Ng Shi Xuan
Singapore
“Whilst discretion is a normal feature of any listing regime, investors and issuers will need clarity on how that discretion will be exercised in the dual-listing context, particularly in relation to disclosure recognition and the circumstances in which SGX RegCo may suspend or delist a company from the GLB.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow on sharing the support given to local businesses, especially on the extension of the Energy Efficiency Grant, which I have been asking for in my Parliamentary Question. I have two more clarifications on this point as to who may be excluded, and what may be excluded.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. But is there any inkling on what is the take-up rate among new fathers? And at the same time, are there any considerations that the Government can put in to encourage or to support new fathers in applying for Shared Parental Leave?”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two quick remarks on my food resilience points. The first being that I thank Senior Minister of State Zaqy for framing it from global partnerships to trusted partnerships.”
“But I would also encourage us to continue strengthening our position in plant-based and alternative proteins. Global investment in this sector has slowed and adoption has been uneven. However, from a food resilience perspective, plant-based and alternative proteins remain strategically relevant.”
“Importantly, we measure not just workers' productivity outcomes, but also infrastructure durability, maintenance frequency and energy consumption. This allows us to quantify the economic impact of adaptation, not just the environmental benefits.”
The complete record
Every one of 59 lines we hold for Ng Shi Xuan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Whilst discretion is a normal feature of any listing regime, investors and issuers will need clarity on how that discretion will be exercised in the dual-listing context, particularly in relation to disclosure recognition and the circumstances in which SGX RegCo may suspend or delist a company from the GLB. We need to ensure that this flexibility and discretion do not come at the expense of clarity and investor confidence because Singapore has always competed on clarity, not ambiguity. Otherwise, uncertainty over the applicable compliance framework may affect confidence, liquidity and valuation. In conclusion, this Bill is a necessary step if Singapore is to remain relevant in global capital markets. But success is not how many names we bring onto the board. It is whether we bring real activity here – real trading, real capital and real investor participation. Because in the end, markets are not defined by structure, but by where activity takes place. With these points, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“But based on the Bill, much of the immediate work will be in compliance, governance and advisory functions. If this Bill is to make a real difference, we also need to see deeper capabilities develop in research, investing and capital deployment. It may also be useful to build capabilities here, for example, by allowing more use of forward-looking statements under safe harbour provisions and in how analysts and investors assess businesses that are still loss-making but growing. Otherwise, we may end up servicing these listings, but not really building the depth of understanding needed to value them properly. Importantly, where will these activities and jobs sit? Will they be anchored here in Singapore or will the core activities still take place elsewhere? I would also like to seek clarification on whether MAS has consulted companies on the regulatory landscape improvement and support network that the GLB prospects may have raised prior to this Bill. Sir, third, on whether our market is ready. Companies do not just choose markets based on liquidity. They choose where investors understand their business. In markets like the US, investors are more familiar with R&D-heavy companies, deep tech firms and founder-led businesses with longer growth horizons. That shapes how these companies are valued. If we want to attract similar companies, it is not just about creating a new board, but whether companies and investors choose to be active here and whether our own market is ready. Are we building enough investor depth, research coverage and understanding of these sectors? At the same time, it is noted that MAS will retain much regulatory discretion in the administration of the GLB.”
“While I understand the intent to anchor relevance to our region, having an Asian nexus is one thing, but having a reason to raise capital in Singapore is another. While the Bill could help address the long-standing gap in late-stage capital and exit pathways, it will only work if companies see Singapore as a viable place to raise capital at scale. If many of these companies are already anchored in Nasdaq or other exchanges, are we building liquidity here or just plugging into it? What are the opportunities Singapore can seize as companies, especially those exposed to geopolitical tensions and are looking for diversification, choose where they are listed? The pipeline is likely to be limited in the near term, so we should be clear that this is a targeted, niche strategy rather than a broad expansion of our market. This then leads to a broader question about market structure. Today, we have the Catalist, the SGX Main Board, and now potentially the GLB. This effectively creates a three-tier system. A strong capital market should not just have multiple boards, but a clear role for each. Where does this leave the SGX Main Board in the overall structure? Is there a meaningful difference between the GLB and the SGX Main Board? Is the GLB meant to be an aspirational pathway for companies that grow through SGX or is it primarily a separate lane to attract already mature issuers from outside? Because depending on the answer, it will shape how companies view SGX as a place to start and grow. Sir, second, on the development of our financial ecosystem. More activity at the top end will naturally create spillover demand for banking, research, asset management and other services.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is part of a larger equities market review, which includes programmes like the Equity Market Development Programme. I am heartened to hear Minister Chee's opening speech that trading volume has increased. But it is still worth asking what impact this Bill will bring to our market and how we bring more private investors in so activity does not just start here, but continues here. The question we are facing is whether companies will actually come and whether real activity will follow. I will focus on three areas: (a) the positioning of the GLB; (b) the development of our financial ecosystem; and (c) whether our market is ready. Sir, first, on the positioning of the GLB. From the consultation, the thresholds for the GLB are very high, at around $2 billion in market capitalisation. This is aimed at a narrow group of large, mature and credible companies. That is understandable, given how the board is positioned and the quality we want on SGX. This Bill creates a clearer pathway than before. But the question is how many companies who meet these criteria are willing and ready to take it up. The key constraint is whether companies see real value in listing here, given the additional requirements. Were pre-IPO firms consulted or have any expressed concrete interest in listing under this framework? Just as my Government Parliamentary Committee Chairman Mr Saktiandi asked, I would also like to check with MAS if they are able to provide an estimated number of companies that are potentially eligible under the GLB framework. The proposed focus on companies with an Asian or regional nexus further narrows the pool.”
“With this in mind, I support the Bill and look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications, particularly on how we can ensure that SMEs are supported to comply, even as we strengthen our energy resilience.”
