Alvin Tan
Singapore
“And if our companies can use Johor as a complementary base to scale, serve larger markets and strengthen their regional competitiveness while retaining their core capabilities here, that is also additive integration.”
“Sir, I have answered the Member's questions specific to HDB car parks. Specifically, I think, with the provision of hose reels, fire engine access, natural and mechanical ventilations that will help in the event of a fire, and that the HDB carparks must comply with these technical specifications and safety requirements under Technical Ref…”
“Sir, all Housing and Development Board (HDB) car parks are designed and constructed in compliance with the prevailing Fire Code stipulated by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). This includes provisions such as hose reels, fire engine access and natural or mechanical ventilation to disperse smoke and heat.”
“What was left unsaid was that in the emails and in the MP Appeal System (MPAS), the Member was informed that: one, he was aware of the fact that AVS had investigated the incident; he was aware of the processes; he was aware that AVS found no professional negligence or misconduct by the vet; he was aware and noted that AVS had found no rel…”
“As we have observed a growth in the range of animal-related services offered by non-vets that may pose a risk to animal health and welfare, Part 4 of the Bill will introduce various offences and penalties to safeguard against unlawful practice and misrepresentation by or about unauthorised persons.”
“Owners are responsible for providing for their pets' needs, including medical care. So, we strongly encourage prospective pet owners to thoroughly consider the full cost of raising a pet before committing to becoming a pet owner. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, vet professionals form an important pillar of our animal health and welfare system.”
The complete record
Every one of 767 lines we hold for Alvin Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 16.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to take oral Questions Nos 21 and 22 by Miss Cheng Li Hui, oral Question No 23 by Mr Desmond Choo, as well as written Question Nos 17 and 18 in today’s Order Paper by Mr Shawn Huang and Mr Desmond Choo respectively, together.”
“I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary question. The answer is yes. We have worked with Credit Counselling Singapore and also gone upstream with regard to ensuring that consumers and borrowers have increased their financial literacy, in terms of new kinds of products that the Member has mentioned. Consumers, borrowers, members of the public can go on to MoneySense.gov.sg – that is a website that we continue to build at MAS – to help consumers understand their credit profiles, what kind of products are available on the market and also to exercise prudence in their borrowing, particularly in an environment of heightened interest rates.”
“For example, consumers in financial distress can seek help from Credit Counselling Singapore for debt management assistance or consider taking up commercial products, such as debt consolidation plans, that may alleviate their repayment burdens.”
“I thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat for his supplementary question. Most households should still be able to service their mortgages and other debt obligations, as Singapore's domestic interest rates pick up alongside global rates. I would like to frame my answer, quite helpfully, with regard to the mortgage as well as the total debt servicing ratio, which I think covers quite a lot of what the Member is concerned about. The total debt servicing ratio framework (TDSR) captures a borrower's monthly expenses on all types of debt, including mortgages, car loans and unsecured debt, as a proportion of income. The overall debt servicing ability of households has, thus far, remained manageable, with the median TDSR being 43% last year. This is well within the recently tightened TDSR threshold of 55%. So, 43% median TDSR last year and the tightened TDSR threshold at 55%. But, beyond mortgages, MAS has also imposed rules for car loans, as well as unsecured credit, to encourage prudent borrowing. This has helped the credit profile across these consumer loan products to remain healthy. The proportion of credit card rollover balances, as a share of GDP, for example, has declined since the pre-pandemic period from 1.3% in Q4 2019, to about 1% as at end 2021, and the charge-off rates have similarly decreased from 6.3% in Q4 2019, to 4.4% as at end 2021. In addition, only 0.01% of borrowers have defaulted on car loans granted by financial institutions, as at end 2021. For the Member's second question on what consumers can do, I think that, generally, consumers can seek assistance for their outstanding debt.”
“So, they should approach their lenders early to explore possible loan refinancing and repayment solutions. For financially-distressed HDB homeowners, MAS has worked with MND, HDB, MOM and financial institutions to establish standardised interventions when late repayments occur. These include potential loan restructuring solutions, early referrals to appropriate social service agencies and, in certain limited cases, helping them obtain alternative HDB accommodation where foreclosures are unavoidable. Likewise, companies with low net profit margins should approach their lenders early to work out suitable loan repayment schemes and plans. More broadly, everyone should exercise caution in their new borrowings. Households and businesses should plan for future and further interest rate increases and be sure of their ability to service their loans before making additional long-term financial commitments.”
“The number of financially-distressed consumers who have sought assistance from banks is not high and has been decreasing over the past year. Broader indicators also suggest that the household and corporate debt situation in Singapore remains resilient on the whole. The proportion of non-performing mortgages has remained low, at less than 1% last year. And the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) stress test suggests that the median household's mortgage servicing ratio should remain manageable, even under scenarios of significantly higher interest rates or lower incomes. The proportion of non-performing corporate loans has also remained low, at about 2.6%. Here, too, MAS' stress test suggests that debt servicing of Singapore-listed firms is likely to remain manageable as interest rates rise, with most firms having sufficient earnings to cover their interest expenses and cash reserves to provide buffers. Industry-wide credit relief measures have been gradually withdrawn, in line with the broadening of the economic recovery and the steady decline in the number of applications for assistance. These measures, introduced in March 2020, were meant to provide short-term relief and support to individuals and SMEs, as stringent public health measures led to temporary cashflow difficulties. Conversely, recent market-driven interest rate increases have been accompanied by continuing income growth. This mitigates their impact on the debt-servicing ability of most borrowers. Indeed, the debt relief schemes introduced during the pandemic are not meant to insulate borrowers from the normalisation of interest rates. However, a small segment of households, especially those with higher leverages, could be more constrained by higher interest rates.”
