Yip Hon Weng
Singapore
“But we must also keep building our trust. It is the only infrastructure a small country cannot afford to lose. Every generation since Independence has earned our place in the world. Our responsibility is to see that the next generation is given the chance to do the same.”
“It can reinforce Singapore's role as a trusted financial centre, a gateway to Asia and a platform for long-term growth. But at the end of the day, we should also be clear about how success will be measured in practical terms. How much incremental daily trading volume are we seeking to generate?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. While the US dollar remains dominant, some economists have suggested that the global monetary system may gradually become more fragmented and multi-polar over time.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Given reports that some firms are slowing workforce expansion due to cost pressures due to the situation in the Middle East, has MOM observed any corresponding shift in firms hiring preferences between local workers and our foreign workforce?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Many Singaporeans are already facing rising premiums year after year. As we have seen recently, even with cheaper riders, base premiums continue increasing. So, households may still have to pay more overall.”
“Because this is not just a technology transition, it is a workforce transition. The establishment of the Tripartite Jobs Council is an important step in ensuring that this alignment happens in practice. Technology will move. Markets will adapt. But we must be clear about the future we are building.”
The complete record
Every one of 873 lines we hold for Yip Hon Weng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 18.
“A suggestion is to have all PMA device listings and categories to come with an advisory on compliant models and make it a reportable offence if the seller mislabels an illegal or modified vehicle as one that is compliant. Also, how will the agency combat sales through messaging platforms, like Telegram? Fourth, will the Ministry work with the Ministry of National Development to designate charging or parking spaces in suitable locations, such as void decks? This could minimise the risk of PMAs being parked or charged in corridors or lift lobbies. Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point concerns delivery riders, platform responsibility and enforcement. Residents are frustrated by fast-moving riders, but they want calmer paths, not just more summonses. Rider behaviour is shaped by platform incentives. I support deeming platform operators as employers for liability, but liability alone may not change behaviour. I seek five clarifications. First, how do we prevent contractual distancing, where platforms shift blame to riders without changing operational pressures? Second, why does the Bill not explicitly require training or delivery-time management, including algorithmic changes that do not reward speed at the expense of safety? Third, will success be measured by reduced accidents and complaints, or simply by enforcement numbers? Fourth, will enforcement data be used to redesign recurring conflict hotspots in estates? And fifth, will platforms share anonymised data to support safer estate planning? More broadly, I must raise a concern about enforcement. Many of these rules are sound on paper, but enforcement on the ground may be inconsistent and unpredictable. Errant users learn when and where to avoid officers.”
“Section 28I creates an offence for using an unregistered vehicle and section 28M makes the register prima facie evidence. I have four questions. First, if a retailer makes a registration error, will the resident using the device in good faith bear the penalty? How can such errors be resolved simply, especially for seniors who may not have full documentation? Second, can the Minister clarify the costs involved? For low-income seniors, even modest fees can be a barrier. Will subsidies or waivers be considered? Third, are there implications for public rental tenants regarding insurance or tenancy rules? We must ensure registration does not disadvantage vulnerable residents. Fourth, with rules phasing in until 2029, how will residents be clearly and repeatedly informed of what applies at each stage? Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point concerns the new offence to keep unsafe PMA devices. This is a necessary shift. Many fires occur while devices are being charged at home. However, we must distinguish between willful offenders and residents who simply do not know how to dispose of old devices. I have four suggestions. First, unsafe devices need a "safe exit". If disposal is difficult, residents will hide these devices, keeping the risk inside the home. Any disposal framework should focus squarely on safe and accessible removal of unsafe devices. Second, we must be practical. Seniors cannot transport heavy devices to distant e-waste points. Town Council-level collection drives and bulky-item removal services will be essential and has to be supported by sustained public education. Third, online sales remain a weak link.”
“Some residents may require PMAs immediately after surgery or injury but later recover sufficiently. This raises important questions about how "temporary" medical need is defined and managed in a way that is fair, clear and not open to abuse. I seek three clarifications. First, will there be a fast-track or temporary certification process for residents who need a PMA after surgery or injury, ensuring rehabilitation does not become a compliance case? Related to this, how will the system manage the point at which a temporary medical need ends? Will they be assigned a deadline where they are expected to stop using the PMA? Must they undergo reassessment if their mobility issues persist beyond the expected recovery period, in order to continue using it? Second, with the rollout starting in mid-2026, I worry about bottlenecks at polyclinics. Can the Minister assure us that residents will not be left house-bound while waiting for certification? During the initial rollout, will enforcement officers prioritise helping residents comply rather than penalising them? Third, regarding digital inclusion, how does a non-tech-savvy senior who falls just below the age exemption prove their status? If verification relies on digital platforms, we risk creating anxiety. Simple, physical proof options still remain essential. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns the mandatory registration of mobility vehicles. I acknowledge the Ministry's efforts to reduce compliance burden through retailer-led registration for new devices and a phased transition for existing users. Registration strengthens accountability and accountability is necessary. However, residents fear that honest mistakes may be treated as offences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking on this Bill on behalf of Yio Chu Kang, a constituency with a significant and growing senior population. Many of my residents rely on PMAs to move around their estates safely and independently. For them, these devices are not a convenience, but an essential part of daily life. My residents want safer paths and fewer fires in our HDB blocks, but they also want a transport environment that is safe and inclusive. I support the Ministry's intent to tighten regulations, but legislation is only as effective as its implementation. When we move from policy papers to the pavements in our estates, the "how" becomes just as important as the "what". With that in mind, I would like to raise four clarifications on the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns the new requirement for a Certificate of Medical Need. We all agree with the intent. We have witnessed seemingly young and able-bodied individuals speeding on mobility scooters, treating them as casual transport. This endangers pedestrians and undermines confidence in genuine PMA use. However, for many of my elderly residents, a mobility scooter is a lifeline. It is the difference between being confined at home and being able to buy groceries or meet friends. While I note the exemptions for seniors aged 70 and above, and for subsidy recipients, I am concerned about what I term as the "sandwich class" of disability. These are residents in their 50s or 60s who may not meet a strict clinical definition of being unable to walk, but who suffer from chronic pain, arthritis or joint degeneration. They may manage short distances within their flats but cannot walk several hundred metres to essential amenities. At the same time, mobility needs are not always permanent.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. The new framework is called SAFE. But for many Singaporeans, the real concern is whether it remains safe in practice or becomes unsafe when lapses go unnoticed. A heavy reliance on past track record makes oversight reactive rather than preventive. Could the Senior Minister of State explain what early warning indicators SFA uses to detect deteriorating food safety standards before a serious lapse occurs and how these safeguards protect consumers upstream rather than after harm has been done? And secondly, in addition, what independent verification or audit measurements are in place to ensure that self-reported compliance accurately reflects on-ground practice?”
“Once again, we also saw the immense sacrifices made by Singaporeans who train while studying, working and supporting families, often competing against fulltime athletes from other countries. Their performances should make us proud but should also prompt us to reflect on whether our systems are truly designed to support sustained excellence. So, let us be ambitious but also be honest. Let us build the flagship facilities, yes, but also the quiet corners of fitness that keep a nation healthy. Let us professionalise where needed but never price out the heartland. Let us pursue excellence, but refuse to leave behind the inactive, the vulnerable, the senior, the person with disability or the young person who does not make it to the top. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we implement this Bill with clear key performance indicators, real inclusion and strong pathways for life beyond sports, we will not just create champions on the field. We will build a stronger Singapore in everyday life. I support the Bill.”