“In this regard, schemes, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant play an important role in supporting SMEs in this transition. In practice, an SME's decision may change when the support quantum and scope are taken into account, particularly if audit and reimbursement processes do not place pressure on immediate cash flows. I would therefore suggest that such schemes can be further streamlined or enhanced to support affected SMEs. I note that Senior Minister of State, Finance, has already expanded this Energy Efficiency Grant to all sectors today. I would encourage the Ministry to consider further expanding Energy Efficiency Grant's scope to cover all regulated goods. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill serves Singapore’s goals of meeting our climate targets and paves our path for sustainable growth. Energy efficiency is a quiet but important part of energy policy. It goes beyond regulating appliances. It is about managing Singapore’s electricity demand and strengthening our resilience to external energy shocks. Amidst ongoing geopolitical uncertainties and volatility in global energy markets, improving energy efficiency becomes even more important. Every unit of electricity we save reduces exposure to external energy shocks and builds towards our energy resilience. However, I believe that this must also be balanced against the impact of regulations on the people. It is not sufficient for us to rely on regulations and expect the people to meet our energy efficiency goals. The Government and the people must work hand-in-hand in order to ensure that not only our climate targets and energy goals are met, but our economy continues to grow on a model of sustainable energy.”
“In addition, will the NEA consider publishing a public list of commonly used equipment that are compliant, their cost relative to non-compliant equipment and the estimated lifetime energy cost savings? This serves two purposes: empowering and educating the public to make informed decisions and incentivising upstream suppliers to ensure that their equipment are compliant. Moving on from compliance, I would like to ask about NEA's plans for enforcement. The issue of who bears responsibility as the importer is particularly important when we consider how enforcement will operate in practice. If penalties are to shape behaviour, they must be understood in practice and calibrated relative to the upfront savings from non-compliant equipment. Enforcement should follow a clear sequence – closing the information gap, supporting compliance and then applying firm penalties. Sir, I understand that clause 17 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make further transitional regulations that are necessary and expedient. I also note that the current saving and transitional provisions do not appear to provide any relief for SMEs which are facing new registration costs. Therefore, I would like to ask the Ministry to consider a transition period with fee support or waivers, especially for SMEs, consumers and first-time applicants. Given that much of the current risk appears to arise from information gaps and layered procurement arrangements, I hope the Government will consider a stronger transition approach. This could include broader consultation and outreach, a temporary transition or regularisation window, and where appropriate, expedited support for SMEs that are willing to switch to compliant and more energy-efficient equipment.”
“A simple search on NEA's website shows that for new registrants to be a supplier of regulated goods, the application takes seven working days, and for a Variable Refrigerant Flow air-conditioner a new registration fee costs $85 with renewal fees of $55 yearly. Lab tests lead time and costs could potentially result in commercial delays of months, and cost businesses thousands of dollars. Whether one is a contractor, fit-out firm or end-user, there is often little immediate incentive to choose the more expensive piece of equipment. Yet, these appliances also have long operating lives, which means that once a non-compliant equipment enters the market, it may remain in use for many years. This makes the NEA's task of education and enforcement significantly more challenging. One may argue that the long-term energy savings from more efficient equipment should make commercial sense. But that is not always immediately apparent to SMEs that are managing day-to-day operational pressures, cashflow constraints and tight set-up budgets. While larger firms may be able to absorb these compliance costs, SMEs may instead treat the risk of non-compliance as part of their start-up considerations. In that case, the amendment may not achieve its intended deterrent effects. So, I would ask the Ministry whether NEA has assessed the average lead time and total compliance cost for SMEs importing regulated goods for their own use. More importantly, has NEA considered how these factors may shape business behaviour, including whether some SMEs may treat the risk of non-compliance as part of their set-up considerations?”
“Take the example of a franchisee in the F&B sector who is told to purchase a standard set of equipment from the franchisor. Where the franchisee chooses to move ahead with the purchase, it could be a case of reasonably assuming or relying on third-party assurances that the equipment is compliant; not having enough bargaining power to convince the franchisor to switch; or making an informed, commercial decision that this may fall foul of the regulations. If it makes more commercial sense for SMEs to risk non-compliance with the Act, then the amendment may not achieve its intended deterrent effect. First, there are the cost-savings of imported versus non-imported goods. Importing an approved single-phase air-conditioning costs about $3,299 online, while it costs $3,999 when bought locally. That is a substantial difference for a single unit, and even more so for bulk purchases. In many cases, the headline cost of regulated goods from overseas sources or parallel imports can be significantly lower. Second, there are also further indirect costs which may accompany compliance. Where a company or person intends to import a regulated good for their own use, they must still produce test reports to demonstrate that the goods are compliant with the relevant standards. However, where the brand is less known or where the manufacturer's in-house laboratory testing is not to the required standards, the business owner would bear the responsibility of sourcing private lab testing, which can be very costly, both in terms of time and costs.”
“For that reason, while this Bill affects both individuals and businesses, it has greater practical impact on local businesses, and I would like to focus my remarks mainly on SMEs and on how importer liability will be determined in practice. It is perhaps helpful to start by understanding the scale of the problem that the new laws seek to address. In particular, it would be useful to understand how significant this gap has become and why it is important to address it at this point in time. Could the Senior Minister of State share the Government's assessment of the percentage of regulated goods currently entering Singapore, through direct imports or other channels, that may previously have fallen outside of the MEPS and MELS frameworks? And what factors drove the need for the amendment at this point in time? It is also helpful to understand the feedback that went into shaping the proposed new laws. Sir, my second question relates to the public consultation, where NEA received feedback from 15 respondents, most of which were from local suppliers of regulated goods. Could the Ministry clarify whether SMEs, platform operators and other intermediaries in the procurement chain were also consulted, and how their views were taken into account? This brings me to my concerns about compliance and enforcement – that is, whether and how SMEs will comply with the Act, and whether and how NEA will actively enforce this new offence. In principle, I appreciate that businesses operating in Singapore should know that they must comply with Singapore laws. In an ideal world, all consumers and businesses would check before purchasing and importing regulated goods. However, as explained earlier, that is not how many SMEs actually buy equipment.”
