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 9 of 22.
“Thank you, Speaker. Could I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary one question? Is the Government setting itself any timeline to review this? As the other hon Member Dr Lim has mentioned, other countries are already looking into it and have expressed intention to introduce it. So, is the Government setting any timeline to review this prospect of having a generational ban?”
“In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the shift towards higher adoption of EVs and a low emission economy is in motion and I look forward to the further ramping up of all efforts to full electrification. I support the Bill.”
“I would like to know how would the Government ensure the timely electrification of all commercial goods and heavy vehicles. As a topic for discussion or consideration, would MOT even consider a more prescriptive approach, say, legislating a requirement for a fleet to be completely electrified by a set date and support fleet owners by dedicating public resources to building large-scale fast-charging points at central areas, such as the port and strategically-placed distribution hubs? Similar to the point made for charging infrastructure for private vehicles, Government funding for charging infrastructure will give industry stakeholders the assurance that the large-scale investment will not bankrupt their company or have too large an impact on their bottom line. Mr Speaker, in March this year, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu highlighted how our investments in science and technology continued to unlock possibilities in Singapore's development. Specifically, she mentioned how R&D for NEWater and desalination increased Singapore's profile as a leading global HydroHub. I hope that our Government has also been actively looking for similar R&D opportunities in areas relating to EVs and EV charging (EVC) technology, including charging facility, charging infrastructure or even battery technology. This may help to not only enhance the development and use of better technology in our own electrification efforts locally, but it will also help Singapore in our journey towards a low emission future. It may lead to new technologies which could be exported, giving a boost to the Singapore economy and creating new areas of growth in our manufacturing industry.”
“Still on EV charging for residential and public car parks, I have received feedback that there are owners who have parked their EVs at parking lots with EV chargers without actually charging their cars. May I ask whether the Government will take adequate measures to deter such acts at public car parks instead of relying on public feedback through, say, the MSO and, if so, what would they be? Next, I would like to seek an update from the Minister on the progress of our condominiums, office and commercial buildings and other MCSTs on their adoption of EV chargers in their carparks as their timely participation is also important in our country's EV conversion journey. I now move on to the topic of commercial and industrial usage of EVs. Mr Speaker, direct Government support to electrify a delivery fleet and direct Government support to build charging infrastructure in industrial facilities, like distribution hubs, can send a powerful signal that we are serious and committed about leading carbon emission reduction across all segments of our land transport. I note that we are already on the Combined Charging System (CCS) charging format; several heavy goods vehicle offerings available globally are already built for this charging format. The largest of these vehicles are able to tow up to a Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) of 40,000 kilogrammes. This is roughly equivalent to a single 40-foot International Organization for Standardization (ISO) container. While an electric heavy vehicle range might understandably be shorter, say approximately 200-kilometre range on a single charge, Government support would be a powerful incentive to modernise and "green" a domestic transport fleet.”
“As of end 2021, we had approximately 3,700 electric vehicles registered on the road, double the previous year's numbers. Moving forward we should expect the numbers to increase exponentially. I wonder whether the Minister can share more details as to how the Ministry arrived at the formula that is being used to determine the number of chargers which would be optimum for each car park. Evidently, some calculations have gone into determining that 12,000 chargers might be necessary by 2025. If I assume that an average privately owned EV travels approximately 60 kilometres per hour each day and has a range of approximately 300 kilometres, then the average driver would need to charge his vehicle to full every four days. This could mean that a significant scaling up of charging points would be necessary, given the current trends. Twelve thousand chargers island-wide may not be enough if we are successful in encouraging EV adoption. Is the Minister able to share with the House how LTA expects to keep up with a possible rising demand? And may I also ask whether LTA is considering building charging points on a larger scale in advance of demand, perhaps even taking on the risk that there might be, in the short term, a little excess and underused capacity? My concern is that it will be harder to persuade more to convert to electric cars if they see that the charging facilities are insufficient. This is not even considering that the price of many EVs remain relatively expensive. There is also the possible issue that if more people convert to EVs and the EV car numbers were to go up ahead of the building of sufficient infrastructure, there may be a period of frustration for vehicle owners as they cope with insufficient facilities in their immediate vicinity.”
“To that end, while the Ministry has focused on using the "sticks" of the Commercial Vehicle Emissions Schemes (CVES) and the Early Turnover Scheme (ETS) to encourage the adoption of cleaner energy light goods vehicles locally, I would reiterate that a lack of widely available charging infrastructure, particularly for the "brown" goods delivery fleets, is a significant roadblock to our green goals. The Electric Vehicles Charging (EVC) Bill is, certainly, a welcome step in the right direction. With to-be stipulated requirements for charging points in buildings, this ensures that the charging infrastructure is established to match the mandated increase in demand. As the number of charging points required is correlated with the purpose of the building, I urge the Minister to take a tailored approach to each building. A distribution hub which uses purely EVs may be more likely to require more charging points, compared to a residential block. I would like to touch on two separate issues with the charging infrastructure – one for residential premises and one for industrial premises. Mr Speaker, LTA has indicated that 12 charging points will be installed in 2,000 HDB car parks, with a total of 12,000 chargers to be installed by 2025, subject to demand. The longer-term goal was to have 60,000 charging points island-wide by 2030. As I previously highlighted, an important measure in the deployment of these chargers is the siting and the number of chargers, with a critical mass needed to support charging and minimise queues for charging points. The EV Charging Bill has taken a step down this path, with a formula-based approach to determining the number of chargers required per building.”
