Saktiandi Supaat
Singapore
“I have two supplementary questions. For my Parliamentary Questions that the Senior Minister of State answered earlier, I thank him for answering them because those are questions that my dialect-speaking seniors in Toa Payoh East and their families have raised to me.”
“As the Review Group has recognised, there is no "silver bullet", a holistic ecosystem-wide approach is required. The implementation of these recommendations appears to have been phased, with announcements across February, July and November 2025.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Three questions. First, given that the Section 301 actions can sometimes be broad-based, how is Singapore engaging with our US counterparts to ensure that our firms are not inadvertently affected by measures aimed at other economies?”
“Many of them do not openly express their difficulties. This is why social and emotional support must go beyond the occasional event. It must be sustained, trusted and easily accessible.”
“Would the Government consider developing a National Master Trades Accreditation framework – a national tiered certification that recognises advanced trade mastery, similar to chartered professionals in other sectors and create a new avenue for career switchers and career transition for segments of our workforce?”
“When the scheme is implemented in 2028, how will the Ministry measure success in terms of participation rates, risk-adjusted returns and improvements in retirement adequacy outcomes for CPF members?”
The complete record
Every one of 992 lines we hold for Saktiandi Supaat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 20.
“A similar benchmark might help to prevent some of these noise-related squabbles from arising. At the same time, we should also be conscious of over-prescription and the importance of some give-and-take. For example, where personal items stored along HDB corridors do not cause any fire or other hazards, I believe that the authorities have also not strictly enforced the official "no storage" rule. We cannot let rules override common sense. One helpful development I have noticed on the ground is the creation of Telegram or WhatsApp chatgroups for a particular HDB Build-To-Order (BTO) estate or for a particular block. A resident can highlight any issue in real-time, even including excessive noise from common areas like the estate's basketball and badminton courts, which will elicit approving or disapproving responses from other neighbours. My only concern is whether any moderating is required so that no single resident will feel bullied or isolated. (In English): Mr Speaker, despite the enhancement of the CDRT’s powers and procedures in this Bill, I am glad to note MCCY’s position that the CDRT should remain an “avenue of last resort” and that we will further encourage the use of community mediation to help neighbours reach an amicable resolution. One such move is to enable the certain specified persons to direct the disputing parties to the CMC or any other mediation organisation for mediation. I note that the new section 13M states that such specified persons “may” direct, which suggests that there is still a discretion. May I ask why are we not making this mandatory, especially when it appears that we are making mediation a prerequisite before an individual can commence a claim of unreasonable interference?”
“Mr Speaker, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill which must strike close to the heart of all my fellow elected Members in this House. As part of our constituency work, it is not uncommon to encounter disputes among residents ranging from noise complaints, storage of personal items along HDB corridors, second-hand smoke and surveillance or harassment. CDRT and neighbour disputes. The CDRT was set up in October 2015 as part of our Community Dispute Management Framework. Based on the answers to earlier Parliamentary Questions, we know that 380 cases were filed with the CDRT from 2015 to 2019. Therefore, since COVID-19 hit, how many more cases have been filed with the CDRT each year? Mr Speaker, while I welcome the present amendments to enhance the dispute resolution procedures, part of me cannot help seeing a "missed opportunity" to clarify certain social norms, which could help to avoid such disputes in the first place. Take noise-related issues for example. One common complaint from residents is the loud and rowdy activities by neighbours at night, whether from a house party or playing the piano, during sleeping hours. But what are sleeping hours? To a university student, that might mean midnight. To those of us in our 40s and 50s, that might mean 10.00 pm. But to young parents with newborns or toddlers, sleeping hours could start even earlier at 9.00 pm or even 8.00 pm. While I am sure most Singaporeans are considerate and do not go out of the way to disturb others' sleep, such misalignment in expectations can cause understandable frustration. Some countries, like New Zealand, have quiet hours when noise levels must be kept below a certain level.”
“Instead of a piecemeal adaptation of the Act, should we expect an overhaul in the form of a new, consolidated Act in the near future? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is well accepted that to secure our future in the world, we must continue to maintain Singapore's advantages in having a stable political climate, reliable infrastructure, strong legal framework and a highly educated workforce. But in business, you ultimately cannot ignore the dollars and cents. It is imperative that we navigate how to give businesses the right monetary incentives while remaining true to our international commitments. Notwithstanding the clarification sought, I support the Bill.”
“What is the amount of capital expenditure investment allowance that has been granted thus far and how are they broken down by project type and by expenditure categories? Will there be a broader exercise to review the list of qualifying project types against our strategic national priorities today, such as our green economy and the push to make it more AI- and data-centric? Mr Speaker, beyond the specific tweaks contemplated in this amendment Bill, I wonder if we are due to relook our whole investment attraction toolkit in the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967 as a whole, given the significant change in landscape brought about by the Multinational Enterprise and Minimum Tax Act passed last month. From time to time, we have been amending and tweaking the Act to modify, add or remove the various incentives led by our agencies such as the Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore. However, with Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0, there is now much less room for below-the-line tax incentives such as concessionary tax rates or deductions that potentially reduces a company's effective tax rate. This is not even taking into account the potential impact of Pillar One, which has not been implemented yet. From a more macro level, how should we look to redesign our investment incentives and toolkit in this post-BEPS 2.0 world? Given the involvement of various different Ministries and agencies, who would take the lead in this regard? I would be grateful for the Minister's insights on how we are going to do this and to assure Singaporeans that we will still be able to attract good companies to anchor themselves in Singapore and create good jobs and flow-on opportunities as a result.”