“Unlike larger corporations, many SMEs do not have dedicated procurement, legal or compliance teams to check whether the goods they are bringing in meet Singapore's regulatory requirements. Their decisions are often driven by cost, speed and availability, and are frequently made through contractors, franchisors, fit-out firms or overseas suppliers. There are at least three scenarios where an SME may inadvertently fall foul of the rules. First, an SME setting up a new outlet may engage a contractor to source the necessary appliances. In trying to keep costs low and meet timelines, the contractor may purchase these goods from an overseas online platform without checking whether they comply with Singapore's MEPS and MELS requirements. Second, a franchisee may purchase equipment specified by the brand owner, in order to maintain consistency with the wider franchise network or may have a contractual obligation to purchase such equipment. A franchisee may assume that because the equipment is approved or offered by the franchisor, it is also compliant with Singapore's regulatory standards. Third, many SMEs rely on interior designers or contractors to deliver a unit on a turnkey basis. Appliances, such as refrigeration units, water heaters or air-conditioning systems may be imported as part of the fit-out package, and the SME owner may not even realise that they are also, in legal terms, treated as the importer responsible for compliance. In each of these scenarios, the SMEs may not have controlled the procurement decision, but may still bear the responsibility as the importer. Unlike larger corporations, the SMEs may not have the bargaining power to either transfer compliance obligations or enforce standards on third-party vendors.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill. This amendment comes at a time of volatility in global energy markets and where energy efficiency remains one of our first lines of defence against rising fuel costs. I support the Bill because it closes a gap in our energy efficiency framework. While regulating local supply has been effective, global procurement channels now allow individuals and SMEs to access non-compliant goods directly. To ensure this amendment works in practice, there are three areas that we must get right. First, ensuring clarity on who bears responsibility and how the requisite standards can be met. In practice, end-users, such as SMEs, often operate through layered procurement arrangements and may not realise they are legally treated as the importer, even when they did not control the purchase. Second, ensuring adequate support for SMEs to transition. Compliance can be costly for SMEs, given that upfront costs for non-compliance are often lower. And third, taking a calibrated approach to enforcement and compliance. Sir, this Bill addresses the gap in the current landscape by extending the MEPS framework to goods imported for personal use. This Bill will affect both individuals and businesses importing regulated goods for their own use, including SME owners purchasing equipment for shops, offices, clinics, enrichment centres or F&B outlets. In many cases, household purchases are occasional and more straightforward, as consumers often turn to trusted local suppliers who have already registered these appliances and ensured that they meet prevailing standards. The compliance risks are likely to be more acute for businesses, in particular SMEs.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I thank Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow on sharing the support given to local businesses, especially on the extension of the Energy Efficiency Grant, which I have been asking for in my Parliamentary Question. I have two more clarifications on this point as to who may be excluded, and what may be excluded. On my first point, for SMEs, some of these energy efficiency machines or equipment may be considered large-ticket items for them. So, has the Government considered schemes that can help to co-pay upon purchase orders, or even to pay direct to vendors upon installation of such equipment? My second point is, as Acting Minister Jeffrey Siow mentioned, it is for base-tier equipment. These are largely pre-approved equipment and machines. My point is, for some SMEs buying, they may have different sources from the pre-approved vendors and equipment. Can the submissions of new models or new equipment be concurrently considered with the application of the Energy Efficiency Grant, especially in this time when we want to scale up adoption of energy efficiency equipment?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. But is there any inkling on what is the take-up rate among new fathers? And at the same time, are there any considerations that the Government can put in to encourage or to support new fathers in applying for Shared Parental Leave?”
“Thank you, Chairman. Just two quick remarks on my food resilience points. The first being that I thank Senior Minister of State Zaqy for framing it from global partnerships to trusted partnerships. Will the Ministry consider giving us a report card on how these global partnerships have been different from our diversifying imports strategy besides going into specific details. Point two is, while I made quite a pitch for plant-based and alternative proteins, I also note that 25% of Asia Pacific's alternative proteins are already based in Singapore. Can the Ministry make a commitment to make sure that our plant-based protein and alternative protein scene will somehow make its way back into the Singapore Food Story in the future, as I note that the National University of Singapore has some successful cases where they have created viable products for us?”
“But I would also encourage us to continue strengthening our position in plant-based and alternative proteins. Global investment in this sector has slowed and adoption has been uneven. However, from a food resilience perspective, plant-based and alternative proteins remain strategically relevant. Controlled-environment fermentation and novel protein production require limited land and are less exposed to climate variability. This allows us to move from grow local to produce local even within our land constraints. Food resilience is not only about having enough food in terms of quantity. It is also about nutritional stability, particularly the reliability of our protein supply. If we clarify how diversification and global partnerships work together, and continue to invest in future protein capability, we can strengthen both immediate supply resilience and long-term strategic depth. Singapore Food Story - Are We on Track?”
“Chairman, I would like to speak on three of the four pillars of our Singapore Food Story 2, diversifying imports, global partnerships and growing local. I would also like to declare my interest as someone on a plant-based diet. First, I would like to seek clarification on how diversifying our imports and global partnerships differ in practice. Diversification spreads sourcing risk across multiple countries and suppliers. Global partnerships appear to go deeper, involving structured agreements, upstream cooperation and mechanisms that can be activated during disruptions. The Minister has cited examples such as the rice memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with Vietnam and Thailand, and the Brunei-Singapore Agri-Tech Food Zone, which will strengthen trade assurance beyond normal commercial transactions. This reminds me of my days as a junior officer in Enterprise Singapore working on the Singapore-Sino Jilin Food Zone. We successfully brought Jilin rice into Singapore. However, replicating similar structured flows across other food categories proved more complex. This raises two practical questions. First, how do we assess whether a global partnership extends beyond a single category of products? If a partnership secures supply for one staple commodity, does it meaningfully support diversification efforts across other food types such as protein, fresh produce or processed foods? Second, what threshold qualifies an arrangement as a “global partnership”? Clarifying this will help us understand whether our partnerships are commodity-specific arrangements, or broader strategic platforms that can support food resilience across multiple segments. On growing local, we have focused largely on eggs and fish. These remain important.”