“If we expect international excellence, we must ensure athletes are supported to go full-time without financial insecurity and that those who do not reach the podium are equipped for life beyond sports. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end where our residents begin, with the questions they ask in their daily lives. Can I book a court without fighting for it? Can my child learn safely without paying a premium? Can my parents stay active with dignity, not obstacles? Can a young person chase a sporting dream on a track or on a screen without falling off a cliff when the dream ends? These questions run through the points I have raised today: access to neighbourhood facilities, fair funding for heartland groups, safety without excessive cost, responsible recognition of e-sports, meaningful inclusion for seniors and persons with disabilities, and training pathways that support athletes not just to compete, but to live well beyond sports. I say this as someone shaped by sports. As a former competitive gymnast, canoeist and dragon boater, I learnt that sports does not just train the body, it trains the spirit. It teaches us how to fall and how to stand up again. It teaches us that progress is never an individual act. It is a relay and we run our leg so the next person can run theirs. This Bill gives Sport Singapore new powers. But powers are not the point. People are. The purpose of this House is not to pass laws that look good in print, but to pass laws that work – in parks, in void decks, in schools, in community clubs and in the homes where parents are raising resilient children. We saw this clearly in the recently concluded Southeast Asian Games (SEA Games). We rightly celebrate our athletes' achievements and medal haul.”
“If we recognise the sport, we must protect the athlete. Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point concerns inclusion for seniors and persons with disabilities. I welcome clause 6(b), which names the Singapore National Paralympic Council as a key partner. But naming a partner is not legislating outcomes. Significant barriers remain in transport and facility access. Will facilities managed under clause 6(e) be subject to accessibility standards beyond basic building codes? Can we commit to participation targets for seniors and persons with disabilities? To do this, we need disaggregated data by disability type, age and town. We can only fix what we measure. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 6(h) empowers SportSG to establish institutions to train sportspersons and oversee academic curricula. This strengthens elite development but raises questions about equity. Without clear criteria and financial safeguards, will these institutions favour families who can afford intensive training? Many national athletes currently juggle fulltime studies or work while competing against fulltime international rivals. We must not build systems that assume athletes can absorb personal financial strain indefinitely. This brings me to remuneration. If we expect high performance, we must be honest about whether current support is adequate. For many athletes, particularly those who return with medals after years of sacrifice, financial recognition remains limited. I ask the Minister if it is timely to review the incentive framework to better reflect the realities of training at an international level. Beyond money, we must measure success beyond medals. As SportSG expands its institutional role, we should track graduation rates, post-sport employment and long-term health.”
“Codes under clause 6(m) work for mainstream sports but may stifle organic activities like parkour, street dance or informal seniors' exercises. I ask the Minister to assure the House that we will not regulate these activities out of existence simply because they do not fit into an accreditation box. Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point concerns the formal recognition of mind sports and e-sports under clause 2. This is a progressive step that validates the aspirations of our youths. However, as a member of the People's Action Party (PAP) Mental Health Group, I sound a note of caution. Recognition gives credibility to a dream, but it can also become an excuse. Parents already grapple with excessive screen time, only to be told by their children, "I am not addicted, I am training to go pro." The glamour of professional e-sports masks the truth that only a tiny fraction make it while many risk addiction, sleep disruption and neglected studies. If we legitimise e-sports, we must legitimise the safety framework around it. Will SportSG, exercising powers under clause 6(d), work with MOH and the Ministry of Education (MOE) to establish evidence-based guidelines on screen time and mental well-being? Furthermore, given that e-sports ecosystems are tied to betting and aggressive sponsorship, why does the Bill not include explicit safeguards for minors alongside the expanded accreditation powers? We must also address the "cliff edge" of an e-sports career. Clause 6(h) enables training institutions. Is there a plan for youths who do not reach the top tier? Career and education support must be core, not peripheral. Will there be plans for aspiring e-sports athletes to be admitted into our Sports School so that academic development progresses in tandem with sporting development?”
“Clause 6(a) empowers SportSG to promote fitness, but how will this reach the bottom 20% of neighbourhoods with the lowest activity levels? Without deliberate intervention, expanded powers may simply help the fit get fitter while the inactive remain behind due to cost or constraints. This leads to the financial powers in clauses 7(b) and (c), allowing grants and loans to individuals. This flexibility is welcomed. However, how will SportSG ensure funds reach small heartland operators? There is a risk that grants flow to large well-resourced organisations while the void deck taekwondo club or the Zumba interest group is deprioritised. Finally, on this point, the Bill indicates no additional Government expenditure, yet clause 6 significantly expands functions across facilities, accreditation and institutions. If SportSG must do more with the same resources, the Minister must clarify what will be deprioritised. We must ensure that these new regulatory ambitions do not come at the expense of core maintenance and grassroots programmes. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns the new regulatory powers. Clauses 6(m) and (n) empower SportSG to establish codes of practice and accredit coaches and facilities. Residents want safety, well-maintained equipment and qualified coaches. However, accreditation can become a barrier to entry. Will these powers inadvertently create a "pay-to-play" system? If freelance instructors and community groups cannot afford the time or cost to navigate accreditation, they may be priced out. We must avoid over-professionalising the sector to the point where affordable community-level coaching disappears. We must also avoid homogenising sports.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a timely modernisation of our sports framework. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on how these expanded powers will translate into everyday outcomes for residents. Mr, Speaker, Sir, my first clarification concerns everyday access, affordability and the quality of sports facilities. We often hear that sports participation is at an all-time high, with 74% of residents exercising weekly. However, the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) National Population Health Survey reminds us that the largest contributor to physical activity is commuting, not leisure sports. As we expand Sport Singapore's (SportSG's) functions under clause 6(a), we must be clear that success is measured by active living, not just by walking to the bus stop. With the broadened mandate under clauses 6(e) and (f) to manage facilities, how will this translate into our estates? Will SportSG prioritise less visible but high-impact infrastructure such as community gyms within a 10-minute walk of neighbourhood blocks over marquee facilities? Residents also ask a basic question: will they be able to play sports to their heart's content? Today, securing a court often feels like winning the lottery. We also see rising social friction such as noise disputes involving pickleball. These conflicts indicate that our infrastructure may be struggling to keep pace with trends. If SportSG is to manage facilities under clause 6(e), how will design standards such as acoustic mitigation and smarter space planning be strengthened so that sports bind the community rather than create tension? We must also ensure that we are not designing this Bill only for the active majority.”
