Jeffrey Siow
Singapore
“These solutions have been installed for the Bukit Panjang LRT in 2023, and for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT in 2024. While physical and technological constraints have prevented the installation of platform screen doors at LRT stations thus far, this incident reminds us that we must never stop looking for better solutions.”
“The point-to-point transport sector in Singapore is market-based, which allows the needs of both commuters and drivers to be met. We have no plans to regulate ride-hail platform commission rates or passenger fares.”
“The amended route for Service 965 was designed to bring residents closer to amenities near Sengkang town centre, including schools, Sengkang General Hospital and the Sengkang Community Hub, compared to the alternative of routing through Compassvale Road.”
“The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Health (MOH) work closely together on transport options for healthcare needs. Our public transport network is barrier-free and wheelchair accessible. Taxis must accommodate foldable wheelchairs.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is the primary agency responsible for enforcing Active Mobility Act (AMA) offences on public paths, which comprise footpaths, shared paths and pedestrian-only paths. National Parks Board (NParks) officers are authorised by LTA to enforce AMA offences within NParks-managed parks and park connectors.”
“As earlier announced, the new bus stops, overhead bridges and lifts along the Tampines Expressway (TPE) will be completed between 2030 and 2032. Once works are completed, more residents in the northern parts of Rivervale estate will be within a 10-minute walk from a bus stop along TPE.”
The complete record
Every one of 519 lines we hold for Jeffrey Siow, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 11.
“Bus services in Bukit Batok West were recently enhanced under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. We improved the frequency of service 991, shortening wait times for residents travelling to Choa Chu Kang. Service 984 was introduced in October 2025 and provides an additional direct bus for residents travelling to Jurong East. These complement existing services, such as 180 and 993, which bring residents to Bukit Panjang and Jurong East respectively. In the future, Bukit Batok West will also be served by the Jurong Region Line, which will give residents another option for travelling to Jurong East, Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang.”
“Squatting is more likely to occur in circular bored tunnels running through softer ground. Road tunnels in Singapore are rectangular and constructed using the cut-and-cover method and are thus less susceptible to tunnel deformation. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has not detected any significant deformation of our road tunnels. Singapore's standards for the construction and monitoring of rail and road tunnels are aligned with international best practices and are comparable to the standards of other cities with extensive tunnel networks, such as Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo. Comprehensive protocols are in place to protect our rail and road infrastructure from nearby construction activities. Developers must obtain LTA's prior approval for works. Where such works are in close proximity to tunnels, developers must deploy monitoring instruments and carry out regular inspections. Additionally, LTA audits developers to ensure that such monitoring and inspections are properly implemented.”
“Information on tobacco duties collections are published on the Singapore Customs website (https://www.customs.gov.sg/news-and-media/publications/statistics). The annual revenue collections from tobacco duties over the past three financial years are tabulated below.”
“GIC and Temasek are commercial entities. Therefore, senior management incentives are decided by their respective boards. The Government does not interfere in their operational decisions, including for their senior management remuneration. Both GIC and Temasek have said that they adopt remuneration frameworks for their senior management which are market competitive and promote good performance. The Government will continue to assess entities' performance in meeting their mandates net of fees and expenses.”
“This question has been answered in the oral reply to Parliamentary Questions 5 to 11 filed in today's Order Paper.”
“This question has been answered in the oral reply to Parliamentary Questions No 12 to 14 filed in today's Order Paper.”
“There were around 710 reported accidents involving personal mobility aids, personal mobility devices or power-assisted bicycles that resulted in injuries from 2023 to Q3 2025. Approximately 590 were on the roads. About 120 were off-road, inclusive of public paths.”
“OTA updates for electric public buses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and they are necessary to patch vehicle software vulnerabilities promptly. LTA is collaborating closely with Government cybersecurity agencies to study how to transit from wired to OTA updates safely for these buses.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) adopts a risk-tiered approach in dealing with cybersecurity for private and public connected vehicles. For all passengers and goods vehicles, in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, motor dealers have to declare if there are Over-The-Air (OTA) capabilities during the vehicle approval process. When Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) want to deploy significant OTA modifications to vehicles that impact a registered vehicle's safe operations or alter its specifications, such as changes to adaptive cruise control features, they need prior approval from LTA. Public electric buses are an essential public transport service. Hence, cybersecurity vulnerabilities carry higher risk and impact on public safety and service continuity. In addition to the requirements stipulated under the Road Traffic Act, LTA requires all electric buses in its fleet to comply with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation Nos 155 and 156 (R155 and R156). These international standards require OEMs to implement certified cybersecurity controls to prevent, detect and respond to cyber threats across the vehicle lifecycle and ensure OTA updates are secure, authenticated, traceable and recoverable. LTA has also conducted technical reviews with OEMs of public buses, who have provided assurance that they do not possess remote command capabilities. LTA will conduct additional independent technical assessments to verify this. Any software updates or changes needed today are executed by authorised personnel, on-site at the bus depot using a wired connection, only after LTA has verified the purpose of the updates and given approval.”
