Chee Hong Tat
Singapore
“The National Parks Board (NParks) resumed crow shooting operations in March 2026 across nine districts, including Yishun. These sites were prioritised based on several factors, including the volume and severity of public feedback on crow-related issues, as well as the technical feasibility of conducting shooting operations safely at each…”
“To drive sustainable construction and reduce reliance on conventional diesel generators, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has required the use of battery energy storage systems (BESS) or synchronised generator set systems at Build-to-Order construction worksites for all building tenders called since February 2025.”
“The Housing and Development Board (HDB) tracks resident feedback on maintenance-related issues, including spalling concrete and structural cracks within HDB flats. Such issues are much less common in younger flats, compared to older flats above 30 years old.”
“The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) provides resources on its website to guide building owners and Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) on lift modernisation.”
“Private retail developments sold through the Government Land Sales Programme are intended to complement the commercial offerings in public developments undertaken by agencies, such as the Housing and Development Board.”
“The National Parks Board (NParks) is reviewing both the Animals and Birds Act and the Code of Animal Welfare (COAW). The former will include pet sector businesses and the latter will include and start with pet groomers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,840 lines we hold for Chee Hong Tat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 37.
“Between 2021 and 2025, the number of feedback received by the Municipal Services Office and Town Councils on roosters, junglefowls and chickens has increased. The National Parks Board (NParks) supports Town Councils and grassroots organisations in implementing population control measures, modifying habitats to reduce roosting near residential areas and educating residents not to release or feed these birds. NParks will continue to work with Town Councils to implement safe, humane and effective measures to manage the free-roaming chickens.”
“Private retail developments sold through the Government Land Sales Programme are intended to complement the commercial offerings in public developments undertaken by agencies, such as the Housing and Development Board. The Government may impose requirements for these private retail developments to provide essential uses, such as supermarkets. Beyond such requirements, the selection of tenants and leasing terms are commercial decisions between private mall operators and their tenants, taking into consideration consumer demand preferences as well as competition with other malls and retail offerings.”
“The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) provides resources on its website to guide building owners and Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) on lift modernisation. These include recommendations on lift components to consider for modernisation, suggested timelines to develop modernisation plans as well as preparatory steps, such as financial planning. BCA's website also provides up-to-date information on qualified professionals, such as Specialist Professional Engineers and registered lift contractors, whom building owners and MCSTs may engage. In addition, BCA provides training for managing agents to equip them with the necessary knowledge to support MCSTs in managing and modernising their lifts. MCSTs can approach BCA to find out more about the resources provided.”
“The National Parks Board (NParks) stewards the trees and planting sites established under the OneMillionTrees (OMT) movement and the Forest Restoration Action Plan (FRAP). NParks maintains records of the planting sites under both programmes, with post-planting maintenance regimes in place to support tree establishment and survival. Trees planted on NParks-managed green spaces, including planting sites under OMT and FRAP, are protected under the Parks and Trees Act (PTA). Under the Act, any works affecting trees and vegetation in national parks, nature reserves, public parks as well as mature trees in tree conservation areas and on vacant lands must first be approved by NParks. Contractors must obtain NParks' approval before proceeding with site works and must comply with NParks' stipulated conditions, such as to minimise ecological impact. NParks conducts inspections on work sites in NParks-managed green spaces to ensure contractors comply with NParks' protocols and that the works remain within designated areas. Unauthorised clearance of land in NParks-managed green spaces without the approval of the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation constitutes an offence under the PTA. For example, convicted parties may be fined up to $50,000, face imprisonment of up to six months or both for unauthorised clearance of greenery within nature reserves. NParks regularly reviews its processes to ensure they are relevant and robust in safeguarding our green spaces.”
“The Housing and Development Board (HDB) tracks resident feedback on maintenance-related issues, including spalling concrete and structural cracks within HDB flats. Such issues are much less common in younger flats, compared to older flats above 30 years old. Issues relating to ageing pipe sockets as well as spalling concrete and structural cracks affecting building facades come under the purview of Town Councils. The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) focuses on addressing safety and common maintenance issues related to older flats and is implemented when blocks reach around 30 years of age. HDB would retain the existing age eligibility criteria for HIP. For residents who require assistance but are not eligible for HIP, HDB provides support through the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme.”
“The National Parks Board (NParks) resumed crow shooting operations in March 2026 across nine districts, including Yishun. These sites were prioritised based on several factors, including the volume and severity of public feedback on crow-related issues, as well as the technical feasibility of conducting shooting operations safely at each location. As crow shooting operations have only recently resumed, NParks is assessing the outcomes and any potential impacts on the local ecosystem and biodiversity. Crow shooting is one component of NParks' holistic pest bird management approach. It complements existing measures, such as population control through crow trapping, habitat modification and nest removal, as well as collaboration with agencies to strengthen food management practices. To further deter illegal wildlife feeding, the maximum penalties for wildlife feeding offences under section 5A(3) of the Wildlife Act were increased with effect from 1 July 2026.”
“The National Parks Board (NParks) has a rigorous tree inspection and maintenance regime that is aligned with the best practices of the International Society of Arboriculture. Prior to the replacement of Khaya and sea apple trees in public spaces for safety reasons, assessments are conducted to evaluate factors that may compromise tree stability and public safety, such as the presence of basal rot or constraints to root growth arising from limited growing space. In line with industry practice, all assessments are conducted by a certified arborist, who may seek a second professional opinion from a more senior arborist as needed. The tree assessment reports are private documents commissioned by the tree owners. In NParks-managed areas, horticultural waste generated from landscape operations is recycled as mulch for use in landscapes, which helps to suppress weeds, retain soil moisture and provide nutrients for trees and plants. Some wood waste is also used by biomass plants to generate energy that feeds into the electrical grid. In addition, timber from removed trees may be repurposed into park furniture, footpath elements and play features in Nature Playgardens.”
