Hansard, Wednesday, 8 May 2024

Order. I wish to inform Members that on 4 April this year, I have nominated Ms Sylvia Lim to fill a vacancy in the Special Select Committee on Nominations for Appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament under the provisions of Standing Order No 102. The nomination took effect from 4 April this year.

Order. Questions for Oral Answer.

1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the social media posting that was taken down by the Israeli embassy in Singapore on 24 March 2024 (a) whether there are further steps to be taken; and (b) whether a person responsible for such posting on a social media account that is owned or managed by a foreign embassy in Singapore will enjoy diplomatic immunity from jurisdiction and prosecution under our laws.

Sir, external developments, especially those as emotionally charged as the conflict in the Middle East, often spill across borders. They can cause tensions between people who feel differently about and who identify with different sides of the issue.

And we in Singapore have been affected by these forces as well. We see in particular a divide in the reactions between the Malay/Muslim community on the one side and the Jewish and Christian communities on the other side. Many in the Malay/Muslim community see the injustice in what is happening in Gaza. The Jewish community meanwhile feels deeply the pain inflicted by Hamas’ act of terror on 7 October 2023. There are sections of the Christian community who feel that any attack on Israel is an attack on Christianity – while not all Christians feel that way, there are some who feel that way and have expressed those views. Other communities may also empathise with one side of the conflict more than the other.

Deeply held feelings can also result in words or actions that offend other communities. Between 7 October 2023 and 31 March 2024, the Police received 43 reports regarding alleged offensive remarks or actions targeted at members of the Jewish or Muslim communities in Singapore.

The Government will intervene against acts which can affect our social harmony. Members know we have laws such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Penal Code has provisions, the Protection from Harassment Act – they all set out the boundaries on what is acceptable conduct.

In this context, let me also say something about protests. We have seen how tensions have boiled over in many countries. In Berlin, pro-Palestinian protestors have clashed with the police, with hundreds of people arrested. At United States (US) universities, exchanges between different groups of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student protestors have become increasingly acrimonious. Students on both sides have faced harassment and assault.

Ironically, some of the leading US universities are beginning to say that freedom of expression does not mean that one can say or do anything one wants.

What we see happening in many places overseas is that the protests have often become violent. People occupy buildings, prevent others from going about their daily businesses, cause significant disamenities and disruption to the public. And often, that leads to damage and harm. They may start off well-intentioned, led by honest, idealistic people. I mean, people often say, "What's wrong with protests, expression of views?" And I can understand that. Often, people genuinely feel the need and they are not violent people. They do not want to create trouble. But what happens is that when there are these protests, they often get infiltrated, as we can see from elsewhere, by others with their own agendas. These others who infiltrate these protests often try and engineer violence.

The New York Times and other media outlets have run stories on what is happening in the US right now. The Mayor of New York has reportedly criticised outside agitators for being on campus grounds training and co-opting the protests. He was concerned with, and I quote, “young people…being influenced by those who are professionals at radicalising children”. The New York Times ran an article, quoting a student saying that a big part of the protests was people coming in from the general Los Angeles area and putting on a demonstration that caused widespread disruption. These are on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campuses.

There are also reports which, on the other hand, deny that outsiders have been significantly involved. I think it is difficult to know the true facts, but looking at protests – and we have been studying them, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, other places – I think it is fair to say, often, there is a group which has legitimate aims, wants to be peaceful, but there are often others who use these events where people gather, to then engineer violence and put the police on the defensive, and try and egg the police on, to try and engage in forcibly preventing acts of violence, and then, it escalates.

Likewise, our own view is that: if we allow protests on this issue, initially, it may be peaceful, but over time, as the protests take a life of their own, there could be some violence, breach of the peace and law, occupying of buildings in Singapore; we are no different from other places.

We should accept that individuals who engage in offensive or violent conduct, however, are a very small minority in our society and I suspect in many other places too. We in Singapore have not had many serious incidents pitting one racial or religious group against another. Most Singaporeans understand the importance of safeguarding our social cohesion, and the value of mutual respect and tolerance. Even where views on the conflict have differed, people in Singapore have been relatively measured and rational in the way we have approached the issues.

Beyond the law, we have to work actively, and we do work actively, on strengthening our social compact by building mutual trust and understanding across our ethnic and religious communities. At the leadership level, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) facilitate platforms where senior religious and community leaders engage with one another frequently. The platforms include the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony, as well as the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles in every constituency.

At the people-to-people level, MCCY provides support for inter-faith and inter-ethnic initiatives that bring different communities together, including dialogues which encourage mutual understanding and respectful interactions across different communities.

Let me now turn to the social media post by the Israeli Embassy that was raised by Mr Zhulkarnain. Foreign embassies and diplomatic staff in Singapore enjoy diplomatic immunity under the law, unless they waive it. Amongst other things, this means that they enjoy immunity from our criminal jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, MHA shared our concerns with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) when the post was put up. We shared our concerns immediately. MFA agreed that the post was offside and should be taken down. MFA then engaged the Israeli Embassy on the post and asked that it be taken down. As Members would know, the Embassy took down the post immediately.

Members will remember what I said in public – that the post was completely unacceptable. The Israeli Ambassador asked to see me. I met him last week. He apologised for the post having been put up. He said it was wrong for the post to have been put up. The post was not authorised by him and the officer responsible for the post will be sent back, away from Singapore. And he said that this would never happen again.

I pointed out to him that embassies are entitled to have their point of view. But where what has been said affects Singapore, in this case the harmony and safety within Singapore, especially the security as well of our minority communities, we have to step in. Posts like what the Embassy put up have the potential to create tension between our Jewish and Muslim communities, and may also put our Jewish community, in particular, at risk.

The Police received a report on the post. The Police, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, have assessed that no further action was to be taken. Members would understand the Israeli Embassy’s actions are covered by the principle of sovereign immunity.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the hon Minister for the response. I agree with the Minister's statement that such offensive posts put all communities at risk, including our Jewish community here.

I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, in such conduct of online posts, how can MHA ensure that such postings, if deemed offensive, can be taken down swiftly and urgently, given the sensitive nature of such potential postings? The second supplementary question is how do we ensure, assuming diplomatic immunity in future cases are waived, that due process in open court can be dealt with sensitively, given that it may play out in the court of public opinion and escalates certain tensions or emotions on the ground?

Sir, can I just clarify with the Member, maybe I did not hear fully. On the first question, is he referring to posts by any member of public or is he referring to posts by embassies?

Specifically, just on embassies. So, specific to embassies' posts.

I will provide an answer with context. If it is by members of the public, of course, we have a variety of powers, under different pieces of legislation. There is the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Broadcasting Act. If you look at the different pieces of legislation, depending on what infringements there are, there are powers to block access. There are powers under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to even issue a restraining order. Though the very fact that we have never issued a restraining order since the legislation came into force – I think it is nearly 30 years – shows how useful the legislation has been and also shows the nature of the community we have in Singapore.

But if it is specifically an embassy, the starting point is there would be sovereign immunity. So, you would not be able to, for example, issue directly an order to the embassy to remove a posting on its website. You could look at more general steps, like blocking entire access to the platform, but that would be a very high signature step and I think we need to be careful. In these cases, when an embassy puts up a post, I think the way to handle it is the way we handled it – talk to the embassy.

If they refuse, and I do not want to be going too much into hypotheticals, but for example, if they refuse to take it down, then there are the usual diplomatic steps that one country can take vis-à-vis another country. But you got to assess the nature of the infringement, as it were, and how you calibrate it. It can be calibrated to how you give access or how many people you allow in the embassy to be in Singapore or you ask some to leave, in an extreme case; you have seen those sorts of things happen. Even when they are spying you cannot charge them, let alone when they put up a post.

So, that is part of international law. We will have to act in accordance with international law but within that framework, we will have to see what is possible to do.

On the Member's second question, Sir, it is, I think, very hypothetical that any embassy would waive diplomatic immunity and allow another country to charge them. It has happened infrequently, but it is extremely hypothetical. What countries will normally say is, "Look, we will deal with the person by sending him back and then deal with him in our own way". Members may recall the case of Mr Ionescu from Romania. The Romanians charged him after he went back to Romania.

So, if there is a case where immunity is waived, then the short answer to the question, Sir, is that the prosecution can make an assessment as to the nature of the case if it feels that this may stir up anger and create a spectacle with potentially violent consequences. They can always apply for it to be heard in camera, but they have got to show public interest, I think. Short of taking action if the embassy waives immunity, there are other steps that can be taken under various pieces of legislation as well.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one short follow-up supplementary question. I understand, hon Minister, that there are limitations in the directions that could be provided. However, was there any consideration, given the sensitive nature of the post, to request for a clarification, given that the embassy's post took the original video out of context, as well as perhaps an apology as many in the community, from various communities, were quite upset about the post?

Sir, as Members will know, we made very clear what our views were and the embassy immediately took down the post and, as I made clear to Members just now, the Ambassador met me and he apologised for the post and said that it should never have been put up and that it will not be repeated and the officer involved would be dealt with by being sent home. I think those are pretty serious steps.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Speaker, I noted from the Minister's reply that the embassy staff in question for this case has left Singapore. I have one additional supplementary question for the Minister. Did the Israeli Embassy or any other embassies take any other actions to state their case in the Israel-Hamas conflict since 7 October 2023 and what actions has the Government taken in response?

Sir, on the first part, if the Member was paying attention, he would have realised I did not say the staff has been sent back. On the second question, as far as I know, the embassy has not said anything to me, neither has the ambassador said anything to me, beyond what I have said to Members. The Member may wish to ask the MFA for any other clarifications.

2 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Health as the Ministry carries out its supervision priority for Cordlife to rectify their shortcomings pending the investigations, whether there are strategies in place to ensure that (i) there will be open and clear communication between Cordlife and the parents affected and (ii) affected parents are well informed on potential ramifications of their decision to transfer their cord blood units to another private cord blood bank backed by scientific evidence, should they opt to do so.

3 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will assist customers whose cord blood units have been damaged while being stored by Cordlife with receiving a baseline level of compensation regardless of the type of service contract; (b) if so, how will this compensation be determined; and (c) if not, why not.

4 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the precise scope and extent of the Ministry’s regulatory action in the Cordlife incident involving damaged cord blood units; (b) how will the Ministry further intervene following international experts’ criticism of Cordlife’s announced one-year timeline to complete significant testing of its cord blood samples; and (c) how will the Ministry assist unaffected parents who wish to transfer their cord blood units to another service provider for greater peace of mind.

5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider strengthening the obligations of commercial cord blood banking service providers to include the requirement of a full refund of the initial contract fees or other earlier payments when these service providers are found to be responsible for any damage to cord blood units under their care, rendering such units unsuitable for stem cell transplant services.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 2 to 5 on today's Order Paper?

Please proceed.

Sir, we understand the anxiety and concern amongst parents as a result of the lapses at Cordlife Group Limited (Cordlife). Cord blood banking is an elective, commercial service provided by the private sector. Customers entered into a commercial contract with the service providers when they sign up and the Ministry of Health (MOH) is not a party to these contracts. The Government cannot overstep the law. There are limits to which the Government can intervene, especially when it comes to issues of compensation and refunds.

What MOH is actively doing is with respect to regulation and facilitation. The Ministry will be supervising the proper completion of further tests in the affected tanks to achieve a high level of confidence in the findings. Given the sample sizes and the testing capacity available, this will take another year.

MOH will also closely monitor Cordlife's dissemination of information to its customers and the public, as well as progress in addressing the deficiencies identified and in making improvements. These include directing Cordlife to properly validate and implement its new temperature monitoring system, revalidate its processing method for cord blood units and enhance staff training and supervision of its operations more closely.

MOH has also discussed with other providers who are prepared to facilitate transfer of their cord blood units. Parents who wish to do so can contact Cordlife and the receiving cord blood bank to discuss the transfer arrangements. That said, we urge parents to carefully consider the risks of doing so, given the logistical complexity of making a physical transfer at sub-zero temperatures, particularly so when the cord blood is not ascertained to be impacted.

Ms Nadia Samdin.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State. I understand that MOH has more supervisory and regulatory authority in this case. The Senior Minister of State highlighted about the one-year duration which, understandably, is causing parents even further anxiety, given the long wait. What is the Ministry's assessment on the reasonableness of this one-year duration for completing the remaining testing? Is there any other way that MOH can provide direction or support for other industry partners to expedite the testing of the cord blood units?

Sir, I thank Ms Nadia for the question. There has been some commentary about the length of time that is projected. The comments provided by some international experts are based on the typical turnaround time for routine testing and samples that are already in a laboratory. I think some people have quoted two to three weeks for a single potency test and returning the results.

But that series of comments does not take into account the other related factors and the full context of this case. The estimation of one year for the timeline for completing the testing involves several operational considerations. The resources that Cordlife has, the resources that are available at the third-party laboratory that has been engaged to perform the testing and the rectification measures that Cordlife has been instructed to put in place to mitigate further warming events, the limited resources that the laboratory and Cordlife have, as well as what MOH needs to do in terms of assessing these processes, those parts of the explanation that are under our control, we will try to minimise the time taken, expedite the process, but maintain the quality of our findings.

We need the process to be robust so that when the findings are validated, there is a high level of confidence in that validation. Perhaps, I might just explain why it takes so long.

There are several stages for what is called the post-thaw study. These have to be designed carefully, the samples have to be retrieved very carefully, the testing has to be done very carefully and the third parties, the people who are validating and auditing this, also need to be satisfied that the samples are being dealt with in the proper manner.

A cord blood unit is not stored in an individual tank. The storage units contain many, many cord blood units. They were retrieved and stored under different conditions. So, the sampling needs to take into account the processing methods at the time of freezing. The way in which the retrieval is done has to be very, very careful because you do not want, in the course of establishing the potency of the unit, to then invalidate the potency of that sample. So, you have to make sure that there is no inadvertent compromise to the cord blood unit.

And the testing laboratory needs to then have the capacity to immediately receive the sample. So, you cannot ship the whole unit and then let them take their own time to process all the samples. Each sample has to have a specified time slot for receipt and processing so that they are not then subject to risks at the laboratory side. And there is a limited capacity available for the testing. The laboratories that can do this are quite limited. There is also no way to divide up a sample volume and send it out to different laboratories. There is only so much of the sample that is there. So, that small amount has to be dealt with in a very particular way. So, for all of these reasons and then, subsequently, the assessment and review of the results, it does appear that the one-year timeline is reasonable.

We understand the need, from the parents' concerns, to expedite this to reassure people as fast as possible, but I think it is important that when the process is complete, that all who are involved have confidence in the findings from the process. So, I would ask for Members and parents' understanding that it will take some time for us to go through this process.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. A resident of mine wrote to me recently and informed me that she and her husband invested $12,000 from their children's Child Development Account for the cord blood bank services. She said that they have been paying a premium for a service that has not met expectations and, had they been aware of the situation, they would have made very different choices today.

As general mid-working-class citizens, $12,000 is a significant amount of money for them. They shared that the current compensation offered by Cordlife, which includes a refund of the annual fee of $250 per year and the waiver of further fees going forward, is, unfortunately, not sufficient and it does not include the initial contract fee, hence, my initial Parliamentary Question (PQ). She told me that the token gesture does not address the fundamental issue at hand, which is the catastrophic failure of Cordlife's services, which has irreversibly compromised the viability of their twins' cord blood samples.

Sir, I would therefore like to ask the Government, to reconsider whether they can assist the affected person's parents to obtain a higher level of compensation, including a refund of the initial contract fee. This is, given the quantum of claim and the likely legal costs involved, some parents may be deterred from engaging lawyers. I take the point that the Senior Minister of State has shared which is that, even if, indeed, it is the case that the company is not legally obliged to respond to any Government efforts, I wish the Government can engage the company on this front.

My second supplementary question is, moving forward, will the Government consider legislating a better protection regime for parents to recover all monies paid, including a refund to the CDA account for payments made when there are fundamental failures in the provision of blood cord services?

Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his questions. If I understand the Member's position with respect to his first supplementary question, he recognises and agrees that these are contractual matters between the parents and Cordlife. So, the role that we might play in the Government is to engage with Cordlife and ask them to facilitate some form of recompense to maintain their relationship with their customers. We continue to engage with Cordlife. But as the Member has agreed and as he has highlighted, this is a contractual matter between two private parties, and MOH and the Government are not a party to these contracts.

As for the Member's second question about legislating further protection, I think we do have to study the regulatory lessons that have come out of this episode and to see whether or not such services need a further type of regulation. I would say that this is one operator amongst several and I think this is one incident in that operator. It does not automatically mean that the regulatory regime or the legislative framework is inherently wrong. It may be issues about operationalising it and auditing it. But, nevertheless, we will study this episode to see how we can make sure that there is confidence in the industry, going forward.

Can I remind Members to keep your supplementary questions succinct? Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, I have a very succinct supplementary question. May I seek clarification with the Senior Minister of State whether other cord blood banks are willing to accept the cord blood units, as the Senior Minister of State shared earlier, and whether they have the capacity to accept them? May I ask for more details because the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there were some guidelines about how they can go about the process to seek help as well?

Speaker, I thank Mr Saktiandi for the question. I suspect Speaker's direction was also targeted to me. My apologies.

Sir, Singapore Cord Blood Bank (SCBB), Stemcord Private Limited and Cryoviva Singapore have indicated their ability and willingness to accept cord blood units transferred from Cordlife. However, each of the cord blood banks has indicated that specific conditions must be met prior to accepting the cord blood units from Cordlife.

So, there is some variance and the parents, the customers will have to work directly with the receiving cord blood banks to operationalise the transfer. MOH will try to facilitate the connections and processes, where it is within our power to do so.

However, I would want to take this opportunity to point out a couple of points. All of the three cord blood banks have processes in place to facilitate the transfer of the cord blood units, but they will only accept cord blood units that are demonstrated to be still viable and the receiving cord blood banks are unlikely able to guarantee the viability of cord blood units that are then transferred from Cordlife. So, there is some risk to the customer, the parents associated with making the choice for this transfer and it will also take some time. It is not a small decision to be taken lightly.

Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. I note in the press release by Cordlife yesterday that they mentioned the remaining five tanks are deemed to be so-called "low risk" in terms of the viability of the cord blood units there. In the testing that the Senior Minister of State mentioned, this one-year period, does it involve comprehensive testing of all the various tanks and units that are stored within Cordlife, and at the same time, also in the operational processes, to give parents the assurance that there is indeed a low risk of the remaining cord blood units being affected and so that there is greater confidence as to any potential future lapses by having this independent third-party audit of Cordlife's assurances?

Sir, the short answer is yes. The entire process is designed to provide a high level of confidence in the findings, to make sure that Cordlife themselves can demonstrate that they are doing the right thing and moving in the right direction to improve protections, and for confidence in the industry as a whole to be shored up. So, the short answer is yes.

He had a specific question on the five tanks that were in the report. I do not have the information about exactly where those five tanks are in our overall assessment and the one-year timeline. If he would like to, I can follow up with him separately on this.

6 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health what are the strategies to engage social media platforms and advertising on social media to raise awareness about the harms of vaping and to discourage the use of vapes and habit of vaping among youths in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in the written questions by Dr Wan Rizal, which are scheduled for today’s Sitting.

There is a global rise in the use of e-vaporisers among youths. Marketing, including through social media and influencers, is largely targeted at youths, which contributed to its widespread usage amongst this age group. Many youths picked up the vaping habit, thinking it is harmless because it smells like fruits, and they make it a lifestyle habit among their friends. However, we all know that vaping is harmful. The fact that it is taking root among youths makes it even more harmful. Many countries allowed vaping, only to try to restrict its consumption now. Fortunately, Singapore saw its potential harm and banned it from the start.

The Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act, or the Tobacco Act, also prohibits advertisement of e-vaporisers. As we all know, like all domestic laws, the Tobacco Act applies to vaping-related content published in Singapore and by Singapore-connected persons or entities. However, the Internet and social media is a global ecosystem and having domestic laws that ban harmful content or advertisements does not mean that these materials would not come in from a foreign source or a foreign influencer. That is the nature of online enforcement today.

But we are not without agency and we have put in place several measures. For example, firstly, social media and e-commerce platforms are aware that under the Tobacco Act, they are expected to exercise due diligence and proactively remove vaping-related content that target Singapore residents. Enforcement actions may be taken against platforms that are found with inadequate processes to detect and remove vaping-related contents. The Ministry of Health (MOH) and Health Sciences Authority (HSA) will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to engage these platforms.

Secondly, under the Code of Practice for Online Safety, the IMDA designated social media services with significant reach or impact to minimise users' exposure to harmful content. The designated social media services are Facebook, HardwareZone, Instagram, TikTok, X and YouTube.

Thirdly, HSA has been monitoring illicit sales of e-vaporisers via social media, e-commerce and messaging platforms, and carrying out operations to remove e-vaporiser content. HSA is trying to expand its efforts and is reviewing the legal penalties to strengthen the deterrence against advertising, importation and distribution of e-vaporisers.

Fourthly, even as we remove e-vaporisers content, we also try to increase pro-health content. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) also launched a vape-free campaign in 2023, including using social media, targeting youths and younger adults.

Mr Zhulkarnain.

Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I think most of my supplementary questions have been answered, but just one more. I spoke about this in Parliament in one of my speeches in the Committee of Supply. There is a strong link between vaping and cannabis abuse. In Canada, 29% of cannabis-using individuals aged 15 years or older indicated that vaping is their preferred method for cannabis use. Will MOH conduct a study on this link and risks in terms of the usage of vaping and drug abuse?

Yes, there is a lot of research and data surrounding this information, and we are keeping track of this. In fact, that is our concern because there is some misinformation also spreading among young people, even amongst adults, thinking that e-vaporisers are harmless; that, in fact, they could be cessation products. The truth is that there is a lot of data that suggests that they are gateway products to smoking as well as to drug use. So, these are things that we need to continue building knowledge on and also disseminating information on.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her response. I have two supplementary questions. Can the Ministry elaborate on any plans to involve youth representatives or youth-led organisations in the development and implementation of anti-vaping campaigns on social media, ensuring that the message is relevant as well as relatable to the target audience?

Secondly, given the constantly changing and evolving nature of social media platforms and online trends, how does the Ministry adapt its strategy to remain effective in reaching out to youths, particularly considering the rapid proliferation of new vaping products as well as marketing tactics?

Mr Speaker, the Member raised a very valid point. Indeed, it is important for us to have an understanding and keep aware of the trends that are happening in the space. Which is why when we did the vape-free campaign in 2023, we did work with National Youth Council (NYC) and the youth organisations to understand and appreciate the nuances that would be helpful. We worked with social media influencers and the different platforms to make sure that the information that is given out there is curated and will be reaching the groups that we target.

Indeed, this is going to be a work in progress. We have already ongoing relations with the youth organisations and we have plans to continue building on these efforts. And I hope that we will also continue to get support from Members in disseminating the information to the right target audience.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My concern is really with regards to the monitoring of and regulating the influencers in promoting vaping products. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for sharing the efforts to mitigate vaping, but I do believe that the influencers have a very big impact on our youths today. From the accountability perspective, what measures are in place or what considerations would the Ministry take before holding such influencers accountable for promoting vaping products, especially if they are found circumventing advertising regulations?

My second supplementary question is with regards to the legal and regulatory updates. Given the evolving landscape of digital marketing, does the Ministry plan to update existing laws and regulations to cover newer forms of digital promotions, such as those through the influencers and viral challenges?

Mr Speaker, HSA is already doing upstream efforts in looking at the online space on sales and supplies of these e-vaporisers by monitoring illicit sales of e-vaporisers through social media, e-commerce and messaging platforms, and actually carries out operations regularly to target the sales of e-vaporisers on these platforms. We also have been engaging the larger platforms like Instagram, Facebook and Carousell to remove postings of illegal sales of such products.

As it stands already, it is illegal. All advertisements and sales of e-vaporisers are prohibited under the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act. Recently, MOH and HSA issued a letter of notice to 16 social media and e-commerce platforms in March this year to remind them that hosting vaping-related content is in breach of the Tobacco Act. The onus is on these platforms to exercise due diligence and proactively remove vaping-related content that are targeted at Singapore residents. Enforcement actions may be taken against these platforms if they are found to have inadequate processes to detect.

We will continue to work with different agencies like MCI as well as IMDA. So, we are taking a multi-pronged approach on this. On the front, with the digital platforms, we are going upstream, we are trying to monitor, we are engaging with the platforms and we are also educating our people. So, I think this is something that we do need a whole-of-community support on, and we will do what we can to ensure that we will not let this take root in our community, but we do hope to get support from the community as well, to disseminate this message and to also extend the right information to the youths.

7 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he will consider delaying the wider roll-out of the ERP 2.0 On-Board Unit (OBU) for cars to address users’ feedback; (b) if so, how will the Ministry ensure a user-centric approach that incorporates users’ concerns while avoiding a complete system reversal; and (c) how will users’ experiences be prioritised during the development and implementation of new technologies related to a ERP system.

8 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport with the implementation of ERP 2.0 which involves the relocation of the processing unit carrying CEPAS (Specification for Contactless e-Purse Application) or NETS cards to the front passenger footwells or other technically feasible positions in motor vehicles, whether it can be made mandatory for all carpark operators to upgrade their systems so that it will no longer be necessary for drivers to tap their cards at carpark terminal stations.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Sir. The current Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system will reach the end of its operational lifespan in a few years. Its replacement, ERP 2.0, is based on Global Navigation Satellite System technology. It is able to perform all the functions of the current ERP system, plus additional capabilities to better manage traffic flow on our roads, without the need for physical gantries. As I mentioned during the Ministry of Transport (MOT) Committee of Supply (COS) debate earlier this year, it also provides the option for distance-based charging in future, which could allow for a one-off increase in our total vehicle population while keeping traffic congestion in check.

The transition from the current in-vehicle unit to the on-board unit (OBU) is a major exercise involving many motorists and a diverse range of vehicles, vehicle makes and models, including new and existing vehicles. The process will take a few years to complete.

Before embarking on the installation exercise, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) worked with the dealers to study how the OBU could be best installed in different vehicles. LTA has staged out the installation exercise, starting with a group of early adopters since August 2023. I am one of them. About 2% or 18,000 vehicles out of almost one million vehicles in Singapore have installed the OBU. Of these, around 11,000 are fleet vehicles, including buses and company-registered vehicles.

This phased approach gives the workshops time to prepare their workers and progressively ramp up their resources. It also allows LTA to take in feedback from stakeholders and understand the areas for improvement, before extending to other vehicles.

Sir, based on feedback gathered from the early adopters, LTA has reviewed and made several improvements to the ERP 2.0 features and installation process to provide motorists with enhanced choice, convenience and safety.

First, on enhancing choice. Before installing the OBU, vehicle owners will be given the option to decide if they want to install the touch-screen display. Some may choose to have the touch-screen display, while others may prefer to use their in-vehicle display or their mobile phones. Our recommendation is to install the touch-screen display, I have done so for my car, but this is a choice for the vehicle owner to make.

The vehicle owner can also choose where to place the touch-screen display subject to technical feasibility, for example, on the driver side or in the middle of the dashboard. If a vehicle owner decides not to install the touch-screen display, a unit of the display will still be given to him, so that he has the option to install it subsequently if he changes his mind.

Likewise, the vehicle owner can decide where to place the processing unit. For the initial phase of installation, LTA only allowed the processing unit to be installed on the passenger side. Taking on board feedback from the early adopters, LTA has expanded the option for vehicle owners to install the processing unit on the driver side if they wish to do so, subject to technical feasibility. Service ambassadors will also be present at the showrooms and workshops to explain the options to vehicle owners before OBU installation.

By providing more choices, the process becomes more complex and the workshops will require more time to complete the installation. However, we think the trade-off is necessary, to allow vehicle owners to have the flexibility to customise their preferred options and not have a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Second, enhancing user convenience. We understand the concerns from early adopters on the inconvenience of having to remove and reinsert the CEPAS (Specification for Contactless e-Purse Application) card in the processing unit. LTA has worked with its partners to improve the ERP 2.0 system, so that motorists do not need to remove their CEPAS card from the processing unit when they are driving the vehicle. This is a key design feature of the OBU. You do not need to remove the CEPAS card from the processing unit when you are driving the vehicle.

For example, LTA has implemented a button on the touch-screen display to deactivate the card when motorists want to use their complimentary parking tickets. They can press the button on the touch-screen display. The card will be deactivated and they can then use their complimentary ticket to exit the carpark. If the motorist forgets to reactivate the card after leaving the carpark, the correct amount will still be deducted from the card balance when he reaches the next active ERP gantry. This is unlike the current in-vehicle unit (IU). If the motorist pulls out the card from the IU to use his complimentary parking ticket and forgets to re-insert it – it happens to us sometimes – he will not be able to make ERP payment when his vehicle passes through an active ERP gantry.

Another scenario is the topping-up of the CEPAS card. Today, some of us may reach the carpark gantry only to realise that our balance is low, we must then find a way to exit the queue to top-up the card. Quite inconvenient. With the OBU, your CEPAS card balance will be shown once you start the car. This can help remind motorists to top-up before reaching the gantry. For added convenience, motorists can sign up for auto top-up so they need not manually top up their card when the balance is low. The top-up will be done automatically.

LTA will deploy service ambassadors to workshops to guide motorists who wish to sign up for automatic top-up of their CEPAS card when they install the OBU.

The third scenario where removal of the CEPAS card may be needed, is at certain carparks which require motorists to tap their cards at carpark terminal stations, as Mr Murali asked. Sir, all public carparks and many privately-owned carparks today already use Electronic Parking System (EPS), which does not require motorists to tap their cards at carpark terminal stations. There are, however, some privately-owned carparks which have yet to implement EPS. We welcome the initiative from NETS to provide a complimentary One Motoring Card for motorists who install the OBU. Motorists can use this additional card at the privately-owned carparks without EPS, without having to remove their CEPAS card from the processing unit.

And finally, on enhancing user safety. This is not the main reason for doing ERP 2.0, but the added capabilities provide opportunities for LTA and its partners to offer some features that could help enhance user safety. Early adopters have shared with LTA that they find the notifications for bus lanes, Silver Zones and School Zones useful, as these increase their situational awareness and improve road safety. We are working with partners to expand the list, including with the Traffic Police to include notifications for speed camera zones, with the intent of enhancing road safety by reminding motorists to keep within the speed limits at these locations. It will include not just the fixed cameras, but also red light and mobile cameras used by the Traffic Police to enforce against speeding.

LTA will continue to take in feedback from motorists and develop features that can help enhance safety and convenience for motorists. These additional features can be pushed out to motorists "over-the-air", after the OBUs have been installed. Motorists do not need to bring their vehicles to the workshop for these software upgrades.

Mr Speaker, the transition to ERP 2.0 is a major exercise as there are different vehicles with different designs and specifications. We appreciate the feedback from our early adopters, which LTA has taken on board where feasible and made improvements to enhance user choice, user convenience and user safety. LTA will continue to gather feedback from motorists, workshops and dealers to further enhance the user experience for all motorists, as we proceed with the installation exercise.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for the reply. I have three supplementary questions. Actually, he has answered my last supplementary question.

The first supplementary question is: there are a lot of reports that came out immediately after the ERP 2.0 release on social media, as well as one that came out just today in CNA, talking about how the installation is not so straightforward. Even now, with it being allowed for the OBU to be installed it at the driver's footwell, some car makes are a bit smaller, especially Japanese cars, so, the footwell may not be the best location – drivers may still hit against the unit as they drive or as they get in and out of the car. I am just wondering whether MOT will continue to improve upon the current design, based on feedback from users, and introduce a different model? Some have also been asking, since the motorcycle OBU is smaller, can that be used for cars as well, rather than having the bigger units for the cars.

The second supplementary question is: as we launched this OBU on 1 May, is there an active survey or feedback programme by MOT to actively collect feedback from all the motorists that have had the OBU installed? So, if there is none, then, why not? If yes, then continue to do so, so that we can get more feedback from the motorists, and we can improve upon it.

The third supplementary question was to ask the Minister whether his car has been fitted with the OBU, but the Minister had answered yes. So, I would like to find out from the Minister's personal experience using this and then what are the difficulties that he has encountered?

Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Lim for, I think, it is four supplementary questions, not three. First, the point about the installation at the driver's footwell. Indeed, as some of the mechanics have shared and as it was reported in the CNA article that Dr Lim mentioned, it is not so straightforward for all vehicle makes and models. Because depending on the design and the layout and the specifications of different vehicles, the preferred location, the ideal location, may vary from vehicle to vehicle.

So, the trade-off between giving more choices to vehicle owners is that it does introduce more complexity to the installation process. But we think this trade-off is important because we do need to respect the individual choices of vehicle owners. It does not mean that every vehicle can install the processing unit at the driver's footwell. It depends on the layout and design of the vehicle, but in many vehicle types, this is possible. So, we do want to provide this option, even though it is not always possible, to the vehicle owners so that for those who prefer to have it closer to them, they have that option that they can choose.

But this process is best done in discussion with the service ambassadors and the mechanics at the workshops so that the vehicle owners understand what are the trade-offs, what are the options, before the OBU installation.

Sir, another important point I wish to reiterate is that we have designed the system such that no matter where you choose to put your processing unit, which is a personal choice subject to technical feasibility, regardless of where you put the processing unit, the workflow is such that you do not need to remove your card while you are driving.

So, even if you do not sign up for auto top-up and you need to manually remove and do a manual top-up, you can do that after the car is parked. You do not need to do it while you are in the driver's seat, while you are driving. So, when you are driving, you do not need to remove the card from the processing unit. That is our design paradigm. That is our design philosophy. So, that is why we introduced some of these additional features to make it such that you do not need to remove the card while you are driving, for safety and for convenience.

Sir, I think the point I wanted to highlight is also that this process is quite a complex one. It takes a few years, involving different workshops, different vehicle makes. So, I just want to register my appreciation to our partners from the industry, the workshops, the motor dealers, our mechanics and also our staff and our partners who are serving as service ambassadors. It is a lot of hard work for them. They have to engage the vehicle owners, explain the options to them. But I think this is an important part of the overall installation process – so that people are clear what are their options, so that when they go in and they choose a certain configuration, they understand what are the trade-offs, what are the pros and cons.

Dr Lim also asked about the one-piece OBU, which is for the motorcycles. Sir, we have explained this before, but allow me to reiterate the reasons why we cannot do this for cars and commercial vehicles, compared to motorcycles. If you think about the physics of it: in an enclosed environment with glass, it is like a greenhouse. You do have a greenhouse effect, which will cause the interior of the car, in an enclosed space, to be warmer. Temperature is higher.

We have done some testing, measuring. I just read one article from AsiaOne and I think they also did their own measurements. And it is quite clear from all the various measurements that we have done, that the footwell, whether passenger side or driver side, the temperature there is significantly lower than the temperature on the dashboard during a hot sunny day. So, the ambient temperature, if it is about 35 degrees, for the motorcycle it is pretty much that, because it is not an enclosed space.

But for the footwell, it could go up to about 38 to 39 degrees, because it is an enclosed space. But on the dashboard, it will go as high as 50 to 52 degrees. With this kind of temperature, if you were to put a single-piece OBU – that means the antenna, the display and the processing unit, all on the dashboard – there is a risk that it could overheat. And then it will affect the functionality of this unit.

You could design it such that there is cooling, there is a fan inside, but that will make it very bulky and I do not think motorists will want a very big and bulky one-piece unit on their dashboard. It will not be the right design. By splitting it up, we give motorists the option of deciding whether or not you want the display, because it is not part of the same piece; you can choose, it is optional. And you can also choose where to put your processing unit.

In some vehicle makes, the dealer actually recommended that one of the options available is that you can also put it below the driver's seat, if you prefer not to see it. So, that is a possible option. They are offering that to their customers. And because we have now designed the process such that you do not need to remove your card while you are driving, actually that option is now possible, viable. It will not cause inconvenience to the driver and if that is what the drivers prefer, they have that option to choose from.

Sir, Dr Lim also asked about the survey. Yes, certainly. I think I mentioned in my main reply, we will continue to gather feedback from motorists, from the mechanics at the workshops, from our service ambassadors for how we can further improve the user experience, how we can further improve our communications.