“Importantly, we measure not just workers' productivity outcomes, but also infrastructure durability, maintenance frequency and energy consumption. This allows us to quantify the economic impact of adaptation, not just the environmental benefits. Coastal protection safeguards our long-term national assets and heat resilience will safeguard both our people and our economic systems. A coordinated, cross-Ministry approach will ensure we adapt systematically and not in silos. Heat Resilience for Vulnerable Groups”
“Chairman, heat resilience is not just an environmental issue. It is a public health, productivity and infrastructure issue. Agencies have already taken practical steps. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Workplace Safety and Health Council has strengthened heat stress management guidelines for outdoor workers. The Ministry of National Development (MND) has piloted cool coatings and incorporated urban design measures to enhance airflow and reduce heat build-up in estates. MSE is advancing long-term adaptation through measures such as coastal protection. These are important efforts. But rising temperatures cut across Ministries, sectors and systems. We should now move towards a more coordinated framework. In the battery industry, every additional degree of operating temperature reduces performance and lifespan. Similarly, higher ambient heat can accelerate infrastructure wear, increase cooling loads and reduce workers' productivity across sectors. I suggest three areas for a coordinated approach. First, anchor a cross-Ministry heat resilience framework that aligns workplace heat stress guidelines with building design standards, estate planning and industrial operations. MOM, MSE, MND and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) should move in step, so that worker safety, urban design and economic productivity are treated as part of the same system. Second, scale passive cooling as a baseline strategy. Third, strengthen digital heat monitoring. To operationalise this, we can pilot a heat-resilient industrial precinct or campus. Within one defined zone, we integrate heat stress guidelines, passive cooling design, airflow planning and sensor-based monitoring.”
“Batteries enable solar deployment, power data centres, electrified fleets and strengthen grid resilience. With the right policy support, Singapore can capture meaningful value in this growing sector. Singapore Energy Strategy”
“Chairman, I declare my interest as a business owner that manufactures, assembles and distributes batteries locally. But I rise to speak about batteries not just as a product, but as an enabler for economic growth. Singapore may not manufacture battery cells at scale, but that is not where our competitive advantage lies. Our strengths and high value segments, such as system design, integration, battery management software, safety engineering, testing, compliance and project management. These are areas where our Singapore-based companies can compete and differentiate themselves. Today, many local companies are already working with IHLs and research institutes for technology capabilities, while leveraging regional manufacturing to produce competitive solutions. With the right positioning and partnerships, we can serve Southeast Asia and beyond. Industry platforms, such as the Singapore Battery Consortium, have played a useful role in bringing in together the different players. I understand that National Research Foundation's (NRF's) funding for the Consortium will end on 31 March. May I seek clarification on whether support for this platform will continue and whether its scope can be expanded beyond research collaboration to include commercialisation support and market access. Sir, I would also like to raise a practical trade issue affecting some of our companies. A handful of firms have shared that while they carry out substantial work in Singapore, including system integration, battery management software, safety engineering on compliance, this value-add may not always be fully reflected for trade purposes. I hope MTI can review whether our frameworks adequately recognise modern system integration and software-driven value-add in sectors like energy storage.”
“Funding, talents and founders help companies to grow.”
“Chairman, I would like to speak on three things: funding, founders and talent for our startups. With the additional $1 billion injection into our Startup SG Equity, I would like to ask MTI what specific gap we are trying to close? Is the constraint today early-stage formation or is it at the growth stage, where companies have product-market fit but struggle to scale regionally? Is it a shortage of later-stage capital or is it a lack of sector depth in areas, such as deep tech and industrial solutions? I would appreciate clarity on how MTI has diagnosed this gap and how the capital will be deployed? Are we crowding in experienced regional and global growth funds? Are we co-investing alongside operators who can help companies to expand beyond Singapore? We should also avoid concentrating public funds within the same small pool of startups. Co-investment should widen participation, deepen sector capabilities and bring in new founders and new markets. Beyond funding, I would like to check on the Startup SG Founder scheme. I heard that one of the founders must be a first-time founder to get this scheme. But we know that startups fail due to a myriad of reasons. In the spirit of supporting and encouraging entrepreneurship, I would like to check if this criterion can be reviewed? On talents, hiring a full-time chief AI officer can be costly for early-stage firms. This is distinct from the chief technology officer (CTO) advisory schemes. A CTO builds the product. A chief AI officer shapes data strategy, model development and responsible AI use across the organisation. Could we explore a chief AI officer as a service model, allowing experienced AI leaders to support multiple startups so that they can deploy AI properly and scale with confidently?”
“This lowers the barrier to adoption and allows business owners to experiment, learn and integrate AI into daily operations before committing long term. As we push ahead with AI and advanced industry, we must ensure our SMEs are equipped to adapt alongside the industries we are transforming. Supporting SMEs to Grow and Thrive”
“Chairman, besides an income and wealth gap, I would like to explore a third gap, the enterprise ecosystem gap. A strong business ecosystem requires both MNC investments and a resilient SME base. They are two sides of the same coin. When MNCs grow, they bring capital and technology. But our SMEs must be able to grow alongside them and support them locally and regionally. Today, many MNCs are incentivised to invest heavily in AI and robotics. While this strengthens our economy, it also accelerates disruption across supply chains. With the recent changes to our Preferential Additional Registration Fee rebates, let me use example of a car workshop. With EVs, there is no engine oil change and fewer mechanical components. Maintenance cycles are longer. These shifts recurring revenue patterns and affects the broader after-market value chain, from workshops to parts distributors. At the same time, newer EVs require proprietary diagnostic software. Independent workshops may lack authorised access or compatible systems. This results in a technology and access issue. 12.30 pm On the other hand, many workshops are not yet using AI tools for diagnostics, inventory planning or cash flow management. They face restricted access on one end and slow digital adoption on the other. This could create an enterprise ecosystem gap where larger firms surge ahead due to technology and skill, while smaller enterprises struggle to keep up with access, tools and capabilities. One practical way to narrow this gap is to offer SMEs a year-long subscription to enterprise AI tools, similar to the approach I suggested in my muted Ministry of Finance (MOF) cut.”
“I would like to clarify. I had a point in my second cut, which was not delivered, on whether MOF would consider extending AI subscription tools for businesses in the same spirit as for individuals. Because AI business tools are naturally different from that for individuals.”