“I thank the Member for his question. We do not give advance guidance of future exchange rate policy. But, as I mentioned earlier on, MAS will continue to focus on medium-term price stability and avoid sudden large shifts in policy. But the key thing is that because of the way in which our exports and imports are structured, the impact on price competitiveness vis-à-vis our exports is not heavily affected. I think that is quite critical. The second part is that we will continue to strengthen our companies, as well as the export competitiveness, but I think the appreciation of the slope will help our exports to remain competitive in the long run.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. In the absence of further disruptions caused by the Ukraine war or a severe setback in trajectory of the pandemic, the Singapore economy should grow at an above-trend pace for the second consecutive year at around 3% to 5% this year. The April 2022 Monetary Policy Statement has reaffirmed MAS' assessment of this GDP growth forecast range, barring significant external shocks that I mentioned earlier. And MAS' monetary policy stance is consistent with the macroeconomic outcome of GDP growth within this forecast range. As I have mentioned in my original answer, MAS manages the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of Singapore's major trading partners, within the policy band. So, any bilateral exchange rate movement will, accordingly, have a more muted impact on the Singapore dollar's effective exchange rate, which remains in line with MAS' monetary policy stance, as announced in April. But MAS will continue to focus on medium-term price stability and avoid sudden large shifts in policy and, in aggregate, will remain vigilant to developments in the external environment and their impact on the Singapore economy.”
“MAS expects core inflation to continue to rise in the coming months before peaking at around 4% in Q3 this year. Inflation is, however, expected to remain at elevated rates for some time, higher than what we have experienced in recent years. This has, primarily, been due to pressures in global energy and other commodity markets. However, because MAS began shifting its policy stance early, it has been able to respond to rising inflationary pressure through gradual shifts in exchange rate policy, including in its latest April Monetary Policy Statement. Had MAS not begun tightening policy last year, ahead of many central banks, it would have had to allow for a steeper appreciation of the exchange rate. MAS' monetary policy response is also part of the Government's multi-pronged strategy to deal with rising inflationary pressures. As Members know, the Government has set aside considerable resources to help Singapore businesses, especially SMEs, and our households cope with higher costs.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) monetary policy is aimed at keeping inflation low, especially over the medium term. Achieving low inflation also supports sustained economic growth. MAS seeks to achieve this through an exchange rate-centred monetary policy, in particular, by managing the Singapore dollar against a basket of currencies of Singapore's major trading partners. When inflationary pressures build up, MAS allows the trade-weighted exchange rate to appreciate faster, thereby helping to reduce imported inflation. MAS has tightened its monetary policy stance three times since October 2021, when the Authority shifted to a slight appreciation of the policy band within which the exchange rate is managed. This has been in line with rising global price pressures and the improvement in external economic conditions. The strengthening of the Singapore dollar is necessary to dampen inflation and to help preserve the purchasing power of businesses and households. It is not expected to have a significant negative impact on Singapore's exports. Growth in non-oil domestic exports has remained firm in Q1 2022. With continuing uncertainty in the global economic environment, Singapore's exports are, primarily, dependent on demand rather than our exchange rate. This is borne out in EDB's latest survey of Business Expectations of the Manufacturing Sector, which showed that the Singapore dollar exchange rate is not a key limiting factor for manufacturing firms' export orders. Singapore's exports are, generally, high value-added products and services where demand is less sensitive to price and, therefore, exchange rate changes. Further, a stronger exchange rate helps reduce the import costs faced by our export industries.”
“Thank you, Leader. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a chunky Bill; I am almost at the end. I was about to say that the MAS regularly reviews its Acts to ensure that the regulation of the financial sector continues to be efficient and effective. It is possible that some of the existing powers in various MAS-administered Acts may be harmonised in the FSM Bill in the future if MAS is of the view that such an approach would enable it to address financial sector-wide risks more effectively. With this, I beg to move, Sir.”
“The details and conclusions of the project, you can find on the BIS website. Ms Janet Ang also mentioned that it would be useful for MAS to publish the clarifications and discussions that arose during the consultation process. MAS has published on its website the responses of the feedback. So, you can find them on our website. Finally, Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether the FSM Bill is the first step in a broader exercise to rationalise Singapore's regulations on a financial sector-wide basis. MAS regularly reviews its Acts to ensure —”
“Yes, I will wrap up within one and a half minutes.”
“This has the potential to reduce reliance on intermediaries and, correspondingly, the costs and time taken to process cross-border transactions, and is part of the journey that MAS has been embarking on with the industry and other central banks over the few years to explore the potential benefits and feasibility of adopting wholesale CBDC for global payments. 12.20 pm”
“MAS will announce the specific date in due course. My third bucket is a short one. It is on the provision of statutory protection for personnel of the operator of an approved dispute resolution scheme. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if there will be exceptions to this. For statutory protection to be accorded, the mediator, adjudicator or employee must have acted with reasonable care and in good faith. This will have to be determined, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Finally and lastly, there are a whole host of different inquiries which I will bucket into this last segment. Ms Janet Ang asked broadly about MAS' plans to enhance the skills and competencies required in the financial services ecosystem. MAS works closely with the industry, such as the Institute of Banking and Finance, to develop the workforce in the financial sector. To seize opportunities for growth, we are always on the lookout for new growth drivers, including from the digitalisation wave. To meet the new job demands, we also have multiple training pathways to reskill and upskill our financial sector talent. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Louis Chua asked broadly about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). As Ms Janet Ang mentioned, MAS recently collaborated with the BIS Innovation Hub Singapore Centre and several other central banks on a project known as Project Dunbar to explore a common platform for cross-border interbank payments using CBDCs. Very briefly, Project Dunbar proved that financial institutions (FIs) could use CBDCs issued by participating central banks to transact directly with one another on a shared platform.”
“This avenue of appeal under the new Act is consistent with the existing practice under the SFA, FAA and IA. However, if a person has exhausted his right of appeal to the Minister and remains unsatisfied with the results, he may still pursue other legal processes which he may be entitled to. Mr Louis Ng asked why the AAC's reports are not published publicly. He suggests that, first, this would provide important context on the Minister's decision and, secondly, ensure that the AAC exercises its powers professionally and appropriately. On the first aspect, the Minister is not bound by the recommendations in the AAC's report but, rather, exercises his own discretion in deciding on the appeal. The Minister may agree with some of the AAC's assessments while disagreeing with other aspects. He may consider other factors outside the AAC's report. Thus, publishing the AAC's report may not be all that helpful and may even be an inaccurate reflection of the Minister's considerations. On the second aspect, as mentioned in response to a previous question by Mr Derrick Goh, the members of the AAP, from which the AAC is constituted, will be appointed by the Minister and will have strong credentials which will attest to their good judgement and ability. If the AAC in any way exercises its powers improperly, the parties can always include this in their submissions, which the Minister will consider. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked when the new PO regime under the FSM Bill will be brought into effect. This is a matter which MAS is considering carefully. MAS is, currently, preparing for the new PO regime to commence and also intends to give the industry time to prepare for the new PO regime, which includes understanding how the new provisions will be applied.”
