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 14 of 37.
“There is currently no explicit provision under the Insurance Act for MAS to take into account the views of MCCY, which include questions relating to social mission, in assessing a proposed acquisition of an insurer with co-operative links. The proposed amendment will provide for that. MAS did not expand the scope of sections 26 and 27, as MCCY's views would not be relevant for insurers that are not linked to co-operatives. And this is important, going back to the earlier point that Mr Mark Lee, Mr Neil Parekh and a few others mentioned, which is, we need to make sure that we still keep our operating environment one that is business-friendly and that investors will have confidence to continue to want to invest in Singapore. I think that is important and that is why we wanted to scope it tightly for this purpose and not have a general clause. Ms Usha Chandradas also sought clarification on the interpretation of "conduct its business prudently" in the context of Income. Sir, this entails whether such an insurer will continue to be run in a safe and sound manner and safeguard policy-holder interests, consistent with MAS' prudential considerations under the Insurance Act. To Mr Saktiandi's question on whether there should be a comprehensive summary of various classes and target companies, we do not think it is necessary. The current case involving Income is unique due to its co-operative history and social mission, setting it apart from typical insurers. For standard scenarios, the Insurance Act already clearly outlines the specific regulatory approvals required for such transactions. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked whether the proposed capital optimisation measures would weaken the capital adequacy of Income.”
“So, we must have a good basis, a good reason, before we decide that something needs to be designated under SIRA. Assoc Prof Lim was also incorrect to point out that there are no controls if companies, like DBS and Singtel, were to sell their shares. I would urge Assoc Prof Lim to check his facts. MAS would have to approve any changes in significant shareholding for banks, including DBS, and IMDA would have to approve any changes in significant shareholding for telcos like Singtel. Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hong Weng, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Ms Usha Chandradas sought clarifications on the parameters of the proposed Bill. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and, I believe, also Ms He Ting Ru, asked if the Bill only operates prospectively instead of retrospectively and if there would be any issues of retrospective application of the law. Sir, the Bill does not affect any completed transaction and I would like to clarify that there is no formal application yet by Allianz to obtain effective control and become a substantial shareholder of Income. The contractual terms of the transaction clearly state that it is subject to regulatory approval by MAS. There is, therefore, no retrospective application of the law. Mr Saktiandi, Ms He Ting Ru, Ms Hazel Poa and Ms Usha asked if the existing sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act would already allow whole-of-Government considerations to be taken into account, since the sections provide that MAS may approve an application, if the Authority is satisfied that the criteria are met. To clarify, MAS takes into account all relevant considerations within the objects of the Insurance Act.”
“That is certainly not what they were trying to do. They were trying their very best to do their work. And when they saw that there was a link, they shared the information. They surfaced it to the Board and then we shared the information with MCCY. And this is how the Government then came together, across different parts of the Government, taking a whole-of-Government approach, coming to Parliament with this Bill, to seek Parliament's approval. This is the outcome of a whole-of-Government effort. Mr Leong asked who should be in charge? Should the Cabinet not be in charge? I would like to ask Mr Leong, who do you think made the decision to take this Bill to Parliament, to come to Parliament? It is the Cabinet that decided that we could not allow the deal, in its current form, to proceed and that is why we are bringing this Bill to Parliament for approval. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to address two other points that Assoc Prof Lim mentioned in his speech earlier. First, he talked about SIRA, or the Significant Investments Review Act. Sir, we have explained this previously – I think Mr Saktiandi mentioned it earlier in his speech – that the purpose of SIRA is to look at Singapore's national security interests. And we will look at whether an entity is a key provider of security-related functions, especially when there are a few or no alternatives and whether it is adequately covered by existing sectorial legislation. So, there is a rigorous process to decide what goes into SIRA and I hope Assoc Prof Jamus Lim understands that if we are too quick to put many entities under SIRA, that will go against what many other Members have spoken about earlier, that how then do you maintain investor confidence and have a pro-business operating environment?”
“As Ms Tan said, they were working hard and they were doing their jobs. In contrast, WP's Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Leong Mun Wai from PSP took a different approach. The Members made serious allegations regarding our public officers, regarding our agencies. I do not know why the Members have to take this approach, especially after I had explained what happened on Monday. I had clarified the facts on Monday. Why is it necessary for Mr Leong and Assoc Prof Lim to still want to throw our public officers under the bus? Why is that necessary, Sir? Sir, I have explained earlier why MAS, when they received the capital reduction plan, needed time to assess, and this was only in mid of July. The officers needed time to go through this plan and because they were not aware of the undertakings and the details of MCCY's exemption that was given earlier. The exemption was gazetted, but the details and the conditions and the undertakings, those were not made public. So, I do not think it is fair for Mr Leong to expect that the MAS team would automatically know what those details are, when those details are not made public. It was only after we had a fuller understanding of the set of issues after the 6 August Parliament Sitting that the MAS team saw that there could be a connection to what MCCY was looking at. And then they surfaced this to the Board and then we shared it with MCCY. So, I hope that Mr Leong and Assoc Prof Lim could give our officers some credit, could understand what they were going through and also look at it from their perspective, from their point of view. They were not trying to do something wrong or, as Assoc Prof Lim mentioned, "to lead to multiple breakdowns of communications", or "to work in a siloed manner".”
