Mark Lee
Singapore
“I understand the intent behind the early notification, to better support displaced workers. I have two clarifications, if I may. Based on past data, most workers take a few months to secure the next job.”
“Lastly, I would also like to ask whether the agency will consider publishing a service charter, setting out expected response times, processing timelines, escalating channels and sector points of contact. For SMEs in particular, delays in approvals or unclear responses can directly affect hiring, training and transformation decisions.”
“Will the Government consider recalibrating existing financing schemes, such as the Enterprise Financing Scheme and where relevant, the Long-Term Investment Fund and the Private Credit Growth Fund to better support SMEs facing such short-term liquidity pressures, particularly those managing volatility driven costs, or even firms that want…”
“I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. I think there are many times that she has mentioned that investigations are still underway and details are still unclear.”
“Thank you, Chairman. The Acting Minister has mentioned about the IPS survey and the survey actually indicates that younger Singaporeans are more likely to report feelings of social isolation, and more than half say that they find it easier to interact online than face-to-face.”
“As such, beyond delivering strong individual initiatives, how is the Ministry intentionally shaping a coherent narrative of what defines us as Singaporeans today, one that builds confidence in our multicultural identity and a shared sense of belonging, especially amongst younger Singaporeans?”
The complete record
Every one of 202 lines we hold for Mark Lee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill. In a densely populated and diverse society like Singapore, harmonious living is crucial. The proposed amendments should make conflict resolutions faster and more robust, ideally reducing the need for formal legal actions. While I support the Bill, I would like to raise some points for further clarification and offer a few suggestions. This Bill significantly expands the powers of CROs, empowering them to issue abatement orders and, in certain cases, to enter residences to help address serious disturbances. While these powers aim to help CROs address disputes swiftly, I would like to seek further clarity on the aspects of this new role. First, regarding selection criteria: clause 13C of the Bill specifies that CROs must be public officers, police officers, or statutory body employees. If CROs are drawn from existing enforcement roles, how will this complement their current responsibilities? Could this potentially increase their workload, and if so, what measures will the Government take to ensure that service levels remain consistent with these added duties? Second, as CROs will be handling complex disputes that may not always involve clear regulatory breaches, could the Ministry clarify the specific training they will receive? Given the sensitive nature of cases involving vulnerable groups, cultural practices, or longstanding neighborhood disagreements, will CROs be trained in de-escalation techniques, cultural sensitivity and empathetic communication? Additionally, could their training include community engagement methods to help them foster peaceful resolutions and address conflicts with the understanding needed to promote harmony within our communities?”
“By providing flexible and targeted tax incentives, we can continue to attract diverse businesses that contribute to Singapore's economic dynamism. Notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I support the Bill.”
“The amendment also allows companies to switch between the 5%, 10% and 15% base rates and their corresponding stepped-up rates, subject to eligibility criteria, thus allowing flexibility to these companies in managing their tax burden over the tax relief period. This flexibility is commendable as it acknowledges the financial volatility that businesses may face. However, I recommend clear guidance be issued as to the process or application timeline for such rate substitutions as it would ensure that the system operates smoothly and avoids potential confusion among businesses. Tax relief periods for DEI recipients may now be extended up to 31 December 2028, potentially benefiting companies with longer project timelines. I would like to suggest that the Ministry could periodically review these timelines against the evolving economic conditions to ensure that they remain relevant and beneficial. For the Investment Allowance scheme, or IA, the amendments enable the Minister to prescribe projects in relation to which the IA may be given in regulations. This means that there is greater upfront clarity as to whether a particular project can qualify for the IA. This is welcomed by businesses. However, while broadening the eligibility scope is positive, can the Ministry clarify the timeline and criteria for such inclusions? This will allow companies greater certainty when planning investments in sectors not traditionally supported by investment allowances. In conclusion, these amendments aim to secure Singapore's attractiveness by providing flexibility of choice in our incentive regimes to cater to companies in different stages of growth and support sustainable business development.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, previously, I highlighted the need for Singapore to continually refine tax incentive strategies and strengthen non-tax benefits to maintain our competitive advantage amidst evolving global tax trends. This is particularly pressing as the global minimum tax rules take place in various jurisdictions, including Singapore. The proposed Economic Expansion Incentives Bill introduces enhancements to Singapore's tax framework, specifically targeting the DEI and Investment Allowances for eligible companies. These refinements aim to drive economic growth by supporting business development, innovation and investment, ultimately strengthening resilience and competitiveness in a shifting global landscape. The Bill introduces an additional 15% concessionary tax rate for certain qualifying income, alongside existing 5% and 10% rates for the DEI. This is applicable to qualifying income derived on or after 1 January 2024. It is encouraging to see the Government respond very proactively by introducing changes to existing suite of tax incentives to ensure their relevance as part of the overall economic support package to attract foreign investments. I would like to commend Government agencies like the Economic Development Board, which has helpfully published the required economic commitments to be awarded the new 15% concessionary tax rate (CTR) under the DEI. This is useful as it provides certainty to businesses and allows them to plan their operations and apply for the tier of incentive tax rate which is most suitable for their business.”
“This uncertainty could deter future suitors or investors and affect our global standing. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that we compromise on public interest. The Government must retain the power to act in the public interest, when necessary, particularly those that will affect the lower-income segments of society. However, we must ensure that this power is exercised fairly and predictably, with transparency on both sides. The Ministerial Statement on Monday highlighted that MCCY may consider future legislative amendments to give the Government stronger levers over co-ops that may wish to be corporatised. With even more oversight in future, we need a regulatory environment where businesses understand their obligations with clarity and where the Government can protect public interest without being seen as overreaching. This balance is critical to maintain trust between businesses and regulators. In conclusion, I support the Bill, and appreciate MCCY and MAS for their prudence and commend the Government's efforts to safeguard the public interest. At the same time, we must be cautious about the signals we send to the business community. Clear definitions of public interest, guidelines, early discussions on deal-breaking concerns and the protection of confidentiality are essential to fostering an environment of trust and cooperation. I thank the Government for the hard work to continuously refine the regulatory framework to ensure it remains predictable, transparent and balanced. With that, I support the Bill.”
