Hansard, Tuesday, 4 August 2026

Order. For the record, I have to inform hon Members that on 20 July 2026, Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim resigned from his seat in Parliament for the electoral division of Marine Parade-Braddell Heights. Members were informed of the resignation of Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim by me on the same day.

In accordance with clause (2)(c) of Article 46 of the Constitution, the seat of Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim became vacant on 20 July 2026.

1 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for National Development given that HDB announced housing plans for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way on the same day consultation opened (a) which parameters remain open to change, including footprint, yield, retained areas, heritage and mitigation; (b) whether site clearance or tender awards will await feedback; and (c) whether HDB will publish its response before approving final plans or tenders.

2 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether alternative sites for housing were evaluated as alternatives to Gillman Barracks; (b) whether smaller-footprint or lower-density options on the Gillman Barracks site itself, with greater retention of forest cover and heritage buildings, were also assessed against the current conceptual plan; and (c) what planning considerations led to the proposed site and footprint being preferred.

3 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development whether, after the online feedback period for the Gillman Barracks Environmental Impact Assessment and Heritage Impact Assessment closes on 6 August 2026, the Government will hold dialogue sessions with residents, heritage groups and nature groups as part of the process of refining the development plans.

4 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the phased directional clearance plan for Gillman Barracks under the Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan will include checkpoints at which monitoring data from earlier phases is reviewed before authorising further clearance; and (b) if so, what criteria would trigger a pause or adjustment to the clearance schedule.

5 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent announcement on Maju Forest (a) how has the Government's approach to balancing public housing needs with the conservation of ecologically significant forests and heat resilience evolved over the past five years; and (b) whether alternative sites, redevelopment opportunities or higher-yield development options are systematically evaluated before such locations are selected.

6 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development with regard to proposed housing developments on former forested sites (a) what criteria are used to determine whether retained forest areas are sufficiently large and connected to remain ecologically functional over the long term; and (b) how is the effectiveness of wildlife corridors subsequently monitored.

7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development in light of the possible development at Maju Forest, whether the concerns and recommendations of the nature and conservation groups on preserving greenery, flora and fauna can be adopted.

8 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development given that the Environmental Impact Assessments at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks rate the biodiversity impact as major negative after mitigation (a) what threshold of harm sets a site aside if that finding does not; and (b) whether under-used state land, including the grounds of black-and-white bungalows and ageing low-rise estates, has been assessed as an alternative before clearance.

9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how were findings from the Gillman Barracks Environmental and Heritage Impact Assessments weighed against housing needs; (b) whether alternative sites were considered; and (c) what resident engagement was conducted prior to the redevelopment announcement, including whether closed-door discussions were held and how participants were selected.

10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) how are findings from the Maju Forest Environmental Impact Assessment taken into account in ongoing considerations for housing at Sunset Way; (b) whether alternative sites can be considered; and (c) what measures are being considered to ensure any retained ecological corridor minimises edge effects and supports wildlife movement.

11 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for National Development (a) what microclimate or urban heat-island modelling was conducted to assess the localised temperature impact of clearing forest cover at Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks; and (b) what will be the projected impact on surrounding residential areas.

12 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for National Development regarding the Gillman Barracks redevelopment (a) what measures will be taken to ensure the preservation of its secondary hill forest and heritage buildings; (b) whether alternative brownfield sites were considered to minimise ecological impact; and (c) how public feedback from the environmental and heritage impact assessments will be incorporated into the final master plan.

13 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development what planning criteria does the Ministry use to determine that brownfield and other previously developed sites are insufficient before greenfield sites are selected for residential development.

14 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will further enhance the public accessibility of Environmental Impact Assessments by providing plain-language summaries of key findings and clearer explanations of how public feedback has informed planning decisions.

15 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) how was public feedback gathered for the redevelopment of Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks; and (b) what other sites are being studied over the next five years for similar possible redevelopment for housing or other uses that may substantially affect existing heritage or natural areas.

16 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent announcement on Maju Forest (a) whether future Master Plans will refrain from zoning forested greenfield sites for development where feasible, especially where the forested sites are of ecological significance, and prioritise the redevelopment and intensifying land use on existing brownfield sites; and (b) if not, why not.

17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for National Development in relation to the Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks redevelopments (a) what is the impact on surface temperature and greenhouse gas emissions; (b) whether brownfield alternatives were surveyed and what is the rationale for selecting these sites; (c) what is the estimated cost of clearing Maju Forest versus redeveloping a similar area in mature estates; and (d) whether Environmental Impact Assessments measure climate-related factors.

18 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will publish, before consultations on the Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks sites close on 6 August 2026 (i) the projected housing demand these sites are intended to meet and (ii) the reasoning for selecting them over available alternatives.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Questions Nos 1 to 18 in today's Order Paper together, please?

Please proceed.

Sir, my response will also cover related questions raised by Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr David Hoe1, Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Shawn Loh, Miss Rachel Ong, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Patrick Tay2, scheduled for subsequent Sittings.

Mr Speaker, allow me to make one point clear at the outset. The plans for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way have not been finalised. Government will continue to engage stakeholders, to take in views and feedback before deciding how we will carry out the development of both sites. This could involve adjustments to the development layout and the amount of greenery and heritage to conserve.

We published the studies and conceptual plans so the public can study them, share their views and help us to shape the final development plans.

I want to assure Members that while the formal consultation period for the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) ends on 6 August 2026, our engagement with stakeholders will continue, as we adjust and refine the development plans based on the inputs received.

Sir, in my response, I will first explain why Singapore needs to build, where we choose to build and how we build. I will then explain how these principles apply to Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks.

First, why we need to build.

Mr Speaker, let us start with what I believe we can all agree on. We value our heritage and green spaces. We also want Singaporeans and our future generations to have access to affordable public housing. We want hospitals, schools, and places where we can work and earn a good living. We want roads and public transport so we can get around. We also need land for defence, essential infrastructure and coastal protection. And I wish we had an abundance of land, so we can provide all of these without having to make trade-offs.

But that is not our reality. Our choices are narrower than those faced by larger countries. We thus have to make the best use of our limited land. That is why we plan decades ahead, to meet Singaporeans' needs today while keeping enough options open for future generations.

Housing is one of our most pressing needs. Some asked why housing demand continues to grow even though our total fertility rate (TFR) is lower than before. Current low TFR figures reflect the smaller number of babies born in recent years. But Singaporeans who are buying Housing and Development Board (HDB) homes today and in the near future were born decades ago when our birth rates were higher.

Another reason is that household sizes are getting smaller. More young married couples prefer a home of their own to living with their parents or extended families. At the same time, many prefer to live near their parents, so they can care for and support one another. More singles are also setting up homes of their own. And more seniors now live alone or only with their spouse.

These trends mean we need more homes than we did in the past, as the total number of households has increased.

Many Members on both sides of this House have also called for the relaxation of eligibility criteria to provide wider access to public housing and shorter waiting times for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats.

We understand and share these aspirations. But if we want more Singaporeans to qualify for HDB housing and to get their homes sooner, then we must build more homes and we must build them faster.

So, the question, Mr Speaker, is not whether Singapore should continue to build homes, hospitals, schools and other developments to meet our people's needs. The question is where we build and how we build responsibly.

Let us go on next to where we build.

Sir, we do not start with sites that have significant heritage or ecological value. We first ask a series of practical questions. Can we make use of vacant land? Can we make better use of existing land? Can we build higher, go underground, bring compatible uses together, or better use under-utilised spaces? That is what we have been doing and we will continue to do.

For example, relocating Paya Lebar Air Base to Changi and Tengah will free up a substantial area for redevelopment, as will consolidating our port activities at Tuas Port. We are also phasing out some golf courses and redeveloping older industrial areas for other uses. We are already redeveloping the former Keppel Golf Course as part of the Greater Southern Waterfront. By 2030, we will have taken back more than 400 hectares of golf course land for redevelopment.

Sir, we will also build taller where we can. This year, we announced Singapore's tallest public housing project – an over 60-storey development at Pearl's Hill.

Relaxing aviation height limits near airports also opens up new possibilities for us to build more intensely in suitable locations.

We build underground where possible too. We are developing rock caverns at Gali Batu, building on earlier projects such as the Jurong Rock Caverns. And through the North-South Corridor, we are moving vehicular traffic underground, freeing surface space for walking, cycling and greenery.

We are also doing more with existing sites and underused spaces, through integrated mixed-use developments, and by activating spaces beneath viaducts and on car park rooftops.

As we do all this, we pay close attention to greenery and heritage. Today, Singapore has about 7,800 hectares of green spaces, including our nature reserves. Even after accounting for planned developments in the latest Master Plan, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has safeguarded an additional 1,000 hectares of green space.

We are also strengthening ecological connections between core habitats. By 2030, we aim to restore and enhance 80 hectares of forest, marine and coastal habitats, and establish 300 kilometres of Nature Ways.

These efforts help make Singapore one of the world's greenest high-density cities. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Green View Index found that Singapore is ahead of most cities in urban tree coverage, including cities with much lower population densities.

We take a similar approach to heritage as well. We have conserved more than 7,200 buildings and structures in over 100 areas. Where possible, we retain significant heritage buildings and elements, and incorporate them into new developments.

Sir, these are guided by our long-term land-use planning process. Through our Master Plan, we engage Singaporeans and set out how we use our limited land for the next 10 to 15 years. And we review the Master Plan every five years through a major public consultation exercise, to ensure it remains relevant to our nation's changing needs.

A site's zoning reflects its long-term planning intention. But when we develop the site depends on our national needs, the availability of alternatives and if the supporting infrastructure is ready. Within this framework, we will always do our best to retain sites with significant greenery and heritage value.

But there will be occasions when no other suitable site can meet the same need, in the same area and within the required timeframe. And when that happens, we must weigh the trade-offs carefully and consider whether we can develop a site responsibly to meet an important national need, such as providing homes for Singaporeans.

Sir, the next question, then, is how do we build responsibly when it is necessary to develop a site.

We proceed with great care when a site has significant ecological or heritage value. Government agencies appoint independent external consultants to conduct an EIA or HIA, or both. These studies draw on inputs from nature and heritage groups. And the consultants do three things.

First, they establish what is on the site today. For an EIA, this means identifying the site's important habitats, plants, animals and ecological connections. For a HIA, it means establishing the significance of the site's buildings, structures, landscape and other heritage attributes.

Second, the consultants assess how the proposed development could affect these features.

And third, they recommend how to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential impact to the site. Depending on the site, this could mean retaining areas of high ecological significance, maintaining ecological corridors, preserving important buildings or incorporating heritage elements into the new development.

For an EIA, the consultants also propose a preliminary Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP). The EMMP sets out mitigation measures, monitoring arrangements and reporting requirements that will apply during development.

So, our general approach is to avoid impact where we can, reduce them where we cannot, and mitigate those that remain. We publish the findings, potential impact and proposed mitigation measures in the EIA or HIA report. This allows residents and the wider public to study the proposal and to give their feedback and views. Agencies then consider the studies and feedback before finalising the detailed plans.

EIAs and HIAs are not meant to justify a detailed plan that is already fixed. They are an integral part of the consultation process through which the plan is shaped.

Once development proceeds, HDB and the National Parks Board (NParks) will monitor the works and require contractors to provide regular updates, to ensure the measures are implemented properly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now explain how we apply the principles that I have laid out for both Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks.

Sir, both sites have been earmarked earlier for residential use.

For Sunset Way, the planning intention for housing had been reflected in the Master Plan since 1980. That intention has been reviewed and reaffirmed at each subsequent Master Plan review, including the most recent review in 2025.

For Gillman Barracks, we announced the intention to study the site for development during the 2024 Committee of Supply debate. The site was subsequently rezoned to reflect that intention under Master Plan 2025.

But we did not come to these sites first. Over the years, we prioritised brownfield redevelopment in Clementi, Bukit Merah and surrounding areas. In Clementi and Bukit Merah, we redeveloped several older estates under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme. In Bukit Merah, we are redeveloping the former Keppel Golf Course, as I mentioned earlier. But demand for housing in these estates remains strong. The recent BTO launches at Clementi Emerald and Berlayar Rise were each oversubscribed by over four times.

Many Singaporeans, especially young families, want to continue living near their parents for mutual care and support. Many understand this and so asked if we can build on sites that appear vacant or underused instead.

Sir, let me explain that some of these sites are already intended for housing. One example is the former Raffles Junior College site at Mount Sinai where we are planning to introduce public housing in the near term, and the former bus facility at Ghim Moh where BTO construction is already in progress.

Some asked about the former Institute of Technical Education Headquarters site at the Dover-Medway area and a nearby site at Albert Winsemius Lane. The former will be redeveloped for a mix of public and private housing, to be launched over the next few years, and the latter is a Land Transport Authority (LTA) worksite that is needed to support ongoing works for the Cross Island Line. It will be considered for redevelopment in future after the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) line is completed.

Others also asked about Maju Camp. Sir, we need Maju Camp to support our national defence needs, so we cannot use it for housing at this point.

For Gillman Barracks, some suggested building homes at Depot Lane Industrial Estate, the former Central Manpower Base (CMPB) and the "reserve site" at Pasir Panjang.

Depot Lane Industrial Estate is indeed part of our future housing supply and demolition of the buildings is currently ongoing to prepare the site. While the former CMPB has moved out of Depot Road camp, the site is still required by the Ministry of Defence and other users. This also applies to the Pasir Panjang reserve site, where there are existing uses like the Ministry of Education Outdoor Adventure Learning Centre. This site can only be redeveloped in the longer term.

In short, many of the sites suggested are already being developed for housing, are needed for other national purposes or cannot be redeveloped yet. That is why we need to develop Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way to meet our housing needs over the next decade.

But we recognise, Sir, that Gillman Barracks has both environmental and heritage value. That is why we commissioned the EIAs and HIA, because we assessed that the development could have significant environmental or heritage effects and wanted to carefully study the impact before finalising any plans. These are comprehensive reports, reflecting months of data collection and analysis by independent experts.

At Gillman Barracks, we are studying how to retain most of the native-dominated secondary forest within the site. We are also studying how to maintain ecological connections in the East-West and North-South directions.

The East-West connection would link Telok Blangah Hill Park and HortPark, and the North-South connection would comprise an ecological corridor, supporting the movement of birds towards Berlayar Creek and Labrador Nature Reserve.

Gillman Barracks also has a distinctive heritage character. We are thus studying the retention of all buildings assessed to be of "Exceptional" heritage significance, as well as most of those assessed to be of "High" heritage significance. This would allow the future neighbourhood to build on the character and charm of the former colonial buildings.

But where a heritage building cannot be retained because of practical site constraints, we will explore other ways to preserve its history. These include detailed documentation, salvaging and reusing suitable materials, and incorporating heritage interpretation into the future development.

At Sunset Way, we are studying the retention of a significant stretch of greenery along the former Jurong Railway Line. This would preserve an important part of our railway heritage while maintaining ecological connectivity within the site.