“An individual is free to take up employment in the financial industry in areas or activities that are not covered by the PO or even outside the financial industry. An individual may choose to find employment in the areas prohibited by the PO when the PO expires. And in such a scenario, it is then up to their prospective employers to determine independently whether or not to hire such a person. Mr Derrick Goh has noted that an appeal to the Minister on MAS' decision to issue a PO must be referred to an Appeal Advisory Committee selected from an Appeal Advisory Panel (AAP). He asked about the considerations for ensuring the independence of the AAP and Committee. He also asked whether, in addition to the right of appeal to the Minister, a person may bring his appeal to the Court. On the first question, the members of the AAP will be appointed by the Minister from the financial industry and the public and private sectors, and will have strong credentials which attest to their good judgment and ability to discharge their duties professionally. The AAC will comprise any three members from this panel. Under the existing regulations governing appeals to the Minister for PO purposes, the AAC is obliged to declare the nature and extent of all of their conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest to the Minister. If the Minister is satisfied that any AAC member is unable to discharge his duties effectively because of any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest, the Minister may replace the AAC member. This will also be the process in appeals to the Minister under the new Act. On the second question, a person will be afforded the right to appeal to the Minister under the new Act.”
“This is something that MAS could consider implementing in future, once the new PO powers take effect under the Financial Services and Markets Act. For now, the search function on the "Enforcement Actions" webpage may be used by any FI or its agent, to check if a PO is currently in effect against a person. Alternatively, there is also an option for the FI or its agent to contact MAS to obtain records of the POs issued against the person, upon payment of a fee. There is, hence, sufficient means for an FI to determine if an individual has been issued with a PO. Mr Saktiandi Supaat then spoke on the need for clarity in the form of MAS guidance on the specific scope of POs issued in the newly-extended areas. He also asked for data on the number of persons who had previously been issued with a PO and who have thereafter returned to the financial sector. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill sets out clearly the scope of POs which may be issued, which are to prohibit unsuitable persons from certain roles, activities and functions. There is no ambiguity here on the maximum possible scope of a PO. In summary, the more serious the misconduct is, the longer the duration, the wider the scope of the PO is likely to be. Nevertheless, as MAS has mentioned before in its response to the public consultation, MAS will be issuing guidelines to provide greater clarity on how the new PO powers will be used. MAS does not monitor whether persons who have previously been issued with a PO return to the financial sector after the PO expires. To be clear, a PO only bars an individual from taking up specified roles, functions and activities in the financial industry.”
“Finally, being in senior management would not automatically mean a longer or shorter PO period, though, in some cases, the fact that a person was in a senior position and, therefore, a position of higher authority and greater responsibility, may increase his culpability and, therefore, the duration of a PO. To respond to Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question on whether an FI would be able to "shift" the regulatory burden to its service providers when employing the defence to show that it had taken all reasonable steps to ensure compliance that it has not employed, directly or indirectly, or used the services of a person against whom a PO has been made, there will be no "shift" in the regulatory burden as FIs are still, ultimately, responsible for checking that their service providers' relevant employees, who directly or indirectly undertake key functions for or on behalf of the FIs, have not been issued with POs prohibiting them to do so. For an FI to avail itself of the defence, the FI must, minimally, show that they have performed due diligence checks on the employees of its service providers, for example, again, checking the MAS' "Enforcement Actions" webpage. Mr Yip Hon Weng also shared that it is not difficult for seasoned fraudsters to set up businesses here and cheat customers, which calls for a more proactive enforcement of our laws. This is in line with what the PO powers are trying to achieve, by pre-emptively and comprehensively keeping known bad actors out of our financial industry. Mr Saktiandi Supaat then asked whether, in addition to the current publication of formal regulatory and enforcement actions taken by MAS on its "Enforcement Actions" webpage, MAS intends to create and maintain a public register of POs.”
“Mr Derrick Goh also mentioned that the Bill has broadened the scope for MAS to issue POs covering activities beyond MAS-administered Acts, including serious misconduct in activities, such as fund management, risk and technology management, which were previously not covered. To this end, Mr Derrick Goh has also asked what the severity thresholds for misconduct are, how proportionality of prohibitions is assessed and how culpability for misconduct would be assessed across the ranks, from junior staff to senior management. To clarify, while the Bill does broaden the scope for MAS to issue POs, handling of funds, risk management and administration of critical systems are areas that have an important impact on the soundness and integrity of our financial sector and MAS does exercise regulatory oversight over such areas. MAS has set standards of practice for these functions through the issuance of regulations, notices and guidelines. On the question of what the threshold of severity is, or how serious the misconduct must be before a PO is issued, MAS will, generally, take into account factors, such as: one, the harm caused or risks posed by the misconduct; two, whether the misconduct was one-off or continued over a period; three, the reasons why the person carried out the misconduct; and four, public interest and policy considerations. On how proportionality of the prohibition is assessed, if Mr Derrick Goh is asking how the duration and scope of a PO is determined, one can expect that the more serious the misconduct is, the longer the duration and wider the scope of the PO are likely to be. Ultimately, each case will be assessed on its own merits, its own facts, taking into account factors that I mentioned previously.”
“Mr Louis Ng has sought clarification on whether MAS will notify the individual's employer if his PO is varied and how MAS will help to ensure that FIs are notified in a timely manner if their service providers are issued a PO, or have their PO varied. MAS will notify the individual's employer if a PO is issued, and then, correspondingly, also notify an individual's employer if their PO has been varied. MAS will send out these notifications concurrently with the issuance of a PO or a varied PO. This is to ensure that the individual's employer is informed in a timely manner. MAS will consider whether and how to notify FIs if their service providers have been issued a PO or have their POs varied. Mr Derrick Goh asked if existing and incoming foreign talent will be subject to the same due diligence as that of local staff and, if so, whether clearer guidelines on the background checks for foreign talent would be issued. This is because misconduct in non-regulated but critical functions may not be captured in overseas registries. Insofar as POs are concerned, the "due diligence" and "background checks" that would have to be conducted by an FI, whether under the current framework or the new framework, is to ensure that they do not hire individuals who have been issued a PO by MAS to perform the roles or activities that have been prohibited. This applies to both foreign and local employees. FIs can check the MAS' "Enforcement Actions" webpage or write to MAS to enquire whether a particular individual has been issued a PO by MAS.”
