued growth of our economy.

I have some clarifications for the Minister of State. First, as international cooperation is critical for tackling cross-border crimes, how would Singapore streamline communication and operational procedures with foreign authorities to maintain swift collaboration?

Secondly, it would be helpful to have more details on the Attorney-General's specific powers and responsibilities in transmitting certified evidence to foreign authorities, along with the safeguards for managing sensitive data.

Third, what processes and procedures can be implemented to address potential imbalances if other nations do not reciprocate Singapore's efforts in cooperation and resource allocation?

Fourth, clause 6 refers to providing assistance to non-prescribed foreign countries under certain conditions. I would request clarification on the process the Attorney-General would use to verify compliance guarantees from these countries.

By fostering a transparent and secure financial environment, this Bill can increase confidence among international partners and clients. I believe strengthening guidelines around the handling and transmission of sensitive information will require businesses to adhere more closely to best practices in data security, and help prevent breaches and supporting overall client confidence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications this Bill has my full support.

Minister of State Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, I thank hon Members Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Neil Parekh who spoke in support of the Bill. I commend them for their advocacy to make sure that Singapore has a high bar, preventing it to be a place for financial crime and also, in relation to providing cooperation to other foreign jurisdictions in the fight against financial crime.

I will respond to address the questions that hon Members raised on the Bill, which relate to the topic of mutual legal assistance.

Mr Yip has raised concerns relating to privacy, confidentiality and transparency. I note that the pith of Mr Yip's questions is whether the MACMA and the amendments to it, strike the right balance between these concerns and the need for international cooperation in order to combat crime. These are understandable concerns.

Mr Parekh also raised similar queries, with specific emphasis on the processes and procedures for mutual legal assistance. These are important questions.

When it comes to striking the right balance, we regularly grapple with such considerations when designing laws that confer powers over information and property belonging to private individuals and entities. In the context of mutual legal assistance, it is critical that we do not, and indeed we will not, blindly accede to every request that we receive. I propose to respond in two parts. First, to address the general point about maintaining the right balance, I will broadly explain the existing safeguards set out in the MACMA, which ensures that the right balance is struck between the interests of the private individuals and entities on the one hand, and the demands of justice on the other. Second, I will further address Mr Yip and Mr Parekh's specific queries.

But before turning to the safeguards in the MACMA and responding to the Members' queries, I would like to make a brief aside to address Mr Parekh's point about the compliance and operational costs in the trusts sector.

The amendments to the Trustees Act are unlikely to raise financial and operational costs significantly. As stated earlier, the Trustees Act already imposes obligation on trustees to obtain and hold information on each "relevant trust party". Insofar as the amendments also require the trustees to collect additional information, including the basic information of the trust, this information should be readily available from the existing documentation which the trustee will already have.

Sir, as mentioned in my speech earlier, we will ensure that we have robust safeguards in place to ensure that Singapore acts only in meritorious cases.

Let me elaborate on the safeguards set out in the MACMA. In the first instance, section 19 of the MACMA sets out a list of requirements, such as a description of the offence and the relevant facts, that the foreign country must provide in order to make a request for assistance to Singapore. This ensures that every request will contain the relevant information that would enable the Singapore authorities to carry out a full assessment to determine if assistance can and should be granted in each case.

Next, section 20 of the MACMA sets out several grounds under which assistance must or may be refused. I will highlight a few as examples. For instance, a request must be refused if it relates to the investigation, prosecution or punishment of a person in respect of any conduct which, if it had occurred in Singapore, would not have constituted a Singapore offence. This reflects the requirement of dual criminality, which generally applies to forms of assistance that are coercive in nature, including those seeking to obtain information or confiscate property from persons in Singapore. In other words, if the conduct in question would not have constituted an offence, had it occurred in Singapore, then we will not assist.

Other examples where we must refuse assistance include: (a) where there are substantial grounds for believing that the request was made for the purposes of investigating, prosecuting, punishing or otherwise causing prejudice to a person on account of the person's race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinions; or (b) where the thing requested is of insufficient importance to the investigation or could reasonably be obtained by other means; (c) there is also a general ground for refusal where it is contrary to public interest to provide the assistance sought. These grounds for refusal, and many others that you will find in section 20 of MACMA, will ensure that we only act in meritorious cases.