“Mr Speaker, one of the first widely produced models of the battery-powered EV, the Nissan Leaf, was launched in 2010. Feted as a breakthrough model, the Leaf was considered one of the most efficient and user-friendly electric cars. A decade later, Singapore is beginning its journey towards electrification. In March this year, I spoke briefly on the need for greater electrification of our commercial goods fleet and expansion of charging infrastructure for such a fleet during the Committee of Supply debates. The Minister acknowledged that there are fewer viable cleaner-energy solutions currently available for heavier goods vehicles. I am concerned that such goods vehicles may continue to be a significant contributor to our land transport emissions as a result. There is an important point to make here. Since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, e-commerce and the accompanying last-mile deliveries have seen a surge in demand. The World Economic Forum estimated that last-mile deliveries saw an increase of 25%, with up to 20% of the growth remaining post-pandemic. As I alluded to in March, with pre-pandemic growth in last-mile delivery increasing carbon emissions by 30% by 2030, a lack of supporting infrastructure to encourage EV adoption could have deleterious effects on our ability to reduce our emissions and meet our carbon-neutral goals as a country. We should bear in mind that we have a large number of commercial goods and heavy vehicles locally as well as a large number of goods vehicles which come in from Malaysia on a daily basis.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just jump in on this? I have a very similar case where an elderly resident who has difficulty trying to file a claim to CDRT. May I humbly suggest that perhaps MCI can work with the Courts on how to facilitate laypeople, especially seniors with digital issues and difficulties with using digital platforms, to file appropriate claims in CDRT?”
“Alright. [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment. (proc text)] Third Reading”
“Sir, may I have my dissent recorded and for the others to have their dissent recorded too?”
“Mr Speaker, before I close, I would like to thank many of my constituents and many Singaporeans who wrote and spoke to me about the proposed repeal of section 377A, including both the groups who support the repeal and those who object to the repeal. I would also like to seek the understanding of my constituents and Singaporeans who may not agree with my decision. The position I take today does not change how I treat all my constituents and all Singaporeans. I will continue to serve all my constituents to the best of my ability. Moving forward, I hope for greater understanding between those who share different views on LGBTQ and greater tolerance of different views. We may not always agree with each other on every issue, but we can, and should, agree to disagree. We should still love and respect each other no less as fellow human beings. And I hope that there will be more dialogue between those who share different views, so that there may be a better understanding and less polarisation. Mr Speaker, I oppose the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, but will support the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.”
“I thank my party whip and party Secretary-General and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, for lifting the whip. I do not take this lightly. In fact, I made this decision with a heavy heart. This is both a most difficult decision and is the most difficult speech I have to make to date, given the divided issues at play for different segments of my constituents and for Singaporeans; being very careful not to cause hurt or offence and yet, having to be principled with my own beliefs. It is also not made easier because, like many fellow MPs and Singaporeans, I also have many friends and good friends who are from the LGBTQ community. Some have over time shared with me some of their difficult circumstances and experiences in life which makes my decision today even more difficult and humbling. I humbly seek their understanding. Mr Speaker, a conscience vote is a very heavy responsibility an MP is required to discharge because it is a responsibility that each of us carries alone, guided by our own conscience. Mr Speaker, next on the issue of the constitutional amendment. My colleague and my hon friend, Ms Sylvia Lim, has raised some concerns regarding the implications of the proposed carve-outs in the proposed Article 153 to exclude the Courts' role in ensuring conformity with the Constitution. While I agree that her concerns have some merits – and I look forward to the Government's assurances on these issues – I would still support the amendments for the reason that, as the Government is minded to push through the repeal of section 377A, if the repeal were to proceed without the proposed constitutional amendments, those who have reservations about the repeal may be even more concerned that there will be no other enhancement in law to address their concerns.”
“Many are also concerned they will be stopped from expressing their contrary views on sexuality after the repeal, including the fear of being cancelled. Some are concerned that there will be name calling because of the view they take on sexuality in their workplace or for young people and children in their schools. People are also concerned that more changes will make society more divided. Mr Speaker, some who are concerned with the repeal are of the view that the present position in law would represent the best balance. The Singaporeans I have spoken to or who have written to me with their reservations include those whose views may not be influenced by any religious views and also those of a wide age range. Mr Speaker, I have considered different views and positions, many of which we have heard and we will hear in the House today. The proposed repeal presents a number of difficult issues for different groups of Singaporeans. The symbolism of section 337A is different to different groups, their differing views and even the experiences of individuals. As a Member of Parliament (MP), in considering all issues, I am also guided by my own conscience in arriving at a position that I feel is right for our society and our people, even if some may disagree. Even as I do my best to analyse the issues for different segments of our population and my constituents, for reasons of my own conscience as guided by my own faith and beliefs, I find it difficult to support the repeal of 377A. I am personally troubled by the removal of the marker that it represents. Mr Speaker, this has not been an easy decision for me because as an MP, I would like to represent all constituents as best as I can.”
“Mr Speaker, today, the House is debating the Government's amendment Bill to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code and a proposed amendment on the Constitution to insert a new Article 156 relating to the institution of marriage. In 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the Government will not proactively enforce section 377A and that has been the position since then. For the record, I still agree with the previous position of the Government in not enforcing section 377A. Since the Government announced that it will be repealing section 377A of the Penal Code and after the subsequent announcement of the proposed constitutional law amendments, I have received feedback and spoken to many residents and Singaporeans of different races, religions and ages. I have heard and read the views of members of the LGBTQ+ community, particularly, their unhappiness with perceived discrimination and different rights as compared to heterosexual couples in the areas of marriage, owning BTOs, rights of child adoption and so on. I also heard much feedback from residents and Singaporeans of their concerns on the repeal. Many were concerned that we would be removing a symbolic social marker with such a repeal. People are also concerned with the societal changes they have seen in many countries in the areas of gender identity, sex education, marriage laws and public policy. With the repeal, some will press for more changes in law and policy after the repeal, like what is seen in other countries, for example, in Australia and the US. They wonder to what extent the proposed amendments to the Constitution can prevent such changes. Many express concern that the removal of such a marker may make it difficult for parents in setting down their family and social values at home.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Would the Government consider exempting Singaporeans with genuine financial difficulties from the effect of the property cooling measures? The reason I am saying this is because these people may have difficulty servicing their existing loans for their condos, they may have existing debt issues arising from their own other financial obligations and they have no choice but to dispose of their current private property and they need a place to stay, they need a place to live. So, they need to buy an HDB property and they may not be able to afford commercial rental.”