And lastly, Dr Lim asked me about my own experience. Sir, I think like many of the early adopters, I also experienced some concern about not being able to reach the card conveniently if I have to use complimentary parking tickets. That is why, I was very happy when LTA developed that feature where I could just deactivate the card by pressing a button on the touch-screen display. I can do that very conveniently now; I do not have to take my card in and out.

There are also other features that we have given feedback to LTA from the group of early adopters. I think that is a continuous process for improvement and I want to thank our early adopters as well, for their inputs, for their feedback, and if amongst them, any of the early adopters feel that they now want to switch their configuration. For example, because previously we only allowed them to put it on a passenger side; if some of them now say "I want to put you on the driver's side", we will do the switch for them for free. I think that is fair, because when they installed earlier, there was no option given to them. But if some of them now want to do it, we will offer this reconfiguration for them, free of charge.

I see three more Members who want to ask supplementary questions. I repeat my earlier reminders: for those asking, keep your supplementary questions short; and likewise, for those responding, keep your replies short. And limit it to one supplementary question, please. Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, did LTA considered the widespread availability of smartphones when developing the specifications for ERP 2.0 and if so, why was the mobile first approach not taken?

Sir, using a smartphone instead of an unwieldy OBU could save a tremendous amount of installation effort, hardware cost and long-term maintenance costs. Is the Minister prepared to order a system redesign of the ERP 2.0 to make it mobile first? And to be clear, I do not mean providing the mobile phone as an as a secondary option, like what the Minister had just said. I am talking about making it a default option.

And secondly, I understand that there are no immediate plans to implement distance-based charging, but given that distance-based charging is one of the key reasons for this new system – its implementation seems inevitable. My question is, has the Government considered the significant cost impact that distance-based charging will have on those who drive for a living, including taxi drivers, private hire drivers, and delivery drivers and riders.

Mr Speaker, I think on the second question from Mr Giam, he should not jump the gun. I have said in my COS speech that we are looking at distance-based charging as a possible option that we need to study further. In my COS speech, I also acknowledge that there are trade-offs affecting different groups of stakeholders. Therefore, we need to be quite careful and deliberate in how we go about with this review.

I think that in my main reply, I did not suggest anything that this is an inevitable outcome, as what Mr Giam mentioned. So, I will urge Mr Giam not to overstate the point. What ERP 2.0 gives us is the option to do distance-based charging if we wish to do so, and if in the process of doing that, certainly we need to consider the impact on different groups of users and, overall, what is the benefit to society.

Sir, on the first question on smartphones, we have looked at this, not just once, but several times and with different groups of stakeholders. It depends on what you want to use a smartphone for. If you want to use a smartphone for displaying the information, we are allowing that. It is not something that would be unworkable. Certainly, it is feasible. We have studied that option, and we are going to allow people to opt out of the display and to use a smartphone or their in-vehicle display, if they wish to. That is an option.

However, because your smartphone is something that you carry with you. It is not secured to the vehicle. We need, for the purposes of ERP – whether it is distance-based or other types of usage-based charging – you need a device that is secured to the vehicle so that you know where the vehicle is and there is no dispute about whether the device is functioning or not.

There is also a second consideration, Sir, which is the security of the data transmission. Because the OBU is designed to transmit the information one-way, whereas a phone, you would have two-way transmission. And a phone, depending on the model that you use and the software, and the apps that you install, I do not think you can be assured of the same level of data security and systems security, including against tampering.

So, for all those reasons, a smartphone system would not be able to fulfil all the features and functionalities of what we want to achieve with ERP 2.

0. But certainly, I think as part of integrating with the processing unit and the antenna, the use of a smartphone to replace the touch-screen display is a possibility.

We are only at Question No 8, so I will allow one last supplementary question. Mr Louis Chua.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one quick supplementary question for the Minister. I note the Minister's explanation about temperature being the reason why we cannot have the one-piece design on cars, but I just wanted to confirm that this new OBU actually meets the minimum grade force standard of the Automotive Electronics Council Q100 requirements for reliable operations in Singapore's climate.

Sir, LTA has done a series of tests to ensure that the OBU was able to function if it is installed properly in our weather, in our climate. So, not just to look at the temperature, that is one factor, but also to take into account safety aspects. So, for example, if there is going to be an accident, we did crash tests as well, to make sure that the OBU, if it is installed properly, according to the proper procedure, will not pose a safety risk to the motorist and passenger.

So, it is quite a comprehensive set of tests that has been done to take care of the different aspects, but what we need to continue to do is to work with our partners and with stakeholders, including motorists, mechanics, our service ambassadors, to continue to find ways in which we can improve the user experience and allow more value to be delivered to motorists with this capabilities of the ERP 2.0 system.

Beyond what I have shared earlier, there could be more functionalities that could be possible and we remain open to good ideas from our stakeholders on how we can maximise this value for motorists, through the capabilities and functionalities of ERP 2.0.

9 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how will the withdrawal of VertiVegies, a local vertical farm which would have been one of Singapore's largest indoor vegetable farms boosting local production of greens by 10%, affect Singapore's 30-by-30 food security goals; and (b) what are the other measures by the Singapore Food Agency to accelerate the growth of local vegetable production which accounts for around 4 per cent of total food consumption in 2022.

10 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Government will consider plans to support the leveraging or acquiring of requisite intellectual property by local agricultural firms that will support Singapore's 30-by-30 local food production goal; and (b) what support can be provided to companies with agriculture operational knowledge but without full project development capabilities for scale-up farms.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 9 and 10 on today's Order Paper together please?

Yes, you may.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, in our "30 by 30" vision, we aim to build the capability and capacity of the agri-food ecosystem towards productive, resource-efficient and climate-resilient food production. Over the years, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has progressively built the agri-food ecosystem of productive farms, harnessing science and technology to boost production, and preparing the necessary spaces and infrastructure. However, our agri-food sector, like many other sectors, has been facing challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic to strong headwinds, such as high inflationary pressures and construction delays, especially during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

SFA is working closely with our farms to overcome these challenges through initiatives, such as facilitating regulatory clearances and supporting capability development by co-funding the adoption of technology through the Agri-food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund. To date, the $60 million ACT Fund has committed more than $23 million of co-funding to 60 projects. The ACT Fund can support licensing, acquisition or registration of intellectual property for farming systems and engagement of consultancy, sub-contracting, and design and development services, which can help to increase our food production.

Farms also work with partners, with complementary strengths and capabilities, especially when they are thinking of scaling up. They work with partners that can bring skillsets and capabilities that they may not have. Local farms can also partner food researchers to tap on the Singapore Food Story 2.0 Research and Development (R&D) Programme, which promotes R&D in aquaculture, sustainable urban agriculture, future foods and food safety.

The agri-land plot that was originally awarded to VertiVegies has since been retendered to another agri-food player to contribute further towards our "30 by 30" vision.

The success of our farms is also dependent on sufficient demand for our local produce. This is why SFA has been working with the industry to improve demand offtake through measures, including supporting the formation of a supply and demand aggregator for farms and retailers, and promotional events to increase the public's awareness of our local produce. Consumers can certainly also do their part, by choosing to purchase produce labelled with the red SG Fresh Produce logo, or dining at food establishments under the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme, which recognises food businesses that feature local produce in their menus.

Ms Poh Li San.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have one supplementary question. May I know what is the success rate of such large-scale vegetable farms in Singapore so far?

And on the other hand, there are many community farms, or even urban farms, within our residential estates growing very similar vegetables quite successfully. Would a more decentralised, localised and community-based vegetables-growing model be more viable?

Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. The first question on success rate, I think it is not something that is easy to define, because today when we look at a farm, we look at their production levels, the tonnage, for example, that they can produce. It is not so much on the scale, per se, although having said that, larger farms with economy of scale, can produce a product at a more efficient rate, and therefore, probably has a lot more price competitiveness when they enter the market and, in that sense, we track the farms' production. So, we define success by the fact that the farm can produce and they are able to find a market to sell their products.

But this also a journey, a process. Every farm would go through a certain period of time before they can scale up their production. Typically, even if they scale in new technology, they will take a while to testbed the technology, get the parameters right before they increase the production in terms of volume. And as they produce in greater quantity, they will have to start looking for potential buyers to off-take those quantities.

So, it is not a straightforward process by just building infrastructure and hoping that the product will be able to enter the market effectively. They do need to go through several iterations and several steps on their own, as well as with potential stakeholders.

On the second question of whether a localised, decentralised model, for example, community farms, can replace the larger-scale farms in reaching our "30 by 30" target. I think the smaller farms do add value and contribute to the "30 by 30" vision, but I think they are operating at a different scale, and if you talk to buyers, especially larger off-takers; like supermarkets, what they want is certainty of production and consistency, in terms of quality and quantity. Therefore, a large-scale farm can probably meet the demands of aggregators and retailers much better than small-scale farms, where they produce in smaller batches, with a different mix from different localised farms and it might be harder to meet the expectations of a larger-scale retailer.

So, we work with all partners and all these farms, whether they are large-scale or smaller ones within a community, can together add to our "30 by 30" vision.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. I recognise the challenges and headwinds that the Senior Minister of State has mentioned, but the reality is beyond just capability building and the grants that are given. There are really not many businesses that have been successful, or able to do it at this large scale of is required to support the "30 by 30" goals.

So, my question to the Senior Minister of State is, will the Ministry consider doing a different test bed or model, where you can substantiate one or two businesses that can really scale, beyond just helping them create a demand. Because not many of these businesses have an idea how exactly to do this end-to-end. And if we want to succeed in our goal, I think the Ministry needs to reconsider using a different model.

Sir, I thank Miss Chan for her question. Indeed, we do not take a one-size-fits-all approach to this because different models may work for different types of partnerships. Even the food ecosystem is not a uniform one. There are those that work more with the small-scale stallholders in our wet markets, there are those that work more with restaurants, some with food and beverage players, and some are also with food processing companies. Therefore, the kind of relationships and partnerships can be different.

But I take Miss Chan's point that, sometimes, the small farm player may not have all the skillsets and the ability to scale and to stitch together the entire value chain, which is why actually some of the farmers managed to scale, not by acquiring their own abilities, which may take too long. Those who want to scale sometimes work with partners that can bring in an ecosystem of ready retailers and ready buyers, so that by working with the partners, they get funding and investments. They can then scale up much quicker and be able to find an off-taker because the partner could well be somebody in the retail space, for example, or in the food manufacturing space.

Just as an example, Kok Fah Technology Farm built and launched Green Harvest, one of our largest greenhouses, which uses a mobile gully system that incorporates hydroponic systems to make the farming of vegetables much more efficient. But as they scale up from a traditional land-based farm into a larger greenhouse facility using more structural elements like the mobile-gully system, they did not do this on their own. They worked with a partner, TeamBuild Construction, which is a traditional construction company that was able to build the infrastructure that they needed more efficiently and helped them in the design phase of incorporating some of these elements into how their farm should operate. And by working with a partner like this, that, to some extent, could co-invest in this new operation, they then combined their strength together: one, with farming expertise and knowledge of the demands of the market; another one with the capability to build a larger structure and make it efficient and scale up. By combining their strength together, they managed to launch Green Harvest. I wish them well. I hope that such partnerships, in other aspects, whether it is in aquaculture or agriculture, can be a way that our farmers can surpass their own current limitations and find new opportunities to grow in scale.

11 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether an update can be provided on discussions with Malaysia in respect of the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ); (b) how SMEs can benefit from operating within the JS-SEZ; and (c) how local heartland SMEs can be helped to manage the challenges arising from any potential shift of spending from Singapore to Johor.

Sir, since the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) in January 2024, Singapore and Malaysia have been in discussions on early initiatives, such as passport-free QR code clearance at land checkpoints and a one-stop service centre to facilitate business approvals. The Malaysian government is separately deliberating the area and the sectors to be covered by the JS-SEZ. We are working towards an agreement on the SEZ and will provide an update to the 11th Malaysia Singapore Leaders Retreat that is going to be held later this year.

The SEZ aims to facilitate cross-border flows of goods, ease movement of people as well as strengthen the investment ecosystem in Johor. Singapore-based companies, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can benefit from the increased economic connectivity and comparative advantages of both Singapore and Johor. The Singapore Business Federation is drafting a recommendation paper on how to shape the development of the SEZ and is seeking views from industry.

We will continue to revitalise our heartlands and help our heartland enterprises transform to stay competitive. For example, the Heartland Enterprise Placemaking Grant that we announced in the 2024 Committee of Supply will help our heartland enterprises to lead placemaking efforts in the heartlands to encourage business growth and footfall. The Heartlands Enterprise Centre Singapore also provides business advisory services and upgrading programmes for our local enterprises.

12 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Communications and Information in view of the “digital first but not digital only” approach (a) whether the Ministry regularly audits the service journeys provided by various Ministries and statutory boards to assess their digital inclusion; (b) whether the Ministry has received any feedback in the past five years about improving digital inclusion for specific Government agencies; and (c) if so, whether such feedback has been acted upon.

13 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Communications and Information how can the policy of “not digital only” be better enforced in all Ministries and Government-linked agencies to better support residents who are not digitally able.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 12 and 13 together?

Yes, you do.

Sir, there are three aspects to being "digital first but not digital only". First, agencies strive to make digital services easy to use, guided by the Digital Service Standards (DSS). Agencies design and develop digital services that are: (a) accessible and inclusive; (b) usable; and (c) relevant. To supplement agencies' own usability tests, the Government Technology Agency (GovTech) helps to identify areas of improvement for frequently used services. GovTech also provides central diagnostic tools for agencies to detect usability and accessibility issues. These, together with feedback from the public, are taken into consideration when agencies update their digital products and services.

Second, there is a conscious effort to make non-digital alternatives available to members of the public who are unable to go digital by themselves. For example, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) provide in-person and contact centre services to assist those who have difficulty transacting online. These agency-specific service centres are complemented by seven physical ServiceSG Centres across Singapore. By housing multiple services under one roof, these ServiceSG Centres simplify and enhance citizens' experience and better implement the not-digital-only approach. ServiceSG will continue to expand the network of centres to prioritise areas with higher demand and concentrations of citizens, especially seniors. Two more centres will be established at Woodlands Civic Centre and Bukit Merah Town Central by the end of 2024 to achieve a wider outreach to citizens.

Third, we persist and continue in helping our people to pick up digital skills and keep abreast of new developments. For example, the Infocomm Media Development Authority launched the Digital Skills for Life framework in January 2024 to equip Singaporeans with the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to navigate the digital space, carry out daily tasks and stay safe online. To better support vulnerable groups, such as seniors, to learn basic digital skills, the SG Digital Office has also introduced initiatives, such as the Seniors Go Digital programme.

These efforts seek to enable all Singaporeans to share in the benefits of digital developments.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Radin Mas is home to many seniors and I have often received feedback about how difficult it is for them to keep up with the new digital way of life. In fact, to our most elderly, even simple things like renewing their telephone contracts can be a frustrating experience, often having to jump through multiple digital loops and even coming to see their Member of Parliament.

I would like to ask how the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) intends to help seniors feel more included in our digital society beyond the Seniors Go Digital programme. At the same time, how can we also better protect our seniors as more and more of them come online, especially against scams and malware? Are there any plans to cultivate and deploy what I call "senior influencers" to better reach out to their peers, in particular, those who are still apprehensive about coming on board? In our push for digitalisation and productivity, we must ensure that our Pioneers do not feel left behind.

Sir, I thank Mr Yong for his three supplementary questions. The short answer to all three is yes. We do want to make sure that our seniors benefit from the various efforts that we are making around digitalisation and for them to then have the opportunity to go online.

We have a number of training programmes that we have explained in this House and outside. We have the Silver Digital Ambassadors as well that we train. They are peer influencers along the lines that Mr Yong spoke about. And we have spent some time and effort trying to educate all members of the public, including seniors, about how to better protect themselves as they transact online. Maintaining that trust in online transaction is important.

However, we are not insisting that they go online. And I hope that Mr Yong and other Members of this House can help to spread that message that if they choose to transact in person, if they choose to transact via other means, then we will find ways to make that possible. However, the approach around the public sector officers is to make sure that the public sector officers that help the seniors are themselves empowered by a digital backbone that makes their work as productive and efficient and as secure as possible to optimise the service they offer to the citizens.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. I have two supplementary questions to raise on behalf of my Clementi residents, a number of whom are seniors who helped build the Singapore that today can digitalise.

Firstly, if I may draw his reference to a quote by former Head of Civil Service Mr Lim Siong Guan, the quote says, "Implementation is policy." Can I ask the Minister if he agrees with that and, if so, would he consider user interface, user experience as implementation, together with implementation being policy?

Secondly, can I also ask the Ministry, do our agencies track not just the uptake of digital services, but also whether there is a digital drop-off among seniors who previously accessed Government services but may now feel afraid to go online?

Lastly, can the Ministry assure us that it is also looking at the user interface of these services to minimise technical debt taken on by end users who compensate in their own time and personal effort for suboptimal user interfaces and challenging user design?

There were three supplementary questions. Senior Minister of State Janil.

Sir, I may have miscounted and can stand corrected. I thought it was four.

I do agree that we have to make sure that we implement properly the various schemes and strategies that we have. I do agree that UI and UX, the user interface and user experience, is a key part of the implementation of the digital services. We do have some expertise amongst our public officers in designing digital user interfaces and user experiences. Some of this expertise rests within GovTech centrally, and agencies that have a large volume of digital transactions have also started to build up their expertise in this.

There is an extensive process of testing and user viability that many products go through. But even then, or I should say most importantly, after the products are made available to the public, we do pay a lot of attention to how they engage with it and seek to then improve the user interface and the user experience. This includes formal testing by engineers and teams at GovTech, developing and deploying tools that test readability, accessibility, but also then informal in terms of dealing with feedback, including through Members of the House. So, if there are specific issues around user interface and user experience, I would encourage Members of the House to let me know and we will follow up. Sometimes, the best feedback comes from our constituents, members of our family, our own elderly relatives. Rest assured, my elderly relatives do message me quite regularly about how to improve Government digital services and that is useful feedback. We take that seriously, that real-life experience and we will try to re-engineer those products to improve the experience.