“With SAF60 approaching in 2027, this could be an appropriate juncture to recognise our NSmen and with the Budget surplus, it is a timely window to pilot such calibrated credits. Leveraging AI for GeBIZ Moving to businesses. With the recent Budget surplus, we have an opportunity to make careful reinvestments that raise productivity across our economy. Some businesses have shared that they are adjusting to cost pressures from increases in Local Qualifying Salary and foreign worker levies. These are important structural moves to uplift wages and productivity. But we must also help businesses bring in more revenue and compete more effectively. One practical way to do so is through how to leverage AI in Government procurement. But this is not to say that all the work must be done by the Government. We will be giving AI subscription support for individuals in this Budget. In this same spirit, could we also pilot —”
“Chairman, much has been said about our recent Budget surplus and how we can share this gain with Singaporeans. But the MOF Occasional Paper released earlier shows that about 35% of Singaporeans and PRs do not pay personal income tax, and our personal income tax system is already largely progressive. In Budget 2016, the relief cap was reduced from $100,000 to $80,000 from Year of Assessment (YA) 2018 to ensure that higher-income individuals pay more tax. Today, the Personal Income Tax is the third largest source of Government revenue. So, fairness in structure matters. Through our PAP Policy Forum engagement as Mr Saktiandi, and from what I see in Naval Base constituency, many dual-income middle-class families feel stretched. They pay tax, may not qualify for direct transfers, yet support children, ageing parents and fulfil national duty. They ask me, can we do something about it? So, I would like to suggest tax credits for two groups of Singaporeans: National Servicemen (NSmen) and caregivers. Under our current release and using a median dual-income household earning about $12,000 per month as an example, one spouse earning $72,000 may claim about $24,000 to $31,000 in parent, child and NSman reliefs, depending on how many dependents one may have. Tax falls from about $2,800 to about $550. But deductions depend on marginal tax rates. A $1,000 deduction saves $115 at 11.5%, but only $70 at 7%. For a single-income household earning about $12,000 a month, after claiming the reliefs, tax payable would still be around $6,000 to $7,000. I suggest a modest $2,500 tax credit, comprising $1,500 for an NSman and $1,000 for a caregiver instead of tax relief. And these would provide meaningful and equal recognition regardless of our tax bracket.”
“Thank you, Chairman. I just have one clarification for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am heartened to learn that Singapore is doubling down on its decarbonisation plans, and I also refer to the Singapore Business Federation Carbon Transition Council, which was mentioned in the Deputy Prime Minister's reply. And I wanted to seek clarification because the council sounded like it was looking at just professional skills transition. I hope that would not exclude any engineers or technicians who are looking to build their careers in this transition plan as well.”
“Chairman, in this Budget focusing on helping workers to transit in a changing world, I want to talk about how our decarbonisation plans translate into opportunity, not anxiety, especially for workers and companies in carbon-exposed sectors. The UK established a dedicated North Sea Transition Authority in 2022 to manage industrial and workforce transition in a coordinated manner. Singapore's context is different, but as carbon pricing rises, we may want to consider whether stronger sector-level coordination is needed for marine and energy-intensive industries. Closer to home, Sembcorp Industries has pivoted steadily into renewables, expanding its solar and battery energy storage portfolio. Seatrium is delivering cleaner energy projects and offshore renewable projects right at the Sembawang Shipyard. This demonstrates that our traditional capabilities can evolve to support the energy transition. Many technicians in these sectors already have strong skills in electrical systems, safety compliance, fabrication and project management. These are transferable skills to electric vessel servicing, offshore renewables support, battery systems and industrial energy efficiency. I suggest the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) considers establishing a coordination function to map sector exposure, identify transferable skills and align industries, agencies and employers early. In this way, workers need not look for greener pastures elsewhere. They can build greener careers here in Singapore. The green transition can and must be a mobility ladder, and decarbonisation should strengthen, not weaken, Singapore's industrial workforce.”
“Sudan does not have strong institutions and is embroiled in ongoing conflict. Debt relief may be necessary, but it also carries risks if money is not used properly. Does the governance structure ensure that the money is used where it is most needed? And will contributors receive updates on how the funds are used and what outcomes are achieved? Fourth, on flexibility if Singapore's own budgets come under pressure. While these grants are modest, they are still public funds. It is therefore reasonable to ask what flexibility Singapore has, if fiscal conditions tighten in the future. If Singapore faces tighter budgets, what options do we have to pause, reduce or recover overseas commitments, whether in the form of grants or loans, and how are these decisions made? Sir, I look forward to the Government's response.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support both Motions before the House, relating to grants to the IMF's PRGT and the trust supporting Sudan's debt relief. My remarks focus on how these grants are controlled and what Singapore expects in return. I will make four brief points. Unlike some IMF arrangements that involve lending or reserve assets, these two Motions involve grants, which are not repaid. The amounts are capped, specified and approved by Parliament, which is appropriate. But it is still important to be clear that these are direct transfers of public funds, not investments or loans. Can the Government clarify whether grants of this nature are expected to be occasional and case-specific, or whether they are likely to become regular or automatic over time? And what principles are used to keep them limited in size and scope? Second, on whether Singapore is doing more than its fair share. We understand that these grants sit outside domestic spending and do not reduce what Ministries receive through the Budget. Even so, Singaporeans may reasonably ask whether Singapore is giving more than others at a time when many countries are turning inward. Despite this narrative, as Minister of State Tan has shared, many countries are still contributing to these IMF trusts. That suggests countries still see value in doing so. But the question is whether Singapore's share is reasonable. Can the Government share how much other countries are contributing to these two trusts and how Singapore's contribution compares with theirs? Third, on what changes on the ground and how this is monitored. For the PRGT, and especially for Sudan's debt relief, Singaporeans will want to know what these grants are meant to achieve and whether there are adequate safeguards governing their use.”
“Third, regarding registration and fire safety. The registration system is important, but for many elderly people, digital processes are not user-friendly. If registration responsibility could be moved forward to points of sale, ensuring compliance from the source, this would both reduce pressure on the elderly and lower subsequent enforcement costs. Regarding fire prevention, even compliant equipment still poses certain risks. I hope the Government can study setting up fire-resistant charging or parking solutions in HDB multi-storey car parks and, through pilot testing, further reduce threats to residents' lives and property. Mr Deputy Speaker, laws are only the start. Implementation is the key. As long as the policy can truly accommodate family needs, be feasible for businesses and allow community participation, this Bill can achieve a better balance between safety and inclusiveness. (In English): Sir, this Bill sets the right direction. But laws succeed only when families feel supported, users and companies can comply and communities feel safe. My intent today is to help make this policy work better on the ground. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications and how we can refine implementation together.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to briefly present my views in Mandarin. This amendment Bill is heading in the right direction, but the real key lies in how to implement the policy effectively. First, on Certificate of Medical Need. This system is heading in the right direction, but real life is often more complex than legal provisions. In the community, there are many elderly people who are temporarily weak after dialysis, chemotherapy or surgery, and need family members or caregivers to assist them in using mobility aids. I hope the policy can provide clear guidance so that caregivers do not have to worry about enforcement risks in reasonable circumstances. At the same time, we also see many residents who are only temporarily mobility-impaired, such as after surgery or fracture. I hope the system can allow short-term or time-limited medical certificates, whilst for permanent medical conditions, consideration could be given to longer validity periods which needs less frequent updating, to reduce the burden of repeated medical consultations for patients. Second, regarding speed limits and enforcement consistency. Reducing the speed limit for mobility aids to six kilometres per hour is reasonable, but the key to truly changing behaviour lies in consistent and sustained enforcement. Taking school areas as an example, if enforcement is only short-term, it easily creates a mentality of "things will be fine once the attention dies down". I hope the authorities can clearly explain the deployment principles for speed cameras and consider establishing permanent enforcement points at high-risk locations, with roving enforcement in other areas, to give the public a stable sense of security.”