“Government agencies, including the Land Transport Authority (LTA), have received feedback on the location and the construction of the bus depot. While the bus depot cannot be relocated, LTA is implementing a number of mitigating measures that will address residents' feedback. A 12-metre-high temporary noise barrier will be built to provide sound insulation from construction activities, even though the nearest residents are more than 200 metres from the work site. Noise monitoring systems have also been installed to continuously measure and record noise levels from construction. To minimise dust during construction, measures, such as spraying exposed surfaces with water and cleaning vehicles before they leave the site, will be implemented.”
“All persons injured and hospitalised due to the incident have been discharged from hospital. The two bus operators involved are assisting injured passengers with their medical claims. Investigations are ongoing and the Land Transport Authority will share more information when there are further developments.”
“GIC and Temasek are commercial entities. As part of their fiduciary duties, the Government expects the investment entities to reserve all necessary legal rights to safeguard the value of their investments and take legal action where appropriate. Any legal action undertaken should take into account the relevant facts, the legal merits, the applicable laws and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions and the potential costs and benefits of the available dispute resolution options, amongst other commercial considerations.”
“Beyond that, we will not go into exactly how the dividends are spent and what proportion of listed or unlisted assets they should manage. That is something for the Temasek management to decide and we will not interfere in those decisions.”
“I thank the hon Member for his question. I think we go back to first principles, which is that it is not always appropriate or meaningful to directly compare Temasek's performance with other funds. It really depends on the mandate and the risk profile that Temasek was set up to do. As I explained in my reply, Temasek is not quite the same as a typical sovereign wealth fund. It is an active bottom-up investor, and it also has a history and development as a holding company for Singapore portfolio companies. Nonetheless, as a comparison, I think Temasek's performance has, indeed, been commensurate with other sovereign wealth funds with a higher risk profile, such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Just as a comparison, both have achieved 20-year annualised total shareholder returns of about 8%. So, the Government does expect Temasek to achieve good sustainable returns over the long term. And as an asset holder of major Singapore-based assets, we expect them to exercise appropriate oversights over their investments, no different from any other responsible asset holder. While we do not benchmark them to any specific reference portfolio and nor does it invest to meet the specific index returns, I think the Member can compare available indices to see whether or not it has, on the various aspects, met its expectations. Inherently, I think Temasek's returns would be more volatile compared to funds with a lower risk profile. I think it has a mix of both listed and unlisted assets, as the hon Member has noted. The investment approach is one that we want them to do, which is to develop and build a diversified portfolio that reduces the volatility and outperforms a broad-based market index. And so, the Government will continue to engage them to do that.”
“And in their annual report, they do indicate a value if they were to mark these unlisted assets to market. And I think the Member can refer to the Temasek annual report on the website to get a sense of the difference in terms of the value of these unlisted assets. Again, it is a variant of the question which another hon Member asked – which is, when should we worry? When should we worry if Temasek's long-term returns on their assets are not what is desired? I think we have to accept that as an investor with a larger risk profile or rather a bottom-up investor, the way it is an active investor, we should expect some volatility in Temasek's returns over time. But over the long period, these volatilities and these fluctuations should even out. And as long as they make what we require of them, which is something that is sustainable, that is something that is in line with their risk profile, in line with some of the decisions they are taking, including their capability building and investments in new areas, I think we should be able to accept that these are within our expectations and that they are delivering what they have been set out to do.”
“Mr Speaker, let me recap the three questions very quickly. Number one is whether or not, again, we should assess the performance of Singapore-based companies differently as part of Temasek's overall performance. Second is the performance of unlisted assets versus listed assets; how do we assess them? And then thirdly, how do we assess their short-term variations in performance and what do we do if that is affected? So, on the first question, I have answered that as part of the previous Parliamentary Question. I think, first of all, for Temasek, we do assess them overall, looking at their broad mandate, whether or not they have performed to meet the mandate in delivering sustainable long-term returns. At the same time, we do work with them closely to understand the performance of the different groups of companies. Looking at how the Singapore portfolio companies perform, we do work with them closely to understand if they have performed in a certain way and to see how the performance of those companies can be specifically improved, because these are Singaporean companies and they are important to us. So, we do work with them on that basis. But in terms of assessing them overall as part of their mandates, that is not something that we look at more directly, as I have explained earlier. As for the difference between listed and unlisted assets, well, unlisted assets, by definition, should generate higher returns because they have a risk premium associated with them. But I think the way Temasek values its unlisted assets, they take a conservative approach. What they do is they value them at the book value, less, I think, the impairment that comes with these assets, the potential impairment.”