“The National Parks Board (NParks) is reviewing both the Animals and Birds Act and the Code of Animal Welfare (COAW). The former will include pet sector businesses and the latter will include and start with pet groomers. The COAW sets out minimum standards and best practices for animal housing, management and care for the pet industry, including pet boarding and grooming businesses. Commercial pet boarders must also comply with licensing conditions. Relevant staff must attend mandatory training and comply with incident management and husbandry requirements.”
“The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has not received such feedback from residents. HDB's assessment is that existing refuse disposal facilities, including the in-flat refuse chutes, are sufficient to meet the needs of residents and it is not necessary to spend public funds to include additional refuse disposal options.”
“To drive sustainable construction and reduce reliance on conventional diesel generators, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has required the use of battery energy storage systems (BESS) or synchronised generator set systems at Build-to-Order construction worksites for all building tenders called since February 2025. HDB also encourages the adoption of broader sustainable practices, such as the use of electric construction vehicles, through a green procurement framework. BCA administers the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) for the construction sector, which provides co-funding to support construction firms in adopting more energy-efficient solutions, including BESS and electric construction machinery. The current Green Mark framework already recognises the adoption of low-carbon technologies and solutions during construction, including electric or low-emission construction machinery. Projects that adopt such equipment can receive Green Mark points.”
“The share of new developments that adopted design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA), has almost doubled from just under 40% in 2020 to 76% in 2025, with increased uptake of prefabrication methods across both public and private sector projects. The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has been working with agencies and the industry on standardising prefabricated components to reap better economies of scale and has streamlined regulatory approvals for developers that use standardised building components across their projects of similar typologies. To increase storage capacity, BCA has allocated temporary land plots to the industry to store prefabricated components. Integrated construction and prefabrication hubs (ICPHs) have also implemented technology solutions, such as automated multi-storey storage and retrieval systems, to enhance the efficiency of their storage spaces. The outlook for ICPHs remains positive, supported by robust construction demand and continued adoption of DfMA. As land and manpower constraints become more acute, ICPHs will continue to play an important role in achieving higher productivity, better quality and more reliable delivery through greater standardisation, automation and end-to-end coordination.”
“The National Parks Board (NParks) stewards the trees and planting sites established under the OneMillionTrees (OMT) movement and Forest Restoration Action Plan (FRAP). NParks maintains records of the planting sites under both programmes, with post-planting maintenance regimes in place to support tree establishment and survival. Trees planted on NParks-managed green spaces, including planting sites under OMT and FRAP, are protected under the Parks and Trees Act. Under the Act, any works affecting trees and vegetation in national parks, nature reserves, public parks, as well as mature trees in tree conservation areas and on vacant lands, must first be approved by NParks. Contractors must obtain NParks' approval before proceeding with site works and must comply with NParks' stipulated conditions, such as to minimise ecological impact. NParks conducts inspections on work sites in NParks-managed green spaces to ensure contractors comply with NParks' protocols and that the works remain within designated areas. Unauthorised clearance of land in NParks-managed green spaces without the approval of the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation constitutes an offence under the Parks and Trees Act. For example, convicted parties may be fined up to $50,000, face imprisonment of up to six months, or both, for unauthorised clearance of greenery within nature reserves. NParks regularly reviews its processes to ensure they are relevant and robust in safeguarding our green spaces.”
“The Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) developments incorporate design principles that seek to harness elements of nature as much as possible to reduce heat gain into the buildings and improve natural ventilation. For example, blocks are orientated in the north-south direction, where possible, to minimise direct sun exposure and reduce heat gain, while maximising prevailing wind flow through the units. Under the Green Towns Programme, HDB has introduced more greenery on multi-storey carpark rooftops and expanded the Cool Coatings initiative, which applies heat-reflective coatings on building facades. These help to reduce ambient temperatures and enhance residents' thermal comfort. Beyond physical design, HDB has also developed a heat advisory to provide residents with practical tips on keeping their homes cool. These include de-cluttering to maximise cross-ventilation, appropriate placement of fans and opening windows and doors to facilitate better air flow. To support elderly and lower-income families, HDB is partnering with non-governmental organisations to trial the distribution of the heat advisory through door-to-door engagements to educate residents on ways to reduce heat indoors. HDB is also conducting a research study to test the effectiveness of market-available cooling appliances in improving thermal comfort within public rental units. Lower-income households eligible for financial assistance may approach their social service office for help.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am answering in my capacity as the Deputy Chairman of MAS. Sir, the way this works is that these countries with the ship registries, otherwise known as flag states, they will set up representative offices overseas to help with the processing of registration applications and the administration of the vessels that are flagged with them. So, this is what the FATF was referring to, these representative offices of these foreign flag states based in Singapore. Sir, like any commercial entity operating in Singapore, these offices are subject to and must comply with Singapore's laws. And these would include the United Nations Security Council sanctions, which are given full effect in our domestic legislation. And any entity found to be in breach of our laws will be dealt with accordingly. The FATF has actually noted that Singapore has taken action against non-compliant entities. Sir, we have increased the engagements with these representative offices of the foreign flag states because we know this is an emerging area of concern globally, not just in Singapore, but it is also a concern that has been flagged out by the International Maritime Organization, FATF and also the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering. Singapore has and will continue to engage these entities to alert them to the PF risks and also to remind them of their countering PF obligations. That is something we will continue to do.”
