Chua Kheng Wee Louis
Singapore
“It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill does not mark the end of Singapore's vision of a share-owning society, but rather the beginning of a new chapter – one in which we seriously revisit how Singaporeans and the Government can invest together, participating fairly and directly in the nation's wealth creation, and achieving w…”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. The first is on the guide that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared just now.”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just one clarification for Ministers on the EV chargers. I think the MOT has previously said that we are looking at three to 12 charging points per HDB carpark by 2025, but my question is not so much on the deadline, but more in terms of the number of chargers that can be supported, because in most of the multi-storey…”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two clarifications for Minister Chee. The first is on the review of the EC policy – any timeline around that? Second is in terms of how the Minister talked about building a robust supply pipeline and given that we are now in March 2026.”
“Chairman, given the increasing unaffordability of ECs in the markets today, I urge the MND to seriously re-think the current EC model and to consider upstream policies to bring the price of ECs into a range that will suit their original intentions. With affordability and equitable access being key tenets to underpin the new EC model.”
The complete record
Every one of 716 lines we hold for Chua Kheng Wee Louis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 15.
“Turning to Singapore, while the Value Unlock Programme aims to promote value creation and shareholder engagement, the key measure to achieve this is a $30 million grant. Perhaps, small and newly listed companies may be able to benefit, but for the vast majority of companies, they can very much maintain the status quo after the review group's recommendations are implemented. Companies face no additional disclosure or regulatory requirements to demonstrate how exactly they are going to drive higher shareholder returns or unlock value. While we are asking the EQDP fund managers to deploy more than $5 billion in capital and expect returns, our listed companies feel no compulsion to demonstrate commitment to improving fundamentals. What then must Singapore do? We must institute mandatory value-up disclosure requirements immediately. At the most basic level, all listed companies should conduct formal board level assessments of capital costs, profitability and market valuation. Companies must then disclose quantified ROE and ROIC targets across medium- to long-term time horizons and spell out specific plans with annual progress reporting. If the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) believes this to be important, then, I hope a clear timeline on when this may be implemented can be announced. But disclosure alone is not sufficient. We must also strengthen and enforcement. The review group states efforts to enhance investor recourse avenues must be complemented by robust public enforcement actions. MAS will continue to work with relevant authorities to pursue and take firm actions against wrongdoers. I agree. I understand the Government's perspective that value creation is the responsibility of boards and management, not regulators.”
“That is precisely correct. But here is the critical gap. The report contains no mandatory disclosure requirements compelling companies to demonstrate improved shareholder returns. An EQDP fund manager told The Edge Singapore in December 2025: "At the end of the day, what we are looking for is earnings growth, ROIC [return on invested capital] going up, ROE [return on equity] going up. That is really what our main focus is". Yet, our framework offers no mechanism to compel disclose commitments towards these fundamentals. As I have shared in my Committee of Supply speech in February 2025, Japan and Korea have already shown the way. They did not rely on volunteerism. They implemented market-wide directives, creating existential pressures on companies to perform. In the case of Japan, in March 2023, the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) issued a formal request to companies to act on what they called management conscious of cost of capital and stock price. This was not a good-to-have, but a structured disclosure framework with specific requirements. The TSE published a monthly list of companies by their disclosure status, creating constructive market pressure. And within a year, more than half of prime companies have disclosed initiatives, and that is now above 90%. Here is a crucial part. Companies that put genuine effort into high-quality disclosures outperformed their peers by meaningful margins over the subsequent 12 months. Korea's Value-up Program, launched in February 2024, requires companies to assess capital efficiency, set quantify ROE and ROIC targets, and disclose dividend and treasury shares plans. Korea has also amended its Commercial Act to expand directors' fiduciary duties to all shareholders and directors themselves have to be accountable now.”
“That said, as I shared in my Committee of Supply speech in February 2025, our measures must be bold enough to bring our equities markets into the future. However, I believe that the current recommendations by the review group may be necessary but not sufficient to truly drive permanent change. The two work-streams appear to be focused on reducing market friction rather than instituting structural interventions that improve company fundamentals in the long term. Without three critical additional pillars, we risk repeating a familiar pattern, with Thailand’s Vayupak programme providing a cautionary tale. Let me first establish the scale of Singapore's challenge which my learned colleague, Kenneth Tiong, had earlier shared in his speech on the Finance Bill. Putting aside the comparisons with other western developed markets, as of end January 2026, 61% of Singapore Exchange (SGX) companies generated return on equity below 8%, compared to 44% in Japan and 24% in Korea. Too many of our companies are delivering uncompetitive returns. On liquidity, the difference is even more stark. Only 14 SGX-listed companies have daily trading volume above US$20 million. Japan has 305, Korea has 172, Hong Kong has 160. But perhaps, more telling is this. Based on research from early 2025, 69% of Singapore-listed companies have shrunk in market capitalisation over the past decade. In Japan, the figures only 14%. Only 11% of our companies have doubled their market capitalisation in 10 years, compared to 50% in Japan. It appears the odds are not quite in your favour when looking at investment outcomes in Singapore. The review group's report states that companies that invest in building strategic shareholder value and communicate their plans effectively will attract strong investor interests.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Allow me to first declare that I am an equities analyst working in a financial institution in Singapore. On that note, Mr Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue that is very close to my heart: the future of Singapore's equities market and by extension, Singapore's role as a global financial centre. Through this Adjournment Motion, I hope we can make Singapore equities great again. For more than a decade, I worked as a sell-side equities analyst and observed the continual decline in the vibrancy of our capital markets. We witnessed the S-chip crisis, market shrinkage as de-listings far outstripped new initial public offerings (IPOs) and the painful erosion of investor confidence. Our market liquidity had fallen behind not just global bourses, but even regional neighbours'. Every day, this trend affected real lives and livelihoods across our capital markets ecosystem. In 2024, I put forward the Parliamentary Question on this issue, and the Government's reply, though well-intentioned, felt insufficient. It lacked the bonus needed to reverse decades of decline, with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong sharing that conditions remained challenging for the Singapore equities market as they are for stock exchanges in other countries. But thankfully, that has changed. I welcome the Government's markedly stronger resolve and put on record my appreciation to the Equities Market Review Group for its work. In particular, I appreciate that the $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) funding demonstrates genuine commitment. And I hope that this will not be a one-off measure but represents the start of a continued commitment to the Singapore market.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to give notice that the hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is also keen to speak on the Motion standing in my name under Standing Order 2(8)(b), and therefore, I propose to share the 20 minutes of speaking time with him. May I proceed as proposed?”
“Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the update, Minister, on this. It might have saved me one cut for this year's Committee of Supply. In terms of the launch of the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, I just wanted to ask if this is something which is still part of the consideration set, in terms of this final review of the various options that Minister talked about. After all, it was back in 2016 when the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme was being accepted by the Government, and while we may be considering a various range of options when it comes to investing one's CPF, whether the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme still features in it and whether we can still expect an update by this year.”
“Medical information is among the most intimate forms of data one can share and the success of the NEHR ultimately depends, not on compulsion, but on trust. To ensure this trust is not eroded by a perceived power asymmetry between the state and the individual, we must move beyond a "collect first, tell later" approach. And throughout my speech, I have highlighted three recurring themes: agency, transparency and proportionality. I hope Singaporeans can be granted more meaningful control and disclosure over how their health information is accessed, shared and used. More importantly, we cannot have a well-functioning healthcare system if only 15% of people fully understood what the NEHR is. We must ramp up public education to ensure every Singaporean knows their rights and how their data is used to serve the common good, in order to foster the trust that turns our national database into a national asset. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“With allied health professionals, such as medical social workers having access to the patient's NEHR record, I hope that the possibility of financial assistance being further streamlined via enhanced data sharing procedures with the likes of the Social Services Office can be explored – with the patient's approval, of course. This would be most helpful in cases, such as long-term assistance to those permanently unable to work due to illness or disability. And in turn, this could also help to alleviate the workload of our medical social workers while easing the experience of those seeking financial and social support. Finally, an extensive public education effort on the NEHR should also be implemented, should this Bill be passed. A 2018 Singapore Medical Association survey revealed that only 50% of respondents heard about the NEHR and 14.9% fully understood what the NEHR was back then. As shared in the Feedback Report on the Public Consultation for the Health Information Bill, during the public consultation exercise, MOH received feedback requesting for a greater clarity and clearer communication of the policy positions under the Bill. Will the MOH be conducting and updated public awareness survey upon implementation of the Bill to measure how public understanding of the NEHR has evolved, particularly regarding access restrictions and the use of individually identifiable data? It is nonetheless critical that the Government ramp up its patient's education efforts regarding the purposes of the NEHR and how it might benefit them as well as to explain the rights of each patient pertaining to their medical data. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the NEHR represents a significant milestone in our Smart Nation journey but its success rests entirely on the foundation of trust.”
“Back in 2015, in the United Kingdom, the Royal Free and HS Foundation Trust in London signed an agreement with Google DeepMind. This allowed the British AI firm to analyse sensitive information on 1.6 million patients who uses the TRUST hospitals each year. The access was used for monitoring software for mobile devices called Streams which promises to improve clinicians' ability to support patients with acute kidney injury. But according to the study's authors, the publicist dated in the agreement were far less specific and made more open-ended references to using data to improve services. In the last few years, there has been a significant drive and race across providers to train AI models using the largest and most diverse datasets available in order to achieve better performance. However, this trend also raises important concerns about data privacy, particularly, in regard to sensitive records, such as medical information – NEHR data. For this reason, we should exercise caution before granting third parties, especially if they are commercially-linked organisations, with excessive or unconstrained access to NEHR data, especially when longitudinal studies examining individuals' health records over prolonged periods are involved and be mindful of scope creep, given commercial incentives. Besides R&D applications, I do believe that Government should capitalise on the NEHR's capabilities to boost the efficiency of healthcare delivery and financial assistance to all Singaporeans.”
“This is another case where even if an individual exercises his right to impose an access restriction, it can be again overruled with a Ministerial approval for his individually identifiable information to be shared on public healthcare grounds. Although the cost to the patient's privacy may be outweighed by the benefits such research brings to society at large, that should not preclude the Government from giving patients more agency over secondary usage of the health information, especially for research purposes. This is a principle that is adopted by other healthcare systems worldwide as well. For instance, both Taiwan and the EU have enacted regulations empowering patients to restrict the use of their identifiable health data for secondary purposes. Therefore, I hope that the Government would consider allowing patients to exercise greater control over the secondary usage of their health data. To follow on the Ministerial approval requirement under clause 25, according to MOH's Trusted Research and Real World-Data Utilisation and Sharing Tech (TRUST) platform, which provides anonymised healthcare-related data for secondary usage, the Data Access Committee reviews the social value and public interests of each data request. I agree that access to any NEHR data unlocks research and development (R&D) potential and supports long-term public health outcomes. When it comes to commercial-linked entities, however, while such parties might use the data for generating public health reasons and research, it raises ethical concerns surrounding transparency and privacy, especially if access to data is excessive, insufficiently justified or beyond stated that be used.”
“Therefore, I hope that patients will be recorded some flexibility and control over the types of health information they wish to disclose and how they would like that information to be used. While I appreciate that we can already check out any NEHR access history in HealthHub, patient consent should also be sought for data sharing between healthcare providers and public agencies. On that note, Part 2, Division 4 of the Bill also sets out the requirements for the usage of any NEHR data for secondary purposes or derived information. After all, a national health record database provides a valuable snapshot of our population's health condition, which could then be used by researchers for developing solutions to public health issues faced by our society. The Bill separates such derived information into two categories. Type 1, which is information that is individually identifiable, as well as Type 2, data that is aggregated and anonymised. And it is worth noting that clause 30(5) paragraph (a) states that "The imposition of an access restriction does not preclude one's NEHR records, be it individually identifiable or anonymised from being disclosed as derived information, if an approval is granted by the Minister. I agree with clause 25(2) that the Minister may approve an application to obtain Type 2 derived information, if the Minister is satisfied, having regard to the purpose for which the application is made. That is in the public interest to do so. However, what are the instances in which subsection (1) will apply where individually identifiable health information is required in the name of promoting public Health?”