“If we shape NCSS into a body that welcomes frank voices, values ground insight, supports escalation and learns from failure, this Bill will do more than restructure a Council. It will strengthen the safety net for every child, every senior, every caregiver and every vulnerable person in Singapore. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill gives NCSS more authority, more responsibility and more influence over how our social service ecosystem evolves. That matters, because residents do not experience systems in theory. They experience them in moments of need. They ask simple questions: does help arrive on time? Is a vulnerable senior noticed? Is a child kept safe? Having listened carefully to the various speeches today, there is a clear conversion in our PAP MPs' views. Members have broadly welcomed the Bill's intent to strengthen NCSS as a sector developer, while consistently emphasising shared priorities. Members have also asked for stronger governance and workforce development to go hand-in-hand with meaningful sector voice. Accountability and data use must be match by transparency, proportionality and trust. Coordination must strengthen, not weaken, responsiveness to frontline realities, small agencies and emerging needs. It is in this collective spirit that the clarifications raised today should be considered. These shared concerns bring us back to why this Bill matters and why its design choices matter. Authority without independence is brittle. Responsibility without transparency is hollow. Standardisation without courage is dangerous. Development without protection is meaningless. We should not pass this legislation in a vacuum. We pass it with the memory of every case where the system hesitated, fragmented or deferred when it needed to act. The names change, but the lessons do not. The cost of hesitation is life itself. Our duty is clear. When a warning light flickers, the system must sharpen, not soften. It must escalate, not hesitate. It must protect, not disappear into administrative cracks.”
“Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the new "sector developer" powers under section 11 must translate into real-world outcomes. Residents measure success simply: when we call for help, does someone actually come? I have four questions on how this will be operationalised. First, on coordination under section 11(2)(b). Will this include cross-system risk detection mechanisms? Specifically, will this include mechanisms to detect risk across systems and agencies early? Past tragedies have shown that failures often arise not from the absence of services but from fragmented information and lack of shared visibility. We need a system that links data so that when, say, a child goes missing in one domain, the alarm rings in all. Second, on standards, in section 11(2)(e). How do we prevent over-standardisation from suppressing local innovation? Often, ground-up charities spot risks first because they are not following a rigid, top-down template. Standardisation must raise the floor without lowering the ceiling of innovation. Third, on geographical vulnerabilities. A rental block in Yio Chu Kang faces different pressures from, say, a Build-To-Order (BTO) in Punggol. Should NCSS not publish region-level indicators of responsiveness, instead of only national averages? A national average of "90% satisfaction" is of no comfort to a neighbourhood where the response time is three weeks. Fourth, on capabilities under section 11(2)(f), the most vital capability is learning from failure. Should there not be an explicit requirement to turn every serious case review into sector-wide learning? We also need a "near-miss" reporting system, similar to aviation, so the whole body learns when one part fails.”
“Clause 10, under new section 15(6), empowers NCSS to revoke membership if an organisation acts "contrary to the public interest". These are broad terms. Could a passionate agency that challenges policy gaps be misinterpreted as acting against "public interest"? We need clarity on how public interest is distinguished from administrative convenience. Furthermore, section 15(4) requires "cooperation with the Council" as a condition of membership. We must ensure that "cooperation" is not misread as "compliance". True cooperation includes the duty to raise concerns, notify relevant authorities and comply with the law by lodging police reports where necessary. Sometimes, the most constructive partnership is demonstrated when an agency says, "You are wrong, and this child is in danger." This Bill must protect such engagement as a vital form of cooperation. On recourse: under section 16, appeals regarding membership go back to the Minister. What prevents this from becoming a circular loop without independent review? If an agency is removed for being too vocal about a systemic failure, appealing to the Ministry that oversees that system provides little reassurance. Finally, regarding clause 18 and the dissolution of committees without compensation: while legally standard, we must consider the signal it sends. We should ensure long-serving members and volunteers feel recognised, not dismissed so they remain empowered to speak up. Mr Speaker, Sir, after past cases involving serious harm and delayed intervention, no agency should ever hesitate to escalate a risk because they fear losing their status, their funding or their place in the system. This Bill must strengthen the courage of the sector, not the caution.”
“If a Ministerial direction effectively changes escalation thresholds for child abuse or elder neglect, and that direction is sealed, how can this House scrutinise whether those thresholds are safe? We cannot provide a counterbalance to what we cannot see. I ask if Parliament could at least receive an anonymised annual briefing on such directions. Clause 11(4) explicitly states that the objectives of the Council "do not impose any duty on the Council enforceable in a court of law". After reviewing past cases involving systemic lapses and delayed escalation, this can be concerning. If clause 11(2)(b) empowers NCSS to coordinate the sector, authority must be paired with responsibility. Should NCSS not have a statutory responsibility to lead serious case reviews and publish anonymised lessons? Finally, regarding clause 14, which grants immunity for officers acting in "good faith". While I support protecting social workers from frivolous liability and recognise the difficult judgement calls they face on the ground, "good faith" must not become a shield for repeated oversight. We must ensure this immunity does not inadvertently reduce the incentives for rigorous self-critique. When no one is legally responsible, everyone becomes morally invisible. When every agency can point to a process that was technically and legally followed, cases can still fall through the cracks. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am concerned that the broad powers to appoint or remove sector members may unintentionally make agencies more cautious about escalation. Many agencies serving my residents are small and nimble. They enter rental flats daily. They detect risks early. They escalate issues promptly. We need them to be brave.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, many residents in my Yio Chu Kang constituency do not look at this Bill to scrutinise its technical clauses. They judge our social service system by its real-world impact: does help arrive on time? Is a vulnerable senior noticed? Is a child kept safe? I have several clarifications on this Bill. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the composition of the Council determines the sector's perspective. Who sits at the table potentially decides what issues are prioritised and more importantly, what blind spots remain. Families in rental flats often rely on small agencies and volunteers who see early warning signs that larger systems miss. The Council should reflect the realities of those who work closest to danger. Under the new section 5, the Minister appoints the Chairperson and the Council, with at least seven nominees from the sector. While this provides representation, it may not automatically secure independence or the necessary frontline perspective. Furthermore, under clause 5(3), the Chairperson may exclude nominees who do not meet "prescribed requirements". If these are not transparent, we risk screening out plain-speaking, ground-level voices. We must also guard against over-selecting representatives from organisations whose funding incentives align them towards administrative stability rather than candour. The Council needs "risk signal specialists" whose duty is to identify blind spots, not simply reinforce consensus. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point is about the risks of hidden directions, absent enforceable duties and fragmented accountability. Under clause 10(6), the Minister may issue directions which the Council "must not disclose". While I understand the need for confidentiality in state security, social services deal with safety.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. The first concerns farms. Small farms and food producers form part of Singapore's small and medium enterprise landscape. What concrete job creation or retention targets accompany the new production goals, especially for sectors affected by high production costs and workforce shortages? My second supplementary question pertains to consumers. Given that locally produced food often cost more than imported alternatives, how did the Ministry assess the potential price impacts on households, if the revised targets are met? What measures are in place to prevent local production from inadvertently raising food prices for Singaporean families?”
“This Bill is about data, but more importantly, it is about people. It is about whether access controls feel like protection or complexity. It is about whether neighbourhood clinics are strengthened or quietly strained. It is about whether cybersecurity inspires confidence or quiet fear. At its heart, this Bill asks a deeper question of us as a society. Can we build a system that is effective without being intrusive, secure without being crushing and connected without losing compassion? Trust is not a technical feature. Trust is the infrastructure that makes every other system work. I call on the Government to ensure that as this Bill moves forward, implementation is anchored in three clear commitments: access controls that residents can understand and use; support that keeps heartland clinics viable and affordable; and cybersecurity that is strong, proportionate and shared across the system. If we get this right, we will not only improve care, we will preserve dignity, we will strengthen trust, and we will send a clear message to every resident – seeking care will never mean surrendering control. That is the healthcare system Singaporeans deserve. That is the standard we should hold ourselves to. I support the Bill.”