“Defining these boundaries from the start allows businesses and regulators to engage with a shared understanding, minimising the risk of misinterpretation, delays, or wasted resources. For businesses, the last thing they want is to dedicate months, or even years, of resources only to find out late in the process that their plans do not meet regulatory expectations. For regulators, addressing concerns earlier in the process would make interventions smoother, less contentious and more transparent. Early clarity ensures that both sides can operate efficiently, reducing friction and improving overall outcomes for all stakeholders involved. Second, the Ministerial Statement also highlighted a delay in MCCY's involvement. Perhaps, earlier involvement of relevant agencies could have flagged potential deal breakers sooner, enabling businesses to address concerns early and avoid public intervention. Third, I recommend that businesses be given an opportunity to address and correct draft plans before final decisions or interventions are made. In this case, had Income and Allianz been given the opportunity to address the Government's concerns earlier, before public announcements or interventions, many of the uncertainties and tensions may have been avoided. Providing this opportunity would ensure that businesses and regulators work together more constructively. If businesses are not given a chance to resolve issues privately, it may lead to perceptions of unfair treatment or unpredictability, which could affect investors' confidence. Finally, if deal breakers and resolution mechanisms are not clearly outlined from the outset, potential investors may apply a risk premium or discount when valuing businesses operating in Singapore.”
“While it is the Government's prerogative to define public interest and ensure the protection of society, it is important to clarify upfront what specifically constitutes public interest in transactions of this nature. Without a clear definition, businesses face uncertainty about what actions may trigger intervention, which introduces commercial risks into the regulatory process. In this case, while MAS oversees insurers from a financial perspective, ensuring they are prudently managed on a capital footing, it does not regulate their social mission. In practical terms, insurers can focus on financial solvency while customer welfare may not always be prioritised, so long as financial regulations are not breached. There remains uncertainty around the Government's expectations regarding Income's social mission. This raises a key question: how far does the Government expect these social obligations to extend? This leads to my third point. Without clear markers, it becomes difficult for any organisation to construct a deal that aligns with both financial and social responsibilities. When these boundaries are not well-defined, businesses face unpredictability, complicating long-term planning and strategic decision-making. It is therefore essential that we continue building on our commitment to transparency, and the trust between businesses and regulators that have allowed Singapore to remain a competitive global hub. I would like to offer four suggestions to do this. First, establishing clear markers at the outset of any major transaction is essential, especially when significant public interest is involved.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill before us today, while primarily concerning co-operatives, has significant implications for the wider business community. It grants the Minister the authority to withhold approval of transactions involving co-operative-owned insurers where the Minster deems it necessary in the public interest. While I support the intent behind safeguarding public interest, this raises important questions about the broader regulatory framework we are fostering. We must strike a careful balance between necessary Government intervention and maintaining business transparency, ensuring that regulations do not unintentionally hinder legitimate business activities or innovation. According to the Ministerial Statement on Monday, the Government has acknowledged that Income complied with regulatory obligations by disclosing their plans fully. This includes the details of a potential future capital optimisation by Allianz submitted by them to MAS and was consequently met with intervention, which has created significant uncertainty. Businesses are watching closely to see how this Bill and similar regulatory actions will impact their ability to operate. I would like to raise three key areas of concern. First, transparency forms the foundation of trust between businesses and regulators. If businesses comply with full transparency, yet still face intervention, what incentive is there for them to continue being transparent in future dealings, especially disclosure or future projection, plans that may or may not come to fruition. Will businesses feel secure enough to openly share their plans, especially those involving sensitive or confidential decisions? Second, the ambiguity of this Bill surrounding the term "public interest".”
“We hope that these collective efforts will push for the next bound of sporting excellence for Singapore and ensure that they become role models, inspiring children across the island to pick up a racket, a ball or a bow and arrow and to believe that they, too, can reach the top. The Home of Team Singapore will also be well-placed to provide the space for coaches, parents and support staff to be equipped with the tools they need to nurture athletes. As parents and coaches form the backbone of an athlete's support system, Home of Team Singapore could offer parenting workshops, coaching seminars and wellness resources so that no one in an athlete's life is left unsupported. New sports science and sports medicine facilities will also help on this. Sir, as the old saying goes, the future of Singapore sports is so bright I have to wear shades, just like when Max Maeder is training. And the Home of Team Singapore is at the very heart of its future. To our athletes, thank you for reminding us that, in the face of adversity, there is always greatness within us. Your victories inspire us all to strive for better, to work harder and to unite as a nation in the pursuit of excellence. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Motion.”
“In the recent 2024 Hong Kong International Dragon Boat Race, our women's team was placed first runner-up and the men's team placing second and third runner-up against competitors with full-time athletes from China, Thailand and Myanmar. As we look forward to the next major sporting platform, the Asian Games, we must continue to support the plethora of teams that represent our nation. These teams deserve our support, too. The waters at Kallang and our new Home of Team Singapore, together with the various national training centres around Singapore, will be crucial in supporting these teams in their sporting endeavours. Sir, the Kallang Alive precinct with the Sports Hub and the new Home of Team Singapore is about more than just elite athletes. It is not just about medals. It is inspiring the next generation of Singaporeans to embrace sports as a way of life, not just as spectators but as active participants, starting from our schools. Much of our talent acquisition happens within the schools. Since the Government took back the Sports Hub, it has offered its comprehensive facilities to host inter-school competitions at the primary and secondary school level, promoting sporting excellence at the highest level and encouraging a select few to further their potential in the international arena. In doing so, we can capture the imagination of our youths so that they are able to compete regularly in our own National Stadium and to hope that, one day, they will represent Singapore on the world stage. Our Olympians will also continue to play an important role in building the next generation of athletes through school visits, mentorship programmes and public engagement.”
“Jingyi has decided to take her GCE "O" level examinations with support from Singapore Sports School while she recovers from her injuries post-Olympics. It is crucial that Home of Team Singapore formalises and expands such support in close partnership with the respective NSAs. By integrating educational support with world-class training facilities and programmes for all athletes, we can ensure that young athletes like Izaac and Jingyi can continue to develop while balancing the demands of training, recovery and education at appropriate phases of their lives. Similarly, Amita Berthier was able to return home to her alma mater at the Singapore Sports School in the final months leading up to the Paris Games, leveraging its boarding and training facilities as well as the tutelage of Oleg Matseichuk, the national team's foil head coach under Fencing Singapore. These kinds of partnerships allow our athletes to train at the highest level while having access to resources that enable them to grow mentally, physically and emotionally. In the spirit of celebrating sporting excellence in Singapore, it is important to recognise that many of our national athletes do not have full-time sporting careers. They are often modern supermen, superwomen, daytime students and workers and night-time athletes. Still, they continue to achieve outstanding results, on par with many international teams, many of whom are full-time athletes. One example is our national Dragon Boat team, which consists entirely of part-time athletes and coaches. After work on weekdays, five days a week, they hold three-hour practices at the Kallang. On weekends, they even train more vigorously with double two-hour sessions per day. Their hard work is evident from the impressive results in the international arena.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we gather today in this House with immense pride and admiration to recognise and congratulate our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians for their outstanding achievements at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralymic Games. Our medallists have shown us what it means to embody the spirit of perseverance, passion and determination. Their victories are not just personal triumphs, but also testaments to the values we hold dear as a nation – resilience, hard work and the will to rise above challenges. Their success is not only a reflection of their talent and dedication, but also speaks of an unwavering support system that surrounds them, a system that embraces the individual while fostering a deep sense of collective identity and purpose. Even as we celebrate their victories today, we must not lose sight of the work that lies ahead. This is why the new Home of Team Singapore and its accompanying improvements at the Kallang Alive precinct is so crucial. It is not just a place. It is a vision, a vision of universal support, a vision of unity and a vision where every Singaporean, whether an aspiring Olympian or a weekend athlete, can find their potential fully realised. Izaac Quek, Singapore's youngest local-born table tennis player to qualify for the Olympics, provides a glimpse of how Home of Team Singapore is already taking shape. His Olympic quest in table tennis is supported by a personal education pathway at the Singapore Sports School, in close partnership with the Singapore Table Tennis Association. This athlete-centric approach ensures he does not have to choose between academic success and sporting excellence. Zhou Jingyi, a fellow paddler at Paris 2024, also highlights the critical support system that Home of Team Singapore aims to provide.”
