Dennis Tan Lip Fong
Singapore
“Yes, Sir. By combining practical experience with advanced analytics, we can transform traditional operational careers in the highly productive technology-enabled professions, ensuring that more high-value decision-making and better paying jobs remain in Singapore.”
“When Singapore officers are deployed at Bukit Chagar in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, do they enjoy the same legal protections and operational autonomy as their Malaysian counterparts enjoy when stationed in Singapore?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Relating to one issue of co-parenting, I would like to ask will the Ministry consider granting foster parents synchronised access to the child's Health Buddy app? Currently, foster parents have no access to the app and require the cooperation of biological parents.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Would the Ministry consider a tiered co-payment model for private providers similar to the EIPIC-P scheme where middle-income families can pay a regulated rate for a fixed number of additional private therapy hours to supplement their child's public intervention?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Government for acknowledging the gap regarding the software-driven energy degradation and for the commitment to monitor and test when necessary.”
“Yes, just a quick clarification. I thank the Minister of State for the answers and the details. The feedback I receive is pertaining, especially to making appointments, because there have been instances where foster parents experience appointments being cancelled without their knowledge, and then having to arrive at the hospital unnecessa…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,079 lines we hold for Dennis Tan Lip Fong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 22.
“I have two clarifications. My first clarification is for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Dr Syed Harun. Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary be able to give a clearer timeline for the LUP for the 40 blocks? At least give an indication, for example, does HDB expect this to be carried out within the next two years or five years? My second clarification is for Minister of State Alvin. Minister of State Alvin was replying regarding the part in my cut on avoid-minimise-mitigate and he was giving some examples of how the Ministry may have carried out their obligation under "avoid". I just want to make a clarification regarding this. And if I may, I would like to also go back to his remarks in the Adjournment Motion as an example for this clarification. And in the Adjournment Motion, in his reply, he has cited, for example and this is what is stated in my cut, the current bus depot construction at Serangoon River Forest. He said that, "Technical agencies have assessed that this site is not a sensitive nature area and environmental impact of the bus depot is limited. Hence, an environmental study was not required." Regretfully, no details of this study was done, and the extent of the study was done and, hence, in my Adjournment Motion as well as in my cut. Let me go back to the cut; I had called on MND to consolidate —”
“The former could have been more cost effective, not to mention that LUP costs would have been lower, say, 10 to 15 years ago or definitely before COVID? Mr Chairman, we must not let the remaining residents without same floor lift access, be defined by the technical limits of a bygone era. I urge the Government to bridge this final mile and ensure that every HDB homeowner can edge in place with the dignity of same floor lift access.”
“The Minister for National Development's reply to my Parliamentary Question of 3 February 2026 revealed that of the 140 blocks in Singapore with no full same floor lift access, 100 blocks remain unfeasible, because cost of LUP exceeds $200,000 per unit. The Minister also said that LUP will be extended to the other 40 more blocks progressively. May we know which are these blocks and how soon will LUP be awarded? With a clear roadmap, residents in the remaining blocks will not be in a state of anxious limbo. Notwithstanding increase of the value of the lift access housing grant to $80,000, many affected residents have told me that they do not want to be uprooted and they want to stay in their homes with dignity. These architectural barriers result from an outdated design before the mid-90s. Residents did not choose them. In fact, during a recent house visit, one affected Block 832 resident told me that at the time of choosing the unit, they were not told that it did not come with same floor lift access, unlike other units in the same block. Whether it is a historical architectural debt or an HDB debt, providing same floor lift access is only fair to all HDB homeowners. I would therefore like to ask the Minister: one, please define a clear timeline for LUP for the 40 blocks. Let the residents know as soon as possible HDB's LUP plans for them. Two, please consider removing the proposed hard cap for the remaining 100 blocks and set aside a dedicated final amount to fund for LUP. Former Hougang MP Mr Png Eng Huat, had said in this House previously, to the effect that why were the affected blocks not combined with other neighbouring blocks in previous bulk LUP projects in the earlier days, instead of tendering difficult blocks for LUP by themselves later on?”
“A case in point is the current bus depot construction at the Serangoon River Forest. We must exhaustively evaluate alternatives, such as multi-storey industrial depots and existing transport nodes before touching our remaining green buffers. 12.30 pm Same Floor Lift Access for All HDB Flats The lift upgrading programme was launched by HDB in 2001 to provide residents with lift access to every floor. In this year's COS, I am asking once again for same floor lift access for all residents. This is not merely about convenience. It is a fundamental issue of equity, safety and dignity. As our population ages, a few steps become a daily insurmountable wall, separating seniors and those with mobility challenges from their community and essential services. HDB's common reply to my many appeal letters to HDB, on behalf of residents, without same floor lift access in the past few years, was that such blocks are not eligible for Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) due to high cost and/or technical constraints. In Hougang, recent breakthroughs are both welcome and puzzling. In 2023, HDB started work on offering LUP for Block 833 Hougang Central. In September 2025, HDB offered LUP to the remaining units at Block 363 Hougang Avenue 5. On 6 September 2024, HDB replied in writing to my appeal for a Block 363 resident, stating explicitly that the cost per flat had, I quote, "exceeded the LUP cost cap substantially, hence, we are unable to implement LUP", unquote. Yet, barely 12 months later, HDB changed their minds. Affected residents at the remaining Blocks 830, 831, 832 and 835 have wondered why did HDB offered LUP to remaining units of Blocks 833 and 363, but not their blocks. No reasons have been offered by HDB for their change of minds.”
“The determination of ecological sensitivity remains opaque. Currently, the public often only sees the results of an environmental impact assessments (EIA) once a project is decided. We rarely see the screening process that concludes that an EIA is unnecessary. However, even back in 1990, Prof Tommy Koh had, in the forward for the Nature Society of Singapore's Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore, expressed hope that, "All development projects in Singapore will require an environmental impact assessment." I call on MND to consolidate its assessment framework into two mandatory commitments. One, integrated baseline and functional assessments, where the Ministry commit to conducting a baseline study for all forested plots, regardless of zoning, that evaluate both biodiversity and functional climate roles, including heat mitigation and flood absorption, before any development decision is finalised. Two, institutionalising EIA transparency. Will the Ministry mandate an EIA and include clearer thresholds for duration of fallow status and site size? For a start, studies have shown that a brownfield site can become ecologically important within five to 10 years and become significant mature ecosystems after another 10 years. Even small sites between point-one and point-five hectares can become ecologically meaningful in the same time period, depending on their function and location. Crucially, if the Government decides an EIA is not needed, can the Ministry publish the assessment and scientific rationale? In conclusion, the avoid-minimise-mitigate hierarchy is a cornerstone of environmental policy. Yet too often, we jump straight to mitigate, for example, using noise barriers or phased clearing while avoid is treated as a foregone conclusion.”