“If so, am I correct to understand that the entities belonging to large MNE groups caught under Pillar Two will no longer be granted 5% or 10% concessionary tax rates under the DEI going forward? And what is the number and percentage of successful DEI applicants that such entities account for? Considering that a 15% concessionary tax rate, even putting aside the prescribed 0.5% step-up during the tax relief period, is not too far from our statutory corporate income tax rate of 17%, is it necessary to create this new tier, as opposed to simply excluding all entities caught by Pillar Two from the DEI? On the flip side, does that mean that applicants who are not entities caught under Pillar Two, such as small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and smaller MNEs, can still expect to be granted the 5% and 10% concessionary tax rates as a norm? Mr Speaker, the amendment Bill will also extend the DEI for another five years until the end of December 2028. May I ask also the Minister, what metrics has the Government used to measure the efficacy of the DEI relative to the costs to the Government over the two years? And how much corporate tax have we effectively forgone from corporates through the DEI? The other main change under this amendment Bill relates to the Investment Allowance Scheme, under which businesses can enjoy a tax exemption of up to 100% of fixed capital expenditure incurred. While the qualifying fixed capital expenditure has so far been defined by reference to clearly circumscribed types of projects under the principal Act, the amendment Bill now seeks to add a sweep-up category of any project and related capital expenditure as may be prescribed. May I ask the Minister also, what is the intent of adding such a sweep-up category now when it was not necessary before?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the last Sitting in October, Members on both sides of the House supported the need for us to enhance our investment toolkit as we implement the minimum effective corporate tax we have committed to under Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0. The multilateral commitment to impose a 15% floor on effective tax rates for large multinational enterprises (MNEs), groups with annual group revenue of $750 million or more in at least two of the four preceding financial years, will restrict tax competition and reshape the manner in which countries will have to compete for foreign direct investment (FDI), and the jobs and stimulus that come with FDI. One of the two main changes in the amendment Bill relates to the DEI. The DEI allows businesses engaging in high value-added goods or services to apply for a certificate entitling them to a concessionary tax rate for the income from one or more qualifying activities stated in the certificate. Currently, the concessionary tax rates on qualifying income may be 5% or 10%. May I ask the Minister what are the criteria applied to determine whether a business will be granted a 5% or 10% concessionary tax rate in respect of its qualifying activity? What number and proportion of applications under the DEI have been granted a 5% concessionary tax rate and what number and proportion of applications have been granted a 10% concessionary tax rate? The amendment Bill will also introduce a new tier where a 15% concessionary tax rate can be granted in the certificate. Is this change in light of the 15% floor on minimum effective tax rates under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0?”
“In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, it is a strength that our Parliamentarians in Singapore can raise issues and have the Government table and pass legislation in less than three months. For this instance, it is even less than a week. But it is a power that we must exercise extremely sparingly, lest our legal and business environments are perceived to be uncertain and unpredictable. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill and the Government’s decision to block the Allianz-Income deal in its current form.”
“The explicit mention that MCCY's views should also be considered in this Bill could set a worrying precedent. What if, for a future transaction, public interest considerations of other Ministries become relevant? Would we have to separately legislate on an urgent basis again? Instead, reading sections 26 and 27 in the inclusive manner that I have suggested above, potentially allows new considerations from being taken into account at a whole-of-Government level. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill should also not be for the purpose of ensuring information flows between different Government arms. Following the Allianz-Income episode, I am sure MAS is now aware of the potential interests that other Ministries or Government agencies might have in the regulatory applications that it processes. Minister Chee Hong Tat explained that it did not occur to MAS to consult with MCCY, particularly on Income's previous exemption from section 88 of the CSA, before the Parliamentary Questions of 6 August 2024. This is understandable because it is not an issue that would arise in most applications made to MAS for approval, which would not relate to co-ops. However, my question is whether any conditions were attached to the exemption for Income to carry over S$2 billion of accumulated surplus to its new corporate form. What were those conditions? Instead of enacting the amendment in this proposed Bill, would MCCY not be able to exercise effective regulation by imposing relevant conditions in the exemption that was given, for example, that any subsequent change of ownership must be cleared with MCCY, or that the carried-over surplus of S$2 billion had to be returned to the CSLA if certain prescribed events occurred? On that note, can MCCY still vary the conditions of that exemption today?”
“What we do know is that it is a lower bar than the "national security interests" protected under the Significant Investments Review Act (SIRA), when Minister of State Alvin Tan replied to me that Income’s "social purpose" is unlikely to meet the high bar to be protected under SIRA. Given that the proposed new section 33A(3) specifically identifies consultation with the Minister responsible for the Co-operative Societies Act 1979, is "public interest" under that subsection only to be assessed from that Ministry's mission and objectives? That seems to cut against "whole-of-Government" approach that Minister Chee spoke about on Monday. I am conscious that it is difficult, if not impossible, to set out an exhaustive definition of "public interest". However, given the use of the term across other legislation requiring Government approval for changes in control, such as the Transport Sector (Critical Firms) Act 2024, perhaps it would be more reassuring to foreign investors for there to be a one-stop summary of the various classes of target companies and the specific regulatory clearances that are required prior to investment. I hope the Government can consider that suggestion. (In English): Existing powers. One issue that was also raised on Monday was whether the amendment in this Bill is necessary in light of the existing legislative powers. Sections 26 and 27 of the Insurance Act 1966 provide that the "MAS 'may' approve an application to take over or control substantial shareholdings in licensed insurers if the applicant meets the prudential requirements". The use of the word "may", instead of "shall", seems to suggest that there could be other considerations beyond the prudential requirements.”