We are also studying the retention of a natural stream and its surrounding riparian buffer, which provides refuge for wildlife. These retained green areas will be supplemented with more native trees, and serving as buffers between the future neighbourhood and existing residential estates.

Our approach to both sites will be informed by science and evidence.

Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way lie within the wider Labrador Nature Park and Clementi Nature Corridor respectively, as NParks identified through its ecological profiling exercise. The proposed retention areas are based on findings of the environmental studies, that aim to maintain ecological connectivity across these wider landscapes. HDB will also study how to design these future neighbourhoods to reduce urban heat. This includes using environmental modelling to improve wind flow, incorporating greenery, using cool-paint and orientating residential blocks to minimise direct sun exposure.

Sir, some Members also asked how many homes the sites will eventually provide. We are not yet able to give an exact figure because the layout, scale and detailed design have not yet been finalised. But in our current conceptual plan, we already reduced the number of homes to retain important green and heritage areas identified through the studies. If we conserve even more, we will build even fewer homes. So, we must weigh this trade-off carefully before reading a final decision.

HDB has also been attending local grassroots advisers' dialogues with residents to hear their concerns and suggestions in person. We appreciate the time and effort that many have put into studying the reports, attending dialogues and submitting detailed feedback. I personally engaged many stakeholders myself and walked the ground at both Sunset Way and Gillman. Young People's Action Party (PAP) and PAP Sustainability Group have also conducted engagements, gathering feedback and sharing that feedback with me and my team.

Some nature enthusiasts, heritage advocates and nearby residents also asked us to preserve more greenery and heritage. Some also proposed additional mitigation measures.

At the same time, we also heard from many Singaporeans, including residents in Clementi and Telok Blangah, about their desire for more affordable and accessible public housing. Many tell us they hope their children will have an opportunity to live near them.

Sir, both perspectives reflect legitimate concerns and aspirations. After the formal consultation period closes on 6 August 2026, we will conduct further engagements with stakeholders and closely review the study findings and feedback we received before finalising our detailed development plans. We will also publish a report summarising agencies' responses to the feedback and any amendments made to the original set of plans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question before us is not whether housing, greenery or heritage matters. They all do. The challenge is how we balance these needs responsibly within our limited space. We will and must always make the best use of existing land and safeguard our most important natural and heritage assets.

But there will be times where we cannot avoid difficult trade-offs. When that happens, we must be clear about why we need to build, deliberate about where we build and take great care over how we build. We must be honest with Singaporeans about the choices before us, listen carefully to their views and improve our plans wherever we can. And after weighing all these different considerations, Government must decide in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.

This is the approach we are taking for Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way. We are studying the environmental and heritage findings, listening to public views and examining how the proposals can be improved before the detailed plans are finalised.

Sir, these difficult choices are not unique to Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way. And they will continue to confront us as we build homes, strengthen our economy, expand our infrastructure and realise our vision of a City in Nature.

Sir, generations before us faced similar choices. They made them with courage and foresight, and Singapore is now better for it. Our responsibility is to do the same – so that we can leave to our children a country that is greener, more liveable and continues to provide opportunities and good homes for our people.

Miss Rachel Ong.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for your response and for receiving the feedback and proposals that my residents and I submitted on Gillman Barracks. These came from in-person meetings, community sessions and written feedback, including well-researched proposals that the residents put together themselves.

I understand and appreciate the stated need for more housing and the potential benefits for many families. Along these considerations, my residents have also raised deep concerns including the loss of biodiversity and ecological connectivity in the area, the loss of the very greenery that drew many residents to make this precinct to their home. For many, Gillman Forest is a place of respite, reflection and connection. Also raised is the impact on climate resilience and urban heat.

With that, I would like to ask four supplementary questions.

First, can the Government clarify whether, and if so how, the earlier Berlayer EIA informed the Gillman Barracks EIA, particularly in relation to ecological connectivity corridor design and the cumulative impact across the two adjacent developments?

Residents have raised concerns over developing Berlayer and Gillman Barracks in close succession, particularly since both sides form part of the same ecological network and serve the same wildlife. In this context, they have asked why the recommended ecological widths differ between the two, despite this shared ecology.

The Gillman Forest links the Southern Ridges, which includes the Telok Blangah Hill Park, Berlayer Creek through to Labrador Nature Reserve and Kent Ridge Park, forming a larger ecological landscape. Retaining it alongside shared residents, would also honour Singapore's 2021 pledge under the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030.

My second supplementary question: instead of residential development on Gillman Barracks, will the Government consider re-imagining and re-engineering the site to better meet the evolving needs of our next generation, creating spaces that protect and promote human creativity and connection?

My third supplementary question: will the Government review our planning and consultation processes to ensure they remain fit for purpose in the changing climate, specifically for forested or ecologically sensitive sites, could EIAs and public engagement begin at the master planning stage before land is slated for development?

My final supplementary question: will the Government provide a summary of the feedback collected, together with clarity on how it shaped the final development decisions? This matters deeply to residents, who want assurance that their voices have made a difference.

Sir, I thank Miss Rachel Ong for her strong advocacy on behalf of her Telok Blangah residents and for working together with our agencies to provide those feedback.

As I mentioned earlier on, the plans for both Sunset Way, and in this case, Gillman Barracks are not yet finalised. Even beyond 6 August, when the consultation period closes, we will continue to engage her residents. And after this further engagement and reviewing the feedback and findings from additional engagements with the residents, we will release reports summarising the responses to feedback and also any adjustments that we make to the original set of plans.

With regards to the Gillman EIA and its links to Berlayer, the Gillman EIA took into consideration the Berlayer Estate. So, there is connectivity. It has established an important connectivity, in fact, between Gillman and Berlayer for the movement of birds. And these draw upon the findings from the NParks' ecological profiling exercise, which I mentioned earlier on, and the Keppel Club EIA. And the conceptual plan, therefore proposes retaining the East-West Corridor, as I mentioned earlier on, and to establish a new North-South Corridor, to facilitate the movement of fauna.

Both studies also proposed a minimum 30-metre ecological corridor, and for Gillman Barracks, its recommended corridor stretches up to 200 metres.

So, we acknowledge that there is ecological connectivity between sites, we have done that through the EIAs and the EIAs for each site is different because each site is unique, but where possible, we recognise the connectivity.

On building on new spaces within this site, as I have mentioned, we will take in those feedback in the consultation process, even beyond 6 August. We will listen to residents and see where we can make adjustments.

On the spaces which the Member has mentioned, as I have mentioned, today, Singapore has over 7,800 hectares of green spaces and nature reserves. And if you look at the bigger picture, even after accounting for the planned developments in both sites in the Master Plan, URA has safeguarded an additional 1,000 hectares of green space.

So, net-net, we are building a green city. All of these plans, be it in Sunset Way or Gillman, are meant to enhance that ecological connectivity and also to balance between development for homes, as well as green and heritage places.

Mr Andre Low.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State Tan for the comprehensive response. I have three supplementary questions for you today.

Firstly, I would like to ask if the Minister of State can confirm if not proceeding with development is still an option for either site, rather than just adjusting developmental boundaries or taking mitigation measures?

The second supplementary question is, the Minister of State referred to quite a number of significant initiatives to free up further brownfield land, such as the relocation of Paya Lebar Air Base, the continuing relocation of our port terminals to Tuas, as well as taking back golf course land. Will enough of the brownfield land be freed up in time, so that we can continue to defer the development of green spaces like Maju Forest and Gillman Forest?

And my third supplementary question is regarding the location of the Cross Island Line Maju Station, does the Government regard the location of Maju Station as compelling or requiring the development of Maju Forest, in order to be able to sufficiently utilise the capacity that the station will provide? And if that being the case, will the Government consider in the future, when planning MRT lines, alignments and station locations, that we take into account the location of sensitive, ecological sites, such as Maju Forest, such that we do not perpetuate a vicious cycle where this station is planned for that location and therefore, it compels development of the forest?

Sir, I thank Mr Andre Low for his questions. I made it quite clear that the sites that we mentioned earlier on – Sunset Way as well as Gillman Barracks – have already been zoned for residential use under our Master Plan and they have been set aside for housing. So, we will proceed, but how we build is important. And that is why we have these EIAs and HIA to identify the ecological significance, the heritage significance, and then, we will mitigate as best as possible, the ecological and heritage impact to the sites.

With regard to alternatives, I mentioned earlier on that we have looked in the vicinity of both Sunset Way as well as Gillman Barracks for alternative sites – vacant land, brownfield sites, underused sites. And there are a variety of ways in which we consider the availability of the land, whether the land has leases remaining, whether they have additional uses, as I mentioned earlier on, whether the infrastructure surrounding that site is sufficient. Because when you build homes for our people, you also need the surrounding infrastructure to support them.

Which brings me to Member's third point about train. And that is one major consideration.

When we look and select sites for homes for Singaporeans, it is not just on those considerations, but it is also very important for us to determine whether we can build amenities to support the community and housing, whether there is sufficient transport links including stations. And when we do so, we do a couple of things. Number one, we do an ecological profiling exercise on a broad swath to look at the impact of where sites have ecological and natural heritage, natural significance. Then, when the sites are meant to be developed, we also look at the EIA and the HIA to mitigate those sites. And then, in the process, we get feedback and see how we can also better bring in amenities that will benefit home buyers and homeowners.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

Thank you, Speaker and I also thank the Minister of State for his assurance that the Ministry of National Development (MND) continues to be equally committed to both providing affordable housing as well as our city in nature. As planning principles, we know the first gives Singaporeans a stake in society and the second is really what continues to make us exceptional as nature is functional.

I have three supplementary questions.

First, how are these planning principles consistent, even through reviews of various Master Plans? And can I confirm that MND is committed to the structured decision matrix and hierarchy, avoiding impact before minimising or mitigating in environmental or historical sites in guiding these decisions?

Second, our city in nature vision is ultimately about maintaining functional ecosystems that strengthen Singapore's resilience through biodiversity, ecological connectivity and climate adaptation. Beyond the size of the green spaces which are retained, what ecological criteria does the Government use to determine if a site should be avoided altogether? Is there a desired minimum viability that we are optimising for longer term? And when development does proceed, how does the Government monitor over time whether retained forests remain ecologically viable; for example, in terms of habitat quality, stormwater attenuation and urban cooling?

And finally, could the Minister of State please share more about the engagement process, including for this case of Maju Forest? How does the Government ensure that development decisions are made consistently and transparently, specifically, which nature groups and experts are consulted, at what stages of planning and how does the feedback finally influence the planning outcome? Has the Government considered whether EIAs and HIAs should be legislatively strengthened, brought earlier and the stages of the consultation process enshrined?

Thank you to Ms Nadia Samdin for the questions. I explained earlier on our development process quite in detail. But let me make a few emphases.

The first is that no development can take place without planning permission under the Planning Act. And as part of the planning approval process, all development proposals are screened for potential environmental as well as heritage impact. And the developments that are assessed to have likely significant environmental and heritage impact are then subjected to the EIA and HIA process, which I mentioned earlier on. And then, we work together with different stakeholders, community groups, residents, nature groups, to then study the EIA or HIA and to see where we can make adjustments.

On Member's point about the broader considerations, we have undertaken an ecological profiling exercise as I had mentioned, to better understand the role of sites in protecting and also supporting biodiversity and ecological connectivity. These findings are important because they help to identify important habitats and ecological corridors. I mentioned that earlier on. It also helps us and guides planning on how to balance development with nature conservation.

But the development priorities and development projects that are close to sensitive areas will be subject to and in fact, are subject to greater scrutiny. And it guides measures to help us to mitigate the impact. For example, we will protect our nature reserves and any nearby developments that may affect nature reserves are subject to very strict planning controls.

In consultation with the nature groups – I have met with many of them, including the Nature Society of Singapore, the Singapore Youth Voices for Biodiversity, LepakInSG, National University of Singapore academics and many residents as well. As I mentioned earlier on, our consultation process will continue even after 6 August and we welcome more feedback and more views so that we can take in those, as we look to finalise our plans in later stage.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

I thank the Minister of State for his fairly comprehensive replies. I take comfort in the fact that he mentioned that the plans have not been finalised and I take comfort in the good Minister of State's position that there has been an agreement to extend the consultation period, or at least the engagement post 6 August. These are good valuable explanations for the residents that I serve.

My questions arise out of possible alternative sites. I accept the Government's national priority to have housing close to parents and to family – something that I support. But I think we can look at alternative sites close to Maju Forest and here I have two: between the MSCP and the canal at Sunset Way there is currently a construction site for the Cross Island Line. And if one was to build higher there, it would have beautiful waterfront living. So, that is one alternative that is within my own ward. Would that be considered?

And pardon the pun, taking a leaf out of Dover Forest and the debate I had some years ago, we managed to find alternative housing sites that preserve half of Dover Forest – and it was a win-win situation. So, I invite the good Minister of State to look at this as a blank sheet of paper to see whether we can achieve such a win-win. And therefore, an alternative site is also Clementi Avenue 5. I understand that it is a worksite, a large worksite for the Cross Island Line, and it will be a rather eloquent and elegant position to put high rise HDB flats.

So, I am not one to just throw the problem away. I am giving solutions. Would the good Minister of State consider this?

The last point, Sir, if I may, arises out of Ms Sim Ann and my engagement on the ground. We have had town hall meetings. We have done home visits. We have been responding to emails and we have visited Maju Forest twice. And there is this great affinity for the forest, it is a part of their lives and there is also heritage.

So, for all of these reasons, I ask for the same ethos, the same principles that governed the debate between the back bench and the front bench regarding Dover Forest, and if we can receive a win-win-win solution with alternative sites and as much mitigation as possible, I think that would be a great advantage and great fillip for this House.

So, in summary, those are my responses. I do support the national priority of building. My question is, where? And if we can find a good win-win-win compromise.

Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza as well as grassroots advisor, Sim Ann. They have been very actively engaging myself, Minister Chee, Minister Indranee – very strongly speaking up on behalf of the residents at Sunset Way. They have gone down to the ground. They have organised town halls. They have conveyed many of the residents' feedback to us. They have also visited the residents. So, they have been very actively engaged – both on the ground and to me, as well as our MND colleagues.

I mentioned earlier on the alternative sites, and I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for being very practical and also identifying some potential alternative sites.

We do our best to optimise the land use and to tap the vacant land and brownfield sites where possible, but there are no other suitable sites to meet the near-turn demand in the vicinity. For example, the Albert Winsemius Lane site that he mentioned earlier near the MSCP is currently being used for LTA for the Cross Island Line. Clementi Avenue 5 is also to support ongoing works for the Cross Island Line, but will be considered for residential development after the MRT line is complete.

So, these are already measures that we have taken into consideration. We first look at brownfield sites. We first look at underused land. We first look at vacant land. And we look into whether we can first use them. Then, we see whether there are alternative sites for us to build.

So, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his inputs and we urge him to continue engaging with us beyond 6 August, so that we can take in his residents' feedback and make relevant adjustments to the plans before they are finalised.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State the following supplementary questions.