“Efforts to develop industry ecosystems or to enhance the financing for early-stage startups are led by the Government, rather than by Temasek. For example, Enterprise Singapore has a Startup SG Equity scheme, through which the Government co-invests with third-party investors in Singapore-based deep tech startups to catalyse the deep tech ecosystem. And from time to time, Temasek may participate in the Government's initiatives, but it does so on commercial terms, strictly consistent with its mandate. For example, the Government has co-invested with Temasek in the Local Enterprises Fund, which aims to help large local enterprises transform and scale up; and the Anchor Fund which supports promising high-growth enterprises to raise capital through public listings in Singapore. Both funds are managed on a commercial basis by 65 Equity Partners, a Temasek-owned platform. As Temasek expands its investment activities across new geographies and sectors, it may need to adjust its organisational structure to sharpen its focus and better achieve its objectives. And in this regard, Temasek has publicly explained the rationale for its latest restructuring. These are matters for the Temasek board to determine and the Government does not intervene in such decisions. Ultimately, the Government holds the board of Temasek accountable for delivering good long-term returns on its overall portfolio and that is on the basis of net portfolio performance, after deducting all investment fees and expenses.”
“My response will also cover Question No 3 for written answer filed for today's Sitting, as well as the question filed by Mr Kenneth Tiong for oral answer at a subsequent Sitting. I would thereafter invite Members who have filed questions for this and future Sittings to seek clarifications if need be. If sufficiently addressed, the Member may wish to withdraw the question filed for a subsequent Sitting. Mr Speaker, the Government's mandate for Temasek is that it should deliver good, sustainable long-term returns. The Government ensures that Temasek has a competent board to oversee its management but does not otherwise influence or direct Temasek's individual investment decisions. With regard to Question No 14 on whether Temasek has any performance benchmarks, I had addressed this in the earlier reply; but in short, Temasek does not operate against a specific conventional reference portfolio as it is a direct investor, an investor that is bottom-up. Nonetheless, it does publish some indexes as reference, as I mentioned earlier, including the MSCI and the STI. The Government expects Temasek to ensure that its overall portfolio of investments, including its Singapore-based Temasek Portfolio Companies (TPCs), achieves good commercial outcomes. Temasek actively and constructively engages its TPCs. From time to time, Temasek will work with the TPCs on strategic reviews and initiatives to strengthen their foundations for future growth. Temasek’s Singapore portfolio has been able to contribute steady returns to Temasek's overall portfolio and to Singapore’s economic growth over the long term. Beyond exercising the appropriate oversight over its investments, there is no requirement for Temasek to pursue specific strategic or economic development strategies.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 12 to 14 on today's Order Paper together?”
“Mr Speaker, I think I will go back to explaining how the basic features of the system work. The Government has a strong balance sheet. This enables us to take investment risks and to ride out the market cycles that are inherent in investing for the longer term. We have a significant buffer of net assets, which enables the Government to guarantee CPF savings and to pay fair interest rates on CPF savings despite market cycles. The way this is done is it insulates the CPF returns and interest rates from the vagaries of the market. Sir, we have explained this before and I think we do not have to go through the whole process again. I think the Member has asked a question on this previously as well and we can refer to the answer there.”
“Over time, it is moving towards becoming more of a global investor with more geographical diversification and thus, this also requires Temasek to build up its own capabilities – just as it had built up its capabilities managing the portfolio of Temasek companies. I think it is a matter of judgement for them to do this, as long as they achieve the mandate that we have given to them. Overall, looking at the total portfolio of Temasek's assets, I think as long as it can generate sustainable returns as a portfolio, that will be a good outcome. Bearing in mind also that there are synergies between the different portfolios. In managing the local Temasek-linked companies, there are benefits to having a global outlook on matters, having some global expertise and domain expertise in different areas, which I think Temasek is very focused on trying to generate as a result of their investment disposition.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon Member asked two questions. Number one, I think is on whether or not, given the competition with global funds, whether Temasek or GIC should take a different focus and to focus on investment in local infrastructure – I think that was the first question. And the second question, was whether or not, given that it has a cluster, in terms of local Singapore companies, whether we should evaluate performance differently. I think in gist, those are the two questions. On the first question, I think we do not work on the basis of individual investment decisions. I think we want to structure how the relationship between the Government and our investment entities, structure them at the broad level to enable them to fulfil this mandate of achieving sustainable returns, preserving our asset base, while giving them, as commercial entities, the freedom to do the things that they need to do. And so, insofar as requiring them to have a specific investment focus or to invest locally, I think that is something as an entity, they need to decide and in light of the mandate that we have given them, to see whether that it is the most preferred strategy. So, we will not direct it personally or directly, but we would leave them to make those decisions. As to whether or not we should carve them out separately to have a separate entity and evaluate the performance of the parts of Temasek that looks after our TPCs, I think we have to take this in context of how Temasek has evolved its capabilities over time. As the hon Member said, it started off as a company with deep expertise in managing our local TPCs.”