“But Mr Deputy Speaker, if a citizen says "no" to the NEHR today, should the state then be allowed to say, "Okay, but trust me" and collect their data anyway? In a 2017 letter to MOH, the then President of the Singapore Medical Association highlighted that this might compromise the patients' right to privacy. This is because patients might not wish for their medical records to be uploaded to the NEHR at all. I urge the Government to reconsider this continuous background uploading and if other additional options can also be considered. For example, we should consider offering a total opt out or a so-called "no means no" option, provided the patient is thoroughly briefed on the dangers and risks of doing so and is counselled on the implications of such an option. Second, patients might prefer to block access to certain documents and records only, instead of imposing a wholesale access restriction on their records. I understand that one sensitive health information that could potentially lead to stigmatisation and discrimination will be secured by additional measures, such as double lock-in feature. Nevertheless, what is sensitive to one might not be sensitive to another. Hence, patients might wish for additional flexibility when protecting their health records rather than just give a blanket nod. Part 3 of the Bill also allows for the sharing of both administrative and clinical information, to facilitate the continuity of care and outreach efforts for national health programmes through data sharing arrangements. Notably, patient consent is also not required for the sharing of such data between healthcare providers and public agencies as established under clause 50.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, one's medical information is more than just a set of datapoints on a server. It is the deeply personal and sensitive, and a digital diary of our physical and mental lives. Therefore, the public's trust is sacrosanct to the implementation of the NEHR. We must ensure that the Government and healthcare stakeholders do their utmost to safeguard the privacy of this data. While I broadly agree with the principles of the HIB, which delineates the responsibilities of our healthcare ecosystem and mandates data contribution, I believe it is also important that we continue to strengthen areas of data privacy, transparency and individual agency. As we move towards Smart Nation, we must ensure that our progress does not leave Singaporeans feeling as to the power asymmetry between themselves and the state is growing, and that they are losing control of their own data and privacy, and that public education measures would be stepped up to foster a deeper understanding of the NEHR's and one's rights as patients. One crucial aspect of this Bill is that patients of opt in or out of the NEHR by way of an Access Restriction, which blocks medical practitioners from viewing all of the patient's NEHR's records, save important details, such as one's critical allergies and personal information. Patients may also select the medical institutions to the impose and access restriction on. Notably, clause 30(7) reveals that even if a restriction is in place, a patient's information continues to be uploaded to the NEHR in the background. This, according to MOH, is in the interest of ensuring the expeditious provision of care should the patient wish to opt-in to the NEHR in the future or during an emergency situation.”
“Greater transparency and periodic reporting of aggregate investment data will also help the public to assess whether these generous tax incentives are delivering tangible benefits to Singapore's economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I conclude, allow me to recap the three themes I have raised. First, we should move away from recurring one-off measures towards structural reforms, indexing tax brackets and reliefs to inflation, updating outdated reliefs, like the Earned Income Relief, and embedding greater progressivity into our corporate tax regime. Second, we should consider introducing refundable tax credits to make our fiscal system more equitable and efficient, particularly, in supporting working families and working mothers and lower-income Singaporeans. And third, we must align our tax incentives more strategically with our goal of strengthening Singapore's capital markets and ensuring that incentives like those for family offices deliver meaningful local benefits. Ultimately, our tax system is more than a means of raising revenue. It reflects our values as a society – fairness, resilience and solidarity. As we look ahead to Budget 2026, I hope we can take this opportunity to refine our fiscal architecture to serve Singaporeans better, strengthen inclusivity and build an economy that works for all.”
“My colleague and Member of Parliament for Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC), Mr Kenneth Tiong, will be elaborating further on this point. Let me also declare that I am an equity analyst working in a financial institution here in Singapore. Clause 54 operationalises the 13O and 13U Fund Tax Incentive schemes for family offices. The schemes aim to offer a conducive operating environment for Singapore-based fund managers and family offices. In my earlier Parliamentary Question in 2022, I had asked about the number of family offices, their aggregate business spending, assets under management (AUM) and local investments. Back then, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) shared that it does not have estimates on aggregate business spending, aggregate AUM help and the amount invested locally by Singapore Family Offices (SFOs). Do we now have such data? Otherwise, how do we assess the effectiveness of the capital deployment requirement rules? Under current rules, family offices must invest the lower of 10% of AUM or $10 million in designated investments. However, the definition of invested-locally is broad. Even an investment into a global fund distributed by a financial institution with a Singapore presence can qualify. This means that the actual capital deployed into Singapore's productive economy may be far smaller than the headline numbers intended. I would urge the Government to strengthen this capital deployment requirement, perhaps, by raising it to at least 15% to 20% of AUM and/or tightening the definition of eligible investments to require a minimum portion in Singapore listed equities, Real Estate Investment Trust (REITS) or funds with domestic exposure even as I note that there is a 1.5 to two times multiplier applied to certain investments.”
“As I have shared previously, this relief was restructured for children born on or after January 2024 from a percentage-based formula to a fixed dollar amount of $8,000 for the first child, $10,000 for the second and $12,000 for the third and subsequent children. While this change benefits some lower-income mothers marginally, my estimate suggests that roughly 80% of working mothers will either be unaffected or worse off with the formula change. I have spoken previously about how Singapore's total fertility rate, which fell below 1.0 in 2023 and remained there in 2024, represents an existential challenge. President Thaman has pledged that this term of Government will do more to help parents better manage their work and family commitments and to foster a culture that celebrates families. In that spirit, we should consider whether the revised WMCR structure truly achieves its intent of encouraging married women to stay in the workforce or whether it inadvertently discourages some from doing so. I acknowledge that the Government has said that when the WMCR changes are considered alongside the one-off $2,000 increase in the Child Development Account First Step Grant, about 97% of mothers will be no worse off in the year of birth. But I would also ask what about the next 15 years of tax assessments? Perhaps a reversion of WMCR or its reform into a refundable tax credit could be explored as part of future Budget changes. After all, this concept is not new to Singapore, with the refundable investment credits already introduced. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the final theme of my speech – aligning our tax regime more closely with the goal of strengthening Singapore's equities market.”