“Because they were treated as administrative fees in the past. The Government’s position is not that they were illegal or inappropriate or wrongly collected, as a few Members have used those terms. That is not the case.”
“Because they were treated as administrative fees in the past – not that they were illegal or inappropriate or wrongly collected, as a few Members have used those terms. That is not the case. [Please refer to "Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Second Reading Bills section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Mr Chee Hong Tat circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)] I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 7 May 2026. My statement should read as follows:”
“As most of our utilities are delivered through underground cables and pipelines, there are processes in place to minimise the risks of accidental damage to them. For example, contractors are required to undertake topography surveys and conduct trial trenches to verify the locations and depths of existing cables and pipelines before works can be conducted in their vicinity. The Government has improved these processes as well as the methods used to verify the locations and depths of underground cables and pipelines over the years. For example, to enhance the detectability of non-conductive assets, such as fibre optic cables, the Government has, since 2015, mandated telcos to implement metallic tracer cables alongside all newly laid fibre optic cables. The Government also required contractors of selected infrastructure projects to adopt advanced non-invasive geo-referenced technologies, such as the Electro-Magnetic Locator (EML) and Multi-Channel Ground Penetrating Radar (MCGPR), to supplement trial trenches and improve the efficacy of detecting different underground utilities. We will continue to improve the processes and methods for verifying the exact locations and depths of underground utilities, and to study how best to support the industry in scaling up the adoption of these technologies. We will also try out technology solutions that can further enhance the industry’s ability to detect underground cables and pipelines.”
“The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is currently procuring a contractor and consultants for the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) works at Block 128 Lorong Ah Soo, Blocks 230 and 234 Hougang Avenue 1 and Block 363 Hougang Avenue 5. HDB will also work with relevant partners to form a Working Committee to develop the implementation plan and engage residents. Depending on project planning and resident engagement, LUP projects typically take about three years from announcement to completion.”
“Reclamation for Changi Bay commenced in 2023 and approximately 900 hectares of land will eventually be reclaimed. The development timelines and specific land uses for Changi Bay are still under study.”
“The 15-month wait-out period for private property owners was introduced as a temporary measure to moderate demand for the Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale flats and prioritise access to public housing for Singaporeans with more urgent housing needs, such as first-time home buyers. Some seniors may wish to move from their private property to an HDB flat to strengthen their retirement adequacy. To support them, seniors aged 55 and above purchasing 4-room or smaller flats are exempted from this wait-out period. Seniors seeking to buy 5-room or bigger resale flats can approach HDB for assistance. HDB will continue to consider these appeals on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration extenuating circumstances, such as household size and medical needs. As the Ministry of National Development mentioned previously, we are monitoring the market and when conditions allow, we intend to remove the 15-month wait-out period requirement.”
“This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Ms Valerie Lee on 6 May 2026. [Please refer to "Data on Net Tree Count and Tree Removals, and Encouraging More Tree Planting Under OneMillionTrees Movement 2020", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions section.]”
“This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Dr Charlene Chen on 6 May 2026. [Please refer to "HDB Inter-floor Leak Cases that Remain Unresolved for More than Four or Six Months Due to Uncooperative Parties", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply on 5 May 2026 to the question by Mr Sharael Taha. [Please refer to "Changes over Past Five Years in Waiting Time from First Unsuccessful BTO Application to Eventual Key Collection", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“The Building and Construction Authority conducts periodic reviews of building codes, including floor-to-ceiling heights, doorway dimensions and corridor widths, to ensure that our buildings are safe, accessible and meet the needs of building users. These reviews consider relevant anthropometric data where applicable. There have been no recent revisions to the minimum floor-to-ceiling height, as the average height of Singapore's population has not increased significantly to warrant a revision. Similarly, there have been no recent revisions to the minimum dimensions of doorways and corridors, which take into account the needs of wheelchair users and have been assessed to remain adequate for the build of Singapore's population. The Housing Development Board designs its flats in compliance with building codes and incorporates universal design principles to cater to the diverse needs of residents.”
“Under the Electrical Load Upgrading Programme (ELUP), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will upgrade the unit electrical power supply from 30 amps to 40 amps for about 1,500 older HDB blocks by 2030. There are about 30 HDB blocks in Nee Soon South that are eligible for upgrading under ELUP. The ELUP design consultants are currently conducting site feasibility studies and developing detailed design proposals. HDB will engage the relevant stakeholders, including grassroots leaders and residents, once the design and upgrading plans are ready.”
“Operators who wish to operate a massage establishment are subject to the Singapore Police Force's licensing requirements under the Massage Establishments Act and are required to obtain land use approval from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) before setting up in HDB shops. HDB will reject new land use applications from errant shop owners and operators with prior records of tenants facilitating vice-related activities. HDB works closely with the Police to enforce against vice-related activities in HDB shops. Owners of privately-owned HDB shops are required to evict the errant tenants if vice-related activities were detected. Since 2025, there have been 36 such cases where the shop owners have taken eviction action. For privately-owned HDB shops involved in such cases, the challenge lies in establishing the extent of the shop owners' knowledge of, or involvement in, such activities and it requires thorough investigation. If such shop owners are found to be complicit, Police and HDB will not hesitate to take strict enforcement actions against these errant landlords. HDB is also currently reviewing how to strengthen its regulatory and punitive levers for privately-owned HDB shops, particularly against shop owners who knowingly bring in tenants facilitating vice-related activities.”