“This will allow for faster response, active community eyes on the ground and early detection of unsafe devices. It strengthens safety without over-reliance on enforcement alone. MHA shared recently that in the past three years, 77, or 72%, of the AMD-related fires in HDB estates involved PMDs and PABs which were either non-UL2272 compliant or non-EN15194 compliant; or had been modified, rendering them non-compliant. This means that a significant 28% or more than one in four AMD-related fires involved compliant devices. As the Government has noted previously, although AMD-related fires form a small proportion of fires in HDB estates, such fires are typically more severe and more likely to result in fatalities and injuries. While registration and the requirement for devices to be UL2272-compliant are useful in reducing the risk of fires, they do not adequately address the fire risk of compliant devices. How can the Government reduce the threat to safety and property, given that more than one in four fires are caused by these compliant devices? I encourage the agencies to conduct a feasibility study and share the study with public on allowing these devices to be parked at HDB Multi-storey Car Park (MSCP) as an option and to build fire-resistant charging infrastructure in MSCPs for users to charge their PMDs and PMA batteries. Alternatively, we could consider sandboxes in MSCPs where usage is low. This idea is not plucked out from thin air. I deal with batteries on a daily basis and last Saturday, also had a chat with a retailer on the sideline of our fire safety talk. Similarly, they agreed that with three to four connectors head and three to four voltages, the permutation is not that many for such a sandbox to be deployed quickly. In Mandarin, Sir.”
“Visibility of such cameras builds trust and acts as an effective deterrent and assures road users that we are doing our best to keep our roads and pathways safe for all. My suggestion is to consider permanent cameras at school zones, downward slopes and high foot-traffic areas; temporary cameras to rotate between key junctions and supported by roving enforcement elsewhere. While PMDs are still in its nascency in Singapore, it is consistency in enforcement that will likely change behaviour. Should there be a lack of resources or funding for such permanent cameras, could we also explore a co-funding model between local Town Councils and LTA for estates which want to participate in enforcement? Making it an offence to keep unsafe devices is necessary. Fire risks are real, and we have seen tragic consequences. Under the Active Mobility Act, there is already provision for authorised officers and public path wardens, including volunteers. Enforcement exists today, but residents' feedback that coverage and visibility can feel uneven, especially at hotspots. My question is, can MOT and LTA expand the use of this existing framework to educate, identify high-risk devices and prevent incidents early? For example, strengthening public path warden presence, partnering Town Councils and Community Emergency and Engagement (C2E) Committees and empowering our Active Mobility Community Ambassadors (AMCA). Today, residents can already report illegal vehicle parking through OneMotoring. So, I would like to suggest for MOT to explore a similar structured reporting channel, perhaps through OneService, for PMD and PMA issues. For example, uploading your photo, tagging your location and simple categorisation.”
“For example, would individuals with permanent and irreversible medical conditions be granted certificates with an indefinite validity period to minimise the inconvenience of periodic renewals? Sir, in addition to permanent conditions, we also see many time-bound mobility issues in our community. Residents recovering from surgery, fractures, stroke, chemotherapy or dialysis may only need a mobility scooter for a few weeks or months, not permanently. In this regard, I note that clause 16 of the Amendment Bill introduces a new section 23K of the Active Mobility Act, which contemplates that each certificate will have a validity period. So, I would like to ask: will the framework allow for short-duration certificates and can validity periods be proportionate to medical need, instead of a fixed renewal cycle? Ultimately, clarity on the form of the certificates would be helpful as this avoids over-medicalising temporary conditions and repeated clinic visits for residents who are already unwell. The reduction of the PMA speed limit from 10 kilometres per hours to six kilometres per hour is sensible. Lower speeds do reduce injury severity. Furthermore, PMAs will now be required to carry registration marks which allow for enforcement. But enforcement consistency and deterrence matter. Recently, LTA installed a temporary enforcement camera right outside Canberra Primary School. Parents welcomed it. School leaders supported it. However, residents were surprised when it was removed after just three weeks. So, I would like to ask, can LTA publish clearer criteria on where cameras are likely be deployed, for how long and what conditions trigger removal or extension?”
“However, clause 2(h) of the amendment Bill introduces a new definition of "mobility vehicles" to include "any other motor vehicle designed to carry an individual who is unable to walk or has difficulty in walking and prescribed for the purpose of this definition". In addition, clause 16 of the Amendment Bill introduces a new section 23I, which, in subsection (2), creates an exception to the offence of driving or riding a mobility vehicle without a certificate of medical need in circumstances prescribed in regulations. Taken together, these provisions leave open the possibility that certain vehicles, such as the two-seater vehicles that I have mentioned as an example, being prescribed as mobility vehicles and permitted for use under certain circumstances. Would the Ministry further study such practical needs when developing the subsidiary legislation? There may be circumstances where it may be necessary or convenient for an incapacitated individual and his caregiver to use a two-seater vehicle for legitimate mobility purposes, for example, if the individual is exhausted from dialysis or otherwise temporarily incapacitated from operating the vehicle. While enforcers may exercise discretion, policy clarity gives confidence to families and certainty to enforcement officers. In addition, I would like to ask: one, how does the Ministry to balance the risk of "assessor shopping" with the provision of avenues for applicants to seek a second opinion in good faith? Two, what are the proposed timelines from application to clinical assessment and issuance of the certificate? And three, how will the Ministry ensure that fees are affordable?”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill and its intent to improve safety on our public paths, reduce fire risks from unsafe devices and strengthen accountability in the personal mobility space. I will be addressing the active mobility provisions in my clarification and I would like to frame my comments around three topics: first, users and their caregivers; second, consistent enforcement; and lastly, device safety, storage and the role of our community. The certificate of medical need is well-intentioned. It ensures PMAs are used appropriately and by those who genuinely need them. But on the ground, situations are rarely black and white. A resident in my Naval Base constituency is medically weak due to multiple complications and relies on her husband to accompany her on her PMD. In another case, a couple shared that the wife would ride the PMD after the husband completes his dialysis as he is too weak to do so himself. They are concerned that such arrangements may now face penalties under the new framework. Under the existing Active Mobility Act 2017, a "mobility scooter" is defined to mean a vehicle that has a seat and is designed to carry a single individual. Arguably, it does not extend to a scooter that is designed for two persons, for example, where a caregiver rides the scooter with an incapacitated pillion rider. Clause 2(g) of the amendment Bill introduces certain amendments to the definition of a "mobility scooter", which emphasises that the mobility scooter should only have a "single seat behind the footboard".”