“Given our limited space, consideration could be given to overseas or cross border green projects as long as the ideation, key knowledge, project management and talent associated with the project remain in Singapore. Expanding the RIC to incentivise green investments will help align our fiscal policies with Singapore's sustainability goals, positioning us as a global leader in green innovation. By striking the right balance between flexibility and a focus on long-term outcomes and by expanding initiatives like the RIC to incentivise green investments, we can ensure that Singapore remains a leader in both economic, innovation and environmental stewardship. In conclusion, looking at the broader picture of these amendments, maintaining an open dialogue with the business community will be key. It is important to continuously assess the impact of these changes and be agile in adapting our approach to ensure Singapore remains an attractive and competitive global business hub. Notwithstanding my clarification and recommendations, I support both the Bills.”
“The RIC offers businesses tax credits of up to 50% of qualifying expenditure, which is particularly valuable for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). SMEs, the backbone of our economy, often face challenges in securing capital for innovation, technology upgrades and productivity improvements. The refundability of the RIC provides much-needed liquidity, allowing them to reinvest in their businesses and address a core issue – cash flow management. As we refine the RIC, it is crucial that it remains flexible in its design. High-value activities like R&D, digital transformation and sustainability initiatives often take time to yield results. A rigid, outcome-based approach could discourage investment in long-term projects with uncertain short-term returns. The RIC must allow businesses to pursue innovative activities without the fear of disqualification due to delayed results. This is especially critical for SMEs, which face significant upfront costs and may not see immediate success. I would like to therefore propose that the RIC be based on both qualifying expenditures and economic outcomes, with businesses working with relevant agencies to use appropriate metrics at different stages of a project. This flexibility ensures that businesses can invest confidently in long-term growth without being constrained by rigid criteria. The RIC should also support Singapore's transition to a sustainable economy. As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, the RIC should be expanded to cover green investments, such as energy efficiency projects, carbon reduction technologies and sustainable production practices.”
“Given that this is a significant new requirement, many companies may face difficulties in meeting the deadline, particularly if they are cross-border entities with complex organisational structures. Would the Minister consider introducing a grace period during the early stages of implementation, whereby penalties and sanctions would not apply if an MNE demonstrates that it made reasonable efforts to comply? This would alleviate concerns within the business community and offer some flexibility as companies adapt to the new requirements. The Bill also mandates that MNE group entities keep sufficient records to allow the Comptroller to verify the top-up tax payable. However, different entities and periods may be subject to varying record-keeping requirements, potentially increasing the administrative burden on companies. Could the Minister assure us that these variations in record-keeping periods will be minimised and aligned, as much as possible, with the existing five-year standard for income tax matters? This would help reduce administrative burden on businesses. Finally, to support business community during this transition phase, I strongly recommend that the Government establish a dedicated helpdesk or advisory service specifically aimed at assisting businesses with their queries and compliance issues under the new tax framework. Additionally, investing in IRAS' capacity to administer and enforce these complex new rules effectively will be crucial to ensuring a smooth and efficient implementation process. Turning to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, the Government's introduction of the Refundable Investment Credit (RIC), under a new section 93B of the Income Tax Act, is a timely and strategic measure.”
“The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has also provided useful guidance via its e-Tax Guide. Such clear guidelines, not easily found in other jurisdictions, offer businesses confidence and certainty in their operations. My recommendation is that we should build on these strengths by expanding and leveraging clear guidelines that offer businesses confidence and certainty, further solidifying Singapore as a business-friendly environment. Moving on to the operational and compliance challenges posed by the MMT Bill, it is essential to recognise that MNE groups within the scope of Pillar Two will be required to register with the Comptroller within six months after the relevant financial year ends. These groups will also need to designate local entities for filing GloBE information returns and the domestic top-up tax (DTT) returns. For MNE groups falling within the scope for the financial year ending 31 December 2025, the registration deadline will be 30 June 2026. Failure to meet this deadline could result in a penalty of 10% of the total top-up tax, which could amount to a significant sum for large corporations. Furthermore, there are other surcharges and penalties which can apply as outlined in the Bill. For example, furnishing an incorrect tax return without reasonable excuse can result in penalties of up to two times the tax undercharged. While these penalties are meant to ensure compliance, their significant financial impact should not be underestimated. Could the Minister clarify whether additional guidelines will be provided to streamline the registration process and explain when penalty might be waived?”
“Both parent entities of MNE groups in Singapore and Singapore subsidiaries of foreign MNEs will be directly impacted, as they will be subject to top-up taxes under the BEPS Pillar Two rules. As our MNEs face higher compliance and administrative burdens, many jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, Ireland and Thailand, are implementing significant tax reforms in response to the global minimum tax. In light of these global shifts, I would like to ask the Minister how Singapore plans to mitigate any competitiveness concerns. Our competitors' actions may erode Singapore's traditional strengths. Will the Government consider enhancing non-tax incentives in areas, such as infrastructure, talent development and support for research and development (R&D) and innovation to maintain our attractiveness for foreign investments? While the BEPS Pillar Two taxation framework is largely standardised across implementing jurisdictions, the implementation and administrative rules are not as strictly defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Could the Minister clarify whether Singapore has room for flexibility in these administrative processes? For instance, could Singapore adopt simplified compliance procedures or introduce a more lenient enforcement framework during the initial stages of the Bill's implementation to help businesses ease into the new regime? Singapore has historically demonstrated an ability to adapt flexibly within global frameworks and we should continue to do so. Our transparent and predictable tax regime is a unique advantage that enhances our appeal as a jurisdiction. For example, companies can be assured of the non-taxation of capital gains on certain equity disposals, provided they meet specific criteria under the law.”