“There are currently no plans to introduce mandatory cyclical improvement requirements for critical building systems in private developments. Mandatory upgrades at a fixed frequency or when systems meet a certain age may not be practical, as the failure risk of these systems can vary widely in lifespan and usage patterns. To safeguard public safety, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) requires building owners to carry out periodic inspections for key systems. For instance, lifts must be inspected annually. There are requirements for building facades, including roofs, to be inspected at least once every seven years under the periodic facade inspection regime. Where there are findings from the inspections, building owners are responsible to implement remedial actions. BCA is also reviewing measures to ensure that ageing lifts and escalators keep pace with modern safety standards, such as through the inclusion of features that regulate their speed and movement. Under the Building (Strata Management) Act (BSMA), the responsibility for the proper maintenance and upkeep of strata developments rests with the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) and collectively, the subsidiary proprietors. As part of the ongoing BSMA review, BCA is studying ways to help MCST plan for and work towards having adequate sinking funds for essential maintenance or upgrades.”
“Assoc Prof Lim's second question is for future such similar arrangements, have we looked at it? I did explain this earlier in my response speech. For now, we will focus on getting the GLB up. It is quite a big task for SGX and the team to work on this together with Nasdaq to make sure that we get it up, we get it running, achieve some positive momentum. Certainly, we are open to discussing with other exchanges, like-minded partners, who want to do this together with us. We are very open, because Singapore's value proposition, part of it, lies in our ability to serve as a hub and to be able to connect different markets. So, certainly, if there are other exchanges that would like to work with SGX, we will be very happy to explore these opportunities and to discuss with them, provided they meet those two important safeguards that I outlined in my speech – high standards, they are able to benefit from adequate coverage; and we will then discuss with the overseas exchange on some of the details. We may not end up with a $2 billion threshold because it depends on the size of the other exchange. For Nasdaq, $2 billion was the threshold that we agreed on. But if this is another exchange, the threshold may not be $2 billion, it may be something else. We will have to judge, case by case. But certainly, we look forward to more of such collaborations because that will help to boost our overall standing as a financial centre. Thank you, Sir. 6.18 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Assoc Prof Lim had a two-part question. So, the first part is whether the $2 billion will be too high a threshold, including for some of the companies that are currently on our Main Board and who are looking to list, but may not meet this threshold. I accept that the threshold means that not all companies can qualify to come onto the GLB. But when we discussed this with Nasdaq, one of the key considerations is that we do want the company, once they are listed on the GLB through this simultaneous listing arrangement, to also be able to do well, not just in Nasdaq, but also here, in Singapore. To do that, we need to bear in mind that while $2 billion may look like a big number in Singapore, actually in Nasdaq, $2 billion is not that big. You will end up becoming a small fish in a very big pond for Nasdaq. That is why there is a certain balance to be struck. If you lower the threshold too much, sure, you may have more companies, but post listing – which many Members have spoken about as well, it is not just the listing, but post listing – some of these companies may have more difficulties subsequently. If your threshold is too high, say, you set it at $10 billion or $20 billion, there will be too few companies. So, this is really a judgement call, where to strike this balance. After some discussions, we felt that, as I explained in my response speech, $2 billion would be about the right level. I am not at liberty to share more because of commercial sensitivity, but as I mentioned earlier, we do have healthy interest from a good pipeline of potential issuers. I do not think this is something which is too far off from what the market has judged to be an appropriate threshold.”
“Because we know that the competition is intense and we must keep moving forward to stay ahead, and in some areas that we are still lagging behind, to improve and catch up with our competitors. We are quite clear-eyed about this. There are some areas for improvement and we will work on these areas to continue to do better. This Bill will build on our solid foundation and further raise Singapore's standing as a listing venue of choice and provide a vital bridge with regional and global capital markets. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“Indeed, our regulatory framework is designed to be technology-neutral and it is able to accommodate both tokenised and non-tokenised securities – the regulatory requirements are premised on the principle of "same activity, same risk, same regulatory outcome". To further support responsible innovation in Singapore's digital asset ecosystem, MAS has recently issued the Guide on Tokenisation of Capital Markets Products to provide clarity for the issuance and offerings of tokenised capital markets products. We will continue to explore further efforts to support tokenisation and other forms of innovation in Singapore's capital markets. Sir, please allow me to conclude by thanking hon Members once again for their support of the Bill. The questions raised by Members reflect a shared desire to ensure that Singapore's equities market is not only well-regulated and robust, but also dynamic and growing. The amendments in this Bill are to support a bold and innovative step forward to facilitate dual listings and serve the fund-raising needs of entrepreneurs and companies, both local and from around the world. The proposed framework we have put in place, anchored on strong international standards and with appropriate safeguards in place, is a timely move to enable Singapore to seize new opportunities while ensuring sufficient protection for investors. The positive momentum we are seeing in our equities market since the Equities Market Review Group submitted our recommendations last November is encouraging, but as I mentioned earlier – never stopping here, this is our ongoing marathon, we will keep going.”
“When the final prospectus is registered, investors must be alerted and informed on how to access the most up-to-date information before they make their investment decisions. The prospectus must disclose all material information and risks, to allow investors to make informed decisions. MAS and MoneySense will continue to work with key stakeholders, such as SGX and SIAS, on investor education, to equip investors with the knowledge and skills to evaluate investment opportunities. This is an ongoing work and I see a lot of potential for us to continue this partnership. Let me also address Mr Chia, Mr Lee and Mr Saktiandi's questions on Sponsored DRs. DRs have been traded in Singapore and in other markets for some time, and the industry has developed to facilitate the smooth and safe issuance and trading of these instruments. In terms of regulation, where DRs have been used to accord similar rights and interests to DR holders, as shares do for shareholders, the same principles that protect the rights and interests of shareholders have been extended to DR holders. The amendments in this Bill clarify one aspect of this, which is that the issuer of securities that are represented by the DRs will be responsible for compliance with disclosure standards. Clarity on the responsibilities of parties involved in DR issuance is important, as DRs are commonly used for dual listings from the US. On a related note, Mr Chia and Mr Lee made the point that our regulatory framework should be forward-looking and provide the necessary safeguards for the emergence of tokenised representation of securities.”