“I thank the Acting Minister for his answer. I have three supplementary questions. The first one being, how does Temasek assess Singapore-based companies' performance separately from their national and developmental roles? The second one would be, over the past decade, have unlisted investments outperformed listed assets and what are the factors that can explain any such of these performance differences? The last one would be, I understand that the Government assesses that the long-term performance has been satisfactory, but it is a long-term view – and that is good in the sense that we do not take any knee-jerk reactions. But in the event that it is deemed unsatisfactory, what levers does the Government have to rectify or act on their returns and investment?”
“However, when enforcing the law, we must also consider the practicalities of business operation. For SMEs, the new procedures will increase compliance costs and time. Hence, Government agencies should provide guidance and support, so businesses view compliance as an asset rather than a burden. I would also like to suggest that searches of company documents or computers only be carried out when necessary to safeguard business operations and trust. Overall, as long as we find a balance between being strict and pragmatic, this Bill can help Singapore maintain its position as a trusted partner in global trade. (In English): In closing, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. It strengthens Singapore's reputation as a trusted and responsible trading hub. But as we build this stronger trust chain, we must make sure it does not tie the hands of those who keep it running. We should pair stronger enforcement with stronger support and ensure that compliance builds confidence, not fear. If we get this balance right, trade will continue to flow freely through Singapore.”
“SMEs could tap the Enterprise Development Grant or Productivity Solutions Grant to digitalise their processes. Trade associations and chambers, some of which will be appointed authorised issuers, can conduct courses to bring SMEs up to speed on the new Bill and required actions. Third, enforcement should be proportionate. The strongest penalties should be reserved for deliberate fraud, not for first-time or administrative mistakes. Customs can start with education and correction before escalation. Sir, I want to touch on one important procedural issue. The Bill expands Customs' power to obtain search warrants for books, records and digital documents. This is a serious power. However, seizing goods in a warehouse is one thing; searching a company's office and taking computers or client records is another. I suggest that, where operationally feasible, only copies of books and digital records should be taken, to minimise business disruptions on potentially innocent businesses while investigations are still ongoing. We should be firm on fraud, but fair on process. Sir, this Bill is part of a wider shift in global trade, from speed and volume to trust and traceability. We want Singapore to remain known not just for efficiency, but also reliability. In an age where trade is increasingly fragmented, Singapore's strength lies in making order out of complexity, not through bureaucracy, but through clarity and trust. In Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Regulation of Import and Export (Amendment) Bill. The new Bill strengthens regulation of trade documentation and certificates, making our export documents more credible and preventing issues with false certificates and false declarations.”
“It can plug directly into platforms, like TradeTrust and the Networked Trade Platform, allowing verification in real time. That saves businesses time and cost while giving foreign buyers and customs agencies confidence that every Singapore-issued document carries the same trusted signature. Just last year, in 2024, Singapore's total trade in goods reached $1.29 trillion and exports were $674 billion. Re-exports made up more than half of that figure. That means most of what we trade depends on the reliability of our documentation and the confidence of our partners. While the intent of this Bill is sound, we must also recognise its practical effects. For large exporters, compliance may simply mean tightening procedures. For smaller businesses, it could mean extra hours checking documents, filing records and verifying that every certificate comes from an authorised issuer. A forwarder shared his account: that shipment delays can be caused by an oversight of the Harmonised System codes and cargos arranged by shippers, who are often are unfamiliar with requirements, cause delays. These delays could range from one in 30 shipments for experienced forwarders and regular goods to four in 10 for controlled items. The passing of this Bill will help to untie some of these knots. Sir, for large firms, these are routine adjustments. For SMEs, they can be significant. But how can we help SMEs to transit, especially as 99% of our enterprises are made up of SMEs? To keep the system pro-enterprise, I suggest three things. First, Government agencies should make compliance simple and clear. Enterprise Singapore and Singapore Customs can develop plain-language guides, checklists and templates to reduce the learning curve. Second, there should be active support for capability building.”
“Customs officers will also have stronger powers to inspect premises, seize goods and obtain records where there is reason to believe offences have occurred. These changes make sense. They help ensure that the documents accompanying Singapore's exports, from electronics to batteries and packaged food, remain trusted worldwide. Around the world, we are seeing countries tighten their own trade documentation rules in response to growing fragmentation and uncertainty in global supply chains. In Vietnam, customs authorities have stepped up enforcement against false "Made in Vietnam" claims. Additionally, authorities in nations, such as South Korea and Thailand, have also increased inspections and seized falsified origin goods. In Singapore, the upcoming Bill will further empower the Ministry of Trade and Industry and Singapore Customs to be able to better combat these threats. A key part of this Bill is the creation of a predictable system for verifying and issuing trade documents. Previously, certificates, such as Certificates of Origin or Certificates of Free Sale, were governed by different authorities. This amendment provides an overarching legal framework for comprehensiveness. Also, under current export laws, the process is delegated but fragmented. An exporter may be requested by Customs to approach a certificate issuer, such as the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry or the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to get their Certificates of Origin. In the case of falsification, the issuer might not always be clear of its role and responsibility. With amendment, if a certificate is found to be false, the enforcement process is clear and consistent. Just as important, this framework is built for the digital era.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as someone who runs a business involved in the trading, importing and exporting of goods. Many of the procedures covered in this Bill – Certificates of Origin, transshipment documentation and customs checks – are part of my daily operations. Singapore's economy has always depended on trade. Every shipment that leaves our port and every document that certifies its origin form what I call our trust chain. This is because trust is required at each stage: the manufacturer trusts that the supplier to provide genuine materials, the importer trusts that the documentation is accurate and ultimately, consumers trust that what they buy is what it claims to be. This Bill strengthens that chain by tightening how Trade Information Certificates are issued, verified and enforced. I support this Bill because it enhances Singapore's credibility as a trusted trading hub, but I also believe enforcement must remain proportionate and practical for the businesses that keep our trade flowing. Sir, the way global trade operates is changing. It is no longer just about moving goods quickly or cheaply. Partners now ask where a product was made, how it was produced and whether the supporting documents can stand up to scrutiny. This Bill creates a clearer structure for Trade Information Certificates. These include Certificates of Origin, certificates confirming manufacture or processing in Singapore and certificates confirming that goods have been transshipped or re-exported here. It also introduces new offences for issuing or using false or misleading certificates and empowers the Director-General of Customs to suspend or revoke authorisation from certificate issuers who fail to meet the required standards.”