In addition to assessing whether any ground for refusal under section 20 may apply, under section 41 of MACMA, the Minister acts as a further check to ensure that the taking of any action is in the interests of the sovereignty, security or public order of Singapore.

Our courts act as a final safeguard, including where the request pertains to the obtaining of information or confiscation of property of persons in Singapore.

Under the MACMA, the court has to be satisfied that the relevant legal requirements are met. For instance, to obtain a production order for information in the possession of a financial institution, the court must be satisfied that:

there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has carried on or benefited from a foreign offence;

there are reasonable grounds for believing that the thing is likely to be of substantial value to the criminal matter, and is not subject to legal privilege; and

it is not contrary to public interest for the thing to be produced or that access to it be given.

To summarise, Mr Speaker, Sir, MACMA contains robust safeguards, to ensure that assistance is provided only in meritorious cases, even as we seek to enhance our international criminal cooperation regime.

Sir, I will now deal with the specific queries from Mr Yip and Mr Parekh.

Mr Parekh's first query was how Singapore would streamline communication and operation procedures with foreign authorities.

Amending our laws and regulations would only go so far when interfacing with foreign authorities. Singapore regularly engages with our foreign counterparts, not only bilaterally, but also in multilateral and regional settings such as at FATF, the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Singapore is also a member of informal networks, such as the Southeast Asia Justice Network, or SEAJust, which is a cooperation network that provides an informal platform facilitating direct contact and communication between central authorities for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. As of 2024, there are 22 members to SEAJust, which go beyond those in Southeast Asia, such as Australia, China, France and the United States of America. Such international engagements and networks allow us to share with other countries our respective laws, procedures and practices, including amendments such as those being considered today. This in turn creates a better understanding of each other's requirements and facilitates assistance both ways.

Mr Yip and Mr Parekh asked how we cooperate with non-prescribed foreign countries, which are countries that we do not have a mutual legal assistance treaty with. Based on section 16 of the MACMA, we will require the country to give an undertaking of reciprocity and the same safeguards in the MACMA will apply to its request.

We also keep records of the foreign requests that we receive, including the undertakings that these countries provide. Thus far, we have not encountered a situation where a foreign country has refused to honour its undertakings.

Mr Yip further asked about what recourse is available to persons affected by a foreign request, such as a production order or an application to enforce a foreign confiscation order. For production orders, Mr Yip may wish to note that under our laws, the person required to comply with an order may contest the order. In the case of, for example, bank records to trace the movement of funds, the person or entity would be the bank. As for confiscation orders, section 30 of MACMA provides that the Court must be satisfied that the person affected by the foreign confiscation order would at least have had the opportunity to defend himself in a foreign court.

The Third Schedule of MACMA further provides that the Court is not to exercise its powers to realise property in Singapore unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to persons holding any interest in the property to make representations to the Court. In the same vein, our Bill will also provide that in cases where property is to be handed over to the requesting country, such persons must similarly be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the court.

Mr Speaker, this goes towards striking the right balance between privacy, confidentiality and transparency and our ability to provide international assistance to combat crime, which I have mentioned at the beginning of my reply.

Mr Yip also asked how the Government will ensure that sensitive information will be used only for its intended purpose. In a similar vein, Mr Parekh asked about the Attorney-General's powers and responsibilities in transmitting evidence to foreign authorities, along with safeguards for managing sensitive data.

Under the MACMA, foreign authorities must undertake that the information or thing requested will not be used for a matter other than the criminal matter in respect of which the request was made, except with the consent of the Attorney‑General. The Attorney-General may also request that the thing requested would be returned upon completion of the criminal matter. In the course of assessing the request, the Attorney-General would ensure that the relevant undertakings are provided. If they are not provided, the request would be refused.

Clause 8 of the Bill will give the Attorney-General more options to decide how a thing is to be handled or disposed of. For instance, where it pertains to digital information, the foreign authority may be required to delete the information when it is no longer required for the criminal matter. This provides Singapore with more options and greater control over the management of sensitive data, after it is handed over to the requesting authority.