“MCCY maintains an interest in whether Income continues to perform its social mission, as this was the representation given when Income was allowed to corporatise. Hence, while conducting its assessment, MAS considered that it was in the public interest to share the information with MCCY. Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Mark Lee asked whether the information sharing and coordination among agencies could have been done earlier. MAS received business projections of the cash remittance in mid-July and was reviewing the information. As the MAS team was still assessing the proposal, they did not surface this information to the MAS Board before the 6 August Parliament Sitting. I had explained this on Monday. After the Parliamentary Sitting on 6 August, MAS saw that Income's planned capital optimisation and cash remittance could be relevant to MCCY's views on the proposed transaction and shared the information with MCCY. The Government then reached a view that it was not in the public interest for the deal in its current form to proceed. Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas explained this well. The decision to halt the deal in its current form and the fact that we are here today to debate and approve the amendments to the Insurance Act demonstrate that due process works. It is about coming to Parliament after putting together the full picture, working across the whole-of-Government to see what is the overall assessment of how to move forward on this important issue, and then coming to Parliament to present the information and proposals for Parliament's approval. I wish to thank Ms Tan, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, and also other Members for their support in clarifying the facts and, importantly, for showing appreciation to our public officers in MAS and MCCY.”
“With the Bill, the Minister-in-charge of MAS can, in giving his approval for an entity to obtain effective control or substantial shareholding in Income, impose conditions to ensure Income's commitments to its social mission are upheld post-transaction. We agree with Mr Mark Lee that businesses should be given an opportunity to address and correct draft plans before final decisions or interventions are made, and this is, in fact, what MAS has done for the proposed transaction. As highlighted in Minster Edwin Tong's Ministerial Statement, while the Government has decided that it would not be in the public interest for the transaction, in its current form, to proceed, we are open for NE to work out a new deal, whether with Allianz or another entity, which can address MCCY's concerns. Sir, there is a balance to be struck between effective Government functioning through information sharing and preserving commercial confidentiality to maintain investor confidence. Several Members spoke about this. And as I explained in the House on Monday, information provided to MAS as part of its supervisory dealings with financial institutions, including Income and Allianz, is confidential and not normally shared with other Government agencies. We recognise that companies submit such information for a specific regulatory purpose and not to enable general Government evaluation. And as Mr Mark Lee correctly pointed out, some of this information may involve sensitive decisions. In this particular instance, Income had special characteristics. As a former co-op, it had previously been under the regulation of MCCY before its corporatisation.”
“Our concerns lie in the terms and structure of this particular deal, and such concerns would apply whether the acquiror is Allianz or any other entity, and whether the acquiror is local or foreign. To Mr Neil Parekh's comment that control of Income should not be ceded to foreigners, I would reiterate that the Government agrees with NE's intention and Income's intention to find a strategic partner to strengthen its competitiveness and capital base in the long term so that it can continue to do well to do good. If the concerns of MCCY can be addressed in a future deal, the Government is open to consider such a proposal, whether it is from a foreign or local entity. The most important consideration is the outcome – that Income becomes a stronger entity that is able to serve its policy-holders well and fulfil its social mission effectively. To Mr Saktiandi's question and also Mr Leong Mun Wai's question on whether we have engaged Allianz, the answer is yes, and they have indicated that they understood the reasons for the Government's decision. Mr Leong can have a look at their public statement. Mr Neil Parekh asked how the Government will ensure that any future partner can contribute to the financial strength of Income, while still preserving its social mission. MAS has regulatory requirements and guidance in place for insurers to maintain sufficient capital reserves to meet policy-holder claims, including under adverse conditions, and for insurers to have robust risk management frameworks in place. As an insurer, Income continues to meet these requirements.”