“But that is not what we are doing, because GIC here is the Government's fund manager. They are the professionals. They have a large pool of assets that range from the passive assets to assets that require them to take a closer monitoring and to make sure that those assets continue to generate high returns and they have to make active decisions to manage them. Overall, the GIC team has been doing so over the years and their track record, given the mandate they have been given, demonstrates that they are able to do so. They have taken the decision as we talked about, to de-risk during periods of distress, during COVID, for instance, in the recent years. If they had not done so, our asset base could have been permanently impaired, as other funds would have experienced during this period. So, I think we have to leave the professionals to do the work that they do. The Government works with the GIC board to make sure that the mandate continues to be met, given the risk profile of what we want them to do, to take a more conservative approach, to preserve our capital base. And we think they have met the expectations in this regard.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon Member for his questions. I agree with the hon Member that we should recognise that it has become more challenging to generate good investment returns in the current global environment and that this trend is likely to persist in the longer term. That is why the Government will continue to take a prudent approach in ensuring that our investment income is able to meet our long-term obligations. But as I have explained earlier, the basis for why we are able to do the things that we are doing today is not because of year-to-year fluctuations in terms of market performance. In fact, the system is structured such that we are able to ride out some of these year-to-year fluctuations, even periods of sustained global under-performance in markets, because we have a large asset base and because we are able to take a long-term view of our investment returns. And so, in that sense, I think we have to continue to make sure that the mandates of the investment entities continue to be met, that they understand that they are doing this for the longer term, and they are able to take strategies and to take the right decisions to ensure that the returns over the longer term are indeed sustainable. As to whether we should be concerned whether the GIC and our investment entities are earning alpha, I think it is quite understandable that we look at how potentially the investment entities performance are benchmarked towards, for example, simple passive global benchmarks. When we do not have investment expertise or do not have time to make investments, the most common investment advice is just leave it to the market. We decide to buy an index fund, let them decide what to do.”
“We expect GIC to construct its portfolio to both safeguard our assets and to also achieve our returns. The approach that they have taken has helped them build a diversified portfolio that is resilient to market cycles and volatility, while achieving good risk adjusted returns. On the hon Member's second question on how to assess Temasek's performance, as I mentioned earlier, Temasek is different from GIC. It is a bottom-up active investor. It has a history of how it has gotten to where it is today. It started off as a holding company for Singapore Temasek-linked portfolio companies. Over time, it has broadened its coverage to include investments globally. It has, in the process of doing so, tried to give a sense of how it is performing on these areas, and on its website, it has referred to a few international indexes, whether it is the MSCI World Index or the Singapore stock market Index when it comes to measuring performance of the local companies. I think these are possible ways of seeing how they are performing. We do not intervene in individual investment decisions that are made by Temasek. So, which geographies they choose to go into and which domains they prefer to invest in, these are things we leave to the management. The Government works with the board to make sure that Temasek meets the mandate that we have set out for them and we do not want to have to intervene in these decisions that they make on individual investments.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I mentioned in my reply earlier, the Government assesses the returns of our investment entities based on their mandates and risk profiles. GIC has achieved a real return of 3.8% per annum over the past 20 years, which is within the Government's expectations, given the risk profile that we have given. The Member referred to the 65/35 reference portfolio, which is on the GIC website. That is not a returns benchmark, but is an expression of our risk tolerance and the risk profile we would like GIC to take. Ultimately, the Government assesses GIC performance based primarily on whether it has met this mandate. There will be periods where GIC takes less risk than the reference portfolio. And as I mentioned in my earlier reply, GIC did pre-emptively decide to de-risk in periods which had resulted in foregone returns. At the same time, GIC returns were much less volatile in the same timeframe and in fact, have outperformed the reference portfolio on a risk adjusted basis, given that it has achieved higher returns per unit of volatility. Should GIC not have de-risked and ridden through the drawdowns? I think that is a matter of a judgement. While one can ride through market cycles, there have also been instances where the stocks or the assets are permanently impaired. And because of the mandate of GIC, it has to balance with the need to preserve our capital assets, I think that is a judgement that they have taken. On hindsight, we can always make all sorts of assertions, but they have taken that decision to de-risk and preserve our capital, and still be able to make the returns that we expect of them. Ultimately, every investment fund must operate according to its own mandate and risk appetite.”