Mr Yip asked about safeguards that protect residents from unjust foreign confiscation orders and proposed to implement a cap or stricter criteria for enforcing foreign confiscation orders.

I would first clarify that our foreign confiscation order regime would only affect assets located in Singapore and would not apply to assets located overseas. Next, I would reiterate that the MACMA contains robust safeguards, as well as stringent criteria – and I would also highlight that these are in line with international standards. These protect our citizens and our residents from any unjust foreign confiscation orders.

I do not think it would be advisable to introduce a cap on foreign confiscation orders, as this might lead to arbitrary results. Furthermore, FATF recommends that powers that are available to domestic competent authorities should also be available for use in response to requests for mutual legal assistance. In other words, parity is key and it would be difficult to justify why a cap should apply to foreign confiscation orders, especially if this could constrain international efforts against money laundering.

Once again, I thank the hon Members who have spoken and supported the Bill. In summary, this Bill is about strengthening our regime for international cooperation, and our trusts framework. It ensures, in line with our consistent approach for, prevention, detection and enforcement, that Singapore's processes for international cooperation remains relevant and effective, with robust safeguards, and that the misuse of trusts will be curtailed. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move.

Are there any clarifications for Minister of State? I do not see any.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Murali Pillai]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.21 pm until 3.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

MediShield Life, our national health insurance scheme, was launched in 2015 and is an integral part of Singapore's "S+3Ms" healthcare financing framework, comprising subsidies, MediShield Life, MediSave and MediFund. MediShield Life protects all Singaporeans against large healthcare bills for life, regardless of pre-existing health conditions. This ensures that no Singaporean is denied appropriate healthcare due to an inability to pay.

The MediShield Life Scheme Act 2015, or the Act, was enacted in 2015 to support the establishment, governance and administration of MediShield Life. The Act has not been amended since it was passed. Since then, two key developments have taken place, which warrant amendments to the Act.

First, the landscape for healthcare delivery has evolved since MediShield Life's launch in 2015. The centre of gravity for healthcare delivery has been shifting to the outpatient, community and home settings, because not all patients require care in a hospital for their treatment. With this shift, more patients can benefit from easier access to necessary care.

To support this, MediShield Life coverage has been gradually expanded to more types of treatments beyond the acute inpatient setting. For example, in 2020, we expanded MediShield Life to cover inpatient palliative care within community hospitals and inpatient hospices. We are continuing our efforts to do more to support care outside of the acute inpatient setting, in the community and at home.

Last month, the Ministry of Health (MOH) announced that MediShield Life's coverage would be expanded to new outpatient treatments and home-based medical care. One example is the Home Ventilation and Respiratory Support Service (HVRSS), which provides mechanical-assisted ventilation to persons with breathing insufficiency, in the comfort of their homes. We need to amend the Act to allow MediShield Life to cover the increasing number of treatments that are now being delivered beyond the hospital setting as well as new care models that may emerge in the future.

Second, over the last nine years since its launch, the Government has gained more experience in administering MediShield Life. We have identified issues that have limited our ability to administer it effectively and efficiently. A key area to be covered in this regard is premium recovery.

When MediShield Life was made universal in 2015, it became mandatory for all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to pay their premiums and contribute to the national risk pool. This also means that we must recover premiums from those who are able to but evade making payments.

Having had nine years of experience administering this, we have identified areas where the Act needs to be strengthened to better support premium recovery and improve scheme administration. In view of these developments, the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill, or the Bill for short, seeks to amend the Act to achieve three objectives: (a) support expansion of coverage to new models of care; (b) strengthen provisions to support premium recovery efforts; and (c) improve scheme administration. Allow me to elaborate.

Our first objective is to support the expansion of MediShield Life coverage to new models of care received outside the physical premises of healthcare providers. This requires amendments in two areas.

First, we will amend the Act to redefine where treatments or services can be received. Today, section 3(1) of the Act requires the insured to receive treatment or services in an approved medical institution. However, going forward, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 3(1) to enable MediShield Life to cover medical treatment or services received by the insured, as long as it is from an approved medical institution. This means that the scheme will be able to cover care that is received entirely outside the premises of a medical institution and provides flexibility to cover newer care models that may develop in future.