“MAS maintains a regulatory approach that is consultative and provides stability and predictability for industry players. As a standard practice, MAS consults on major policy and legislative changes. For complex policies, there could be a series of consultation papers to obtain feedback from stakeholders over an extended period. During these consultations, MAS would incorporate relevant feedback and address concerns that arise. This Bill is an exception due to its urgency, because the deal with Allianz is under consideration by shareholders, and it is tightly scoped to co-operative insurers, insurers that have assumed the business of a co-op, or have a substantial shareholder or effective controller that is a co-op. This recognises that insurance co-ops are a special category of insurers with a social mission. As there is currently no provision in the Insurance Act which allows MAS to consider the views of MCCY in the case of an application relating to an insurer that is either a co-op or linked to a co-op, the proposed amendments would allow the Minister-in-charge of MAS to consider the views of the Minister responsible for the administration of the CSA and to withhold approval involving such applications if the Minister-in-charge of MAS considers that it is in the public interest to do so. The Bill does not affect any other insurer or the financial industry at large. Mr Saktiandi asked about the Bill's impact on existing free trade agreements for activities in the financial services sector. It does not impact our free trade agreements. As I have explained earlier, we do not have concerns with the suitability of Allianz to be a majority shareholder of Income.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank hon Members who have supported the Bill. I note that the WP plans to abstain and is not supporting the Bill. Members have raised several important considerations relating to the Bill and I will summarise into three categories: first, how to strike a balance between regulations to protect public interest and maintain investor confidence; second, how does the Government ensure that inter-agency information exchange and coordination does not compromise on commercial confidentiality; and finally, clarifications on the capital reduction plan, Bill parameters and coverage. Sir, please allow me to address the key points and the questions that Members have raised. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Neil Parekh, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Usha Chandradas and Mr Yip Hon Weng have recognised the merits of the Government's intervention in this deal, while raising questions about its impact on business confidence and Singapore's role as an international insurance hub. They also asked about the likelihood of future Government interventions and how transparency can be maintained to preserve trust in our system. I would like to assure the House that Singapore remains committed to upholding our status as an open, rules-based and pro-enterprise business hub. The same applies to MAS as the financial sector regulator. There is no change in this regard. We will continue to welcome investors with our business-friendly operating environment. When legislative amendments are proposed, the Bills are presented and debated in Parliament in an open and transparent manner. We would explain the rationale for the proposed changes, just like what we are doing now for this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to first clarify that the PTV was adjusted, the criterion was adjusted from a per capita household income of $1,600 to $1,800. The quantum was increased from $50 last year, to $60 this year. Mr Saktiandi asked how we size up the quantum and how we size up the criterion. This is something that we will look at from time to time. Every time we do an exercise, we will take a look and see what is the coverage and what is the amount that we can provide to help to defray and mitigate, in this case, six months of the increase in fares for lower-income households. We also build into the application process some flexibility, because we understand there are some households where there may be more household members; so, they may need more than one PTV. We do have this flexibility. They can appeal through the grassroots network and additional PTVs can be given to help these households with more family members. The timing that Mr Saktiandi asked about, why not do it as part of Budget? Sir, I think this depends on the timing of the two exercises because when we do the fare review, it is a little bit later. And when we decide on the PTVs, we first have to see what PTC recommends as the fare increase. Then, we can size up the PTV accordingly.”
“That is why we revised the income eligibility criterion this year, from monthly household income per person of $1,600 to $1,800. This allows 60,000 more households to qualify for a PTV this exercise. We have also increased the PTV amount from $50 in 2023, to $60 this year. This will cover about six months of the fare increase for lower-income households. Over the past decade, we have steadily improved the accessibility, inclusivity and quality of our public transport system. These outcomes have been achieved through a strong tripartite partnership between the Government, operators and workers, to manage cost while enhancing service and reliability, so that fares can be kept affordable and the public transport system remains financially sustainable. Sir, this will continue to be our approach going forward.”
“This commitment by the Government gave PTC the assurance to grant a smaller fare increase to mitigate the impact on commuters, knowing that the higher costs of providing public transport has been accounted for. The $250 million is in addition to the $2 billion annual subsidies to fund bus and train services as well as the additional funding of up to $900 million over eight years for the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. To Mr Saktiandi and Ms Poh Li San’s questions, these additional subsidies will ensure the financial viability of the operators, and that service standards, including any planned service improvements in response to changing demand, are not compromised. In addition, the cost of public transport infrastructure development is also fully funded by Government, so any expansion or renewal plans are not affected by PTC’s decision on fares. While the Government has stepped in to provide additional subsidies to cover the deferred fare quantum these few years to help moderate the impact of fare increase on commuters, we need to recognise that these subsidies are ultimately borne by current and future generations of taxpayers. We should therefore gradually close the gap over time where possible, which is what PTC is doing for this year’s fare review. PTC has also signalled that it intends to continue taking a gradual approach to future adjustments, to mitigate the impact on commuters. Mr Speaker, in years when there are fare increases, the Government makes available Public Transport Vouchers (PTVs) to help cushion the impact on lower-income households. Our principle is for PTVs to help defray a part of the fare increase for lower-income households. The Government understands Singaporeans’ concerns about costs of living.”
“Similar to the 2023 fare review exercise, PTC decided to raise fares by 6%, which is less than one-third of the maximum quantum, to keep fares affordable for commuters, while ensuring that the public transport system remains financially sustainable. The fare adjustment will be implemented in end December, similar to previous years. Ms Poh Li San asked about fare increases in other cities. Different cities have different fare structures and revenue models, including having public transport operators that rely heavily on non-fare business such as property development and management of retail spaces, to supplement their income. We have seen some cities like Hong Kong and London that have adjusted their fares each year, while other cities like Seoul took a different approach, where they did not adjust fares for many years before making significant increases over the past one to two years to account for higher operating costs. In Singapore, PTC has taken the approach of ensuring that fare adjustments are gradual so that the impact on commuters is more manageable. To Mr Saktiandi’s question on the impact of fare adjustments on affordability, PTC monitors this using the Public Transport Affordability Indicator, which measures the proportion of household income spent on public transport. For lower-income households, this proportion has fallen from 3.1% in 2014 to 2.4% in 2023. For average public transport users, the figure has also reduced from 2.2% in 2014 to 1.7% in 2023. These proportions are expected to remain similar for 2024. The Government supports PTC’s approach. This is why we will provide about $250 million of additional subsidies in the coming year to cover the funding gap arising from the deferred fare adjustment quantum of 12.9%.”