“I hope that MOH will look into improving outreach to this group of seniors so that all Singaporeans can benefit from Healthier SG. Mr Speaker, although oral health is not currently covered under the Healthier SG White Paper, dental and oral care has implications for the overall health of an individual, such as helping us avoid other chronic health conditions. I hope that oral health will also be included in Healthier SG. (In English): Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I raised, I support the Motion.”
“] Mr Speaker, I support the recommendations in the Healthier SG White Paper that every Singaporean chooses a designated family doctor to provide medical services and manage their overall health. To implement Healthier SG smoothly, we must ensure that the participation of the majority of Singaporeans and that participants have a positive attitude towards the health plan set for them. In addition, I hope that the mental health aspect mentioned in the White Paper will be given priority and included into Healthier SG as soon as possible. The White Paper also plans to increase the number of existing eldercare centres from 119 to 220 by 2025. These centres will take on more responsibilities and services and work closely with GPs. I hope that the Government will provide more manpower, technology training and other resources for the various parties to support this new model of cooperation. At present, apart from ensuring the health of the elderly and providing them with assistance, eldercare centres also need to reach out to and communicate with the elderly in the area in different ways. This is a meaningful but challenging task. Many seniors are glad to learn that the centres are able to provide the necessary assistance and are happy to participate in the activities organised by the centres. However, there are still some elderly folks who choose not to contact the centres or participate in activities organised by them. This trend will pose some challenges to the Healthier SG programme. For example, how GPs can effectively engage and persuade this group of seniors, especially those living alone, to participate in the programme is an issue to look at.”
“Still on the topic of dental health, recently, a resident provided some feedback to me about the cost of dental treatments not covered by MediSave. Payments through MediSave can only be made for treatments where surgeries are involved. Dental clinic treatments like tooth extraction, root canal treatments and affixing of crowns, while not necessarily regarded as under the category of surgery, can be relatively expensive to many people. For retirees, the outlay in cash for dental treatments can be a burden, especially if they have recurring issues. While there are subsidies available for limited categories of CHAS and other card holders, my resident wishes that the Government can consider making MediSave available for at least some of the treatments and/or consider increasing the extent of CHAS subsidies currently available for these treatments, for example, for orange CHAS card holders and even beyond. If need be, the Government can look into including more measures to deter possible abuses by minority practitioners. Mr Speaker, before I end, I would like to touch briefly on the issue of resourcing. Under Healthier SG, family doctors have new responsibilities towards the care of residents enrolled under them, regardless of age. While they will be paid a fee per enrolled resident, if the patient numbers do not reduce for any family doctor, what is the expectation of MOH on the effect of the additional work or additional patient loading brought about by Healthier SG? And how are the doctors expected to cope with the additional work and responsibilities? Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“While many are happy to know of the support they can reach out to and many also get involved in activities in eldercare centres and welcome being connected to such centres, some seniors may not be open when eldercare centres try reaching out to them. Some may not want to keep in touch with their eldercare centres. Some keep to themselves and may not socialise with others. Some of these seniors live by themselves and may not have family members at hand to keep an eye on them in their homes. I am concerned that for this group of people, the family doctors under Healthier SG may also experience difficulty in reaching out to them or ensuring their committed participation. I hope MOH can study how outreach efforts can be improved to such seniors so that all can actually benefit from these programmes under Healthier SG and, most of all, their health and well-being can be enhanced. Mr Speaker, the Healthier SG White Paper is silent on dental care. While I understand the White Paper may focus on chronic care management and prevention of chronic disease, dental health is important. Good dental and oral health can also enhance our overall health and prevent complications to other areas of our health, including prevention of certain chronic or other diseases. Moreover, there is some overlap in similar lifestyle factors causing problems to dental/oral health and to other aspects of our health, for example, consumption of sugary products. In my view, a similarly structured programme akin to Healthier SG may also help to promote better dental and oral health. I would, therefore, like to know whether in the future, if MOH will also look at extending Healthier SG to the coverage of dental and oral healthcare.”
“Mr Speaker, the White Paper also mentioned that the number of eldercare centres (ECs) will be expanded from 119 to 220 by 2025 and that under Healthier SG, the offerings for eldercare centres will be expanded as follows: (a) eldercare centres will serve as a community connector for seniors to help them follow through with the lifestyle interventions as recommended by family doctors; (b) eldercare centres will offer community-based monitoring of vital signs, such as blood pressure in between their visits to the family doctor, following care protocol requirements to be worked out under Healthier SG; (c) eldercare centres will also help to roll out health screenings and other healthcare initiatives. I welcome the above, but I do see that this must come with additional manpower as well as IT resources. I would like to ask the Minister whether and how will MOH help with the provision of additional manpower, IT, training and other necessary resources and support for both the eldercare centres as well as the family physicians' practices. More assistance may be required by both stakeholders in managing the additional responsibilities as well as ensuring that all interventions, screenings and other measures recommended by the family physicians are well coordinated. Mr Speaker, I do appreciate what the eldercare centres, the senior activity centres and, indeed, the day care centres in Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC) are doing to take care of the seniors under their charge. It is not an easy task for the eldercare or senior activity centres to reach out to all seniors within their designated cluster and try to ensure that the seniors are in good shape and that help can be given if required. The response of our seniors may vary between individuals.”
“Would MOH also engage different stakeholders, including both the medical practitioners and the insurance industry, to see how corporate medical insurance plans can be tweaked to enhance the Healthier SG objective of having more people stay with one family physician? There are also many people who have regularly gone to see GPs in polyclinics, ostensibly for reasons of cost and subsidy. Can MOH give an indication of the size of this group of Singaporeans? Besides MOH's plans to make available more prescribed drugs under CHAS subsidy in GP clinics, how will MOH ensure that the cost of consultations and prescriptions with the family physician will not discourage Singaporeans from switching to Healthier SG? Following the introduction of Healthier SG, how does MOH see the role of GPs in polyclinics with respect to primary care and would MOH be reviewing the role of GPs in polyclinics? The Healthier SG also proposes to allow for a change of family doctor once each year. While I understand there may be a need for some flexibility, for example, when a resident changes his or her place of residence or even changes his employment, allowing changes of doctors within a short period of time may not be conducive for the greater goal of Healthier SG to get more people to have one family doctor to manage their health.”