We do not specifically track the digital drop-off that the Member talked about. The metrics that we have, they show an increasing acceptability and increasing engagement and increasing utilisation over time. So, it is unlikely that that represents a large number, but if there are specific instances that we can assist with, I would be more than happy to take some feedback from the Member.

Did I address all four of the Member's questions? Or three?

Ms Denise Phua, last supplementary question. Keep it short. We are approaching the end of Question Time.

I would like to thank the Agency for Integrated Care as well as the CPF for being very inclusive in their services to make it accessible for our non-digitally savvy people.

I just have one micro-question. From the replies to our Meet-the-People Session appeals, I noticed that some agencies, in fact, quite a number, actually reply to our residents asking them when we have already told the agencies that these folks are not digitally savvy and they need help, personal help. The residents actually get replies from agencies, sometimes templated, asking them to go to an online portal and apply again. Then we have to scramble to find volunteers who then have to get Singpass information from our residents.

So, I thought MCI could be a facilitator to ensure that this does not happen so often because it creates a lot of frustrations on the ground.

Sir, I thank Ms Denise Phua for her micro-question. I would recommend that her residents who are in the position that she described should best be directed to a ServiceSG Centre because that is where there are staff who are able to help them conduct the transaction on their behalf or help them navigate the online space and do so in a way that perhaps gives them some confidence about the security and safety of the transaction. That is what the ServiceSG Centres are for – to assist the residents in these transactions.

There may well be a digital component to the transaction at the ServiceSG Centre and the staff there will help the resident do that or the family member who accompanies the resident. I hope that provides Ms Denise Phua an opportunity to assist the residents in that way.

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement, Minister for Home Affairs.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, our drug control policies have evolved over the years, to meet the changing nature of the threats from drugs.

I make this Ministerial Statement to set out the framework of our policies; the reasons for our policies; and what more we intend to do. The reason for making this Statement now is this: we have a strict national drug control policy; it is necessary, it is effective and it is well-supported by Singaporeans. I will show that later.

But our approach has been criticised by some who are helping inmates to abuse the legal process. The Courts have said that they try and frustrate the legal process and prevent the penalties from being carried out. I will set out the broader context for the situation – show how these criticisms are without merit. I will also set out what we intend to do about those attempts to abuse our legal process.

I will cover four areas in this Statement. First, I will discuss the global and regional drug situation. Second, I will speak about the threat from the drug trade and our approach to that threat. Third, I will speak about some attempts to spread misinformation and try and undermine aspects of our drug policies. I will also show that, despite these attempts, there is strong public support for our approach and policies, including the death penalty. And fourth, I will set out our plans to further strengthen our drug control policies.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask to display some slides and photos on the LED screens as I speak.

You may proceed. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Let me begin by speaking about the global drug situation. Every region, every region in the world is being affected by drugs.

I start with Europe. European countries, first world countries, have been very hard hit. Europe's ports have been described by a major weekly as "drug hubs" and "safe terrain for narcotics". It also said that in the European Union (EU), half of all homicides and more than a quarter of illegal firearms seizures were linked to drug trafficking. So, Members can consider just how many lives have been lost.

So, let us look at some specific countries. In the Netherlands, a record of over 60,000 kilogrammes of cocaine was seized by Dutch Customs in 2023 alone. I have set out on the slides, some of the quotes from senior people in the Netherlands. In the port city of Rotterdam, children, some as young as 14 years old, are being recruited as "cocaine collectors" to get the drugs from shipping containers.

In January this year, the Mayor of Amsterdam Femke Halsema said the Netherlands risks becoming a "narco-state". The illegal drugs trade has grown "more lucrative, professional and ruthlessly violent". Think of a Mayor of a major European city saying that and what the implications are. The chief of the largest police union in the Netherlands Jan Strujis has said the country had a parallel economy controlled by crime groups, shootings and killings. A former Justice and Security Minister Grapperhaus has said that "excessive violence" against politicians, lawyers and journalists was "no longer taboo".

Sweden, considered one of the safest places in the world, has also been seriously affected by drug- and gang-related violence. Since 2013, the number of fatal shootings has more than doubled. In 2022, there were 391 shootings, 90 explosions, 101 attempted attacks with explosives. These were linked to fights between criminal gangs over drugs and arms.

The then-police chief Thornberg said and, I quote, "citizens are afraid, insecurity is increasing". Young lives in Sweden are being destroyed by this senseless violence. In 2022, 30% of suspects for gang-related violence were between 15 and 20 years old. A lawyer who represents teenage shooting victims and suspects told the BBC: children in Sweden are using their, and I quote, "own bags, not to carry books, but they carry the drug markets of Sweden on their shoulders."

Turning to Belgium, last year, in Antwerp, an 11-year-old girl was killed in a shooting in her own home. It was linked to a drug-related gang dispute. In the last decade, there have been hundreds of such incidents in Antwerp: shootings, grenade attacks, fires and bombings. Many were linked to gang-related violence trying for a piece of the cocaine trade.

The mayor of Antwerp Bart De Wever has described the situation as being a "much bigger" threat than the 2016 Brussels bombings. The Brussels bombings made headlines around the world. When terrorists attack, it becomes big news. But with drug violence, it gets ignored even though it is much bigger and a more continuous threat which affects many more people and, really, this should be taken more seriously.

Last year, the Belgian customs seized a record amount of cocaine more than the customs and border officials in all of the United States (US). Their incinerators in Belgium were not able to burn the seized drugs quickly enough and the confiscated stash has earned the nickname "cocaine-berg".

Customs officials now tell the media that they will never win the war against the cartels. So, Members can ask themselves why are officials in a first-world country saying this: that they cannot win the fight against the narcotic gangs?

In the United Kingdom (UK), the example of Barrow-in-Furness shows how drugs can seriously damage a place. In the last decade, the town has been plagued by drug use and drug-related deaths. In 2018, its opiate-related deaths were double the national average. It became known as the country’s "most infamous brown town". Last year, there was an almost 50% jump in drug offences compared to the previous year.

The situation is dismal: town buildings mostly boarded up and vandalised, broken furniture strewn on the streets, windows smashed. Businesses and residents say that they may have no choice but to leave the town if things do not change. From 2011 to 2021, the town population decreased by 2.4% while England's population increased by 6.6% over the same period.

I should have added in Belgium, the Justice Minister, my counterpart, has to live out of safe houses because the police cannot guarantee his safety.

Let us look at South America, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said that 18 out of 21 countries are now the main sources of transit for cocaine.

Ecuador was once seen as a peaceful country. It has become wrecked with drugs and violence. From 2018 to 2022, its homicide rates increased by four times and the homicide rates are now the eighth highest in the world. There are reports of beheadings, car bombings, assassinations of police officers, children being gunned down. In one hideout used by the drug cartels, the police uncovered a collection of stuffed toys. Gangs are said to have used the toys to attract young children and then recruited them as drug pushers and handed them weapons and forced them into the drug trade.

In Mexico, murders, abductions, forced disappearances are almost daily occurrences due to turf wars between drug cartels. Since 2006, nearly 450,000 people have been killed, a significant number of these killings are believed to be linked to drugs and the drug trade.

We move to North America. In recent years, some places have chosen to decriminalise drugs. They take the position that drug use is a personal choice and it should be destigmatised and allowed under certain conditions. Others say that the problem has gotten out of control and their solution is to allow drug abuse under so-called "safe" conditions. For example, they have decriminalised personal possession of drugs below certain limits. And what are the results?

Consider San Francisco. In 2014, it passed laws to reduce the offence of drug possession from a serious offence to a misdemeanour which is to be dealt with administratively. And you know what police would do then? They de-prioritised, decided that they will not deal strictly with open-drug use and small-scale possession. A decade later, anyone visiting the city now will see people living in slum-like conditions along major streets, looking for their next fix. Last year, San Francisco's death rate from drug overdoses reached a record high. It was more than double the US national average.

Some places, which chose to legalise drugs, have realised that the results were not as promised and have reversed their policies.

In 2020, the US State of Oregon decriminalised use and possession of small amounts of most drugs, including cocaine, meth and heroin. Fifty-eight percent of voters in Oregon supported it. They thought this was the solution. Police can then focus on other work and abusers would feel less stigmatised and abusers will seek treatment.

But people in Oregon soon saw the results of this policy. From 2019 to 2022, the number of drug overdose deaths more than doubled from about 600 to about 1,300. People felt unsafe on the streets, businesses started leaving and the situation got very bad. By August 2023, last year, a majority of people in Oregon wanted to repeal the measure and in 2024 this year, they reversed course. They re-criminalised possession of drugs for even small amounts.

Let me give another example. Last year, the Canadian province of British Columbia decriminalised drugs to try and reduce its overdose rates. Instead, the number of drug overdose deaths increased by more than 5% from the year before. There was also public backlash against the open drug use.

Earlier this year, the provincial government tried to restrict the public places where people could consume drugs. But the Supreme Court blocked the measure, saying it could, and I quote, "cause irreparable harm" to drug users. The Court said that users were at risk of overdosing alone, since they would have fewer public places to consume drugs and where people would be present.

Brad West, a mayor from a British Columbian city, said that the courts were out of touch with the public and blocking the measure, and I quote, "ignored the harm that occurs to others by allowing rampant public use".

Last month, the BBC reported that the authorities in British Columbia were working urgently to re-criminalise the use of hard drugs in public places. My view to Members – when they experiment with laws like this, they are actually experimenting with the lives of people, including the lives of innocent young children.

The policies and u-turns have a long-term impact on the next generation and the impact cannot be easily reversed. Parents and guardians, if they become drug addicts, homeless and unemployed – it is the children who would suffer this proportionately.

Let us look at a sobering personal account of a child who grew up in America with a mother who was a cocaine abuser: "From the ages of seven to 12, we were pretty much on our own. Sometimes, we would be left alone for days at a time. We would not have lights, water or heat. At night, we would huddle around the stove for warmth. It got so bad that we started hiding our mother's keys just to keep her from going to the crack house."

In 2021, Gallup reported that about 32% of Americans say that drug use has been a cause of trouble in their family, one-third of all Americans. That is almost double the proportion since 1999, when it was 17%.

Children and the next generation are the real victims. A study estimated that in 2017, about 2.2 million children and adolescents in the US had a parent with an opioid use disorder or were affected by opioids themselves. The study projected that by 2030, this number would go up to 4.3 million – nearly double.

These children often do not have a proper home to grow up in, no role models to look up to and no stability to anchor their development. Without basic support, they have poorer educational outcomes, increased likelihood of developing substance use disorders and early emergence of chronic diseases.

The cycle will keep repeating itself. Really, one has got to ask: who speaks for the human rights of these millions of children?

Closer to home, in Southeast Asia, the Golden Triangle, where the borders of Myanmar, Thailand and Laos meet, is a major drug producing region. The UNODC reported in 2022 that East and Southeast Asia are "literally swimming" in meth. In 2022 alone, 151 tonnes of meth were seized in the region.

At the Committee of Supply, I spoke about the situation in Thailand. When cannabis was legalised, it was available immediately almost anywhere you looked – restaurants, convenience stores and even near schools.

Within six months of legalisation, the number of addicts went up four times. There were young teens and children who consumed cannabis-infused cookies, candies and sweets – they thought these were ordinary snacks – but ended up having to be hospitalised. The Thai government recently has announced plans to reimpose a ban on recreational cannabis use by the end of this year. One can see why but it is no longer going to be easy to do because if part of it is legal and part of it is not legal, then, enforcement is never going to be easy.

In any event, businesses which have invested in the industry will likely push back strongly and those who are now addicted to the drug both will find it very difficult to kick off the habit and will need to be supported by the healthcare system. The consequences, in many cases, can be irreversible. The impact will be very long-lasting.

If you look at Malaysia, cannabis seizures jumped from 3,700 kilogrammes in 2021 to 6,200 kilogrammes in 2022, just one worrying statistic – and there are many others.

With that, let me now turn to the situation in Singapore and the threat we face here from the drug trade. We are a big target for drugs that this region is being flooded with. Despite our stiff penalties, some traffickers try their luck because of the profits they can earn. The street price for drugs is much higher in Singapore than many other parts in this region. Our purchasing power is much higher, our gross domestic product (GDP) is much higher, our wealth is much higher, so, it is obvious.

The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) have found drugs at the borders in fire extinguishers, furniture, even fruits. People find many innovative ways of trying to smuggle in. Last year, CNB seized about $15 million worth of drugs and dismantled 25 drug syndicates. The number of drug abusers arrested increased by 10% from the previous year, while the number of cannabis abusers reached a 10-year high.

The Health and Lifestyle survey conducted by the Institute of Mental Health in 2022 showed that the mean onset age of illicit drug consumption in Singapore is 15.9 years old. This is the age of a Secondary 4 student. Members can see that we are not exempt from the problems that other countries face.

Let me now turn to our approach to drug control. We take an evidence-based approach towards drug control. In 2019, we changed our policy to focus on helping persons who are pure drug abusers. If they only abuse drugs and have not committed other offences, they are channelled to receive treatment and do not get a criminal record.

The interventions are based on the risk profile of the abuser. For example, low-risk, first-time adult drug abusers will generally undergo counselling in the community, together with regular urine or hair testing. This minimises disruption to their daily lives while ensuring that their addiction issues are addressed.

Beyond the mandated supervision period, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) continues to work with Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) and its community partners, to help the drug abusers. For example, YRSG assists ex-inmates with career coaching and job placement.

These efforts have produced some results. From 1993 to 2021, our two-year recidivism rate for those released from drug rehabilitation centre (DRC) decreased by more than two and a half times, from 73% to 27.7%.

There are many examples of ex-drug abusers who have kicked their habit, leading new lives. For example, Francis How. He dropped out of secondary school, joined a street gang at the age of 12. He was involved in drugs and other crimes, including housebreaking and gambling, to feed his drug addiction. By the age of 32, he had already served close to 11 years behind bars, almost all his adult life. But then, he decided to turn his back on drugs and crime. He is now 50 years old, married with four children. He runs his own shipyard repair business. He has stayed clean for more than 17 years.

The journey to recovery is not easy. It is challenging. It requires many helping hands. We should recognise not just the efforts of the ex-abusers to stay drug-free but also pay tribute to their families who support them in their journey.

Today, we have invited several ex-abusers and their families to join us in the Public Gallery. All in, about 120 of them. They show that it is possible to quit drugs and to live a fulfilling life. I ask Members to join me in recognising them. [Applause.]

While we seek to help abusers, we take a tough approach against drug traffickers. We have zero tolerance for those who destroy the lives of others for money. The death penalty is imposed on persons who traffic specified amounts. For example, a person who traffics 15 grammes of pure heroin, which is enough to feed the addiction of about 180 abusers for a week, will face capital punishment. The evidence shows clearly that the death penalty has been an effective deterrent. In 1990, we introduced the death penalty for trafficking more than 1.2 kilogrammes of opium. In the four years that followed, there was a 66% reduction in the average net weight of opium trafficked.

A 2021 study was conducted in parts of the region. We are evidence-based so I told my Ministry let us do a survey from the regions where many of our drug traffickers come from, to see what the population in those areas think about our penalties and are our penalties sufficient deterrent. Because you deal with the drug situation by dealing with both supply and demand. Demand in Singapore – through public education, through control measures, through active campaigning, explaining the dangers of drugs; supply – by controlling the amount of drugs that come in and through the use of deterrents.

So, we did a statistically, scientifically valid study in the parts from which many of our drug traffickers come from. It showed that 87% of those surveyed, this is nine out of 10, believed that the death penalty deters people from trafficking substantial amounts of drugs into Singapore; 83%, this is eight out of 10, believed that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment in deterring drug trafficking; and 86% believed that the death penalty deters serious crimes in Singapore.

The implications are when the drug barons go around trying to recruit people to come into Singapore, people will be very careful. Many would say no and if they do get tempted, they might say, "Well, I will only traffic drugs below a certain threshold amount". So, it makes it much more difficult to traffic substantial amounts into Singapore.

Those who suggest that the death penalty can be replaced by life imprisonment should look at these figures. The deterrent effects of the two penalties are very different.

It is not easy for us – Members, policy-makers, Ministers – to decide to have capital punishment as part of the penalties in law. But the evidence shows that it is necessary to protect our people, prevent the destruction of thousands of families and prevent the loss of thousands of lives. That is why we maintain the death penalty.

Members have to understand – this is nothing short of a war. I say that we are fighting a war and using that analogy, because that is the scale in terms of victims and lost lives. Others in this region have used the analogy of war and that has drawn different sorts of responses. But people know here in Singapore we go on the basis of apprehending the traffickers, dealing with the situations in accordance with laws passed by Parliament and we fight the drug war within that framework.

In the US, every 14 months, more Americans die from abusing fentanyl than from all of America's wars combined since the Second World War, from Korea to Afghanistan, every 14 months. In fact, the life expectancy of male Americans has come down for two reasons. One, the number of shootings, homicides. And second, drugs, opioid abuse. In 2021, the World Health Organization reported 600,000 deaths in 2019 which was attributable to drug abuse. That is more than twice the number of deaths caused by firearms in the same year.

The World Drug Report estimates that in the same year, 31 million years of "healthy" life were lost due to disability and premature deaths as a result of drug use. These are not just statistics. They are lives of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. That is why I use the analogy of war. I am talking about a war against those who profit off the drug trade at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

To put it in the context of fighting a war, let me refer to a point that Bertrand Russell made referencing the Second World War. He pointed out in his 1943 essay titled, "The Future of Pacifism", that "if war is to be prevented, there must be a clearly expressed willingness to go to war for certain ends". In other words, if you want peace, you have to be prepared to fight for it.

I would argue the same applies to the war against drugs. In this war, we will have to decide: do we want to go soft and risk ending up like the countries I have spoken about earlier? Do we want to become a "narco-state", or an "infamous brown town", or a hotbed for drugs and violence?

People may say: no one is asking you to go soft. Impose very tough penalties. Just do not impose the death penalty. And I have said, there is a clear difference between the deterrence effects of the death penalty as opposed to other punishments.

My view, based on the evidence, you remove the death penalty, drug trafficking will go up significantly. There will be more robberies, house breakings and so on, because drug abusers will need money to buy drugs. Evidence shows there will also be more sexual assaults, more homicides and definitely many more people will die in Singapore. That is why we take a strict approach, and our strict approach has saved thousands of lives.