“On the hon Member's question on whether or not the Government intends to enhance long-term public reporting, I think the investment entities already provide quite a good amount of public information on their investment approach and on their returns. This can be found in their annual reports, their regular press releases, and occasionally in their opinion and research pieces which they put out. GIC discloses their five-, 10- and 20-year returns, but we have spoken in this House before about how we do not disclose their total assets under management, because we do not want to encourage speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar. Temasek, as a direct investor, releases even more information. They talk about total portfolio value, its investment approach, the domains and the geographical areas where they are investing. And I will encourage Members as well as members of the public to look at the information that they put online. Over time, GIC and Temasek have disclosed more information, and we will continue to encourage them to review if there are other meaningful disclosures to make. Our principle is that what the entities disclose should be part of an overall system that enables them to maximise their ability to generate long-term returns.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his supplementary questions. The Government's approach on assessing the returns of our investment entities is to take a long-term view. Market outcomes will inevitably fluctuate from year to year, there will be periods where returns are weak. But the way our system works is that these are not directly linked to our NIRC. The Government's strong balance sheet, as I explained earlier in my reply, enables it to take investment risks and ride out market cycles that are inherent in investing for the long term. We have a significant buffer on net assets, which enables the Government to guarantee CPF savings and pay fair interest rates on CPF savings despite changes in the financial cycle. And this is also why we are able to have a significant stream of investment income through the NIRC, which is then used to meet important spending priorities, as we discussed earlier. The Net Investment Returns taken into the Government Budget every year is based on the long-term expected returns of the investment entities, not on the year-to-year returns, which can fluctuate. In addition, the asset base that is used to calculate the NIRC is smoothed over the long term. So, the impact of a single year, or even a few years' worth of lower returns will take time to be passed through to the NIRC due to the smoothing of the asset base. Notwithstanding all these, we recognise that it is becoming structurally more difficult or more challenging to generate good investment returns in the current global environment and this trend is likely to persist in the longer term. Hence, the Government will indeed have to monitor this and take a prudent approach to ensure that our investment income is able to meet our spending and our long-term obligations.”
“Some Members asked about the implications of our investment entities’ recent performance on the sustainability of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) and the Government’s ability to meet our Central Provident Fund (CPF) liabilities. As explained in this House previously, the Net Investment Return framework was designed to ensure a steady and sustainable stream of income for the annual Budget. The NIRC is thus derived from the expected long-term real rate of return which the Reserves can sustain, and not short-term market returns. The Government is able to meet all debt servicing costs and obligations, including the committed CPF rates through the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS). GIC does not just manage the SSGS or CPF monies on their own, but a combined pool of Government funds, including a significant sum of unencumbered assets. This approach allows GIC to invest for the long term and to secure good long-term returns. As investment markets are uncertain and volatile, GIC’s returns over shorter periods could be low or even negative. But the Government is able to absorb these short-term market risks, because it has a strong balance sheet. This substantial buffer of net assets enables the Government to meet the obligations on its liabilities and continues to underpin the Government’s strong fiscal position.”
“Ultimately, what is more important is the longer-term performance that is achieved within acceptable risk limits. On that basis, GIC has achieved a real return of 3.8% per annum over the past 20 years. This outcome reflects, in part, GIC’s active management, which enabled it to consistently add value to portfolio returns, preserve the international purchasing power of the assets under its management and deliver returns above global inflation. Temasek began as a holding company for the Government’s local assets. While Singapore-based Temasek Portfolio Companies (TPCs) continue to form a core part of its total portfolio, Temasek has progressively expanded its direct equity investments overseas – initially in Asia, and more recently, across global markets. Temasek operates mainly as an active, bottom-up investor. It does not operate against a conventional reference portfolio. Instead, it invests directly in companies in the geographies and domains where it has built deep capabilities, and where it sees long-term growth potential. Relative to GIC, Temasek therefore operates at the higher end of the risk spectrum. In recent years, Temasek’s performance was affected by the performance of the Chinese market, though this was mitigated by higher returns from its growing investments in Europe and the United States (US). Nonetheless, over the last 20-year period, Temasek has reported a Total Shareholder Return of 8% per annum in US dollar terms. Taken as a whole, the Government’s assessment is that the returns generated by GIC and Temasek are reasonable and within expectations, given their mandates and risk profiles. We will continue to review their mandates and performance regularly, in line with changes in the global economic investment landscape.”
“Thank you. My reply will also cover Question No 4 for written answer filed by Mr Ng Shi Xuan for today's Sitting. Mr Speaker, recent media reports have compared the performance of GIC and Temasek with that of other funds, including other sovereign wealth funds. Such comparisons are often done, but they should be interpreted in their proper context because different funds operate under different mandates and risk profiles. The Government assesses GIC and Temasek's performance primarily against their respective mandates and risk profiles, and not with other funds. Our focus has always been on long-term performance, rather than on short-term or year-to-year fluctuations. GIC is the Government's fund manager, and its mandate is to preserve and enhance the international purchasing power of the assets under its management. In recent years, GIC took pre-emptive measures to moderate its risk exposure, in anticipation of increased market volatility and heightened valuations. These measures were intended to keep portfolio risks within acceptable limits and to guard against the possibility of significant asset impairment in the event of a sharp market correction. But as equity markets have continued to remain elevated, these prudent de-risking measures resulted in some foregone returns. Any assessment of returns must, therefore, be considered alongside the risks that are taken to achieve them – a point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim made, where he referred to the Sharpe ratio in his Parliamentary Question (PQ). GIC monitors a wide range of risk indicators, including and beyond the Sharpe ratio. In fact, GIC publishes both the returns and volatility or the risks associated with its portfolio in its annual report to provide a more complete picture.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 5 to 11 in today's Order Paper together?”