“Allianz released a statement late on Monday that it will consider revisions to the proposed transaction structure, when it could have walked away altogether. May I ask the Minister whether and what steps have been taken to engage Allianz, as opposed to Income and NE? If no steps have been taken so far, is any engagement being planned? As with any potential purchaser, Allianz would have incurred time and expense, alongside its legal and other advisors, to study and prepare for the deal before submitting the application to MAS for approval. It could only have done so on the basis of the prevailing laws, and these amendments in this Bill would not have been in its contemplation then. Investor concern is not just on the buy-side; the uncertainty extends to the sell-side as well, where investors cannot be certain whether their investments will suddenly become illiquid or considerably less liquid as a result of subsequent Government intervention. Sir, what message does this Bill send to prospective investors considering investments into Singapore? Will this Bill affect, for example, existing free trade agreements (FTA) on activities in the financial services sector, including the EU-Singapore FTA? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Public interest. What exacerbates this concern is the lack of clarity around the basis that approval for a proposed transaction may be withheld. "Public interest" is one of those things where it is difficult to define, even though you probably know it when you see it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this urgent Bill was tabled two days ago to provide "clear statutory basis" for MCCY's concerns to be taken into account in the consideration of the Allianz-Income transaction. One thing we should not miss is that I do not think there are many countries, if any, which can do what we have done in Singapore. First, for me and my various colleagues to be able to file Parliamentary Questions on an ongoing regulatory application during the 6 August 2024 Sitting and invite the Government to scrutinise the deal and ask for more information in the public interest. And two, for the Government to be open, transparent and adjust its stance based on the new information obtained. But there are always two sides to the same coin, and I have some clarifications to raise as I am concerned about how this urgent Bill may be perceived by others outside of this House. As we are well aware, the Allianz-Income proposed transaction is still under regulatory review. While Minister Edwin Tong has announced the Government's view that it would not be in the public interest for the transaction to proceed in its current form, the fact remains that the requisite MAS approval has not yet been given for the deal to proceed. How do we ensure the Government's ability to enact laws to block commercial transactions do not negatively impact on local and foreign investors’ confidence in Singapore’s legal and business environment? Should such laws only operate prospectively, instead of retrospectively to affect commercial parties who could not have reasonably accounted for the change in laws? And I believe some other Members in this Chamber have actually raised those questions. It is heartening that the fallout has been limited at least for this particular proposed deal.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for her answer. I just have one supplementary question. In regard to the Code of standards for the lifts that have been indicated in the BCA standards, does it include safety standards for personal mobility aid (PMA) and personal mobility devices (PMDs)? And also, have the size changes that possibly evolved over time?”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answers to my Question Nos 1 and 3. I have one supplementary question. But first of all, I would like to thank the Minister for the occasional PTV help to vulnerable residents in Singapore. I note that he highlighted that the quantum of the CPI for household payments for public transport for vulnerable households has dropped from 3.2% to 2.4%, if I caught it correctly. I note also in the CPI basket, the public road transport CPI weightage is about 3%. My question in terms of the supplementary question is, with regards to the PTVs, can I ask the Minister how is this quantum decided upon, in terms of the size and also the amount, $50 to $60, that he highlighted – and I applaud that. And thank you for increasing the income cut-off from $1,500 to $1,800. My question is, how is the quantum decided? Whether in the future, can the PTV quantum be included within the overall Budget deliberation, rather than on an ad hoc basis? I do note that the payment to alleviate the impact on households for public transport expenditure is a move that is much to be thanked for.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will not give a speech, Mr Speaker, but allow me this opportunity to join in to thank the "One Transport Family", they have worked together as one transport family, volunteers and staff, as the Minister has mentioned, Singaporeans coming in to join in to help out, over the six days. So, really, thanks to all of them for making sure that it was solved within six days. I have one supplementary question, Mr Speaker. It is in regard to rail reliability and trying to find the right balance between rail reliability and the cost of maintaining service levels. It is something that I have asked in my PQ slated for tomorrow. I have noticed that there have been comments on social media that the East-West Line disruption occurred because the Chairman of SMRT had claimed in June 2023 that they did not want over-maintenance. Can I seek the Minister's views on this and if the Minister can also share about our relations, in terms of the One Transport Family with our rail operators? And in summary, how is the balance struck between the cost of over-maintenance and the prevention of avoidable disruption incidents? Lastly, before I end, I would like to thank the Minister for answering my preventive maintenance question.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, again, whether he can assure the university students about the bus overcrowding situation, because for the feeder bus services, when there is heavy rain, there is a bit of concern about the overcrowding issues, not just from the tours that are visiting the universities, but also in terms of the frequency of the bus services. Whether that can be improved, going forward, for both AUs and other AUs in Singapore as well.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I just have three supplementary questions, Mr Speaker. I have received feedback from some university students and there have been recent reports of daily campus bus problems, issues of maintenance of toilets and other services, and also overcrowding of canteens and food courts in the AUs. I am aware that the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have taken measures to address those issues. But I have three supplementary questions to follow up from that. First, whether the Ministry of Education (MOE), on a regular basis, do look carefully at the local tertiary students' basic welfare, safety and day-to-day logistics, even as there are autonomous entities involved here. Second, whether MOE thinks that the AUs' measures are adequate and should MOE set guidelines to ensure AUs are able to handle the overcrowding issues that we are facing over the past few months; or even if they have improved, whether it can be sustained. And lastly, with regard to some of the measures, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how some of these tour operators who are visiting the AUs can be better managed, going forward?”
“In determining what terms would be “reasonable”, would the Appeal Panel be able to access the terms of other agreements entered into by the owner of the critical infrastructure giving access to other licensees? The problem is that most of these agreements and their terms would probably be commercially sensitive and subject to express confidentiality obligations. Mr Speaker, I started by pointing out that this Bill focuses on one of our four supply “switches”. But it is difficult to think of our resilient and sustainable energy strategy without considering the other three supply “switches” as well. Assuming we achieve our solar deployment target of at least two gigawatt-peak (GWp) by 2030, what percentage of our electricity needs will solar energy be able to supply? Is it realistic to set even more ambitious targets for our solar deployment? Against our expectation of importing around 30% of our electricity from foreign countries by 2035, how many percent have we attained as of today? In addition, how many are already in the pipeline and in the midst of works? How much has already been spent on the planning and infrastructure, including for plans that have been abandoned due to subsequent developments? Finally, in relation to low-carbon alternatives, is there any update on how the execution of our National Hydrogen Strategy is coming along? In order to hit our emissions targets by 2030 and 2050, how do we envisage the mix of electricity sources to change over time? On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“When it comes to energy assets and infrastructure, the first change is to require owners of key electricity and gas assets to obtain the EMA’s prior approval before repurposing such assets. May I ask how would such key assets be identified? Will it be a closed list? More fundamentally, has there be any particular incident in the past few years which has sparked this concern around repurposing? The other material change is the EMA’s power to direct owners of critical energy infrastructure to enter an agreement with licensees for access to the critical energy infrastructure. This power may seem overreaching as it intrudes upon the infrastructure owner’s freedom to contract or not to contract with a particular party. Before this, EMA was previously given power to direct gencos to generate electricity using gas from the SLF. May I ask if such a power was ever exercised by EMA? To date, how many times has EMA exercised the power to direct electricity market participants to take any action that would otherwise be in their own commercial decision-making domain? If the licensee and the infrastructure owner cannot agree on the terms upon which the licensee would have access, either party may request the Minister for Trade and Industry to establish an Appeal Panel to determine the reasonable terms for the agreement. But 10 reasonable persons can come up with 10 different reasonable proposals. So, what are the factors that the Appeal Panel will consider and refer to in determining the “reasonable terms” of the forced agreement? Would subsidiary legislation be passed for this purpose?”