Second, we will set out a clearer and more robust governance framework that allows scoped approvals, and suspensions and revocations of such approvals, of medical institutions in respect of approved medical treatment or services they provide under MediShield Life. This will allow MediShield Life to support patient access to new models of care whilst ensuring appropriate use of MediShield Life Fund monies.

Therefore, clause 4 of the Bill introduces the new sections 3A and 3B which set out the framework for scoped approvals, and suspensions and revocations of such approvals. Under the framework, the Minister for Health can approve providers to be approved medical institutions in respect of specific approved medical treatment or services and/or specific delivery modes for the purposes of MediShield Life.

Additionally, where a "medical institution" has been granted more than one licence under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 to provide "licensable healthcare services", the Minister has the prerogative to approve all, or only one or some of such licensable healthcare services provided by the approved medical institution for the purposes of MediShield Life. We will also introduce provisions to enable the Minister to impose conditions of approval and to suspend or revoke the approvals given.

To support the framework, clause 2(c) of the Bill amends section 2(1) by introducing a new concept of "claimable medical treatment or services". This ensures that the scheme only covers medical treatments or services provided by approved medical institutions according to the scope of their approval. Under the new amendments, the Minister is also empowered to grant approvals to medical institutions.

For example, while HVRSS will be an approved medical service from late 2025 onwards, it does not follow automatically that all providers will be able to make MediShield Life claims for it. MediShield Life will only cover HVRSS where a medical institution has been approved in respect of the service for the purposes of MediShield Life, and if the service is provided in accordance with the conditions of that medical institution's approval.

Taken together, the amendments will allow MediShield Life to be responsive to emerging models of care. It will also enable the Act to be more targeted in its approvals, and suspension and revocation of the approval of providers and their claimable medical treatment or services. This will strengthen the accountability of approved medical institutions and ensure compliance with the claim guidelines for MediShield Life.

Let me move on to the second objective: amending the Act to strengthen our premium recovery efforts. MediShield Life is a universal scheme which relies on collective responsibility through risk-pooling, to provide all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents peace of mind in affording large, unexpected healthcare bills throughout their lives. All policyholders must play their part by paying their premiums. This ensures that MediShield Life can continue to meet its obligations and support those of us who fall ill and need to make a claim.

At the same time, we recognise the need to keep premiums affordable, especially for vulnerable groups. This is why the Government provides strong support in the form of premium subsidies for lower- and middle-income households, Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation subsidies, and additional MediSave top-ups.

We also have a comprehensive set of measures to facilitate the payment of premiums. For example, for those who have missed premium payment due to insufficient MediSave balances, we remind them to top up MediSave and facilitate the process for immediate family members to take over premium payment. For those who need further help with their premiums even after subsidies and MediSave use, and have limited family support, we will assess their eligibility for Additional Premium Support (APS).

However, there are some individuals who do not pay their premiums despite these measures and become defaulters. In such cases, premium recovery and enforcement is needed. Any owed premiums that cannot be recovered will affect the MediShield Life Fund's sustainability and ultimately, affect MediShield Life's ability to meet its claims. If left unrecovered, these debts will have to be shouldered by other policyholders in the form of higher premiums.

A key enabler of this premium recovery process is the service of a demand note. Today, a demand note needs to be served before recovery measures, such as the appointment of an agent to recover outstanding premiums, and the imposition of interest and penalties for late payments can commence. The note may be served by the prescribed recovery bodies under the Act – the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). It notifies defaulters of their owed premiums and of the time by which these must be paid before further measures are taken.

We will amend the Act to recognise the different modes through which demand notes and other documents, are served on a defaulter. At present, demand notes are only deemed served if sent by registered post to a person's residential address provided in accordance with section 31 of the Act or any correspondence address provided by the person under certain prescribed circumstances. This is pursuant to regulations made under the limited scope provided by section 34(2)(k) of the Act.

However, this has impeded the recovery of outstanding premiums, such as in cases where no valid address information on the defaulter is available or service at an overseas address is required. Clause 10 of the Bill inserts the new sections 33A and 33B. The new sections provide how demand notes and other documents permitted or required by or under the Act to be served may be effectively served. With those new sections, section 34(2)(k) of the Act is no longer necessary and will be deleted by clause 11.