“The Land Transport Authority tracks such passengers via regular surveys. In general, less than 2% of commuters were unable to board the first or second train along the busiest sections of the North-East Line, incurring less than four minutes of additional waiting time.”
“The proportion of land area dedicated to roads varies across car-lite estates, depending on the type and scale of all land uses in the specific estate. Car-lite estates generally have more bus lanes and dedicated cycling paths, as well as wider footpaths.”
“Charging prices are commercial decisions and vary depending on operator, location and charger power rating. Tenders for deployment at Housing and Development Board carparks were evaluated on a combination of factors, including operators' ability to offer competitive charging prices. The Land Transport Authority monitors the electric vehicle charging prices at public locations and will take steps to introduce more competition, if necessary.”
“The Land Transport Authority's latest Household Travel Survey in 2024 found that for most housing types, (a) mean and median travel times to school was between 30 to 35 minutes, and 25 to 30 minutes respectively; and (b) mean and median travel times to work was between 40 to 45 minutes, and 35 to 45 minutes respectively. There was no significant trend by housing types, other than those living in landed house reporting slightly longer travel times to schools compared to those living in Housing and Development Board flats. For most income groups, mean and median travel times were between (a) 30 to 35 minutes to school, and (b) 40 to 45 minutes to work. Likewise, there was no significant trend by income types, other than those of the highest income band from the survey reporting slightly shorter travel times to work.”
“The Land Transport Authority ensures that our public transport is inclusive and accessible to all, based on the diverse needs of our commuters. However, given the limited space on board a public bus, we must often make trade-offs in how we use the space. Adding one more space for wheelchairs, strollers and personal mobility aids would require us to remove at least four seats per bus. This could make it more challenging to accommodate passengers who do not use mobility devices, but need a seat regardless, such as seniors and young children. We will need to study travel patterns and demand, to see if this is the right solution, or if there are suitable alternatives.”
“I thank the Member for the question. I have addressed this at the 4 November 2025 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to "Duration of Free Morning Off-peak Rail Rides Scheme on North East Line", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“About 80% of such roads do not have bus lanes today. We expect to decrease this to prioritise public transport and reduce public transport journey times for commuters.”
“Road improvement works will be carried out at the junction of Tampines Road and Upper Serangoon Road in tandem with the development of the Kovan Wellspring Build-to-Order. Kovan mass rapid transit station is currently served by 12 bus services. We are introducing free morning off-peak rail rides on the North East Line from end-December 2025 to help to reduce train crowding during peak periods.”
“Most lower-wage workers, as I said, do not already pay income tax, but in the event that any worker has paid income tax on the training allowances received, the amendment allows them to obtain a refund of the taxes paid, and this will be publicised by Workforce Singapore, so that such individuals can come forward to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, as a small open economy, Singapore must remain nimble and responsive to global developments. Our fundamentals are strong, and we are well placed to seize opportunities amidst the shifts in the global economic environment, this Tax Bill will update our tax regime to provide more clarity to businesses and to respond to industry feedback, and this is a key part of our overall effort to strengthen Singapore's economic competitiveness as the global landscape continues to evolve. Sir, I seek to move. 3.38 pm”
“However, section 92L(5) does give the Government the flexibility to adjust the employment condition if companies are unable to meet it due to unforeseen circumstances. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Chua for their views on providing more support for our workers. Indeed, we have shared the upsides of Singapore's economic growth, including through tax rebates with Singaporeans. The SG60 package this year includes a 60% personal income tax rebate to all tax resident individuals. This rebate is estimated to cost almost $400 million. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Louis Chua suggested making structural changes to our tax system to provide more support for individuals, such as reducing the rates for the lowest income tax brackets, or to increase the quantum of our tax reliefs. Mr Chua also suggested reviewing our personal income tax exemption threshold of $20,000. Our personal income tax exemption threshold is already higher than jurisdictions like Australia and Malaysia, where thresholds range from $1,500 to $16,000. Taken together with our progressive tax rates, tax reliefs and rebates, already around 40% of workers do not pay income tax in Singapore. For those who do, about 80% have an effective tax rate of less than 6%. I thank Mr Chua for his various suggestions to enhance the personal tax regime, and we will continue to regularly review the personal tax regime to ensure that it remains fair and progressive. I would like to share with Mr Saktiandi that the training allowances provided under the Workfare Skills Support - Basic scheme will not be taxed so that the lower-wage workers who undertake training can receive the full benefits of training allowances.”