“During my Adjournment Motion in January, I spoke about the urgent need to rethink our approach to green preservation. In response, the Minister of State characterised the Serangoon River Forest site as a former landfill, regenerated vegetation and comprising of, "young, exotic-dominated secondary forest, scrubland, grassland and ponds." I have since received feedback from a resident, Ms Han Sai Por, who articulated a point at the heart of this policy gap. She said that the disagreement is not about the intent to be sustainable. It is about the valuation of our land, the problem with static planning. Our current planning system is heavily anchored in the past. If a site was a landfill in 1998 or zoned as a reserve site decades ago, that historical classification seems to override the biological reality of 2026. Yet, over the last 25 years, nature has reclaimed these spaces. The secondary forest, while not primary, now provide frontline climate resilience, riverbank stabilisation, run-off filtration and significant urban cooling for dense neighbourhoods. The case for dynamic planning. We must move away from a purely species-centric lands that dismisses young forests to a resident worried about the urban heat island effect. The cooling services are not lesser because the trees are non-native. Some countries are starting to put the revitalisation of brownfield sites as a nature-based solution strategy high on their policy agenda. Is it time we start doing the same? Does our current planning framework sufficiently value these re-generated ecosystems? How is the ecosystem service value, such as flood regulation and heat mitigation, quantified when deciding whether to clear a site? Firm commitments on transparency and assessment.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. The reason why I filed this Parliamentary Question is arising from a concern expressed by a resident who is a medical professional working in a hospital. The concern of my resident is that there should be an independent and transparent process of handling feedback, not by the hospital in question, purely because the concern that perhaps the hospital may, in certain circumstances, take the side of the patient rather than the staff. And also, in addition to that, for more independent tracking and monitoring, whether from a patient point of view or from a staff point of view, there would be more independence if it is done on a centralised and by an independent authority or body, rather than a hospital in question. There may be some conflict of interest as well when it comes to that hospital.”
“For example, Switzerland's Swiss Plastic Pipe Recycling Initiative is working to establish a take-back and recycling system for plastic pipes used in civil engineering and building construction. There is strong potential for recycled plastics to become a strategic material — 7.30 pm”
“Because these emissions are accounted for as waste disposal, rather than climate impact, poor plastics recovery can be offset rhetorically by energy recovery. The material outcome, however, is the destruction of recyclable plastics and a continued reliance on new manufactured plastics. This creates a risk that incineration is presented as environmental performance when the outcome is that more fossil fuel may be consumed while sustaining a reality where incentives to improve recycling remain weak. If we truly want to transit to a circular economy as laid out by the Singapore Green Plan, it is imperative that we build an ecosystem that sustains recycling even when external market conditions deteriorate. We must continue to find ways to reduce our reliance on incineration when plastics recycling ceases to be commercially viable. We can consider expanding extended producer responsibility beyond beverage containers to cover all packaging, including e-commerce mailers and food delivery containers, building on mandatory packaging reporting. This would shift costs upstream, improve packaging design and fund the collection and sorting capacity needed for meaningful recycling. To create demand for recycled plastics, the Government can also mandate that plastic bottles, packaging and goods must contain a minimum percentage of recycled plastics. Such a practice has been mandated by the European Union, as well as the state of California. The Government can also use public procurement as a market anchor. Schools, hospitals and agencies can build demand by only purchasing plastic bins, road barriers, pipes and park furniture made from recycled plastic.”
“Singapore's overall recycling rate remains above 50%, but this figure is stabilised by industrial waste streams that are almost fully recycled. Beyond that headline, the picture weakens quickly. Plastics are now the largest waste stream by volume, yet our plastic recycling rate has fallen significantly from 11% in 2013 to a mere 4.6% in 2024. It is estimated that the manufacturing of plastics consumes the same amount of fossil fuel as the entire aviation industry, and at the same time used plastics. Used plastics can hold a high economic value if recycled. Why manufacture new plastics and increase our carbon footprint when we can reuse recycled ones? With the climate warming and Semakau expected to be full by 2035, our margin for error is narrow. This gap between headline performance and material outcomes points to a deeper structural issue. A study by Singapore Environmental Council found that waste managers see it as economically challenging to recycle plastics because there is no local demand for it. They concluded that plastics recycling rates will not change unless the demand for recycled plastic increases. At the same time, Singapore's recycling system is highly exposed to global market conditions. When demand for recycled materials weakens, when freight costs rise, or when importing countries tighten contamination rules, exporting recyclables become expensive or unavailable. This was most evident following China's national salt policy and similar measures elsewhere. In such conditions, market actors respond rationally by choosing the cheapest available option, which is often incineration. Incineration reduces landfill volume, but plastics are fossil fuel-based and their combustion releases fossil carbon into the atmosphere.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. This is a long-standing riding culture issue, and I have spoken on this previously. The legal duty to keep a proper lookout almost always means that many motorists are often slapped with a minimal level of contributory negligence, whether via TP prosecution or in the civil Courts. With the recent practices of the prosecution and the Courts asking or imposing stricter sentences, including custodial sentences when a person is injured in a traffic accident, I would like to ask the authorities to consider that it would not always be as fair for a motorist to receive harsher punishment if he is involved in an accident with a cyclist who is blatantly not compliant with the law, for example, riding against traffic, beating red lights, not having lights at night or even not wearing helmets and risking more serious injury during an accident. I would also like to ask the Ministry of Home Affairs to take sterner actions to stop or reduce these unsafe and illegal practices to achieve better parity with the legal risks faced by motorists on the roads and work with LTA to improve the cycling culture. Finally, beyond patrols and spot checks, how is the Ministry leveraging on closed-circuit televisions or other methods to identify repeat offenders riding against traffic or without lights?”