“Mr Yip asked about the safeguards for investors should an issuer delist from Nasdaq, and consequently the GLB. As SGX's GLB listing framework has been developed with reference to the Nasdaq listing rules, delisting would follow established Nasdaq processes, which include advance notice to the market and where applicable, prescribed cure or compliance periods that allow companies to remediate any issues and continue to be listed. The same delisting procedures apply whether the investors invest in the dual-listed stocks on GLB or directly through Nasdaq. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Chia asked how disputes arising from Dual Listing Boards may be resolved, including how securities law of a foreign jurisdiction which is incorporated by reference would be interpreted. Sir, any disputes relating to regulations issued under the new Part 13A would still be determined by the Singapore Courts. These regulations include those which incorporate foreign securities law by reference. Handling such disputes is something that our Courts are familiar with, based on established legal principles relating to the interpretation of foreign law, with reference to foreign legislation and the accompanying case law. Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip asked about the safeguards around permitting issuers to engage retail investors at an earlier stage with their preliminary prospectus, and Mr Lye asked if MAS will strengthen investor‑education efforts. Sir, MAS will require issuers to clearly state in their preliminary prospectus that it is subject to further amendments and completion, and investment decisions can only be made based on the final prospectus.”
“SGX RegCo, as frontline regulator, will conduct real-time surveillance and take the necessary actions against issues of serious trading irregularities, market manipulation or disclosure breaches and where necessary, refer cases to MAS and the other relevant authorities for enforcement action. Specific to the GLB, SGX RegCo will work closely with Nasdaq on regulatory measures. MAS also has in place longstanding information sharing and enforcement cooperation arrangements with the relevant US authorities. Turning to investor protection, Mr Chia and Mr Lye asked about investor recourse options against a GLB issuer. An investor who invests in capital market products listed on the GLB can utilise the existing investor recourse options that are provided under the SFA to seek compensation for losses arising from breaches of disclosure requirements and market misconduct in the Singapore Courts. The procedure to be followed in Singapore remains unchanged. MAS has separately consulted on enhancements to investor recourse avenues for investors under Singapore law. This is not part of this Bill, it is something that we are doing separately and this was a recommendation from the Equities Market Review Group. The enhanced investor recourse will apply to investors on the GLB and SGX's other boards. MAS has consulted on proposals that would expand investors' ability to obtain civil compensation for losses arising from market misconduct. These include facilitating self-organisation of investors looking to take civil action, providing access to funding and reducing legal barriers to action. These avenues will be balanced with appropriate safeguards to prevent vexatious litigation.”
“MAS will study each new jurisdiction and their relevant laws carefully before any new arrangement is launched. MAS will also provide for necessary safeguards and ensure that regulatory standards are maintained. We reserve the right to reassess the arrangement should a partner jurisdiction change its rules significantly, and where necessary, adjust our regulations to maintain a high level of corporate governance and disclosures for investor protection. So, we are not without agency. We will do what we need to do as the regulator in Singapore to uphold high standards – both corporate governance and disclosure standards – and to provide adequate protections for investors. The core responsibilities of GLB issuers and the professionals that support them remain the same as with all other listings. They must ensure that disclosures satisfy the applicable standards and support informed decision-making by investors at the initial public offering and on an ongoing basis. Apart from the specific modifications to align regulatory requirements to facilitate the GLB operations, all other protective and investor recourse provisions in the SFA – including those relating to market misconduct, continuous disclosure and investor compensation – will continue to apply. MAS and the relevant authorities in Singapore will retain full discretion to investigate, and where appropriate, to take enforcement action against any breaches of disclosure obligations or market misconduct that arise in Singapore. I mentioned this in my opening speech too.”
“Nobody can give that guarantee, but it is back to something that we discussed before in this House – are we prepared to take calculated risks, identify what are the possible opportunities and try, even though we know it may not be a guaranteed success? Because if you do not try, the probability of success is zero; if you try, it is not 100%, but at least, we have a shot at it. So, that is the attitude that we are taking and, of course, we will do our very best to work together with industry partners to increase the chances of success. Sir, Mr Ng asked if MAS had consulted on the regulatory landscape for the GLB. MAS and SGX have been engaging closely with the industry throughout the development of the GLB framework. From January to February 2026, we conducted a public consultation on the proposed regulatory amendments to facilitate dual listing arrangements that would include the GLB. Respondents and market participants strongly supported the proposed framework and provided useful feedback to improve harmonisation of the regulatory requirements. The regulations that the MAS will be issuing around middle of this year will focus on the rules that apply to the GLB. And as I mentioned, if there are potential collaborations with other exchanges in the future, MAS will similarly do a public consultation to get views from our stakeholders before we firm up the arrangements. Sir, let me now turn to questions pertaining to the regulatory framework. Members emphasised the need to preserve our standards of disclosure, governance and enforcement. We fully agree. We will only permit dual listing arrangements with exchanges that operate in an overseas jurisdiction whose securities laws are consistent with IOSCO's international standards and principles.”