“Thank you, Sir. I will also be addressing a related question filed by Ms Poh Li San at an earlier Sitting. Mr Speaker, in setting public transport fares, the Public Transport Council (PTC) aims to keep fares affordable for commuters, while ensuring that our public transport system remains financially sustainable. In deciding on the fare adjustment to implement each year, PTC is guided by the fare adjustment formula, while also taking into consideration economic and social factors such as fare affordability, rising costs faced by both the public and the public transport industry, and the current economic climate. Sir, providing a safe, reliable and resilient public transport system is a key priority for the Ministry of Transport (MOT), Land Transport Authority (LTA) and PTC. This includes working with the public transport operators and unions to keep up service and reliability levels for the benefit of commuters. LTA has put in place different measures to hold the operators accountable for meeting their service and reliability standards. For example, by imposing penalties for lapses and setting incentives for good performance. So, there are carrots and sticks within the system to incentivise the rail and bus operators to maintain high service and reliability standards, without directly using the fare review exercise to achieve this outcome. Mr Neil Parekh asked how PTC arrived at its decision for this year’s fare review exercise. For this year’s exercise, the output from the fare adjustment formula is 3.3%, driven by core inflation and wage growth in 2023 and partially moderated by a decrease in energy prices from a peak in 2022. After adding the deferred quantum of 15.6% from last year, the maximum allowable fare adjustment quantum is 18.9%.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 on today's Order Paper together?”
“Since November 2023, about 130,000 vehicles have been fitted with the ERP 2.0 On-Board Units. Fewer than 1% required further servicing or component replacement. The Land Transport Authority will continue to work with our partners to provide a smooth installation for motorists.”
“Active Mobility Advisory Panel members are selected to represent the various stakeholders and communities involved in the active mobility landscape, such as youths, seniors, cyclists, motorists and relevant public agencies. Some members have professional or academic expertise relating to active mobility or transport, but this is not a requirement. All members have an interest in active mobility and have shared valuable perspectives during the discussions.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is aware that the European Union (EU) has required all newly registered vehicles to be equipped with an Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) system from July 2024. There are a variety of ISA systems, and the EU authorities are studying their effectiveness and reliability as more of such systems are installed in new vehicles in the EU. LTA will continue to monitor this and other developments internationally on emerging vehicle technologies, as part of the effort to improve road safety.”
“This question has been answered in the Ministerial Statement “A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System” at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to "A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]”
“The Land Transport Authority’s (LTA’s) key consideration is to ensure that bus stops and covered linkways have sufficient lighting for safety, before determining which lights can be switched off between 1.00 am and 5.00 am to conserve energy when footfall and traffic volume are low. We have worked with other Government agencies and the community to determine if there are sufficient lighting from other sources, or whether there might be safety and security concerns, before we proceed to switch off the lights. As of March 2024, the initiative has been implemented at around 4,400 bus shelters and selected covered linkways. This generates an estimated energy saving of over 45,000 kilowatt-hour monthly, equivalent to the average monthly household electricity consumption of around 130 4-room Housing and Development Board flats. LTA will continue to implement this initiative selectively as we expand the network of covered linkways island-wide.”
“Currently, the agricultural establishments in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and Kranji are served by Service 975, which connects to Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations daily. During Sundays and public holidays when the demand is higher, there is also Service 925M, which connects to Kranji, Marsiling and Woodlands MRT stations. Residents of Choa Chu Kang, Limbang and Yew Tee can reach these agricultural establishments by transferring to Service 975 or 925M at Choa Chu Kang and Kranji MRT stations. Ridership on both services to the agricultural establishments is generally low, with an average of up to 30 passengers for each service during the one-hour period with the highest demand daily. In September 2022, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) supported an application by a private bus operator to operate a private shuttle service on weekends and public holidays between Kranji MRT station and the agricultural establishments in Lim Chu Kang, Neo Tiew and Kranji. However, the private shuttle service was eventually ceased in December 2023 as it was not financially viable due to low ridership. LTA will continue to monitor the travel demand in tandem with new developments in the area and review public transport options as needed.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) takes an impartial and evidence-based approach to ensure reports on errant use of active mobility devices are treated seriously. LTA will review reports thoroughly, taking into account evidence, such as photographs and video recordings, where available. As part of investigations, LTA will need to collect evidence from relevant parties and establish the facts of the case, before taking the necessary follow-up action. Where reports are assessed to be false, frivolous or unsubstantiated, LTA will not take further action.”
“This question has been answered in the reply to the Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng for the Sitting on 14 October 2024. [Please refer to "Additional Measures to Address Rising Wealth Inequality in Singapore", Official Report, 14 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 142, Written Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Malaysia Vehicle Entry Permit (MVEP) is a requirement from the Malaysian Road Transport Department. The Land Transport Authority has shared with its Malaysian counterparts the feedback received from Singapore motorists on the MVEP.”