“During puberty, the brain undergoes a phase delay. Their bodies do not release melatonin until much later. It has been said that waking a teen at 6.00 am is physiologically equivalent to waking an adult at 3.00 am. We cannot legislate against the circadian rhythm. While MOE has brought forward personal learning device default sleep modes to 10.30 pm, we must also address wake times. Currently, many primary school students on early bus routes are picked up from 6.00 am or even earlier. Shifting to 8.30 am ensures students do not start their day exhausted. I propose an integrated school day for primary school starting at 8.30 am and ending at 3.30 pm. By incorporating co-curricular activities (CCAs), structured work instead of homework and remedials into these hours, we ensure that when a child reaches home, school responsibilities are largely complete, making the lights out boundary more achievable. Rather than relying on school level autonomy, we need a clear national standard. Let us set the bell for 8.30 am and give our children the rest they need to reach their full potential. Introduce Entrepreneurship in Schools”
“Sir, Chairman, the Grow Well SG initiative correctly identifies sleep as a fundamental pillar of the seed habit framework, referring to sleep, eat, exercise and device usage. I am calling for MOE to set a national standard to synchronise school start times to 8.30 am for primary, secondary schools and junior colleges, alongside an integrated school day specifically for primary school levels. This build on calls by my hon friend, Sengkang Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, regarding the benefits of later start time for adolescent health. Current data is sobering. The 2024 Singapore Youth epidemiology and resilience study shows nearly 85% of secondary school students feeling unrested, while Duke NUS research indicates they average only six and a half hours of sleep, well below the recommended eight to 10 hours. The stakes are equally high for our primary school students. Between ages seven and 12, a child's brain and body are in a state of rapid fundamental construction. Science tells us that deep sleep stage, non-Rapid Eye Movement sleep is when the pituitary gland releases the vast majority of growth hormones necessary for physical development. For these younger children, getting the recommended 10 hours of sleep is not a luxury. It is a biological requirement for physical health and cognitive wiring. When a primary school student is chronically under slept, the first thing to suffer is executive function, the ability to manage emotions, follow instructions and focus. We see this manifesting in classrooms as increased irritability and the lack of resilience. By failing to protect their sleep, we are effectively handicapping their formative years, trading long-term neurological health for short-term academic grind. For adolescents, this is a matter of biology.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one supplementary question. I would like to ask whether the Minister of State can advise on the timeline for a private estate, which has not been upgraded, for example. When will the current footpaths, which are currently blocked or not accessible for Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs), when does the Government expect that these footpaths can be modified for use, without the PMAs having to use the road?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did not file a cut for the MFA this year, but I do have a clarification I would like to seek. I thank Minister of State Zhulkarnain. I think he mentioned the significance of setting up an embassy in Mexico, and being I think the first embassy in the Spanish-speaking world, if I heard him correctly. I just want to seek a clarification. Given the ongoing unrest and violence created by the drug gangs at the moment, what is MFA's position on our plans to set up the embassy and will the ongoing issues affect our plans?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions. First, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. My first supplementary question, will the Ministry of National Development (MND) consider complementing the green plot ratio with an indicator that reflects ecological value, such as the use of native species or support for urban wildlife, by mandating a native biodiversity score, so that our green spaces contribute to quality greenery and biodiversity to beyond visual amenity, and in the case of LUSH, to discourage ornamental plants with lower ecological value? My second supplementary question, the UK's framework requires a mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain for new developments. Has MND considered adopting a similar quantitative baseline in the interest of transparency and accountability? I believe that with a measurable net-gain target, it can better assist MND to ensure that our City in Nature vision is maintaining or improving functional habitats over time. My third supplementary question, the Ecological Profiling Exercise (EPE) identifies critical stepping stones for wildlife, but many LUSH-compliant developments remain isolated in green islands rather than contagious green linkages. Has MND considered more explicitly aligning existing programmes, like LUSH, more directly to EPE-identified priority corridors, so that developments in these locations contribute to strengthening ecological connectivity beyond isolated green plots?”
“A transition is only green if it is also just. Notwithstanding my concerns and clarifications, I support the Budget.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Budget proposes to accelerate the development of AI, establish a national AI Council and launch multiple industry AI programmes. I support this direction of technological development. However, I already raised during the Committee of Supply debate for the Prime Minister's Office last year that the energy consumption and carbon emission of generative AI are growing very rapidly. Can we talk about green transition on one hand whilst underestimating the urgency of this programme on the other? Although the Government has launched a Green Data Centre Roadmap and set energy saving targets, if overall usage continues to expand, the so-called efficiency improvements may very well be offset by rebound effects. Therefore, in terms of enterprise innovation grants, we should encourage the development of more energy-efficient, "Small AI" and task-specific models rather than uniformly using large general-purpose models across the board. We cannot become a destination for high energy workload transfers. We should require large AI companies to disclose energy data to protect the interests of the national grid and taxpayers. Whilst promoting digital transformation, we must also care for seniors with lower digital capabilities to ensure that they are not left behind in this wave of AI development. (In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me round up my speech. We cannot achieve our 2040 and 2050 targets with a slow-charged mindset that ignores the practical realities of our people, whether we are discussing the carbon footprints of AI, the hurdles of EV adoption or the fundamental right to affordable dental care, the common thread is clear.”
“A letter to The Straits Times' Forum Page by Mr Stephen Tan described a similar situation where his 83-year-old mother's teeth extraction had to be done at the National Dental Centre satellite clinic at Changi General Hospital due to fear of complications. But she was denied PG or CHAS subsidies for the procedure. I urge the Ministry to harmonise these subsidies so that our seniors are not financially, penalised because their dental-related medical needs require a hospital setting. Finally, we must address the rising anxiety over Integrated Shield plan premiums. From April 2026, new Integrated Plan (IP) riders will no longer cover deductibles and co-payment caps will rise $6,000. While intended to curb over consumption and rightly so, this shift, combined with rising premiums may drive many to abandon private healthcare, potentially overwhelming our public search capacity. For many seniors with pre-existing conditions, retaining an IP is not a luxury. It is a necessity for timely treatment. Yet, many find it frustrating that their hard-earned MediSave savings are locked once they hit the basic healthcare sum. At age 65, any excess is moved by \default to the Retirement Account. While this boosts monthly payout, it does not help with the lump sum nature of annual insurance premiums which can reach several thousand dollars. Therefore, will the CPF Board consider allowing CPF members who have me their Basic Healthcare Sum to retain a portion of excess funds in their Ordinary Account or a dedicated insurance sub-account. This will allow them to withdraw funds specifically for IP premiums. By helping Singaporeans maintain their private insurance, we moderate the demand on our public system, ensuring national healthcare delivery remains sustainable for all.”
“According to NHG Health, the proportion at-risk of malnutrition among hospital patients aged 65 and above rose from three in 10 in 2022 to four in 10 in 2024. Preventive care is the heart of healthy ageing. Yet, dental care remains excluded from our national preventive scheme – Healthier SG. For the third time in this House, I call for dental care to be integrated into Healthier SG. We must treat oral health as a basic pillar of well-being, not an optional extra. Healthier SG connects us to a family doctor clinic. They will help manage our chronic diseases and monitors our health habits and carries out preventive care that can help us stay healthy and active. The same is needed for preventive care for good oral health. And to better care for our seniors, we must also prioritise improving affordability and accessibility of preventive care for oral health. Affordability of dental care remains an issue for many Singaporeans. Notwithstanding the higher subsidies and MediSave use for tooth saving treatments, we must address the subsidy gap for complex cases. Currently, patients referred to tertiary institutions, like the National Dental Centre for complicated procedures, often due to pre-existing frailty, find themselves ineligible for the same Pioneer Generation CHAS subsidies they will receive at the polyclinic. My hon friend, Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member, Kenneth Leong's recent Parliamentary Question, asked about extending subsidies for complex denture cases that had to be referred to a tertiary institution.”
“Will the Ministry consider upfront purchase incentive for motorcycles to bridge this gap? Furthermore, the $40,000 incentive under the Heavy Vehicles Zero Emissions Scheme, launched on 1 January 2026 may remain under-utilised unless we can move faster on shortlisted hydrogen pilots or permanent battery swap licences to support our delivery community and logistics sector. Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot hit 2040 targets with a slow charged mindset. A transition is only green if it does not leave our workers or our residents in the raid. Our people need a transition that is fair, funded and fundamentally just. Mr Deputy Speaker, I need speak on healthcare. I spoke about the overlooked issue of dental care in our healthcare system in my Budget debate speech last year and I welcomed the announcement during the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) COS debate for higher dental subsidies and flexi-Medisave use for patients aged 60 and above for root canal treatments and permanent crowns at Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) clinics and public healthcare institutions last year. But I still hope more can be done. A recent longitudinal study by the Centre for Ageing, Research and Education at Duke-NUS Medical School revealed that nearly one-third of our seniors have not seen a dentist in over five years. Assoc Prof Rahul Malhotra noted, many visit only when they have a problem but missing the window for prevention. Poor oral health, such as untreated tooth decay, gum disease, ill-fitting dentures or tooth loss, has important consequences. Dr Eugene Tang, President of Singapore Dental Association opined in a recent letter to The Straits Times that it can affect chewing ability and nutrition, leading to unintended weight loss, reduce muscle strength and increased frailty.”