“We should not just look at the public equities market alone; it is part of the larger ecosystem. Our aim is to support entrepreneurship and develop Singapore as a growth capital hub, for both local and foreign companies to use Singapore as a launchpad to grow their business. Mr Yip asked about the operational aspects of the GLB, such as settlement procedures across both exchanges. SGX and Nasdaq have been working out the detailed operational arrangements for smooth trading and settlement. They are working closely with industry participants and building on their experiences with existing dual listings, to ensure that investors will be able to trade with confidence. Mr Ng asked how the GLB will sit alongside the SGX Main Board. Ms Nadia, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Loh asked whether the GLB will translate into opportunities for the rest of the Singapore financial ecosystem. The GLB expands the range of fund-raising options that Singapore can offer to both domestic and international companies. By attracting a diverse range of issuers to list in Singapore, the GLB increases the opportunities and dynamism in our equities market and provides more options for Singapore investors. A successful GLB will bring more investor interest and liquidity into the Singapore market and help increase the pipeline of listings on SGX. This, in turn, creates business opportunities for local service providers, including lawyers, accountants and other financial intermediaries. Of course, Sir, I acknowledge the point that a few Members have made that we cannot be certain whether a move like this will succeed.”
“Third, MAS and SGX will be putting in place targeted measures to improve our market-making ecosystem which will facilitate tighter trading spreads and better trading liquidity. These measures will apply to GLB and SGX's other boards. In addition, "Value Unlock" initiatives seek to strengthen investor confidence, by helping listed companies to better formulate and communicate their strategic plans to shareholders. MAS and SGX have formed an Equity Market Implementation Committee to oversee the execution of these measures, because we know policy must be matched by good implementation. We will track the progress and continue to take feedback from industry stakeholders, as the process of improving our competitiveness is an ongoing marathon. We are definitely not saying that whatever we have recommended, including what is presented in this Bill, will be the final set of measures that will be required. It is an ongoing, never-ending marathon because whatever we do, we must expect our competitors to also up their game. And so, we have to continuously invest in building stronger capabilities and to up our competitiveness. And that is what we will do together with the industry. Sir, since this is the Year of the Horse, if I may just use some horse-related Chinese phrases to describe our approach: 快马加鞭, 马不停蹄, 才能一马当先, 马到功成. (In English): "Press forward with speed, without pause or rest, only then can you lead the pack and achieve success." Sir, we are complementing the improvements in our public markets by forming the Growth Capital Work Group in February this year, to identify strategies to support the provision of financing solutions to companies across the various growth stages before they are ready to access the public equities market. A few Members spoke about this.”
“Ms Nadia Samdin, Mr Victor Lye, Assoc Prof Lim, Mr Yip and Mr Saktiandi have also asked how trading activity will be sustained in Singapore. Mr Chia emphasised the importance of building liquidity and deepening investor participation. Sir, we agree with these views, as growing the equities market cannot, as Mr Saktiandi said, rely only on one silver bullet. It requires a suite of measures that help to build up the ecosystem steadily and sustainably. To address the point that Assoc Prof Lim mentioned about proposed listing disclosures, SGX recently put out a consultation paper to propose mandating certain disclosures for Main Board companies. This is the approach – building the ecosystem – that the Equities Market Review Group took. We recommended a comprehensive set of measures aimed at strengthening the demand from investors and also the supply of new listings. And to support investment and trading activity in Singapore listings, we are also implementing several measures. They go beyond what is covered in this Bill, but these are things which MAS, SGX and other players in the industry are working on. First, we are improving price discovery through better information and coverage. MAS' GEMS scheme was enhanced last year to develop the research coverage and pool of analysts in Singapore. We agree that this is important. Second, specific investment funds in Singapore, such as the $6.5 billion Equity Market Development Programme and the $3 billion Anchor Fund are growing the pool of institutional investors in Singapore who can potentially act as cornerstone investors for Singapore IPOs, including those on the GLB.”
“Next, let me explain how the proposed arrangements would enable the GLB to succeed. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked what profile of issuers the GLB hopes to attract, and Dr Neo Kok Beng noted that it could be attractive to deep-tech companies. Mr Ng Shi Xuan also asked whether the $2 billion market capitalisation threshold would limit the pool of eligible issuers for GLB. Sir, the GLB welcomes companies from different countries and sectors. There could be keener interest from firms with an Asian nexus and strong growth potential that are seeking access to deep US capital markets while appealing to a complementary investor base in Asia. The choice of the $2 billion threshold reflects what SGX and Nasdaq have assessed to be the conditions for such a simultaneous listing to succeed, so that GLB issuers have sufficient scale and interest from investors in both the US and Singapore markets. GLB issuers must also meet a minimum fundraising requirement in Singapore, as this will help to anchor a good level of trading liquidity in Singapore. I should add, Sir, that the $2 billion applies to the GLB, which is the collaboration that SGX is having with Nasdaq. It is not a general requirement that will tie our hands for future collaborations with other exchanges. Mr Deputy Speaker, we believe that with Asia's continued growth, there will be a pool of companies that can meet the requirements and benefit from this arrangement. SGX and Nasdaq will work together to engage these potential issuers and build up a pipeline of quality companies for the GLB. I certainly do not want to count our chickens before they hatch but let me just put it this way – there has been healthy interest from potential issuers on this GLB collaboration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support of the Bill and for their clarifications and suggestions. It is good to see the commitment in this House to build a competitive equities market in Singapore, and to strengthen our role as a leading financial centre and growth capital hub. Members have raised several important considerations relating to the Bill. These can be categorised in three broad themes: first, the broader strategic considerations for the proposed amendments; second, whether the proposed arrangements would enable the GLB to succeed; and third, how do we ensure that regulatory standards and investor protection remain robust. First, let me address the questions from Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Shawn Loh on whether the SGX-Nasdaq listing bridge could be the first of many similar collaborations. Mr Edward Chia also suggested that we can strengthen our linkages to ASEAN capital markets to allow large-cap companies to tap into a common pool of capital. Indeed, Singapore has thrived as an economic and financial hub by positioning ourselves at the intersection of global capital flows. Cross-border partnerships were one of the recommendations by the Equities Market Review Group, and the intention is to enable future win-win collaborations beyond the SGX-Nasdaq bridge. The new Part 13A of the SFA is intended to facilitate future partnerships with other overseas exchanges, which can provide access to deep pools of capital and a broad range of investors, and are governed by securities laws that adhere to international standards. I mentioned these points in my opening speech. Our immediate focus is to facilitate the success of the GLB. With this experience, MAS and SGX can then consider further partnerships in the future.”