One, in my Adjournment Motion on Serangoon River Forest earlier this year, I raised concerns that public engagement often takes place only after key land use directions, which includes non-consultative zoning decisions, have been determined. So, why were consultations not conducted before the scope and parameters of the environmental studies for Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, for example, were established? And will the Government consider engaging stakeholders at an earlier stage for future major redevelopment proposals?

My next supplementary question: I would like to again urge the Minister of State to clarify whether the development plans for Gillman Barracks and the housing proposed under consideration remain open to substantive revision, and whether the Government is prepared to reduce development intensity or footprint, and consider alternative sites? And I got one more alternative site. What about the Protective Security Command at Ulu Pandan?

My next supplementary question: would the Minister of State tell the House, what specific long-term population and household formation projections are driving the planning for HDB housing developments in Maju Forest and Gillman Barracks, and indeed elsewhere? And will MND publish this figure so that the public can independently assess if clearing these forests is necessary now?

My next supplementary question: given residents' concern about the loss of canopy cover, has HDB modelled the potential urban heat impact of the proposed developments on both sides and what measures are being considered to ensure surrounding neighbourhoods do not experience significant ambient temperature increases?

And finally, could I ask the Minister of State to consider extending the current one-month consultation period beyond 6 August, so that the residents, experts and civil society can have more time to review the reports and submit their feedback?

Sir, Mr Dennis Tan had five Parliamentary Questions, and we have debated this many times before, for Serangoon River Forest. Let me try to answer him as best as I can.

First, we will be extending the engagements beyond 6 August. So, that is very clear. So, as I have mentioned, please share with us your views and your feedback, and we will take them into consideration as we finalise the plans. We will also publish the agencies' responses to this feedback.

On the canopy cover and urban heat, I spoke about this in my main reply about how HDB is already taking these steps in existing and also future developments to reduce urban heat through many of these factors.

On population, I have also mentioned why currently, we require more housing. Household formations have increased. Household sizes are smaller and there is increased demand for housing, particularly in the central areas where the two sites are. At close by, Clementi Emerald, for example, is four times oversubscribed. So, we need those.

And I also wanted to ask for Mr Dennis Tan and the Workers' Party (WP) colleagues in this House to also stand by us in this regard. Because we have debated housing in this House many times. We have debated it in, I think, 2023 on the debate on Motion for public housing and the WP stance on housing is very clear. Let me just share a little bit.

First, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua had proposed to reduce the age eligibility for singles to access public housing, from age 35 to 28. Mr Pritam Singh also suggested allowing a first-time couple who exceeded income eligibility criteria threshold to buy a BTO. Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Louis Chua also pushed for the Government to increase public housing supply. Mr Louis Chua, in his Adjournment Motion in September 2022, implored the Government to take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and address the current demand-supply imbalance to ensure housing demand of all Singaporeans, not just singles, are met. He had also asked in the same Adjournment Motion for the Government to build residential homes ahead of demand and to have a fundamental rethink of the BTO system.

So, all of these are very clear positions that housing is required and we need to build more. And when we do that, it is not a question of why we build. I think it is very clear. It is a question of where we build. I have explained to Members the sites. I think the Protective Security Command is also set aside for residential housing, for example. And as I mentioned, also to Mr Christopher de Souza, we have already looked at all of the surrounding brownfield sites and where possible, we have to factor in the timing, the availability, the infrastructure, as well as the lease and other factors before we go into vegetated sites. And in this case, we have been quite comprehensive in that regard.

On the public engagement, I also already mentioned that we will continue to engage the public, and we welcome public consultation and feedback beyond 6 August.

I see many hands. I ask Members to ask your questions, but not to ask the same questions in different ways for which Minister of State Tan has already answered. Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. But first, I do not think my Parliamentary Question was answered.

So, (a) what is the threshold of harm that sets aside a site if a major negative EIA assessment does not? And (b) whether under-used state land, including the grounds of black and white bungalows and ageing low-rise estates, had been assessed as an alternative? I have been to the grounds of some of these black and white bungalows, and I think that they are very, very low density, and certainly, if you wanted to build more housing there, it would be ideal.

My three supplementary questions. First, residents value Telok Blangah for its greenery and forest, and that is a large part of its identity. I think that removing the forest removes that identity. So, in the spirit of alternative sites, I think, could the car workshops around Alexandra Village Food Centre be considered for development?

Second, can there be a formal extension of the consultation deadline beyond 6 August?

Third supplementary question: many nature observers expressed to me deep disappointment in what they perceived to be the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's (MSE's) lack of leadership and ownership in the decisions on Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest, and their perception that MSE has gone missing on this issue. In this very year, 2026, that MSE has designated the "Year of Climate Adaptation", why has MSE not been seen leading and advocating for this forest?

Minister of State Tan. Minister Fu, I will come to you, after Minister of State Tan.

Sir, let me answer Mr Kenneth Tiong's questions. A "major negative" is a formal technical term used in the EIA and it is not always possible to avoid the ecological and heritage impact, including the type for Sunset Way and Gillman Barracks. But with the EIA and the HIA, we have plans already to mitigate these possible impacts and we will do what we can to do so.

On alternative sites, we have already explained why and where; we have looked into alternative and brownfield sites.

On the engagements and the consultation, I also mentioned that we will extend it beyond the consultation period on 6 August.

And on the MSE, I disagree with his characterisation. The Government makes decisions across different Ministries. We speak to MSE. MSE gives us the feedback. But at the end of the day, we will have to make decisions based on the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.

You cannot say you want housing, as the WP has already mentioned multiple times and said in this House, but yet, then also in the same breath, say, "Why don't you do this?" and "Why don't you do that?"

I think what is important is for us to look at the compatible uses, the trade-offs and for us to, at the same time, build homes for people whom both the WP and us want to build homes for and at the same time also preserve where possible heritage sites as well as ecological sites.

These are not incompatible. It requires us to make very deliberate decisions on where we build, which is alternative sites, and also how we build in this regard.

So, I hope that the Member agrees with me, and I hope that he will work with us as well in engaging the nature groups, explain all of these different considerations. And I also really wanted to say that MSE has been working very closely with us in terms of addressing many of these issues together.

Minister Fu.

Thank you very much. The suggestion that MSE should take on a different position than MND, and to make a strong stance because it is the Year of Climate Adaptation, to object to some of the decisions that have been taken by MND – it is not how we work as a government. For us, any one of us standing in front here, presenting a position to the Government, the rest of us are in support. So, I think if a WP Member is hoping for a fight between Ministers, I think they will be disappointed.

But in any case, the purpose of having the Year of Climate Adaptation is precisely for that: for all the agencies and the Ministries, when they are planning long-term land use, when they are planning long-term transport infrastructure, when they are planning long-term power infrastructure, to have a view on the adaptation that is needed, given the long-term climate change. It is not to change the way that we have worked effectively as a team in the Government.

Dr Charlene Chen.

Mr Speaker, Young PAP recently engaged Singaporeans on the proposed housing developments at Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest. My fellow Young PAP advisors, Mr David Hoe and Ms Lee Hui Ying, heard two key concerns.

First, some young Singaporeans felt let down. They have been taught in school to make personal responsibility for sustainability but perceive a disconnect between this message and these developments.

My first supplementary question: will the Ministry further enhance public accessibility of EIAs and HIAs, make them easier to understand among the general public?

Second, our young accept that trade-offs are necessary, but they feel that they lack sufficient information to understand why this particular trade-off was made. Questions remain, such as why more areas of high ecological value are not included within the proposed retained area, and they want to know how the decision was reached and whether every reasonable alternative has been considered.

Hence, my second supplementary question is, will MND publish a report similar to the National Climate Change Secretariat's response on Singapore's long-term low emissions development strategy to respond to these questions and suggestions, and explain how feedback informed its final decision?

Finally, Maju Forest is quite hilly and it may entail potentially higher construction costs that potentially could be passed on to HDB buyers. It is also a very desirable site, given all the nature and the greenery surrounding it. How can we keep public housing at these sites affordable for HDB buyers?

Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for leading, together with Mr David Hoe and Ms Lee Hui Ying, together with the Young PAP, to engage our youths. And I understand that they will be engaging them further.

We can understand why our youths feel strongly about this and our youths ought to feel strongly about this. These are important issues, these are important considerations. It means they treasure our heritage and they treasure our green spaces. We will continue to engage them beyond and to get their feedback on where we can make adjustments to the sites, but then also to explain the rationale as well.

On those sites, we are not yet able to give an exact figure about the plans because they are not finalised yet. We could make, for example, potential adjustments to the layout, to the scale and to the detailed design.

If you look at what we are trying to study, we are trying to study the retention of some of these green spaces, including a significant stretch of greenery along the former Old Jurong Railway Line, also a natural stream and a riparian buffer that will help to support wildlife. And we will also publish a report summarising the agencies' responses to feedback and also any amendments made to the original plans.

So, we will do all of that. We will continue to engage our youths.

Sir, if you just allow me, I also had not answered Mr Kenneth Tiong's questions earlier on about alternative sites. I wanted to make the point that, where feasible, bungalows have been redeveloped or earmarked for future redevelopment already. And previously, the demolished clusters, for example, of bungalows at Seletar Camp have made way for an industrial park – and that supports our aerospace sector. In the coming years, we will also be studying plans to redevelop bungalows at Medway Park as part of the Dover-Medway Estate.

So, again, it reinforces our point that, where we can, we will prioritise brownfield sites and vacant sites, but where we cannot, then when we have to build, then we build very carefully, taking into account the EIA, the HIA, and then also looking at mitigation measures, working together with residents, communities, youth groups, nature groups and the like.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I would just like to make the point that asking the Government to build new houses should not preclude us from questioning where these houses should be built and the trade-offs that need to be made for these houses.

Secondly, Sunset Way has been largely zoned for residential use since the Master Plan in 1980. But since then, Maju Forest has become ecologically significant amidst the loss of many other green spaces in Singapore, including Tengah and parts of Bukit Brown.

The Minister of State has mentioned that MND has safeguarded a lot of green spaces, but there are also different types of green spaces. Destroying a secondary forest and then replacing it with a park yields the same amount of green space, but the ecological impact is completely different.

So, in light of this, will the Government consider reclassifying forested greenfield sites that are currently zoned for development into sites to be preserved wherever feasible? And if not, what factors might lead the Ministry to consider re-zoning forested greenfield sites that have already been identified for development, for park or nature reserve use?

A second question is, what is the threshold for conducting EIAs before developments on greenfield sites?

Sir, I thank Mr Fadli Fawzi for agreeing with us that there is really a need for housing and I also agree with him that it does not preclude the fact that we need to ask tough questions. And I appreciate Members of this House for conveying those concerns of their residents as well as the community, in this regard. It is important to ask these questions and it is on the Government to explain them, to explain the different aspects of it and to also ask for the public as well as residents to work with us in the design of these areas.

I have answered quite substantively, the questions that the Member had asked, particularly the ones that I had answered Ms Nadia Samdin, about how we look at the overall green space, the ecological profiling exercise. I have also answered before, how we look at alternative sites; and I also answered earlier on, how the EIA and HIA is meant to identify where their ecological and heritage significance and then, where, that is, what is today, how the proposed development may impact ecological and heritage features within the site and also, how we also mitigate the impact.

So, overall, if we look at where we are as a nation, we are one of the most liveable cities in the world. And despite our limited space, we have gone on to conserve and preserve over 7,800 hectares of greenery, within all of these constraints.

If we look at sites like, even Maju, in 1976, it was a brownfield site. The vegetation started growing there and then, of course, right now, even as we plan for Sunset Way, we factor in those green features. The stream, for example; the ecological corridor, for example; the old Jurong line, for example. So, these were not there in 1976. But there are there now, they have grown onto an original brownfield site. There are secondary native forest.

And when we plan, we already factor in that because we want to preserve these green sites and these green features, we already are lowering the number of homes that we can build on these sites. So, we take those into consideration and we will be able to build desirable homes for our people living close to their parents and also, enjoy the greenery that abuts these sites.

Ms Valerie Lee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.

Would the Ministry consider publishing a forward-looking list of intended planning studies within the near term, say about two to three years, that may affect areas with heritage or ecological significance, and actively engage the community from the outset?

The second supplementary question will be, would the Ministry consider incorporating measures of non-market values, including existence value, bequest value and cultural value, into its evaluation framework for redevelopment decisions affecting heritage or natural areas?

Sir, I thank Ms Valerie Lee for her questions. Again, I had mentioned earlier on, how we look at the overall landscape as well as our island and how we have undertaken, for example, ecological profiling exercises, to better understand the role of sites in supporting, for example, biodiversity and ecological connectivity.

All of these, in concert, these findings do help us. They help us to identify important habitats and ecological corridors to guide how we plan and how we can balance development with nature conservation. As part of this planning approval process, and I had answered that earlier on as well, all development proposals are screened for potential ecological and heritage impact before we proceed. And the developments that are assessed to likely have high significant ecological and heritage impact are then subject to the EIA, and again, I have mentioned how we do that as well. So, I hope that answers the question.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to respond to the Minister of State. I am not sure I agree that his characterisation of the WP's position is a fair one. I think the question at hand here is not about whether or not we should build more. The question is and I believe that Members of this House are actually asking whether this location and the decisions, or at least the announcements have been made, are going to be the best given that there is a lot of pressure on housing. We all know that residents have balloted many, many, many times for housing. So, again, we are not disagreeing about about this, but the question before us today is whether or not these sites are the best places to build.

And we also want to understand a bit more from the Government, why these announcements have been made, what are the considerations that have gone into it?

In this regard, I also want to ask a couple of supplementary questions on this. The first being that we are talking about Gillman Barracks and also, Maju Forest. I noticed and I believe the Minister of State also said earlier that the Southern Waterfront, for example, is an area that is being developed, and I believe that the numbers is estimated about 7,000 new units, and nearer to Maju Forest, we have got a Turf City development, where up to 20,000 housing units are being proposed, or at least being planned. So, I would like to ask, despite all these numbers coming up, is it actually the Government's or at least MND's assessment that these 7,000, 20,000 units coming up in the vicinity is not enough?

I also noticed that Minister Chee earlier in the last few days also mentioned that HDB is continuing to study the impact of reducing BTO age, and I am just curious about whether or not the announcement of the development of these two areas is tied in any way to any potential reduction in BTO eligibility ages?

The last supplementary question that I would like to ask is whether or not, we have heard a lot about EIAs and HIAs and when these are being conducted. We also heard a bit about zoning, and the Minister of State mentioned earlier that Sunset Way has been zoned since 1980 for residential housing purposes. So, I just wanted to know whether or not, whether there had been any precedence where formal EIAs or HIAs have been conducted before any zoning changes or zoning decisions are made in order for us to have a bit more forward guidance in deciding to do a formal assessment, something a bit more formalised – EIAs or HIAs – before we even decide to change the zoning.