“Even as other forms of enterprise support are strengthened, the Government could consider raising partial tax exemption limits or introducing two-tiered corporate profit tax system, similar to Hong Kong's model introduced in 2018. Such an approach could offer greater certainty than the current system of fluctuating rebates. To illustrate, an SME earning $300,000 in chargeable income today pays around $34,000 in corporate income tax before rebates, an effective tax rate of roughly 11%, compared to about 8% before the exemption restrictions introduced in Budget 2018. Building these reforms directly into the tax regime, rather than relying on discretionary rebates would send a clearer signal of support to our local enterprise base. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to next turn to a topic that deserves greater attention in Singapore, and that is of the refundable tax credits. These function as a form of negative income tax, providing benefits through the tax system, but paying out the difference in cash to those with insufficient tax liability to benefit otherwise. In doing so, they allow the Government to extend supports to lower and middle-income households more efficiently without distorting work incentives or relying on other specific schemes. Refundable credits are widely used in advanced economies, such as the US' Earned Income Tax Credit and Canada's various Refundable Credit Systems, for example. In Singapore, one promising area to consider refundable tax credits is in relation to child relief or the Working Mother's Child Relief (WMCR).”
“For handicapped workers, the reliefs are also unchanged. Given the rise in the cost of living, wages and labour participation since then, it is long overdue for a comprehensive update. In addition, I agree with the exemption from tax of a wide range of initiatives, such as Workfare Training Support Training Allowance, SkillsFuture Mid-Career Training Allowance and Workfare Skill Support. Again, in the spirit of making scheme-specific changes each time, it would be better for us to introduce a broad-based skills investment relief allowing individuals to claim a capped deduction for out-of-pocket training expenses, and this would be an expansion of the existing course fees relief, which only provides relief for specific approved academic, professional or vocational qualification, or courses relevant to a person's current employment, trade, business, profession or vocation. But at the same time, it does not reward initiatives to better position oneself for an alternative career especially in the current era of rapid change and disruption, as it has no linkages to his or her current profession. Turning to clause 43, which introduces a new section 92L, providing for a 50% corporate income tax rebate. This continues a familiar pattern of annual corporate rebates, varying from 20% to 50% over the last decade, with caps ranging from $10,000 to $40,000. While such rebates can provide short-term relief, they do not offer the long-term certainty and predictability that businesses, especially SMEs, do require. As I argued in my speech on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill in 2021, I suggested that we consider introducing more structural progressivity in our corporate income tax regime, particularly to better support local SMEs.”
“Our tax system should automatically adjust to reflect the economic reality Singaporeans face rather than depending on annual ad hoc adjustments that create uncertainty and administrative complexity. Under clause 55 of the Bill, a personal income tax rebate worth 60% of tax payable, capped at $200, will be granted for the Year of Assessment (YA) 2025. This is similar to the rebate in YA 2024, where it was 50% of tax payable, but capped at $200, and also to the one granted in YA 2019. Should such rebates become a recurring feature of every budget, they would effectively raise the tax-free threshold for the current $20,000 of chargeable income. But the Government has framed this as part of the SG60 package, which would suggest that this is only temporary. Instead of offering periodic rebates, I believe we would be better off instituting a mechanism to regularly review both the personal income tax brackets and basic relief quota to avoid bracket creep, so that the system keeps pace with changes in wages and price over time. After all, the last time the personal income tax brackets were last updated was more than 24 years ago in 2001. This was a point I had raised in my Parliamentary Question in 2022 and again, in last year's Budget debate. Based on my estimates, close to 80% of resident taxpayers will only receive the $200 cap, which means that the headline 60% rebate appears more generous than it really is. Another example is the earned income relief. For workers below 55 years of age, this relief has remained at $1,000 for as long as I can recall. For older workers aged 55 to 59, the relief stands at $6,000. And for those aged 60 and above, $8,000. These figures have not been revised since Budget 2012, more than a decade ago.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Finance (Income Tax) Bill before this House seeks to implement tax changes announced in Budget 2025 by amending the Income Tax Act and related legislation. While this may appear to be a procedural exercise to give legal effect to the Budget measures, I see it also as an opportunity to do much more. It is an opportunity to refine our tax system so that it continues to work well for Singaporeans and to ensure that our broader national objectives are met, particularly given the critical redistributive role that taxes play in fiscal policy. It is also an opportunity to look ahead to make constructive suggestions for the upcoming Budget 2026. As I have emphasised in my past Budget speeches, we must move beyond transitional cost of living measures and strengthen structural support through lasting tax changes that achieve greater redistributive efficiency. As we look towards Budget 2026, how can our tax system best serve Singaporeans, especially at a time of persistent cost pressures and growing inequality? How can our fiscal architecture reinforce fairness, resilience and growth? Can our tax policies play a stronger role in redistribution, support for families and domestic capital formation? I will focus my remarks on three themes. First, the importance of putting in place structural changes rather than relying on recurring one-off measures. Second, the potential role of refundable tax credits in improving equity and efficiency. And third, how we can better align our tax system with our ambition to strengthen Singapore's equities market. Mr Deputy Speaker, in both my Budget 2024 and Budget 2025 speeches, I emphasised the importance of structural rather than episodic fiscal measures. Let me reiterate that call once more today.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I understand from the latest mid-year traffic situation report that the number of speeding-related accidents has declined. That is some relief. But at the same time, the number of accidents involving motorcyclists have still risen by close to about 10% year-on-year, in the first half of the year. The ABS requirement from 2027 onwards is a welcome addition. At the same time, will the Minister of State be able to share, based on his analysis of past motorcycle accidents, what are some of the key reasons for these accidents and fatalities, and any other preventive measures that the TP is considering implementing?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Let me first declare that I am working in a financial institution which, to my understanding, does businesses with family offices. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. I agree with the Minister that we should act swiftly in such cases, but at the same time, I am also concerned that yes, while we did carry out the enforcement actions within weeks of the US press release, it may give the impression that we are only doing so after the US has commenced action. And so, I wanted to understand, based on what the Minister has shared and based on the SPF's press release, that from the time we received the STR notification in 2024, what have been the reasons for the delay in terms of the actions taken against this group, and whether it is because of the lack of evidence or what were the rationale behind the one year-plus delay?”