“I call for the establishment of a dedicated just transition fund to assist, not just the 500 workers laid off, but to help all workers in the petrochemical industry in the coming years who may be affected as we transition away from fossil fuels, including providing specific guidance in transiting to different industry or jobs. Three, electrification of land transport. Next, we must apply this same rigour to land transport. Prime Minister announced in his Budget speech that Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF) rebates have now been lowered by 45% across the board and the maximum rebate has been reduced from $60,000 to $30,000. Industry observers have said that this is likely to dampen industry demand for non-electric vehicles (non-EVs), as this will increase the depreciation of non-EV cars while EVs are unlikely to be affected. Mr Deputy Speaker, while the change in PARF rebates may help to nudge car sales for EVs, the EY 2025 Mobility Consumer Index found that 42% of Singaporean buyers cite battery replacement cost as a primary reason they are shifting back to petrol or hybrid vehicles. Prior to the recent PARF announcement, the resale cliff has been a growing risk. As of 1 January 2026, the Early Adoption Incentive rebate cap has dropped to $7,500 and used EVs are taking longer to sell than internal combustion engine cars, resulting in the decline of EVs' resale value. I urge the Government to study consumer concerns about EV battery longevity and replacement costs and consider how to strengthen consumer confidence in this area. Mr Deputy Speaker, our 2040 goal for 100% cleaner energy vehicle is at-risk of becoming a two-speed transition. While electric cars have increased despite having their own issues, motorcycle adoption remains stuck at a mere 0.2%.”
“This requires a more transparent approach to land use that recognises the inherent climate value of our natural ecosystems. It is strategically superior to preserve existing green belts for heat mitigation, such as the Serangoon River Forest, than to rely on artificial parks. I call on Ministry of National Development (MND) to institutionalise mandatory functional assessment for all forested sites before any developments to protect these vital assets and will elaborate on this at the COS. Two, adjust transition for Singapore's petrochemical industry. A balanced transition must also be just. Mr Deputy Speaker, the sale of Shell's assets now known as the Aster Energy and Chemicals Park raises serious long-term questions regarding our serious transition plans. We need clarity on whether the current owners' lease includes mandatory decarbonisation milestones to prevent Bukom from becoming a carbon haven where emissions are simply offloaded to new entities rather than reduced. Beyond infrastructure, we must also address the human costs. In October 2025, ExxonMobil announced it would retrench up to 500 workers in Singapore by 2027. What specific retraining support is being provided to these hundreds of workers affected by such structural shifts? If we can find $500 million to finance regional green infrastructure via the Financing Asia's Transition Partnership fund, I am sure we can also find the resources to ensure no Singaporean worker is left behind.”
“I am particularly heartened by his firm commitment that despite global trends, retreating from climate action is not an option for our own nation. Last month, I asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment about our plans to submit a National Adaptation Plan (NAP) to the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change. I thank the Minister for her reply, noting that the inaugural NAP will be published in 2027 and will incorporate the Belem adaption indicators adopted at COP30. The Belem outcome was a pivotal moment, highlighting that that adaption is not just about engineering. It is about people. While our current strategy addresses coastal and heat resilience, I urge the Government to more explicitly integrate the Belem pillars of biodiversity and poverty and livelihoods into our national climate framework. Our current focus on infrastructure must be matched by a commitment to the social and ecological dimensions of the climate crisis. In Belem, the Mutirao Decision emphasised that climate action must be people-centred. We need a plan that tracks not just the height of our sea walls, but the resilience of our homes against the urban heat island effect, including but not limited to challenges of rising cooling costs. This leads me to the urgent need to protect our biodiversity. As I argued in my Adjournment Motion last month, we must fundamentally rethink how we justify the trade-offs between development and the preservation of our existing green spaces. We must plan for the resilience of our homes against the urban heat island effect, including rising cooling costs. This requires us to value existing green forested sites as strategic green belts, even if they are not original primary forests and have been subject to previous development.”
“If data centre developers want to benefit from Singapore's strategic location, they should also play their part in supporting grid reliability and the development of further renewable electricity capacity. And while I do accept that the Government has taken steps to accelerate the expansion of renewable electricity availability in Singapore, setting up the Future Energy Fund and the Singapore Energy Interconnections, the roadmap still needs to be clearer. True leadership in AI is not about the number of AI champions we can produce but about how sustainably we can grow this sector. If we are to achieve our net-zero 2050 commitments, the National AI Council must bridge the gap between digital ambition and environmental reality. We need more than just incentives. We need a clear regulatory framework that mandates energy disclosures for large-scale AI developers, like the European Union (EU) which will begin mandating energy disclosures for large AI developers by August this year. As I stated in my Prime Minister's Office cut last year, by being an early adopter of carbon-conscious AI regulations, Singapore can turn our resource constraints into a competitive advantage, exporting sustainable AI expertise to a world that is increasingly waking up to the ecological cause of the global AI race. Mr Deputy Speaker, like in my Budget debate speeches over the last few years, I next touch on green transition. I have consistently argued that Singapore's green transition must be more than a collection of ambitious targets. It must be transparent, inclusive and socially just process. Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Prime Minister's focus on chartering a sustainable future and his candid assessment of the climate challenges that Singapore faces.”
“25 in the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) latest Data Centre – Call for Application (DC-CFA2), which will also require software level accountability ensuring that the AI Solutions receiving Government funding, including those under the enhanced Enterprise Innovation Scheme prioritise small AI and task-specific models that require a fraction of the energy of general purpose large language models (LLMs). We must not be the target for the migration of inefficient workloads to regions with fewer software level environmental regulations. We must also mandate transparency for the software that consumes energy. Just as importantly, I am concerned that recent move to allow more data centre construction will enable data centres to outcompete households and smaller businesses in Singapore in electricity purchases with the majority of our low carbon electricity import projects still in early development. Green electrons continue to be in short supply in Singapore, over the next few years. On one hand, households and small businesses may not benefit from the greening of the grid remaining exposed to the virality of the global gas market at a time of geopolitical unrest. On the other hand, Singapore's latest data centre requirements are relatively lax compared to other advanced states. While Ireland requires data centres to be active partners in grid reliability through 100% on-site, backup capacity and 80% renewable matching, our current DC-CFA2 framework only targets 50% green energy, leaving a significant gap that our national grid and, by extension, the ordinary taxpayer must bridge.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Budget 2026 sets an ambitious AI trajectory. But we must ensure our green transition is not sidelined by its energy demands. Resilience requires addressing the inherent trade-offs of such growth. Building on my previous Budget speeches, I will also be speaking on other pertinent aspects of green transition and healthcare issues. AI push. The Prime Minister's announcement of the formation of a National AI Council and the launch of sector-specific AI missions signal a clear intent to move toward Government-supported application of AI in sectors that are key to Singapore's economy and society. However, as we double down on this AI push with tax deductions and the new One North AI Park, we must not lose sight of the unseen costs. During the Committee of Supply debate for the Prime Minister's Office last year, I raised a cut specifically on the staggering increase in energy and carbon use that comes with generative AI. I cautioned then that an indiscriminate rush to integrate large-scale models for every minor task is a luxury our carbon-constrained nation cannot afford. While the Government has introduced the Green Data Centre Road Map, the current pace of AI adoption may risk outstripping our efficiency gains. We are seeing a rebound effect, where more efficient hardware is being used as a rationale for allowing exponentially higher usage. It is not enough to have green data centres if the AI models running within them are fundamentally wasteful. Alongside infrastructure, efficiency standards, like the power usage effectiveness (PUE) target of 1.”