I thank Ms He Ting Ru for her questions and I also thank her for acknowledging that Members in this House, on both sides of the aisle, acknowledge that we need to build more. And she also acknowledged that there is a lot of pressure on housing. She mentioned earlier on that residents coming and balloting many times for housing. I am sure she faced that with her residents coming to her. I definitely face my residents saying, "I have multiple ballots and I can't get the home."

And residents and homeowners want housing, they want housing, many of them want housing in central areas living near their parents. And that is why the demand for housing in these areas are now, four times oversubscribed, as I mentioned in my earlier reply. So, there is a huge demand for housing. And the question then, as Ms He mentioned, is whether the alternative sites, whether we have sufficiently looked at alternatives.

Yes, we have and we will continue to look for alternatives and focus on brownfield sites and vacant land before we touch a vegetated site. But these are all considerations that I have already mentioned.

On the BTO eligibility age, Minister Chee had mentioned that we are reviewing that. Then on the EIA and the HIA, I think there has been a little bit of misunderstanding on this. We need an EIA and HIA to present a proposal and that proposal then, is meant for agencies, it is meant for the community, it is meant for residents to then look at the proposal, see where the impact is and see how to mitigate that impact.

The EIAs are naturally very extensive, they run over 300 pages long. But we also have executive summaries of it. And with these engagements then, we can also go into the detail. So, the engagements, for example, that Mr Christopher de Sousa and Minister Sim Ann or Miss Rachel Ong has organised; or many others outside of it; or the YP has organised. These go into the details, make it a little bit easier.

But we do still need a plan. And the EIA and the HIA are plans. It showcases what is there, where the impact would be and also where the potential mitigations are. And again, as I reiterated, the consultation and the feedback process is ongoing and we hope that many will continue to give us that feedback. We will make the changes as necessary, because the development plans are not final.

We spent over 70 minutes on this issue. I will allow two final supplementary questions. One from Eileen Chong and one from Joan Pereira. Eileen Chong first.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions and one clarification for the Minister of State. The Minister of State spoke about the better use of existing land, building taller where we can and using under-utilised land. So, in this regard, I also note that the Government has committed to the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) from early 2030 to renew ageing estates. So, I would like to ask, when the recommendation was made to clear parts of Maju Forest, Gillman Forest and Gillman Barracks for housing, was there any consideration to bring forward this renewal as an alternative? And if yes, what were the comparisons?

My second supplementary question is actually related to the Minister of State's earlier reply about how he was unable to share the exact housing yield of these sites, because the layouts have not been finalised. So, I would like to ask whether there is a target per site yield that HDB is looking at? I note in the 2025 draft URA Master Plan that it does contain indicative site yields for sites, like Newton, 5,000; the Patterson, 1,000; and also for Bayshore, 10,000 to 12,000, and so forth. But none has been given in this Master Plan for Maju Forest as well as for the Gillman Barracks sites.

And related to this, I would like to ask the Minister of State, what is the exact size of the housing demand that these sites are meant to respond to? It is something that my colleague Dennis Tan has asked. How much of this housing demand reflects local family formation per the Minister of State's outline about households getting smaller versus planned population growth?

And finally, I have one clarification. Given the volume of questions raised in this House today and the clear public interest and feedback on this, could the Minister of State clarify whether MND will be extending the consultation window beyond 6 August —

Well, that has been answered three times, if I recall rightly.

Yes, Mr Speaker. Just a clarification: whether this window is extended beyond 6 August, just like what was done for Dover Forest in 2021, or is it simply that MND will continue to engage the public and relevant agencies beyond 6 August? I am asking this so that Singaporeans can have more of a meaningful opportunity to participate.

Sir, for Ms Eileen Chong's questions, I have answered about the process of how we looked into the ecological profiling exercise, the EIAs and HIAs, but she raises some important points which I wanted to address.

The first is on the sites in the Master Plan with housing use, I think she mentioned Newton and other places, it is because the plans are firm. The plans are firm. Newton is my constituency. For Maju Forest and for Gillman Barracks, they are not firm and that is why we have the consultation period. That is why we have the EIA. That is why we are extending that, so that we can make adjustments.

And I mentioned earlier on that we make adjustments already prior with the EIA and HIA, where we could potentially have built more homes for Singaporeans. But we already have the EIA and HIA where we already accept that there will be lesser homes and the feedback exercise that will go beyond 6 August, as Speaker had mentioned, I have explained many times, will continue to help us to shape these plans as we go ahead.

On VERS, this is a long-term policy to have gradual redevelopment. It is not specifically linked to this. But earlier on, I have already mentioned why there is a demand for housing. I have already mentioned the smaller household sizes, I have mentioned greater family formation and also where people want homes. So, that is why we need to take this decision, look at the sites, look at where to build, look at alternatives and then, where we build, we do our best to mitigate the impacts of development – all to build homes for Singaporeans, which is our main objective.

Last supplementary question, Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State. May I know how the Government intends to support the arts community at the Gillman Barracks, either in relocating them or in continuing their work as an enclave in another area?

Sir, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for her question. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has already engaged tenants at Gillman Barracks since 2023 and informed that the site has already been safeguarded for residential use in the longer term. SLA has also kept the tenants updated on the environmental and heritage studies which I mentioned earlier on, as well as upcoming development works.

For arts tenants, I thank Ms Joan Pereira for thinking of our arts practitioners in the site. I want to assure her that SLA is working closely with the National Arts Council (NAC) to support them. NAC will continue to engage the tenants and work with relevant agencies to facilitate their relocation, where possible, including pointing them to suitable alternative spaces and opportunities within Singapore's arts ecosystem.

Sir, if you allow me to wrap up very quickly.

Okay.

Sir, I think we took the majority of Question Time. And it really reflects upon all Members of the House reflecting the voices of our people, reflecting the voices of youths, reflecting the voices of our residents, reflecting the voices of our communities. And I thank them. I appreciate them.

It also shows how we care. Earlier this morning, at 2.30 am, as I was preparing for this, Mr David Hoe messaged me and he said he just finished his Meet-the-People Session, and he showed me two young children with a little placard and it says, "Please save the forest." I texted him and I said, "That is wonderful". Because we should care, our children should care, our youths should care. That they care enough to come together, to write to us, to ask tough questions, but also to walk with us and to work with us to find solutions together to build homes, to also protect our precious green and heritage spaces.

Mr Speaker, both are not incompatible. We can build homes that are nestled in greenery. We can also build homes which are nestled in heritage. But we can do that if we understand collectively why we need to build, if we choose carefully where we build and if we manage carefully how we build.

Sir, we are going to celebrate National Day on Sunday. And as we celebrate National Day, we will be going down to our estates as we usually do. These estates were once upon a time, probably vegetated sites or brownfield sites, like Maju Forest was in 1976, but are now thriving estates with families, with homes, with generations raising families.

So, even as we have this very robust debate, can I ask my colleagues here in this House to walk with us collectively to assure our people that despite our limitations and our constraints, that we continue to shape our island into one of the most liveable cities in the world and with Singaporeans at the heart of everything we do. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]

19 Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government was consulted prior to GovTech's decision to proceed with its operating-model transformation and the retrenchment of affected employees on the current timetable; and (b) if so, what the Government's assessment was of the feasibility of phasing the retrenchment over a longer period.

20 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government is aware of (i) the age and tenure profile of the 93 retrenched GovTech officers and others placed on retraining pathways (ii) the criteria guiding whether officers were retrained or retrenched (iii) whether such criteria will apply in subsequent phases and (iv) how GovTech will sustain staff morale and projects serving the public during transitions; and (b) if so, what are they.

21 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information on GovTech's announced restructuring (a) whether the Ministry has information on (i) the age (ii) seniority (iii) roles (iv) identified skills gaps of the 93 officers who were retrenched (v) why these officers were not deemed transferrable to other agencies (vi) whether the skills gaps and agency needs for future restructuring will be assessed and announced in advance; and (b) if so, what are the details thereof.

22 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in relation to the first phase of GovTech's workforce transformation announced on 15 July 2026, whether the Government has information on (i) how many of the 93 retrenched officers were assessed, interviewed and offered vacant roles within GovTech or the Public Service respectively and (ii) whether suitable redeployment and retraining must be exhausted before external recruitment for roles requiring substantially similar capabilities.

23 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry had (i) anticipated GovTech's shift towards a continuous product ownership model and (ii) directed timely upskilling or career conversion programmes to be implemented to reduce retrenchments; and (b) of the officers affected by the restructuring, whether the Ministry has information on (i) how many have secured new employment and (ii) what career transition and reskilling support has been provided.

24 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether GovTech's move from project delivery to product ownership reflects a broader shift in public sector technology hiring; (b) how the Government's demand for project, vendor-management and product-development roles is expected to change; and (c) what implications these have for the wider technology workforce, including mid-career workers and their retraining pathways.

25 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of recent GovTech retrenchments (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if Singapore has a sufficient pipeline of talent to support the growing demand for capabilities in digital product management and product ownership across the public and private sectors; and (b) what measures, if any, are being taken with industry and Institutes of Higher Learning to strengthen these capabilities among Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, my reply will address the questions raised by Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Andre Low, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Sharael Taha in today's Order Paper, as well as the questions filed by Mr David Hoe1 and Mr Christopher de Souza for a subsequent Sitting, as they relate to GovTech's workforce transformation. If Members are satisfied with the reply, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.

I would first like to acknowledge that this is a difficult transition for the affected officers and their families.

With that in mind, let me explain what GovTech has done internally, how we intend to strengthen conviction in our public mission and how we are continuing to support our officers through this change.

The Ministry was consulted on GovTech's workforce transformation plan and we support it. The transformation will be implemented progressively over two years to give officers time to adjust. GovTech will also incorporate lessons learnt from each phase.

The workforce transformation is a necessary part of GovTech's shift from a one-off project-delivery model to a continuous product-ownership model. GovTech's workforce will grow because of this shift, but its composition will also need to change.

GovTech officers will need to take greater end-to-end responsibility for the digital products and platforms that the public interact with, while continuing to partner with the industry where vendors bring specialised expertise. Teams that own the products must not only design and build them, but must also maintain and improve them continually, to provide more reliable, secure and responsive digital services for our citizens.

GovTech is therefore hiring more software engineers, product managers, designers, data specialists, cybersecurity experts and platform engineers. However, as GovTech builds more products and operates them in-house, it will need fewer officers doing traditional project and vendor management.

GovTech anticipated this need to reshape its workforce. For several years, through natural attrition and targeted recruitment, its workforce profile has shifted, but not enough to meet our needs.

Therefore, GovTech has also invested heavily in pilots and apprenticeships to retrain existing staff for new roles or to redeploy them. But there are limits to its pace and scale. Meanwhile, technology is changing fast and GovTech must keep up, because if we fall behind, the quality of our digital products and services for our citizens will suffer.

We will retrain and redeploy as many officers as we can, but we cannot avoid having to transition out some officers. We recognise the disruption this causes to the affected officers and their families, and we will support them fully through this process.

The first phase will affect 305 GovTech officers. Of these, 102 officers have been retained or redeployed into roles where their skill sets are still required; 110 are being supported through structured job conversion and apprenticeship pathways; and 93 are being retrenched.

In deciding whether to retain, place on apprenticeship pathways or retrench officers, GovTech first assessed the job roles it needed for its future organisational and capability needs. Then, it assessed individual officers based on their competencies, domain expertise, job fit and readiness for the roles required. GovTech also consulted technology leaders in our agencies, including Chief Information Officers and Practice Leads, but it took the final workforce decisions centrally.

Among the 93 exiting officers, the largest age group is 40 to 49. This age group accounts for 42% of the exiting officers and also, 42% of the 305 affected officers. This age group is therefore not over-represented among the exiting officers. There is no significant difference in tenure between the exiting officers and those on retraining pathways. The exiting officers have served for a median of 5.4 years, compared to a median of 6.0 years for the officers on retraining pathways.

As for seniority, two-thirds of the affected officers were individual contributors and one-third of the affected officers were Team Leaders.

GovTech decided to be upfront in informing the affected officers about the transition plans, to help them evaluate possible redeployment opportunities against other options. Where there was a suitable pathway, GovTech has retrained and redeployed its officers before considering external recruitment. The apprenticeship pathways provide full salary, structured training and on-the-job learning to support officers in developing capabilities required under GovTech's future operating model.

Where there was no suitable role within GovTech, affected officers were supported in seeking opportunities in the public and private sectors. GovTech is working with the Public Service Division, the Skills and Workforce Development Agency and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute to facilitate job matching and referrals. Together, we identified a good mix of more than 300 job opportunities that are relevant to the affected officers' competencies. Officers interested in these options are currently in the application or interview stages. Affected officers also receive financial and transition support, career guidance and active job placement assistance.

GovTech will take the same approach in subsequent phases. We will strive for clarity on the roles and capabilities required, assess officers fairly against those requirements, retain and retrain where suitable, and support those who are retrenched.

The outcomes of the transformation will be assessed across three areas. First, whether officers have been supported through meaningful transition pathways, including retraining, conversion and redeployment where appropriate. Second, whether GovTech has strengthened the capabilities required for its future operating model. And third, whether GovTech successfully delivers more secure, reliable and effective digital services for Government agencies and citizens.

As the plans for subsequent phases firm up, GovTech will inform the officers affected of the timelines and the implications for them. GovTech's leadership will continue to engage officers throughout the transformation and work closely with agencies to ensure that critical projects and public digital services remain supported during the transition.

To sustain staff morale, GovTech has conducted town halls and dialogues at the cluster, team and individual levels. We seek to ensure that our staff understand not just what they are building, but why it matters. This fosters a shared sense of purpose and commitment to building technology for public good.

For the wider Public Service technology workforce, mid-career professionals in project and vendor management do bring valuable and transferable experience that can serve as useful foundations for product-oriented roles. However, these officers will still need to acquire relevant skills, such as agile delivery, user-centred design, cybersecurity and knowledge of data and cloud technologies.

We recognise that technology will continue to evolve and the skills required of technology professionals will also have to evolve in tandem.

The Government is committed to building a strong pipeline of digital tech talent to meet the growing demand for digital capabilities across the public and private sectors. We will continue to support workers, including mid-career professionals, through initiatives, such as the Infocomm Media Development Authority's TechSkills Accelerator. The Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) will also equip students with product management capabilities through coursework and internships. Within the Public Service, GovTech's Digital Academy plays a key role in building these capabilities by providing structured learning pathways and programmes on designing and managing products and platforms.

We will continue to work with the industry and IHLs to ensure that training opportunities are available for Singaporeans to reskill and upskill to take on roles in growing digital fields, including digital product management and ownership.

Acting Minister Lau, just to be clear, your answer is in response to Question Nos 19 to 25 listed in today's Order Paper? Correct?

Yes, that is right.

Thank you. Order. Leader.

REVISION OF QUESTION TIME

(Suspension of Standing Orders)

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable Questions for Oral Answer to continue until the completion of Question No 25, including supplementary questions.

I give my consent. Does the Leader have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

Leader, please proceed.