“To round up, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my speech I have sought to emphasise five critical themes: the need to review claim limits for salary and wrongful dismissal alongside the new $250,000 cap for discrimination; ensuring access to the claims process for workers who are already disadvantaged; clarifying the evidential burden and establishing protections against the structural power imbalance that favours employers; strengthening transparency through publication of anonymised judgments and company names; and reconsidering time bars that may otherwise exclude workers still navigating job transitions. The Workplace Fairness Bill represents meaningful progress. Yet, an inclusive and just society demands that we do not rest on our laurels but to constantly ensure that dispute resolution mechanisms serve workers fairly and that our laws reflect not merely regulatory compliance but a genuine commitment by all to worker protection. I hope the Government can remain open to the refinements posed in my speech as well as those of other colleagues as we work towards a fairer and more equitable employment landscape.”
“For High Court judgments, while section 36O of the Bill calls for all proceedings held in the High Court under the Workplace Fairness Act to be conducted in private, section 45 of the Bill empowers the General Division of the High Court or the Registrar of the Supreme Court to publish information regarding a judgment pertaining to the Act. In the interest of open justice, I hope that the Government will publish all ECT and High Court judgments pertaining to workplace discrimination cases by default on an anonymised basis. This would help enrich the public's understanding of workplace discrimination, while factoring in the need for confidentiality. Additionally, revealing the company names that are charged under this Bill, as mentioned by Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, would help educate employers and the general public about discriminatory workplace practices, whilst sending a strong signal that this is a matter that should be taken seriously. Finally, I recognise MOM's rationale on having time bars to encourage individuals to come forward in a timely manner before evidence degrades while providing employers with some certainty that incidents will not be dredged up. The limit is one month after the date of notice for pre-employment, six months after the date of notice for in-employment and one month after the last day of employment for end-employment claims. However, for pre- and post- employment claims, the claimant would also be busy with the job search process, thus leaving them with very little time, energy or mind space to build their case. Hence, would the Government clarify how it determined the duration of the time bars and would they consider extending them, especially for pre- and post- employment cases, in the interest of our workers?”
“The establishment of a framework for the handling of indirect evidence would be helpful for workers who might be afraid of seeking redress as they feel that they lack substantial evidence. The fourth theme I wish to touch on is transparency and information availability. While I respect the Government's emphasis on workplace harmony and confidentiality to safeguard all parties involved, secrecy may also undermine public confidence. One of the requirements regarding workplace discrimination claims is that the claims will be heard in a private setting. According to MOM, this provides a private forum for all the parties involved to air their views freely without "worrying that third parties may misrepresent or sensationalise issues in the public domain". However, Court judgments provide an important reference point for prospective claimants to understand from precedent whether their own case holds water. Moreover, it also educates the general public on the types of behaviour that would be unacceptable under these regulations and provides employers with an opportunity to review their own policies and processes. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question raised earlier this year by my Sengkang group representation constituency (GRC) colleague Ms He Ting Ru, the Manpower Minister shared that starting from the second half of 2026, the Judiciary would publish selected ECT judgments, while judgments would continue to be made available to individuals upon request and with the Courts' approval. Furthermore, ECT judgments are not subject to a gag order as well.”
“Meanwhile, some errant employers may deploy Performance Improvement Plans as a formality despite already being intent on terminating an employee's services. These actions might obfuscate discrimination beneath a veneer of legitimacy, thus making it harder for claimants to prove their case. The Disabled Persons Association of Singapore put forth that a victim should be required only to establish a prima facie case by adducing facts from which it may be presumed that the employer had discriminated against them. The burden should then shift to the employer to prove that it did not commit the alleged prohibited action. As I have shared in my speech earlier this year, the point about circumstantial evidence is an important one, given the colossal task faced by employees in proving discrimination. It is not easy to detect workplace discrimination as employers would attempt to hide it. For example, employers would not indicate in black and white that an employee is being terminated due to their age. But rather, the employee would perhaps hear it via word-of-mouth from a fellow colleague. In fact, they might even hear it directly from their line managers, but have no concrete recording of it, allowing him or her to subsequently deny having said such a thing at all. It would further add insult to injury if the employee were compelled to resign on his or her own accord, at least on paper, when he or she is compelled to do so given the discriminatory workplace environment. Hence, the employee would most likely have, at best, indirect or circumstantial evidence of any wrongdoing by the employer in such cases.”
“This observation is echoed by the Association of Women for Action and Research's (AWARE's) position paper on Discrimination in the Workplace, which highlights that where the claimant suspects that they had been discriminated against, they would prefer seeking redress via adjudication over mediation as they do not wish to settle the matter. Will the Government reconsider its position or leave the door open on mandatory mediation in future, at least for acute or egregious claims, empowering victims to opt for adjudication instead, if they so choose? In such cases, the ECT may still retain the option to direct the parties for mediation first, if it believes it to be appropriate, or accept the case and hear the case directly. My third theme is on the evidential burden. In employment discrimination claims, the power lies almost invariably with the employer who controls data, documents, HR decisions, appraisals, records, future opportunities, while the employee may have very limited evidence. This structural imbalance demands that the law provide a fairer evidential structure. Recommendation 15 of the Tripartite Committee's report notes that when lodging a workplace discrimination claim, the claimant should provide prima facie evidence such as emails, mobile phone messages or signed oral testimonies to support their case that discrimination has occurred. Can the Minister clarify the burden of proof and what would constitute sufficient evidence at the ECT, should a claimant wish to file a claim? It is often difficult to prove that an employer's adverse employment decision is due to discrimination on the basis of one's protected characteristic. Moreover, Singapore's employment laws do not require any reason to be furnished when terminating the services of an employee.”
“Should these efforts be unsuccessful, parties must attend mediation; currently a mandatory step before adjudication. The heavy emphasis on mediation for dispute resolution, according to the Tripartite Committee's report, is aimed at preserving workplace harmony and maintaining a non-litigious workplace culture. MOM's 2024 Employment Standards Report does suggest its effectiveness in resolving employment disputes, with over 80% of all employment claims that make it to the TADM resolved through mediation. However, I am concerned that all is not as it seems. Despite the report highlighting that 94% of employees who lodged salary claims fully recovered their salaries via the TADM and ECT, the fine print also states that the amount agreed between the involved parties during mediation is also considered as the full salary payable, even though this agreement might be reached due to compromise on the part of the claimant, thus resulting in them settling for less on the worry that "something is better than nothing". Further, concerns remain about mandatory mediation, especially after employment termination. Mediation works best when both parties participate in good faith, but claimants may be unwilling or unable to further engage, especially after experiencing psychological distress or toxic environments. Although the Tripartite Committee's report recommended compulsory mediation for both parties prior to the adjudication stage, it also acknowledged that workplace discrimination cases could be challenging to mediate.”