“Mr Speaker, in order for the proposed programme under Healthier SG to work, it will also require the cooperation of all enrolled residents, to be able to adopt the right attitude in adhering to the health plan developed for them and to be actively concerned for their health, and physical and mental well-being. Everyone must be willing and able to accord it priority alongside other demands of their everyday life and treating the plans and the appointments with the family doctor seriously and taking full advantage of them. In the hustle and bustle of modern living, I am not sure everyone may be able to do so. I do hope MOH will have an appropriate public education campaign not just to encourage enrolment, but to encourage enrolled residents to take this programme seriously and be diligent in adhering to the health plans and recommendations and advice of their family doctors, and to make full use of what is provided under the programme. Mr Speaker, I also believe that for this programme to work to the best benefit of most Singaporeans or residents, we need to ensure that as many people will enrol under this programme. I am aware that many Singaporeans currently visit GPs or clinics which are on the panel of their employers' corporate medical insurance plans. These GPs are often not their usual family GPs. When employees change employment or if their employers change their insurers, the GPs or clinics may also change. I would like to ask how does MOH intend to harmonise this situation with its proposed programme under Healthier SG to have more people stick to one regular family doctor?”
“The health plans, screenings and annual check-ins will, hopefully, provide a sufficiently regular opportunity for the doctor to be able to help us to pick up any signs of any health issue earlier before it manifests into something serious or chronic. That said, it is important that such health plans are appropriately developed for residents of different age groups and dealing with prevention of a range of diseases and health conditions. Beyond the mentioned first three chronic illnesses, may I ask the Minister to elaborate more on the 12 care protocols and the time it is expected to take for the care protocols to be fully rolled out beyond the first year of Healthier SG? The White Paper also mentioned that mental health and end of life will subsequently be covered. I hope that mental health will certainly not be at the end of the queue, but some priority be given for its earlier introduction. The White Paper itself gave a "special mention" of mental health at page 52. The family physician will, certainly, be ideally positioned to help residents with regular checks on their mental health and, importantly, early detection of any problem. May I ask whether the Inter-Agency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-Being has been specifically tasked to integrate the new plans under Healthier SG? Will the task force consider how the family physician's role in managing the mental health of their residents can be enhanced? Will the task force help to integrate the family physician's new role alongside other resources and stakeholders which are already part of the task force's efforts to date?”
“Mr Speaker, according to the Healthier SG White Paper, all residents will be encouraged to enrol with a family doctor or a family physician, who, I quote from the White Paper, "will serve as the point of contact to holistically manage the residents' health", focusing on providing holistic care, prevention and to improve chronic care. Each family doctor will develop an appropriate health plan for each enrolled resident and would also administer the appropriate health screenings and vaccinations. Mr Speaker, I agree with the intent and merits of having a specific family doctor to holistically manage each resident's health. Needless to say, any doctor would be familiar with his or her regular patients over time. I believe there are already many Singaporeans who have the habit of seeing the same GP over a long period of time each time they fall ill or need prescription and appreciate the benefits of a GP who is familiar with their medical history over time. I have known my current family GP since I was in secondary school. The proposed requirement of a family physician having to develop an appropriate health plan for each enrolled resident and having an annual check-in with each enrolled resident, to find out how the resident is doing in terms of his health or how he or she is adhering to his or her health plan should be a significant departure beyond the current common practice of only seeing the doctor when we do not feel well or when we require prescriptions. I agree with these proposals, but the devil is, of course, in the details.”
“Equally, for those who are currently in the industry, instead of excluding them from future employment, could the Government consider a flexible plan to engage and provide training for these employees to ensure that they will be trained and prepared for future deployment in the industry? May I also ask the Government whether there are any plans to help any of the existing businesses which may have an issue with the criteria of "fit and proper persons" during the transition period? Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns, I support the Bill.”
“Besides the conduct of debt collection activities, this Bill also serves to regulate the operation of debt collection businesses generally and sets up the regulatory framework for debt collection businesses. Having a proper regulatory framework for all debt collection businesses is good as it should help to ensure that the industry and personnel working in it work within a clear regulatory framework. This, in turn, creates certainty and allows regulatory action if businesses or personnel involved fall afoul of the same and we see this in clauses 17 to 18, 22 to 28. May I ask the Minister for an indication of what is the size, in terms of revenue, employment and number of firms, of the debt collection industry in Singapore, both today, and, say, five or 10 years ago? Is the industry comprised mostly of small players or larger ones? Does the Government anticipate a consolidation of the industry following the new regulatory framework? Does the Government collect data on how many Singaporeans are affected by legal debt collection and/or enforcement activities at any one time or in the past two years? Mr Speaker, before I end, I have some concerns regarding the eligibility of persons who can qualify to work in the industry under this Bill. I hope the definition of "fit and proper persons" has taken into consideration the current make-up of the industry's employees and its traditional and likely sources of recruitment. The exact eligibility criteria are not yet spelt out in this Bill but will probably be done in the subsidiary legislation. Nevertheless, I hope that it will not seek to exclude persons permanently or for long periods of time from the industry merely on account of past misdemeanours.”
“Next, may I ask how would the Government ensure that the regulations will allow for effective and reasonable debt collection methods that make sense commercially, whilst still able to draw a line to ensure that there is no undesirable intimidation, harassment or conduct? Next, Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask what are the Government's plans to educate the public and enable the public to understand the requirements of such regulations, in order that as many members of the public will be able to discern for themselves what acts are allowed and what are not allowed. Public awareness will also reduce the chances of unnecessary intimidation and harassment. It may better enable the public to report meritorious cases of errant practices to the Licensing Officer so that proper action can be taken against the debt collection company and/or its staff under Part 4 of the Bill. If there are no public education plans as yet, may I urge the Government to look into an appropriate public education campaign to educate the public? Next, I would also like to ask that the Government make it clear in its rules and public education materials the contact details and procedure for referring complaints of any acts or conduct by a debt collector which fall afoul of the requirements of this Act or its subsidiary legislation. I would also like to ask the Minister what are the Government's plans to assist existing players to adjust to the new requirements and the new enforcement culture under the new regulation. Will the Government be giving them more time and, if necessary, any help they need in order to fulfil the new requirements?”