This would include serving them through additional modalities such as digital means, which will improve operational efficiency and streamline premium recovery actions for the recovery bodies. For example, a demand note may be served by sending it to an email address of a person where there is deemed consent to such service in accordance with the new section 33B(3)(b).

The Minister is also empowered to make regulations to allow a demand note to be served via an existing electronic service such as CPF Board's "my cpf" portal or IRAS' "myTax Portal" by applying the requirements set out in existing laws regarding these electronic services to the service of demand notes by CPF Board or IRAS respectively.

This facilitates recovery bodies in their recovery efforts, especially in relation to individuals on whom they were previously unable to serve demand notes and documents by registered post.

While we have a strong set of recovery measures to ensure the sustainability of the scheme, we should take a calibrated approach based on the means of defaulters. For example, some defaulters may come from lower-income households with complex circumstances. We should be more empathetic towards such groups of people and provide them a longer time to pay their outstanding premiums. On the other hand, premium recovery should proceed along the normal timelines for those with more means to pay their outstanding premiums, such as individuals from higher-income households.

To support this, clause 9 of the Bill amends section 28 to broaden the scope for access and use of means information to assess whether premium recovery and enforcement measures under Part 3 of the Act should be exercised on premium defaulters with lesser means.

Finally, let me touch on the last objective: amendments to improve the administration of the scheme, which aim to streamline, clarify and strengthen existing processes.

First, we will specify MediShield Life premiums in a manner that is more accessible, such as on MOH's website, instead of legislation. Currently, MediShield Life premiums must be prescribed in regulations. There is scope to enable premium amounts to be more conveniently accessed by Singaporeans as well as to streamline the administrative process by reflecting premium revisions for operational efficiency.

Therefore, going forward, clause 5 will amend section 4 to allow the amount of premiums payable for each insurance period to be specified in a prescribed manner, including a website, with consequential amendments made by clause 11 to section 34(2). This mirrors the practice adopted for CareShield Life, our national long-term care insurance scheme.

Second, we will make clear the date when a person is taken to attain a particular age for the purposes of calculating their MediShield Life premiums. This is achieved through the amendment to section 2(4) of the Act by clause 2(f).

For most Singaporeans, their age is taken to be on their birth anniversary. However, there is a small group of individuals whose birth date and/or month cannot be ascertained. Currently, our practice is to take their birth date to be on the first day of the month in which the individual was born, if their birth date cannot be ascertained; and their birth month to be in January, if their birth month cannot be ascertained. This is not currently set out in legislation. The proposed amendment to section 2(4) will clarify this.

There is another group of individuals who are born on a leap day. For them, MediShield Life starts on 29 February in the year they are born and in subsequent years, their birth anniversary is taken to be on 1 March. Going forward, the birth anniversary for these individuals will be taken to be on 1 March in non-leap years, and on 29 February in leap years. This mirrors the approach taken by CareShield Life today and ensures consistency across our schemes.

This amendment will not impact these individuals' MediShield Life cover or premiums, as there will not be any breaks in their coverage and premiums continue to be calculated based on their age over the insurance period.

Lastly, we will expand the scope of offences arising out of false or misleading information provided under the Act.

Today, section 19 makes it an offence where a person knowingly provides material information which is false or misleading and knowing that the information will be included in a health declaration, means declaration or claim application. However, such information may also impact the payment of benefits under MediShield Life, as well as the disbursement of premium subsidies or APS.

Therefore, the scope of such offences will be expanded to include cases where the information provided may affect the amount of grants, subsidies or benefits to be paid or given to an individual. The amendments by clause 6 to section 19 provide for this.

The amendments will enable us to take a stricter stance against such offenders and ensure the proper payment of claims as well as the disbursement of grants and subsidies, to protect the interest of Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The Act serves as the fundamental legislative framework that enables the implementation and operation of MediShield Life, an important component of our S+3Ms healthcare financing framework. This Bill ensures that coverage of MediShield Life keeps pace with changes to our healthcare landscape whilst allowing the Government to more effectively and efficiently administer the scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Ms Jessica Tan.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With an ageing population and people living longer, healthcare needs and costs are rising. The proposed expansion of MediShield Life coverage and benefits will manage healthcare costs especially for larger bills and make them more affordable for Singaporeans.