“On a tangential point about the claim limits for cases heard before the ECT, the $250,000 benchmark far exceeds the claim limits for salary and wrongful dismissal claims which are $20,000 and $30,000 respectively, depending on whether one attends union-facilitated mediation. Often, discriminatory practices, salary disputes and wrongful dismissal claims are intertwined and point towards poor workplace culture and hiring practices. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the call made in 2016 by WP MPs during the debate on the Employment Claims Bill, for the claim limits for salary and wrongful dismissal claims heard before the ECT to be reviewed and raised, which is all the more pertinent today, given that the claim limits under the ECT are now raised to $250,000 for discrimination. Next, on ensuring access to the claims process. The claims process must be accessible to the worker who is already disadvantaged compared to the employer, be it economically or in terms of information and other resources. Many workers with protected characteristics may not have the resources to engage in proceedings that they are unfamiliar with, to gather extensive documentary evidence or to take time off work to pursue claims, given the significant opportunity costs involved. It is shocking, yet telling, that according to the MOM's Fair Employment Practices Report for 2023, 70.7%, a significant majority of respondents who reported having experienced discrimination at work, did not seek help. Employers are now required to establish an internal grievance process for discrimination claims, and these serve to resolve issues at the ground level and preserve working relationships where possible.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this year, I spoke during the debate on the introduction of the Workplace Fairness Bill, where together with my fellow Workers' Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs), we raised several proposals to strengthen the Bill, such as prohibiting indirect discrimination, plugging the gaps in terms of characteristics which are not currently protected and legislating the right to request for reasonable accommodations, amongst others. I emphasised then that while the Bill was both timely and necessary, it also posed significant questions: whether the scope of protection is adequate, whether access to justice will be meaningful, and whether the reality of power asymmetries in the employment relationship will be sufficiently addressed. Today, we turn our attention to the second Bill on this matter, covering dispute resolution. An inclusive and just society demands robust protections against discrimination, not just regulatory compliance. I will address five linked themes: first, a review of claim limits across legislation; second, access to the claims process; third, evidential burden and power imbalance; fourth, transparency and information availability; and fifth, reconsidering the time bars. Under the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill, which sets out the grievance-handling process for workplace discrimination claims, parties involved in a workplace discrimination claim must first undergo mediation. If a settlement agreement is not reached, the case would be adjudicated at either the ECT for claims up to and inclusive of $250,000, or the High Court for amounts beyond that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Acting Minister. First, I understand from the CNA article that when speaking to the reporters back then, the Minister shared that the peak hour passenger load on the NEL is not close to the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) operating performance standards. I was wondering if the Minister can elaborate on this, because in relation to an earlier Parliamentary Question I filed in September, I had asked about the maximum passengers per hour per direction and capacity utilisation during peak hours. So, if the Acting Minister can give us a sense of these numbers to understand where it is today and where is the ideal level that LTA is looking at. The second supplementary question is in relation to the NEL today. Are there any technical limitations to increasing the frequency further in terms of reducing the time between trains or even, let us say, increasing it from the current six cars to seven or eight, depending on the possibilities?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First, I think, as early as in May, the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned that Singapore is pursuing preferential tariffs to the extent of even zero tariffs on pharmaceutical exports. And so, from that perspective, now that we are already in October, is the idea of having zero tariffs still a possibility, given the current environment? And secondly, more from a longer-term perspective, while companies like AstraZeneca, Pfizer and some of these big pharmaceutical companies are able to negotiate their own deals with the US, but more broadly for Singapore as a whole, and given that the European Union (EU) and Japan do already have their own tariff deals with the US, from Singapore's perspective, if the Minister of State can share the latest updates and what are some of the impediments to a deal with the US administration?”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank her and MND for reviewing the BTO eligibility age for singles. I just wanted to ask what are these right conditions that she mentioned in her speech, whether it is certain indicators or macroeconomic factors, or some factors that MND is considering, before taking the action to review the age? Because on the supply and demand side: demand, we do know that there is; and on supply, I think that is something within MND's control.”
“Extending the PQM method to other trade mix like dental and all that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions. Firstly, I do welcome the PQM at Bartley Beacon for the GP clinic. I just wanted to understand for subsequent renewals of the GP clinics at HDB estates, would there also be a similar requirement to have the quality of healthcare provision, being assessed as part of the renewal condition? And secondly, in terms of the PQM method for new tenders across other trade mix, such as dental and so on, are these also being considered?”
“Two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The first is in relation to the "Pay It Forward" free meals. Can I understand if NEA was aware of the contractual obligation of this, especially given that the operators would also have explained this to the hawkers themselves? And given, I think, what Senior Parliamentary Secretary said just now about how hawkers are not supposed to be making losses on these charitable initiatives, does NEA now take the view that these should not actually be part of the SEHC operator contractual agreements, and that these will be also included in the NEA guidelines going forward? The second is in relation to the part on my original PQ, in terms of whether the Ministry will review the current distribution of responsibility for the provision of affordable and free meals, given that now it seems to have befallen squarely on the hawkers themselves?”
“To ensure that no one is left behind, we must strengthen employment stabilisation policies in the short term and encourage the public sector and private enterprises to increase employment opportunities. At the same time, WP also calls on the Government to strengthen the social safety net to respond to the impact brought by AI. Most crucially, in the age of AI, education should not just be for examinations but should prepare people for life. We need to align education with economic needs and help students develop important soft skills. These human qualities cannot be replaced by AI and are essential for future social and economic development. In summary, Mr Speaker, a “we first” society also requires us to uphold the principle that collective interests take precedence over individual interests. However, unity cannot be built on inequality. When the nation achieves success but many citizens still feel forgotten, trust becomes difficult to maintain. We need not just economic growth but also inclusive growth that ensures every Singaporean can share in the nation's future. The true measure of our success lies not in GDP rankings or the size of sovereign wealth funds but in whether young Singaporean couples can afford to start families, whether our elderly can retire with dignity and whether our children are willing to call this island home.”