“The minimum duration for enforcement actions to remain on the "Enforcement Actions" webpage is, therefore, five years. And the duration is fair, because it takes into account: one, the need to send a deterrent message to others that the misconduct justifying the enforcement action – for example, for breaching MAS-administered laws – is a grave matter; and two, the period of five years is also broadly consistent with the period after which a conviction for an eligible crime could also be spent under the Registration of Criminals Act. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if a person has been placed on a watchlist or issued something of equivalence to our PO by an overseas jurisdiction, would they be issued a PO here by default. A PO will not be issued by default. While this is a factor that MAS will consider in applying the fit and proper test, MAS will consider all the circumstances of the case, including the facts surrounding why such a person has been placed on a watchlist or the equivalent of a PO, before deciding whether to issue a PO. Mr Yip Hon Weng also mentioned that a person issued with a PO may be prohibited from becoming a substantial shareholder of an FI. In this context, he also asked whether it will be an offence to wilfully assist the PO individual to evade the PO. The answer is: this could amount to an offence. And to be clear, it is an offence for a person who has been issued a PO to contravene the PO. If a third party assists this person to contravene the PO, then the third party could also be liable for abetting the commission of the offence.”
“Mr Louis Ng asked why the Bill does not require MAS to publish an explanation for the imposition of POs, as it is only fair that people are being told why they are being punished. To clarify, before issuing any PO, MAS will always issue a Notice of Intention to a person informing them that MAS intends to issue a PO against him or her. This Notice of Intention will set out all the material facts and grounds on which MAS has determined that a person is not fit and proper. There is, hence, no unfairness as the person will be fully aware of the basis for which MAS intends to issue a PO against him or her. In any case, the person is given the opportunity to respond by sending representations to MAS. MAS will carefully consider such representations before making its decision whether to issue a PO against the person. Mr Saktiandi Suppat asked if an individual's previous PO can be purged from the records after a specific period of time. Currently, the only public "record" of POs issued may be found on MAS' "Enforcement Actions" webpage, where all enforcement actions are published for a period of five years, except POs that are of a longer duration than five years. Therefore, where POs are of a shorter duration, the information on the PO will remain on the webpage for a period of five years from the date of publication. Where the PO is longer than five years, the information on the PO will be removed when the PO expires. Effectively, this means that information on POs will not remain on MAS' "Enforcement Actions" webpage forever and will be removed from the webpage after five years for POs with a duration shorter than five years, or after the PO expires, where the PO is longer than five years.”
“MAS recognises that outsourcing arrangements are becoming increasingly prevalent, but also complex, and MAS must be able to issue POs to service providers who have demonstrated by their misconduct that they have the potential to cause harm to the financial industry. Whether a PO will be issued or not always depends on the specific circumstances of a case. Mr Derrick Goh acknowledged that the basis for streamlining the disparate grounds for issuing POs under the SFA, FAA and Insurance Act into a single fit and proper test is sound – so, thank you for that. But he also sought clarification on whether there will be retrospective application of the single fit and proper test for persons with past misconduct that might not have been caught under the three Acts. If so, Mr Derrick Goh also asked whether the PO would commence from the point of misconduct. Under this Bill, the new PO powers can be applied to misconduct that took place before the Bill comes into effect. However, the single fit and proper test is not, in substance, a new test but rather, as Mr Derrick Goh acknowledges, streamlines the existing disparate grounds under the three Acts into one single test, based on MAS' guidelines on fit and proper criteria. Thus, if a person's past misconduct would not have been caught under any of the three Acts, it is unlikely that MAS would assess that that person is not fit and proper under the new powers. MAS will also continue to apply the old PO powers to cases where Notices of Intent to issue the prohibition order have already been given to the individual. In response to the second question, the present position and the position under the Bill is that a PO will take effect on the date the PO is issued by MAS. A PO will not commence from the point of misconduct.”
“Where consumers find themselves in a dispute with an FI that cannot be settled, MAS has provided consumers an avenue to seek recourse at a low-cost independent dispute resolution body – I mentioned yesterday in the FSM Bill – the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd (FiDReC). Given these, there is no need to have a single consumer protection law for financial services. But I want to assure the Member that MAS continues to place a high priority on consumer education and protection. The functions that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke of under the Market and Business Conduct Department continue to be taken up by the Market Conduct Policy and Consumer Issues Divisions. I will next move on to the prohibition order (PO) framework, of which we received many questions from Members. Mr Derrick Goh asked how proximity will be assessed in determining whether a person has a nexus to the financial industry and whether staff from an FI’s service provider will be subject to a PO. Proximity will be assessed in light of the policy objectives of this new PO powers, namely, to protect the financial industry, customers and investors against persons who have demonstrated, by their misconduct, that they have the potential to cause harm to, or are unsuitable to take up certain roles, activities and functions in the financial industry for which they are prohibited. In response to the example raised by Mr Derrick Goh, outsourced service providers who are individuals, such as those who work for IT vendors and ecosystem partners such as e-commerce platforms, may be subject to a PO.”
“Where a customer has installed and then activated a digital token in his or her mobile banking application, the digital token performs transaction signing in the background of the application, a process that is not obvious to the customer. MAS will reach out to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to seek clarity on the facts relating to the PayNow experiment and the instance of the credit card limit being exceeded. On Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's points in support of a consolidated legislation to address consumer protection, let me clarify that there is no conflict between MAS' supervisory mandate and its role in consumer education and protection. MAS recognises that the core role of the financial sector is to serve the economy, businesses and consumers. To do so, public confidence in financial services and FIs must be safeguarded. MAS sets out both prudential and business conduct standards for FIs, and expect them to operate safely and deal fairly with their customers. Both reinforce public confidence in FIs and the services that they provide. MAS has been able to effectively implement these standards and expectations through a mix of legislation, legally binding regulations and notices, as well as guidelines that are specific to the activities and risks in the different segments of the financial sector. This approach ensures that the requirements are relevant for the said regulated activities. For instance, banks are required to implement IT controls to protect customer information from unauthorised access and also the contravention of which can attract penalties.”