“I also note from MHA's consultation paper to the proposed new regulations that there are eight rules of "dos and don'ts" pertaining to debt collection enforcement and activities by both debt collector individuals and the debt collection companies included at Annex B to the consultation paper. I presume that such rules will be listed in the subsidiary legislation and they must, of course, clearly stipulate what acts are allowed and what are not allowed, so that proper debt collection efforts can be carried out with the personnel involved knowing what is allowed and that debtors are not being subject to harassment, intimidation or abusive or unreasonable acts. May I seek an update or confirmation from the Minister as to what other rules would be incorporated into the final regulations pertaining to conduct and acts allowed or disallowed during enforcement or collection, besides the five rules in the Annex which apply to individual debt collectors and the other three rules that apply to the debt collection companies? May I also clarify whether the regulations expressly prohibit conduct, such as making contacts with debtors at late hours or early hours of the day, or communication with neighbours or colleagues about a debtor's debt situation, without affixing of a physical notice, or pursuing debtors on social media without making any threats as such, or even, generally, the carrying out of any acts embarrassing debtors in public? Will the regulations provide debtors with a method for disputing and/or obtaining validation of debt information? These are arguably beyond what are stated in Annex B.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. According to MHA's media release for this Bill, there has been a high number of Police reports against debt collection companies and debt collectors for carrying out debt collection activities in a manner that caused alarm and nuisance to members of the public and MHA is instituting regulations to better manage these disamenities arising from such activities. I am glad that with this Bill, more is being done to regulate the operation of debt collection businesses and the conduct of debt collectors. I support this Bill but I do wish to seek some clarifications. Mr Speaker, it is not uncommon to hear of reports of enforcement actions by private debt collectors, especially on social media and tabloids. I have also heard anecdotes of enforcement actions from my residents. Sometimes, we wonder whether certain actions taken by certain debt collectors have crossed the line as far as harassment and intimidation are concerned. With this in mind, I am, certainly, hoping that the new proposed regime under the Bill will be effective in regulating the conduct of debt collection companies and their staff. Mr Speaker, we read in clause 45(2) that the Minister may make regulations in respect of the duties and responsibilities of debt collectors: under (f), the duties and responsibilities of licensees; under (g), the conduct of the class licensees and their debt collectors in collecting debts; and under (h), restricting the manner or methods by which a licensee or any of its debt collectors collect, or attempt to collect, any debt.”
“Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answers. I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are any plans to review our current teacher recruitment efforts to attract more people to join teaching as a profession. Secondly, the Minister talked about enhancing the resources. I would like to ask specifically whether there are any plans to review and enhance administrative non-teaching manpower resources in schools so as to reduce the workload on teachers.”
“Does PUB have a continuing duty to supervise the training being carried out on the ground, so that PUB is able to ensure that the actual environmental impact of any SAF training in any of its public reservoirs or waterways is minimised? If not, can PUB be given such a power to supervise the actual use of its lands and waterways by the SAF?”
“For example, will a repeat of a similar offence by a serviceman disallow the independent disciplinary officer to compound the offence again? I note that this Bill is enhancing the existing maximum punishments under the SAF Act, which can be awarded for certain offences, as well as by the relevant officers assigned to officiate summary trials. Clauses 12 to 7 increase the current fine amounts that may be awarded in a summary trial by a disciplinary officer or a senior disciplinary committee. Besides the reasons given by the hon Minister in his speech for the enhancement of the punishment under the SAF Act, may I also ask the Minister whether there has been a significant or proportionate increase in summary trials and our convictions at summary trials in the last five or 10 years. And, if so, whether this plays a part in the Government deciding to enhance the punishments? Can the Minister share with the House, the number of summary trials carried out each year in the past five years? The last point I would like to raise relates to clause 37 of the Bill which proposes to amend section 7 of the Military Manoeuvres Act to permit the SAF to carry out military manoeuvres in catchment areas with the approval of PUB. While military action can occur across any geographic feature and training has to be as realistic as possible, the impact of military equipment could well be damaging and polluting to the waterways and its surroundings. I would like to know, besides approval, what oversight of the military exercises will PUB have? Does PUB have complete say in its pre-exercise or pre-training assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed SAF training?”
“Nevertheless, clearly spelt out regulations will ensure that all personnel will know the legal limits of their operational work and ensure surveillance investigation and other actions will be taken in full compliance with the law, including if the service is expected to work with other Government agencies, Next, this Bill also introduces the concept of the composition of offences to the disciplinary regimes of SAF, the Civil Defence and the Police Force. May I ask the Minister, what is the thinking behind the introduction of the composition of offences? Why is this considered to be a positive enhancement of the disciplinary regime? I recall from my experience in SAF some years ago as an NSman, as well as a unit disciplinary officer, that the conviction, pursuant to a summary trial, will be captured in the records of an errant serviceman and may possibly affect the performance assessment of such servicemen. May I clarify with the Minister, under the proposed composition offences regime, will an offence, or the fact on an offence being compounded, be recorded in the disciplinary or the personnel records of an errant serviceman? And, if so, will this be a relevant factor, for the purposes of the assessment of the serviceman's performance and his promotion prospects? On the other hand, if compounded offences are scrubbed from the personnel records, will the records not show an inaccurate picture of a serviceman's disciplinary records, with misdemeanours and commission of less, so-called "serious offences" not being reflected? Next, may I also ask the Minister to elaborate a little on the guidelines for the independent disciplinary officers deciding on whether to allow the serviceman to compound the offence.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill proposes amongst other things, to amend the SAF Act 1972 to establish a Digital and Intelligence Service (DIS) to be led by a new Chief of Digital and Intelligence Service, alongside other existing service Chiefs, make changes and enhance punishment in the SAF and to permit military manoeuvres being carried out in catchment areas under PUB. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the establishment of DIS. I do seek some clarifications from the Minister regarding some details of the Bill. Firstly, MINDEF has said that for the proposed DIS, SAF will grow the initial core of digital experts through recruitment in service conversions and professional partnerships with the wider digital ecosystem and that it will also be leveraging on NSF and NSmen personnel with tech talents. May I ask the Minister, for a start, what is the proportion of servicemen which MINDEF expects to recruit from outside from MINDEF or SAF? What is the expected proportion of uniformed and non-uniformed staff? Will non-Singaporeans or PRs be allowed to serve in DIS? And, if so, what are the security safeguards in place to ensure national security? Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would also like to ask Minister, what measures are in place to ensure that in carrying out its work to safeguard the security of our country, DIS will be bound by clear regulations governing the conduct of their investigations and other areas of their work, which will prevent any misuses of its investigation powers or resources, especially during peacetime? I have full confidence in our Armed Forces and its personnel.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I just want to seek clarification from the Minister regarding my Question No 13, part (b). I am not sure I heard the answer. For Singaporeans under 50, if they wish to take the second booster because of travel requirements or because of concerns arising out of travel, will they be allowed to do so under the National Vaccination Programme?”