[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) Resolved, that notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Question time at this day's Sitting continue until the completion of Question No 25, including relevant supplementary questions thereon. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]

GOVTECH'S RESTRUCTUING, ROLES REDESIGN AND RETRENCHMENTS, AND SUPPORT FOR AFFECTED STAFF

(Resumption for supplementary questions)

And now, we can take supplementary questions. Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank Acting Minister Lau for her responses. I just have two short supplementary questions.

I note that she has mentioned that GovTech will continue to hire talents in this space. And so, my question is whether the Ministry is aware of how this major restructuring effort will affect GovTech's reputation, and attractiveness for future talent acquisition and retention?

My second supplementary question has to do with whether this exercise has caused staff to be more cautious and whether that might affect GovTech's innovative culture, and what are the steps being taken to preserve the culture of innovation that is prevalent within GovTech?

I thank the Member for his questions. We will continue to do our best in talent attraction and retention. We will explain the new roles that we are hiring for which are also closely aligned to the skills that are being taught in our IHLs today.

And related to the second question on the innovative culture, we will have to convince all of our existing GovTech's staff and also new recruits that the way we approach our work in GovTech is in service of Singapore. So, it is not about being careful or innovative for the sake of doing so, but it has to be done because that is the only way that we create and deliver better services for Singapore.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Acting Minister for the response. As we help workers move forward, I have three supplementary questions.

Firstly, what lessons from this GovTech experience from this round will inform subsequent rounds? Because I know this is not the end.

The second supplementary question will be: I know some anxieties from those who are on term contracts and which are extended without being offered a permanent role. For GovTech's officers on contract for service or term contracts, will their roles be more impacted by this change in operatonal model for GovTech?

And my third supplementary question is: she mentioned earlier those in the 40 to 49 years age group, they comprise 42% of those who are being affected. What is the percentage of those affected who were above 50 years?

I thank the Member for his questions. Perhaps, I will share two lessons from this first phase.

First, on how officers experienced the transition itself. We have found that officers who have to spend an extended period on a pathway towards exit, even with the support in place, it did create prolonged uncertainty and anxiety for both them and also for the teams that they are in. So, going forward GovTech will aim to shorten this period, wherever possible, so that officers reach clarity on their next steps more quickly rather than remaining in a state of limbo for longer than necessary.

Another lesson we have learned is that it is on how this transformation can be understood or may have been understood outside of GovTech. Some of the messaging around this restructuring may have given the impression that GovTech intends to move all work in-house and not use vendors anymore. That is not the case. Vendors continue to play an important role, particularly where they bring specialised expertise that complements our in-house teams.

What is changing is that GovTech is taking greater ownership of the products that we build and the platforms that we deliver. We will be clearer on this distinction in how we communicate future phases, so that our partners and the industry understand exactly what is and what is not changing.

On the second question on contract staff, we do have contract staff across GovTech in different roles – in cybersecurity, in data management, in user design and so on. For contract officers who are in project and vendor management roles, then it is more likely that they will be affected by the workforce transformation plans going forward.

Sorry, can the Member repeat the third question?

My third question is about —

Those above 50, that is right. On the proportion of affected workers above the age of 50, I believe the number is about 30%.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one question for the Acting Minister. I think in the letter by GovTech Chair, it was said that GovTech requires people who can define the problem, shape the architecture and more importantly, that the shift began years before the current AI wave. So, my original Parliamentary Question still remains, in that given that we already know that this was going to be coming a few years ago, what then is the so-called skills gap or competency gap that was really missing in these retrenched workers. And particularly, when they are in the age of about 40 to 49, these would be quite flexible mid-career workers. Why is it that even as the transformation was anticipated, they were not being able to be repositioned for another role within the Public Service?

I thank the Member for his questions. As I explained earlier, we have tried in different ways through apprenticeships, pilots and training programmes to convert as many of our staff as possible, and also to allow natural attrition to take place. Unfortunately, it is the pace and the scale of the changes that have been that have required us to take the current steps.

I think for many of our affected officers, we also want to give them a chance to consider whether the conversion to these new rules is something they want to do, because their competencies and their skillsets are still in demand, both in other Public Service agencies as well as in the private sector. So, we want to avail to them all opportunities possible and let them consider if there are opportunities that match their skillsets as well.

Mr Andre Low.

Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Acting Minister.

First, I think it is not very clear, so I would like the Minister to clarify if the affected 93 workers that have been retrenched have already stopped working, or alternatively, are they actually being supported through their transition while remaining on payroll? I am not clear what arrangement is. And if it is not that they are being supported through their transition and remaining on payroll, if this will be considered for both the current phase and subsequent phases? This is a practice that my previous employer did and I thought it was a very good one as we transition workers out of the company.

Secondly, has the Government already exhausted all public sector and Public Service opportunities for these 93 retrenched workers or is that part of the subsequent transition phase, post-retrenchment?

And thirdly, will Government commit to monitoring the outcomes of these affected workers over the next six months or perhaps a year and commit to publishing them?

I thank the Member for his question. I will reverse the order in how I respond.

We chose to inform the affected officers early after we completed our internal capability assessments and then determine which roles we needed going forward. We wanted to also give them early and direct communication because we think it serves to offices better.

Matching an officer to a role in other Government agencies is not something GovTech can do unilaterally by just comparing a resume against a list of vacancies. Every receiving agency and team have their own hiring processes which include interviews and assessments for fit. And an officer has to actively take part in that process for a match to happen at all. So, we wanted to do the communication early, give them some time and support to explore all options. We curated the list of more than 300 job opportunities and some of the offices are now in the application and interview stages.

All 93 officers are still on GovTech payroll. What we have done is to give them enough time after the notification to let them do both work handover and also look for alternative opportunities around.

I also just want to give a shout-out to all of them. Many of them are focusing very much on the handover of the work and some even tell us that they will do that first before they look around for opportunities elsewhere. We, in GovTech, are extremely grateful to them because they have helped us build up our digital products and services over the years.

We will continue to give them support for as long as they need and we intend to monitor all of them, all 93 of them, and any future GovTech officers who are retrenched, we intend to monitor their progress through the job placement efforts, to make sure that they have a good landing.

Mr Sharael Taha.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Acting Minister for her responses. Two supplementary questions from me.

Firstly, thank you to all our GovtTech officers for the amazing work that they do on the digital products that we all enjoy.

As automation and AI continue to reshape digital jobs, how will the Ministry ensure that the Government remains an employer that proactively invests in continuous skills renewal to prevent further redundancy?

My second supplementary question is, does the Ministry see this as a structural change from project delivery to product ownership, especially so since we are rolling out more AI capabilities, more AI agents, and the need to manage such agents and whether the industry will see this similar change and whether we do we have sufficient talent in the pipeline to address this?

I thank the Member for his questions. Yes, GovTech will continue to invest in the skills of our officers.

Just to give you a sense of what apprenticeships look like and how we retrain and invest in our officers, our apprenticeships that we run for officers that have to go into new roles, they run from between 12 and 18 months. They are conducted on a full-time basis within a product team. Officers gain practical experience in the role that they have been mapped to. Every apprentice is given is an assigned mentor, clear learning objectives and they have regular developmental check-ins at key milestones throughout the 12 to 18 months, and then they go through a conversion assessment at the end of their apprenticeship period.

This is extremely resource-intensive but also demonstrates our commitment to ensure that all suitable officers who are put through these pathways do have a good outcome at the end of it.

The second question on whether or not it is a structural change in capabilities, I think overall, we try to explain the shift we are making towards product management and away from traditional project and vendor management roles. We are not moving 100%. We do recognise that there are still many projects that are being managed with vendors and we also value the expertise that industry and vendors bring. I think, overall across the industry, while we do see some shift towards more product management roles, there is clear recognition, whether in the public or private sectors, that vendors remain a key partner in our digital ecosystem. And therefore, going forward, we still expect to work very, very closely with them.

As for AI and the technologies and the benefits that AI will bring, we think that they can be brought on even as we move into product management, as long as we ensure that our product managers and software engineers have a good grounding in AI than any future products they build through a product management model can have AI already infused in them.

Mr Yip, do you want to raise a last supplementary question? I am not forcing you if you do not have any.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for her reply.

I think my question builds on Mr Sharael Taha's questions. The Minister has explained the movement towards product ownership. However, with AI fundamentally changing the economics of developing digital services, for example, reducing development time, lowering costs and enabling small teams to deliver more, how are you rethinking about reshaping the future workforce and especially in terms of capturing the productivity gains and at the same time, creating meaningful careers for our GovTech officers?

I thank the Member for his questions.

I think a proper treatment on how we will use AI in GovTech and across the Public Service will require a separate question and debate on its own. But I think, as I explained earlier, we want to make sure that all of our GovTech officers have a good foundation in AI first of all, so that as they build the existing products, as they improve, maintain the existing products, they are able to infuse some benefits of AI into these services.

I also want to end off by saying that transformation is never easy. And this is not a story about GovTech needing fewer people who care about Public Service, it is about GovTech needing more people equipped to build and own the technology that Singaporeans depend on in the long run. We build and we build for Singapore. We will not lose sight of it. That is GovTech's mission before this transformation and it remains true today.

Order. End of extended Question Time. Introduction of Government Bills. Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.

[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 Civil Defence Shelter Act 1997 and the Fire Safety Act 1993, and to repeal the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act 2019", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and 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 amend the Protection from Scams Act 2025 and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906 to counter and prevent scams, to amend the Online Criminal Harms Act 2023 and the Police Force Act 2004 to enhance enforcement measures and to make related and consequential amendments to the Banking Act 1970", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and 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 amend the Health Sciences Authority Act 2001, the Biological Agents and Toxins Act 2005, the Human Biomedical Research Act 2015 and the Healthcare Services Act 2020, and to make related and miscellaneous amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) on behalf of the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and 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 Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967 and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior 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) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, I seek to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, road safety remains a key priority for the Ministry. Road accidents, which can lead to severe and irreversible consequences for victims and their families are entirely preventable. Our accident rates and fatality numbers need to come down. Last year we had a record high of 149 fatalities – almost one death every two days on the roads.

There are several pillars in our approach towards promoting road safety. One pillar is having strong and effective laws. Over the years, the Ministry has reviewed and updated the Road Traffic Act (RTA) to ensure that it remains fit-for-purpose. Since 2019, the Act has been amended four times. We seek to do so again today, to achieve three key objectives:

First, strengthen accountability for the most egregious road conduct; Second, further deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and third, enhance the Traffic Police's ability to detect and enforce against traffic offences.

Sir, the most egregious road conduct must be met with sufficiently severe consequences. We will amend the RTA in two ways to ensure this.

First, the Bill introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment where an offender deliberately uses a motor vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety, resulting in death or grievous hurt.

Members may recall the case of Jarrett Tee. Whilst racing a motorcyclist along a highway, the offender deliberately swerved his car to cut off the motorcycle and prior to doing so, said to his passengers, "Do you want to see motorcycle fly?" The offender's car then side-swiped the motorcycle, causing the motorcyclist and the pillion passenger to be flung off the motorcycle. The pillion rider passed away as a result.

The Prosecution described the case as, "One of the worst examples of dangerous driving possible," and his culpability was, "on the extreme end of high".

Yet the most serious charge that the offender could face, based on the facts of the case, was dangerous driving causing death, which carries a maximum imprisonment sentence of eight years.

The Government's view is that such conduct must face harsher consequences.

Where an offender deliberately uses a vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety, for example, by deliberately swerving a motor vehicle towards another driver to force the latter off the road or purposefully driving one's vehicle towards another road user, the offender's culpability is significantly higher than that of a driver who speeds or beats a red light. The law must recognise this distinction.

However, existing RTA offences do not adequately distinguish purposeful endangerment from dangerous driving. It may also be challenging for the Prosecution to prove that the conduct fulfilled the mental elements required for more serious Penal Code offences, such as murder, culpable homicide or voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means. For example, in a case like Jarrett Tee, where a driver deliberately swerves to cut off the motorcycle, it may be difficult to prove that he did so with the knowledge that death or grievous hurt was likely to result.

Clause 6, therefore, introduces a new offence of purposeful endangerment. It fills a gap in respect of offenders who deliberately use their vehicle to endanger another person's life or safety. Given the severity of the conduct, the penalties for the offence will be higher than those for dangerous driving causing death. Where death is caused, the offender is to be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to 15 years and is also liable to fine or caning, or both. The Court must also impose driving disqualification for life, unless there are special reasons not to do so; and if special reasons apply, the Court must impose at least 10 years of driving disqualification. The Court may also order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in the commission of the offence.

The offence will apply even if the person who died or suffered grievous hurt is not the person whom the offender intended to endanger. This ensures that the offender remains fully accountable for the consequences of their conduct.

Second, the Bill raises the penalties for careless and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt.

We are making this amendment because the most serious forms of grievous hurt may cause victims to suffer permanent, life-altering consequences, leaving them unable to work, live independently or care for themselves. For example, Members may recall a recent case of an auxiliary police officer who was on duty at Tuas Checkpoint when a drunk driver collided into him. He survived the collision but suffered traumatic brain injuries and is now paralysed and requires lifelong care.

The penalties in such cases must be proportionate to the harm. Yet today, the maximum penalties for reckless or dangerous driving, which I will hereafter refer to as dangerous driving, causing grievous hurt under the RTA remain significantly lower than those causing death.

Clause 7, therefore, increases the maximum penalties for dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, bringing them closer to the corresponding offences causing death. For dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the Bill increases the maximum imprisonment term for first-time offenders from five years to seven years, and for repeat offenders from 10 years to 13 years.

Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill also increases the additional imprisonment terms that serious offenders are liable for. Serious offenders referring to those who drove under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

For both careless driving – also known as driving without due care or reasonable consideration – and dangerous driving causing grievous hurt, the maximum uplift for serious offenders will increase from one year to one and a half years' imprisonment. For serious repeat offenders, who are convicted of a dangerous or careless driving offence committed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and who have a previous conviction for driving under the influence, the maximum uplift will increase from two years to three and a half years' imprisonment.

Our intention is for the increased penalty range to only apply to the most egregious cases. We do not intend to affect the prevailing sentencing benchmarks for those with lower culpability or who cause less serious forms of grievous hurt. The Ministry will work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to develop sentencing guidelines to give effect to this intent.

Sir, the second objective of this Bill is to further deter driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Sir, driving under the influence of such substances is simply inexcusable. It poses a serious threat to the safety of all road users. Every instance of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is entirely preventable and highly culpable. It reflects conscious and reckless risk-taking behaviour. Yet year after year, we continue to see far too many motorists make this dangerous decision.

Over the past five years, the Traffic Police detected between 1,500 and 1,800 drink-driving violations annually. And we know this is an under-detection, because drink driving generally can only be detected at roadblocks and with our limited operational resources, we cannot be setting up roadblocks everywhere.