“Next, is there also a contradiction when we seek to use the CGE to aggregate natural gas demands and achieve economies of scale in procurement and our other aim to enhance our energy security by procuring from multiple, diversified sources? How diversified are our gas supplies currently? How many different countries do our gencos import our gas from? What is the maximum percentage of our total gas imports that come from a single country? Mr Speaker, this Bill will also create the FEF that was announced during Budget 2024. As announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong then, the FEF will have an initial injection of $5 billion and invest in critical infrastructure and enhance our security in clean energy. Would the FEF subsume existing initiatives for the uptake of clean and efficient energy solutions? For example, would the $50 million Low-Carbon Energy Research Funding initiative, as announced by Minister Tan See Leng in this House in January 2021, now be parked under the FEF? Or the National Environment Agency’s Energy Efficiency Grant, which offers grants for manufacturing companies to adopt energy-efficient technologies, would that now be dealt under the FEF instead? This Bill is also going to give EMA the power to recover the costs of providing new initiatives to strengthen energy security, develop a competitive market, and/or support the decarbonisation of the power sector. The official press release for the introduction of this Bill stated that the proposed amendments to the Electricity Act and the Gas Act will allow EMA to recover costs from entities and persons who benefit from these initiatives. It is quite unclear how these cost recovery powers are intended to be used. Can the Minister give examples of when and how these cost recovery powers might be used?”
“Is there already an idea of who this CGE is going to be and how it is going to be run and managed? Will it be part of an existing Government-linked company? I suspect it cannot be a purely private commercial enterprise since it is going to be put in a monopolistic market position vis-à-vis the gencos. To achieve our aim of ensuring cost competitiveness, how will the Government be able to influence the CGE to pursue non-profit maximisation objectives? In fact, this monopolistic structure has been raised as an issue during MTI and EMA’s public consultation earlier this year. Respondents flagged the potential loss of flexibility to procure gas from other market participants. This not only includes different upstream gas suppliers, but also horizontal gas companies which find that they have more gas than they need. Would this not deprive gencos of the ability to capitalise on opportunistic spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracts to bring down their overall cost of generating electricity, which they can pass on to electricity consumers? On a free market theory, would it not be more efficient if gencos were left to search for the most competitive gas supplier and arrangement? I note from the Ministry’s consultation responses that legacy gas contracts will not be affected by the new regulatory regime. We know that our gencos generally rely on long-term gas contracts in order to keep electricity prices relatively stable. Do we have any idea what is the rundown period for these existing contracts, before they need to start to purchase from, or through, the CGE?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the energy crunch in 2021-2022 still looms in many of our minds today. A confluence of factors, including the war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions and gas production shortages, caused electricity prices to soar. And when electricity prices go up, business costs went up and our domestic food prices also went up. This Bill focuses on one of our four supply “switches” – how we make our natural gas generators more efficient. As at end-2022, around 95% of Singapore’s electricity is generated using natural gas. I have some clarifications and comments on the Bill. Seeing the Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI’s) stated objectives for the Bill, I cannot help but think of the usual saying about the “impossible trinity”: fast, cheap and good. You can usually only have two out of the three. So, when we are seeking to decarbonise in line with our international commitments and our own green plans and to diversify so as to ensure our energy security, it would seem quite impossible to decrease prices and keep our costs competitive. Some increase in price seems to be inevitable. With the changes in this Bill, can the Minister share his thoughts whether Singaporeans and Singapore businesses should expect electricity prices to trend upwards in the near and medium term? Mr Speaker, one of the key thrusts under this Bill is the creation of a single Central Gas Entity (CGE) to centralise gas procurement for the power sector. Power generation companies (gencos) would then have to buy natural gas from the CGE. This reminds me of the establishment of the predecessor of NTUC FairPrice amidst the oil crises of the 1970s. The consumer co-operative would buy essentials in bulk and pass the savings on to the consumers, combating profiteering at the same time.”
“Finally, given the new laws to enhance detection and enforcement against money laundering and improve our processes to deal with seized or restrained properties linked to suspected criminal activities as well as increasing frictions for any person connected to an absconded person to establish his entitlement to properties and assets, may I ask if MHA and MAS can reassure concerns that the new laws will not deter legitimate investments and businesses as well as lead to higher compliance costs and layers in the financial sector? The concern is that it may lead to higher risks of seizures and impact wealth flows. Can MHA and MAS share their assessment of these new laws impact on the financial sector flows either directly or indirectly? Would it be possible for the relevant agencies to engage the financial sector's compliance departments, to clarify that the efforts are targeted and aimed solely on illegitimate investments and should not be taken as a further broad tightening on all investment flows? So, I look forward, Mr Speaker, to seeing the Inter-Ministerial Committee's findings and recommendations later this year. Among other things, I think it is key to our AML objectives to focus on parts of the ecosystem that have not been regulated or as closely regulated. For example, high-value assets, such as luxury cars, bags and liquor, do not have the same structural regulation as financial instruments and real estate. But these are beyond the scope of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill to strengthen our AML/CFT regime.”
“This change comes slightly a year after we had tightened our laws to act against money mules, who sell or use their payment and Singpass accounts for criminals to receive or transfer money. May I ask if there was a reason why we did not make the present amendment then as well? The Bill also introduces amendments to allow Government agencies to share tax data and trade data with Singapore's Financial Intelligence Unit, the STRO of CAD. Sectoral regulators, such as the CEA and ACRA, will also be given access to STRs filed by their respective regulated entities. As explored in the clarifications to the Ministerial Statements last year, the key is not in an indiscriminate blasting of the confidential STRs to anyone who wants them, but to be clear about who is the central node who is making sense of all the STRs and the data that is being reported and fed to. Who will play the role of this central node or do we envisage a semi-decentralised system where different regulators keep an eye on different scopes? Is there merit in setting up a central coordination point like the Anti-Scam Centre does for our scam-fighting efforts? An effective solution must harness an ability to access information across different spheres. This would include the developed system of STRs that are now regularly filed by our financial institutions. While I understand that MAS is taking a phased approach in the implementation of the COSMIC platform, starting with six major commercial banks, is there an update on when we would consider if it can be extended for use by a larger audience, including other non-financial institution gatekeepers, such as law firms and accounting firms? What is the status of the implementation of COSMIC and what are some of the lessons learnt so far?”
“The new powers will allow the Police or the Public Prosecutor to apply to Court for an order of sale if the property is likely to depreciate in value, if keeping or maintaining the property would be dangerous, unduly costly or not reasonably practicable or if the sale would be in the interests of justice. Can the Minister please clarify, what circumstances would fall under the "interests of justice" limb? If these proposed powers were available in 2023, for example, what are the types of assets which would have been sold after they were seized in the billion-dollar case? I note that the Bill also contains new provisions to prevent absconded persons from making successful claims to seized properties. May I ask how commonly has this occurred over the past 20 years? What is the value of seized properties that absconded individuals have been able to make away with and how have they managed to obtain delivery of such properties from the authorities despite being absent from jurisdiction? Clause 11 of the Bill also seeks to make it easier for the Prosecution to prove a money laundering offence. The Prosecution will no longer need to provide the full chain of how the monies laundered in Singapore are traced to the benefits or gains from criminal conduct, as long as they can show that the money launderer knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was dealing with the benefits from criminal conduct. Does this mean that someone can be criminally liable as a money launderer if he mistakenly believes that he is dealing with ill-gotten gains, or must the monies dealt with still need to be attributable to criminal conduct? If it is the latter, what would be the standard of proof required?”