“In accordance with MAS' current practice, MAS will take into account the nature of the breach of the TRM requirement, the specific circumstance of each case, the culpability of the offender and then calibrate supervisory action to ensure that they are appropriate and fair. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim cited the rising trend of scams and the need for a consumer protection law to ensure that FIs do more to protect consumers. The points he raised are not directly related to the Bill but I will briefly address them here. On the issue of combating scams, MAS, MCI and MHA have made three Ministerial Statements on 15 February this year to explain how the Government is undertaking a comprehensive approach to counter the threat of phishing scams. For the financial sector, Minister Lawrence Wong had elaborated at length on the measures by MAS and the banking industry, including measures that retail banks had implemented immediately and further measures which would be implemented to strengthen banks' ability to deter, detect and combat phishing scams. Minister Lawrence Wong also highlighted that MAS was working with the industry to review the use of SMS to deliver one-time-passwords (OTPs) and also develop a loss-sharing framework to ensure an equitable sharing of losses for scams, based on the extent to which parties have fulfilled their responsibilities. For the sake of time, I will not repeat the points here. On the experiment relating to PayNow, it is stated in the PayNow scheme rules that transaction signing, through the use of OTPs or other two-factor authentication methods, is required for transactions above $1,000. All banks offering PayNow are required to adhere to this.”
“A maximum of $1 million could be imposed by the Courts for each breach of MAS' TRM requirements. This means that where there are multiple breaches, the penalty that could be imposed by the Courts on the FI could be higher. This new maximum penalty is a significant increase from the current penalties under the various Acts administered by MAS. In addition, MAS has the powers to take other supervisory actions, including requiring FIs to set aside additional regulatory capital until adequate measures have been put in place to address the control lapses or deficiencies. The financial penalty, coupled with the flexibility to impose additional supervisory actions, strikes a balanced approach which signals the importance of having robust TRM without being overly excessive for smaller FIs which Members have also asked about. As with other Acts which MAS administers, MAS will review and adjust the penalty framework under the FSM Bill, as necessary. Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested that MAS consider requiring prospective licensees to present adequate cybersecurity plans as a condition for granting licences. Currently, when MAS assesses an application for a licence, MAS already considers factors, such as the adequacy of the applicant's cyber hygiene measures, data protection controls and the level of compliance with MAS' TRM guidelines. Applicants that do not meet the requisite requirements will be rejected or given a conditional approval and such applicants will, eventually, still need to meet the requirements before they are allowed to offer their services. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also referred to the PDPC's regulatory approach which considers the culpability of the offender when determining the appropriate enforcement actions.”
“These financial advisory services are provided more often for capital market products and, in this respect, the FSM Bill places the same AML/CFT requirements on them as if they had been offered in Singapore. As for digital payment tokens, we will continue to study whether there is a meaningful presence of service providers that solely provide these advisory services. Where entities provide these services along with other regulated services, such as dealing in, or facilitating the exchange of DPTs, they are already scoped into the PS Act. I will next move on to the second bucket which is questions that Members raised related to technology risk management (TRM). Mr Derrick Goh asked how MAS will weigh the accountability on FIs should negligence fall on the part of their cloud service providers, considering that many FIs have no ability to audit such providers. MAS expects FIs to perform adequate due diligence on all third parties they engage. FIs remain responsible for any disruption that results from their service providers' negligence. And in determining the action to take against an FI, MAS will assess the impact of the breach, the extent to which necessary controls had been implemented to manage the outsourcing risk as well as to comply with MAS' requirements and remediation efforts. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how often the maximum penalty of $1 million per breach of a TRM requirement will be meted out for TRM lapses. He mentioned that, with inflation, a fixed financial penalty might not be a good deterrent. He also asked how often the financial penalties would be amended. In the event of a breach of TRM requirements, MAS will assess the breach to determine the appropriate course of action.”
“MAS has received over 580 licence applications to date and has completed the review of close to half of these applications thus far. All applications go through a rigorous application process. Applicants will know that MAS sets a high entry bar and commits time and resources to engage the applicants and scrutinise the applications, making sure that they are able to meet the required standards for managing ML/TF and technology risks before we approve their applications. Applications that do not meet the standards or are incomplete will, naturally, need more time to review. Mr Louis Chua also asked about the travel rule or the value transfer requirements in MAS' Notice PSN02 applicable to DPT service providers. MAS will impose similar AML/CFT requirements to a DT service provider licensed under the FSM Bill. Mr Louis Chua asked whether MAS would be inundated with transaction data, given the threshold of $1,500 to obtain certain information of the originator and beneficiary in a value transfer. Contrary to Mr Louis Chua's understanding of the travel rule, there is actually no requirement for the originating DPT service providers to report this information to MAS. Rather, they are required to relay the information to the beneficiary DPT service providers, for them to also conduct necessary screening for nefarious actors. The threshold of $1,500 is also aligned to the international standards for such cross-border transfers. Ms Janet Ang also asked if there is a regulatory gap, as financial advisory services related to digital payment tokens offered outside of Singapore will be regulated under the FSM Bill, but the same service offered in Singapore is not regulated under the PS Act.”
“So, any digital token that meets the characteristics of a digital payment token or a capital market product could be subjected to regulation by MAS. In response to Mr Don Wee's point on the need for agencies to better identify criminal activity in this space, MAS has increased surveillance of the digital tokens sector, to identify suspicious networks and higher-risk activities for further supervision, and they have established clear procedures with the Singapore Police Force (SPF) for collaborative enforcement action. All DT service providers must monitor transactions and file suspicious transaction reports with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. To more effectively combat cryptocurrency scams and crimes, the SPF established the Cryptocurrency Task Force in 2018 to monitor the cryptocurrency landscape and also to develop and improve operational procedures in the investigation and seizing of cryptocurrencies and establish working relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies, industry professionals and academic experts in cryptocurrencies. The Cryptocurrency Task Force works closely with MAS and has links with the Association of Crypto Currency Enterprises and Start-ups Singapore (ACCESS), which is a Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Industry Association. SPF also works with the various cryptocurrency exchanges based locally and abroad to investigate cryptocurrency crimes. SPF takes a serious stance against any person who may be involved in cryptocurrency scams and crimes and perpetrators will be dealt with in accordance with the law. Mr Louis Chua then also asked about the progress of licence applications for digital payment token (DPT) service providers under the PS Act.”