“Thank you to the Senior Minister of State for his answers. I have a few clarifications. I note that no alternative proteins are being stockpiled now. Is it a reason of cost? My second supplementary question is, in my Parliamentary Question, I do not think I got an answer on the measures of sites and the audits on the sites available, especially for frozen food. Will you be looking at uninterruptible power supplies and how often will you do the audits? Because, as you mentioned, with the MSR coming on board, there will be more sites allocated for such stockpiling measures.”
“In time, I hope the Commission will also act as an educator and facilitator, promoting digital literacy and empathy across communities. Deputy Speaker, Sir, OSRA is like a set of classroom rules in our digital school to ensure every Singaporean, especially our young, can learn, share and express themselves safely. Sir, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill. The Internet is like our digital campus and should be a place where people can communicate, learn and grow with peace of mind. This Bill can help the victims obtain relief more quickly and requires online platforms to take responsibility. However, the Government should also pay attention to the following during implementation. First, clarify the distinction between this Bill and POHA. Second, prioritise cases of online harm involving minors. Third, ensure that the OSC has sufficient resources and capabilities to assist small- and medium-sized platforms to improve their content control standards. (In English): Sir, in conclusion, I support this Bill because it protects our people, strengthens accountability and encourages a healthier digital culture. But beyond regulation, it also reminds us of our shared duty to build a safe digital environment for our young.”
“Sir, as someone who supports a pro-enterprise environment, I recognise that compliance must also be realistic. Large platforms have legal teams, moderators and automated filters. Smaller and community-based platforms, including start-ups and local networks, may not. To keep the playing field level, I hope the Commission will provide clear workflows and templates for reporting and response; set service benchmarks on how quickly cases are acknowledged, investigated and resolved; and offer capacity-building support, such as training, reporting templates or open-source moderation tools, for smaller platforms to plug into. Otherwise, we risk a two-speed digital economy where global platforms comply easily while smaller innovators struggle to keep up. Regulation should lift everyone, not leave the smaller players behind. Sir, the success of this Bill will also depend on how OSC is set up and supported. OSC will carry heavy responsibilities – from handling victim reports to issuing directions to platforms and coordinating with law enforcement. It must, therefore, be adequately resourced, not only with technical and legal expertise, but with experienced officers who understand the social and emotional dimensions of online harm. To build public confidence, OSC should not only set but publish clear service benchmarks publicly, on how quickly cases are acknowledged, investigated and resolved. However, this is different from an annual reporting, as service standards are listed out clearly and pre-emptively, rather than post-incident. This is akin to how teachers would set out clear rules in their classrooms prior to conflicts and bullying. The success of OSC should lie in whether parents, children and all users of our online space feel safe even before logging online.”
“Although the definition of this phrase in the Bill is worded in wide terms and the illustration makes it clear that non-public information relating to medical conditions constitutes private information, it would, perhaps, provide clarity and assurance to potential victims if regulations, which are contemplated under clause 11(2) of the Bill, are swiftly introduced following the passage of the Bill. I have also received feedback regarding the list of persons who are eligible to make a report to the Commissioner on behalf of a victim under clause 22(2)(a) of the Bill. In particular, there are concerns that there may be victims, who are under the age of 18, who may either be estranged from their parents or guardians, or are fearful of informing them of the online harm that is occurring to them. For example, due to shame associated with the information that is being published about them online, a minor could be fearful of informing his or her parents. Could the Minister clarify the recourse that the minor would have in such a scenario, please? This Bill builds on lessons from other countries. UK and Australia have implemented similar online safety laws, and it would be useful to understand whether their experiences led to fewer harms or faster response times. If certain measures have proven effective, we should localise and adapt them early. For example, the Australia Online Safety Act requires platforms to comply with removal notices relating to children within 24 hours. Could the Minister clarify the principles that would give the Commissioner's imposition of deadlines for compliance with directions issued under our Act, and whether guidelines embodying such principles will be published, please?”
“I hope OSC will develop tiered response protocols that give priority to victims under-18, especially when harm is ongoing. If we can respond quickly to a child being targeted online, we can often prevent lasting damage. Online safety should be seen as part of raising happy and healthy children, not separate from it. Our online space must give children room to explore safely – to learn, play and make mistakes, without being preyed upon. I hope that OSC can also work closely with relevant Government agencies and non-governmental organisations to educate and empower victims to speak up. It is imperative that the protections and recourse available to victims, especially those from vulnerable groups, are easily understandable and accessible. Doing so will help to encourage victims to seek help early and safely. I have received feedback expressing concerns that victims may run the risk of being exposed to further harm by seeking recourse under the proposed new legislation. To ensure that the new legislation achieves its intended purpose of protecting victims, adequate safeguards should be implemented, including to safeguard the victims' identities and to ensure that the process is fair. In this regard, I am heartened to see that the Bill contains certain safeguards, including clause 54, which imposes secrecy obligations on persons who may receive sensitive information in the course of carrying out their duties; and Part 7, which establishes mechanisms for reconsiderations and appeals. In addition, I have received feedback that seeks clarity on the types of information that would be considered "private information" for the purposes of clause 11 of the Bill, including sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual diseases or sex-related occupation status.”