“They fail at the edges, where resources are thin and the smallest gap becomes the point of entry. Healthcare systems are no different. The Bill rightly imposes duties under clause 68 for reasonable safeguards and clause 70 for incident management. But residents ask two fundamental questions: will it be secure and will it be doable? How will reasonable safeguards under clause 68 be defined in a tiered, risk-based way? Will small clinics have a clear, achievable baseline while larger institutions shoulder proportionately greater responsibility? How will MOH support small clinics in meeting incident management requirements under clause 70 without turning doctors into cybersecurity managers? Will there be shared services, templates, guided exercises and clear escalation pathways so bureaucratic demands do not take doctors away from patients? Residents also care deeply about what happens when things go wrong. If a breach occurs, when will residents be notified, what information will they receive and what practical support will be provided to help them protect themselves and restore trust? Where cybersecurity failures arise from vendors or intermediaries, how will accountability follow control so that small clinics are not unfairly blamed or penalised for failures beyond their technical reach? Availability also matters. When systems are down, patients are at risk. What resilience standards will apply to NEHR access? A system is only as strong as its weakest link and in healthcare, patients bear the cost of weakness. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we began with a simple reality. In a super-aged society, care no longer sits in one place, with one doctor, at one time. It moves across settings. Where care moves, trust must move with it.”
“Cybersecurity and data requirements designed for large institutions can overwhelm small practices where the doctor is also the administrator and IT troubleshooter. Some GPs have shared a quiet concern that if requirements become too complex or costly, retirement may be the only option. When small clinics close, residents, especially seniors, lose convenient access and familiar doctors. Has MOH weighed this risk against the Bill's policy objectives? If we ask neighbourhood clinics to operate like large corporations, we should not be surprised if they struggle. Residents will feel this quickly through higher fees and longer waits. In that context, I ask whether support will be predictable and sustained. Will there be grace periods, phased onboarding and a genuine "no wrong door" approach so small clinics are guided rather than penalised as they come on board? How will MOH prevent digital medical records vendors from engaging in fearmongering and profiteering, pushing small clinics into expensive contracts out of fear of non-compliance? Will responsibility for implementation be clear rather than fragmented? Where alternative contribution pathways are provided for pen-and-paper clinics, how will MOH ensure these are feasible and not a second-class solution? Compliance should not become a hidden healthcare tax on the heartlands. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I turn to the third area – cybersecurity. For residents, a breach is not a statistic, it is personal. The 2018 SingHealth cyberattack was a stark reminder that even well-resourced systems are vulnerable. As the Chair of the GPC for Defence, I approach this with particular care. In defence, we learn that systems rarely fail at the centre.”
“Even when information is restricted, residents worry that the very presence of a "sealed" marker invites speculation. How will MOH prevent the fact of restriction itself from becoming a source of stigma or inference? Finally, on transparency. Residents can view access logs on HealthHub, which is a good start. But do they merely see that an organisation has accessed their data or do they understand why? Will logs be presented in plain language? Beyond investigation timelines, what happens if misuse occurs? Will residents be notified promptly, given a clear explanation and told what corrective or remedial actions have been taken? Transparency without recourse does not build trust. It only documents its absence. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I turn to the second area – support for smaller GP clinics. In estates like Yio Chu Kang, the neighbourhood GP clinic is not just a provider, it is a relationship where trust has been built over years. While the Bill places necessary obligations on institutions, the compliance costs land hardest on these small practices. Has MOH assessed the full financial and operational impact on solo GPs, from onboarding to ongoing cybersecurity obligations? We hear feedback that NEHR can be cluttered and time consuming for less digitally savvy, elderly GPs. If clinicians spend more time searching and less time caring, have we truly improved care? Will MOH commit to measurable usability improvements, such as time-to-find critical information, structured clinical summaries and clinician user experience testing so that "less clutter" becomes a performance obligation rather than an aspiration? There is a real last-mile reality.”
“Will this flexibility translate into true "need-to-know" access or will residents experience it as broad visibility once someone is authorised? Access should follow purpose and visibility should follow necessity. My third question concerns sensitive health information. Yio Chu Kang residents tell me plainly that they want help, but fear being labelled. They worry not only about what is written, but about who might see it. This concern extends beyond mental health to other sensitive data such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, sexually transmitted infections, reproductive health history, genetic conditions and substance use treatments. These are conditions where fear of exposure can deter people from seeking care altogether. Residents also raise a related fear that goes beyond stigma. They worry about where boundaries are drawn beyond direct care, such as access by insurers, employers, ancillary service providers or the downstream use of data for research, analytics or artificial intelligence (AI) training. Even where data is described as de-identified, residents worry about re-identification risks and inference. If these boundaries are not clear and credible, residents may hold back information or delay care. How will MOH use the flexibility in clause 29 to ensure such sensitive categories are treated with particular care? Furthermore, under clause 30, where exceptions allow information to remain accessible, how will MOH ensure these exceptions are narrow and clearly defined rather than quietly eroding the intent of the restriction? Sensitive care must feel safe or people will stay away. Healthcare for stigmatised conditions must be a sanctuary, not a spotlight. My fourth question concerns privacy signals.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are becoming a super-aged society. Despite Healthier SG, care is not yet delivered in one place or coordinated by one healthcare team. It moves across clinics, hospitals and community settings. In such a system, information is not just paperwork. It is safety. It is continuity. It is dignity. Because health information accompanies us through our most vulnerable moments, the success of this Bill will not be judged only by how efficiently data flows. It will be judged by something far more human – whether residents continue to trust the system enough to seek care early, speak honestly and return when they need help. That trust is fragile and once lost, it is hard to restore. Today, I would like to focus my clarifications on three areas which residents have consistently raised with me: access control, support for smaller GP clinics and cybersecurity. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I begin with access control. The Bill introduces Access Restrictions under clause 29, with exceptions in clause 30, and the process for managing them in clause 31. These are important safeguards. But residents ask a practical question – will this protect me in real life? My first question relates to the default setting. If Access Restrictions require residents to take proactive steps, does this mean their information is broadly accessible by default? How will seniors, especially those who are not digitally confident, know what to do? If privacy depends on digital literacy, then privacy is no longer equal. My second question concerns granularity and role-based access. Clause 29 allows Class 2 Access Restrictions to be prescribed by information type, user class, purpose and time period. This is a powerful provision, but power lies in how it is used.”
