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 6 of 18.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Blocking websites is a very powerful tool, but it also can have unintended consequences, such as driving traffic underground. How will the Ministry monitor this and deal with these unintended consequences? Are there complementary strategies to address misinformation besides blocking websites?”
“Let this Bill not only police conflicts but also nurture collaboration. Let it strengthen our communities' social fabric and foster lasting peace. This reflects the essence of the Forward Singapore movement to cultivate a kind and cohesive society. I support the Bill.”
“Clear guidelines must be established to prevent stalling tactics and once an agreement is reached, swift enforcement is essential to maintain its effectiveness. Could the Ministry provide data on how many mediation sessions in the CMC have resulted in agreements that were later breached? Is there a tracking mechanism for such cases? In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, community disputes are complex and rarely black-and-white. Without the right support, interventions can inadvertently cause harm. This Bill represents some progress. In Yio Chu Kang, we have a local mediation team composed of volunteer grassroots leaders. This initiative is useful, as having neighbours involved in mediation offers a familiar face and helps track progress. Residents eagerly anticipate the launch of the CRU pilot, which adds support to earlier interventions may fall short. I hope to see this pilot scale beyond Tampines to other areas, including Yio Chu Kang, to benefit more residents with unresolved disputes. Our communities welcome the initiatives in this Bill. However, as always, the devil is in the details. I urge the Minister to consider my proposals in my speech. First, provide guidance to landlords on preparing tenancy agreements and related documents to comply with this Bill, offer mental health support for hoarding cases to prevent recurrence, clarify the roles of MCSTs and officers' authority in private properties, ensure adequate training and safeguards for CROs and lastly, make mediation more accessible and guarantee swift enforcement. Ultimately, while this Bill provides valuable tools, it must empower individuals. Conflict resolution requires neighbours willing to engage in dialogue, approach disputes with understanding and seek common ground.”
“Can they enforce compliance, or must they rely on MCST cooperation? It is important to clarify how this Bill applies to private properties, as condominiums represent a significant portion of Singapore's housing landscape. Could the Ministry look into clearer guidelines for disputes in private properties, ensuring officers have the necessary authority while respecting MCST boundaries? Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point concerns the powers granted to CROs under sections 13C, 13D and 13L. While their authority to issue orders and enter homes may be necessary, we must safeguard against potential overreach. What checks are in place to prevent misuse of these powers? Community disputes are rarely straightforward. Mental health issues, personal struggles and vulnerabilities often complicate matters. Are these officers trained to handle such situations? Are they equipped to de-escalate conflicts and identify when professional help is needed? Clear, consistent guidelines are needed to ensure fair, informed decision-making. Will the Ministry consider a framework for CROs that includes rigorous training and guidelines to prevent escalation and maintain community trust? Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasise the importance of mediation, particularly under section 13M, which refers to CRO referrals for mediation. I have always been a strong advocate for mediation. Mediation fosters lasting peace in a way that legal battles cannot achieve. However, mediation must be accessible. Formal mediation can feel burdensome for many residents, who juggle jobs, family responsibilities and health issues. Could we enhance accessibility by conducting more sessions in community spaces or offering sessions during evenings and weekends? Moreover, mediation should not prolong disputes.”
“Before imposing additional responsibilities, I urge the Minister to provide clear guidelines to help landlords understand their obligations. Let us define what is fair and establish mechanisms that are effective for all parties. This Bill rightly seeks to empower landlords with clearer guidelines and responsibilities. However, these expectations must be balanced and realistic. I urge the Ministry to ensure that landlord obligations are practical and if necessary, to provide resources that facilitate compliance, rather than unintentionally fostering disputes. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point pertains to hoarding, highlighted in section 11A. We understand that hoarding poses public health risks, but it is also a deeply personal issue. What happens after someone's belongings are cleared out? Hoarding behaviour often recurs, making temporary solutions inadequate. Without mental health support, such as counselling and follow-ups, this issue is likely to resurface. We must strike a balance between protecting public health and showing empathy towards those struggling with hoarding. Could the Ministry consider integrating mental health support into hoarding interventions, perhaps through partnerships with social services? This could provide a more holistic and lasting solution for affected residents and their neighbours. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill may not fully address disputes occurring in private properties like condominiums. How do the provisions apply in these contexts? Can CROs or ACROs enter private homes to resolve issues? Will Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) be involved? Will officers need MCST permission to enter and remove hoarded items? Moreover, what are the limits of officers' powers in condominium disputes?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as MPs, we often address community disputes brought forth by our residents. These range from noise complaints and cooking odours to concerns over shoe racks blocking common corridors. While these issues may seem minor, they can escalate into significant conflicts between neighbours. This Bill is a step in the right direction to address such issues, but I would like to raise some clarifications. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point concerns the potential burden this Bill places on landlords, particularly in section 10A. In Yio Chu Kang, many seniors rely on renting out their HDB flats to supplement their income. While maintaining peace is critical, is it fair to hold landlords accountable for their tenants' behaviour? Do landlords have the level of control that this Bill assumes? Typically, landlords have some influence over tenants through rental agreements, which sometimes include restrictions on certain activities. This implies that landlords may have a role in promoting harmony among residents. However, when landlords, especially those living abroad or slow to respond, struggle with tenant issues, it can lead to prolonged problems for neighbouring residents. Should landlords face penalties for circumstances beyond their control and what happens if a landlord is unable or unwilling to engage? Additionally, rental agreements usually focus on rent and maintenance, not managing neighbourly disputes. This would create legal ambiguity, especially if landlords lack clear authority over tenant behaviour. We must also consider tenants' responses. If tenants face repercussions, they may shift blame onto their landlords, especially absentee ones, potentially prolonging disputes and leaving the complainant in limbo.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. The focus of my supplementary question is on seniors and less tech-savvy individuals as they are more susceptible to scams. I know many Members have seen many residents who come to their Meet-the-People Sessions about such issues. Given that seniors and digitally vulnerable groups are often targeted by scams, has the MAS considered perhaps faster reimbursement processes, specifically for these groups? And secondly, many of them are non-English speaking. Are there efforts to communicate the SRF in multiple languages to inform these residents of the details of the SRF, especially on payout decisions?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response. I have some supplementary questions for Question Nos 3 and 6. For Question No 3, if traffic congestion exceeds anticipated levels after issuing additional COEs, will the Ministry consider a mid-term review to potentially adjust the COE supply? How does the Ministry plan to stay agile and responsive to unexpected congestion increases in real time? For Question No 6, the EV transition is progressing but there are concerns that a shift from petrol or ICE to electric cars might reduce the urgency to go car-lite. Can the Ministry elaborate on how it ensures that the EV transition does not detract from its car-lite goal? What specific targets or metrics are in place to measure success towards the car-lite vision versus just transiting between different vehicle types?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. Two supplementary questions. Regarding the idea of a school-based meal programme similar to Japan's, could the Ministry share any preliminary considerations or challenges identified in implementing such a model in Singapore? And second, in view of the rising ingredient costs, has the Ministry explored collaborations with local farms or producers to supply fresh, nutritious ingredients at a reduced cost to school canteens?”
“Before adopting external standards, should there be a mechanism for public consultation and feedback to ensure that these standards align with the needs and capacities of local communities and businesses? What measures will be taken to prevent changes in standards from disproportionately affecting small businesses and homeowners who may have limited resources to adapt to new requirements? Would PUB be required to publish a comprehensive impact assessment before adopting significant changes to standards? This would enhance transparency and would allow for informed decision-making. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, while this Bill offers enhanced management of our sewerage and drainage systems, it is important to address the potential implications for residents and the wider community. We must ensure that shared responsibilities for maintenance do not become undue financial burdens, especially for vulnerable populations. While emergency powers are necessary for safety, they must be exercised responsibly and transparently, balancing the need for efficiency with residents' rights for privacy. New fees for drainage system maintenance should be transparent and reasonable and the adoption of external standards should prioritise local needs and involve community consultation. Consistency is key to fair implementation. We need to work together to create a system that serves the best interests of all residents. This is not just about policy, it is about people. I urge the Ministry to carefully consider these clarifications. Together, we can forge a path forward that is equitable, effective and truly reflective of our commitment to the residents we serve. I support the Bill.”
“Thirdly, Mr Speaker, permitting PUB to charge fees for assuming the maintenance of specific drainage systems brings up concerns about possible cost hikes for community amenities and facilities. This could eventually affect overall living expenses. How will PUB establish the fee structure for these services? What safeguards will be implemented to prevent excessive fee hikes that could unduly burden residents and community organisations? To ensure accountability, could we implement transparency requirements mandating PUB to publicly disclose how collected fees are utilised for maintenance and improvements? Moreover, has the Government considered the potential cumulative impact of these fees on Town Councils and the subsequent effect on residents' maintenance fees? Town Councils manage many shared drainage systems and passing these costs onto residents could create additional financial strain. Could the Government consider waiving or reducing fees for community-led maintenance initiatives or public amenities that serve the broader community? This would encourage community involvement and avoid penalising public spaces and activities that are beneficial for everyone. Since sewage management is a public good, should it not be funded by the Government rather than placing additional costs on residents? Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, empowering PUB to adopt external standards without parliamentary scrutiny may cause some concerns about consistent regulatory compliance for residents and businesses. How will PUB ensure that the adopted standards are appropriate for local communities, especially older estates with unique infrastructural challenges? A one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for all areas.”