“Madam, last November, I spoke about the need for the Government to continuously refine our tax incentive strategies and strengthen non-tax benefits to safeguard Singapore's competitive edge. This need is now more pressing as global tax trends rapidly shift with the implementation of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 guidelines. Singapore's longstanding ability to attract global businesses is grounded in a combination of factors: our stable political climate, robust infrastructure, skilled workforce and competitive fiscal policies. However, we now face a critical moment where Singapore must balance these advantages with evolving international tax obligations to maintain our position as a premier hub for business and investment. According to a recent The Straits Times article and data released by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), while only 20% of firms in Singapore are foreign-owned, they employ 60% of Singapore residents in high-paying jobs. This highlights the importance of continuing to attract foreign investments and global talent that complement our local workforce and create good jobs for Singaporeans. Let me first address the Multinational Enterprises (Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, or MMT Bill, which proposes a 15% minimum effective tax rate for large multinational enterprises (MNEs). It is a necessary step to align with international standards while continuing to combat aggressive tax planning practices. However, we must recognise that the impact on our business community will be significant and multi-faceted. While ensuring MNEs contribute fairly to our economy, we must be mindful of the challenges these new rules will bring. Compliance costs and administrative burdens will likely rise for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.”
“With whole-of-Government coordination, strong inter-agency alignment and collaboration, together, working closely with the business community, I am confident that we will achieve the Bill's objectives and continue to lead in sustainability efforts. Notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I express my support for the Bill.”
“I propose the introduction of incentive programmes for building owners who comply early with the Bill's requirements. These incentives could include financial rewards, recognition or priority access to Government grants. Finally, Government agencies will play a pivotal role in facilitating green retrofits and supporting the future deployment of green systems, such as battery energy storage systems. As part of the Bill's implementation, strong inter-agency coordination will be essential to ensure that no single agency, such as those involved in perhaps rooftop solar installations or future green technologies, applies overly conservative risk assessments. Together with Senior Minister of State Low Yen Ling, as co-chair of the Alliance for Action on Business Competitiveness by MTI and SBF, we have received valuable feedback from industry stakeholders on these challenges. Current regulations can sometimes make the installation of solar panels and emerging green technologies overly complex or restrictive, which limits progress towards achieving our energy efficiency goals. Based on this feedback, we recommend streamlining processes and ensuring alignment across agencies to support not only green retrofits but also the future deployment of green systems, like battery energy storage systems. This coordinated effort will be crucial for the smooth implementation of the Bill and for achieving our long-term sustainability objectives. Sir, the Building Control (Amendment) Bill is a significant and necessary step towards making Singapore's built environment more energy-efficient and sustainable.”
“Including operational energy in the EUI would expand the scope of compliance, potentially creating additional burdens on sectors that rely on energy-intensive operations. Additionally, with the growing adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), how will EV charging stations, particularly in malls and office car parks, will be factored into a building's EUI. Since EV chargers are essential for reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels, it would be reasonable to exclude EV chargers from EUI calculations to avoid penalising efforts aimed at reducing overall carbon footprints. Older buildings, particularly those constructed with outdated materials or systems, may require substantial retrofitting. The Bill addresses this by setting clear standards for energy use, but we must ensure that these standards are realistic for buildings with inherent structural limitations. Particularly, for heritage or historically significant buildings, can the Government consider flexibility clauses, allowing building owners to apply for extensions or exemptions where retrofitting would compromise the building's integrity or where the technology for upgrades is not yet feasible. To further encourage compliance with the Bill's energy efficiency goals, we should provide incentives for early adopters and innovative solutions. Early movers often face higher costs, but their leadership can set a powerful example for others. Denmark introduced an Energy Savings Obligation that required energy companies to help their customers improve energy efficiency. To incentivise early adoption, the government provided financial rewards to companies that implemented energy-saving measures ahead of schedule. This spurred innovation and created a competitive environment for energy efficiency solutions.”
“I recommend that the Government work with institutes of higher learning, industry bodies and agencies to increase the training and certification of both sustainability professionals and energy auditors. Only by doing so, we can meet the growing demand, maintain reasonable costs and ensure the timely implementation of the Bill. This Bill will also have impact on particularly those with high energy consumption such as data centres and manufacturing facilities like semiconductor plants. These facilities are expected to fall under Type 1 buildings due to their high electricity usage. I would like to seek clarification on whether the Bill's EUI thresholds focus solely on the building's energy consumption for cooling, lighting and infrastructure or if they also encompass operational usage such as the electricity consumed by machines and equipment during production. Machines in these facilities often require cooling and it is important to clarify whether cooling specifically for operational equipment is excluded from the building's overall EUI calculation. Including operational energy, particularly relating to production, could require extensive modifications not just to building systems, but also to industrial equipment – a challenging and costly proposition. Moreover, as operations become more efficient, energy use per square meter might increase due to higher utilisation of space, which could inadvertently worsen the EUI. For industries like manufacturing, alternative metrics, such as energy use per hour worked or per unit of production, might provide a more accurate reflection of efficiency gains. Understanding this distinction is crucial.”
“Second, when considering assistance for building retrofits, it is important to look beyond large enterprises. The current Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings 2.0 is applicable to privately owned existing buildings with a GFA of at least 5,000 sqm and specific building types. Can this be expanded to include smaller buildings, particularly strata-titled properties and older developments? Third, I would like to ask about the Government's plans to expand the Energy Efficiency Grant to include construction, process, maritime and data centres and their users by the end of this year as well as other sectors which are also energy consumers. Expanding this grant could provide crucial support to help more companies across diverse sectors meet the Bill's energy efficiency standards. Beyond financial assistance, knowledge and capability support will be essential for older buildings and strata-titled properties. Many facilities managers lack the technical expertise to handle complex retrofits. As the demand for sustainability consultants and green building experts rises, we can expect their services to become more expensive. A similar risk applies to energy auditors as the Bill mandates that audits be conducted by certified energy auditors or mechanical engineers. If demand for audits surges, as anticipated, we could face a shortage of qualified professionals, which may drive up costs and delay compliance efforts. We have already seen this happen in other countries. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act in the United States, a shortage of energy auditors led to significant delays in compliance, creating a backlog that undermined the overall efficiency of the law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to tighten the energy efficiency regulations for our buildings, especially those with high energy consumption, ensuring that Singapore remains a global leader in sustainability. Sir, I support the Bill, but I would like to offer some clarifications and recommendations. First, while the Bill outlines robust measures to improve energy efficiency, we must acknowledge the potential financial strain it may place on building owners, particularly those managing older buildings or small and medium enterprises (SMEs). To address the financial burden that many building owners, particularly smaller enterprises, may face in complying with the requirements of this Bill, can the Government consider leveraging and expanding the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green, the Energy Efficiency Grant and the Green Mark Incentive Scheme? These schemes already support sustainability projects, making them ideal vehicles for funding the energy efficiency upgrades mandated by the Bill. First, the Enterprise Financing Scheme – Green, which is designed to support sustainability projects, currently applies to enterprises, defined as business entities with a presence in Singapore and at least 30% local equity. These criteria would exclude certain building owners such as those in strata-titled buildings where the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) serves as the collective manager. Ironically, many of these strata-titled buildings tend to be older and in greater need of energy efficiency improvements. Can the Government consider expanding the scheme's eligibility to include non-enterprise owners such that they receive the necessary support to retrofit their properties and meet the new energy standards? If not this scheme, what other schemes can they tap on?”