“Our plans for transport infrastructures are guided by long-term strategic plans, such as the Concept Plan and Master Plan. This ensures transport planning is closely integrated with overall land-use planning. Relevant Government agencies work closely with one another to ensure that the necessary transport infrastructure is implemented to meet the needs of commuters, while supporting existing and planned developments. To guide these decisions, the Government conducts economic analyses when planning for transport projects. These analyses weigh the benefits gained by commuters and society, such as the value of time savings brought about by new transport options, against the costs of building and maintaining transport infrastructure. While such economic analyses help us to assess the economic viability of our transport projects, they are not the only consideration in our decision-making process. Ultimately, transport is also an economic mobiliser and a social equaliser. It enables all Singaporeans, regardless of where we live, to move around for work, school or recreation. Such non-quantifiable benefits are also taken into account when we evaluate our transport plans and projects.”
“This question has been answered in the Ministerial Statement at the Sitting on 15 October 2024. [Please refer to "A Safe, Reliable, and Resilient Rail System", Official Report, 15 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 143, Ministerial Statements section.]”
“Mr Speaker, I have explained repeatedly why I believe that LTA and TSIB are able to conduct the investigations thoroughly and that we will publish the findings publicly. And in the case of LTA, there will also be an EAP, comprising both international and local experts, and they will provide their inputs to LTA for the investigations. There are different ways to conduct an investigation, but if our objective in the end is to find out what happened, to ascertain the root causes and to identify the areas where we can do better, I am confident that what we have set out through the LTA and TSIB investigations can achieve that purpose. 3.26 pm”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Miss Ong for her question. We are pressing on with plan expansions in our rail network over the next decade. I mentioned some of this in my Statement earlier: Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line. And these will help to enhance rail connectivity and resilience, especially in the West, and it will help to better connect the western region to other parts of Singapore. Beyond these expansions to the Jurong Region Line and the Cross-Island Line, LTA will continue to plan for the future and to ensure that our rail network is well connected and resilient. One of the projects which LTA has been studying is the implementation of the West Coast Extension. This involves extending the Jurong Region Line to connect to the Circle Line. LTA's studies include working with the relevant planning agencies to assess the demand and implementation timeline of the project, to support further developments in the West. And should the study show that it is feasible to proceed with this extension, it will help to further improve rail connectivity between the western parts of Singapore and the city centre. It will also help to support further developments in the West, and importantly, it will help to enhance the overall resilience of our rail network.”
“The staff from LTA and the two rail operators also participate in regular exchanges with overseas operators, including the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway and the Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation, to learn from international best practices. And this is an area, as I mentioned earlier, that LTA will continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to equip our workers, including our engineering and technical workers, with the necessary skills to stay relevant and to stay productive as we expand our rail network.”
“So, we adopt a multi-pronged approach towards building up the talent pool and capabilities of our rail sector. SMRT, for example, would train its engineering staff through courses conducted by the original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs. And also they have a SMRT Institute that is set up to conduct the training for their staff. The training syllabus is constantly reviewed and updated, based on lessons learned and experiences gained during actual operations. The LTA, too, has established the Singapore Rail Academy in 2017. The Academy works together with the Institutes of Higher Learning and they provide relevant training for engineers within the sector in key knowledge areas, such as rail engineering, operations and maintenance. And in terms of incentives that can help to augment the existing programmes, LTA, together with the rail operators, and also with the unions, NTWU, introduced the Rail Manpower Development Package in 2019, which has three components. First, incentives that encourage the operators to further expand and accelerate their training programmes in areas, such as data analytics, robotics and automation, and condition-based monitoring. More than 3,000 workers have been trained so far and another 700 workers will undergo similar training this year. Second, we have scholarships and sponsorships to attract, retain and groom engineering talent within the industry. So far, we have awarded 25 undergraduate and polytechnic scholarships, and more than 100 in-service sponsorships. And third, there are grants to support investments in training hardware, such as equipment and simulators. These were provided to enhance the training for our workers, make it more realistic, make it more productive for our workers to undergo training.”
“Mr Speaker, predictive maintenance, whether that has helped or was that something that was not adequate in this particular incident, I think that it is better that we wait for the investigation to be completed because this is part of the investigations. But if I may comment, generally, on the approach taken by both operators, not just SMRT, but also SBS Transit, on using predictive maintenance, condition monitoring. The idea there is this: you want to use sensors and analytics to pick up faults that are going to occur, but have yet to occur. In other words, picking them up before they may become problems that will cause disruptions, and then you can intervene early – prevention is better than cure – and then to either replace that part or to carry out some additional servicing. So, the idea of condition monitoring or predictive maintenance is a correct one. And it will help to improve overall service quality and reliability. But as to whether that was adequate, or that was effectively carried out in this particular incident, as I have explained earlier, we await the findings of the investigation. Mr Melvin Yong also asked about engineering talent and, Sir, that is crucial. If we do not build up the engineering and technical expertise, you can have good hardware, good systems, whether predictive maintenance or otherwise, you will not be able to make good use of them and you would not be able to keep on improving the processes, and to improve safety, reliability and resilience. So, talent development is a key part of our overall strategy. It is a key priority for LTA and our operators, especially when we need to operate and maintain an expanding and increasingly complex rail system.”