In the 1990s, CNB arrested about 6,000 drug abusers per year. That number has now come down by almost half. CNB now arrests about 3,000 drug abusers per year. All things being equal, the number of drug abusers in Singapore should have gone up in the last 30 years. The supply of drugs in the region has exploded. Our purchasing power has increased significantly. That figure of 6,000 should be two, three times more because more people should be consuming drugs. But instead, the number has gone down.

By that alone, I say we have saved the lives of thousands of potential abusers and we have saved the lives of their families from the consequences of one person in the family taking drugs. Consequences can be, as we see from other countries: homicide, violence, break-ups, poorer outcomes for children. It is a pretty sad situation in many places. We have avoided it.

This is the war that we are fighting in Singapore and if we do not fight it or if we lose it, then thousands in Singapore will suffer. So, everyone who is asking us to go soft on drugs or remove the death penalty, is in fact advocating for a different Singapore – where there will be more people dying; there will be more children affected; there will be more unfavourable outcomes, particularly on people of lower incomes.

I will now move on to deal with attempts by some to undermine our approach. The evidence for our approach is compelling. People can see what is happening around the world, which is why I took some time to explain country by country some of the countries – first-world; South America; the US; this region.

Despite that, in recent years, there has been a small group of people who attempt to mislead the public with misinformation on drug traffickers and the death penalty. They seek to evoke sympathy by presenting an image of an unfair criminal justice system stacked against drug traffickers. They publish videos, pictures, stories from the traffickers' childhood, sharing interviews with family members. He has got a brother; he has got a sister; he has a child; he had a childhood. Poor guy. And portraying the trafficker as a victim of unfortunate circumstances. He did not have money and therefore, he trafficked in drugs.

But they leave out the facts of the cases. They leave out the accounting of the harms caused to the victims of the traffickers. They glorify the trafficker. They do not give any voice to the victims, the number of lives lost or wrecked by drugs; and the reason the traffickers were trafficking the drugs in the first place, which is to make money. The victims also have wives, sisters, children, parents. All of these people will also suffer.

If you face financial difficulties, if you need money, get a job. You do not have to traffic in drugs to make money.

Earlier, I recounted some stories of drug abuse overseas. We have seen shocking stories in Singapore too. Early last year, a man was convicted of committing incest with his 17-year-old daughter after sharing methamphetamine (meth) with her. She became reliant on him for sustaining her addiction and did not come forward with the truth for months.

In another case last year, a 31-year-old man: he had consumed various drugs, went on to drive under the influence of drugs, crashed his rental car into a public bus, killed himself; injured seven other passengers in the bus.

The next slide shows photos of a crime scene, where a man who was under the influence of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), brutally stabbed his own mother and punched his grandmother to death. Drug abuse is not victimless and all of these are caused by the drug traffickers, whom people glorify.

The next slide shows a heartbreaking case where a life was taken even before the victim had any voice of her own. The remains of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl. She was assaulted to death by her own father, who was a meth abuser. The man burnt the body and hid it in a pot to conceal his crime.

Several studies have shown that the harms of drugs are far-reaching into the next generation. A recent literature review by the KK Women's and Children's Hospital, found that drug abuse by pregnant women can cause serious harms to the foetus. Their babies could be born with congenital defects, such as respiratory distress syndrome or smaller brain matter. The newborns may also suffer from drug withdrawal, increased risk of disease and even infant death.

A 2020 study by the Ministry of Social and Family Development found that children whose parents had committed drug offences, were five times more likely than other children to unfortunately come into contact with the criminal justice system in the future.

But these facts and images are usually missing from the speeches, posts of those who campaign against the death penalty. Instead, there are baseless allegations, one-sided claims and half-truths. These baseless allegations are also made in relation to prisoners awaiting capital punishment – I will call them PACPs. They cast doubt on the process, the legal process. They cast doubt on the convictions and the sentences.

For instance, in May 2023 last year, Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, or POFMA, directions were issued against 10 social media posts and two online articles for containing false statements about a capital sentence meted out by the Courts. Five parties – Transformative Justice Collective, The Online Citizen Asia, Andrew Loh, Kirsten Han, M Ravi – continued to make false statements alleging that a PACP was denied an interpreter during the recording of his statement. This, despite the Court's clear statement to the contrary – a blatant, false attack on the criminal justice system.

Some of these activists have helped to file unmeritorious legal applications on behalf of convicted drug traffickers. Applications are often filed at the last minute and those who help with these applications often hide behind the PACPs and their families. In one case, there were seven post-appeal applications, all dismissed by the Courts because they were all without merit. Seven, one after the other, no basis, after the substantive appeal was dismissed. In the seventh post-appeal application, the correspondent's email address – kirstenhan@hey.com – was provided by a family member to the Court.

This obviously does not belong to the family, but to perhaps an anti-death penalty activist. The Court dismissed that application, said it was a blatant and ill-disguised application to disrupt the carrying out of the sentence. In other words, a clear abuse of the process.

The person, with the email account by the name of Kirsten Han, if she was involved, was helping in the abuse of process.

Based on what the Court said, you can see what the persons who were assisting in the applications were trying to do.

As a result of many such applications today, we have PACPs whose sentences have not been carried out, despite their cases being decided more than a decade ago.

One such PACP is Iskandar bin Rahmat. He is not a drug trafficker, but his applications are somewhat illustrative of the point I am making. He killed a father and son – brutal murders. I think people remember them as the “Kovan double murder case” – a 67-year-old father and a 42-year-old son. In fact, one of the victims was even dragged almost one kilometre along Upper Serangoon Road. And he did it for money. He was sentenced to capital punishment on 4 December 2015 by the High Court. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in February 2017, seven years ago. Since then, he has filed nine applications. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs", Official Report, 08 May 2024, Vol 95, Issue 136, Correction By Written Statement section.] Some of them are still ongoing and I make no comment whatsoever about those which are currently before the Courts. Those that have been dealt with, have all been dismissed. And quite clearly, unmeritorious and an abuse of process.

So, to deal better with this situation, to deal better with unmeritorious applications being filed at the very last minute before capital punishment is carried out, this House passed an Act, the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Act, or PACC. That Act will come into force very soon, within a few weeks. The Act will seek to safeguard the administration of justice and the rule of law. It introduces new requirements to reduce potential delays to proceedings.

For example, if the PACP had already had his or her sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal, then he or she will be required to apply for permission to make a PACC application. There will be a streamlined procedure under which only the Court of Appeal may hear PACC applications and grant a stay of execution. As part of the application, the person will be required to state the grounds of the application and the reasons for not filing the application earlier.

But even before the law has come into force, a post-appeal application was filed by 36 PACPs in September last year to challenge the constitutionality of that law. The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal recently. The Court of Appeal said the PACPs had no standing to bring such a challenge and the fact that such a challenge has been brought at all, spoke only to the PACPs' abuse of the process of the Courts.

Just one day after the appeal was dismissed by the Courts, 36 PACPs, of whom 34 were the same parties involved in earlier post-appeal applications, filed another post-appeal application, relying now on some other matter. I make no comment on the merits of those current applications. My comments about unmeritorious applications, abuse of process, all other similar comments, apply only to applications which have been determined by the Courts and dismissed. And I rely on what the Courts themselves have said.

This is not the first time that large groups of PACPs have jointly filed applications to the Court, after all avenues of appeal and clemency have been exhausted. In the past few years, there were at least five other such jointly filed applications, each involving more than 10 PACPs. The PACC Act, when it comes into force, will deal with many such applications.

We are now considering, what else needs to be done to make sure that this new legislation can be properly supported. We will come back to the House, if necessary. And I wish to make it clear to Members and Singaporeans: be assured, we will take all necessary steps to ensure that this sort of abuse of process is dealt with.

I will now speak about the strong public support for our drug control approach.

There is broad support from our population because we have been upfront and open about the rationale, circumstances and the safeguards on the use of the death penalty. Surveys conducted the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) show that support for the death penalty has, in fact, gone up in the last two years.

In a 2021 MHA survey, 74% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the death penalty should be used for the most serious crimes, including drug trafficking. We redid that survey last year, in 2023. It now shows that 77% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed. This is a statistically significant increase of about three percentage points.

The 2021 survey also found that about 66% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the mandatory death penalty is an appropriate punishment for trafficking a significant amount of drugs. In the 2023 survey, last year, 69%, almost seven in 10, agreed or strongly agreed, again, a statistically significant increase. MHA will be publishing the full report later this year.

This is quite remarkable because Members might sometimes come across activists and others saying: the death penalty is controversial, support for it is weakening and so on. In fact, on the contrary, we are seeing the reverse. Support for the death penalty has, in fact, increased in a statistically significant way. It shows that Singaporeans understand the need for the death penalty to deal with the most serious crimes.

I will refer to yet another survey. In 2023, the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) conducted a survey. Almost 91% expressed support for Singapore’s drug-free approach. This is last year. And 87% agreed that our drug laws are effective in keeping us relatively drug-free. We have these high levels of support because Singaporeans trust the Government to do the right thing and to do right by Singapore.

My colleagues and I have engaged thousands of Singaporeans on this issue in just the past year alone. So, when Mr Richard Branson comes in to argue, he does not realise that we take our duties seriously, we are accountable to Singaporeans, we speak with thousands of them every year and we know what Singaporeans support. And the vast majority of Singaporeans know and understand the facts and reality, and why the Government says the death penalty is necessary.

Mr Speaker, let me now say something about my Ministry’s plans for the coming years, specifically our upstream efforts to address the drug problem amongst the young.

We formed the Inter-Ministry Committee (IMC) on Drug Prevention for Youths last year. I spoke about this at the Committee of Supply debate. Members of the IMC have started running anti-drug programmes to enhance awareness on the harms of drugs and mobilise key community leaders and amplify our anti-drug messages. Let me share some examples.

SportSG has begun to incorporate preventive drug education in its programmes and curricula for our young athletes and to reinforce positive life values to remind our youths about pursuing excellence while keeping their minds and bodies healthy.

Our schools will cover drug-related topics in their school curricula by extending it to other subjects, such as General Paper, for example. And in our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), these messages will be reinforced at various junctures, such as orientation sessions and pre-departure briefings before students go on overseas trips.

And starting this year, we will introduce a “Drug Victims Remembrance Day”. This is for our communities to rally together to remind ourselves of the harm, hurt and trauma which the families and loved ones of drug abusers suffer and have suffered. Our aim is to drive home the message that the harms drugs cause are far-reaching and require a strong response from society.

In partnership with CNB, schools and IHLs will be organising various activities, such as lessons, exhibitions and talks on the Remembrance Day. There will also be an essay competition for youths in post-secondary educational institutions to encourage conversations and reflections on the impact of drug abuse. This is a major step that we are taking. By this, we hope to bring across to a larger segment of the population, particularly the young, in a very impactful way, or as an impactful way as possible, the harm that drugs cause.

An inaugural observance event will be held at the Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza on 17 May this year. We will be holding a candlelight display to remember the victims of drug abuse, not only from Singapore but from all around the world, because victims from around the world deserve our sympathy and thoughts.

But of course, it will include victims in Singapore, including the elderly mother and grandmother brutally murdered, the two-year-old toddler who was senselessly assaulted to death by her own guardian, and the countless family members whose lives have been upended by having a loved one going to drugs. These are the people who deserve our sympathy.

The event will be followed by roving exhibitions across eight different locations around Singapore from May to July. I strongly encourage Singaporeans to visit the exhibitions, participate in these activities, to be aware of the global and local drug situation and to show solidarity in our fight against drugs.

Sir, to conclude, our drug control policies have been effective. But the drug situation continues to be challenging, abroad certainly, but at home as well. And we have to respond robustly to these challenges so that we do not have a generation caught up with drug addiction, so that our children can inherit a country that is safe and free of drugs and have the same environment that we enjoy today. [Applause.]

Order. We will now have clarifications on the Statement. I would like to take the opportunity to remind Members that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarifications on the Ministerial Statement but there is no debate that should be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. So, I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise. Likewise, I would ask the Minister to also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Speaker. Just a few questions for the Minister.

First, with regard to the latest CNB Drug Situation Report 2023, which observes an 18% increase from 2022 of new drug abusers in Singapore, can I enquire from the Minister what new initiatives is the Ministry and, more specifically CNB, looking at to ensure that this number does not increase further? Specifically, I understand the same report covered some information on preventive education and efforts taken at preventive education. What other new initiatives can we expect with regard to the increasing number of abusers?

Related to this, there has been a significant jump in new psychoactive substances which have been seized by CNB. Is there a particular reason why there has been an evolution from other drugs, which are classified in the report, to these new psychoactive substances being abused in Singapore? It would be helpful if the Minister could share with us whether this is across the board or are there specific communities that are consuming these new drugs?

The second question refers to the slide that the Minister put up on the two-year recidivism rate. Would the Minister also share if the five-year recidivism rate generally follows those same percentages – 73%, I believe, as recorded in 1993 to 27% in 2021?

The final clarification is with regard to the recently passed Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill. I think the Minister suggested that we may come back to the House to see what else needs to be done. Is the Minister suggesting that there are some gaps in the Bill, which has not even come into force yet, which may require an amendment to the Act as it stands?

Sir, on the last question, I was not suggesting that there were gaps. What I was suggesting is that as we see how people file their applications, we learn. And looking at the methodology, for example, if there is a constitutional challenge – and there was last year – we may have to consider whether we need to amend the Constitution to make sure that any future constitutional challenges of such a nature will not succeed. And I look forward to support from Mr Singh if we were to come for that, since this is a fight that all of us have to take seriously.

So, the answer is, we looked at what we needed to do and we passed the Bill. We have seen how the applications have evolved and I have directed my Ministry – I have not said there are any gaps – to look to see whether we need to do anything more, given in particular that there was a constitutional challenge.

Second, Mr Singh has asked about the 18% increase in youth drug abuse. This is the approach we take. We disclose everything, we put the data out there and be transparent. There is a problem, and CNB and my Ministry said that there is this problem. What new initiatives? We need to do even better at preventive drug education. We need to focus on the parents as well to understand the messages. And the other new initiatives, I have spoken about them in my Ministerial Statement earlier.

The question on psychoactive substances – why is there a jump? Sir, the answer is actually quite simple. These were not available previously. Now, you can alter chemical properties and create drugs fairly easily and they become easily available. Every time you identify a compound, someone else can very quickly alter one or two chemical properties and come out with a technically different compound but with the same impact as the original compound. So, it is a continuous chase and you have to continuously deal with it. And because now it can be produced in a lab, as it were, it is also much easier to produce larger quantities and some of it have properties that some of our young find attractive.

Are there ethnic components to new psychoactive substances? I do not think there is a clear correlation, but we have seen a slightly higher level of Chinese participation, as it were, the number of Chinese who take these new psychoactive substances compared with the traditional drugs, if I can so refer to them.

As to whether the five-year recidivism rate has come down over the 30-year period, I would ask the Member to file a Parliamentary Question and we will deal with it.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the hon Minister for articulating his tough stance against drugs. And I think one would also need to take note that, coupled with the tough stance, is a compassionate stance in helping the drug victims and the family. And the presence of the families here in the House is a clear articulation of that approach.

Sir, my clarification is in relation to how do we embed this anti-drugs policy in the younger generations of Singaporeans, particularly Gen Z and Generation Alpha, against the backdrop of: one, the fact that they did not necessarily have personal experience because, as was recounted by the hon Minister, we had serious drug problems in the 1970s, they obviously would not have such personal experience; two, the narratives in the social media.

I had regard to a research paper in 2022 where it was highlighted that in relation to so called "soft drugs", there were positive perceptions of these so called "soft drugs" in 75% of 16 million posts that were analysed. This paper came out of Australia. Our young consume social media for news and they are exposed to this. So, how do we deal with this?

The last point is the fact that increasingly – and this, perhaps, is my personal perception – Singapore seems to be, in a sense, set aside in relation to conferences dealing with the drugs issue. I myself have had a chance to articulate Singapore's strong anti-drugs stance in a symposium in Cambridge. I was referred to as having outlier arguments and Singapore's experience cannot be replicated elsewhere.

So, these are the trends. How do we make sure that our children from Gen Z and Gen Alpha would understand and internalise our strong anti-drugs policy?

Thank you, Sir. On the first question, how do we embed this anti-drug message in the face of an assault from multiple sides putting forward a positive spin on drugs? I think this goes to Mr Singh's question as well, because if you see what is happening, by decriminalising and making drugs available, people stand to make a lot of money, billions of dollars. So, there are listed companies around the world which want this and they finance non-governmental organisations (NGOs), they finance publicity, which sells the idea that soft drugs are good, they are harmless.

If you look at these international conferences, the NGOs which are taking a tough line on drugs are usually poorly financed, their material is not so attractive; whereas on the other side, there are all these glitzy arguments as to why soft drugs, cannabis cause you no harm. It is just something for you to try, it is cool.

So, the whole idea of the "cool" factor pushed at our young from media, online, friends, peer pressure; wherever you turn, it is there and it is glamourised today. It is frequently glamourised. You cannot get away from it. So, if you ask why is there a jump amongst our young in, albeit from a lower base, the answer is obvious. How do we deal with it? We do not produce Hollywood movies. It is very difficult to stand against this multi-faceted assault. But I think we have done a reasonably good job.

And that goes, in a way, to the second question that Mr Pillai asked, Sir. We are an outlier in the United Nations (UN), in international conferences. We usually get one of two reactions: one, a sullen silence as we put out our statistics and situation, because people just do not like it; the second is, "Well, you know, yes, we accept that Singapore succeeds but what you do cannot be replicated elsewhere". I think it can be, but it is not for me to fight the fight in the rest of the world. As long as others do not tell us what to do and leave us alone to protect our population, then I think that is the best that we can hope for.

Second Minister Josephine Teo goes very regularly to the UN conference on drugs in Vienna. We put forward our position and, yes, we are somewhat isolated. There are other countries which take a tough approach, but I think none put forward the arguments quite in the way that we do, presented with research and statistics. But we do have a group of countries that take a view against drugs, including in ASEAN. There are differences of view, but never underestimate, it is a very tough environment to get our message across to our own people and we will all have to continue to fight on it.