“I am surprised by the low statistics of enforcement cited. While I agree that it may not be safe for PMAs to use the road, I recognise that our infrastructure needs to catch up to ensure that there is no reason for PMA riders to use the road. Today, in 2026, we are slowing these seniors down even further to six kilometres per hour. If we are going to enforce a strict walking pace and a strict road ban, the Government must first guarantee that the last mile footpath in our private estates, for example, are actually wide enough and clear enough to be used. For example, are the pavements free of obstacles and trees to allow free access? Otherwise, it is unfair and unsafe for elderly PMA users. If our seniors are forced to use the road, they should not fear being prosecuted. On the other hand, from my conversation with many mobility scooter riders, it seems that many are still not even aware that it is illegal to use their mobility scooters on the road. This brings us to the same familiar problem of the need for more and better public education and adequate regular enforcement, as is the case for other AMDs, which I touched on earlier. I would like to ask the Minister to update the House on what public education measures it is intending with the passing of the Bill and also to enhance his efforts to improve the riding culture for all AMD users, including mobility scooters. In closing, Mr Speaker, I hope the Government will consider the proposals and suggestions I have made. Notwithstanding my concerns and reservations, I support the Bill's intent to improve safety and better regulation. I urge the Ministry to ensure strong public education, effective enforcement and thoughtful implementation so that we build a safer environment for all.”
“There are some parents who use their mobility scooters to ferry their young children or some seniors who ferry their spouses with mobility or health issues on their existing PMAs. These PMAs will not be authorised under this Bill due to their sizes. We must be sensitive to understand that some of these individuals have real transportation needs that in their views are not adequately met by the proposals in this Bill or what is otherwise available out there. So, how will LTA reach out to these affected individuals effectively on the law change and get them to understand the risks perceived by the authorities as posed by such devices on the users and fellow footpath users, and to get their buy-in on the new law? Finally, Mr Speaker, I must again touch on the last mile problem for some users of mobility scooters. The law disallows PMAs from riding on the roads, presumably except when crossing roads. In 2019 and 2020, I raised in this House how narrow or blocked footpaths in, for example, private estates, would usually force PMA riders onto roads. In January 2023, I had asked in a Parliamentary Question about statistics of enforcement against PMA riders who were caught on the road and the range of punishments imposed. MHA revealed that while notices were issued and fines of up to $2,000 were imposed, the number of formal prosecutions was relatively low, often handled through compensation fines first. In another reply to my Parliamentary Question in 2024, MHA also confirmed that enforcement against PMA users on roads had increased with 10 users caught between January and August 2024, compared to four in 2023. Mr Speaker, I do often see PMAs on the road and this is not just in private estates or when they are merely crossing the road.”
“Some of my residents who use their PMAs to travel beyond their immediate neighbourhood had provided feedback to me that the reduction in speed will increase the time they need to travel and ultimately, reduce the distance they can travel within the time that they have. At the 2024 Committee of Supply debate for MOT, I had urged the Government in the run-up to the introduction of the new PMD regime to reconsider permitting seniors aged at least 67 or 70 to be allowed to use mobility scooters, even in the absence of a formerly diagnosed musculoskeletal or medical condition. I am glad that the Government has decided to exempt seniors aged 70 and above from the certification requirement. Mobility scooters do provide seniors with confidence to be out and about, which is a good thing. So, for these individuals, mobility scooters can be invaluable at maintaining mobility, independence and quality of life during their golden years, allowing broader access to seniors above 70 would empower them to remain active and engaged in community life, promoting both physical and mental well-being. I would also like to suggest that the Government could explore expanding the capacity of occupational therapies in restructured hospitals to provide mobility scooters, assessments and training. This would ensure that seniors and others with genuine mobility needs receive proper guidance on the safe and responsible use of these devices. Such a measure would not only enhance user safety but also foster greater confidence among the public in the appropriate use of mobility scooters. Next, outreach to existing users who have to discontinue use. I am also concerned about the impact on existing mobility scooter users who have to discontinue their existing use of mobility scooters.”
“In a September 2025 Parliamentary Question reply, Minister Shanmugam said that 187 fires in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates were caused by AMDs. Of these 46% by PMDs, 42% by PABs and 12% for PMAs. It is disturbing that five years after PMDs or e-scooters were supposedly banned from mainstream use, except on park connectors, they are still the main cause of fires for all AMDs. One can imagine how many more are kept in homes and continue to be used. It is also reflective, at least to some extent, of the effectiveness of past and former enforcement efforts in curbing non-compliant use. On 20 November 2025, an island-wide operation targeted non-compliant devices. What measures were taken for units where occupants were not at home? Five years after the ban, they remain a primary fire risk. How will the offence of keeping these PMDs be enforced on a regular basis? Will there be regular door-to-door inspections? Could the Ministry consider concentrating officers in a specific zone for a sustained period for intensive enforcement? This will send a strategic message rather than spreading our limited resources too thinly. Impact on seniors and infrastructure. The change of the PMA regime. The reduction of mobility scooter speed limit to six kilometres per hour raises some concerns, and I have spoken on this in this House previously. The Government previously noted that this speed takes reference from walking speeds. However, a 40% drop in speed significantly increases travel time and exposure to the elements for seniors. Can the Minister clarify whether any studies were conducted on the impact of this reduction on the travel range of elderly users?”
“This was a society wide effort that instil safety consciousness through practical engagement. To truly change our AMD riding culture, we must move beyond static signage to immersive learning. The road safety park's success in the early years shows that when we have the will to invest, we can shape an entire generation's behaviour. Authorities have cited limited resources as far as AMDs are concerned. Recently, Minister of State Baey Yam Keng reiterated that LTA will do its best within constraints. But Mr Speaker, there should be a greater political will to invest in the resources needed for a safer riding culture and for safer footpaths. Changes to the PMA regime. Yet, even as enforcement resources remain limited, this Bill introduces more changes, more rules and changes for PMAs: implementing the Certificate of Medical Need requirement, imposing dimension limits and reducing the speed limit for mobility scooters from 10 kilometres per hour to six kilometres per hour. It also mandates the registration for PMAs. While these measures directly address concerns regarding the misuse of mobility scooters by able bodied individuals, speeding and the use of oversized devices, I am again concerned about the practical execution of the measures designed in this Bill, given the inability to significantly improve safe use and riding culture for different forms of AMDs so far. How will LTA ensure non-compliant mobility scooters are not used after 2028, or unauthorised riders do not continue with their use after the passing of this Bill? The same gap worries me about clause 84 to 91, regarding the proposed banning of non UL2272 e-scooters or PMDs.”