This Bill introduces two provisions to enhance deterrence against driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

First, Clauses 11 and 19 tighten the prescribed alcohol limits from exceeding 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, to 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; and from exceeding 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, to 30 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The current prescribed alcohol limits have been in force since 1985. Since then, scientific understanding of alcohol impairment has advanced considerably. Many jurisdictions, including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and South Korea have adopted lower prescribed alcohol limits.

The evidence today consistently shows that even low levels of alcohol can impair a driver's reaction time, judgement, concentration and ability to respond safely to situations. As blood alcohol concentration increases, the degree of impairment increases and so does the risk posed to other road users.

The new prescribed limits represent the point at which impairment and thus, unacceptable risk to road users begins. The new prescribed limits broadly correspond to no more than 1.5 standard drinks for males and not more than one standard drink for females, consumed three hours before driving. These are only broad illustrations for reference and do not represent the "safe" number of drinks to go below the revised limits. This is because the effects of alcohol differ significantly depending on factors, such as age, sex, health and body composition.

Our message remains: if you drink, do not drive. You cannot be sure of your level of impairment after drinking, so do not take the risk.

As we make this amendment, the sentencing guidelines applicable to the new alcohol limits would also need to be reviewed. The Ministry's view is that offenders who drive with very high blood alcohol levels should face imprisonment given the significant risks such conduct poses to other road users and to enhance deterrence. We will work with the Sentencing Advisory Panel to consider issuing new sentencing guidelines for drink driving, including guidelines on when imprisonment is warranted.

Second, the Bill introduces a new offence of driving with controlled drugs, psychoactive substances or intoxicating substances present in one's blood. I refer to these substances collectively as "specified substances".

Today, it is already an offence to drive under the influence of specified substances in a manner that results in impaired driving. However, while it is an offence to drive simply with a certain concentration of alcohol in one's blood, there is no corresponding offence for specified substances. This is because there is no single scientifically established concentration threshold that can reliably indicate impairment across a wide range of such substances.

Instead, under the current offence, the prosecution must prove not only that the driver had consumed drugs, but also that the drugs had rendered him incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

This gives rise to significant evidential challenges. For instance, where Police officers arrive only after an incident has occurred, a positive blood test alone may not be sufficient. This is because it may not be possible to prove that the drugs had impaired driving, unless there is evidence, such as in-car camera footage showing such impairment.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has reviewed this and assessed that there should not be a need to prove impaired driving. Driving with the presence of specified substances in one's blood is itself dangerous and should be deterred, since these specified substances – for example, etomidate – are already regulated under our existing laws and are known to impair driving ability by affecting reaction time, attention and coordination.

Clause 11 therefore introduces a new offence under the new section 67(1)(c) of the RTA, where a person who drives or attempts to drive with the presence of a specified substance in his blood will commit an offence, without separately proving that he was impaired whilst driving.

Minister Sim Ann, if I may ask you to just take a seat.

Order. On behalf of hon Members, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of the Kingdom of Thailand and her entourage who are present in our Chamber. Her Royal Highness is visiting Singapore with a delegation of officers and cadets from the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy who are present here today.

Her Royal Highness is a cherished and long-standing friend of Singapore who has played a pivotal role in deepening our bilateral ties, particularly in education, healthcare, and science and technology.

Her steadfast support for the Global Young Scientists Summit has fostered enduring links between the young scientists of our two countries, through promoting collaboration, mutual understanding and lasting friendships.

Her Royal Highness also championed the establishment of the Chaipattana Foundation-Republic of Singapore Short-term Cultural and Educational Exchange Programme, which enables Thai students and teachers to participate in meaningful exchanges with their counterparts at NorthLight School in Singapore.

These initiatives have helped to strengthen the ties between the next generations of our countries.

Her Royal Highness has devoted her life to improving the well-being of the people of Thailand through her guidance of several charitable and public service organisations, including the Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Foundation, the Chaipattana Foundation and the Thai Red Cross Society. Her Royal Highness' commitment and dedication to education, sustainable development, public health and humanitarian causes have benefited countless lives both within Thailand and beyond.

In recognition of her remarkable contributions to Thai society and her enduring impact internationally, the National University of Singapore conferred upon Her Royal Highness an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Letters in 2025.

We are honoured to have Her Royal Highness with us today. Hon Members, please join me in welcoming Her Royal Highness to our Parliament. [Applause.]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Minister Sim Ann, you may proceed to resume your speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a warm welcome to Her Royal Highness.

We recognise that there may be situations where a person lawfully consumes or administers specified substances for medicinal purposes. The Bill provides a statutory defence where the substance was lawfully consumed by or administered; and the person did not know or have reason to believe that consuming it could impair his or her driving.

However, if the consumption of such substances did in fact impair the driving of the person, then there would continue to be criminal liability, as per the existing law.

The third objective of this Bill is to enhance Traffic Police's ability to detect and enforce against traffic offences, in four areas.

First, clause 14 of the Bill removes the requirement to administer a preliminary breath test, streamlining the drink-driving enforcement process.

Currently, enforcement of drink-driving is a two-stage process. Upon suspicion of drink-driving, an officer administers a preliminary breath test at the roadside. If the result is positive, the driver is arrested and brought to the Police lock-up, where an evidential-grade breath test is administered. This process is operationally onerous and results in a lower alcohol concentration reading when the evidential-grade breath test is carried out at the lock-up. It is also unnecessary as technology has improved over the years and Handheld Breath Analysers can now provide evidential-grade test results.

Clause 14 supports the Traffic Police's use of a Handheld Breath Evidential Analyser, allowing officers to obtain evidential-grade breath test results on the spot that accurately reflects the driver's alcohol level at the time of the offence. The Traffic Police can also conduct its drink driving enforcement operations more efficiently without having to bring the driver to the lock-up.

Second, the Bill aligns the procedure in the RTA for the taking of breath and blood specimens from hospital patients with that of similar provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Currently, under the RTA, before a police officer may require a hospital patient to provide a blood specimen to determine his blood alcohol level, the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge of the patient must first authorise this. While the Act does not prescribe the mode or manner of obtaining the authorisation, in a recent judgement, the District Court held that this authorisation must be express – that is, it cannot be inferred from the doctor's silence or failure to object. In that case, the drink driving suspect was acquitted after the doctor treating him was found not to have explicitly authorised the taking of a blood specimen.

This differs from the process under the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs forensic medical examinations in non-traffic investigative contexts and does not impose similar express authorisation requirement on the treating medical practitioner.

Clause 16 therefore removes the authorisation requirement under the RTA, aligning it with the Criminal Procedure Code provisions. In its place, before taking a blood specimen, the medical practitioner or nurse in immediate charge of the patient must be satisfied that the taking of the specimen will not endanger the individual. The amendment removes the procedural authorisation requirement but does not diminish the medical practitioner's or nurse's duty to assess whether doing so would harm the patient. The safety of the patient remains paramount and continues to be assured with this amendment.

Third, the Bill amends section 65B of the RTA, which sets out the offence of using a mobile communication device while driving.

Currently, an offender must satisfy three elements to be liable for an offence: (a) the driver must hold the mobile communication device in his hand; (b) the driver must operate any communicative or other functions of the device; and (c) the vehicle must be in motion while the driver is holding and operating the device.

The requirement in element (b) – that the driver must operate a function of the device – can only be enforced by a Police officer on the ground who observes the driver operating the device while the vehicle is in motion. This is challenging to enforce practically. More importantly, there should be no need to prove that the driver was operating the device. Unlike other everyday objects, a mobile communication device is ordinarily held to communicate or access information. These are activities which typically require the driver's visual and cognitive attention and divert their attention away from driving. Where the device is handheld, the risk of distraction is further compounded because the driver must hold and support the device, reducing the driver's ability to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

Clause 10 therefore amends section 65B to remove the element stating that the driver must be operating the device. A driver who holds a mobile communication device in his hand while the vehicle is in motion will commit an offence. This amendment also makes clear that it is not an offence if the device is secured in a mount and a driver touches it while driving.

However, where the driver's use of a mounted device distracts the driver or compromises the driver's control of the vehicle, the driver may be liable for offences such as careless or dangerous driving.

Fourth, the Bill supports the Traffic Police's ongoing efforts to leverage technology to scale up enforcement of traffic violations.

Today, when a camera captures a vehicle committing a traffic violation, a Police officer must review the footage to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed and, if so, require the owner of the vehicle to provide the particulars of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

Clause 21 introduces a new section 81A, which allows a computer program to assess whether there is sufficient evidence that a traffic offence was committed and if so, automatically issue a notice to require the vehicle owner to provide the particulars of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This enables the Traffic Police to significantly scale up the enforcement of traffic violations and eliminate manual processes, by using video analytics in traffic enforcement cameras.

The Traffic Police will ensure that only computer programs that have been robustly tested are used for enforcement. The computer program will also be subject to regular audits to ensure its continued accuracy and reliability.

To further safeguard against system errors, the new section allows drivers to apply to revoke the notice if they believe that the relevant vehicle was misidentified or where the alleged offence did not occur. Where such application is made, an officer will manually review the relevant evidence that led to the issuance of the notice.

The Bill also makes two other amendments to streamline and clarify existing provisions.

First, the Bill amends a number of provisions in the RTA to make clear how driving disqualification periods are calculated.

The current legal language in the RTA may give rise to an interpretation that a driving disqualification period runs concurrently with an imprisonment term in certain contexts – meaning an offender effectively serves his disqualification while incarcerated and already unable to drive.

In a case earlier this year, an offender was convicted of drink driving and other unrelated offences. He was not imprisoned for drink driving, but imprisoned for the unrelated offences. The Court of Appeal interpreted section 67(2) of the RTA to mean that the offender's disqualification period should commence on the date of his drink driving conviction, despite the offender being in prison for unrelated offences.

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

This goes against the policy intent for the offender's disqualification period to start only after he has served his imprisonment term, even if the imprisonment is for an offence unrelated to the offence for which the person is disqualified.

To give effect to this policy intent, clauses 3, 7, 8, 11, 22, 23 and 25 make similar amendments respectively to sections 42, 64, 65, 67, 84 and 116 of the RTA, and section 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Third‑Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960.

Second, clause 24 repeals section 133(2) of the RTA, an administrative requirement that has become obsolete. Section 133(2) of the RTA currently requires Traffic Police to prepare a duplicate of every traffic ticket notice and, if required by a Court, to produce this duplicate to the Court. In practice, this provision is not necessary as the Courts have obtained the information they require without needing this duplicate copy from the Traffic Police.

Sir, to conclude, this Bill introduces significant amendments to the RTA to achieve the three objectives I have laid out.

Alongside these amendments, we announced last week that we will tighten the Driver Improvement Points System, commonly known as the demerit points regime, to be implemented from January 2027. The two key changes are the lowering of the suspension threshold from 24 demerit points to 18 and lengthening the suspension periods for errant drivers who meet this lowered threshold.

Together, these measures are aimed at decisively arresting the increase in traffic fatalities and injuries.

But laws and enforcement alone cannot make our roads safe. Ultimately, it is the choices made by every road user – every driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, and pedestrian – that will determine whether we can reach home safely every day.

We urge all road users to exercise patience and graciousness on the road. When we stay alert, slow down or give way, we protect not just ourselves, but other road users, our families and our loved ones. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Sir, this Bill introduces important changes to make our roads safer. Before I conclude, let me leave motorists with two important messages.

First, if you intend to drink, do not drive. This Bill lowers the prescribed alcohol limits for drink-driving because scientific evidence consistently shows that even small amounts of alcohol can impair a driver's judgement and reaction time. The tightened limits better reflect the point at which impairment begins.

Second, when you drive, keep your attention on the road and do not hold your mobile communication device at any time. Unlike many other distractions, a handheld mobile communication device is designed to capture your attention. Using it requires you to take your eyes off the road, a hand off the wheel and your mind off driving. Even a moment of distraction can lead to devastating consequences. This is why we are strengthening our laws on the use of handheld mobile communication device while driving.

These measures will strengthen our laws and make our roads safer.

But safer roads ultimately depend on every one of us. It is the choices made by every road user – every driver, motorcyclist, cyclist, and pedestrian – that will determine whether we can reach home safely every day. We urge all road users to exercise patience and graciousness on the road. When we stay alert, slow down or give way, we protect not just ourselves, but other road users, our families and our loved ones.

(In English): Sir, I seek to move.

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

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Last year, there had been a spike in both the numbers and seriousness of traffic accidents and this Bill is timely in raising the seriousness of traffic-related offences as well as making them easier to prosecute.

First, there are a range of amendments dealing with penalties for causing death and grievous hurt. One of these is a new offence of dangerous driving to endanger another person on purpose that causes death or grievous hurt. This new offence is understandably a serious one with mandatory imprisonment of up to 15 years.

My question is whether this is necessary as I believe such a person can probably be prosecuted under existing offences where such a person can be charged for intending to cause death or grievous hurt under the Penal Code. The Penal Code covers a whole spectrum of mens rea, from intentional harm to causing it by a rash or negligent act, with different penalties for each. The Jarrett Tee case mentioned by the Minister could, perhaps, have been categorised as intentional causing of grievous hurt since he had asked his passengers if they wanted to see the motorcycle fly. And after the incident, he had said, she deserved it. So, it sounds like this was intention to cause grievous hurt and could alternatively have been brought under that offence.

In this regard, I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether there is an envisioned overlap in the current legislation that this needs to fill on the basis that the RTA is not the only legislation that can deal with this situation. If more than one Act might apply in a situation, such as the Penal Code, how would the authorities decide which Act to apply?

There are other amendments that raise the penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt, and I agree with the rationale that grievous hurt can totally ruin a person's life and causing it should be treated with a suitably serious penalty.

Second, I note the offence of handphone driving is now going to be easier to make out. Previously, there were three components that needed to be made out, but now there are only two – that the driver must be holding his mobile phone and the vehicle must be in motion. The requirement for the driver to actually be using the phone has been removed. I note that there is a new section 65B(1B) which provides that, "to avoid doubt…a driver who touches with his or her hand a mobile communication device which is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, in the manner intended by the manufacturer of the mounting, does not hold the device."

So, this gives some clarity to what many drivers have been doing, which is, using mounted mobile devices while they drive. So, this clearly is not going to be an offence anymore. I think this clarity is helpful, particularly for those in the private hire trade who rely on this for a living. I also agree with the clarification that should their use of the mobile device surmount to carelessness, then they would face potential liability under careless driving.

Next, there is a revision of offences, first of all, in relation to alcohol-related offences, to reduce the level of alcohol required to make out a drunk driving offence, which I completely agree with.

But separately, in relation to offences dealing with impairment for those who drive under the influence of controlled drugs, psychoactive or intoxicating substances, there is no longer a requirement to actually prove impairment nor is there a minimum threshold for the level of these substances found in a person's blood. While I have no objections to these offences being treated more seriously, I do have some concerns about a purely presence-based model without the need to show either intoxication or a suitably high level of concentration. For example, intoxicating substances, include glue, paint and petrol fumes.