“Mr Saktiandi further highlighted that the short window of the listing corporate income tax rebate incentive and its administrative requirements could discourage participation, and he asked whether or not as well whether the rebate would be effective given our implementation of Pillar Two taxes. While tax measures may be less relevant for large multinational enterprises that are affected by Pillar Two, they will still benefit small businesses or smaller businesses. Ultimately, it is up to each enterprise to consider its own circumstances before applying for any incentive. MOF will monitor the effectiveness of these incentives and we will be open to making further adjustments if necessary. Mr Chua spoke about how we should review our tax incentives for family officers to strengthen their economic outcomes for Singapore. Indeed, this is what Singapore does for all of our incentives on a regular basis, and I agree with him and I thank him for his feedback. Mr Victor Lye suggested setting a clear timeline to extend the enhancement to the 20%-shareholding condition for section 13W tax exemption of disposal gains to registered business trusts and variable capital companies. MOF will indeed study the feasibility of his suggestion, but please give us some time as the ownership structures of registered business trusts and variable capital companies are complex. I would like to also inform Mr Saktiandi that the employment condition does not apply to the corporate tax rebate. This is because a tax-paying company would be considered an active company, and this approach allows for greater administrative efficiency while still meeting our intent of supporting active companies.”
“Pillar Two rules are complex, and to help taxpayers better understand and comply with these rules, IRAS has also set up a dedicated mailbox and published e-learning videos and an e-tax guide on the top-up taxes for the businesses to refer to. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also asked on the compliance requirement for securitisation entities. Our approach to the top-up tax on such entities, or how we would impose the top-up tax is similar to the treatment in other jurisdictions, including in Australia and Hong Kong. This is to avoid ceding tax revenue to foreign jurisdictions that impose Pillar Two taxes on securitisation entities income. To ensure that securitisation transactions remain viable in Singapore, securitisation entities will not be liable for unpaid tax liability of the multinational enterprise or appointed as a filing entity unless it is the only constituent entity here, MOF and IRAS will also work closely with businesses and industry associations to address other remaining areas of concern and to further ease the compliance burden for businesses. Mr Saktiandi asked about Singapore's implementation plans for the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework. This framework provides for the automatic exchange of information on crypto assets for tax purposes with partner jurisdictions. IRAS has announced that Singapore expects to commence these exchanges in 2028 and has been in close consultation with the industry since last year, and it will provide further guidance to the industry in due course.”
“We are confident about Singapore's economic future. But at the same time, we are under no illusions to the fact that we have to compete harder in this new world where the rules matter less and strategic heft matters more. This is why we established the Economic Strategy Review Committee in August to refresh our economic blueprint. I chair one of the committees on global competitiveness with Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling. We are developing ideas to strengthen Singapore's value proposition in the global economy to build new growth sectors, such as advanced manufacturing precision medicine and artificial intelligence; to attract fast growing companies from the US, China, India and elsewhere; to strengthen Singapore's position as a global hub in the flows of goods, capital, talent, data, energy and ideas. The objective, as always, is to secure good growth for Singapore and good jobs for Singaporeans. And this is why our tax system will have to complement the strategy too. At the company level, we do regularly review the tax system to ensure that it is responsive to industry needs and feedback, and that is why MOF has consulted extensively with SMEs, trade associations and chambers for this Bill. I would like to thank Mr Saktiandi and Mr Lye for their suggestions on tax compliance and support for businesses. Facilitating businesses' tax compliance has been, and always will be, a priority for IRAS. In this regard, IRAS has been publishing e-tax guides and updating its website to provide clearer guidance for businesses. IRAS has also simplified the tax filing processes for small businesses, such as by reducing the amount of information that they need to submit in their tax returns.”