“But Parliament has a responsibility to ask whether we can build systems that can see better, respond earlier and act together. If data is eyesight, then sharing must help the system see, not blur its vision. If data is eyesight, then re-identification must protect the vulnerable, not label them. If data is eyesight, then accountability must be visible, not lost in layers of delegation. And if consent cannot always be practicable, then we owe residents something just as important in return: clarity about what is done with their data, dignity in how decisions are made and confidence that responsibility is clearly held. Many PAP MPs today have rightly stressed that when data leaves the public sector, external partners must meet the same high standards as the Government. With clear public interest tests, stronger oversight and firm accountability, including how this Bill aligns with the HIB that is upcoming. This Bill gives us tools, but tools alone do not guarantee wisdom. What matters is how we choose to use them. So, let us be clear about our commitment. We will use data to protect, not to stigmatise. We will share data to connect, not to surveil. We will govern data so the system can see clearly, so that people can live with dignity. That is the work before us, not to just to pass this Bill, but to exercise its powers with restraint, care and moral clarity; not just to enable data sharing, but to earn and keep the trust of the people we serve. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us act with that responsibility firmly in mind. Let us ensure that when the system sees, it sees together and when it acts, it acts in time. I support the Bill.”
“To residents, a breach is a breach. Are we confident the PSGA and PDPA framework leaves no gaps where technical classification determines liability rather than real harm? Third, on prevention. Sanctions act after damage is done. I understand external partners will be subject to Terms of Use requiring strict security standards. How will compliance be validated? Will audits be regular, risk-based and independent? A breach at the weakest partner compromises the entire ecosystem. Smaller charities acting in good faith must be supported, while large vendors must be held to higher standards befitting their capabilities. Mr Speaker, Sir, my final concern is the lived experience of this Bill. While data sharing directions are internal instruments, the stated aim is enhanced transparency. Will residents receive plain-language explanations of how and why their data is shared? Could MDDI commit to an annual public report summarising data sharing directions and authorisations? How will this information be accessible to seniors and those with limited English proficiency? Transparency cannot live only in legal texts. Finally, does the Government plan to measure public trust in this sharing ecosystem and course-correct if it erodes? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me close by returning to where I began. Data is eyesight. Four-year-old Megan Khung did not die because no one cared. She died because the signals that might have protected her never came together. A preschool saw injuries; a social worker identified risks; family members raised concerns. Each saw a part of the picture, but the system never saw clearly, early enough or as one. No law can guarantee that such tragedies will never happen again.”
“Ministerial approval is a high bar, but for large cohorts or sensitive data, should there be independent ethical review, similar to health research purposes? Fourth, on purpose limitation. Re-identification must exist to help people, to connect dots for protection, never to label or stigmatise. I also note that data should be retained only for as long as needed. Purpose completion should trigger deletion, not secondary utility. Why should anonymised datasets continue to be held by external partners once the authorised purpose is complete? Mr Speaker, Sir, my third concern is accountability. Under the Bill, sharing with non-public sector persons requires Ministerial authorisation, which may be delegated. This use case specific model supports agility, but delegation raises a simple question: where does the buck stop? First, who may be a delegate? How many layers of delegation are envisaged? Transparency matters because delegation should not dilute responsibility. Second, would it be more robust to have high-risk or large-scale decisions reviewed by a small standing board rather than a single official? Third, could the Government consider maintaining an auditable register of future authorisations, with anonymised statistics published annually? Trust grows when systems can be verified, not merely asserted. Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth concern regards to safeguards as data flows beyond the public sector. The Bill introduces offences for unauthorised disclosure of non-personal data by employees of external partners, with penalties of up to $5,000 or two years' imprisonment. Personal data misuse remains governed by PDPA. First, on proportionality. Where large datasets are mishandled, will these penalties sufficiently deter negligence? Second, on coherence.”
“When consent cannot be the default, what replaces it as a reassurance? When a resident walks into a Family Service Centre, they experience the system as one whole. They do not distinguish between a Ministry, a charity or a contractor. Yet under this Bill, their data may flow across all these actors. Will residents be told clearly, plainly and at the right time, that their information is being shared? When something goes wrong, will they know whom to turn to first, instead of being bounced between agencies? Furthermore, not all data sharing is life critical, some are for administrative convenience. In such cases, will residents have a practical way to express discomfort? The Bill provides no opt-out, so reassurance must come from transparency and restraint, not silence. Efficiency matters, but it must never eclipse agency. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second concern is the explicit authorisation to re-identify anonymised data under amended sections 4(5)(d) and 6(1)(d). For many residents, "anonymisation" is understood as a permanent promise. The idea that it can be reversed, even lawfully, feels unsettling. Re-identification is a powerful tool. Used well, it can help agencies identify unmet needs. Used poorly, it erodes trust. I ask four questions. First, on communication. How will the Government explain that anonymisation is not an absolute state, but one that may be reversed under tightly authorised circumstances? Residents must understand this is not casual. Second, on ethical boundaries. Will there be clearly articulated "no-go zones"? Can the Minister assure us that re-identified data will never be used for predictive scoring affecting access to housing, insurance, loans or employment? Third, on oversight.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, data is often described as the new oil. Today, I want to frame it differently. I want to speak of data as eyesight, the visibility that allows the Government to see what is happening in people's lives, especially at the margins. When the Government holds data but cannot share it effectively with trusted partners on the ground, it becomes partially blind. When the system cannot see clearly, it is not policy that fails first. It is people, especially the vulnerable, who fall through the cracks. This Bill seeks to address that blind spot by enabling responsible data sharing beyond the public sector. While I support this move, it raises fundamental questions about agency, accountability, safeguards, transparency and trust. I have several clarifications. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first concern is individual agency, viewed from the lived experience of a resident. Under the amended sections 4(5) to 4(8), a public agency may share information with non-public sector persons only with further authorisation from the Minister. Even after sharing, the public agency remains the controller under PDPA. These are sound legal constructs. But for residents, these are invisible. Legal control does not always translate into felt control. I acknowledge that consent is often not practicable, especially when data is needed urgently to identify those in need. However, urgency is not a licence for opacity. While agencies may not know every future downstream collaborator, the Bill rightly requires them to specify the external partners, purpose and scope. If an agency does not know who it is sharing with, it should not share at all. From a resident's perspective, consent is not merely a checkbox. It is a signal of dignity.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, I filed this Parliamentary Question (PQ) because I have received much feedback from many seniors in my constituency who have concerns about the new rider requirements. I just have one supplementary question. I understand that policyholders may keep existing riders, but insurers may respond by re-pricing or adjusting the benefits that amount to the de facto coverage reduction. What specific safeguards will MOH impose to prevent such indirect erosion of benefits, especially for ageing policyholders with limited options?”
“These are choices about the kind of society we want to grow old in, one defined by fairness, empathy and respect. As policymakers, our responsibility does not end with legislation. It begins with listening, to every caregiver, every senior who worries about digital notices and every resident who wonders if the system will remember them when they grow old. Let us make CareShield Life not just a financial safety net but a moral compact. One that says, in Singapore, we see our seniors not as dependents but as dignified individuals who built the foundation we now stand on. Let us commit, as Government, as community, as people, to ensure the compassion we enshrine in this Bill is felt in every assessment, every letter and every act of care. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Singapore we must build, one where no one is left behind, not by circumstance, not by design and not by time. I support this Bill.”
“Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, looking ahead, the 4% payout growth until 2030 gives citizens confidence for the near term. But long-term care is a multi-decade challenge. Can the Senior Minister of State share how payouts will be indexed beyond 2030? Will there be an automatic formula pegged to a dedicated long-term care inflation index? Or will each adjustment still require a separate review? To ensure payouts remain meaningful, could MOH set a public benchmark? For example, anchoring benefits to a fixed proportion of median nursing home or home care costs. Would the Ministry also consider a triennial actuarial review tied specifically to long-term care inflation? A predictable three-year cycle would make adjustments transparent and consistent. Yet, payouts are only half the story. The other half is access to care. In estates like Yio Chu Kang, where senior density is high, residents worry not just about affordability but also availability. Will there be enough home care slots, therapists and community-based services nearby? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill strengthens the foundation of CareShield Life. But our task is not only to build a stronger system. It is to build a more human one. In my speech, we have spoken about fairness, making sure that older Singaporeans who are still recovering are not permanently excluded. We have spoken about compassion, ensuring disability assessments are consistent, holistic and grounded in the lived realities of our seniors and caregivers. We have spoken about protection, guarding senior residents from confusion and scams as services move online. And we have spoken about foresight, keeping CareShield Life sustainable and meaningful well beyond 2030. These are not administrative details.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point concerns the Bill's overhaul of document service under sections 61 and 61A. These clauses modernise how official notices, including demand notes, are served. Importantly, the Bill now requires written consent, replacing the previous implied consent for email service. This is a significant safeguard. Written consent may be given in either physical or digital form, but it must be explicit and verifiable, not assumed. I support this move. Still, we must ensure seniors truly understand what they are consenting to. How will we protect seniors from replying to fraudulent emails that look official? Under the new section 61A, a demand note can be served by post, by hand, by fax or by email. Email service is only allowed with written consent, or if the person replies to an email after being clearly informed that such a reply counts as consent. This legal structure is well thought out. But will ordinary residents understand it? To reduce confusion, can all demand notes, whether physical or digital, be written in plain language, in all four official languages and paired with an SMS alert? A simple text saying, "You have an official notice. Please check your mailbox or MyInfo", can prevent panic and reduce the risk of scams. Most critically, can the Senior Minister of State assure this House that no policy will lapse while a senior is still clarifying a discrepancy or appealing a premium issue? Efficiency must never come at the cost of compassion. Furthermore, to shift responsibility from seniors to the system, I would suggest for digital-only communication to be opt-in for residents aged 65 and above. Those who are confident online can choose it. And those who are not, should continue receiving paper notices.”
“It may be precise, but it does not reflect the lived reality of many seniors whose abilities fluctuate from day to day. Some residents worry that outcomes can feel like a lottery – depending on who their assessor is, where the assessment is held, or even the time of day. How can we assure them that the system sees people, not checkboxes? Will MOH publish the clinical guidance and training protocols for accredited assessors? How frequent will audits be? Will the results, such as inter-assessor reliability rates, be made public? And if a resident disagrees with an assessment, can they appeal directly through CPF Board channels? Beyond procedure, the assessment must capture lived reality. A 30-minute clinical test cannot show how a senior manages narrow corridors, steep steps, or the absence of grab bars at home. Can caregiver testimony and home-environment factors be formally considered as part of every assessment? A caregiver in Yio Chu Kang told me that bringing her frail mother across town for an assessment left both of them in tears. To ease such stress, can MOH pilot video-based assessments for bedridden seniors, conducted with caregivers present? To safeguard the integrity of ADL assessments, I suggest three measures. First, a second assessment by another provider upon appeal, so no senior's fate rests on one single judgement. Second, formal integration of caregiver testimony into reports and third, public release of audit and appeal data to reinforce public trust. I also note that under section 63 of the Act, the Minister may amend the Schedules – including this new Fourth Schedule – by order in the Gazette. This flexibility is important to ensure that our definitions of disability can evolve alongside medical knowledge and social realities.”
“But it also risks leaving behind residents who are still in recovery. A caregiver in Yio Chu Kang once told me about her husband's post-stroke journey: "Some days he can lift himself. Some days he cannot." Should a single assessment, taken mid-recovery, permanently close the door to protection? Could the Ministry consider a more compassionate filter, such as, temporary waiting periods or premium loadings for manageable pre-existing conditions? This approach would allow recovery and inclusion to remain possible, while managing risk fairly. And for those still in rehabilitation, could there be a reassessment window, perhaps 12 to 24 months later, to give them a second chance once their condition stabilises? Making a lifelong decision based on one judgment carries enormous weight. We know assessor judgments can vary. What training and quality-assurance framework will ensure consistency, so that residents' futures are not determined by luck? Finally, transparency builds trust. Will MOH publish annual statistics on applications, acceptances, rejections and appeals for this older-cohort group? This will help the public monitor fairness and coverage over time. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns disability assessments. The "assess once, apply to many" approach reduces paperwork for families. But it also means that the result of a single assessment now carries more weight than ever before. The Bill codifies in the new Fourth Schedule that a person is "not disabled" only if they can perform all six ADLs without assistance, all the time. This phrase, now enshrined in statute rather than just clinical guidance, represents a significant tightening of the functional benchmark.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill strengthens one of our most important social-safety pillars – long-term care protection for Singaporeans. The decision to double payout growth to 4% until 2030 is both bold and prudent. It helps residents keep pace with rising care costs. The Government's $570 million in additional premium support also sends a clear message – as we enhance the scheme, we will not leave low- and middle-income families behind. Yet, a scheme of this scale must be more than sustainable and fair in design. It must also be compassionate and clear in execution. With that in mind, I will raise four key areas for clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns section 6, which governs automatic inclusion. The amendment replaces the earlier threshold of being "not severely disabled" with a new statutory test of being "not disabled." The difference may seem subtle, but it can be significant. An individual must now be able to perform all six ADLs without assistance, all the time. That is a much higher functional bar. Under the new section 6(1)(b)(iii)(A), Singaporeans and Permanent Residents born before 1980 will be automatically enrolled only if they are not disabled when they first become citizens or Permanent Residents. Those who are disabled at that time will not be automatically included. However, under section 6(4)(b), the CPF Board retains discretion to cover such individuals on a case-by-case basis. For those who became Singapore citizens or Permanent Residents before the commencement of this amendment, the earlier "not severely disabled" threshold will continue to apply. This ensures continuity and fairness for those who entered the scheme under earlier rules. Reinstating underwriting for older cohorts is understandable for financial sustainability.”
“We must make it enduring so that the records of one generation remain safe in the hands of the next. If we can do all these, then this Bill will be more than just a technical milestone. It will be a statement of values. It will say that in Singapore, even as we digitalise, we do not lose our human touch. We use technology to lift people up, not to leave them behind. We build systems that are efficient, yes, but also empathetic, transparent and just. Mr Speaker, Sir, the digital home we build today is not made of bricks or beams. It is built on trust, on the faith that when we click that button, sign that document or buy that first home, the system will stand by our side. So, let us build this new chapter of our Smart Nation with courage and care. Let us create not only a faster system, but a fairer one. Not just a connected nation, but a confident people. Above all, let us remember: a truly smart nation is not defined by how many systems we build, but by how deeply we keep faith with the people they are meant to serve. I support the Bill.”
“Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn to record retention. Physical title deeds may soon become a relic of the past. But digital records raise a new set of questions. How do we ensure permanence, authenticity and accessibility across generations? Under section 23(5) of the amended SLA Act, records of conveyancing transactions must be retained for a prescribed period. But for many residents, property ownership extends decades beyond any prescribed timeline. Can the Minister assure us that digital conveyancing records will be archived indefinitely and remain accessible to homeowners or their legal representatives, even after technology platforms evolve or vendors change? Can residents always download a verified, tamper-proof copy of their documents, free of charge, for their own safekeeping? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill moves us closer to a future where property transactions are seamless, secure and digital, where what once took weeks can now be done in days and where technology serves not as a barrier, but as a bridge. But let us also remember what this Bill truly represents. It is not just about faster processing or cleaner interfaces. It is about people, ensuring that every Singaporean, young or old, rich or poor, feels confident and included in this new digital journey. We must build a system that is inclusive so that no senior or small firm is left behind. We must make it compassionate, with remote witnessing that understands the realities of caregiving, disability and distance. We must keep it accountable so that when things go wrong, there is redress, transparency and fairness. We must ensure it is secure because in a world of rising scams and cyber threats, trust is our strongest currency.”
“Furthermore, will SLA publish audit trails or digital transaction logs so that parties can easily verify what went wrong and when? As digital conveyancing scales up, what redundancy capabilities will ensure that the system can handle peak volumes, for example, after policy announcements that trigger surges in property transactions? My fifth point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on data privacy and scam protection. I believe Members earlier, like Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee Hui Ying, have raised similar issues. Property transactions involve highly sensitive financial and personal information. The Bill allows SLA and HDB to provide non-confidential data for transparency and analytics. This can certainly enhance policy planning and public understanding of market trends. But what exactly qualifies as non-confidential? Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what data use limits and access safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse, such as bulk scraping or phishing attempts? Will individuals have the option to opt out of having personal data publicly accessible? Likewise, will any of the data in this portal be used to fight crime? What jurisdiction will be extended to the use of data in this portal without a resident's permission for criminal investigation? I also urge the Ministry to anticipate the evolving threat landscape, including deepfake impersonations in remote witnessing and phishing attempts masquerading as official DCP communications. Given recent public sector data breaches, security assurance must be visible and continual, not just technical but also educational. Residents must know how to verify authentic communication from the system. Trust is the currency of digital governance. Once it is lost, convenience means little.”
“Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that there have been instances where lawyers in property transactions falsely certified documents. One example is the case of Ms K Manickam, who attested that she had witnessed several signings even though the documents had not been signed in her presence. Would the electronic system be able to ensure that individuals who are required to attest to the validity or correctness of documents do in fact fulfill this duty? In addition, electronic systems may create the false impression that digital transactions are somehow less formal or serious. Are there measures in place to ensure that all parties and stakeholders understand the gravity of these transactions and that, despite the electronic system, the expectation remains that everyone involved is accountable for the verifications set out in the relevant documents? Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point is about redress and liability. Even the most secure systems can experience glitches or cyber incidents. Section 25 of the Bill rightly empowers SLA to correct errors or omissions arising from system malfunctions or cybersecurity incidents after notifying affected parties and allowing representations. This is a prudent safeguard. But for residents, especially families in the midst of completing a purchase, a few hours' delay can translate into real stress and financial penalties, especially when tax deadlines or stamp duties are triggered. So, when a transaction fails due to no fault of the user, who bears the cost? Will there be an ex-gratia or compensation framework for affected parties, particularly home buyers who may face cascading penalties through no fault of their own?”
“Furthermore, as many small law firms rely heavily on conveyancing work, can the Government share the onboarding and training programmes to help these firms transition smoothly to the new system? This will not only safeguard livelihoods but also preserve healthy competition in the legal sector. If the portal faces downtime on a critical completion day, what manual fallback or contingency processes will protect users from financial losses or penalties? Digital convenience must never become digital compulsion. My second point, Mr Speaker, Sir, concerns remote witnessing. This is a forward-thinking feature. It allows individuals, especially seniors or persons with mobility challenges, to execute documents electronically without having to travel. However, under section 16X of the Bill, remote witnessing is currently limited to witnesses physically located in Singapore. This may inadvertently exclude Singaporeans who are temporarily based overseas, for instance, those on overseas postings or students abroad. Could the Ministry explore secure extensions, perhaps through our embassies, consulates or accredited notaries, so that they, too, can safely participate? Additionally, for residents who lack access to devices or who are not digitally confident, can we set up assisted witnessing stations at community hubs or HDB branches, equipped with secure connectivity and trained staff? Most importantly, the rules governing remote witnessing should be designed with compassion and flexibility, accommodating medical or disability-related circumstances. Because for a hospitalised senior or a person with limited mobility, accessibility is not a convenience. It is dignity.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill marks a pivotal step in modernising Singapore's conveyancing process. It will make property transactions faster, more transparent and more efficient, in line with our Smart Nation vision. Yet as we digitalise, we must remember that buying or selling a home is not just a legal exchange. It is a deeply human experience, a lifelong dream for some and an essential lifeline for others. As we move this process online, we must ensure it remains safe, inclusive and trustworthy for all, from young couples buying their first Build-To-Order flats to retirees unlocking equity in their golden years. I have several clarifications on the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is on digital inclusion. We have seen how initiatives, like Singpass and LifeSG, have set a new standard for convenience for many Singaporeans. Yet, we also know that not everyone is equally comfortable navigating digital platforms, particularly our seniors and small firms still reliant on paper-based workflows. DCP will bring together up to 17 different stakeholders, from lawyers, to banks, to HDB and SLA, into one united ecosystem. That is an immense leap in efficiency. But it also introduces a human challenge. How do we ensure that no one gets left behind? I urge the Ministry to consider assisted digital services at community touchpoints, such as libraries, community clubs and ServiceSG centres, where residents can receive guided in-person help from trained officers. Such digital assistance can make the difference between empowerment and exclusion. Next, can the Minister assure the House that residents will not be burdened by new system charges and that measures, such as fee caps or subsidies, will be introduced, especially for first-time buyers or lower-income households?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Minister, for your response. I just want to talk a bit about humanitarian aid. The Minister mentioned that multiple countries and non-governmental organisations are already providing aid and providing relief. So, how does Singapore ensure our aid compliments rather than duplicates international efforts? And have we identified specific gaps in the international response where Singapore's niche support can add the most value? And lastly, can the Minister explain why sustaining our humanitarian and diplomatic engagement in Gaza matters to Singaporeans, not as an act of compassion, but as a reflection of our identity as a small nation committed to peace and multiracial harmony?”
“It asks our families to do their part, our businesses to innovate and our Government to lead with integrity and foresight. We have spoken about transparency, so Singaporeans can see where every dollar goes. We have spoken about fairness, so the burden is shared justly. We have spoken about competitiveness, so our air hub remains strong in a turbulent world. We have spoken about accountability, so trust in our system remains unshakable. And we have spoken about alignment, so Singapore continues to lead by example on the global stage. But beyond all that, this Bill challenges us to look skyward and ask: how do we build a future where progress does not come at the planet's expense? Around the world, some are giving up on greener air travel. They say the politics are too hard, the costs too high and the people too weary. But Singapore must not be among them. We must show that realism and resolve can walk hand-in-hand, that we can fly further because we choose to fly cleaner. If we get this right, Singapore will not just be a world-class air hub. We will be a trusted one, known for doing the right thing, even when it is not the easy thing. Let us move forward with clear eyes, steady hands and open skies. Let us keep Singapore flying high, not just in the air, but in our ideals. I support the Bill.”