“Will the Government be actively monitoring SMEs on the ground to ensure that any cost increases resulting from the Platform Workers Bill are effectively managed? Additionally, can the Government collaborate with trade associations and businesses to explore comprehensive support mechanisms, such as subsidies, tax relief or any other measures to help alleviate cost pressures and maintain the competitiveness of SMEs in this challenging landscape? At the same time, will enhanced measures be put in place to ensure that businesses do not resort to unnecessary price hikes, thus protecting consumers from unjustified cost transfers while maintaining fair pricing practices? Sir, the Platform Workers Bill represents an important milestone as we seek to create a more equitable framework for both platform workers and operators. Although the Bill has been years in the making, it reflects Singapore’s ability, agility and responsiveness in adapting to the evolving needs of our workforce and business environment. I commend the tripartite partners for their collaborative efforts in shaping a Bill that seeks to balance the interests of all stakeholders. As we move forward, I encourage continuous engagement among the Government, businesses and workers to ensure that the Bill remains adaptable to a rapidly changing landscape of the platform economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the questions I have raised and the recommendations I have made, I express my support for the Bill.”
“Currently, these programmes already offer structured training, salary support and job placement assistance, which could be adapted to the needs of platform workers looking to reskill and move back into traditional roles. Can we help our platform workers transition more efficiently by pre-identifying CCPs that platform workers can tap into since there are over 100 CCPs available today? These could be focused on adjacent roles, such as transport and logistics, or even retail and F&B, which can offer opportunities for those seeking new career options. Importantly, can these programmes be tailored to more workplace-based training and less classroom-based training? This hands-on training element will help ramp up the onboarding process and ensure a fast and efficient transition into new roles and helping close the manpower gaps that some sectors are currently experiencing. Finally, I wish to address the economic implications of the Bill, particularly for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The additional costs imposed on platform operators, such as the requirements for insurance and CPF contributions, will inevitably lead to higher service costs. This is particularly concerning for smaller businesses, which may already be operating on tight margins and lack the resources to absorb such costs internally. Based on the recent Singapore Business Federation National Business Survey, nearly half of businesses remain uncertain about their future prospects, with 33% of SMEs and 24% of large companies reporting declining performance over the last year. The increased costs resulting from the Bill are likely to affect SMEs more acutely, as they often rely on platform services due to their limited ability to manage their functions inhouse.”
“The second point I wish to address concerns the requirements placed on platform operators to provide work injury compensation insurance and ensure that platform workers require adequate training. These are crucial protections, but platform workers often provide their services across multiple operators, which raises a key question. Is there a national mechanism that coordinates insurance coverage and training across operators? Without such coordination, we risk unnecessary duplication of costs which will likely be passed on to both platform operators and, eventually, consumers. A centralised or coordinated approach could help streamline these processes, reducing costs for all stakeholders while ensuring that platform workers are adequately protected. I now turn to the potential impact of the Platform Workers Bill on our broader workforce. The Bill has the potential to level the playing field between platform operators and traditional employers by ensuring that platform workers receive equitable protections and CPF contributions. This will support their housing and retirement adequacy. While the impact on employment preferences may be varied, some platform workers might choose to transition back to more traditional employment sectors for better long-term career prospects. To facilitate this transition, can the Government consider expanding the scope of existing programmes like WSG's Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) as well as the Mid-Career Pathways Programmes administered by the Singapore Business Federation to create an accelerated, effective pathway for platform workers seeking new opportunities in traditional sectors and supporting their career transition?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The number of Singapore platform workers in Singapore fell from 88,400 to 70,500 last year, accounting for 2.9% of our resident labour force. These figures reflect a return to pre-pandemic 2019 levels, suggesting that we may be observing a steady-state situation for platform work in Singapore. However, despite this decline, platform operators and workers continue to have a disproportionately large impact on both our economy and society. The services they provide remain essential to many aspects of daily life and it is in this context that the Platform Workers Bill takes on heightened significance. The merit of this Bill lies in its balance. It alleviates cost pressures on our platform operators which might otherwise lead to reduced job opportunities or, in a worse case, business closures. At the same time, it ensures that our platform workers receive basic employment protections, such as income security and workplace safety. (In English): The Bill, however, adopts an exclusive definition of platform services currently limited to delivery and ride-hailing services. As such, I would like to raise an essential clarification. With other emerging and growing platform services, such as cleaning and caregiving that may either presently or in the near future meet the same defined criteria, what process or mechanism is in place to potentially expand the coverage of the Bill to these sectors? The evolution of the platform economy means that new types of services will inevitably emerge. It is essential that we anticipate this by ensuring the flexibility of the Bill to respond to future developments.”
“In conclusion, the amendments in this Bill are critical to supporting decarbonisation, enhancing energy security and ensuring cost competitiveness in the power sector. However, execution is key. Businesses are looking forward to the establishment of the CGE and it is essential that it is implemented in a timely manner. Stabilising electricity costs will be crucial to maintaining Singapore's long-term competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global landscape. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my questions and recommendations, I express my support for this Bill.”
“Embracing new energy technologies, such as solar, wind and hydrogen, will not only reduce our carbon footprint but also enhance our energy security and bolster our economy's resilience. To expedite progress in these areas, we must ensure that our regulations are flexible enough to keep pace with the evolving energy landscape. For example, we are already more than halfway to achieving our solar power deployment target of 2,000 megawatt-peak by 2030, but we must minimise regulatory bottlenecks to facilitate businesses in rolling out their solar initiatives more swiftly. Aligning safety regulations with those of leading solar economies could be a key step in the right direction. Furthermore, for businesses that have yet to start their green transition, the Government could consider introducing building-level incentives to encourage the adoption of sustainability infrastructure. This could involve clustering tenants in properties specifically designed to support green initiatives, which could lower barriers to adoption and spur greater investment in sustainable technologies. Finally, I would also like to highlight the ongoing collaboration between MTI and the Singapore Business Federation through the Alliance for Action (AfA) on Business Competitiveness. This initiative is focused on helping businesses adapt to sustainability and decarbonisation efforts. AfA will soon release our recommendations aimed at enhancing business competitiveness while maintaining momentum towards decarbonisation. This work aligns closely with the objectives of this Bill, ensuring that businesses remain competitive and resilient as we advance towards our energy and sustainability goals.”