“That is why the Government, earlier this year, announced that we are introducing the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, where we will inject up to $900 million over the next eight years. We have already started with some of the initial new bus services to serve different parts of Singapore. I just want to end off my reply to Mr Liang to reassure Mr Liang and the House that we will continue our investments in our public transport system, both rail and bus. Today, we spend every year, more than $1 billion on buses in terms of subsidies for commuters and more than $1 billion on rail in terms of subsidies for commuters. Every trip that is taken by a commuter carries with it a subsidy from the Government, more than $1. Why do we do this? Because we believe that public transport, given our very compact city layout, is the preferred mode of transport for the majority of Singaporeans and it is the preferred mode of transport even for people who own cars. You do not have to use your car all the time. For certain journeys, you can actually take public transport. We want to encourage an increase in the modal share through public transport. That is why we are investing in both rail and bus.”
“Mr Speaker, certainly, investing in public transport has been and will continue to be a key priority item for the Government. We are not done upgrading and expanding our public transport system. On rail, I described earlier in my speech some of the ongoing projects – building of new lines, further expansion of existing lines, upgrading of existing lines. These are a big commitment from a Budget point of view, but we are prepared to make these investments because we can see the benefits that these long-term infrastructural investments can bring in improving connectivity, benefiting commuters from different parts of Singapore. Buses too. We had explained previously in this House that, where there are buses that experienced a significant drop in ridership because they run parallel to MRT lines and these are usually the long trunk routes, we would have to rationalise some of them. But as I explained earlier, we do not rationalise all because we do want to keep some for redundancy. But we do need to adjust and optimise the usage of our scarce resources so that we can redeploy to support the need for new bus services in other areas, including new towns, including new estates in existing towns. As I explained in this House previously, doing this alone will not be adequate because we have a programme to build more houses in different parts of Singapore, including in some of the new estates, but also in existing estates but further away from town centres and key transport nodes. So, if we only rely on the resources that are re-allocated from bus rationalisation alone, that would not be enough to meet the demand.”
“So, when a crisis happens, those instincts, those muscles kick in very naturally and the support systems are there, the measures are there, to take care of the workers and ensure their safety while they work. But what was a bonus for our workers was that – we did not plan for this, but it came as a positive, pleasant surprise to our workers – it was the very encouraging support from commuters and members of the public. This was spontaneous, ground-up acts of kindness shown by our commuters and the public to encourage our workers. That really lifted their morale and boosted their spirits.”
“Mr Speaker, I want to refer Ms He Ting Ru to what I said earlier in my Ministerial Statement. I do not have a combined number for her, but each double-deck bus can carry up to 120 passengers. We have 80. You can do a simple multiplication and you can compare that with the train capacity during normal operations. The conclusion is quite clear. Bridging buses alone, even including regular buses, can help to mitigate but not fully absorb the disruption caused by a rail system. This is why the game plan that we have to improve resilience includes an expansion of our rail network so that if there is going to be a disruption on one line, commuters can then switch to a different train line. That will help to absorb a large proportion of the affected load due to the disruption. Then, buses will come in to supplement this, to provide additional capacity. Buses have their roles because they are more nimble, they are more flexible. But buses alone would not be enough. That is why we need to continue to invest in expanding our rail network, including in the western part of Singapore where there are ongoing projects. On Ms He's second question, I covered it earlier as well in my Statement. Safety for workers is a key priority and we wanted to make sure that when they work day and night, it is not the same person working day and night, that there are different teams that can take shifts and that they are given rest in between, they are given food and drinks, they are given the proper safety equipment to enable them to work safely. This is not something that we need to impose because there are already ongoing efforts by the operator, by the unions to, during normal times, emphasise the importance of safety and letting this become part of the culture of the organisation.”
“This entire ecosystem approach, backed by strong tripartite trust and partnership, is something that has enabled our system to improve from the old days where MKBF was over 60,000 more than a decade ago to where we are today; and to go forward if we want to continue to maintain a safe, reliable and resilient public transport system. Those elements are crucial.”
“Mr Speaker, I want to thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for highlighting the importance of safety. Indeed, that is a top priority for all of us in the transport family. When we were doing the repair works, of course, everyone wanted to complete the repair works as quickly as possible. But from the Government agencies to the operators to the unions, I think we are all on the same page, that we should do so safely, ensuring safety for our workers and ensuring safety for commuters and the public. So, if we need to take more time to do thorough testing, to carry out the repair works properly, we will explain to the public why more time is needed, but never compromise on safety. We are also grateful to the public, to our commuters, for their kind understanding and their patience. Even though we took more time, originally, we were aiming for opening on Monday, 30 September; but in the end, we needed one more day. The public was very understanding. I think people agreed with the point that Dr Tan Wu Meng was making, that safety must come first. Safety for our workers, safety for commuters and the public. We will ensure that regardless of the outcomes of the investigations, we want to continue to maintain this environment whereby safety is a top priority. We also want to continue to have an environment, together with our tripartite partners, to encourage our workers, as Dr Tan suggested, to speak up when they see that something is not safe, something needs to be changed and improved. We also want to make sure that we involve our workers in making those process improvements and changes.”