“Furthermore, when sourcing SAF, can we ensure that Singapore's investment strengthens domestic and regional capabilities, building our own production base, where feasible, and positioning local firms within the green aviation value chain? Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill must also work hand-in-hand with international frameworks, especially CORSIA. Singaore already mandates monitoring and reporting through the Air Navigation Regulations. But we have not yet legislated the offsetting duties or penalties for non-compliance. Why stop halfway? Without enforcement, compliant airlines pay their fair share while others may get a free ride. More importantly, passengers risk being double-charged, once under the SAF levy and again under separate CORSIA-related offsets. This concern has been echoed internationally. If countries fail to coordinate their climate measures, consumers lose trust and the green agenda falters. Can the Minister of State clarify when and how the CORSIA offsetting and penalty framework will be implemented, ideally through subsidiary legislation under the Air Navigation Act? Will the Ministry ensure that any CORSIA-related costs passed to consumers are clearly displayed as a separate line item, distinct from the SAF levy, to prevent confusion or duplication? And finally, will the framework apply only to flights between states that are CORSIA-participants, so our carriers remain aligned with global norms and remain competitive? In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents more than a change in law. It represents a change in mindset. It asks us to see sustainability not as a cost, but as an investment, in our future, in our children and in our planet.”
“A transparent roadmap will give both households and businesses the confidence to plan ahead. For cargo operators, can the Minister of State ensure that levies are structured with stable, geography-based rates and weight bands? That clarity will help our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) maintain Singapore's reputation as a reliable logistics hub. Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every green dollar must now show its work. Singaporeans will support this levy only if they know each cent is used responsibly and effectively to make our skies cleaner. The creation of a ring-fenced SAF fund under section 25C is the right step forward. But good governance demands more than structure. It demands clarity, scrutiny and stewardship. Will CAAS be required to publish a detailed annual report showing how much was collected, how much SAF was purchased, where it was sourced, who supplied it and how the SAF EAs were allocated? What key performance indicators (KPIs) will the SAF Procuring Entity be measured against, competitive pricing, source diversification and maximising physical uplift at Changi? Will the fund and its registry undergo independent audits, with findings made public? And will the Ministry consider a statutory review clause, perhaps every three years, to assess whether the levy and fund remain effective and fit for purpose? We must also be realistic. SAF currently accounts for less than 1% of global jet fuel consumption. Production remains costly and feedstocks are limited. That is why Singapore's approach must be pragmatic, scaling gradually, aggregating demand and building credibility step by step.”
“For SMEs facing urgent cargo needs, will there be a defined remission process, especially when cost pressures or timing make the levy burdensome? Fairness is not only about who pays. It is about ensuring no one is penalised for trying to do the right thing. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our air hub is the heartbeat of our economy. Tens of thousands of Singaporeans, pilots, engineers, caterers, cleaners, depend on it every day. Section 87B specifies that the levy applies to flights taking off from Singapore. Can the Minister of State confirm that the levy will not apply to transit or transfer passengers? They are the lifeblood of Changi's success and essential to its competitiveness. We must also guard against what some have called "green fatigue". Around the world, passengers and politicians are showing signs of giving up on greener air travel, weary of rising costs, divided politics and confusing regulations. Singapore cannot afford to be part of that retreat. We must show that ambition and accountability can co-exist. That is why the timing and design of this levy matter. Changi Airport raised passenger and airline fees in November 2024 to fund its $3 billion infrastructure plan. If we now add a new SAF levy, will that risk pricing Singapore out of the regional race, pushing airlines toward Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA)? Likewise, with sustainable fuel procurement mandated, will budget carriers with thinner margins struggle to operate here? Could that affect connectivity and affordability for travellers? Predictability is key. Will the Ministry consider publishing a multi-year levy schedule, setting out indicative rates for the next three to five years?”
“And will the Ministry consider codifying a cap in subsidiary legislation, so that families can plan with confidence? How will short-, medium- and long-haul be defined – by distance or flight time? And will rates vary across cabin classes? For SMEs, predictability matters even more. Can the Minister of State ensure that cargo levies are transparently itemised in freight contracts, instead of being rolled into "all-in" rates? This transparency gives our small exporters the clarity to price their goods competitively and hold logistics partners accountable. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for this levy to be legitimate, it must also be fair. Those who contribute more to carbon emissions should bear a proportionate share of the cost. The Bill's powers for differentiation and remission under section 87B are, therefore, crucial. Can the Ministry commit to a progressive levy structure, where non-commercial, private and business jets contribute more than regular families flying economy? Globally, there is a growing call for fairness in climate policy. Studies show that a small fraction of frequent flyers and premium travellers account for a disproportionately large share of aviation emissions. Many countries are exploring progressive levies to address that imbalance. Singapore should not shy away from this conversation. On the other hand, essential flights, such as humanitarian missions, medical evacuations or pilot training, should rightly be exempted. Will the Ministry publish clear exemption criteria, so operators are not left guessing in an emergency? Will it also disclose, annually, how many exemptions were granted and why, so the public can see fairness in action?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare that I work in a global investment firm that have investments in aviation companies and sustainable solutions. This is a forward-looking and pragmatic piece of legislation. The Bill does more than establish the SAF fund and levy. It gives us a clear, stable framework to turn our Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint from aspiration into action. But this Bill is not just about planes or policies. It is about people. It is about families planning their next holiday. It is about the thousands of Singaporeans whose livelihoods depend on our position as a trusted global air hub. So, the question before us is this: how do we fly toward a greener future without losing our altitude as a competitive, connected economy? To that end, I wish to seek clarifications on five key areas: transparency, fairness, competitiveness, accountability and international alignment. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, predictability builds trust. Singaporeans can accept modest green contributions when they understand what they are paying for. But a green cost must be a seen cost, not one hidden in the fine print. Section 87B of the Bill rightly requires that if a levy is passed on, the amount must be stated. That is a strong start. But we can go further. Will the implementing order require the SAF levy to appear as a clear, separate line item on all passenger tickets and cargo contracts? It should never be buried inside a "taxes and fees" bundle. To strengthen cost certainty, will the Government confirm that the indicative levy range shared publicly for the initial 1% target, around $3, $6 and $16 for short-, medium- and long-haul flights respectively, while noting that final amounts are likely to be even lower?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question is directed to MinLaw and it is about inter-agency coordination. When neighbour disputes turn violent, how do we better capture the warning signs, such as, repeated Police calls, past mediation cases, Town Council's complaints? And can the Ministry work with the Police, HDB, Town Council and MOH, perhaps to set up an early warning system so that when multiple reports come in from various agencies about the same household, agencies can act decisively before tensions boil over? And is the current data sharing between CMC, CDRT, the Singapore Police Force really robust enough to flag dangers early?”