“However, even with user protection measures, it is just not possible for laws to protect against investment losses, especially for consumers who choose to seek investment opportunities overseas or online. Thus, consumer education and awareness remain key, as the best defence is a discerning public. MAS and relevant Government agencies have been and will continue to raise public awareness, including advising the public to not deal or invest with unregulated entities or investment products. On Mr Louis Chua's suggestions relating to marketing activities of digital payment token service providers, MAS has issued guidelines in January this year outlining that digital payment token service providers should not market their services in public areas in Singapore, or engage third parties, such as social media influencers, to do so. They can continue, however, to promote their services on their own corporate website, mobile applications, or official social media accounts. However, they must not portray the trading in digital payment tokens in a manner that trivialises the associated risks. And this complements our continued consumer education efforts I mentioned earlier. Mr Derrick Goh and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if MAS will consider regulating non-fungible tokens (NFTs) given its rising popularity and its susceptibility as a vehicle for money laundering. NFTs, in its current form, are often digital representations of arts and other collectibles, which are not financial products subject to MAS regulation. As I have earlier mentioned, the FSM Bill will cover digital tokens that are either: one, a digital payment token; or two, a digital representation of a capital markets product.”
“DT service providers created in Singapore but providing their services outside of Singapore still pose reputational risks to Singapore. Hence, regulating this group of DT service providers under the FSM Bill for ML/TF risks will mitigate these reputational risks. Nonetheless, in response to comments made by Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Janet Ang as well as Mr Louis Chua who had also asked about the scope of regulation, it is not the intention of MAS to subject a DT service provider who is regulated under another Act administered by MAS, to regulation under the FSM Bill, in respect of the same DT services. Where the DT service provider is already regulated by MAS under the Payments Services (PS) Act, the SFA or the FAA, for provision of DT services, such an entity does not need to be additionally licensed under the FSM Bill. Mr Saktiandi Supaat spoke also on the need to protect local consumers and markets from risks stemming from digital tokens, including those provided abroad, other than ML/TF risks. Ms Janet Ang also raised concerns over the speculative nature of digital tokens and the need to educate the public. These are all valid concerns. MAS has repeatedly warned the public on the risks of investing in digital tokens, such as digital payment tokens or cryptocurrencies, which would include the commonly known Bitcoin, for example. The prices of such digital payment tokens are not anchored on any economic fundamentals and are subject to sharp speculative swings. Nonetheless, MAS is aware that there will continue to be people who choose to take these risks. MAS is monitoring the adoption of digital payment tokens in Singapore and will consider if user protection measures are needed.”
“For instance, DT service providers that provide services in relation to capital market products in foreign countries would be subject to the rules imposed by the capital market regulators in the foreign countries concerned. MAS has cooperation arrangements with foreign regulators to ensure effective cross-border regulation. This approach is similar to the regulation of traditional capital market products that are not tokenised. It is, generally, not necessary to impose additional requirements on a business that is created and operating in Singapore if it does not provide services in Singapore. Nonetheless, we recognise that there may be reputational risks to Singapore in respect of DT service providers created in Singapore but that provide DT services overseas – for instance, those involved in digital payment token or cryptocurrency activities, if they are found to facilitate money laundering activities. It is for this reason that the new rules, which primarily relate to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing requirements, are proposed in the FSM Bill. I would highlight that the FSM Bill also contains provisions that enable MAS to impose requirements across the financial sector to address money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF) risks. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked whether MAS has considered carving out DT service providers from licensing and regulation under the FSM Bill if they are already regulated in another jurisdiction which enforces the FATF standards. Ms Janet Ang raised a similar question as well. There may be differences in the implementation and enforcement of these standards even as countries accept and adopt the enhanced FATF standards.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have shared their views on the Bill and for their support for it. Members' comments and queries can be categorised into a few buckets and I will address them in turn. Mr Don Wee, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Janet Ang have raised questions on the scope of regulation of digital assets. Let me deal with these collectively. MAS adopts a technology-neutral regulatory approach that focuses on the nature of the activity and the risks involved. VASPs, or what we term as digital token service providers in Singapore, DT service providers, are, therefore, regulated, based on the type of activity they conduct. Correspondingly, where DT service providers deal in digital payment tokens, this could be a payment activity under the Payment Services Act. Where they deal in or provide financial advice on capital market products, their activity would fall under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) or the Financial Advisers Act (FAA). These Acts are periodically reviewed to ensure that they remain fit-for-purpose and are in line with international norms. In most cases, DT service providers that incorporate or establish a place of business in Singapore do so to provide DT services in Singapore. They will be subject to the laws in Singapore. Similarly, foreign DT service providers that provide DT services in Singapore will also be subject to the laws in Singapore. Some of these businesses may also provide services in foreign markets and they would be expected to adhere to the rules that apply in the foreign markets where they operate.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I think it is a very important point. And I also encourage the Member and CASE also to work together with the Singapore FinTech Association and the Working Group to explore some of the suggestions that he has made.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. MAS agrees with the risks highlighted by the Member. As I had mentioned earlier in my response, the BNPL's code of conduct will seek to enshrine unique features of BNPLs which exist today to limit the extent of debt accumulation by users. In addition, we also expect the code of conduct to incorporate minimum safeguards for BNPL providers to limit financial imprudence amongst individuals and also to mitigate risks of consumer over-indebtedness. MAS is monitoring the progress of the BNPL code and will continue to guide its development, especially in areas where MAS has baseline expectations that need to be met within the code. At this point of time, I want to quickly just share on what consumers may do while we are still working with the SFA on this code. As with undertaking any financing of any form, consumers should first consider and prioritise their needs over wants when deciding to make a purchase. BNPL schemes and instalment plans should not be used as a way to buy items that are more expensive than what consumers can afford and do not need. By over-stretching finances this way, consumers compromise on their financial goals. Consumers should read and understand the terms of any financing schemes, including BNPL schemes, which are fast gaining popularity, before signing up for any of these schemes. In particular, they should be aware of any fees and charges, such as late fees, which are imposed on missed or partial payments. Consumers need to be sure they are able to make payments fully and promptly and factor in whether they can bear the consequences of failing to do so.”