Preventive drug education is a broad title, but CNB and MHA is trying many different things now to try and get the message across even better, even clearly and to more people.

I think if you go and ask, those of you with primary school children; ask them, I think they would have heard about it. They will tell you what they have been told. The next question is trying to get it to be imbued in. I think parents have a big role. And there, I am hoping that our initiative on Drug Victims Remembrance Day would help. The other steps that we are taking, I am hoping will help.

Mr Vikram Nair.

I thank the Minister for a very clear articulation of Singapore's policy, which is different from many other countries' but I think the right one.

The area that I have concern with, like some of the other Members, is that the age at which children start taking drugs is relatively young – an average of 15.9 years. When I was in primary school, there were campaigns against glue sniffing, which was seen as a gateway drug. Are there any other gateway substances or drugs that the public should be aware of and which the youths in particular should be aware of today?

Thank you, Sir. Some might, for example, refer to vaping as a gateway and for that, the Ministry of Health will answer as to what steps they are taking.

Are there any more clarifications from Members for the Minister? I do not see any. Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.

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

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”.

Connectivity is essential to Singapore and our economy. Many Singaporeans rely on public transport for our daily activities. In 2023, we had over seven million daily rides on our public buses and trains, serving millions of commuters across the country. We also rely on our air and sea connectivity to bring in essential goods, support the growth of our industries and connect Singaporeans with the rest of the world.

Last year, Changi Airport served about 59 million passengers. We are now connected to about 420 cities through almost 120 airlines. As one of the busiest ports in the world, our maritime hub is a key node in global supply chains. Our port is linked to 600 ports around the world and in 2023, our container throughput reached a new high of 39 million, 20-foot equivalent units.

Our connectivity to the world is critical not just during peacetime. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was our strong connectivity to the region and beyond that allowed Singapore to receive and send out critical supplies, including food and medical essentials. Within Singapore, we worked hard to maintain connectivity by keeping our public transport services running, so that our essential workers could continue to go to work to fight the crisis and keep the country going.

All these benefits cannot be achieved without the safe and reliable provision of essential air, land and sea transport services at all times and under all circumstances, including during a crisis. Sir, the proposed Bill today therefore aims to put in place measures to enhance the resilience of essential transport services in Singapore and set the foundations to protect Singapore against possible future disruptions to our essential transport firms. Our objective is to help Singapore prepare for possible extreme scenarios that may happen in future, so that we are ready for these risks.

For example, we cannot rule out the risk of malicious actors gaining control and adversely influencing our key transport entities, jeopardising the provision of essential transport services in Singapore. We have built strong relationships with the firms in our transport ecosystem and worked closely with them during peace time and crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, to provide safe, reliable and efficient services for Singapore, and we want to make sure that they continue to do so in the years ahead.

We are not alone in making moves to safeguard our essential transport services. Other countries have taken steps to protect their strategic assets too. In 2021, the United Kingdom (UK) passed the National Security and Investments Act, which allows the government to intervene in certain acquisitions made that could harm the UK's national security. In the United States (US), the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernisation Act was passed in 2018 to expand the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, to address growing national security concerns over foreign investment in US companies or operations.

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

Singapore already has regulations in place to safeguard some of our essential sectors. For example, the Banking, and Telecommunications Acts require approval to be sought before a person acquires a certain percentage of shares or voting power in a licensee; and prior to the appointment of key personnel, such as the chief executive officer (CEO). The Electricity, and Public Utilities Acts also provide similar levers to safeguard the management and provision of electricity and water in Singapore, to ensure that these supplies always remain available.

More recently, the Ministry of Trade and Industry passed the Significant Investments Review Act, or SIRA, which provides the Government with an updated set of regulatory levers to manage threats posed by significant investments into critical entities. Likewise, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) would like to propose measures to ensure that our essential transport systems are able to serve Singapore and Singaporeans effectively, now and in the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to explain why we are introducing a transport sector-specific regulatory framework through this Bill, which is consistent across the air, land and sea transport sectors, instead of going through a broad-based legislation like SIRA. A sector-specific approach can better allow us to customise the regulatory oversight needed for Singapore's transport ecosystem and balance these objectives with the commercial and business impact on our transport entities and their investors.

We have, therefore, designed our regulations in a calibrated and targeted manner. The proposed Bill does not seek to regulate the standards and performance of our entities' day-to-day operations. Rather, it seeks to protect key transport entities against the risk of malicious actors exerting undue influence over these entities and ensure that commercial decisions made by the entities do not jeopardise their ability to provide essential transport services in Singapore.

Some entities may be involved in the provision of other services outside of transport, such as food and beverage (F&B) or advertising services. The Bill will not focus on regulating these services; instead, it is targeted at the parts of the entity that directly provide essential transport services in Singapore.

In addition, we also recognise that different entities play different roles to deliver a range of services. Since last year, MOT has been engaging the key transport entities to better understand how regulations can be practically implemented. We have taken in their feedback when designing this Bill and we are mindful of the commercial impact. MOT will, therefore, differentiate some controls based on entities' roles, responsibilities and functions, which I will elaborate in a later part of my speech.

Finally, the Bill serves to harmonise our laws across the transport sector, to reduce the regulatory burden on entities as they evolve, as well as provide greater consistency on commercial and investment controls in the Singapore transport ecosystem. This Bill seeks to introduce a common regime covering both licensees and non-licensees across air, land and sea transport, to apply a consistent set of regulatory controls and to create a transparent and predictable regulatory environment for entities.

Sir, I will now go into the key features of the Bill. The Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill makes amendments to the following Acts: the Bus Services Industry Act, or BSI Act; the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act, or CAAS Act; the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act, or MPA Act; and the Rapid Transit Systems Act, or RTS Act.

After they are amended, these Acts will continue to be administered by the relevant authorities of these Acts, namely CAAS, the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (LTA) and MPA. These authorities will also be responsible for designating relevant entities under the framework.

Please allow me to explain how we plan to classify the affected entities. Sir, the Bill is not intended to apply to every entity which provides a transport service in Singapore. Instead, we will take a targeted approach by regulating entities within the transport sector that meet the following criteria: first, they are involved in the provision of essential transport services in the air, land or sea transport sectors; and second, they are strategically important within the sector, for example, if the services they provide are not readily replaceable due to significant market share or specialised expertise.

Clauses 3, 19, 30 and 47, together with the new Schedules, set out the definitions for an "essential transport service" under each sector, by listing out the key services necessary for Singapore's air, land and sea transport networks. For land, we intend to include, among other things, public bus and rail services. For aviation, we plan to include, among other things, airport and ground-handling operations and passenger and cargo air services at Changi Airport. For maritime, we plan to include, among other things, port and marine services and facilities, as well as services which support the provision of sea transport, such as water supply and bunkering.

Clauses 8, 23, 33 and 52 of the Bill insert provisions empowering the regulatory authorities to designate entities that are involved in the provision of essential transport services in Singapore. Entities can be designated as a "designated operating entity", if they directly provide any essential transport service in Singapore and are strategically important within the sector; or a "designated equity interest holder", if they hold an equity interest in a designated operating entity and have a strong nexus of control over their subsidiaries that are designated operating entities.

This is because such individuals or organisations may influence key decisions related to the provision of essential transport services in Singapore. For the rest of my speech, I will be referring to both "designated operating entities" and "designated equity interest holders" collectively as "designated entities", otherwise, it will be quite a mouthful.

The designation process will be initiated after the Bill is passed and the law is brought into force. We intend for the relevant firms to be designated by the end of this year, if Parliament approves the Bill. The notifications of designations will specify the date on which designation of a company takes place and will be published in the Gazette at least 14 days before the date that designation takes place. This is provided for in the new section 28E of the BSI Act; the new section 64 of the CAAS Act; the amended section 86D of the MPA Act; and the new section 21E of the RTS Act.

The Bill will introduce legislative levers across the four Acts in three aspects: ownership controls; management appointment controls; and operations and resourcing controls.

Ownership of a firm allows parties to exercise influence over its direction, management and decisions. The Bill will allow relevant authorities to have oversight of significant changes in effective control of designated entities, through the following requirements: any person who becomes a 5% controller of the designated entity, which is when we consider a person to be a substantial shareholder of a company, must notify the relevant authorities within seven days after becoming a 5% controller.

Any person who intends to become or cease being a 25%, 50% or 75% controller of the designated entity must seek the relevant authority's approval. At these levels of shareholding, controllers hold significant influence over a company, such as the ability to pass and block ordinary and special resolutions. In addition, the relevant authority's approval must be sought for: first, any person intending to become an indirect controller, meaning someone that is able to exert control over the directors or trustee managers of the designated entity; or, any person intending to acquire and continue operating without disruption, any part of the designated operating entity's business relating to the provision of essential transport services. This is to provide the relevant authority with oversight over all acquisitions of the entity or parts of the entity, regardless of whether there are significant changes to its service provisions.

Lastly, designated entities must notify the relevant authority within seven days after becoming aware of any of the ownership changes which I just described.

The second set of controls pertain to the appointment of management by designated entities. These controls allow the relevant authorities to be kept apprised of changes to the key personnel responsible for the management of our critical transport firms, as well as operations affecting the continued provision of the essential transport service.

The Bill will require designated entities to seek the relevant authority's approval for the appointment of its CEO and Chairperson of its board of directors; and designated operating entities who are also licensees to seek the relevant authority's approval for the appointment of its CEO, Chairperson, as well as all directors of its board.

Lastly, the Bill will introduce controls over operations and resourcing, to ensure that companies are equipped and able to operate their services under all circumstances, including times of crisis and in the event of significant changes within each sector. We propose that designated entities should notify their respective authorities as and when there are material developments or events, so that the relevant authorities are kept aware of events that could materially impede or impair the provision of essential transport services in Singapore and are able to take mitigation measures early and as needed.

While current licensing regimes for each sector may also include notification requirements, this Bill codifies the notification requirements across all transport sectors for designated entities. The Bill will require designated entities to notify the relevant authority of such events, for example, if a designated operating entity outsources a material function in providing essential transport services in Singapore, or if they face material events or legal proceedings that may impair or impede the provision of essential transport services in Singapore. This list of events will be circumscribed.

To help companies comply with these requirements, the relevant authorities will issue a set of advisory guidelines after the Bill is approved by Parliament and comes into effect. These advisory guidelines will provide practical guidance for these notification requirements. We have provided for this by clauses 13, 25, 41 and 55 of the Bill.

Next, the Bill inserts provisions extending the relevant authority's step-in powers, via a Special Administration Order, to cover designated operating entities and licensees across the air, land and sea transport sectors. This is to safeguard service continuity in extreme scenarios and unlikely events, such as where a designated operating entity or licensee becomes unable to provide essential transport services safely and reliably.

Currently, the relevant authorities could issue Special Administration Orders to their licensees, as a safeguard in extreme scenarios. The step-in powers in this Bill are similar in scope, in that they extend to designated operating entities that directly provide essential transport services in Singapore, but are not licensees.

Sir, I wish to assure Members that step-in powers will be exercised as a last resort to deal with extreme scenarios. They are meant to safeguard the provision of essential transport services in Singapore. For example, this could include when a designated operating entity becomes insolvent and unable to pay its debts and this, in turn, jeopardises the continued provision of essential transport services. We will not intervene in the commercial operations and affairs of the entities in the normal course of business.

If we need to use the proposed step-in powers, we will exercise them judiciously and only for the period which they are required for. The new section 33E of the BSI Act, the new section 75 of the CAAS Act, the new section 89B of the MPA Act and the new section 27D of the RTS Act in the Bill update the related provisions in existing Acts. For example, the Bill will provide for the issuance of ancillary directions, to specify the period in which the step-in order will take effect and other relevant conditions to achieve the purposes of the order when step-in powers are exercised.

Finally, business continuity planning requirements. The Bill introduces the power for CAAS to impose requirements for business continuity planning for designated operating entities in the air transport sector. They will not apply to designated equity interest holders. The Bill does not cover these requirements for designated operating entities in the land and sea transport sectors, as we can subject them to similar requirements via licence conditions.

Let me now touch on the general and miscellaneous provisions under the Bill. The Bill will allow the relevant authorities to issue remedial directions for breaches of controls relating to ownership and management appointments, among others. These remedial directions could include directing the disposal of equity interest and removal of key appointment holders, if prior approval was not sought or if conditions of approval were breached.

The Bill will employ the following penalties to enforce the regime. We have specified penalties for the breach of any control, including conditions of approval, relating to ownership, management appointments and notification requirements for certain events, the breach of any remedial direction as well as non-compliance with duties under a Special Administration Order.

The penalties will take reference from penalties under existing Acts, which take into account the operating environments within each sector. The amended section 41 of the BSI Act, the new section 67K of the CAAS Act, the new section 86HD of the MPA Act and the new section 28 of the RTS Act provide for avenues of appeal to the Minister against certain decisions made by the relevant authorities, including the designation of an entity, refusal to grant approvals required for controls over ownership or management appointments and the issuance of remedial directions.

Sir, I would like to highlight that MOT will be moving a Notice of Amendment during the Committee stage to address two drafting changes. First, we seek to amend clause 39 to remove subsection (3) of the new section 86HB of the MPA Act as it is not necessary in view of subsection (2) of the same. Next, we propose to make a technical amendment to clause 19 for consistency with the prevailing legislative drafting style for the numbering of sub-paragraphs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore’s connectivity is one of our greatest assets and something we must continue to safeguard carefully to protect the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. We shall do so in a calibrated and targeted manner, by striking a balance between what is useful and practical for our transport sector and minimising the commercial and cost impact on companies and investors. We will continue to work closely with the industry and stakeholders on the implementation of this Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our transport sector is the lifeblood and key backbone of our economy. It is essential to our survival as a nation. And I am not saying that just because I chair the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport.

Our air and seaports have maintained long-running reputations as efficient and reliable hubs. Our public buses and trains supported an average of 7.19 million rides per day in 2023, ferrying our workers to and from their various roles contributing to the Singapore economy.

I do not think anyone can seriously argue against the need to ensure the resilience of critical firms in the sector as well as the essential services they provide. But as we are not looking to nationalise these private businesses, the real question is how we can safeguard their resilience in a way that does not make us less business-friendly by ensuring comprehensibility, predictability and fairness.

According to MOT’s press release, this Bill is intended to complement the Significant Investments Review Act, or SIRA, which was passed in January 2024 and came into effect on 28 March 2024. Many of the ownership and management controls in this Bill mirrors those that are contained in the SIRA.

Could the Minister explain – and I think Minister had sort of explained to some extent in his opening speech – why the proposed regime in the Bill is necessary; and possibly can he elaborate a bit more why the critical transport sector firms could not have been designated under the SIRA? I think the Minister also elaborated to some extent in his opening speech but maybe a further elaboration on that would be useful.

The reliable provision of essential transport services must necessarily be in the "interest of Singapore's national security" under the SIRA. In addition, are these sectors specific application of the Critical Firms Bill also being practised in other jurisdictions globally and can MOT share if we are in line with international practices and coverage?

My primary concern with duplicative or overlapping regimes is the potential confusion that businesses and investors would face. Having multiple different regulatory regimes would already drive up investment and compliance costs as the actors will need to figure out their optimal compliance strategy routinely or for any material transaction. We should be cautious of the impact on our competitiveness as a business and investment hub. When would a specific entity be designated under the general SIRA and when would an entity be designated under an equivalent sectoral regime? And what is the practical difference if one is designated under the latter, as compared to the former?

We have not possibly gone through that, because we have not passed this Bill. But if we do, if there is a situation, it would probably be useful to know.

This is especially since we have already set up the Office of Significant Investments Review, or OSIR, in connection with the SIRA, which will "serve as a dedicated one-stop touchpoint and closely engage all stakeholders to address their concerns and to minimise the impact on them". So, would an entity that is designated, or is soon to be designated, under this Bill be able to approach the OSIR for guidance as well? Or would they have to look elsewhere?

I understand that the designation of entities will take place as soon as the later half of this year, if this Bill is passed by Parliament. I believe the authorities will also be engaging with entities to be designated in relation to compliance with the requirements of this Bill. So, when will the initial list of designated entities be made known? While it is expected that our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and public bus operators will be designated, what about taxi and ride-hailing companies which have seen their average number of daily trips increase 18.6% from 517,000 in 2020, to 613,000 in July 2023?

Like the SIRA, this Bill contemplates targeting particular entities as opposed to an entire sector or industry, the lack of clear criteria may give rise to criticisms of arbitrariness. So, are there any guidelines on the criteria, for example, by annual turnover or by market share, that will see a company identified as a designated entity?

For companies that are not on the initial list of designated entities, may I ask whether will there be subsidiary legislation setting out clear procedures and timelines leading up to the Minister’s designation of such entity? As various consequences follow from the designation of an entity, having clear timelines will allow investors and businesses to plan and execute their responses, such as divestment or "off-ramping".

Finally, how often will we review the list of designated entities under the four Acts? I think Minister in some ways alluded to that in his opening speech as well, maybe it would be useful to repeat that again.

Next, the Bill requires buyers into designated entities to notify the relevant authority after becoming a 5% controller, and to obtain prior approval of the relevant authority before becoming a 25%, 50% or 75% controller.

The definitions of "equity interest" and "controller" that are sought to be introduced mean that it will not only catch transactions of shares in the designated entities, but also transactions of shares and interests of indirect parent entities one or more levels up the chain. This is further complicated by the range of financial instruments that are traded on the market – equity-linked notes or products – could potentially lead to "control" for the purpose of notification and approval thresholds.

Would there be detailed guidelines on how such "control" is to be determined and how the relevant authorities intend to continually monitor such ownership changes, especially with varied products and instruments traded out in the market, not just regionally but possibly globally as well?

How should we reconcile these new powers with those that we have traditionally deployed? For example, I believe the Singapore Government continues to hold a "golden share" of Singapore Airlines such that it has the ability to outvote the other shares and exercise corporate control. In other scenarios, we have been able to effectively direct the actions of certain companies by subjecting them to licensing regulations, as well as contracting conditions for those who rely heavily on Government contracts. Are these methods no longer effective?