“We expect that, in future years, we would have more and deeper conversations with her about her adoption, but we are glad that we have started this journey of disclosure some time ago. Mr Deputy Speaker, though the Bill does not make it mandatory for parents to disclose the fact of adoption to their adopted children, once passed into law, the requirement in the legislation for a prospective adoptive parent to attend briefings on disclosure is a symbolic step in the right direction. I understand that there may still be parents who may not be comfortable with disclosure and I sincerely hope that, by my sharing, I can also encourage some of those who may still have doubts. I am in a support group of adoptive families that was initially set up by the SSA which helped us with our home study report the Lutheran Community Care Services. Pre-COVID-19, the group's parents and children had met from time to time. I hope the group will be meeting up again soon with the relaxation of safe management measure (SMM) conditions. My daughter also meets up with other friends who are adopted. Recently, a staff worker from the Lutheran Community Care Services sent to our support group a video on disclosure which I found to be very encouraging and thought-provoking. I hope that adoptive parents and all stakeholders can continue to work together to encourage more parents about the benefits of disclosure and also to help adoptive parents and children along both their disclosure journey and, indeed, their adoption journey. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“There is quite a lot of literature on the benefits of disclosure, particularly early disclosure of the fact of adoption to the adopted child. In the days of old, many parents would not tell their adopted children the fact of their adoption and some would find out later on in their life, through different sources or by accident. Many adopted children do not react well to discovering this later in their life. Some time ago, a father shared with me his painful experience. He and his wife had adopted a child from a neighbouring country some years ago and did not disclose the fact of adoption to the child. As the child developed a different complexion from his adoptive parents as he got older, he was teased about it and had a tough time in school. One day, he confronted his parents about it and his parents admitted to him that he was adopted. However, he struggled to accept this revelation in his mid-teens and why he was not told about it earlier. He developed difficult behavioural issues right through his early adulthood. Sadly, the episode also took a toll on his parents' marriage. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am, myself, an adoptive father. I was glad that in the early stages of adoption, I was briefed and made to understand the importance of disclosure. Though not mandatory, my wife and I agreed at the onset that we should disclose to our child that she is adopted. We started by sharing with her stories of adoption even when she was a baby. In recent years, we started telling her that we are her adoptive parents. She knows that she has a "Tummy Mommy" and a "Forever Mommy". My daughter is still young. She is in Primary 1 this year. It is still a work in progress in our disclosure journey.”
“Would the Government consider amending the law to dispense with the need for such adopted children not born in Singapore to take this oath, especially for children who were formally adopted by Singaporean parents under Singapore law within a short time after birth, for example, say, not more than one to two years after birth, and whose adoptive parents are also Singaporeans at the time of issuance of the children's Singapore citizenship certificate and birth certificate? There are no other options for these children, unlike other categories, such as children who keep dual nationalities from birth, either by the parents' choice or at least one of the adoptive parents has a foreign nationality. Many of the adopted children would have severed their ties with their former countries, as well as their birth parents. This Bill codifies the existing practice required by MSF for all would-be adoptive parents to first attend certain briefings, including a briefing on disclosure of adoptive status in clause 13. Currently, MSF states on its website that prospective adopters are strongly encouraged to attend a disclosure workshop on talking with one's adopted child about adoption. The workshop will help one to understand why adopted children should know about their status and how adoptive parents can approach the subject. These briefings have been a part of the adoption procedure for some time now. While still not mandating disclosure by parents to their adopted children of the status of their adoption, the inclusion in the Bill of the disclosure briefings is still, in my view, extremely significant, as it would help to enshrine the importance of disclosure.”
“I can understand some of these difficult cases, the concerns about their birth parents being continually unfit to take care of their children, or even be abusive. I can also understand that some of these children may even have good and close relationships with their foster parents, making adoption a worthwhile consideration. Nevertheless, people may change for the better over time and live to regret their past actions, while legal adoption, unlike fostering, adds a permanent and irreversible seal to an end to the legal relationship between birth parents and their children. Rehabilitation efforts, may, for some, involve a longer time than others. How do we decide between continuing a child under foster care or putting the child in foster care up for adoption? There will not be easy, one-size-fits-all solutions. Even after the passing of this Bill, it will not and should not be an easy decision for the Court to make based on any set of general conditions, such as those in clause 37, for example, the time consideration which should be given to the parents in each type of situation listed in the clause, or for each particular case. I seek the Minister's assurance that there will still be sufficient safeguards to ensure that any adoption in these circumstances be allowed in perhaps only the most appropriate of cases. Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that adopted children, who were foreigners at the time of birth are given citizenship at the time of the formalisation of adoption. However, ICA requires such children to take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty when they reach 21, pursuant to Article 124(1) of the Constitution.”