“This includes bicycles, PABs, PMDs and of course, PMAs or mobility vehicles. Yet on a daily basis we still witness widespread disregard for road safety, cyclists and PAB users not keeping left, beating red lights, riding without helmets or using footpaths with little regard for pedestrians. This is notwithstanding statistics revealed by the Traffic Police, I think it was yesterday, of 650 summons issued to errant cyclists in the first half of 2025. How many cyclists or e-bike riders are aware, for example, that it is an offence riding on the right side of a motor vehicle unless they are overtaking or about to make a right turn? It is also not uncommon to see riders not riding on the left lanes. Are users of rental bikes made aware that helmets must be worn when riding on the roads? These are just examples. The human cause is evident. In December, a 71-year-old lady was severely injured by an e-bike while exiting Pasir Ris Mall, requiring jaw reconstruction. In January, another lady in her 60s suffered torn ligaments and fractures after being knocked down while crossing the road. In November last year, the Minister of State, Baey Yam Keng himself, was bumped into by a female cyclist travelling in the wrong direction. Such in these incidents underscore a poor riding culture rooted in years of inadequate public education and enforcement, points I raised repeatedly in this House since 2017. I am reminded of the Road Safety Park at East Coast launched in the 1980s. Its objective was ambitious then: to introduce road safety as a way of life. By its 20th year, more than one million students in Singapore had passed through its gates to participate in traffic games. They role played as pedestrians and drivers to internalise road courtesy.”
“Mr Speaker, the Land Transport Related Matters Bill introduces significant changes to our transport landscape. A key shift in this Bill is the reclassification of what we currently know as PMAs. The Bill replaces this term with a new legal category: "mobility vehicles". This category, in part, encompasses both motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I will first speak briefly on ERP 2.0, while the rest of my speech will focus on the regime changes for these mobility vehicles and raising several concerns. ERP 2.0 and data protection. Mr Speaker, the shift to ERP 2.0 brings with it a significant change in how vehicle movement data is collected and used. Under clause 81, a document certified by the registrar containing transaction and location data from ERP 2.0 devices will be admissible as evidence in court. This marks the departure from the privacy-centric design of ERP 1.0. As noted in The Straits Times article on 16 April 1993, the registry of vehicles explicitly chose a system using prepaid smart card so that, I quote: "all the information is in the card and not with the authorities managing the system". While the old IU kept trip data local, the new OBUs enable continuous central logging. Can the Minister clarify what specific technical encryption and anonymisation protocols are applied to data transmitted from the OBU to the central server? Furthermore, what are the legal safeguards to prevent this data from being accessed by other agencies for purposes entirely unrelated to road pricing? Consistent enforcement and public education. Mr Speaker, I have spoken in this House many times since the 13th Parliament on the urgent need for consistent enforcement and robust public education for all AMDs.”
“Mr Speaker, our success as a mature city depends not just on our ability to overcome physical land scarcity, but on our wisdom in how we manage the scarcity of natural capital. If we allow the label of brownfield to exempt us from doing a basic baseline biodiversity study on EIA on a mature self-reforested site, and if we fail to see the strategic value of this established green lung in the face of major future regional development, like the Paya Lebar Air Base Town, we risk making decisions that are blind to current ecological reality and future climate needs. I urge MND and all planning agencies to review their decision framework to ensure that our decisions are based on net outcomes, functional value and long-term resilience. What we choose to preserve today is what will define Singapore's livability tomorrow. Finally, I plead with the Government to fully consider the interest of the residents living near the Serangoon River Forest. Please review and consider relocating the bus depot to the heavy vehicle park at Tampines Road, and please consider retaining as much as possible of this vital green lung of the north east, which is home to one of the largest collection of birds, including conservation status birds in Singapore, stretching from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1, for the benefit of residents living in the north east and all Singaporeans.”
“Agencies must clearly demonstrate that avoidance and minimisation were explored before mitigation is proposed, specifically when my residents appealed to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) or MND for the bus depot site to be shifted to the current heavy vehicle park along Tampines Road. Other than mitigation measures, no reason has yet been given for not agreeing to the shift, nor was there any reason given to justify why the bus depot had to be sited in the middle of the forested area between Buangkok East Drive and Tampines Road. Five, irreversibility and time horizons. Apply a higher justification threshold to any decision that results in an irreversible loss or requires a recovery period. Six, cumulative and area level impact. We must evaluate impacts in the neighbourhood or corridor level, not project by project. Multiple compliant decisions when accumulated over time in a small area can still lead to a degraded, less liveable environment. Seven, transparency in communication. When trade-offs are made, we must clearly state what is gained and what is lost in clean terms, ensuring that the environmental cost do not disproportionately fall on the immediate neighbours, while the benefits are distributed citywide. They should also be actively communicated to stakeholders early on, rather than leaving it to consultation exercise. Eight, symmetrical scrutiny of land intensive system. We must hold planning decisions across all existing land uses to the same level of scrutiny as green spaces. When development is proposed on vegetated land, we must ask whether existing land hungry system have been reviewed, intensified, co-located or rationalised to avoid further loss of natural capital.”
“We must factor in the time to replacement when evaluating mitigation, acknowledging the ecological premium of mature established greenery. Two, mandatory functional assessment. The brownfield classification must no longer provide an automatic exemption from environmental studies before development. Any vegetated site above a certain maturity or size must undergo a mandatory functional assessment, regardless of its zoning history to determine its current role in heat mitigation, flood absorption and ecological connectivity and preservation. Three, functional value and strategic green belts. We must prioritise green spaces by what they do in a regional context. As the Government plans the massive new Housing and Development Board (HDB) town at the Paya Lebar Air Base site, it must recognise that large parts of the limited existing green spaces within and on the eastern fringe of the air base will be developed or severely affected by the construction. These air base green spaces may be smaller or have less ecological merit than the current Serangoon River Forest, stretching from Tampines Road to Serangoon East Dam and Coney Island. It would make far greater ecological and planning sense to preserve and utilise the current well developed Serangoon River Forest as an established green belt to mitigate against the heat impact from the future big new town. This is strategically superior to relying on artificially-created neighbourhood parks or park connectors at the air base site. Four, alternative first approach in justification.”
“Water absorption studies conducted by the Nanyang Technological University in 2021 showed that forested areas provide a critical sponge effect, intercepting rainfall and regulating run-off. Given the increasing unpredictability of rainfall and the greater incidence of ponding, removing this function, especially near a river, is a decision that must be weighed with the utmost care against potential flood risk. Finally, exercising along a natural forest offers far greater mental health benefits than walking along a sterile concrete canal. Economic valuation confirms that preserving the Serangoon Forest provides superior welfare for residents using the park connector all the way to Punggol. The cost of time and interim conditions. Mr Speaker, if the replacement benefit takes decades to materialise, are those years of increased heat, reduced air quality and the degraded surroundings treated as real cost in the project balance sheet? When we evaluate mitigation, we must factor in time and irreversibility. If a functional loss is permanent or requires a recovery period of say, five, 10 or 20 years, it must face a substantially higher justification threshold than a minor reversible inconvenience. Next, part four: a new framework – net outcomes and functional value. To address this structural tilt and prevent further decisions based on historical zoning instead of current functional value, we need a balanced decision framework that explicitly values what we preserve. I propose the following elements for a revised planning and assessment framework. One, net outcomes over gross inputs. We must measure the net change in unfragmented canopy cover, cooling effect and ecological function.”