I also note that the Bill covers not only Singapore-incorporated companies, but foreign companies that carry out activities in Singapore. Such foreign companies may also be subject to mandatory regulation in their home jurisdiction, including requirements on ownership and control. Do we foresee a scenario where companies may be subject to conflicting regulatory requirements in their home jurisdiction and under this Bill, if it is passed? How would such a conflict be resolved? For example, the company may be required to remain 50% state-owned in its home jurisdiction, but that may not be in the interests of ensuring the resilience of our critical transport entities and the essential services they provide.

In a similar vein, has the Ministry considered whether it would need to exercise its regulatory power to veto the appointment of CEOs, Board Chairmen and even Board members differently where such officers are being appointed by a foreign headquarter or shareholder in a designated entity? What if this causes a breach of Board appointment rights granted under a shareholders' agreement? We must be careful that our legitimate right to safeguard our national interests is not perceived as simply a protectionist move to reserve these appointments in transport firms for Singaporeans or worse, for Government appointees.

Finally, while I agree that this Bill is necessary in-principle, subject to the Minister’s clarification on its interaction with the SIRA, its effectiveness and result will ultimately depend on the practical operation of the relevant provisions.

While the maximum penalties for non-compliance for designated entities under the CAAS Act and the MPA Act range from $500,000 to $1 million, or a three-month imprisonment, the maximum penalties for equivalent offences for our bus and MRT service providers is a fine up to $50,000 or up to six months’ imprisonment. This difference appears to be deliberate so my question for the Minister is whether the penalties are significant enough to incentivise compliance without being overly burdensome for the operators? So, how were the different figures derived?

It is also heartening to note that we have been, and intend to continue, adopting a consultative approach in designating entities and exercising regulatory powers under this framework. Could the Minister share some further details on the scope and status of the consultation and agreement?

Beyond these behind-the-scenes engagement, public clarity is also equally important. Reassuring investors that our system remains transparent, fair and predictable is the best way to keep our doors open for business, while safeguarding our interest in keeping our critical transport entities and essential transport services resilient.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill proposes to set up a designated entities regime for entities providing essential transport services.

The Bill requires approvals for ownership controls and changes, and various notification requirements, for example, change of ownership or whether there are events which materially impede or impair the provision of such services, together with remedial directions.

The Bill provides for the amendments in four key legislations relating to air, sea and land transport legislations, namely the Bus Services Industry Act 2015, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act 2009, the Maritime and Port Authority of Act 1996 and the Rapid Transport Systems Act 1995.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Bill's intention to strengthen the resilience of key firms in the air, land and sea transport sectors in Singapore, safeguarding their provision of essential transport services, enhancing resiliency and shielding them from potential national security threats. However, I have some clarifications for the Minister.

To start off, may I ask the Minister to share what were some of the risks observed in the prospective critical entities that drove the need for this Bill and for the proposed amendments to the sectoral Acts?

Mr Deputy Speaker, under this Bill, only fit and proper persons may be given approval to 25%, 50% or 75% controllers of designated entities. Will the Government be publishing any guidelines in the subsidiary legislation on how a person is fit and proper as required under the Act, similar to what is envisaged in the recent Significant Investments Review Act, or SIRA?

Part 1, section 33D and Part 4A, section 27C of the Bill enables the Minister to issue a Special Administrative Order or other orders in relation to an entity who is a bus service licensee or a railway licensee, respectively, should the Minister be satisfied that one or more conditions be met.

These conditions include, among other things, the Minister being satisfied that either type of licensee has contravened the conditions of their licence, the licensee is unable to pay its debt, or in the interests of safety, security and continuity of the provision of such services, or in the case of a railway licensee having contravened the conditions of their licence. However, the Minister could also administer such an order should they view such a decision as being in the public interest.

Could the Government provide greater clarity on what public interest entails within the context of the current Bill? This is important as it will not only provide greater clarity for the management of the affected companies, it will also provide clarity and transparency to investors of such companies on the circumstances in which the Government can exercise such powers.

In fact, the recently passed SIRA empowered the Government to impose controls on the shareholders and management of designated entities' interests of national security. On the other hand, the current Bill proposes that the Government be given similar powers over the shareholders and management of designated operating entities and designated entities in the public interest.

Could the Minister elaborate on what would be the difference in the criteria for assessing national security and the public interest in the respective legislations?

Aside from setting out the Minister's prerogative to issue certain orders and directions to designated entities, the Bill also requires designated entities to report certain matters to the authorities.

Under the Bill, designated entities are required to notify authorities of any event that could materially impede their ability to carry out their essential transport services in Singapore. Should such a situation arise in future, in the interest of transparency, will the Government be informing the public such events or even irregularities reported and the remedial actions taken?

I would also like to ask the Government what is the mechanism which will be put in place to ensure that it can carry out any pre-emptive checks on operators who are reluctant to report any such events or irregularities or to ensure timely rectifications. While legislation would play a crucial role in buttressing the resilience of Singapore's public transport system, the importance of implementing operational measures should not be ignored as well.

Part 4, section 27D of the Bill allows the Minister to halt a railway licensee from the provision of their services. However, in the event that there is no replacement operator willing to take over at short notice, for example, if they perceive such a move as being financially untenable, would LTA be in a position to take over the operation?

In 2016, the then Transport Minister, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, suggested that LTA should enhance their operational and maintenance team to take over operations should the need arise. Would the Government clarify whether LTA currently has the capacity to take over as the operator of last resort and, if not, whether there is an actionable plan or a road map towards such an outcome?

Mr Deputy Speaker, while three out of four Class 1 bus licensees are privately owned, SMRT and PSA Corporation are owned by Temasek and Changi Airport Group (CAG) is directly owned by the Government. Given that PSA Corporation and CAG are already directly or indirectly owned by the Government, in respect of these companies, are the proposed controls on ownership and key personnel in this Bill redundant in any way? Does the Government have any plans to divest its stakes in PSA or CAG?

Apart from CAG, which will be designated as a Class 1 designated operating entity, does MOT or CAAS intend to designate the companies that the Minister has mentioned in his earlier speech as Class 2 designated operating entities? May I know what are the considerations for their designation? Have those entities been consulted on the designated entity framework and have they provided any feedback on the impact that such designation might have on their operations? Does the Minister anticipate that the designated entity framework may, in any way, affect Changi Airport's attractiveness for investment from companies that may have more efficient and innovative or just different approaches to airport services?

Clause 28 defines essential transport services in the CAAS Act as various services and facilities provided to support the operations at Changi Airport. Operations at Seletar Airport are thus not deemed to be essential transport services. Has Seletar been excluded from the designated entity framework because it only serves smaller aircraft or will the framework eventually be extended to Seletar as well?

Likewise, for the maritime sector, clause 44 includes services, such as bunker supply and delivery, salvage operations and passenger ferry operations, in the definition of essential transport services. To what extent will the current players be affected? For example, will all the current bunker companies supplying fuel within port limits be included? What about the companies that supply bunkers also in the outside port limits area?

The provisions in the Bill lack a clearer framework that outlines regulatory processes, procedures, criteria and guidelines to help the Government to regulate or operationalise in accordance with the intentions of this Bill. I hope such details will be included clearly in the subsidiary legislation after the Bill has been passed.

Just now, the Minister mentioned about the advisory guidelines and I hope such guidelines will be included in the subsidiary legislation eventually. This is important, lest the lack of such details and transparency may affect investor confidence in the transport sector or in affected companies, particularly the certainty of their investment in the longer run.

For the implementation of SIRA, an Office of Significant Investments Review (OSIR) was set up. Will there be similar offices set up to implement the requisite governance regime required by this Bill in all the different sector agencies involved? If so, what will be the regulatory or legislative powers granted to personnel involved?

Finally, before I end, I would like to ask for the Government's assessment of the impact of this Bill on the economic competitiveness potential of the affected transportation sectors. Particularly for maritime and aviation, will there be any impact on Singapore's trade flows?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the Minister's replies. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I am seeking the Workers' Party's support for the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, our transport sector is a key pillar to Singapore's survival. Not only are we a major aviation and maritime hub, our people depend on our world-class public transport network to get around and go to work to power our economy.

I thus support this Bill, which grants the Government additional powers to ensure that critical transport firms are led by the right people and operated in a way that will maintain the stability of our transport system. I have two points of clarifications to raise.

First, can the Minister clarify how MOT expects this Bill to impact the transport sector in Singapore? How many entities do we expect to be designated as essential transport services under this Bill? Has the Ministry consulted with these entities and, if so, can their concerns be shared with this House?

Next, is MOT concerned that increased regulation and control may affect the growth of our transport sector by slowing down business transactions or increasing barriers for new enterprises? For example, startups which intend to grow to become key players in our aviation and maritime ecosystem may face challenges in bringing in new members if there is a risk of greater regulatory controls in the future. Or are we expecting that these new safeguards will allow an even more open approach to the transport sector, allowing more private ownership and foreign investment, even for critical areas? For example, will we invite more overseas transport operators to join our public bus network?

My second clarification relates to the interaction of this Bill with the Significant Investments Review Act. Member Saktiandi spoke about this and the Minister also spoke about this in his opening speech.

Many of the provisions in this Bill and the powers granted to MOT mirror those that are found in the Significant Investments Review Act. This creates five very similar legislative regimes, resulting in unnecessary complexity in applying the individual statutes.

Can the Minister clarify why separate rules are created in this Bill under four different Acts, rather than being implemented through the framework created under the Significant Investments Review Act? For example, all the entities to be designated under this Bill could have been designated as critical to national security instead and brought under the purview of the Office of Significant Investments Review instead, with MOT being consulted as a subject matter expert.

One such complexity is that under the Significant Investments Review Act, the Minister's decisions can be appealed to a Reviewing Tribunal rather than judicial review under the Courts. However, decisions under this Bill would be appealed through the judicial review process.

While I trust both forums to be capable of reaching fair decisions, the difference in forum might lead to inconsistency in process or outcomes, which may create uncertainty for business owners. How will the Government ensure that we have a consistent approach between critical transport services and significant investments? Notwithstanding my clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I begin, I declare I am working in an investment firm that has investments in the transportation sector in Singapore.

There can be no doubt our transportation sector is the lifeblood of Singapore's economy. The disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing regional conflicts highlight the importance of ensuring its resilience. While increased controls are critical, it is important to understand how they might impact certain areas. In this regard, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill's potential impact.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can we achieve the goal of strengthening security measures, without stifling innovation within these critical firms? Singapore has a strong reputation for being a hub for innovation. We want our transport sector to be at the forefront of pioneering new technologies like autonomous vehicles, green transportation solutions and logistical optimisation. Therefore, I believe that it is crucial to explore ways to amend this Bill to strike a balance between security and innovation. Can we create a framework that allows these critical firms to flourish while safeguarding our national interests?

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to consider the potential impact on businesses. The Bill proposes a new designated entities regime. This includes increased Government oversight for critical transport firms. How will this regime affect the day-to-day operations of these critical firms? Will they face significant disruptions or bureaucratic hurdles? Furthermore, is there a concern that the additional regulatory burden could discourage foreign investment or hinder the growth of local firms?

For instance, clause 6 of the Bill mandates prior written approval from LTA for seemingly basic actions like becoming a partner in a Class 1 operating licence holding partnership. Even managerial appointments require LTA's approval. This raises concerns about the intent of Government reach in personnel decisions. Does this hinder a company's ability to function as a truly private entity, considering that even CEO and board appointments require agency approval? Will such overarching Government involvement in the appointment of personnel affect the ability of such companies in attracting talent? Will our companies risk losing talent because of the time lag or the need for approval sought to appoint them? Global and even local talent can easily find appointment in jurisdictions with less red tape.

The Bill's agency approval process for acquiring and liquidating shares has potential implications for stock trading of these companies. The potential time delays associated with approvals could hinder stock exchange activities and impact profitability, potentially leading to financial losses.

We need to ensure that this Bill does not create unnecessary obstacles. In this regard, it would be helpful if the Government could provide a clear picture of the compliance costs associated with this Bill. Are there ways to minimise the burden on businesses while still achieving the desired security outcomes? How will this Bill affect operations in the bus contracting model in attracting companies to bid as their appointments would come under scrutiny? Can the Government provide a timeline for the approval process for manpower?

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, another key concern is the potential impact on competition within the transport sector. Increased Government control might inadvertently lead to consolidation, with larger firms potentially absorbing smaller ones. While some consolidation might be inevitable, we need to ensure that the Bill does not create an environment where smaller firms struggle to compete under stricter regulations.

Thus, it is crucial to explore how the Bill can be structured to ensure a healthy level of competition within the critical transport sector. A competitive landscape fosters innovation and keeps costs in check. We do not want the Bill to inadvertently create monopolies or duopolies that could preclude innovation and, ultimately, raise costs for consumers. Will Singaporeans have to pay more for public transportation as a result?

Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, concerns remain about transparency and the appeal process. The Bill grants the Minister for Transport broad powers to intervene in critical firms. While national security is paramount, how will transparency be ensured around these interventions? What is the process for appealing decisions made by the relevant authorities under the Bill? Is there an independent body that can review Ministerial decisions or decisions by the authorities?

Additionally, the Bill needs to clearly define the circumstances that will justify the Minister intervening in the operations of a critical transport firm. What specific circumstances would trigger such intervention and how would such Ministerial intervention be carried out in a transparent and accountable manner? What safeguards are in place to prevent the Minister from abusing these powers?

Fifth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill's impact on our global standing needs careful consideration. Singapore's position as a major transportation hub cannot be overstated. How will this Bill affect our attractiveness to foreign investors and our overall standing in the global transport industry? We need to ensure that the Bill does not create unnecessary friction with our international trade partners who rely on Singapore's efficient transport system.

Can the Government assure that the Bill will not unfairly disadvantage foreign companies, compared to local firms? Maintaining a level playing field is critical for attracting and retaining foreign investment in this vital sector.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to enhance Government oversight over critical companies in our air, land and sea transport sectors, recognising their pivotal role in Singapore's economy and resilience. However, as we deliberate on this Bill, several key considerations emerge.

First, we must balance security measures with fostering innovation within these firms, safeguarding our reputation as an innovative hub. Amendments to the Bill should aim at nurturing innovation while upholding security imperatives.

Second, potential impacts on businesses necessitate scrutiny. The proposed designated entities regime may impose bureaucratic hurdles and deter investment, potentially affecting stock trading and operational efficiency. We need clarity on compliance costs and timelines for approval processes.

Third, concerns arise regarding competition and consolidation within the sector. We must ensure that the Bill fosters healthy competition, preventing monopolies or duopolies that could stifle innovation and raise costs for consumers.

Fourthly, transparency and an effective appeal process are paramount. The Minister's broad powers require clear justification and accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse.

Fifthly and finally, we must assess the global implications of the Bill. Singapore's attractiveness to foreign investors and its global standing as a transportation hub should not be compromised.

In closing, while supporting the Bill, we must address these concerns to strike a balance between security, innovation, business viability, transparency and global competitiveness. We must ensure that the Bill enhances rather than hinders our transport sector's growth and resilience. Let us work together to strengthen our transport sector without impeding its progress and global competitiveness. I support the Bill.

Ms Poh Li San.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am an employee in the aviation sector. I refer to the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill and I would like to highlight certain concerns. One of them applies across all industries, which is, how are we going to be able to attract good talents in leadership roles? Another is, how do we navigate our strategic business expansion and diversification plans?

For any economy to grow, the transport infrastructure must facilitate the flow of goods and services, and people mobility must be well-connected to businesses around the world. Transport is the key to economic growth and competitiveness for trade. In the words of Mr Gan Kim Yong, our Trade Minister, "Trading is Singapore's lifeline. But more than just that, it is in Singapore's DNA". Our airport and seaport are the catalysts of our economic development. Let us talk about them.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Despite disruptions to the global supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic, our ports remained opened and never stopped operating. Food supplies and vaccines may never reach our people if operations were disrupted. Our land transport is the lubricant of our society. Our MRTs and public buses transport must work seamlessly on a day-to-day basis to cater to more than seven million trips daily with minimal disruptions.

It is no easy feat when it comes to running a transport organisation. The operators never get to rest. In fact, they are busiest when everyone else is taking a break, especially during weekends and holiday seasons. Respective operators must continuously ensure tip-top maintenance and operations standards, these are all the work needed just to prevent disruptions.

Many Singaporeans would remember the 2015 to 2016 period, when SMRT trains suffered frequent disruptions. Everyone was asking then, how could our national MRT system deteriorate to such a poor state? Breakdowns are not usual for large-scale and complex transportation systems. It is not easy to detect deep-seated weaknesses at early stages. It is like the boiling frog phenomenon. Things will appear to be going well at first. Then, a series of small disruptions start to happen before a catastrophic failure occurs unexpectedly. By then, it is usually too late. A massive amount of damage control and recovery will be needed to restore normalcy.

I am happy to know that in a short span of eight years, we have managed to turn around an unreliable MRT transport system to one of the most reliable systems in the world today. Nothing short of being remarkable. It took a herculean effort across the whole of land transport ecosystem and required extremely determined and collaborative teams with total dedication and discipline to achieve this.

Not only our public transport is now amongst the best in the world, our airport and seaport have also consistently achieved world-class accolades. It is now necessary to safeguard our achievements.

This is what we have learnt: major disruptions are preventable if long-term planning and investments are addressed well to ensure growth capacity and high-quality services. We, therefore, must always be ready to improve to ensure that our transport sector is reliable and has a good system in place.

Systems are determined by people. The people in charge must have a vision to serve Singaporeans. A bad system will only cause disruptions. One of the most important areas that we must address is the appointment of its Board Chairman and CEO.

There is a saying that fish rots from the head. This cannot be truer for big corporate organisations, which had collapsed because of poor top leadership. Companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers and closer to home, Hyflux, come to mind. Hence, it is vital for the Board Chairman and CEO of designated entities to be visionary leaders who can embrace their purpose and mission.

The transportation industry is a demanding, complex and highly regulated business. Suitable candidates may not be readily available. Hence, for succession, the appointment of an appropriate CEO and Chairman is naturally challenging. Why are we limiting our choices for good talent when we should be reconsidering our regulations to bring in the best?