Under the Intoxicating Substances Act, an offence is committed if a person inhales these substances for the purpose of causing or inducing himself to be in a state of intoxication. Therefore, if a person inhales these substances without such an intention, such as in the course of work, say working at a petrol station, construction site or factory, they will not commit an offence under the Intoxicating Substances Act.

However, for those people who are exposed to intoxicating substances in the course of work, because of workplace safety requirements, they are unlikely to inhale them in sufficient quantities to get intoxicated though there will probably be some level of these substances in their blood because they will be inhaling it. Would these people now be at risk of committing offences under the RTA since there is now neither a requirement for intoxication nor a requirement for an intoxicating level to be found in the blood? Some of these people may drive as a living, for example, vehicle operators at construction sites, while others may drive cars or motorcycles to work.

Next, on the amendments to do away with a manual review in favour of automated notices, I think this is sensible from the perspective of administrative efficiency and saving resources, and I am grateful for the Minister's clarification that this will only be confined to offences where machines are able to confirm with a high level of certainty that an offence has been committed. The assurance that these offences or these notices will be subject to a human review is also useful, certainly in the beginning when this is being rolled out.

I do have a final clarification of when the disqualification period will run and in particular, those who are suspended will have the disqualification run only from the time they have finished serving a prison sentence, assuming that sentence is for an unrelated offence. I would just like the Minister to clarify what is the policy intent behind this. Because if the idea of a disqualification is to keep the driver off the road for a certain period of time, why does it matter whether a driver is kept off the road because of a prison sentence or for some other reason? If the aim is to keep the person off the road, I think it does not really matter what the reason is.

Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill recognises the seriousness of driving-related offences, especially those that cause grievous hurt or death to innocent members of the public. At the outset, I wish to state clearly that I support the main proposals for change to our Road Traffic laws under this Bill. The data shared by MHA paints a stark picture between 2021 and 2025.

Singapore's traffic fatality rate increased by about 24%, while traffic violations rose by approximately 38%. To arrest this worrying trend, firmer legislative mechanisms are undoubtedly required. I fully support the introduction of penalties for purposeful endangerment, the tightening of legal alcohol limits, the standalone drug driving framework and the transition towards automated enforcement technology. In particular, the creation of a purposeful endangerment framework addresses a critical gap where a driver deliberately uses a vehicle as a dangerous weapon.

As the Ministry has noted, such offenders often cannot be convicted of murder or culpable homicide because of the exceptionally high threshold of proving intention to kill or knowledge that death was likely to result. Instead, they are typically charged with dangerous driving causing death, which currently carries a maximum imprisonment term of eight years for a first-time offender. Elevating the maximum penalty to 15 years, instituting a default lifetime driving disqualification and empowering the Courts to order the forfeiture of the vehicle used in offence are appropriate expressions of deterrence and accountability.

In my speech today, I seek to clarify the understanding and practical enforcement of certain provisions, with particular focus on the evolving definitions surrounding mobile communication devices, digital screens and mounted devices while driving. The Bill amends the offence of using a communication device to simply holding one, thereby allowing Traffic Police officers to enforce the offence without needing to prove active device use.

I welcome the Government's intention to make our roads safer by reducing distractions caused by motorists handling their mobile devices while driving.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we must not underestimate the growing range of digital distractions confronting motorists today. These distractions no longer arise only from handheld phones. They increasingly come from mounted smartphones, wearable devices, large infotainment systems, digital dashboards and other screens embedded within modern vehicles. As vehicles become more technologically advanced, our regulatory frameworks must also continue to keep pace with the changing nature of driver distraction.

Under this Bill, a driver is not regarded as holding a device if the device is mounted in accordance with the mount manufacturer's intended use. While I understand the practical rationale for this exemption, it raises important questions about how the exemption will operate alongside existing road safety rules.

In March 2026, I asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry had conducted or reviewed any local studies on the impact of multiple mounted mobile devices or digital screens on motorist reaction times and overall driving performances. In a written reply, the Minister stated that no such local studies have been conducted. The Ministry instead noted that Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules already makes it an offence to install a visual display unit in the manner that causes distraction or constitutes a safety hazard.

Given the absence of local research, I continue to urge the Ministry to proactively study the effects of screen-based distractions on road safety. In particular, we need empirical evidence on whether multiple mounted devices, large dashboard screens and simultaneous digital interfaces affect driver cognitive load, situation awareness and emergency braking response times. Such data will enable policy makers to calibrate future regulations on a sound evidential basis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question concerning the interaction between the new mounted device exemption and Rule 126 of the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules. Under the Bill, the touching and operation of a properly mounted device will not amount to the offence of holding a communication device. However, the same device could potentially still constitute a visual distraction under Rule 126 depending on how it is installed and used. Can the Minister clarify how these two provisions are intended to interact? What would legally constitute a safe mounting arrangement under the new framework? Would compliance with the mounting requirements under the Bill have any bearing on the assessment of whether a visual display unit creates a distraction under Rule 126?

We must also consider the realities faced by many platform workers. To maximise their earning, some drivers or many drivers simultaneously operate multiple ride hailing or delivery applications, often using several mounted devices within the vehicle. Each additional screen potentially imposes further cognitive demands on the driver and increases the amount of visual attention diverted from the road.

Has the Ministry assessed whether the use of multiple mounted devices contributes significantly to driver distraction? If not, would it consider studying this issue and also to study how safe driving can be enhanced, whether by way of improving vehicle dashboard or device design, hardware or software, particularly given the growing number of drivers who rely on platform work as a source of income, for their safety?

May I also clarify with the Minister for devices of wearable technology, such as smart watches, how would their use while driving constitute an offence under section 65B(1A) or elsewhere in the amended provisions, given their ability to deliver messages, notifications and other distractions directly to motorists while driving?

Beyond mobile phones and wearables, the law must also keep pace with developments in vehicle design itself. Modern infotainment systems have evolved into sophisticated communication and entertainment hubs. Features such as Apple Car Play, Android Auto, allow motorists to send messages, browse media content, interact with navigation systems while their vehicles are in motion. At the same time, many manufacturers have adopted increasingly minimalist cockpit designs, replacing traditional buttons and switches with large touchscreen interfaces. Functions that were once operated instinctively through physical controls are increasingly accessed through digital menus, requiring drivers to glance away from the road even for routine tasks.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, while stronger penalties are necessary, enforcement alone cannot fully address the problem if the design of modern vehicle cockpits is itself becoming a source of distraction.

If we focus solely on penalising distracted driving after it occurs without examining whether certain vehicle designs contribute to driver distraction in the first place, we may be addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.

In the interest of proactive road safety, will MHA work with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to consider standards of governing pre-installed infotainment systems, vehicle mobile application control functions and increasingly screen-dependent cockpit designs? Will the Government look into whether we need to require certain complex touchscreen interactions or app-based functions to be automatically restricted while a vehicle is in motion, in the interest of driving safety?

Around the world, regulators and vehicle-safety bodies are increasingly recognising that road safety depends not merely on how people drive, but also how vehicles are designed to be operated.

In Europe, European New Car Assessment Programme has revised the safety assessment protocols to encourage manufacturers to retain physical controls for key vehicle functions in response to concerns about touchscreen-related driver distraction. Similarly, China has introduced requirement for designated safety-critical vehicle functions to retain dedicated haptic physical controls that can be located and operated by touch alone, reducing the need for drivers to take their eyes off the road.

In the United States (US), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has also issued driver distraction guidelines, recommending that certain visual manual tasks be restricted or locked up while a vehicle is in motion where they may interfere excessively with driver attention.

Against this backdrop, will the LTA consider whether Singapore's vehicle-type approval framework should evolve to better address the risk posed by increasingly large and complex in-vehicle displays? Does the Government agree that safety-critical vehicle controls should remain readily operable, without prolonged visual interaction with digital screens or navigation through multiple layers of menus?

Mr Deputy Speaker, while I believe that we should take a much closer look at the evolving landscape of digital and screen-based distractions, the fundamental reforms contained in this Bill represent a significant and necessary upgrade to our enforcement capabilities.

Indeed, we must send a clear and unequivocal message that irresponsible and dangerous behaviour on our roads will not be tolerated. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the measures in the Bill to strengthen road safety, including introducing the offence of purposefully endangering safety, tightening drink-driving standards and expanding the use of automated enforcement technology.

With technological advancement, the distractions faced by drivers are no longer limited to mobile phones. Many vehicles are equipped with large touchscreens and various digital systems, and drivers can likewise be distracted when operating these devices. I believe that road safety depends not only on how drivers drive, but also on vehicle design.

Therefore, I urge MHA and LTA to study the impact of these new technologies on driving safety and to review vehicle standards when appropriate, so as to ensure that important driving functions do not rely excessively on touchscreens, safeguarding the safety of road users.

I support this Bill.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is ultimately about making sure our roads are safe. The case for action is compelling, traffic fatalities hit a 10-year high is 2025. The rising numbers of traffic accidents resulting in injuries also increased and the number of traffic violations rose too.

Such evidence should be of great concern to drivers who transport people and goods daily, the workers who use our roads for commuting and their families. And the introduction and implementation of stronger laws must be aimed at supporting their safety on our roads.

Clause 6 introduces the new section 63A. It targets drivers who deliberately endanger any other road user. The penalty reaches up to 15 years of imprisonment, caning and lifetime disqualification.

Some road users do not make mistakes. They deliberately use their vehicle to pose a safety risk to another on the road. This Bill recognises that difference, and calls it "purposeful endangerment", and metes out stiff penalties for introducing dangers to our roads. I welcome it.

Clauses 7 and 8 also increase penalties for dangerous and careless driving causing grievous hurt. Some maximum terms nearly double. This should make our roads much safer for workers like our bus captains, taxi and private hire drivers and delivery workers. Our roads are their workplaces and their families just want them to return home safely after work ends.

In July this year, it was reported that the number of work-related traffic fatalities in the first half of 2025 has exceeded last year's total. I find this very concerning. Hence, I would ask the Ministry to commit to a review in a few years. Did identifying this new offence actually shift driver behaviour? Higher numbers of violations in the statute book are not proof of success. Lower fatality and injury numbers on the ground are.

Sir, while I support the new section 63A, I have one clarification for the Minister. Section 63A(6) empowers a District or Magistrate's Court to impose the full penalty. This departs from the usual position under the Criminal Procedure Code. Could the Minister confirm the rationale? And confirm that rights of appeal remain fully preserved?

Sir, I support the tighter alcohol limits and the prohibition against holding a mobile phone while a vehicle is moving. However, compliance begins with communication. Could the Minister share concrete outreach timeline before the commencement? Would the Minister consider a targeted campaign well ahead of the first summons and delivered through the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the platform operators and the taxi associations?

I have noted the proactive clarification by the Ministry in its media release, that the usage of mounted devices will not be an offence and that drivers may also hold their devices while the vehicle is stationery. This is an important clarification to ease concerns on the ground. Many platform workers receive their in-app notifications on their phone and rely on them for navigation. So, I urge the Ministry to leverage on my proposed campaign to ensure that our platform workers are kept up-to-date.

Sir, the workers most affected by this Bill often lack the human resources support available to most employees.

First, on prescribed medication. Clauses 11 and 13 create a new offence for any specified substance found in a driver's blood. There is a statutory defence. But the burden falls on the driver to prove his use was lawful. I note that doctors and pharmacists do highlight the side effects of prescribed medicines, including when the medications affect a person's fitness to drive and operate machinery. I therefore ask the Ministry to continue to work with pharmacies to highlight when a prescribed medication could affect the driver's fitness and to provide a simple hotline a driver can call to enquire before he starts his shift, and not after he is being arrested?

Second, on the disqualification timing, where disqualification begins after release from prison. I agree with the Ministry that errant and dangerous drivers should be kept away from our roads. However, this poses an adverse impact on breadwinners where driving was part of their job.

I therefore ask that when livelihoods are affected, that the Ministry work with platform operators, our unions and platform work associations, and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) in the outreach and in handling of cases sensitively. In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry for its recent efforts to engage unions and platform work associations leaders before revising the Driver Improvement Points System. I am glad that the Ministry addressed the concerns by providing a one-time deduction of demerit points. This will ensure that motorists do not face suspensions or revocations when the revised Driver Improvement Points System becomes effective on 1 January 2027. So, I hope that the Ministry can adopt the same consultative approach to manage the livelihood issues in the transition towards the new compliance measures being debated today.

Sir, clause 21 introduces the new section 81A. It allows a computer program to assess camera footage. That program can then automatically trigger notices to vehicle owners. As enforcement becomes more technology-enabled, Singaporeans must remain confident that technology assists decisions. It does not replace accountability. It is important that section 81A clarifies that this computer program is operated under the Deputy Commissioner of Police's oversight.

And I would like to ask the Minister four questions. First, will the human review safeguard remain permanent, to safeguard accountability even as the confidence in the system continues to grow? Second, will the appeal process remain fast and free-of-charge? Third, will MHA publish annual figures on notices issued, the notices challenged and notices revoked on review? Fourth, how will the Ministry maintain transparency and provide timely information to road users on which offences are being handled by the computer program?

Sir, I would like to highlight a practical question for those who drive for a living. Such a driver will feel the pinch of loss of income if they are unable to drive while their case is under appeal. How will the Ministry handle appeals of those detected by the computer system and resolve them quickly?

Next, on the record-keeping duties for corporate vehicle owners under section 81C. I would like to ask the Ministry if this duty must also be performed by a transport fleet operator and a platform operator, as defined under the Platform Workers Act. If so, I request that the Ministry actively monitor the implementation, for example via account suspensions, and whether those costs are quietly passed down to Platform Workers by way of fare adjustments. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Sir, for many Malay/Muslim drivers and delivery riders, this job is not merely about earning a living. It is an "amanah" or duty.

The duty to transport passengers safely. The duty to deliver goods with care. The duty to return home to one's family each night in good health. These are the values that have long guided our community on the roads.

Viewed through this lens, this Bill is aligned with our principles. It demands accountability from every driver. It imposes heavy penalties on those who wilfully endanger others. I support this.

However, allow me to raise two concerns that better reflect the reality of our community.

First, on the use of mobile phones. For private-hire vehicle drivers, taxi drivers and food delivery riders, the phone is not merely a communication device. It is a work device to determine the next job, the delivery address and the day's earnings. The new regulations must be explained in detail. What constitutes "holding" a phone? When may the phone be touched? When may it not? This clarity is important so that a driver does not lose his licence due to confusion, not negligence.

Second, on medication prescribed by a doctor. Many elderly drivers in our community have diabetes, high blood pressure or heart conditions. They take medication every day in order to continue working and supporting their families. This Bill introduces new offences relating to certain substances in a driver's blood. While legal defences exist, the burden falls on the driver himself. A driver who takes medication as prescribed by his doctor should not face the risk of losing his livelihood because of the very medication that keeps him alive.

I urge the Ministry to work not only with pharmacies and doctors, but also with Malay/Muslim organisations so that this information is presented in plain and simple language, that is conveyed early and to those who are most affected.