“But our key consideration for imposing the Pillar Two taxes, to avoid ceding tax revenue, remains valid for now. It is far from clear what the final arrangement will be. As Mr Shawn Loh said, the less we know, the more we should prepare. And so, MOF will continue to monitor developments very closely and recalibrate our approach, if needed, if and when the situation changes. Mr Louis Chua asked if companies that received the RIC are required to adopt the arm's length principle. The answer is, yes, the RIC recipients must ensure that qualifying expenditures incurred from transactions with related parties are at arm's length. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Finance", Official Report, 6 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Correction By Written Statement section.] Mr Shawn Loh spoke about the importance of enhancing Singapore's value proposition to global enterprises and let me assure Members that this is a key priority for the Government. While Pillar Two may reduce the room for tax competition amongst jurisdictions, the competition for foreign investment has intensified. The Prime Minister explained during past Budget debates that, although BEPS 2.0 was meant to tilt the playing field in favour of governments and to make MNEs pay more taxes, in reality, such enterprises wield considerable leverage, and this is why governments everywhere are, therefore, still spending significant sums to attract investments. Fortunately, our economic competitiveness is not based solely on tax incentives, but on the strength of our overall business ecosystem. And this includes many factors – a deep pool of human capital, strong rule of law, long-term investments in infrastructure and connectivity, and our capacity to deploy and diffuse new technologies.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their support of the Bill and for their varied comments and suggestions to improve it. I ask for, first of all, for everybody's understanding that I will not be able to address everybody's suggestions today, and this includes Mr Kenneth Tiong's suggestions on equities market improvements, which are outside the scope of this Bill. In line with the Standing Order 70(2), specifying that the Second Reading should be on the general merits and principle of the Bill, let me first respond to some of the points that are more specific to the Bill that other colleagues have raised. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Victor Lye have asked whether we would adjust our implementation of Pillar Two top-up taxes if other jurisdictions slow or reverse their adoption and whether this would affect our economic competitiveness. Let me try to briefly recap how Pillar Two rules work without ChatGPT. When a multinational enterprise is taxed below the minimum effective rate of 15% in a jurisdiction, other jurisdictions will have the right to impose a top-up tax on the multinational enterprise. This design ensures that the multinational enterprises pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% wherever they operate, even if some jurisdictions choose not to implement the rules. Therefore, if we do not implement the Pillar Two taxes, we will cede tax revenue to other jurisdictions as the affected multinational enterprises would have to pay these taxes to other jurisdictions that have implemented Pillar Two rules. The reopening of negotiations on Pillar Two, including the side-by-side solution, seeks to exempt US multinational enterprises from some of the Pillar Two rules has, indeed, created some uncertainty.”
“This was announced in Budget 2025 as part of the SG60 package and is granted automatically to eligible taxpayers. Let me conclude. Mr Speaker, the provisions in the Bill will update our tax regime to strengthen our economic competitiveness, provide more clarity to businesses and give more support to companies and individuals amidst a challenging global economic landscape. Sir, I seek to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Sir, I will now highlight key amendments to the Income Tax Act, which cover changes to our corporate income tax and personal income tax regimes. The corporate income tax amendments ensure that our tax system remains responsive to business needs and practices. Clause 19 provides for a 100% tax deduction for expenses incurred by businesses on green certificates or credits. This is in response to feedback from businesses for more support in their sustainability journeys. Currently, tax deductions are only available when certificates or credits are surrendered or retired to meet statutory requirements. But with this amendment, tax deductions will now also apply if these certificates or credits are used to meet sustainability commitments. Clauses 27, 34 and 42 introduce tax incentives recommended by the Equities Market Review Group, set out at Budget this year. These incentives aim to encourage new listings in Singapore's equities market and increase investment demand for Singapore-listed equities. First, companies that complete a primary or secondary listing with shares offered in conjunction with the listing will enjoy a 20% or 10% Listing Corporate Income Tax Rebate, respectively, subject to caps. Second, we will also introduce a 5% concessionary tax rate on qualifying income for new fund manager listings in Singapore. And third, we will introduce a tax exemption on fund managers' qualifying income from funds with at least 30% allocation to Singapore-listed equities. Moving on to personal income tax, the amendments relate mainly to changes that provide stronger support to our workers. Clause 55 provides for all tax-resident individuals to receive a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 60% for the Year of Assessment 2025, capped at $200 per taxpayer.”
“Both top-up taxes apply to businesses' financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2025. Since the enactment of the Act, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Inclusive Framework has published new technical clarifications on the Pillar Two rules. Clauses 56 to 70 of the Bill will incorporate these and other technical clarifications into our legislation, so that our regime remains up-to-date and consistent and is recognised by other jurisdictions. This will provide certainty to businesses, ease their compliance burdens and most importantly, relieve them from having to pay Pillar Two taxes elsewhere in respect of their Singapore operations. Meanwhile, we are closely monitoring international developments. Negotiations on the parameters of Pillar Two have re-opened following the June 2025 G7 statement on the development of a "side-by-side" system that will exempt United States (US)-parented multinational enterprises from specific Pillar Two rules. At this point, discussions at the OECD Inclusive Framework are ongoing. It is unclear what the final outcome will be, and how other jurisdictions and affected businesses will respond. For the moment, our considerations for the implementation of the Domestic Top-up Tax and Multinational Enterprise Top-up Tax remain valid. We are, therefore, proceeding with the implementation of Pillar Two taxes, so that we do not cede tax revenues to other Pillar Two-implementing jurisdictions, and at the same time, we provide tax certainty for multinational enterprises to plan their investments. We will continue to monitor global developments and if necessary, review this approach.”