I would like to seek clarification from the Minister, if MOT will share the broad criteria for the Chairman and CEO for the designated entities, such as nationality, professional background, experience and track record in the relevant transport industry, and so on?

The Transport Sector Bill requires designated entities to obtain approval from the relevant authority changes in ownership controls, to safeguard against adverse influence. Over the last few years, governments around the world have introduced screening of foreign direct investment on the grounds of national security and public order concerns. In Europe, UK, America and many other countries, Acts, such as National Security and Investment Acts, Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act have all been reviewed.

Singapore has a domestic market that is of a much smaller scale compared to these countries. Hence, incentives for new players are less than attractive and it is obviously harder to attract major foreign transport operators to operate here. Moreover, with the transport industry so highly regulated, entry barriers are high. Foreign transport operators may find compliance requirements too stringent and operations and safety requirements too onerous and costly.

The Transport Sector Bill does not encourage healthy competition. The lack of competitors in any industry will result in a lack of efficient operations in the long run and it is natural that the service standards will decline. Any entity that has the advantage of monopolisation will naturally hesitate to invest. It is about money. It is about business. Such an outcome would be detrimental to all Singaporeans whose lives and livelihoods are heavily dependent on reliable and efficient air, land and sea transport systems.

The Singapore aviation, maritime and land transport sectors are currently dominated by a few major players, such as Changi Airport Group, Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airport Terminal Services, Port of Singapore Authority, SMRT and SBS Transit. Sadly, even without foreign competition here, many of these companies will still need to venture overseas to diversify their business portfolios to seek additional revenue. Over the years, the revenue from their global businesses for some of these companies has surpassed the revenue from their Singapore businesses.

Regardless of that, competition is still necessary to ensure that services are all up to necessary standards. Designated entities having to seek too many approvals from the relevant authority for significant investment and divestment decisions will cause undue encumbrances which, in turn, will reduce their interest to assist us. I hope the Minister will clarify, under what circumstances will decisions on changes in business ownership controls be blocked by MOT and with reference to the non-transport related business arms of designated entities, what level of flexibility and independence would investors have?

Perhaps the most important concern is that the Transport Sector Bill accords the Minister the step-in powers, in the extreme scenario if a designated operating entity is unable to provide transport services safely and reliably. The intent of the Transport Bill must not intervene with the operations of these commercial companies. Understandably, the experts know best. However, should there be a situation of mismanagement, then the Minister would be vested with the legal powers to replace the leadership in the affected designated entities.

I mentioned the boiling frog analogy earlier. Unfortunately, it may often be too late to rectify the weaknesses after a catastrophic failure occurs. Recovery may take a long time or may not ever materialise. My concern is the effectiveness and practicality of leadership takeover to prevent further disruptions.

I hope the Minister can elaborate on the following: one, what are the trigger events for the Minister to exercise his step-in powers; two, when step-in powers are exercised, how would MOT and its regulatory agencies take over or support the team to stabilise the situation; and three, does MOT also have the powers to mandate the competitors of the affected designated operating entity to take over its responsibilities to minimise service disruptions?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe there is no necessity to reiterate just how critical the reliability and efficiency of the transport services are to Singapore. Our laws and policies must be shaped to protect our transportation systems that have been painstakingly built up over the years. Our transport laws and policies must be passed based solely on the interest of serving Singaporeans.

Notwithstanding my queries to the Minister, I support the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker Sir, I would like to declare my interest as the CEO of Strides Premier, a subsidiary of SMRT. Against the backdrop of escalating geopolitical tensions, it is imperative that Singapore takes proactive measures to safeguard the operations of its essential transport services. The Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill stands as a testament to our unwavering commitment to fortify the resilience and security of our transport networks. I wholeheartedly support this Bill. Nonetheless, I would like to bring forth a few clarifications and suggestions for consideration.

Firstly, for transparency, there will be a need to establish clear criteria for evaluating the suitability of the Chairmen and CEOs of designated entities. Should these pivotal positions be reserved exclusively for Singaporeans, or should Permanent Residents also be considered? Furthermore, what stance should we adopt regarding foreigners occupying these critical roles?

Secondly, when a designated operating entity is predominantly owned by a specific equity interest holder, key personnel of the said equity holder could have significant influence over the designated operating entity's operations. What mechanisms would MOT employ to ensure that the Chairmen and the CEOs of such designated equity entities are aligned with the public interest of Singapore? How would MOT respond if a designated equity interest holder is not aligned with Singapore's interests?

Thirdly, in the unfortunate event of a designated operating entity failing to provide essential transport services safely and reliably, we understand MOT stands prepared to issue a Special Administration Order. We are keen to understand how MOT has been preparing for such an eventuality. Will it enlist staff experienced in managing essential transport services to strengthen its bench strength during peace time in preparation for such contingencies? Will there be sufficient experience personnel and capabilities within MOT ready to step in and fill the gap?

Fourthly, it is worth noting that point-to-point (P2P) platform service providers are currently not regulated under the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill. However, disruptions to such platform services could have far-reaching implications for those who rely on this means of transport for their daily commute or other purposes. I understand earlier from the Minister that the passenger volume at Changi Airport is about 59 million a year. In contrast, the P2P platform serves more than 180 million passengers a year – about three times compared to passenger volume in Changi Airport. Thus, will MOT consider designating such platform providers as the designated entities?

Lastly, within large organisations, essential transport services and specific capabilities may reside within specific divisions or departments of the large organisations. How would MOT validate their capabilities and readiness to provide such services in both peacetime and crisis? Would MOT consider mandating this entities as separate companies for better streamlined regulation and administration?

These questions and suggestions are raised to ensure the efficacy and comprehensiveness of the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill. As we navigate the intricate terrain of our transport landscape, let us remain vigilant and proactive in safeguarding the interests of our nation. Therefore, I eagerly await the Minister's response to address the above five points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications and questions, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Don Wee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Ministry that the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Bill is necessary for the strengthening of regulatory oversight for our air, sea and land transport sectors. Doing so will ensure that the sectors will operate under conditions to better support and enhance our national security interests.

Many other countries, such as the US, the UK, Australia and most members of the EU, have similar legislations, including provisions regarding the designation of critical entities, ownership and operational controls, management appointment approvals, as well as remedial directions.

Nonetheless, I would like to ask if there was any recent incident in Singapore that have prompted the introduction of this new legislation? Would the Ministry share the specific risk or vulnerability that is being addressed by this Bill?

Under the designated entities regime, the key entities are the ones involved in the provision of essential transport services in Singapore. Would the Minister elaborate on the criteria to be used to determine which entities qualify as "essential" and the implications of this designation?

As a small country with an open economy, for decades, we have been welcoming investments in many sectors from foreign companies. I would like to ask the Minister how the increased regulatory oversight would affect this sector's viability, performance, competitiveness, and attractiveness to both local and international investors. I am concerned about the potential dampening effect on collaboration, innovation and new investments. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During this period of greater international tensions between some nations, particularly between the US and China, how will the MOT manage potential sensitivities and conflicts of interest among designated equity interest holders, especially for the air and sea sectors?

The Ministry intends for this Bill to complement the Significant Investments Review Act (Sira) which scrutinises local and foreign investments in entities considered critical to our national security interests. Entities designated under this Bill will not be concurrently designated under Sira. Would the Minister elaborate on how these two pieces of legislation work together to avoid areas of overlap or potential conflicts?

My final question is regarding the Ministry's consultation with industry representatives on this Bill. Would the Ministry share with the House their concerns and feedback, particularly on its potential impact on businesses and investors, and how these are addressed in the Bill?

(In English): I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Minister Chee.

Mr Speaker, I thank hon Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments and suggestions.

Sir, to Mr Don Wee and Mr Dennis Tan's questions on whether there are risks in the prospective designated entities or recent incidents that have prompted the introduction of this Bill, I would like to clarify that the introduction of this Bill is not to address existing risks or current problems. It is to put in place safeguards to protect critical transport firms from extreme scenarios in future and ensure the continued resilience of essential transport services in Singapore.

Mr Saktiandi, Mr Wee and Mr Louis Ng asked about the potential overlap between this Bill and SIRA. SIRA is designed to complement sectoral legislation and safeguards. Where possible, the preference is for sector leads to enforce controls over the entities under their purview, as they are most familiar with their sectors.

To avoid duplication, we do not intend for entities adequately regulated under sectoral legislation, including critical transport firms covered under MOT’s sectoral Acts, to be designated under SIRA.

Mr Wee and Mr Saktiandi asked about the criteria for designation and Mr Ng asked about the number of designated entities under the Bill. Sir, as we plan to cover only essential transport services under the Bill, we expect to designate a small number of firms for each sector. There are various criteria that will be taken into consideration for designation, including whether the entity is involved in the provision of essential transport services, and whether it is strategically important in the sector.

An entity may be considered strategically important if it has significant market share or specialised expertise in the industry. Designated entities are thus unlikely to be smaller companies with lower market share in the industry. Designated entities may include firms owned by the Government or Temasek Holdings, they could also include firms owned by other shareholders.

Mr Saktiandi and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked whether we will consider designating P2P operators under the Bill. Sir, we have no plans to do so at this juncture, as the P2P sector is still evolving. It serves a complementary role to public transport to meet the commuting needs of Singaporeans. We have an on-going review of the P2P industry structure and regulatory framework, and a decision can be taken after the review is completed.

Mr Dennis Tan asked whether Seletar Airport will be covered under the Bill. We have not included Seletar Airport in the definition of essential transport services in the Bill, as it currently functions as a secondary airport to Changi Airport.

The respective authorities will review the list of designated entities from time to time. They will engage and consult the entities prior to designation, and the notifications of designation will be published in the Gazette at least 14 days before the date that the designation takes effect.

Mr Ang asked whether equity interest holders that are predominant owners of a designated operating entity will be required to seek approval for Chairpersons and CEOs. As mentioned in my opening speech, we may designate equity interest holders that have a strong nexus of control over the designated operating entity. If designated, these equity interest holders will also need to seek approval for appointment of their Chairpersons and CEOs, to protect the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mr Ang asked if we will mandate larger entities to restructure and register specific departments that manage essential transport services as separate entities. Sir, this is a commercial decision for the companies to make. The Bill does not impose such requirements.

Mr Saktiandi, Mr Wee and Mr Ng asked for more details on our consultation with entities on the Bill. We have engaged key transport firms on the Bill and the relevant authorities will finalise the list of designated entities after the Act comes into force. The initial list of entities will be designated by the end of this year. If the relevant Authorities have not engaged your company on this Bill so far, it means there are currently no plans to include it as a designated entity.

We have taken onboard the feedback from the engagements. For example, some firms asked for more clarification on the "materiality" threshold for notification. We will prepare guidelines, as I mentioned earlier, to provide greater clarity on the types of events that would require notification.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Wee, Mr Ng, Mr Tan and Ms Poh Li San asked if the Bill's controls could affect the economic competitiveness, innovation or growth of the transport industry, as they felt they might disadvantage foreign companies, discourage new investments, or increase barriers for new enterprises.

Sir, let me assure Members that the Bill will not have these downsides. The proposed Bill is about enhancing the resilience of essential transport services in Singapore, by safeguarding strategically important transport firms against adverse influence. It will not adversely impact the transport industry or create significant compliance costs and regulatory burden for entities. Neither will it affect the day-to-day operations of the transport firms.

Many of the controls under the Bill are not new and already exist in our sectoral Acts or licence conditions today. What this Bill seeks to do is to consolidate some of these existing controls under a common legislative framework and extend it to other entities, including some non-licensees. The existing licensing regimes remain in effect and will continue to regulate standards and performance of the day-to-day operations of our licensed entities to ensure that they continue to operate their services in a safe, reliable and efficient manner.

Mr Saktiandi asked how the requirements under our Bill would be deconflicted with overlapping requirements in shareholders’ agreements or the law in the home jurisdiction of foreign-owned entities.

Sir, just like today, such an entity would have to comply with two sets of requirements, one in their home jurisdiction and another in Singapore. Shareholders can continue to appoint Board members as provided for in their agreements, but the relevant appointments will require approval from the Authorities. Each decision for approval will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The Authorities will assess the circumstances of each case and try to process the applications as quickly as possible.

We have also carefully calibrated the controls to impose only what is necessary to achieve our policy objective of safeguarding the provision of essential transport services in Singapore, while ensuring that our transport industry remains open, pro-business and investor-friendly.

One example is how we differentiated the controls for designated operating entities and designated equity interest holders. As designated equity interest holders are not direct providers of essential transport services, they will be subject to less onerous requirements than designated operating entities.

Designated equity interest holders will not be subject, for example, to a Special Administration Order, and will only need to seek approval for Chairperson and CEO but not the rest of their Board directors.

Ms Poh asked about the criteria for assessing changes in ownership and the appointment of key personnel in designated entities. We will consider a range of factors before coming to a decision, but the main focus is to protect Singapore's national interests and to safeguard our critical transport firms against adverse influence.

We will not assess applications based on nationality alone and we are not reserving appointments for any particular nationality or group of persons.

Mr Tan also asked whether the Government will be publishing guidelines on what a "fit and proper" person is, as this is one of the approval criteria for ownership controls. Sir, this criterion is also found in SIRA and some sectoral legislation. Our approach will take reference from these legislation as far as possible, while taking into account the needs of the respective transport sectors.

Ms Poh asked whether ownership controls would apply to the non-transport related business arms of designated entities. While our main focus is with parts of the business related to the provision of essential transport services, the controls will have to be applied at the entity level. So, it depends on how the entities structure their business operations.

This Bill does not interfere with the day-to-day operations or private commercial decisions of the critical transport firms. It is to protect Singapore and Singaporeans against potential threats to the safety and reliability of our essential transport services. In such scenarios, MOT could use the proposed safeguards in this Bill to prevent undesirable individuals from being appointed to key positions in these firms, or to disallow certain persons from acquiring significant shareholdings.

In response to Mr Yip's question about the possible time delays associated with approvals, the relevant authorities will endeavour to minimise undue delays. For bona fide applications, the firms should have nothing to worry about, as the applications will be given expeditiously. For problematic cases, I think Mr Yip would agree that it is not in Singapore’s interests for the authorities to give quick approvals in such situations.

In response to Mr Saktiandi's question, the relevant authorities will monitor ownership changes in designated entities, but it is ultimately the responsibility of those becoming or ceasing to become controllers of a designated entity to ensure that prior approval is obtained or prior notice is given, where applicable. There may be remedial directions and penalties if they fail to do so.

Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the triggers and implementation process for the Special Administration Order. There are questions on when such orders would be issued on the “public interest” grounds, and what this might entail. Sir, this is not a new concept and can be found in MOT’s existing laws, as well as legislation in other sectors.

"Public interest" considerations will evolve over time. Keeping the scope broad will provide us with sufficient flexibility to respond quickly to new risks that may emerge over time, or unexpected scenarios in future. I would like to assure Members that we will be judicious in exercising these powers. The order will only be activated as a last resort and in the extreme scenario and unlikely event that a designated entity becomes unable to provide essential transport services safely and reliably. This is similar to the step-in arrangements for critical firms in other sectors, such as power and water.

When an order is issued, the Minister will appoint a person, who may be the respective authorities, operators or other third parties with the requisite competencies, to manage the affairs, business and property of the designated entity. The main objective is to ensure that the entity can continue to provide the essential services and I think it is in such situations, a safe assumption to make, that many of the employees of the entity will still be there, working there, and so we will also be working together with the employees who are there, who are familiar with the operations. But the key, as I said, is to ensure that the entity can continue to provide the essential services.

Mr Saktiandi asked why the penalties for non-compliance differ across the four Acts and whether the penalties are sufficient to incentivise compliance. In deciding the penalties under this Bill, we took reference from existing penalties under the framework of each of our sectoral Acts, and the different considerations and needs of entities across the transport sectors. The existing penalties have worked well so far in deterring errant behaviour, without imposing excessive burden on bona fide firms.

Mr Yip Hong Weng asked about the safeguards in place to ensure transparency, as well as the appeal process under the Bill. Sir, any aggrieved party may appeal to the Minister against certain decisions made by the authorities, including the designation of an entity, refusal to grant approvals required for controls over ownership or management appointments and the issuance of remedial directions.

There is no appeal provision for the Special Administration Order under our existing Acts, as prompt action is required in such situations to respond quickly and safeguard the continuity of essential transport services. So, I hope Members understand why, for Special Administration Order, this is a separate process. This is also similar to the approach taken in other sectoral legislation. Step-in powers are a measure of last resort and, hence, before these powers are activated, it is likely that the authorities would already be in conversations with the entity to explore different ways to improve the situation.

Mr Speaker, we must continue to safeguard Singapore’s transport connectivity to protect the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. This Bill will strengthen the resilience of our transport sectors in an increasingly complex operating landscape. I agree with Members that it is important to assure investors and businesses, both local businesses and international businesses, that our doors remain open and that our system continues to be transparent and fair. The proposed Bill does not change our long-standing position on this.

We have, therefore, calibrated our controls to only what is necessary to enhance the resilience of our essential transport services and ensure that the requirements are not overly onerous to the companies and investors. The Bill does not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the entities or their commercial decisions, and bona fide approvals will be processed expeditiously. All powers under the Bill will be exercised judiciously and in accordance with clearly defined procedures.

I thank Members for supporting this Bill to strengthen the resilience of our transport sectors and to protect the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for Transport for the comprehensive replies to our queries. Can I just clarify with the Minister that he said that the Chairman and the CEO of the designated equity interest holder need approval by MOT? If so, does it mean that a foreign company, which is a holding company that majority owns a designated operating entity in Singapore, needs approval from MOT, even if the foreign company is a listed company in their home country? That means if they are listed and not in Singapore, they also require their Chairman and their group CEO to be approved by MOT?

Mr Speaker, if the designated equity holder is designated, then yes, under our laws, the Chairman and the CEO appointments would require approval from the relevant authorities, not MOT. The relevant authorities.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I would like to thank the Minister for the clarifications that he has provided. I am not sure the Minister has answered some of my questions. I will just ask them again.

Regarding my question, in a situation where there is no replacement operator willing to take over at short notice under Part 4, section 27DE, I asked whether LTA would be in a position to take over the operation. Currently, what is the position, whether they are able to do so or whether there is an actionable plan or roadmap towards such an outcome?