“Bearing in mind that each HSR already costs $2,000 and the HSR process is currently undertaken by commercial agencies, is the Minister able to indicate, for now, the estimated fees which the Government expects the adoption agencies to charge for ASA and would this be capped by the Government? Mr Deputy Speaker, I have earlier spoken on the new requirement of the adoption agency issuing an ASA for adoptive parents. Clause 10 of the Bill allows the Minister to designate or authorise adoption agencies. May I ask the Minister to share with the House what are the specific requirements for an adoption agency to be an authorised adoption agency? I agree with the Bill setting guidelines for permissible adoption-related payments, requiring all our adoption agencies to publish information on their fees, as well as other provisions, criminalising undesirable behaviour. It is important to ensure that agencies uphold acceptable standards and moral practices. However, I am concerned about the possible compliance costs which may be incurred by such authorised adoption agencies and whether such costs will be passed on to the adoptive parents. I am concerned that the requirement should not lead to an increase in the cost of adoption fees and expenses. Certainly, for the many adoption cases involving children from overseas each year, the cost is considerable. I urge the Government to take steps to ensure that this Bill will not lead to an increase in the cost and expenses of adoption. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill also helps to facilitate adoption of children who have been placed in foster care or a children's home for many years as their birth parents continue to be unfit, or unwilling, to care for them.”
“The home study process involves interviews, screenings, home visits and applicants will be assessed on areas, such as their motivation to adopt, views on adoption, family, marital, medical and employment history, childcare arrangement, parenting styles and other relevant information, involving adoption and adoptive parenting. I would like to ask the Minister whether for the categories of adoption applications currently requiring HSR, for example, adoption of foreign or local children not previously known personally to them, would HSR still be required, or whether ASA will replace HSR completely. And if ASA will not replace HSR, how would ASA add value to the current HSR regime beyond the ASA being a formal certification by the adoption agency that these applicants are suitable to be adoptive parents? For any other group of applicants not currently subject to the HSR procedure, for example, a step-parent adopting a child of his or spouse from a previous marriage, may I know what is the expected rigour of the ASA assessment expected, for example, when compared to the current HSR process? How will GIA ensure that all ASAs comply with the requirements and standards expected under the Bill or any subsidiary legislation? I am also curious why the Government did not consider it fit to allow the current four SSAs, which are issuing HSRs to issue ASAs, instead of getting the authorised adoption agencies to do so. Since the four SSAs are already issuing HSRs, it would seem reasonable and consistent for them to do the ASA assessment and issue the ASAs. I am also concerned about the additional cost to adoption which may arise from the requirement of ASA. The expenses for the adoption of overseas children are already quite significant and it is not easily affordable to some.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. I note that the Bill contains certain provisions of the Adoption of Children Act 1939 while also codifying certain other current practices, and I would like to seek clarifications on just certain parts of this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill requires that an adoption application must, henceforth, be made by an applicant who has a favourable adoption suitability assessment under clause 14, or in short, ASA. ASA is required to be issued by an authorised adoption agency pursuant to the requirements of the Bill. Clause 14 further provides that a valid ASA is one that is issued in the form specified by and contains all the necessary information required by GIA. Can the Minister clarify what additional information is required as prescribed under clause 14(3)A and B? Currently, only limited categories of prospective adoptive parents are required to obtain a favourable Home Study Report (HSR) before they are allowed to adopt, for example, for overseas adoptive children. The HSR assessment is usually carried out by one of the four Social Service Agencies (SSAs) specifically authorised by MSF to provide certain adoption services. One such organisation, Touch Community Services, has provided a helpful explanation on the purpose of HSR on their website. They explained that HSR is to assess a person's suitability and readiness to adopt a child. The assessment is required before the adoptive parents start searching for a suitable child or before initiating legal adoption proceedings.”
“While it is supposed to simplify and, while I note that the Bill does provide for the Court retaining discretion in determining the weight to be given to the evidence admitted by way of the record of the case, I would like to ask what are the safeguards against abuses, for example, where there are inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise, or any inadequacies with regard to the record of the case. Next, Mr Speaker, I have a point of clarification on clause 16(8)(c). This clause provides that pursuant to sub-clauses 8(a) to (c), the Magistrate is to commit the person to await the warrant of the Minister for the surrender but otherwise, subject to section 17, is to order that person be released. I am trying to understand this clause. May I know in what circumstances should the Magistrate order that this person be released? Next, Mr Speaker, before I close, I actually wanted to ask the Minister, given the changes to our extradition laws under this Bill and including the provision allowing consent by fugitives, does the Government expect that the amended law will result in an increased number of people being now eligible for extradition for offences committed in home countries in the past. And if I heard the Minister correctly, I think the indication is no. On a related note, I would also like to ask the Minister whether following the recent extradition treaty with Indonesia, does the Government expect to handle a spike in the number of fugitives being extradited and also whether it is making plans to handle such an increase in volume. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my questions and clarifications, I support this Bill.”
“And so, it should not extend to offences which, if under the requesting country's military laws, the acts leading to the offences might not have come within our SAF Act offences but under another statute, for example, our Enlistment Act offences. Next, Mr Speaker, I welcome the new provisions under this Bill allowing a fugitive to consent to extradition. I agree that this may save state resources in otherwise having to proceed with a more lengthy extradition proceeding. However, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether a consent by a fugitive will obviate the need for the Magistrate hearing the case to still examine and ensure that, prima facie, the proposed extradition comes within the requirements of the Extradition Act, regardless of and independent of the reasons or circumstances for him or her choosing to consent. Next, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether the new requirements on search and seizure under clause 15, which provides for seizure of anything in the possession or control of a fugitive that may be material as evidence, will cover proceeds of fraud or offences relating to fraud, corruption or graft. The Bill also introduces a record of the case mechanism. This is supposed to simplify existing requirements and procedures for the admission of evidence to support an application for extradition. Such a record of the case summarises the evidence presented by a requesting state or is to be certified by a judicial or prosecuting authority.”