“I understand and I respect your point of view, Mr Giam, but there are some downsides to doing that as well. Because if you hold back on the fare increases which are supposed to reflect the overall operating costs facing the public transport system and there is a chronic shortfall over time, that could then further erode service quality and reliability, which I am sure we do not want to see happen. If you say, "No, let us not do that, let us ask Government to provide a top-up", then effectively we are asking taxpayers to fund the shortfall. So, there are some trade-offs and the PTC, after considering the different perspectives, decided that we will separate the two things, but to hold the operators accountable and to incentivise them to achieve high reliability standards through other ways.”
“Mr Speaker, I have explained in my Ministerial Statement earlier that the new trains, the schedule was delayed due to COVID-19, but I also provided the assurance that all of the first-generation, the older trains, will be replaced before they reach the 38-year service mark. So, this is still within their service life, and they will be replaced before that 38-year service mark is reached. Can we speed up on the new trains to try and catch up on the delays due to COVID-19 earlier? This is certainly something that we will do our best to meet, but I also hope Mr Giam agrees we need to do so without compromising safety. So, the trains that come will have to be tested thoroughly before they are put into service. I do not think there is any disagreement on can we speed up and whether we are able to do so, to do some catching up due to the delays caused by COVID-19, but to do so in a manner which is safe. The second question from Mr Giam, I think I have explained my reasons. I accept that Mr Giam may have a different view, and I respect that, but I hope Mr Giam understands that we use different tools to achieve different objectives. So, for service reliability, we will keep track of the performance and if the operator were to miss their service quality benchmarks, their reliability benchmarks, they could miss out on receiving certain incentive payments or if there are lapses and investigations are conducted and there are lapses, they could also face penalties. So, there are incentives for the operator to improve their reliability and to maintain a high level of service quality. If we were to incorporate this element into fares, and as I said, I understand where Mr Giam and some members of the public are coming from.”
“Mr Speaker, I think I have explained this in my earlier responses, that the review of all the lines in our network for both operators, that is an ongoing process that we will continue to do. As to whether there are specific areas for further improvements that we need to make in response to this incident, I think let us wait for the conclusion of the investigations to see what the findings and recommendations are. I also want to reassure Mr Yip that the emphasis on walk, cycle, ride and public transport being the main mode of transport for Singapore and for Singaporeans, that vision, that target remains unchanged. And I shared in my Statement earlier that we are continuing to invest heavily in building up new MRT infrastructure, new lines – the Cross Island Line, the Jurong Region Line – upgrading existing lines, not just the North-South, East-West Lines, but also Circle Line, completing the circle. We still have an ongoing project with Thomson-East Coast Line. We have opened up phase four to Marine Parade area, but there is still some more to go. Eventually, it will connect to the airport, Terminal Five, and to the north, it will link up to the Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link when it is completed. So, the vision of a car-lite society, walk, cycle, ride, public transport being the main mode of transport, that remains unchanged. And our commitment to providing a safe, reliable and resilient MRT system, that also remains unchanged.”
“We still want to do better. So, this is what we will do. But based on our assessment, LTA has, as regulator, the necessary expertise and powers to conduct a thorough investigation.”
“Mr Speaker, I have explained earlier that the investigations that will be done by LTA with inputs from the EAP and also the investigations that will be done by TSIB will both be done thoroughly. So, that is the commitment that we have made to the public, that the investigations will be done thoroughly and the findings will be released publicly, and we will identify what are the root causes to the incident and what are the areas for improvement. Mr Leong asked what is the difference between this incident and 2011 is. Sir, I explained in my Statement earlier that if you look at the operating situation in 2011 versus today, in 2011, the MKBF for our MRT system was 60,000-plus train-kilometres. Today, as I shared earlier, all the lines are above our target of at least one million MKBF. In 2011, the incident that happened, the context and the situation were not the same. Mr Leong may remember in between 2011 and now, we also had other serious MRT-related incidents: there was a flooding at Bishan; there was an incident at Joo Koon. And for those incidents, we did not convene a COI, but LTA conducted a thorough investigation for each of them and then learned from what happened to see how we can improve. Mr Leong asked whether the findings from the earlier COI have been put into practice. I would explain to Mr Leong that if we did not implement the recommendations for improvements since that COI due to the incident in 2011, I do not think our overall reliability could have improved from 60,000-plus MKBF in those days to more than one million MKBF for all lines today. As I mentioned earlier, this does not mean that we think we have arrived and therefore become complacent. Certainly not. There is always room for improvement. This is still a work in progress.”