“I note that EMA has provided a list of critical energy infrastructure, but I would like to ask whether Battery Energy Storage Systems will be included. These systems are increasingly important for energy storage and ensuring efficiency in power usage. Second, while facilitating access to critical infrastructure is important, we must ensure that it is done carefully. I would, therefore, like to seek clarifications on the conditions under which licensees may gain access to this infrastructure. Mandating that a business provide access to its competitors could risk eroding its value and competitiveness. It is essential that any such regulations balance the need for collaboration with the protection of business interests. Clear guidelines and criteria are essential to prevent disputes and ensure that compensation is fair. Moreover, in the event of a disagreement between parties, will there be a formal resolution process to ensure that the disputes are handled reasonably, efficiently and fairly? Third, the Bill gives EMA the power to implement power rationing during emergencies, which is a necessary safeguard. However, it is critical that EMA provide clear definitions of what constitutes an emergency. Businesses need to understand to what extent their liabilities are limited due to power rationing and the protocols that will be in place to ensure that essential services remain operational and disruptions are minimised. I also recommend that a robust communication mechanism be established so that affected businesses are promptly informed about the initiation, duration and cessation of power rationing measures. As we move forward, it is crucial that Singapore not only meets its Green Plan 2030 targets but also positions itself as a global leader in sustainability.”
“Additionally, to further support businesses and maintain their competitiveness, a cap on the maximum allowable cost recovery in any given year could be introduced to mitigate financial strain. Third, while renewable energy is vital for decarbonisation, we must recognise the costs associated with its intermittency. The "user pays" principle has been a core part of Singapore's solar energy project planning for over a decade. Studies have shown that for every two GWp of solar energy, around 300-megawatt hour (MWhr) of Battery Energy Storage Systems is needed to mitigate these short-term disruptions. Currently, Singapore has 1.5 GWp of solar capacity and a centralised 285-MWhr Battery Energy Storage System in Jurong Island. As we expand beyond two GWp, the intermittency costs will grow and renewable energy producers should share in the responsibility for maintaining grid stability. This principle ensures that we fairly distribute the costs across all stakeholders in the energy ecosystem. Fourth, for a more holistic approach to energy security, I urge the Government to include renewable energy imports as part of our energy supply strategy. A centralised entity similar to the CGE could be established to manage the procurement of renewable energy. This would complement our broader energy diversification efforts and strengthen our overall energy security while also accelerating the transition to a cleaner energy future. I have several further clarifications to seek from the Minister. First, the facilitation of access to critical infrastructure involves directing owners of critical energy assets to allow licensees access, with reasonable compensation for the owner.”
“These projects require significant Battery Energy Storage Systems to store daytime energy for nighttime transmission, and collaboration with host countries is crucial for their success. If FEF supports these initiatives, its investments in subsea cables and cross-border infrastructure will be instrumental in realising their potential and accelerating Singapore's decarbonisation efforts. While businesses understand the importance of enhancing energy security and supporting decarbonisation, I must emphasise that cost recovery measures outlined in the Bill should not exacerbate the cost pressures businesses are already facing. As we work towards energy resilience, it is crucial that the cost recovery mechanisms are implemented fairly, transparently and in a sustainable manner. Businesses are already navigating multiple financial pressures. Any additional cost burdens must be carefully considered to avoid undermining their competitiveness. In light of this, I would like to propose four key recommendations. First, transparency is paramount in determining how costs are calculated and allocated to licensees and consumers. I am glad to hear from the Minister that EMA will form a cost recovery committee and recommend that this panel will have representation from businesses and industry players to assess how costs are allocated. This will ensure that the costs are distributed fairly, preventing any undue burden on businesses and consumers. Second, I recommend a phased approach to cost recovery. Businesses need sufficient runway to adjust to any changes in cost structures, especially in today's economic climate. A gradual implementation of cost recovery measures will prevent sudden financial shocks.”
“Furthermore, the amendments that empower EMA to facilitate access to critical infrastructure, approve the repurposing of critical assets, and implement power rationing during emergencies are crucial to maintaining the reliability of our system. This framework is welcomed by businesses as it ensures operational continuity and energy supply reliability, both of which are critical to our long-term success. However, I would like to seek clarification regarding the establishment of the CGE. As it stands, we have licensed gas aggregators, including SembCorp, ExxonMobil, Shell, Pavilion and Keppel, which manage gas procurement and supply. These entities are already tasked with demand aggregation, diversifying energy sources and ensuring sufficient gas supply for our power needs. Could the Minister clarify how the CGE will succeed in achieving these goals where the current aggregators may have faced challenges? What specific issues or gaps have been identified with the existing framework and how will the CGE address these challenges more effectively to ensure energy stability and security for Singapore? Additionally, for Singapore to achieve its net-zero emissions target by 2050, we must prioritise decarbonisation. The creation of the FEF, with an initial investment of $5 billion, is a vital step in this direction. The FEF will support low-carbon energy technologies, which are necessary for our energy transition which the private sector may find it difficult to manage on its own. It may consider supporting large-scale cross-border solar projects, such as the recently announced one gigawatt AC solar energy import from Indonesia, where grid charges and backup fees are already imposed by EMA to maintain grid stability.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, energy security is, without a doubt, a vital resource for Singapore, a country with limited natural energy resources. Our dependence on imports for almost all our energy makes us highly vulnerable to external shocks. In the face of these challenges, the measures proposed in this Bill are both timely and essential. In recent years, we have witnessed unprecedented volatility in energy markets. In 2021, wholesale power prices averaged $115 per megawatt-hour from January to September. However, by October, these prices soared to $635 per megawatt-hour, a fivefold increase. Since then, such spikes have become more frequent, with surges as high as 3,000% in 2023, despite a sharp decline in LNG prices. This volatility underscores how vulnerable we are to global energy fluctuations, and it is essential that we take steps to mitigate these risks. The spikes in electricity prices have had a significant impact on both households and businesses. In a tight labour market where wages are rising and supply chain pressures persist, the added uncertainty of fluctuating energy costs has become a major concern for businesses. According to Singapore Business Federation's Business Survey 2023/2024, rising business costs, particularly in the areas of wages, pass through from suppliers, and electricity costs, are among the top challenges that businesses face today. Therefore, this Bill offers much relief by addressing some of the systemic issues contributing to these rising costs. Centralising gas procurement through the establishment of the CGE, as proposed, will enhance efficiency and provide stability in gas supply which, in turn, will help stabilise prices.”