“If so, is that loss of flexibility justified by truly exceptional public benefit? Part three: the true cost of loss, functional value and irreversibility. Mr Speaker, our current metric of success often stops at gross numbers. We will plant one million more trees. But this target, while laudable, obscures the net loss when mature greenery is cleared, especially when the decision is not informed by an EIA. Loss of functional value, cooling and ecology. The Serangoon River Forest is not just a collection of trees. It is a vital part of the climate control system for this part of the northeast of Singapore. Heat mitigation. Studies showed a pronounced urban island effect in densely built areas. Mature-dense canopies provide the most effective passive solution to shade and cooling through evapotranspiration. By removing this forest, we are imposing an immediate permanent environmental cost on the surrounding Hougang, Sengkang, Punggol, Tampines and Pasir Ris residents. Higher ambient temperatures reduce shade and degraded thermal comfort. Ecological and social value. Ecological science tells us that green spaces function as systems, not isolated plots. Clearing these mature land risks fragmentations of a key corridor. This is a bigger stretch of green spaces on the eastern half of Singapore, from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1. Yet all zone industrial B2. Beyond nature, further development would result in residents in Hougang, Sengkang, Punggol and elsewhere in north-east losing a space that provides a unique sense of wellbeing and community life, an intangible asset that no number on a balance sheet can capture. The building and a bus depot are sadly the first step in that direction.”
“When we defer the hard task of rationalising land hungry systems today, we effectively pass the burden of rationalisation to future generations, while simultaneously depriving them of the very green spaces that could have provided environmental resilience, cooling and liveability. So, in other words, future Singaporeans will inherit the same land intensive system, but with even less natural capital left to work with. When we clear a mature green space and replace it with hard permanent infrastructure, we lock in a particular development pathway, often for decades, sometimes permanently. Built infrastructure can be more easily and quickly adapted, intensified or removed as needs change. Green spaces are not like that. When we clear an established forest or green corridor, the loss is immediate, but recovery is slow. The cooling effect, ecological function and the biodiversity that took decades to develop cannot simply be reconstructed on demand. Even with replanting, it may take many years of equivalent functional value to return. The clearing of green spaces should be subjected to a higher justification threshold than land uses that can be undone for as long as alternatives exist, whether through co-location, going underground, intensifying existing sites, or reconfiguring underutilised land. As we face rising temperatures, more intense rainfall and increased urban stress, the ability to redeploy land for cooling, absorption or ecological buffering becomes more valuable, not less. Decisions that permanently eliminate these possibilities should therefore be subject to especially careful scrutiny. A more balanced decision framework would explicitly ask, does the development lock us into a path that cannot easily be undone?”
“This is not an issue pertinent to Lorong Halus Bus Depot alone, but for all pending development on green spaces. Are there unpopular but critical planning choices we could make to preserve the little greenery we have left? For example, Singapore's road network occupies 12% of our total land area today, remaining at the same percentage for the past decade, even though car ownership per household has declined and is estimated to serve 481,000 households. At the same time, public housing occupies only 8% of land take per data from a 2019 Parliamentary response, yet serves more households, and nearly 80% of the 1.46 million resident household in Singapore. Is there a symmetry in our planning outcomes where some land users consume a disproportionate share of land relative to the households they serve, yet are rarely subjected to scrutiny with green spaces bearing the cost? These figures are not cited to argue against roads or transport or any form of infrastructure development, which are clearly essential. Rather, they illustrate an asymmetry in how land use trade-offs are examined. When housing, transport or other established systems require land, their footprints are often treated as given. When green spaces are involved, however, the conclusion that I must give away is often treated as the more convenient choice. The policy question I urge the Government to review is, are we prepared to more aggressively review and make difficult decisions for land hungry systems, either by reducing usage or going underground or above ground, rather than repeatedly clearing the remaining greenery? Mr Speaker, there is also a profound inter-generational dimension to this issue that we cannot ignore.”
“A brownfield destination prioritises the past commercial zoning over the present ecological function. It allows the Government to look at a 10- to 25-year forest and call it scrubland, simply because it was historically a developed site. Thus, the mere fact that the site was once developed, stripped a current mature forest of its ecological and social worth. Thus, the label "brownfield" gave us a permanent exemption from the duty to conduct an EIA or a baseline biodiversity study, regardless of the vegetation's age and density. If we are committed to regreening Singapore, we must acknowledge that natural rewilding is a success story, not a planning inconvenience. When we encounter brownfield sites where natural rewilding has occurred, could we assess them not solely by what they were, or even what they are at this moment, but by what they are demonstrably becoming? By proceeding without an EIA, we lose the opportunity to gather essential objective data on the exact species, including vulnerable birds cited by residents and groups like the Nature Society of Singapore, the actual maturity and cooling capacity, and the critical ecological connectivity at the site. This absence of data means the decision to clear is made in an information vacuum, relying on decades old zoning, rather than current, verifiable ecological reality. The question is not whether such sites meet a narrow threshold of environmental significance today, but whether they are on a clear ecological trajectory that, if allowed to continue, will support meaningful biodiversity over the next 10, 15 or 20 years or more. A second policy question is whether all planning assumptions have been revisited to site the bus depot on existing developments in the area instead of the developing on new space.”
“Part two: the Serangoon River Forest, a case study of policy failure. Mr Speaker, this structural tilt is vividly illustrated by the ongoing works at the Serangoon River Forest, a mature ecological space officially named by some of my residents, which has been earmarked for a B2 industrial estate. Works to develop a bus depot in the middle of the part of the forest between Tampines Road and Buangkok East Drive began a few months ago to the chagrin of my residents living less than 200 metres away, including residents at Kingsford Waterbay Condominium. I have been engaged by my residents and many others in Hougang, who highlight this area's role as a last green lung in their vicinity, indeed in the east of Singapore. Their concerns have also been reflected in media coverage. The most striking policy issue here is the lack of transparency in the process of assessing the site's current value and whether the process can be further enhanced. It is clear from the response to my Parliamentary Question in November 2025 by MND, that no environmental impact assessment (EIA) or baseline biodiversity study was required before the Government decided on and commence the bus depot construction. The justification given for this exemption is that the site is classified as a brownfield site, comprising primarily young regrowth scrubland. This classification appears to rest on the historical use of the surrounding area stretching up to Lorong Halus, which included two kampungs, agricultural, sewage and landfill activities before the land naturally reforested over the last 10 to 25 years between Tampines Road and Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1. Mr Speaker, this is where the structural tilt becomes a structural failure of imagination.”