Because to a father who supports his family with this income, losing his licence means losing his livelihood. And the loss of his livelihood affects the entire family, including his school-going children. This "amanah" or duty is not only meant for the road. It also applies at home.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill does right on three fronts. It names and significantly penalises deliberate endangerment, it makes standard stricter for every driver and it modernises how we enforce our roads.

And I have three asks. I ask that we: first, communicate the new laws and compliance clearly to the workers most affected before the enforcement begins; to take responsibility for the livelihood risk the Bill creates for compliant drivers and build in the transparency from day one; the implementation to support enforcement technology that we deploy to expand the enforcement power.

Sir, our drivers deserve safer roads as they work to move people and goods across our island. Our commuters deserve safer roads and so, they can arrive at home safely to their families. Sir, I support the Bill.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's move to tighten enforcement and penalties for traffic offences under today's Bill is welcomed. These are urgent and lifesaving legislative moves. As MHA itself noted, the road safety situation is worsening significantly, with the traffic fatality rate increasing 24% between 2021 and 2025, while traffic violations rose by about 38%. I also noted that generally, the Singapore situation is also worse than some other comparable cities, with our traffic fatality rate in 2025 at 2.44 per 100,000 population. This is more than 150% higher than in Tokyo and almost double Hong Kong's.

Road-related deaths are a leading non-health related cause of death in Singapore. Perhaps, it will also help to start avoiding using the word "accidents", which may in a way imply inevitability and helplessness, weaken accountability and also reduce needed attention to root causes, which ultimately can be tackled through public policy and infrastructure design.

Broadly speaking, the tools added or amended before this House operate to tackle road traffic incidents via four mechanisms: first, boosting certainty, that is, the chance of getting caught; two, severity of consequences; three, removing the ability to offend; four, norm signalling. Each of these areas have room for improvement or greater clarity, both in the legislation and in the public policy being effected on the ground.

First on enforcement certainty. Clause 10 changes section 65B from an offence requiring both the holding and operation of a mobile communication device to an offence based on holding the device while the vehicle is in motion. This should make the offence more straightforward to enforce. However, the clause also makes clear that merely touching a phone secured in a properly affixed holder does not amount to holding it.

Repeating the call by my colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, could the Minister clarify how the law will address drivers who interacts extensively with a mounted phone or even entertainment system? This could include typing messages, scrolling through social media, watching videos or taking video calls. What rules will apply, where the same activities are carried out through an in-vehicle display, including through systems, such as Apple CarPlay. At what point will such conduct be enforced as careless or dangerous driving under sections 65 or 64?

The other point on enforcement relates to enforcement cameras. While the Bill touches on cameras, my question relates to a broader point. Enforcement camera locations these days are publicly disclosed and flagged out in bright colours, as it was noted that this is important for deterrence. Yet in 2024, the Traffic Police released statistics that showed that motorists would slow down to ensure they are not caught and then go back to speeding again after they have cleared the stretch.

Given that vehicle velocity is the most important determinant of crash deaths, I am concerned that this behaviour not only fails to reduce speeding or dangerous driving. It may instead cause drivers to drive more dangerously when they believe there is no chance of being caught. In this regard, what is the evidence that the current format of disclosed camera and ad hoc Traffic Police enforcement is sufficient to tackle excessive speeds and dangerous driving?

Next, on deterrence and proportionality. Clause 7 raises the imprisonment ceilings for reckless or dangerous driving causing grievous hurt under section 64, including for repeat and serious repeat offenders. It does not raise the corresponding fines. Clause 8, likewise, raises certain additional imprisonment ceilings for serious offenders convicted of careless driving causing grievous hurt while leaving the existing fines unchanged. Could the Minister explain what evidence and methodology used to assess whether the Act's statutory dollar denominated fine limits remain sufficiently deterrent for motorists of very different means? Does MHA examine its sentencing outcomes, repeat offending and the relative burden of fines across offenders' financial circumstances?

While penalties, like jail terms and suspensions, ultimately remove the ability to re-offend, a crime punishment model alone is not enough. We need to bring down offending in the first place by rethinking our road infrastructure. Some positive steps have been taken recently with initiatives to calm traffic, improve pedestrian use and access. Local data backs this up. The Silver Road scheme was found to have resulted in the reduction of incidents involving elderly pedestrians by 80%.

It is worth reiterating that alongside intelligent design with direct input from behavioural signs, traffic calming results in lower speed limits, and lower speed limits result in lower casualties. A pedestrian hit by vehicle travelling at 50 kilometres per hour (km/h) has a 40% chance of dying compared with 13% when the vehicle is travelling at 30 km/h. Recent Meta analysis studies from different cities show that a 30 km/h speed limit in urban areas causes an average 40% reduction in crashes, fatalities and injuries, with added benefits in improving active mobility and health. A 30 km/h speed limit may also not need to mean longer travel times if we design our roads to improve traffic flow by reducing stopping times, allowing closer spacing and making lane merging easier.

In this regard, while we already have the Green Link Determining system determining our traffic light junctions' timings, could we not upgrade this further to improve safety? In order to do so, we also need to pay attention to the end-user experience; that is, to ensure that traffic light timings do not end up making motorists even more impatient and likely to speed. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology mobility initiative study noted that adjusting traffic signals so that only drivers obeying the speed limits will come across green lights was, "99% effective to reliably induce speed reductions," and was such that most drivers do not even notice them. Can the Minister clarify if or how our traffic lights control system takes similar measures into account?

Other traffic calming measures, especially for new roads, should also be rolled out quicker and there should be better centralisation of efforts with input from road users and experts. This would also provide more learning points from where existing roads and Silver Zones can and should be improved.

During our Sengkang Town Hall conversations a couple of years back, residents also shared their candid views and thoughts about already worsening road safety standards and increased congestion. What became clear to many of us then was the sense that relief and deterrence measures were important, but only a part of the puzzle. We wanted to know why motorists were acting the way they did; that is, to get to the root cause of the problem. Why are we speeding more and driving more recklessly? What is the impact on road safety of increased stress, population density and crowding on the way we drive, react and act on our roads? Are there studies looking into this? What does the data show and how do we tackle these root causes of poor road safety beyond throwing more people in jail or impounding vehicles and revoking licences?

Lastly, on new norms. The reduced alcohol limits introduced by clause 19 signal new norms in another way to change the culture of driving in Singapore. The new limits are that permissible alcohol levels are roughly equivalent to 1.5 standard drinks for men and one standard drink for women consumed within three hours of driving. My WP colleague, Mr Andre Low, will speak more on this but hopefully, this is a start to shift the needle away from the attitude that a motorist can drink as long as they can handle their alcohol.

Another new norm we need to move towards is a policy call that introduces a Vision Zero movement for our road safety. This takes a leaf from global aviation industry efforts to eliminate fatalities from incidents and akin to what we are aiming for, for workplace health and safety. Sweden, Norway and Finland work on efforts across policy-makers, enforcement agencies and all sectors of society to find and implement ways to virtually eliminate all traffic fatalities, buttressed by the ultimate belief that loss of life on roads is both preventable and unacceptable.

This is not an easy task, especially as individual failings account for many deaths, but we must work continuously to ensure that our roads and their design keep up with innovation and technology for vehicles, and to more holistically regulate and encourage road safety. After all, Helsinki achieved a full year without road deaths across 2024 and 2025 through lower speed limits, safer street designs, strong enforcement and improved pedestrian infrastructure. It is time for us to set our own North Star in our own attempt to do so.

Dr Hamid Razak.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

As an orthopaedic surgeon, I have had to treat many victims of road traffic accidents. The public often remembers the headlines, the collisions, the fatalities, the Court cases. But in hospitals and in the emergency rooms, we remember something very different. We remember the young motorcyclist who survives but spends months in rehabilitation, recovering from multiple fractures and repeated surgeries. We remember the pedestrian who never walks independently again. We remember the father who can no longer work because of chronic pain; the mother who has to become both a caregiver and a breadwinner; and the child whose life quietly changes because someone else's momentary lapse became a lifelong consequence.

These are the stories that seldom make the news, but they are the very reasons that this House is debating this Bill today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, road safety is therefore not simply about preventing deaths. It is also about preventing lifelong disability, protecting livelihoods and keeping families together. The objective of this Bill is therefore not simply to punish more drivers. It is really to prevent more victims.

For me, this Bill rests on a very simple but important principle: that road safety succeeds when our laws are fair, firm and practical.

Today, I would like to make three points: first, protecting lives; second, protecting livelihoods; and third, protecting public trust.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first point is about protecting lives. I support the direction of this Bill. In particular, I welcome the introduction of the new offence of purposeful endangerment using a motor vehicle under the proposed section 63A. It recognises that there is a clear distinction between negligence and intent.

Most road accidents arise from human error, but this amendment addresses something different – intentional harm. Where a vehicle is deliberately used to endanger another person's life, society is dealing with something fundamentally different. A motor vehicle is no longer simply a mode of transport. It becomes a weapon. And the law should recognise that distinction, and I am pleased that this Bill does so too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I also support the amendment relating to mobile phones. The Bill removes the need to prove that the driver was operating a phone. Simply holding a phone while driving will now constitute an offence while making clear that touching a phone that is mounted does not do so. This is both sensible and practical. Drivers should not be holding a mobile phone while their vehicle is in motion. Our eyes belong on the road and our hands belong on the wheel. Because every distracted glance lasts only a few seconds, but as mentioned earlier, the consequences for some can be a lifetime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as doctors, we often say that prevention is better than cure. The same principle applies to road safety. The safest accident is the one that does not happen at all. Every dangerous driver deterred before causing harm means one fewer patient in our emergency departments. One fewer family receiving devastating news. And one fewer life permanently altered. That is why I support this Bill. Not because it supports stronger penalties. But because it has the potential to prevent greater tragedy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my second point is about protecting livelihoods. I support giving the Traffic Police stronger powers to intervene where there are reasonable grounds that a driver poses an ongoing danger to other road users. If there is a genuine risk to public safety, early intervention is the right thing to do.

However, I would like to seek some clarification from the Minister on how these powers will be exercised in practice.

For many Singaporeans, a driving licence is not simply a licence. It is a livelihood. Taxi drivers. Private-hire drivers. Delivery drivers. Commercial drivers. Many of them spend 10 to 12 hours on the road daily. Their licence essentially pays the mortgage, puts food on the table and pays their children's school fees. For many of these Singaporeans, suspension of a driving licence means suspension of their income.

Public safety must always come first. There can be no compromise on that. But equality, procedural fairness is essential.

Could the Minister therefore elaborate on the safeguards that will ensure that these suspension powers remain proportionate, transparent and timely? Could the Minister also assure our professional drivers that appeals involving the livelihoods will be dealt expeditiously? Where investigations ultimately exonerate a driver, what are the mechanisms that exist to minimise unnecessary disruption to their livelihoods?

Strong laws command respect. Fair processes build trust. We need both because road safety succeeds only when our laws are not only firm, but also when they are fair.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my final point is about protecting public trust. People accept tough laws and they accept them when they can understand them better. If we want safer roads tomorrow, we must educate our road users today better.

Mr Deputy Speaker, much of our discussion today has centred on stronger penalties. That is understandable. Penalties change behaviour through fear but education changes behaviour through intentional choice. Could the Minister explain how the changes to the law today and the principles behind these changes be weaved into public educational and communication, including across our schools?

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the greater use of technology in strengthening enforcement. Technology allows us to intervene earlier, apply the law more consistently and improves objectivity. But I hope we will go one step further. Technology should not merely catch bad behaviour. It should also encourage good behaviour. Technology should become a partnership in prevention, not just merely a tool for punishment. Perhaps, currently installed cameras and prospectively installed cameras can pick up near misses and such near misses be shared with these drivers to show them what could have been a fatality or something consequential. Because ultimately, no camera, no sensor, no piece of legislation can replace personal responsibility.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if this Bill prevents one child from losing a parent, one family from losing its breadwinner and one young motorcyclist from becoming the next patient, then this House would have done something worthwhile today. With that, I support this Bill.

Mr Andre Low.

Mr Deputy Speaker, every road user makes a simple assumption. That the people around them will exercise basic care. The motorcyclist riding home after work, the parent driving a child to school and the pedestrian at a crossing all rely on it.

When someone drives after drinking or taking intoxicating drugs that trust is broken. The risk is borne not only by the driver but by everyone around them. A collision can take seconds. Its consequences can last for decades. A life may be lost. A serious injury can change what a person is able to do, how a family lives and what their future looks like forever.

And that is why there is often a palpable sense of public anger when someone who did nothing wrong is killed or permanently injured in an avoidable collision. That anger is often justified. Our task as Parliamentarians is not to amplify that anger but to tap into it, so that it can inform our work to reduce the chances of the next tragedy.

The law cannot undo irreversible harm, but it can set clearer boundaries, support effective enforcement and make dangerous choices far less likely. My comments today will focus on the changes concerning drink and drug driving and the evidence on which these offences will be enforced.

Let me begin with alcohol. The message should be simple. If you are driving, do not drink. The legal limit should not be mistaken for permissive drinking allowance.

The Bill lowers the prescribed breath alcohol limit from 35 to 15 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and the blood alcohol limit from 80 to 30 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. This is a substantial change intended to shift behaviour as much as enforcement. I support that direction.

I ask the Minister to explain the evidence supporting the precise limits of 15 microgrammes and 30 milligrammes that we have chosen, including the relationship between these levels and the risk of impaired driving. I also asked how the new limits will be communicated to the public.

MHA's safest advice in their press release is that drivers should not drink at all. Public messaging should reinforce that norm rather than invite motorists to guess at how much they might be able to consume without crossing the line. That message must be matched by an enforcement people can trust.

The Bill will also allow evidential breath test to be conducted at or near the place where the requirement is made. MHA intends to use portable handheld breath evidential analysers at the scene.

Faster testing may give a reading closer to the time of the offence, but that roadside reading may also become central evidence in a criminal case. The more consequential the reading, the more important is that the device can withstand scrutiny.

What approval, calibration and maintenance standards will apply and how will measurement uncertainty rounding and device tolerances be treated where a reading is at or very near the legal limit? And where these records are relevant to the prosecution, would the accused be able to obtain the device calibration and operator records needed to test the evidence?

I will move on to drug driving. The need for a clear and defensible legal boundary is even more important for drug driving. Under the present framework, enforcement may require proof that a driver was unfit and incapable of proper control. The Bill creates an additional offence where a controlled drug or psychoactive substance or intoxicating substance is present in the driver's blood, regardless of the quantity detected or whether impairment was observed.

I understand the enforcement problem. Different substances can affect people differently and proving the precise link between a substance and a driver's impairment may be difficult. A presence-based offence gives the law a clearer enforcement line. It also makes the scientific and operational meaning of presence critical. So, I ask: which substances and metabolites will be tested and at what analytical threshold will they count as present?

MHA should publish the relevant detection windows, its treatment of therapeutic use and any reporting or prosecution thresholds before the offence commences. Motorists must know the legal boundary and the Courts must be able to assess the evidence consistently.