“Sir, by providing this assistance, we will reinforce a culture of security and resilience rather than one of penalty and fear. This strategic shift will ensure that responsible businesses and SMEs, view engaging with cybersecurity frameworks not only as a regulatory requirement but as a valuable resource for enhancing their security posture and ensuring their continued prosperity in our digital economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“At the individual level, our Government can also encourage mid-career workers to use the recent top-up in SkillsFuture credits to receive training on cybersecurity to ease the talent crunch in the cybersecurity domain. In January this year, during the "Inclusive and Safe Digital Society" Motion, I spoke in Parliament highlighting in addition to capability building, SMEs also need actual and urgent support in the event of a cybersecurity attack. While time is of the essence in mitigating the impact of such incidents, many SMEs find themselves at a loss with no clear response strategy in such situations. We propose that in addition to the structured reporting framework for incidents, which will be covered by the amended Bill, the Government could also look into structuring centralised support or pooled services for SMEs to turn to for incident response and advisory services. In conclusion, Singapore's success as a trusted and secure digital hub hinge on our ability to strike a delicate balance between robust cybersecurity measures and operational efficiency for businesses. It is therefore essential for the Government to foster the correct perception of incident reporting from one of compliance and potential fault-finding to a supportive process that provides real assistance. As we have discussed today, the vulnerability of businesses, especially SMEs, to cyber threats, coupled with their often-limited resources, highlights the critical need for a change in approach. Incident reporting should be seen as a partnership opportunity between the Government and businesses, where each report triggers not just a compliance check but a supportive mechanism to help businesses address and recover from cybersecurity issues responsibly and effectively.”
“Lastly, we would like to understand how the proposed monitoring powers for the Commissioner and Licensing Officers will be exercised and what safeguards will be put in place to prevent any misuse or abuse of these powers? While acknowledging the need for regulatory oversight, we must ensure that these monitoring activities do not impede business operations or compromise sensitive data and trade secrets. In the next part of my speech, I would like to turn to the pressing issue of cybersecurity within our small and medium enterprises (SMEs). According to a 2020 survey by the CSA, only 34% of Singapore SMEs had implemented cybersecurity measures, leaving the majority vulnerable to cyber threats. The survey also revealed that 35% of SMEs experienced at least one cyber incident in the past year, with ransomware and phishing attacks being the most common. These findings highlight that SMEs are particularly vulnerable and that there is an urgent need to help SMEs strengthen their cybersecurity readiness, as they may lack the resources and expertise to do so effectively. As the amended Cybersecurity Bill comes into effect, businesses, especially SMEs, along the value chain will need to develop resources and capabilities to report incidents while managing their operations effectively, promptly and accurately. We therefore encourage the Government to look into providing funding for qualified SMEs to beef up their cybersecurity posture and capabilities. There is also scope to look into how trade associations and chambers (TACs) can collaborate with SkillsFuture Singapore to encourage and incentivise businesses to equip their employees with basic cybersecurity knowledge.”
“Second, considering the provisions under the Bill's Part 3(c), which detail the designation of ESCI, there is a need for clearer definitions. Many companies in Singapore operate computers that store sensitive information and could potentially fall under the broad criteria for ESCI designation. This includes concerns about what constitutes sensitive information and what level of disruption might be deemed to significantly impact aspects, such as Singapore's defence, foreign relations, economy, public health, public safety or public order. Given that the list of designated ESCIs will not be published, businesses could be left without clear benchmarks, potentially leading to unease about being designated as an ESCI. It is crucial, therefore, that we refine our definitions and guidelines concerning these designations to prevent undue worry. Third, while recognising the importance of enhancing cybersecurity, we must also acknowledge the additional compliance burden these new regulations will impose on our CIIs and designated entities. We urge the Government to work closely with businesses to operationalise the incident reporting requirements in a streamlined and cost-effective manner. Fourth, the Bill does not cover standards for mandatory incident reporting or new duties on CII operators. We should ensure that these standards are developed together with industries before implementation. Fifth, I would like to clarify if the Bill's intent is to cover personal information only and seek clarification whether the scope of the Bill will be expanded to cover other types of confidential business information?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as a highly digitised nation, Singapore's ability to function effectively has become increasingly dependent on the seamless and secure operation of our digital infrastructure. The cyber-attack on SingHealth in 2018, which compromised the personal data of 1.5 million patients, serves as a reminder of the severe consequences a cyber breach can have on our nation's well-being and public trust. More recently, the personal information of parents and staff of 127 schools was accessed due to a data breach linked to a device management app installed on personal learning devices used by students. Based on the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) National Business Survey 2023-2024, cybersecurity concerns, including increase in cyber-attacks, were a top trend that businesses expect to impact them in the next 12 months. Globally, the World Economic Forum estimates that cyber crimes cost the world economy over US$1 trillion in 2020 alone, underscoring the pressing need for robust cybersecurity measures. In this context, the Government's proactive review of the Cybersecurity Act is a welcome one, which will keep pace with our evolving cyber threat landscape and business environment. However, Singapore businesses have some concerns about the potential impact of these proposed amendments. First, we seek clarity on the criteria and processes involved in designating entities as FDIs, ESCIs and STCCs. How will businesses be informed about their designation and what is the redress process for companies to review and appeal these designations? This is crucial for businesses to understand their obligations and plan accordingly, as additional processes and resources will have to be committed to comply with the responsibilities of designated entities.”
“In addition to ongoing efforts to build capabilities through the sector Competency Framework and youth outreach and engagement, the co-op sector can consider putting in place a formal secondment programme for mutual exposure opportunities between co-ops and public and private sector organisations. For high potential co-op officers, this will enable them with policy and/or commercial exposure and enable them to enhance their skillsets to foster innovation within co-ops. In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Co-operative Societies Act are designed to empower co-ops to serve their members' interests more effectively. However, these changes must be implemented alongside robust safeguards to ensure prudent risk management. It is also imperative that co-ops persist in seeking efficiencies and enhancing their effectiveness to maintain sustainability over the long term. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my questions and recommendations presented, I express my support for the Bill.”