“Nonetheless, for these sites, possible environmental impacts will still be carefully managed, and natural elements will be integrated within developments where possible." While the intent to manage impacts is welcome, my Motion questions the starting premise, whether this insistence on development is truly unavoidable, or if our current framework has a structural tilt that forces the conclusion of no choice. No choice too early in the process, sometimes before assessment can be done for a fully informed deliberation. Likewise, once a land is zoned B2 Industrial, rightly or wrongly, should the Ministry of National Development (MND) or the Urban Redevelopment Authority accept that it will always be irreversible, even if there is rich biodiversity from 10 to 20 years, 25 years or more of forestation, including the existence of vulnerable birds? Mr Speaker, land scarcity in Singapore is real, but it is not neutral and it is not value free. It is shaped not only by geography, but by a series of long-standing planning assumptions that I would urge the Government to revisit. When green spaces, whether greenfield or brownfield sites are presented as inevitable sacrifices, we must ask, have we genuinely exhausted all options to better rationalise existing cleared land? Have we truly intensified underutilised spaces, gone underground or rethink land intensive systems before concluding that forest must once again bear the cost? The issue, therefore, is not whether Singapore should develop, but whether our decision frameworks adequately account for what we lose. We must ask whether our structures truly account for the cumulative long-term and irreversible losses. They are the inevitable consequence of endless densification.”
“Mr Speaker, I speak today on a matter of increasing urgency and public concern. The need to fundamentally rethink how we assess and justify the trade-offs between essential development and the preservation of our existing green spaces. The question is how we move our planning calculus from measuring gross inputs to ensuring net positive outcomes for our environment and our people. Part one: context and scarcity trap as a policy decision. Mr Speaker, Singaporeans broadly understand and accept the real constraints we face: land scarcity, the need for new housing, infrastructure, renewal and climate adaptation. We support the need for development, but Singaporeans also care deeply about the quality of life, the neighbourhood liveability, the mental well-being afforded by nature and the preservation of mature landscapes. A tension we observe on the ground arises not because of development and preservation are inherently incompatible, but because in practice these two commitments are not weighted equally in our decision making. For too long, the default notion used to justify redeveloping green spaces we need to develop in land scarce Singapore has been used as a thought terminating cliche. It is factually correct, but it serves to end deliberation rather than begin it. This position was clearly articulated by the then Minister for National Development, Mr Desmond Lee, when addressing similar development trade-offs. In his reply to my written Parliamentary Question on the development of Clementi Forest on 4 January 2021, and I quote: "after weighing the alternatives and trade-offs, there will be areas that we cannot avoid developing.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answers. I have filed two questions for yesterday's Sitting and the Minister said that these will be addressed today. So, one question regarding how will the SFA supports and transitions farms that have invested heavily in technology to meet the original target, but now, whose produce is less aligned with the new protein and fibre targets, and what enhanced grants or offtake schemes are available to assist? I have not really quite heard the answer to this question. I have one supplementary question to this. Will the Government consider going beyond one-off grants for capital expenditure and offer grants to help with operating expenditure? And one supplementary question for my fibre question, has SFA considered whether narrowing the recognised fibre crop set, increases systemic risk, such as pest or climate vulnerability, and if so, what will be the mitigation measures?”
“By way of example, if you were to introduce say, a per person fine, similar to the approach in California – and of course, we must discuss this robustly before any decision is reached, how much this fine should be and the premises for arriving at the quantum – say, for illustrative purposes, we peg the fine per person's records to what we have to pay to acquire people's personal information from, say, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's BizFile, where per report or certificate is charged at $33 or $50. This is purely for illustration. This method would scale automatically a small clinic losing 50 records pay $ 1,650 to $2,500, painful but survivable. This shaves the calculus. It forces senior management and boards director to view cybersecurity not as an IT cost, but as an existential business risk. It signals that the state values each individual's privacy. It moves away from the abstract notion of system security to the concrete value of personal data. This is how we can build a system that is robust at the outset. There is the trust of every contributor. We can start looking numerically at what would be a good balance for Singapore, or at least a better balance than what we have now, and which pertinently will make all organisations take the message more seriously, while being fair and equitable for bigger medical organisations, as well as smaller clinics and practices. Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill.”
“For a tech giant or a global hospital chain, this could amount to hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. This scales the penalty to the size of the entity, ensuring that the fine is never just a cost of doing business. Another is the California Consumer Privacy Act, which allows for a private right of class action lawsuits with statutory damages between US$100 and US$750 per consumer per incident. This directly monetises the harm to the individual. It creates a mathematical certainty of catastrophe for negligence. If this is applied to the SingHealth case of 1.5 million victims, we will be looking at a payout of between $200 million and $1.5 billion. The penalty, in a sense, may better match the pain of the victims. More importantly, it will make organisations take the message much more seriously. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would surely understand, on one hand, some of us may think that the penalty regimes in EU and California may be a bit too high, and some will argue that they will be eventual cost impact on consumers. On the other hand, some may argue that they can better match the pain of the victims. We can, and perhaps we should, review and decide where the balance may better lie for Singapore. But it is important that our regime must ultimately make all organisations take the message more seriously.”
“I have spoken about the SingHealth data breach of 2018. The Personal Data Protection Commission fined SingHealth $250,000 and its IT vendor, Integrated Health Information System (IHiS), $750,000, totalling $1 million for failing to protect 1.5 million patients' data. Section 66 of the HIB states a fine not exceeding $1 million for organisations that fail in data security in handling of health and relevant information. While the figure of $1,000,000 appears substantial in isolation, it pales when contextualised against the scale of modern healthcare data breaches, such as the SingHealth one in 2018. Let us do the math: 1.5 million SingHealth records were leaked in 2018. A total fine of $1 million – $750,000 plus $250,000 – equates to an effective fine per record of 66 Singapore cents. Mr Deputy Speaker, we may wish to review whether this is the value we wish to place on the privacy of our citizens, as such. Furthermore, for a large healthcare conglomerate with annual revenues in the hundreds of million, a $1 million fine is a relatively lesser or even trivial operating expenses. Relatively speaking, it is roughly equivalent to the cost of a few high-end medical devices. It is hardly a pain point to some, even less of a serious business risk to the large hospital groups. Instead, the $1 million cap effectively puts a ceiling on the value of the collective privacy of the nation, regardless of the number of persons attached or affected. Let us compare this with global standards that have successfully shifted corporate behaviour. First, the European Union's (EU's) General Data Protection regulation imposes administrative fines of up to $20 million euros, or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. The 4% turnover clause is the main deterrent.”
“They need Institute of Technical Education technicians to help them directly when issues arise. They also need a dedicated help desk. To address this, could the Minister consider setting up an IT Shared Services Office within the Ministry that may provide small clinics with not a one-off, but a continuing out-sourced, cost effective and compliant IT support, acting in lieu of the dedicated IT department of large healthcare institutions? Besides my suggestion above, I would also urge MOH to consider setting up a similar initiative to support all clinics and practices, like the shared services initiative for charities. The Commissioner of Charities has partnered with various organisations to set up shared services to strengthen charities, regulatory compliance and efficiency of their backend operations, especially helpful to smaller charities. These are not nice to have. They are imperative. This Bill changes the rules of the game. It mandates that every private clinic from the specialist in Orchard Road to the void deck GP in the heartlands must contribute their data. They have no choice if they wish to stay open. But if MOH were to demand institution-grade security against risk and breaches on a solo operator's budget, it may not just be unfair, it may even be unsustainable for some. Compliance with the HIB cannot be a one-size-fits-all assignment. More must be done to help onboard small clinics and family doctors at the same level of standards and readiness as large institutions. Let us not make the small clinics the weakest link of the system. They should also be the trusted mission-critical partners, worthy of a Smart Nation. Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the final part of my speech, I will touch on the penalty regime under the HIB.”