“] The 15th Parliament convenes at a critical juncture and we have a long road ahead. The nation faces severe challenges: geopolitics, the rivalry between the US and China, trade wars, and the revolutionary changes brought by AI will all test the collective wisdom and resilience of Singaporeans. The President spoke passionately, emphasising unity, trust, a “we first” society . I believe that the spirit of unity and “we first” Singapore does not mean everyone speaking with one voice, but rather, that we can address issues by exchanging different opinions with a rational and open attitude. The Workers' Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs) have always been a minority in Parliament. However, I believe that the presence of WP MPs can demonstrate the value of diverse voices and better embody the “we first” Singapore spirit mentioned by the President and Prime Minister. Especially in the coming five years, the variables in the international situation and the transformation of the global economy will become increasingly rapid. How to pool collective wisdom to respond to drastic changes is homework we must do. Therefore, I hope the Government can listen to different views from Singaporeans with an objective, rational and open attitude. From a policy-making perspective, some core issues are interconnected, for example, the various problems brought by AI and economic transformation. The Prime Minister mentioned that Singapore should embrace AI to improve productivity and create new employment opportunities. We agree that AI and new technologies can indeed help enterprises improve efficiency and drive innovation but, at the same time, we must also see that it will permanently change the employment environment. If we do not prepare in time, many Singaporeans will be left behind.”
“Individuals buying investment properties, prompting Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty measures; companies prioritising property over their core business; even Government that focuses on maximising rents and nothing less than market value for land, lest it be seen as raiding the Reserves. But such behaviour permeates every corner of the economy, raising costs. We must set the right tone at the top. Policy should not inevitably reward the highest bidder at the expense of wider societal outcomes. I am encouraged that there are initiatives for more price quality tenders downstream; and as a matter of policy, whether it is for general practitioner (GP) clinics or hawker stalls, we need to move away from simply awarding sites based on the highest price alone. I agree with Minister Ong Ye Kung in his response to the $52,000 monthly rental bid for a GP clinic at an HDB estate, where he shared that this must translate to higher cost of healthcare one way or another; and that the higher rental bids do not necessarily translate to the best healthcare that the community needs. Upstream, however, we must go further. State land forms part of our Reserves, but excessive land prices push up development costs and rents, impacting tenants and consumers. As a local C-suite member of one of Asia's largest real estate groups recently shared, in Singapore, land costs now form roughly 70% of total project development expenditure, up from just 4% in the 1980s when Raffles City was built. These costs inadvertently get passed down and perhaps, it is time to consider reviving the two envelope or concept and price land tenders, focusing on desired developmental outcomes beyond just the highest bids. Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“As Alvin Toffler wrote back in 1970, the illiterate of the future are not those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and re-learn. More pressing still is raising our total fertility rate (TFR), which slipped below one in 2023 and stayed low in 2024. Looking at our population pyramid, one might be forgiven for thinking we do not have an ageing population, thanks largely to immigration. We recently debated the Families Motion and without repeating myself, our low TFR remains an existential threat to Singapore and our identity. President Tharman pledged, "in this term, we will do more to help parents better manage their work and family commitments and work with stakeholders, such as employers and community partners to build a culture that celebrates and values families". Minister Indranee has said earlier that our marriage and parenthood policies are not incremental. But, perhaps, the most urgent task force we need now is one to tackle the critical challenge of our record-low TFR. Do we show the same resolve in tackling population as we do economic challenges? Because without enough Singaporeans, there will be no Singapore economy to speak of. Ultimately, our greatest challenge, in my view, is how to refrain from rent-seeking or rent-maximisation behaviour as a society. To develop an entrepreneurial culture and let the thousand flowers bloom, we must encourage open-mindedness and diversity of ideas. More entrepreneurs mean more risk takers, but this also requires robust safety nets so Singaporeans can pursue entrepreneurial or vocational change without risking destitution. We see rent-seeking across our society.”
“AI is the buzzword of the day, prompting reflection. You do not need huge physical space or underground natural resources. Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab is valued at US$12 billion, with just around 50 employees. Why do we not have our own open AI equivalent, despite Singaporean students having one of the best math and science scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), for decades? When local entrepreneurs succeed, many still choose overseas listings and foreign bases to access supportive ecosystems. This despite our financial hub status and acclaimed business friendliness. Prime Minister Wong's Addendum to the President's Address highlights investing in productive capacity, ensuring stable tax, customs, regulatory environment and infrastructure investment. To me, these are necessary, but insufficient conditions. Because, as what President Tharman has said, "Above all, we must foster an outgoing and experimental spirit among our enterprises and people." In the near term, it is crucial to prevent a lost generation by securing jobs. Young graduates are justifiably anxious. AI-driven seniority-biased technological change may disproportionately impact juniors and entry-level positions. Grades is a good start, but full-time entry-level role creation must also be incentivised. For example, reintroducing the jobs growth incentive for fresh graduates. If GRaduate Industry Traineeships @ Gov (GRIT@Gov) mimic full-timer duties, then the Government should take the lead in levelling pay and benefits. Long term, re-invigorating our workforce demands that our education system fosters critical thinking and independent learning, not rote memorisation.”
“I acknowledge that we have been attempting to refresh our economic strategies and Singapore has never lacked taskforces or committees: the Economic Strategies Committee launched in 2009; the Committee on the Future Economy in 2016; which was followed by the Future Economy Council; Future Economy Advisory Panel; Industry Transformation Maps; then the Emerging Stronger Taskforce in 2020; and most recently, the Economic Strategy Review and Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce this year. Many even have multiple sub-committees. However, if you take stock of where we are today, our economy remains very much driven by attracting global MNCs and capital. This is a model that has prevailed since Albert Winsemius advised Singapore in the 1960s. Looking at the share of value-add to the indigenous workforce and citizen-owned companies, this has declined from roughly 70% in the late 1980s, to 50% to 60% in the decade prior to 2015. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) shared, in response to my Parliamentary Question in 2022, that the Department of Statistics ceased indigenous GDP and gross national income (GNI) data compilation from 2011 and 2016, respectively, due to the perceived lack of public interest. But these numbers are crucial. The Yearbook of Statistics 2012 noted eloquently that Singapore's economic development depends heavily on foreign capital, foreign technology and foreign workers, with a large share of employee compensation and operating surplus accruing to foreigners and foreign enterprises. Per capital GNI, as conventionally defined on the residential basis, may not, therefore, reflect correctly the income accrued to Singaporeans. How then can we reverse this? How many homegrown Singapore firms have become global giants?”