The higher claim limits for hospitalisation and inpatient care as well as existing outpatient treatments, the inclusion of new benefits to cover additional outpatient treatments including mental health, community and home-care treatments, and the extension of MediShield Life coverage to new, potentially life-saving therapies that are proven safe, clinically and cost effective such as Cell, Tissue and Gene Therapy Products, recognise and provide for the shifts in healthcare and patient needs especially for larger bills.

I do note that the Minister of State in her speech did share about the fact that these new treatments are only for approved medical institutions and only for the approved scope of these medical institutions. If this is the case, I think it will be also very important that this is clearly communicated to patients when they do seek these treatments, so that we will not have a situation of the assumption that it will be covered and then we have a situation where they are not covered, they are not eligible.

With increasing healthcare cost, these proposed changes are welcomed as it will help patients manage large medical bills. The increase in claims for existing outpatient treatments covered by MediShield Life and the inclusion of additional new patient treatments will hopefully encourage more appropriate and right-siting of care. Currently, some patients do opt for inpatient care at hospitals for treatments that may not require hospitalisation as claims or coverage for these treatments are not covered for outpatient treatments or day surgeries, leading to unnecessary costs and wastage.

When one is ill, being able to afford and have access to appropriate treatment is not only important for the well-being for persons who are ill but also gives peace of mind to the patient and their family members. Thus, having appropriate and sufficient healthcare insurance to handle unexpected or sudden health situations that require surgery or major treatments and hospitalisation will help ensure affordability for all, for treatments and for large bills.

So, while I support the proposed amendments, there are a few points I would like to speak on and seek clarification in my speech today and the focus is on how these amendments may impact the individual. I know that the Bill is meant to handle the specific frameworks for the implementation of MediShield Life, but ultimately, MediShield Life touches lives and touches individuals so I would like to touch on these points.

So, first, on higher deductibles and affordability; second, on more support and guidance on Integrated Shield Plans and decisions on Integrated Shield Plans; third, on pre and post-hospitalisation coverage; and fourth, premium subsidies and MediSave top-ups.

Let me now touch on higher deductibles and affordability. While the proposed amendment includes premium assistance provided to the lower- and middle-income individuals in older age groups, the recommendations do include an increase to inpatient deductibles and the introduction of a new outpatient deductible of $500. This may be financially challenging for some. The increase in MediSave withdrawal limits will help patients pay for the increase in deductibles. Deductibles are an important feature of MediShield Life to prevent overuse or overconsumption of healthcare spending and to ensure that coverage of MediShield Life is for specifically larger medical bills. Before patients can claim for MediShield Life payouts, they need to pay deductibles. So, while deductibles are an important feature to manage, as I said, the overuse and can be paid with MediSave, the proposed increase for inpatient deductibles and the introduction of a new outpatient deductible may place a financial strain for some, for example, for those who are unemployed and have no income or low balances in their MediSave. If faced with such circumstances, what help can they seek?

On pre- and post-hospitalisation coverage, in the consideration for expansion of coverage for MediShield Life to cover large medical bills, was consideration given to include pre and post-hospitalisation treatments prior to the need for inpatient services? Maybe I should have asked this question of the Review Committee rather than of the Minister of State. But the reason why I am asking for this is because usually, most patients, prior to admission will require several consultations and scans or tests to be done to ascertain their condition and early-stage treatments which are usually outpatient. After discharge from hospitals, they may also require recovery treatments, and these can add up and sometimes cost more than a hospital stay.

I understand that there is always trade-offs and balances of what gets covered and premium affordability. But given the intent of MediShield Life to ensure affordability for larger medical treatments, can there be an option in MediShield Life for those who require coverage for pre and post-hospitalisation treatment to pay an additional premium for the coverage. While there could be adverse selection and this will increase premium payable for those who do select the premium, it will be more affordable than having to make out-of-pocket payment for pre and post hospitalisation charges.

I know this is a very difficult decision because at the end of the day, it is about over-consumption as well as coverage, but I hope that some serious consideration can be given to that, especially now that more treatments are outpatient, moving towards outpatient treatments given the improvements in medical technology.