“Given the increasing volatility of our operational and financial environment, I would like to confirm if there are other advisory and fiduciary safeguards in place, in addition to the Registrar's approval, to help credit co-ops to better assess dividend-related decisions in a prudent and objective manner. With the broadening of the use of reserves, consistent policies, procedures and processes are even more critical to good governance in co-ops. The Registry of Co-operative Societies (RCS) and Singapore National Co-operative Federation (SNCF) have done a good job in producing various governance guides in internal controls, loan management and investment management and training the co-op sector in the use of these joint reserves. Looking ahead, I propose two recommendations for the RCS and SNCF. First, to investigate the feasibility of creating a shared secretariat service, modelled after the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, to assist smaller trade associations (TAs) with limited resources. This would help in administrative and operational tasks, aiding their members more effectively. Second, to develop a shared service offering that could address collective concerns of co-operatives, such as cybersecurity threats and the adoption of new technologies like artificial intelligence, thereby enhancing overall efficiency and growth. Some of this work can be done through a centralised pool of technology providers or audit firms that can build up their understanding of and customisation of solutions and services for the co-op sector over time. This will enable co-ops to better manage costs to minimise the need for them to dip into their reserves on a sustained basis. Finally, co-ops are lean outfits that often struggle to attract and retain talent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, co-operative societies play an important role in fostering community-driven economic development by empowering individuals to collectively address mutual needs and achieve social progress. Today, there are 79 co-ops in Singapore, comprising consumer and service co-ops that provide goods and services to their members and credit co-ops that provide financial services, such as taking in deposits and granting loans to members. The current proposed amendment seeks to allow co-ops to use their reserves to pay dividends to members or pay honorarium to the Committee of Management. This is subject to the Registrar's approval as a prudential safeguard, as it means that co-ops may declare dividends even if no surplus is achieved in the preceding year. This provision appears to deviate from the strict corporate practice of paying out dividends only from retained profits, prompting concern, especially for credit co-ops that are subject to prudential ratios. Currently, credit co-ops that do not meet the minimum Capital Adequacy Ratio, or CAR, of 10% are bound by strict loan limits on unsecured general loans and must seek the Registrar's written approval to distribute dividends from that year's surplus. The intent behind these rules is to ensure that credit co-ops build up sufficient institutional capital that absorb operational losses. By allowing the use of reserves to pay out dividends may put credit co-ops at risk of reducing institutional capital and potential CAR impairment.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive reply. I was wondering because if you read the newspaper article on TODAY, there are certain sectors that are saying that there is a large skills mismatch, especially for the tech sector. Perhaps we can work more closely with the business community to ensure that there is more transparency and more signposts for individuals to understand what skills are required within certain specific industries. The trade associations are wanting to work hand-in-hand with you. And maybe there would be a requirement for higher subsidies for maybe the hottest skills that are needed and less for skills that are currently in less demand.”
“Chairman, I am keen to understand the strategies MCCY has in place in utilising our heritage assets, notably museums to foster community bonding, national pride and unity under the Forward SG movement. How are these cultural assets planned to be leveraged for cultural exchange, celebrating our heritage and building a resilient national identity? Could the Ministry provide insights on increasing museum accessibility, digital engagement and educational outreach such that the public understands their contribution towards a cohesive and future-ready Singapore? Singapore's Multicultural Heritage”
“As such, would implementing a sub-sector specific quota system, addressing jobs like heavy vehicle drivers and certified opticians, be a more effective tool in managing manpower needs, ensuring that areas with persistent low take-up rates by Singaporeans receive the necessary support? Therefore, could the Minister consider initiating a targeted review in selecting sub-sectors of the services' sector, and a nuanced approach can be selected sectors to show overall productivity growth, if given extra manpower? Anti-discrimination at the Workplace”
“Chairman, can MOM share insights on which sectors have successfully utilised the Manpower for Strategic Economic Priorities (M-SEP) Scheme and the key lessons and best practices enabling its wider applications? Furthermore, is there consideration for allowing firms in the M-SEP scheme to gradually increase their foreign worker quota up to 5%, based on exceeding local hiring or training targets within two years, rather than maintaining a fixed threshold? Finally, might MOM extend the scheme beyond two years for companies that notably advance Singapore's economic goals and invest in local talent, while also adjusting renewal criteria to accommodate the varied growth and development across industries? Service Industry – Foreign Worker Quotas Chairman, the current tight labour market highlights the challenges that businesses across the diverse services industry face. This sector includes a wide range of businesses, from modern services, like financial, insurance and infocomm service, to lifestyle services, such as hospitality, retail and food services. It also encompasses transport and storage services, and community, social and personal services. The unique workforce composition and varied demand and supply dynamics within each sub-sector demonstrate that the existing one-size-fits-all quota system for foreign workers does not adequately address the specific needs of these industries. Given that certain job roles within the services industry consistently struggle to attract local talent, perhaps a more talented approach to managing foreign worker quotas is necessary.”
“Chairman, the Government's commitment to lifelong learning, SkillsFuture and SkillsFuture Level-Up is crucial for propelling Singaporeans up the value chain, garnering support from employers. However, the business sector would like to suggest more specialised, sector-specific training for SkillsFuture to meet industry's needs. This is particularly evident in the manufacturing sector where there is a significant demand for courses in areas, like artificial intelligence (AI) in manufacturing and sustainability reporting. Such specialised training is deemed essential for building a talent pool with the advanced skills necessary to achieve the Manufacturing 2030 vision. In light of these industry demands, could the Ministry share any plans to enhance the SkillsFuture programme with more in-depth, sector-specific training opportunities? As the job landscape evolves rapidly, recognising workplaces as extensions of our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) could enable a more practice-based and application-oriented approach to human capital development. Trade associations and chambers (TACs) may have a part to play in overseeing and accrediting workplace training, and this adjustment could ensure that the workforce remains agile and employable in the face of changing industrial requirements. As such, will the Ministry of Education (MOE) consider expanding SkillsFuture support to include various forms of workplace training? Investment in Lifelong Learning”
“Madam, the GenAI Sandbox by Enterprise Singapore and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) is a welcome initiative for SMEs to tap on generative AI (GenAI) to enhance their operations, products and services. I would like to ask the Minister to consider a tiered support approach to encourage businesses to adopt increasingly advanced technologies – a lower tier of 20% for back office and operational digitalisation, all the way to top tier of 60% for using AI technology, and for grants to support further customisation requirements as well dataset creation. Additionally, as AI adoption grows, will MCI introduce governance and ethical frameworks to ensure AI's responsible and effective use?”
“Chairman, I thank Minister Gan for his insightful response to hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har. I just want to press on and maybe have further clarification to her question about nurturing our local SMEs. I think many businesses, including ours, when we expand our international operations and doing coveted project bids where the local Government has provided tax incentives and other incentives to the client, they actually have a clear policy and practice for us to require local partnerships, even with partners that have very limited or no existing capabilities. I guess such policies are aimed to foster local participation and skills transfer. I am wondering if MTI can consider doing some research on this and see what the trade-offs are if we enforce such collaboration. I think my second clarification is to Minister of State Low in regard to the EEG. I was wondering if MTI can allow or consider whether some of the EEG-approved equipment to be used across all industries. For example, the electric forklift is almost double the price of a diesel forklift and these are all applicable to almost all industries. Finally, for my cut, I asked whether assistance will be allowed for adopting electric vehicles for commercial and industrial use.”