“With DRs, companies raise funds by issuing shares that are deposited with a financial institution or depositary. The depositary issues DRs representing the underlying shares, which are then offered and sold to investors. For avoidance of doubt, the Bill clarifies that it should be the company issuing the underlying shares that is the entity required to lodge its prospectus for registration, instead of the financial institution that acts as an intermediary when issuing the DRs. This is to ensure that investors receive information directly from the company whose shares they are investing in. This will facilitate the disclosure of relevant information for all DR offerings on SGX, including those on the GLB. Sir, the amendments in this Bill represent a considered approach to enhance the competitiveness of Singapore's equities market, by attracting more quality listings while maintaining our commitment to robust regulatory standards. The dual listings framework and the GLB are parts of a broader strategic move to reinforce Singapore's position as a leading financial centre and a vibrant hub for capital market activities. We are creating new pathways for issuers to access deeper pools of international capital while broadening investors' access to new opportunities. We will lay the groundwork for greater market depth and maturity, and open the door for future partnerships and possibilities for SGX, issuers and investors alike. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“They do not provide a valid defence against criminal liability for fraud or dishonest conduct. MAS and the relevant Singapore authorities will retain full discretion to enforce against any misconduct that occurs in Singapore. Our regulatory oversight and enforcement responsibilities remain unchanged. If there is a cross-border misconduct, MAS and the relevant Singapore authorities will work with foreign regulators and law enforcement counterparts to coordinate our investigation and enforcement actions. Singapore investors will also continue to be able to seek recourse for losses arising from such breaches under the investor recourse provisions in the SFA. Mr Speaker, the changes I have outlined thus far are scoped within Part 13A to apply specifically to dual listing arrangements. This Bill also contains other amendments to the SFA which will facilitate the offering process for all listings in Singapore. First, issuers will be allowed to engage retail investors based on preliminary prospectuses rather than only using the final prospectuses. Industry feedback shows that this will be useful to enable a better gauge of market demand and for investors to have more time to familiarise themselves with an initial public offering (IPO). This change will apply to all IPOs, including those on the GLB. To protect investors, such engagements will be subject to safeguards. For example, no offers can be made on the basis of the preliminary prospectus, and the document must also state clearly that its content is subject to further changes. Second, we have received feedback that the regulatory treatment for Depositary Receipt (DR) offerings involving new underlying shares requires greater clarity.”
“Currently, issuers seeking concurrent listings must prepare two sets of prospectuses based on two sets of disclosure requirements, one for each jurisdiction, resulting in additional complexity and costs. The Bill addresses this, by enabling MAS to set regulations to modify offer-related provisions to facilitate the use of a single set of offer documents. In the case of the GLB, MAS will make regulations under Part 13A to incorporate the applicable US prospectus disclosure requirements. MAS and SGX will review the prospectus and listing application under these aligned requirements. This minimises friction when preparing the offer documents while maintaining information value for investors, since both the US and Singapore's disclosure requirements are aligned with international standards. Second, the listing timeline. Issuers seeking a concurrent listing may encounter significant friction from different filing requirements and timelines. Under Part 13A, MAS can make regulations to address procedural and timing differences between two jurisdictions. In the case of the GLB, MAS will align Singapore's listing timeline with that of the US by varying provisions relating to the prospectus registration process. Third, post-listing activities. Differences in permitted market practices can create friction and uncertainty for dual-listed issuers. For the GLB, there are certain standard US market practices, such as the issuance of forward-looking statements, which are permitted by well-established US safe harbours. The Bill will enable MAS to set regulations to adopt safe harbours as defences to the market misconduct provisions in the SFA. Sir, to be clear, these safe harbours are intended to facilitate genuine post-listing activities.”
“MAS will exercise the powers under the new Part 13A only if the following considerations are met. First, the dual listing arrangement in consideration enhances issuers' access to a larger pool of liquidity and a broader range of investors. Second, the overseas exchange is from a jurisdiction with securities laws consistent with the International Organisation of Securities Commissions' (IOSCO) international standards and principles, particularly regarding enforcement, regulatory cooperation and disclosure requirements. In the case of the GLB, Nasdaq and the United States (US) meet these conditions. Nasdaq is one of the largest stock exchanges globally, providing access to deep pools of capital. The US, like Singapore, adopts IOSCO's international standards and principles for financial markets regulation. These qualifying criteria also apply to future arrangements with compatible jurisdictions. Part 13A empowers MAS to make regulations to vary the application of specific market misconduct and offer-related provisions in Part 12 and 13 of the SFA. Part 13A directs that the manner of modification is to align offering and listing-related practices between Singapore and another jurisdiction which, as I had explained earlier, has securities laws that are consistent with international standards. It enables MAS to formulate and make adjustments to regulatory requirements in a timely manner. Based on engagements with market practitioners and prospective issuers, three main areas have been identified where modifications will be made to the existing SFA regulatory regime for dual listing arrangements. These areas are intended to facilitate a smooth dual listing process and post-listing operations. First, prospectus disclosures.”