“On the capital front, the focus remains on attracting foreign direct investments (FDIs) to anchor multinational companies (MNCs) here. Singapore is still keen to continue incentivising MNCs, in spite of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 and the global minimum tax. And with regulatory certainty and the rule of law in place in Singapore, as opposed to what we are seeing in other countries, including the US right now, I am sure there will be companies keen to locate themselves here. On the labour front, again in this fractured world, there will be many who will want to call Singapore home. Non-resident employment growth continues to stay at elevated levels of 152,000 across 2023 and 2024, according to MOM statistics, reflecting both the demand and supply of non-resident labour. However, there are limits to growth by boosting capital and labour. The world's largest economy, the US, increasingly ties trade agreements to domestic investment for tariff reductions. How will global supply chains shift and will Singapore's economic relevance continue to endure in this new world order? Meanwhile, Singapore's population has touched six million, raising questions: how much further can we drive economic growth through workforce expansion in one of most densely populated cities in the world? While the Government had anticipated for our population to remain well below the 6.9 million mentioned in the 2013 population White Paper, a 2% annual increase, which is the same rate as that of last year, would see us reach roughly 6.8 million by 2030; and at 1%, we would still hit 6.4 million. So, Mr Speaker, I fully agree with our President that we need to urgently rethink our playbook.”
“Yet the troubling paradox remains. According to ADP, 60% of Singaporeans are living paycheck to paycheck as of 2024, a figure that surpasses regional neighbours, like China, Korea, Japan, Indonesia. And why is the cost of living the top voter concern, according to the Institute of Policy Studies' (IPS') post-election survey, when we are supposedly one of the richest countries in the world? In our day-to-day interactions, we witness residents anxious about their financial security and seeking help through MPS. Moreover, are Singaporeans truly happy and satisfied? Though ranked the world's third happiest city by the Institute for the Quality of Life in 2025, one cannot help but feel a healthy dose of scepticism as to whether this reflects the lived reality of most Singaporeans. Numerous surveys in recent years point to widespread workplace burnout. One in four primary school students experience bullying. And we see all these manifestations of anxieties and stress around us, from growing neighbour disputes and noise complaints, to road rage and superiors lashing out against junior employees. What gives? Singapore's economy is at a crossroads. Economic growth, growing the pie has always been the Government's fundamental goal and the Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong recently affirmed that we should grow as much as we can, aiming for rates faster than the eventual 2% to 3% long-term target. This is not wrong in principle. But we must now ask, is it more important to grow the pie or to grow most Singaporeans' share of the pie? President Tharman reminds us, "The old playbook is no longer sufficient." Yet, in the short term, much remains largely unchanged.”
“Mr Speaker, as we mark SG60 this year, it is clear that Singapore has attained significant achievements by most standards – from third world to first, from mud flats to metropolis, as the Singapore story goes. Today, Singapore stands as the world's fourth richest country by GDP per capita, around US$93,000, according to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) 2025 projections and ranks 26th globally by a total of GDP, notwithstanding our modest size, making us ASEAN's second largest economy, surpassing in Thailand which has a population exceeding 71 million. We often label ourselves as a small country with limited resources, no hinterland of our own, but, perhaps, in this century, physical size and natural resources have become secondary. Singapore's population exceeds most of the top 10 GDP per capita countries and many of which do not enjoy abundant natural resources. Africa's struggles with the resource curse reminds us that natural endowments are no guarantee of prosperity. I am sure everyone knows of Nvidia, now the world's most valuable company at more than US$4 trillion or roughly $5.5 trillion, yet it employs merely 36,000 workers. Consider instead, one of the largest palm oil plantation companies listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, which employs over 100,000 workers and yet creates far less value with a market capital of about $4 billion. Which model do we aspire towards? Human capital and financial resources now loom larger than natural endowments or physical space. According to a recent article from The Financial Times, they believe GIC could well be the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, with assets worth somewhere between US$1 trillion and $2 trillion, a testament to Singapore's success in capital accumulation at the national level.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, to what extent is there the close monitoring of the victims as well as the perpetrators after the bullying – on the part of victims, when it comes to adherence to the safety plan; and for the perpetrators, the adherence to any long-term interventions and rehabilitation? Second is, in terms of the existing review that is ongoing, where does the Minister or the Ministry see as the current gaps that need to be further strengthened and when can we expect these to be announced?”
“Speaker, two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first, in relation to the question on the penalties and the incidents specifically, I understand that in relation to last year's East-West Line (EWL) breakdown for about six days, I think the penalty was reduced from $3 million to $2.4 million. I wanted to double check, specifically on the Rapid Transit Systems Act, the operators can be fined to a maximum of higher of $1 million or 10% of the fare revenues. And so, with a reduction in the fine, would the Minister be concerned that the deterrent effect would actually be lessened as a result? The second supplementary question, in relation to the 15 key incidents that LTA has put out last Friday, for these incidents, I note that the Government will be putting in an additional $1 billion to raise the reliability and maintenance standards. What are the corresponding requirements on the part of each of the operators, in terms of the additional investments that they may have to put in? And at the same time, given the incidents, the Ministry's view on the financial penalties that have been imposed?”
“Thank you. I was just wondering in terms of the review that is currently ongoing, whether or not a licensing regime for groomers is actually being considered?”
“The licensing regime – whether it is being considered?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two quick supplementary questions from me. The first is on the Code of Animal Welfare (for the Pet Industry) that the Senior Minister of State mentioned. How does the NParks ensure that these minimum standards are actually being adhered to? And second, I note that there is currently no licensing regime for pet groomers, and as part of the review, whether this is also being considered?”