“With that consensus, would it be more expedient to consider our AML strategy in the round after the Inter-Ministerial Committee's findings and recommendations are known? That way, we can fashion a more holistic update of our regime, as compared to making piecemeal tweaks at various times. That would also allow businesses and investors to undertake a single review of their operations and compliance policies and keep compliance costs competitive. Just as an illustration, I note that the Bill is lowering the monetary threshold for casinos to perform CDD measures when it is entering into a single transaction of $4,000 or more with a patron. By way of comparison, the Precious Stones and Precious Metals (Prevention of Money Laundering, Terrorism Financing and Proliferation Financing) Act 2019 (PSPM Act), sets the threshold amount at $20,000 for a dealer of precious stones and metals to perform CDD measures. How are these quantitative thresholds set? We should ensure that they do not come across as arbitrary. Mr Speaker, one aspect of the Bill, which clearly appears to be triggered by the recent case, is the new power to convert seized property to cash under certain circumstances, without the consent of all parties involved. When I asked a PQ back in May 2024, Minister Shanmugam updated that the Police had incurred about $646,282 as of March 2024 for the storage, maintenance and safeguarding of the seized assets. How much more have been spent to store, maintain and safeguard properties, vehicles and luxury goods to date? What is the amount of depreciation suffered from the time that the various assets were seized? How much of the seized assets have yet to be appropriated to the consolidated fund for Government use?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the topic of AML has been a subject of numerous speeches and PQs since news of the $3 billion money laundering case broke in August 2023. Since then, the last of the 10 offenders have been convicted and deported from Singapore just last week. So, I am sure most of my Parliamentary colleagues would agree with the principle behind this Bill – to enhance and clarify our powers to combat attempts to use Singapore's trusted reputation for illegal activities. However, I would like to take the opportunity to seek the Minister's clarifications on the implementation of a tighter AML, terrorism financing (TF) and proliferation financing (PF) regime. First, on the timing of this Bill. In the Ministerial Statements regarding the billion-dollar money laundering case last year, it was announced that an Inter-Ministerial Committee, comprising officeholders across MAS and various Ministries, would look into keeping our AML regime up-to-date. The latest announcement was that the Inter-Ministerial Committee is due to share its full findings and recommendations in the fourth quarter of 2024. May I ask the Minister is there a reason why this Bill is being tabled before the Committee's full findings and recommendations are shared for this House's consideration? Is there a special urgency for the measures that are proposed in this Bill? As was pointed out in the Ministerial Statements of October 2023, we must avoid a "knee-jerk" reaction to the billion-dollar case. We must balance any responsive measures with the consideration that there are still legitimate business and fund flows, which we do not want to unduly impede.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank Minister of State for answering my PQ. I have one supplementary question, a somewhat similar question as that asked by the Member Mr Leong. In terms of co-ops playing a role, it is very significant. My question is that, in terms of market failure, issues that have been addressed in the past, I think market failure in the insurance industry in the past, has been addressed somewhat like what Minister of State has mentioned. So, my question is a bit more technical – it is about governance structure of the new entity. If the Minister of State can share, whether there is any reassurance beyond what he has mentioned, from Allianz, in terms of commitment, whether there are any control measures from the governance structure, going forward. And not just for this case, but future cases, for changes or acquisition of co-ops going forward as well, in terms of the legislation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Please do allow me to ask two supplementary questions or clarifications to the Ministers. First, I would like to thank the Ministers and the various Ministries for coming out very fast in terms of communications and also the various groups that have helped to quickly come out with the ongoing works to clean up the beaches and the waters around Singapore. I have two clarifications. I think Minister mentioned just now a very important thing. In regard to the oil spill, it may not be localised and it could be coming from outside the region. I am aware that there is an ASEAN cooperation mechanism for joint oil spills. I am wondering whether Minister can share a bit about that, including how the Revolving Fund Committee works, in terms of allocation of responsibilities if it happens abroad. As we know, Singapore is a maritime hub. Any oil spills slightly out of Singapore's waters could actually come in and affects Sisters Island and even Chek Jawa and other parts of Singapore. Second, it is in regard to my original PQ which is about the penalties under the Act. Member Alex Yam mentioned about the cost, but can Minister share a bit about the penalties under the current legislation or Act, whether it commensurate with the cost of clean-up and provides a sufficient deterrent? Essentially, whether sufficient deterrent will be there, especially with us as a maritime hub?”
“I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. I am not sure whether I missed part of his closing speech. I actually asked a question about OSIR in connection with SIRA, which serves as a dedicated one-stop touchpoint to engage all stakeholders and address their concerns and minimise the impact on them. But for this Bill, it is very sectoral based. Will MOT actually utilise OSIR to handle stakeholder questions or concerns going forward or will there be a separate sectoral-based entity?”
“It is also heartening to note that we have been, and intend to continue, adopting a consultative approach in designating entities and exercising regulatory powers under this framework. Could the Minister share some further details on the scope and status of the consultation and agreement? Beyond these behind-the-scenes engagement, public clarity is also equally important. Reassuring investors that our system remains transparent, fair and predictable is the best way to keep our doors open for business, while safeguarding our interest in keeping our critical transport entities and essential transport services resilient. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.”
“How would such a conflict be resolved? For example, the company may be required to remain 50% state-owned in its home jurisdiction, but that may not be in the interests of ensuring the resilience of our critical transport entities and the essential services they provide. In a similar vein, has the Ministry considered whether it would need to exercise its regulatory power to veto the appointment of CEOs, Board Chairmen and even Board members differently where such officers are being appointed by a foreign headquarter or shareholder in a designated entity? What if this causes a breach of Board appointment rights granted under a shareholders' agreement? We must be careful that our legitimate right to safeguard our national interests is not perceived as simply a protectionist move to reserve these appointments in transport firms for Singaporeans or worse, for Government appointees. Finally, while I agree that this Bill is necessary in-principle, subject to the Minister’s clarification on its interaction with the SIRA, its effectiveness and result will ultimately depend on the practical operation of the relevant provisions. While the maximum penalties for non-compliance for designated entities under the CAAS Act and the MPA Act range from $500,000 to $1 million, or a three-month imprisonment, the maximum penalties for equivalent offences for our bus and MRT service providers is a fine up to $50,000 or up to six months’ imprisonment. This difference appears to be deliberate so my question for the Minister is whether the penalties are significant enough to incentivise compliance without being overly burdensome for the operators? So, how were the different figures derived?”