I have also received feedback from our residents – and it was also reported in Forum of The Straits Times in August this year – that getting appointments to see specialists at public hospitals may take time, sometimes as long as a few months. For some who have an Integrated Shield Plan (IP) that covers pre- and post-hospitalisation charges, the reason they have cited for having IPs to enable them to be able to get an earlier appointment to consult a specialist either at a public hospital or private hospital but usually they do it at the public hospital and the feedback is that as a non-subsidised patient, it is easier to get an earlier appointment to see a specialist at the public hospital and to have the appropriate tests and diagnosis.

So, apart from coverage of medical expenses, on the other side is the capacity of specialist consultation and tests at public hospitals and this will need to also be balanced and reviewed. I know this is again not part of the Bill, but at the end of the day, when you look at MediShield Life and you look at coverage, it is about treatment that is received and the institutions where they are received – and our public hospitals are held in very high regard for the quality of their services.

Let me talk about more support and guidance on IPs.

With the increase in the claim limits and expansion of coverage and benefits of MediShield Life, will MOH consider providing more support and advice to Singaporeans on the appropriate coverage for healthcare insurance? And why I am saying this is because it was reported that about half of patients with IPs for private hospitals still end up using subsidised care at public hospitals. So, what it means is that they are paying for healthcare insurance that they do not even use. This is costly and unnecessary expense and put financial strain especially for seniors as IP premiums cost a lot more. While there is a lot of information on IP including cost comparisons, the fact is that so many are paying for what they do not use and that shows that more can be done to help Singaporeans make the right decisions on their healthcare insurance.

For some, the proposed amendments with the increase in claim limits, expansion of coverage and benefits could mean that MediShield Life may indeed give adequate coverage and the decision could be to give up their IPs which cost more as one ages.

We do need however to understand that the decision for one to give up an IP needs to be considered carefully as eligibility to purchase coverage for IPs require one to be in good health and with no pre-existing conditions. So, if they give it up, they would problems getting back on. Those decisions are quite serious. But the cost of IP really is quite high as one ages.

Finally, on premium subsidies and MediSave top-ups. With the higher claim limits, expansion in coverage and increased benefits, premiums will increase and there will be a cap on the average about 22% on average with a cap of up to 35% over the three years. The proposed premium subsidies and MediSave top-ups are needed and will help the affordability of premiums and will cushion the impact of the increase for most Singaporeans.

For the Enhanced Mean-Tested Premium Subsidies for Singapore Citizens, I would like to ask MOH if they would review and consider eligibility for the lower- and middle-income individuals who live in properties with annual value (AV) greater than $25,000 but do not own the property they live in or any other property? This is not a bIanket approval that I am asking for but to be able to look at it on individuals that may need it and why I say this because we do have residents who cannot afford to own their own homes and they have on the goodwill of their relatives been able to stay with their relatives. And some of them live in residences that are valued higher than $25,000 and AV is what is used for means-testing and so some may require support for the premium but given their residential address, will not be eligible for the subsidies. So, I hope that MOH would look at this when appeals of such requests come up.

So, in conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, while it is important that healthcare remains affordable and there is adequate medical coverage, paradoxically, our goal should be to stay healthy and not to have to use it often. In the spirit of Healthier SG, we should all do our part and lead healthy lifestyles. This would not only lower healthcare costs which is what we are talking about today but also improve the quality of life for individuals. The proposed pilot to allow those over 40 years of age to redeem premium discounts with Healthpoints via the Health Promotion Board's (HPB's) Healthy 365 app is a refreshing approach and a good nudge to promoting a healthy lifestyle. So, I hope to see how this will work out as it goes, as it is implemented.

Mr Deputy Speaker, when the MediShield Life Scheme was first introduced in 2015 by then Health Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, he reminded us that, I quote, "MediShield Life Scheme is the embodiment of Singaporeans' aspiration for a more inclusive, caring and progressive society". The proposed amendments are in line with the aspiration and principle to ensure that quality healthcare is accessible and affordable to all Singaporeans who need it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill 2024 introduces several changes to the MediShield Life framework to adjust premium structures, enhance administrative powers and improve affordability of healthcare coverage. I would like to seek some clarifications on several areas that may impact Singaporeans financially and administratively.