“Investors will also gain access to a broader range of high-quality investment opportunities. The Bill will position Singapore to capture future opportunities, where dual listings from other reputable jurisdictions, with comparable disclosure requirements and which adhere to international standards, can be facilitated. There has been broad industry support for this Bill and the GLB. MAS has considered the feedback received and taken them on board where appropriate. Sir, I will now go through the key features of the Bill, which proposes two sets of amendments to the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). A new section Part 13A, which sets up a framework to support dual listing arrangements between SGX and an appropriate overseas exchange, such as in the case of the GLB. Other amendments to the SFA, which will support all listings, including listings on the GLB. These amendments are needed to facilitate the harmonisation of key aspects of the fundraising and listing process for dual listings, and to reduce the friction and compliance burden faced by issuers while maintaining robust standards. Mr Speaker, the first set of amendments introduces a new Part 13A to the SFA. This provides a framework to support dual listing arrangements, such as the GLB. Part 13A has two main elements. First, it sets out the key criteria that such partnerships for dual listing arrangements must satisfy. Second, it empowers MAS to set regulations to close differences in the securities laws of Singapore and a foreign jurisdiction to facilitate the dual listing partnership, subject to safeguards and maintaining robust regulatory standards. The new Part 13A defines the nature of any dual listing arrangement between Singapore and another jurisdiction that can be supported by new MAS regulations.”
“The Straits Times Index has risen by over 20% over the past year and over 100% over a five-year period, which is among the strongest performers in Asia Pacific. Moving forward now with the GLB will help us to capitalise on this momentum to further raise Singapore's standing as a listing venue of choice, where issuers with good potential can access funding to grow into regional and global champions. Mr Speaker, I will now elaborate on the rationale for the Bill, before going through its key features. Currently, issuers who wish to concurrently list on SGX and another overseas exchange may face differing requirements across jurisdictions. There is a duplication of effort to meet two sets of requirements, even in the case where the general regulatory principles that underpin the listing process are broadly similar across the jurisdictions. In this context, "same-same but different" is not as ideal as "exactly same-same" because the former still increases compliance costs. The proposed legislative framework addresses this concern by harmonising and streamlining requirements for concurrent dual listings on SGX and an eligible overseas exchange. The approach reduces regulatory compliance costs while upholding high standards. Dual listings can bring benefits for many stakeholders in Singapore's equities market ecosystem. In the case of the GLB, regional issuers will have easier access to complementary sets of investors on both exchanges, while benefiting from better brand recognition. Through this, the GLB can attract more diverse issuers to list in Singapore, which will add energy and dynamism to our equities market. This in turn creates opportunities for local service providers, including lawyers, accountants and other financial intermediaries.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Securities and Futures (Amendment) Bill introduces a new legislative framework to facilitate dual listing arrangements on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) as part of the efforts to enhance the competitiveness of our equities market and strengthen Singapore's position as a leading financial centre. This Bill aims to attract more quality listings in Singapore by enabling issuers to tap local and overseas capital conveniently. It will support the new Global Listing Board (GLB), an innovative listing bridge with Nasdaq, which was announced by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and SGX in November last year. The GLB provides issuers a direct pathway to access capital across both markets with one prospectus and a harmonised set of rules. This framework for dual listings puts in place the option for SGX to enhance its connectivity with other markets. It also streamlines our regulatory requirements for dual listings. Other initiatives announced by the Equities Market Review Group last year to support the demand and supply of capital include the Equity Market Development Programme, which will allocate up to $6.5 billion directly and also to crowd in private capital to deepen local fund management capabilities and enhance trading liquidity, as well as measures to strengthen equities research coverage. Following the announcement of these measures, the Singapore market has seen some positive momentum. Liquidity and valuations have improved. Trading volumes in the first quarter of 2026 rose 32% from the previous quarter to $126 billion, and the volumes in March were the highest in almost 20 years.”
“I have explained this earlier, Mr Speaker, that AGC's advice to us was that these fees, because we considered them as administrative, it is better going forward from a legal point of view to put them into the legislation. That is what we are doing. We do not want to leave this loose end unaddressed about the past collections. The way in which we address this is to bring the Bill before the House in an open manner and to explain to the House this is what happened, this is what we are proposing, and to validate these past collections. Because they were treated as administrative fees in the past – not that they were illegal or inappropriate or wrongly collected, as a few Members have used those terms. That is not the case. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for National Development", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Correction By Written Statement section.] But for avoidance of doubt and to reduce ambiguity, it is better to bring it before the House and to validate these fees through this Bill. That is the approach that we are taking. I hope, as I said, to be able to get the support from the whole House in terms of how we deal with this so that we can move forward. But going forward, the fees will be part of the legislation. So, we will be in compliance with the advice from AGC, arising from the review. 3.38 pm”
“Mr Speaker, my understanding from the review was that AGC felt that rather than leave it as an administrative arrangement, it is better, given the nature of these fees, for us to put it into legislation. So, that is what we are doing. But AGC also supported – we would not be able to present this Bill if it is not with the support of the AGC – that we come to Parliament and seek Parliament's approval for the Bill to validate the past collections. That is what we are doing.”