“The definitions of "equity interest" and "controller" that are sought to be introduced mean that it will not only catch transactions of shares in the designated entities, but also transactions of shares and interests of indirect parent entities one or more levels up the chain. This is further complicated by the range of financial instruments that are traded on the market – equity-linked notes or products – could potentially lead to "control" for the purpose of notification and approval thresholds. Would there be detailed guidelines on how such "control" is to be determined and how the relevant authorities intend to continually monitor such ownership changes, especially with varied products and instruments traded out in the market, not just regionally but possibly globally as well? How should we reconcile these new powers with those that we have traditionally deployed? For example, I believe the Singapore Government continues to hold a "golden share" of Singapore Airlines such that it has the ability to outvote the other shares and exercise corporate control. In other scenarios, we have been able to effectively direct the actions of certain companies by subjecting them to licensing regulations, as well as contracting conditions for those who rely heavily on Government contracts. Are these methods no longer effective? I also note that the Bill covers not only Singapore-incorporated companies, but foreign companies that carry out activities in Singapore. Such foreign companies may also be subject to mandatory regulation in their home jurisdiction, including requirements on ownership and control. Do we foresee a scenario where companies may be subject to conflicting regulatory requirements in their home jurisdiction and under this Bill, if it is passed?”
“So, when will the initial list of designated entities be made known? While it is expected that our Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) and public bus operators will be designated, what about taxi and ride-hailing companies which have seen their average number of daily trips increase 18.6% from 517,000 in 2020, to 613,000 in July 2023? Like the SIRA, this Bill contemplates targeting particular entities as opposed to an entire sector or industry, the lack of clear criteria may give rise to criticisms of arbitrariness. So, are there any guidelines on the criteria, for example, by annual turnover or by market share, that will see a company identified as a designated entity? For companies that are not on the initial list of designated entities, may I ask whether will there be subsidiary legislation setting out clear procedures and timelines leading up to the Minister’s designation of such entity? As various consequences follow from the designation of an entity, having clear timelines will allow investors and businesses to plan and execute their responses, such as divestment or "off-ramping". Finally, how often will we review the list of designated entities under the four Acts? I think Minister in some ways alluded to that in his opening speech as well, maybe it would be useful to repeat that again. Next, the Bill requires buyers into designated entities to notify the relevant authority after becoming a 5% controller, and to obtain prior approval of the relevant authority before becoming a 25%, 50% or 75% controller.”
“In addition, are these sectors specific application of the Critical Firms Bill also being practised in other jurisdictions globally and can MOT share if we are in line with international practices and coverage? My primary concern with duplicative or overlapping regimes is the potential confusion that businesses and investors would face. Having multiple different regulatory regimes would already drive up investment and compliance costs as the actors will need to figure out their optimal compliance strategy routinely or for any material transaction. We should be cautious of the impact on our competitiveness as a business and investment hub. When would a specific entity be designated under the general SIRA and when would an entity be designated under an equivalent sectoral regime? And what is the practical difference if one is designated under the latter, as compared to the former? We have not possibly gone through that, because we have not passed this Bill. But if we do, if there is a situation, it would probably be useful to know. This is especially since we have already set up the Office of Significant Investments Review, or OSIR, in connection with the SIRA, which will "serve as a dedicated one-stop touchpoint and closely engage all stakeholders to address their concerns and to minimise the impact on them". So, would an entity that is designated, or is soon to be designated, under this Bill be able to approach the OSIR for guidance as well? Or would they have to look elsewhere? I understand that the designation of entities will take place as soon as the later half of this year, if this Bill is passed by Parliament. I believe the authorities will also be engaging with entities to be designated in relation to compliance with the requirements of this Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our transport sector is the lifeblood and key backbone of our economy. It is essential to our survival as a nation. And I am not saying that just because I chair the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport. Our air and seaports have maintained long-running reputations as efficient and reliable hubs. Our public buses and trains supported an average of 7.19 million rides per day in 2023, ferrying our workers to and from their various roles contributing to the Singapore economy. I do not think anyone can seriously argue against the need to ensure the resilience of critical firms in the sector as well as the essential services they provide. But as we are not looking to nationalise these private businesses, the real question is how we can safeguard their resilience in a way that does not make us less business-friendly by ensuring comprehensibility, predictability and fairness. According to MOT’s press release, this Bill is intended to complement the Significant Investments Review Act, or SIRA, which was passed in January 2024 and came into effect on 28 March 2024. Many of the ownership and management controls in this Bill mirrors those that are contained in the SIRA. Could the Minister explain – and I think Minister had sort of explained to some extent in his opening speech – why the proposed regime in the Bill is necessary; and possibly can he elaborate a bit more why the critical transport sector firms could not have been designated under the SIRA? I think the Minister also elaborated to some extent in his opening speech but maybe a further elaboration on that would be useful. The reliable provision of essential transport services must necessarily be in the "interest of Singapore's national security" under the SIRA.”
“Mr Speaker, I have a very succinct supplementary question. May I seek clarification with the Senior Minister of State whether other cord blood banks are willing to accept the cord blood units, as the Senior Minister of State shared earlier, and whether they have the capacity to accept them? May I ask for more details because the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there were some guidelines about how they can go about the process to seek help as well?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank Senior Minister of State for her very detailed responses to our Parliamentary Questions. I have a few supplementary questions. The first supplementary question, Mr Speaker, is: I know MHA and LTA have done a lot of work to enhance the safety of our roads, but we want to make sure we do even more to save lives of students and school-going children, and of course our elderly. I think most of us in this Chamber have primary schools, secondary schools or even junior colleges and polytechnics in our areas. My first supplementary question is with regard to the use of data to assess riskier roads and accident-prone areas. I would want to know if LTA can share whether there could be possibilities for the radius of the School Zones to be expanded; and whether there is any data to show that some of the accidents of our Singaporean parents who send their kids to school or who let their kids go to school every morning and come back from school by themselves, whether there are incidences of such accidents happening beyond the School Zones that we have designated. The Senior Minister of State mentioned a number of those cases. The second is in regard to car modifications. The Senior Minister of State mentioned car modifications or speed enhancements, so whether she can share if these measures that LTA has introduced has led to, possibly, reduction in any of the speeding cases.”