“MAS will continue to guide the progress of the BNPL Working Group and monitor developments in this space.”
“Mr Speaker, “Buy Now Pay Later”, or BNPL, transactions have constituted a very small fraction of total consumer payments to date. Last year, BNPL transactions amounted to around $440 million, which is less than 0.5% of the $103 billion in credit and debit card payments. BNPL schemes offered in Singapore, currently, do not pose significant risks of consumer indebtedness. Some common features of BNPL schemes limit the extent of debt accumulation by consumers. For example, BNPL providers typically suspend users from making further BNPL purchases once a payment is overdue. BNPL schemes also do not charge compounding interest on the outstanding amount and cap the amount of late fees levied. The risk of rapid debt accumulation by consumers through BNPL schemes is, hence, not large. All BNPL providers in Singapore have also set a minimum account opening age requirement of at least 18. In fact, those who are 25 years or older account for more than 85% of BNPL users here and more than 90% of total BNPL transaction values. MAS is, nonetheless, closely monitoring the BNPL sector as such borrowings have the potential to grow rapidly. We are studying the experience of other countries where BNPL schemes have taken off more strongly. For now, MAS has assessed that effective industry self-regulation, through an industry code, should adequately mitigate the risks in the BNPL sector. Under MAS’ guidance, the Singapore FinTech Association has launched a BNPL Working Group to develop a code of conduct for all BNPL providers. This code, which we expect will be launched in the second half of this year, will seek to mitigate the risk of consumer over-indebtedness and establish minimum safeguards to ensure that consumer interests are well-protected while using BNPL schemes.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Leader, I beg to move that, "That the debate be now adjourned." [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." – [Mr Alvin Tan]. (proc text)]”
“Presently, an adjudicator, employee, officer or representative of the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre, or FIDREC, which operates an approved financial dispute resolution scheme, is contractually conferred certain protection from claims by a complainant or an FI. The FSM Bill will provide statutory protection for such persons. This will strengthen the confidence and autonomy of these individuals when they carry out their duties and align the level of protection for them more closely with that of other public dispute resolution bodies in Singapore and internationally. They will be protected from liability if they acted with reasonable care and in good faith in the course of mediating or adjudicating a dispute. They will, however, continue to be liable for acts involving wilful misconduct, negligence, fraud or corruption. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the FSM Bill will enable and empower MAS to respond more effectively to the opportunities and challenges posed by a dynamic and rapidly evolving financial sector. It will also position Singapore to strengthen our role and reputation as a safe, trusted and innovative global financial centre that creates good jobs and opportunities for our people. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 7.19 pm”
“However, the current maximum penalties that can be imposed for breaches of TRM requirements are not commensurate with the potential widespread impact to FIs' customers and the financial industry that could result from such breaches. With the passing of the FSM Bill, the maximum penalty for each breach of a TRM requirement will be raised to $1 million. A technology event which impacts an FI's customers or other industry participants could involve breaches of several TRM requirements. So, this means that an FI could face a much higher than $1 million financial penalty for a serious cyber attack or disruption to essential financial services where multiple breaches of TRM requirements are established, for example, an ATM network disruption or online trading disruption. The quantum proposed is intended to underscore the critical importance of TRM to FIs' operations and the sound functioning of our financial system. The quantum was derived after considering existing penalty regimes of various other jurisdictions and Singapore Government agencies. For example, a contravention of the relevant provisions in the Telecommunications Act and Personal Data Protection Act can attract a financial penalty of $1 million. In Hong Kong, a breach of data protection requirements can result in a financial penalty of HK$1 million. In addition to the penalty imposed for a breach of TRM requirements, MAS is empowered to take other supervisory actions, such as requiring FIs to set aside additional regulatory capital until MAS is satisfied that adequate technology risk control measures have been put in place to address deficiencies. Lastly, let me speak on the statutory protection from liability for mediators, adjudicators and employees of an operator of an approved dispute resolution scheme.”
“To close this gap, the enhanced FATF standards require DT service providers to be at least licensed or registered in the jurisdiction, or jurisdictions, where they are created. Persons that provide DT services in Singapore will continue to be regulated under existing MAS administered Acts. The FSM Bill will regulate all persons in Singapore who conduct a business of providing DT services purely outside of Singapore, if they are created in or operate their businesses from Singapore. The FSM Bill will regulate such DT service providers a new class of FIs, primarily for ML/TF risks. The FSM Bill will introduce licensing requirements and general powers over DT service providers, including powers for MAS to conduct AML/CFT inspections and to render assistance to domestic authorities and MAS' foreign AML/CFT supervisory counterparts. MAS will also impose other requirements on DT service providers, such that they have a meaningful presence in Singapore and MAS has adequate supervisory oversight over them. The AML/CFT requirements imposed on DT service providers will be aligned with the requirements imposed on digital payment token service providers regulated under the Payment Services Act. Madam, I will now speak on the harmonised power to impose requirements in technology risk management (TRM). The Bill consolidates existing TRM requirements made under various MAS-administered Acts by introducing powers within the FSM Bill that apply to any FI or class of FIs. The powers will enable MAS to impose requirements in TRM, as well as in the safe and sound use of technology to deliver financial services and to protect data. As I mentioned earlier, FIs today rely heavily on technology to deliver financial services.”
“MAS will continue to exercise its PO powers judiciously, taking into account the nature and severity of each misconduct and its actual and potential impact on trust in our financial sector. Existing checks and balances will continue to apply. Before MAS issues a PO to any person, the person has an opportunity to make representations to MAS and, if MAS proceeds with issuing a PO, the person has the right to appeal to the Minister. Madam, I will next speak on the enhanced regulation of DT service providers for money laundering and terrorist financing, or ML/TF risks. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has strengthened international standards for virtual assets service providers, or VASPs, in June 2019, for this purpose. We have already made amendments to existing legislation to implement these enhanced standards. VASPs are termed as digital token service providers for the purpose of the FSM Bill and I shall refer to them as DT service providers. Entities that conduct the business of providing DT services in Singapore are subject to current legislation, regardless of where they are established. However, DT service providers created in Singapore, but without providing any DT services in Singapore, are currently unregulated for AML/CFT. Further, these entities may claim to be headquartered here to take advantage of Singapore's global reputation, and this creates reputational risks for Singapore. This regulatory lacuna is global. Where a DT service provider established in one jurisdiction does not provide services in that jurisdiction, but offers its services digitally to other markets, the gap in the current global regulatory framework leads to no single jurisdiction having sufficient regulatory hold over the DT service provider for its ML/TF controls.”