“Mr Speaker, the improvements that were made under the LTA's renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems are not related to the incident that happened on 25 September. Please allow me to explain. The renewal of the North-South and East-West Lines' systems started in 2012 and it was substantially completed by October 2023. Under this programme, we renewed and enhanced six core systems of the North-South and East-West Lines: the rail sleepers, the third rail, signalling, power supply, track circuit and also the purchase of new trains to replace the older trains. So, this renewal programme was needed to ensure that the services on these older lines can continue to operate reliably for years to come. The 25 September East-West Line incident was caused by the train's axle box falling and then the wheels of one of the bogies shifted to the side of the rail; and this resulting in the incident train causing extensive damage to the tracks and the trackside equipment. So, this was due to a fault that was found on the train itself which is now the subject of investigation. It was not caused by a failure of the core systems which were upgraded under the North-South and East-West Lines' renewal programme. So, I hope that addresses the point that Mr Gan raised.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his clarification. He filed a number of questions and as he pointed out, some relating to the investigations. I thank Mr Dennis Tan for his understanding that I would not be able to comment on that for now. On maintenance on the old trains, I did highlight earlier as well, that because the investigations will cover the maintenance regime for KHI trains and see whether that is something that is a possible reason for the incident. Pending the investigation outcomes, I also, likewise, seek Mr Tan's understanding that I would not be able to comment on that. But the important point is this: we do not wait for an incident to happen, before we do the necessary checks on the systems and the processes together with the operators. So, LTA looks at both what are the outcomes and also whether the systems and processes are in place. These checks are being done regularly for all the lines and it is ongoing work. As I explained earlier in response to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question, after an incident were to happen, of course, there is heightened alert during that period; you do want to put in some extra checks because you do want to take some additional precautionary measures. But it does not mean that, therefore, we do not do these regular checks on the other lines and on a regular basis.”
“Mr Speaker, I am sorry, I do not have the Parliamentary Question No 17 in front of me. But if I recall correctly, it has to do with the causes of the accident. Perhaps, Mr Dennis Tan could clarify.”
“I do not want to give a deadline for the EAP or for the investigations, because I think we should let the process look through the necessary findings and evidence and for the experts to come to a decision on what they would then put forth to LTA for the investigations. But we have said that the target is to complete the investigations, which will include the views put forth by the EAP, in a few months and that the findings will be released publicly. Mr Lim Biow Chuan's second point, I just want to highlight that it is not only after an incident that LTA will conduct audits and checks. This is something that is ongoing and for all the lines and for both operators. But what we did, together with the operator, after this incident was to step up additional checks because when you have a big disruption and you replace the rail, you do need to do some additional checks to ensure safety. Putting aside the additional checks for the affected segments of the rail, the ongoing work to conduct regular checks, that is something that takes place regularly.”
“It does not mean that we should take that for granted or become complacent. That is not what I meant. We should continue to work hard and if we see that Circle Line, for example, is not doing as well. In fact, among all the lines at the moment, that is the one with the lowest MKBF. There is ongoing work being done to try and improve the systems, to upgrade for the Circle Line, including closing the circle. So, we believe once those works are completed over the next couple of years, it will help to improve the overall reliability for Circle Line as well. I do not have the numbers with me in terms of the spending. But what I can assure Mr Chua and the House is that if we look at the spending over the past few years by the two operators, both of them have not cut back on maintenance. When we look at the amount that they are spending, they have both continued to focus on maintenance and on building up the engineering and technical expertise, which is equally important. The talent pool. That is something which will remain a priority for LTA and the operators.”
“Mr Speaker, I will address the two questions from Mr Louis Chua together. The maintenance and the overall reliability outcomes as shown by MKBF, I have explained earlier as well that different lines have different ages, different operating environments, run different systems. So, while there is indeed a difference in the MKBF numbers across different lines, including between the different lines operated by the same company – SBS Transit, the two lines that they operate; SMRT, the lines that they operate – I would say the more important thing is this and that was what Mr Louis Chua was trying to drive at: where do we strike that balance between reliability and maintenance? High standards, versus the costs that we need to incur to sustain those high standards? We have, after doing the international benchmarking comparisons, decided that the target that we want to set is one million train-kilometres MKBF. That will put us in the league of the best-performing metros around the world. You can say, why not two million; why not four or five million? Nothing to stop you from setting that target. But I hope Mr Chua will agree with me that we also have to ask that question: if you were to set that target, instead of setting a target of one million, we raise it to, say, four million, five million, we also got to ask, what is the cost incurred by the system as a whole, which will then translate into cost for commuters, cost for taxpayers, to achieve those standards. So, that is where the balance needs to be struck. One million, which is our current target and, as I mentioned earlier, even though there are some differences between the different lines, all the lines have thus far maintained above one million since 2019.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Ong Hua Han for those two very good suggestions. Certainly, I will take both suggestions back to discuss with LTA and the operators to see how we can do better.”
“The third question, I have no doubt that our Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) colleagues are ready and willing to help. That is what they are trained for, to respond to crises. But I am also mindful that unless it is really necessary, we should not take them away from their primary responsibilities of defending the country. And if it is something that we are still able to cope within the transport ecosystem, we should try and do that first. Also because, our officers and our volunteers have gone through regular rehearsals and exercises to train for this type of scenario. So, when it happens, they are also more familiar with the operating environment. They are also more able to see what the best way is to respond to help commuters. But if we have to activate SAF – touch wood – I do not want that to happen too, I am sure the SAF will be there to support the other Government agencies for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans. But this is something that we assess for this particular incident, and I think it was the correct judgement call that we did not have to activate SAF for this. We were still able to assist commuters to complete their journeys.”