“The 2023 figure for speeding related accidents is lowest between 2017 and 2023. The post-pandemic average figure is higher than the pre-pandemic figure, mostly driven by high numbers in 2021, if you look at the figure. However, from the average perspective, it is lower. So, it may go up and down, depending on the years. However, 2023 is the lowest that we have. For example, the number of speeding related accidents in 2020 was 757. In 2021, 984. In 2022, it went up to 1,138. However, in 2023, it went down to 624. So, essentially, it has gone down. The number of red-light running accidents as well – these are sometimes related to speeding – from 2020, we have 119; in 2021, 136; in 2022, we have 137; in 2023, we have 112. So, you can see from there. So, that is how the situation is. Essentially, we are seeing a reduction in the number of speeding related accidents. So, we continue to do this and with the new device that we have started on 1 April – the red-light cameras that can detect the speeding element – we hope that will provide additional deterrence so that people will be mindful before they speed.”
“Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. First of all, I would like to share my condolences to the families that were affected by the tragic events in Tampines. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State two supplementary questions. The first supplementary question is, in his reply, he mentioned that almost 27% of the cases were from speeding, or almost one-third of it. May I ask the Minister of State, since the RTA review was done in 2019, which was almost five years ago, can he share whether the incidences or cases have actually been reduced? And a related question to that is, I had asked in my original Parliamentary Question, whether there will be stricter enforcements or legislative changes and from that, to what extent or thresholds would the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and LTA look at to enhance the RTA going forward, in terms of threshold levels? My second supplementary question is in relation to road rage handling. The Minister of State mentioned that there will be enhanced road safety efforts, but can there be efforts to ensure that there is an embedding of how we handle road rage – as motorists, drivers or pedestrians. So, dealing with road rage and whether this can form a part of educating new and experienced drivers going forward? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We will take the feedback in his second supplementary question. Road rage is serious. We not only work with the stakeholders' agencies, we also work with the trade associations, like the Motor Traders Association of Singapore, and see how we can make things better and how to address it well. With regard to speeding related issues, in fact, if you look at the statistics, we publish some of them in TP's annual reports.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Minister and Senior Minister of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answers to my cuts and for their speeches. I have two clarifications. One, to Minister Masagos. He mentioned in his last speech about the efforts and I think he gave a very heartfelt speech about the issues that we face in Gaza and in Palestine. He mentioned about how Rahmatan Lil Alamin will be coming on stream, especially during Ramadan. Can Minister share a bit more whether this second round, whether there will be a time limit? Because the previous one, Rahmatan Lil Alamin there was a period of time where they can collect donations, whether this time round, can Minister share so that the community and public can know a bit more about that? And how does RLAF plan to reach out to the community, especially during Ramadan and may be beyond that as well? Second question, Mr Chairman, I think Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu and Senior Minister of State Zaqy mentioned about working with corporates. I think there is only so much that the Government can do as part of a social compact. I was wondering whether there is more that corporates can be involved, whether Malay/Muslim corporates or maybe non-Malay/Muslim corporates, how they can actually help the Malay community going forward beyond scholarships that Senior Minister of State has mentioned and beyond the specific volunteerism sort of efforts that Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu has mentioned, whether there could be — well, our efforts to actually entice a bit more of the Singapore corporates to help our community going forward?”
“Second, we should scour for more Singaporean Malay/Muslims overseas who have done very well and flown Singapore's flag high. They have unique perspectives in this age of internationalisation. Third, we will need more online thought leaders, to participate responsibly in the increasing debates that are taking place on the Internet.”
“For example, the Community Leaders' Forum launched in 2003 is a platform to ensure efficient and effective management of resources by the various Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs) to avoid duplication of programmes and services. Is there an intention to bring more MMOs under the M3 umbrella as well, such as the Singapore Muslim Women's Association (PPIS) and the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP)? Push More Volunteers to Step Forward (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Through the recent Forward SG exercise, we recognise that many in our community wish to step forward and contribute to support and uplift the lives of those around them, as part of our refreshed social compact. M3's wide range of different focus areas, together with the momentum of its programmes and initiatives in the past five years, gives it unlimited potential to attract individuals with different skills and interests. And it is these diverse strengths we must harness to bring the Malay/Muslim community and Singapore forward, as our former President, Mdm Halimah, had stated at the Community of Success Conference last year. What are some opportunities and key areas of need within M3, where volunteers can step forward and make a difference? Can we improve our capabilities in terms of sustainable volunteer management, and in terms of budgeting and human resources? I have three suggestions. First, in addition to the financial advisors, lawyers and healthcare professionals who help the community in their own area, we should broaden efforts to gather more professional groups from various industries – perhaps from emerging industries – who can lend their assistance or mentorship.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. In Malay, please. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] M3 celebrated its fifth birthday last year. When it began in 2018, the aim was to solve the Malay/Muslim community's problems by combining the expertise of MENDAKI, Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) and the People's Association Malay Activity Executive Committees Council (MESRA) in the areas of education, religious life and community outreach respectively. The good work done through M3 is evident. Project DIAN@M3 now supports 400 Malay families living in rental flats across at least six M3@Towns. This is up from around 250 households as at last year's COS. Volunteer ambassadors under Project DIAN play an involved role in guiding vulnerable families, including early childhood development through methods and programmes developed together with the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) and KidSTART. In March 2023, M3 has also added community health as a new focus area in addition to marriage and parenthood, vulnerable groups, youth empowerment and employment. In late September, we at M3@Toa Payoh welcomed clinical psychologist Haikal Jamil, who generously held a concurrent physical and Zoom workshop for managing stress and burnout among residents. (In English): Mr Chairman, in English, please. My question to Minister is this: what does he see as some of the key outcomes of M3 and the role that active citizenry has played in this? How does M3 amplify the efforts, compared to if MENDAKI, MUIS and MESRA undertook their respective initiatives alone? I ask this especially as opportunities for cross-pollination of ideas already exist.”