“Mr Speaker, I support the attempt to modernise our extradition regime through the Extradition (Amendment) Bill. I support the streamlining of provisions on extradition requests for declared Commonwealth countries and other non-Commonwealth foreign states into a single framework and also the enhancement of the review procedures for extradition proceedings. I also welcome the introduction of the threshold approach for determining the extradition offences, which is a major change to the existing list approach. Instead of having to come within specific offences in a list under the existing approach, an offence will now be extraditable under the new threshold approach in this amendment Bill if it attracts a punishment of two or more years of imprisonment, subject to the list of excluded offences. This approach will make for easier applicability and also bring us in line with countries like the UK, Australia, Canada and Malaysia. The Bill expands also on the restrictions on surrender. In other words, the Bill expands on the list of excluded offences or circumstances which preclude extradition. This also modernises our approach in this respect, adding to the circumstances seen in many extradition treaties. Mr Speaker, I have a clarification on the prohibition of the situation of a request for extradition for prosecution of offences under military law. Do I understand correctly that the prohibition will apply as long as the fugitive is charged for actions which, if it had happened in Singapore, would constitute an offence under our Singapore Armed Forces Act (SAF Act) and any subsidiary legislation?”
“Mr Chairman, COVID-19 has impacted our mental health too. An IMH study last year found that 13% of the participants reported symptoms of increased anxiety and depression. But 81.8% of participants said that they will be willing to seek professional help. I am therefore concerned that the current MediSave cap is insufficient for low-income individuals that may wish to seek help but may not be able to afford it. Currently, only mental illnesses listed under the 20 chronic diseases under the Chronic Disease Management Programme entitle a patient to pay using his MediSave account. Patients with complex chronic mental conditions will be able to use up to $700 of Medisave per patient yearly, while other patients will be able to use up to $500 of their MediSave per patient yearly for treatments. I would like to ask MOH to review the current MediSave cap of $700 allowed for chronic mental illnesses. To allow greater accessibility to psychiatric care in the community, the cap can be reviewed considering that on average, consultation fees in the private sector is over $100 per session, excluding the course of medication. Increasing the amount allowable under MediSave may also allow patients more flexibility to consider seeking consultation with doctors in private hospitals as the wait time may be too long in structured hospitals. Further, as part of the new focus on mental wellness, I would like to ask that we allow MediSave payments for consultation with psychologist, which I understand it is currently not possible. We can perhaps, set a cap of a maximum number of sessions per year, for example, up to five. Healthcare Infrastructure”
“Though I agree that the use of PMDs on roads or footpaths have reduced considerably from the time before the ban took place, I am often surprised to see that people continue to take the risk of riding illegally. Sir, I hope the Minister would share MOT's plans on how the Ministry will engage or deal with this smaller group of active mobility users who may continue to use their bikes or e-scooters illegally or inappropriately, so that we can continue to improve the riding culture in Singapore. In particular, are there any lessons learned from the enforcement or engagement efforts in recent months, which can be applied to persuade this group of active mobility users? Active Mobility Advisory Panel”
“Mr Chairman, in the past half a year or possibly longer, I have noted from media websites that the authorities have been regularly conducting operations to promote safe riding efforts by cyclists and Personal Mobility Devices (PMD) users. And according to news, media reports or the LTA Facebook page, these efforts included enforcement against errant riders, as well as efforts by officers to stop and engage riders on-the-ground on safe riding etiquette, as well as use of the right equipment, such as having compliant e-bikes complying with road traffic or active mobility rules – such as observing appropriate speed limits, complying with traffic lights, riding against the traffic, no riding on expressways, wearing of helmets and riding in the right numbers or formation. I had previously spoken of the need for consistent enforcement and I am heartened by the publicity on more regular enforcement. The enhanced publicity for these operations and engagements are also good, as they should help to encourage riders to be more conscious in riding safely and complying with road traffic or active mobility rules. Will the Government give a brief report of its enforcement and engagements over the past year, including the number of cases of infringements by cyclists or PMD users, who were taken to task? While I agree that the recent efforts are a step in the right direction, I have continued to see, on quite a regular basis, that there are still riders who, for example, beat red lights or cycle against the traffic, or do not wear helmets and riding on the road. I still see some e-scooters on the road or on footpaths, even though their use on these services have been banned for some time.”
“5 million tonnes were in LNG bunker sales. It was reported that Singapore commenced regular ship-to-ship LNG bunkering operations from March last year and that Singapore will continue to diversify our fuel offerings in line with our push for maritime decarbonisation. Indeed, LNG itself may not even be a long-term solution. The industry may have to push on to better low, if not zero, carbon fuels. There is not much time for all stakeholders in the maritime industry in the world to achieve the goals set by IMO to halve greenhouse emissions from 2008 levels by 2050. There is much to do in our search for affordable zero-carbon fuels. I hope GCMD will enable Singapore to spearhead the push among leading maritime nations. Will the Minister share with this House his hopes for GCMD and also his expectation of what Singapore hopes to achieve for its bunker sales in terms of lower carbon offerings in the coming five, 10 and perhaps 20 years? Public Transport”
“As we head towards a post-pandemic world, may I also take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he can update the House on MOT's review of its plans for Terminal 5? Maritime Decarbonisation and Bunkering Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a maritime lawyer. In August 2021, the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation (GCMD) was set up by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and six partner maritime organisations and companies to, I quote, "Support decarbonisation of the maritime industry to meet or exceed the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)'s goals for 2030 and 2050." Its stated goals were, among other things, and I quote again, "Lower the adoption barriers for low zero carbon fuels and technologies by closing the gaps in infrastructure, safety operations and financing, and to accelerate the deployment of scalable low-carbon technologies." The opening of the Centre and the Centre's aims are, indeed, befitting of our port as a leading bunkering port in the world as well as one of the busiest ports in the world and one of the major world maritime hubs. Singapore should aim to take the lead to hasten the development and adoption of low- or zero-carbon fuels for commercial shipping at this critical time. The International Advisory Panel on Maritime Decarbonisation had earlier proposed the establishment of this Global Maritime/Decarbonisation Centre in Singapore to coordinate, drive and catalyse maritime decarbonisation solutions. MPA has recently reported that in 2021, Singapore has kept its position as the top bunkering port, registering total bunker sales volume of 50.04 million tonnes in 2021. Of this, the bulk of the sales volume, 49.99 million tonnes to be exact, were conventional bunker sales, while only 0.”