“POs are issued in cases of serious misconduct, such as to individuals who have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty in respect of their dealings with customers. The issuance of such POs can also deter others from committing similar lapses. However, there are limitations to MAS' current PO powers. MAS can only issue POs to certain specified persons under the Financial Advisors Act, or FAA, the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) and the Insurance Act (IA), such as trading representatives and insurance agents. However, there are people who work in the financial industry who do not fall within these existing categories. For example, it would not be possible to issue a PO to a bank manager, unless he is also a person to whom POs may be issued under any of the three previously mentioned Acts. Furthermore, while MAS has been decisive in issuing POs to individuals who have committed serious misconduct, such as in the 1MDB case, its powers have only enabled it to prohibit individuals from carrying out key regulated activities under the three Acts, such as providing financial advisory services. MAS' existing powers do not extend to prohibiting persons from carrying out other activities, including providing payment services or conducting other important functions in the financial industry, such as risk management or compliance and the administration of critical systems. The FSM Bill broadens the categories of persons who may be subject to POs, rationalises the grounds for issuing POs, from a list of specific criteria to a single fit and proper test, and widens the scope of prohibition to cover functions that are critical to the integrity and functioning of financial institutions. The revised PO powers are broadly aligned with those in Australia, Hong Kong, the UK and the US.”
“MAS is committed to facilitating growth opportunities presented by digital finance and the cheaper and more convenient services it often brings for consumers, while guarding against new risks involved. These digital transformations could disrupt and challenge existing regulatory frameworks, which were designed for more traditional forms of financial transactions and services. For example, digital tokens service providers, or DT service providers, could easily structure their businesses to evade regulation in any one jurisdiction as they operate mainly online. And we could be exposed to reputational risks brought by DT service providers created in Singapore and which provide services relating to virtual assets, such as bitcoin, outside of Singapore. So, this FSM Bill seeks to mitigate such risks by licensing these players and imposing AML/CFT requirements on them. The Bill also enhances MAS' powers to ensure that FIs bolster their security and resilience of digital services. In short, to continue safeguarding Singapore's financial stability and maintaining public confidence in our financial sector, we must update our regulatory and enforcement framework to plug existing gaps and keep up with new risks emerging from an increasingly integrated, digitised and complex financial market. MAS has consulted both the industry and the public and received broad support for the FSM Bill. MAS has then incorporated the feedback received into the FSM Bill, where appropriate. Sir, I will now go through each of the four key aspects of the FSM Bill, starting with the power to issue POs. The FSM Bill provides MAS with broad powers to impose POs against persons who have shown themselves to be unfit to perform key roles, activities and functions in the financial industry.”
“For example, the Securities and Futures Act regulates the capital markets and its participants, while the Insurance Act deals with the activities of insurance firms and agents, amongst others. And because the regulatory framework is structured in this manner, certain MAS powers, such as the power to issue prohibition orders, or POs, or the power to impose technology risk management requirements, can be found in the different Acts, sometimes in differing forms. They may also not be found in all of the MAS-administered Acts. For instance, the current powers to issue POs only apply to persons who provide capital markets services, financial advisory services or insurance services. And this is clearly not comprehensive enough, as it leaves out other traditional sectors, such as banking, as well as newer ones, like payment services. There are also other powers in the MAS Act which cut across the different sectors within the financial sector. These include: one, those relating to anti-money laundering and the countering of financing of terrorism (AML/CFT); and two, the resolution of financial institutions (FIs) in distress and financial industry dispute resolution schemes. These powers will now be housed under the Financial Services and Markets (FSM) Bill, which acts as an omnibus Bill. Madam, as I mentioned, the second key angle of the Bill is digitalisation, which is fundamentally transforming the financial sector. For example, vastly more financial transactions are now conducted digitally through mobile applications and virtual assets, such as bitcoins and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are becoming more common globally.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, the financial sector is dynamic and rapidly evolving, driven by innovation, digitalisation and the design of new products and services. The sector has transformed significantly in recent years, in terms of the types of transactions and the persons, institutions and technology conducting these transactions. We must ensure that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) keeps abreast of these developments and that we equip it with the necessary tools to facilitate the development of these new products and services, while managing the risks involved. There are two key angles in this Bill that will improve MAS' effectiveness in doing this. First, it enhances MAS' regulatory and enforcement framework across the financial sector, besides the rules designed for each segment of the sector. [Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair] We will consolidate some of MAS' powers on similar issues, which are currently spread across various Acts into one single Bill. For instance, the proper management of technology risk and measures to instill proper conduct amongst professionals in the financial sector. Second, it addresses regulatory challenges presented by the digitalisation and transformation of financial markets. Let me speak briefly on why these are needed and important improvements. First, the need to enhance sector-wide regulatory effectiveness. MAS presently regulates the financial sector through various Acts, each of which focuses on specific sectors and activities.”
“Sir, the Energy 2050 Committee arrived at 10% based on a certain set of hypothetical scenarios and assumptions. The Government has not yet set any target for the energy mix in Singapore. The choice for determining the optimal energy mix for Singapore should be evaluated against factors that I mentioned earlier, which are affordability, sustainability and energy security. On why we need to wait until 2050 and whether we can deploy this sooner, as I mentioned earlier, most of the technology is currently in the research and development phase and has not yet been commercially deployed. Besides, even deploying the technology requires a lot of infrastructure around the technology. This requires specialised expertise that will also need to take time to be developed before you can deploy that in earnest. So, you need the necessary regulations and you need human resource support to ensure that when we deploy such infrastructure, that nuclear safety and security are foremost in our consideration.”
“As the world continues to transition from fossil fuel-based generation, countries planning to produce nuclear energy must do so with strong safety and security frameworks, and our study will look primarily at that and also look at new technologies in which we can potentially use in our future energy mix.”