“Chairman, I will try to keep it short. But we have covered a whole range of issues over air, land and sea. MOT has quite a lot of work to do in terms of complex issues, not just in terms of making the lifeblood of Singapore run efficiently, but also they need to make Singapore very friendly over the next six years by 2030. 6.15 pm So, I would like to thank all Members who have participated in this debate today. I thank Minister Chee Hong Tat, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng for their extensive yet thoughtful replies to all of our questions; and also to thank all the MOT family – LTA, CAAS and MPA – for their good work in making things run over the past year or so. On that note, Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [(proc text) Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $2,446,931,800 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. (proc text)] [(proc text) The sum of $12,296,058,800 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. (proc text)]”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have a few clarifications. The first clarification is for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. With regard to the PMA announcement, I wish to seek clarification. Can he elaborate a bit more, as he mentioned that there will be help for the transition for some PMA users, existing PMA users and probably those who may need PMAs going forward, until the legislation is passed? If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can share a bit more on what that transition process would be and whether there would be publicity material in the vernacular languages, for example, to some of these PMA users who are using it now and probably will use later on. The second clarification, Mr Chairman, is on the Alliance for Action or AfA, which the Minister mentioned. I think it is very positive that we are working with partners to collaborate to see improvements in the maritime sector. May I ask the Minister how and when that would lead to sizeable improvements? And whether the disruptions in the Red Sea – which was one of the motives why the AfA was probably triggered – have any impact on Singapore's port operations and performance? Lastly, just a short one, to ask Minister, in terms of human capital, whether we have adequate supply of workers to meet the post-pandemic demands across all sectors for air, land and sea, whether there is any substantial concerns about supply going forward? The Minister shared a little on that earlier, but whether he can shed further light on it.”
“As the travel volumes at Changi recover from COVID-19 disruption, may I ask the Ministry how is the aviation workforce coping and what plans do we have to future-proof the aviation workforce? Enhancing Our Passenger and Cargo Capacities”
“The move of port operations to the new Tuas Mega Port will also require manpower. Concurrently, our ageing population and reduction in foreign worker dependency could add to the supply crunch in the workforce. This is before we even consider the growth areas of green transportation and digitalisation. Can the Ministry share what types of jobs in the transport sector are seeing supply constraints and emerging jobs that our workers can explore in the future? How are we addressing our human capital constraints going forward, especially in the transport sector? Aviation Sector Recovery On the aviation sector, we heard at last year's COS that Changi Airport's passenger traffic volumes, flights and city links stood at about 80% of pre-COVID-19 levels and were expected to return to pre-pandemic levels by 2024, if not earlier. How does Changi's current air traffic volume compare to pre-COVID numbers? I have read other reports which are less optimistic. They name several stumbling blocks for Changi, including the strong Singapore dollar that discourages inbound travel, low-cost airline Jetstar Asia's sluggish recovery and regulatory issues hindering the recovery of flight capacity on the Singapore-Jakarta route. Our head start for being the first in Asia to reopen to international travellers is slowly disappearing, as airports in Incheon, Taipei, Bangkok and Hong Kong are fast catching up. To safeguard our aviation hub status, we must pay as much attention to quality as we do to quantity. Post-pandemic, many aviation workers are either new to the industry or have returned after a significant break.”
“Mdm Chair, the recent Red Sea shipping disruptions has added to ongoing disruptions in the Black Sea caused by the Ukraine war and concerns over dwindling water levels in the Panama Canal. Hundreds of container ships are re-routing from the Red Sea to go around the Cape of Good Hope at Africa's southern tip, adding around 10 to 15 days to their voyages. At the same time, I am heartened to hear that our port received a record 3.09 billion annual gross tons in vessel arrivals and handled a record number of shipping containers in 2023. Presumably, that is not only due to our central location on these important trade routes, but also the safe and efficient operations of our port. The record vessel arrivals in 2023 has also helped us break the 2017 record for bunker sales, registering 51.82 million tons in 2023. Yet, other indicators are also relevant if we are to serve as a "catch-up" port for ships that face delays in other parts of the world. A Statista report published in November 2023 showed that shipping vessels spent a median time of about 0.76 days in the Port of Singapore in 2022, a longer time spent within the port's vicinity compared to the previous years. How can Singapore enhance our port services to maintain the competitiveness of our port and continue facilitating the smooth functioning of supply chains amidst recent disruptions? Job Creation in Transport Sector The transport sector provides a wide array of jobs, from operating our aviation and maritime hubs, to powering 6.4 million daily public transport journeys, to supporting those activities up the supply chain like maintenance and repair. As we look to add more than 50 stations to our existing 200 MRT and LRT stations by 2030, hundreds to thousands of new roles will need to be filled.”
“Mdm Chair, in line with our car-lite vision, we have maintained a zero growth rate for cars and motorcycles since 2018. We need to cap our roughly one million vehicle population in light of Singapore’s constraints in land and carbon emissions. This has resulted in increasing COE prices, especially with rising incomes. However, with the 2014 announcement of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) 2.0 and the progressive roll-out of the new vehicle On-Board Units (OBUs) from November 2023, an alternative solution has emerged. It is argued that emissions, congestion and accidents are externalities of car usage, which can be tackled by distance-based charging instead of limiting car ownership. LTA has stated that there are “no immediate plans to introduce distance-based charging”, even though the new system is capable of doing so. While distance-based charging could make ERP fairer by charging motorists for their road usage, rather than whether they go past a certain point, challenges include the reliability and accuracy of satellite-based tracking in Singapore’s dense urban environment and wider policy implications on high-mileage industries like logistics and transportation. Our car-lite vision does not mean a car-free society. Would the Minister help explain whether they would introduce a distance-based charging, which allows us to increase the vehicle population, while achieving our car-lite vision?”
“Mdm Chair, the issue of the cost of living in Singapore has gained attention lately. Public transport cost is not immuned, with the recent public transport fare hike of $0.10 to $0.11 per journey. Causing some concern is the 15.6% fare increase that was deferred by the Public Transport Council (PTC) for future fare review exercises, meaning similar fare hikes may be expected in the subsequent years. The deferment of the 15.6% fare increase was only made possible by the Government's provision of an additional $300 million in subsidies in 2024 to make up the funding gap. In addition, the Government also has made available public transport vouchers to help low-income households cover about six months of the fare increase. Can the Ministry share an update on efforts to ensure our public transport system will remain affordable for Singaporeans over the next decade and more? What other transport welfare schemes could potentially be rolled out to help vulnerable Singaporeans? Subject to budget constraints, can we consider introducing transport vouchers as part of the regular Budget cycle, akin to the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers, to help mitigate the impact of rising costs for Singaporeans? I do note that our bus and rail services were already operating at a loss before the pandemic struck and ridership has yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels. What would additional transport welfare entail from a financial sustainability perspective? Rail Manpower Development”