“Additionally, has the Government conducted a thorough assessment of the cumulative financial impact on residents, particularly those in older estates where ageing infrastructure may require more frequent and costly maintenance? To allow residents ample time to adjust to these new financial responsibilities, could the Government consider a phased implementation of these requirements? This would provide residents with the opportunity to budget and plan accordingly. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, expanding PUB's authority to access premises without prior notice in emergencies brings up valid concerns regarding the privacy of residents. While I recognise the importance of swift action in emergencies, we must find a balance between public safety and individual rights. Can the Minister elaborate on the specific measures that will be put in place to guarantee transparency and accountability in the exercise of these emergency powers? Clear protocols and oversight mechanisms are essential to prevent potential abuses. To avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent application, could the Government provide more precise guidelines defining what constitutes an "emergency" under the Bill? In addition, how will residents be informed about such emergency entries? Will there be a clear process for residents to challenge the necessity of the entry and seek redress if they believe their rights were violated? Could the Government explore alternative mechanisms, such as requiring warrants in non-life-threatening situations, to balance the need for a rapid response with residents' fundamental right to privacy? If a resident is not at home during an emergency entry, will there be forced entry? Will there be any compensation for such an occurrence?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to voice the concerns of residents living in landed estates of my Yio Chu Kang constituency. This includes those from Lentor Estate and Yio Chu Kang Gardens. Some are worried about the implications of this Bill. While I acknowledge the Bill's aim to clarify and strengthen our sewage and drainage systems, I seek clarification on several aspects. These aspects could impact my constituents and the broader community. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the requirement for homeowners to maintain their sewerage and drainage systems may pose a considerable financial burden. For many middle-income residents and seniors with no fixed incomes, these costs can represent a significant strain. Faced with increasing cost of living challenges, some residents may feel compelled to defer or neglect essential maintenance. They may opt for the cheapest quick fix rather than a sustainable long-term solution. This approach not only jeopardises their properties, but also risks creating problems for their neighbours and the wider community. Furthermore, it may lead to disputes with neighbouring property owners who may find themselves compelled to cover the costs or, worse, take legal action to enforce compliance. Can the Minister explain why this Bill does not incorporate a cost-sharing mechanism for private owners, especially concerning shared drainage facilities between neighbouring properties? Such a mechanism would acknowledge the shared responsibility for these critical infrastructure components. What measures will the Government implement to ensure that "asset-rich and cash-poor" households, such as retired seniors, are not disproportionately burdened by these maintenance costs? Financial assistance or subsidies should be considered to mitigate potential hardship.”
“Finally, we should have clear ways to measure the impact of these new rules on energy use and savings, sharing those results openly with the community. Let us remember that energy efficiency should feel like a partnership, not a burden. We want our local businesses to feel empowered in their journey towards sustainability, not overwhelmed by new regulations. Together, we can create a strong community where everyone benefits from our commitment to a greener future. I support the Bill.”
“Regular public forums and feedback sessions with affected residents and businesses are critical to ensuring that these regulations remain relevant and effective. Moreover, how will we know if these regulations achieve their intended goals? The Ministry must establish clear metrics for measuring the impact of these changes on energy consumption, cost savings and environmental outcomes. These results must be shared transparently with local communities, rather than being buried in Government reports. Regular public updates that engage local communities are essential for maintaining accountability and public trust. In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to reiterate my support for the EC Bill and its goals. Nevertheless, it is important that we protect our local businesses, especially our SMEs, as we move towards a more sustainable future. To help achieve this, I recommend a few key actions. First, we should simplify the reporting processes so that small businesses can easily meet the new energy efficiency requirements without facing overwhelming challenges. Second, the Government needs to consider providing financial assistance to help these businesses upgrade their older systems to meet new standards without breaking the bank. We must also ensure that training programmes for energy management are accessible to smaller firms. This way, expertise does not just sit with larger companies and everyone has a chance to succeed. In addition, the rules around the Director-General's oversight needs to be clear and fair, allowing businesses to appeal decisions, when necessary. It is also essential to maintain an ongoing conversation with residents and businesses. Regular public forums will help us identify any issue and make adjustments, as needed.”
“The Government should partner with community groups, local educational institutions and industry associations to develop and deliver accessible training programmes, specifically for smaller firms. Subsidised training, online resources and targeted mentorship are just a few examples of how we can empower our SMEs to meet these new challenges. Furthermore, how will the Ministry ensure that the Director-General's powers to assess and monitor energy efficiency are exercised transparently and fairly? Clear guidelines and accountability are essential for building trust and ensuring compliance. The Ministry must clearly define the Director-General's powers, establish transparent assessment criteria and provide mechanisms for businesses to appeal decisions. Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, raising awareness is paramount to help residents and businesses understand how these changes will affect them. A lack of awareness could lead to confusion and compliance challenges. Beyond merely disseminating information, we need to educate stakeholders about the reasons behind these changes. Highlighting the long-term environmental and financial advantages of energy conservation will promote greater support and motivate a true move towards sustainable practices. What steps will be taken to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly smaller businesses, are well-informed about the new registration and reporting requirements? How can the Government cultivate a culture of energy conservation that goes beyond mere regulatory compliance, making a true community-led effort? Ongoing dialogue is essential for identifying challenges, addressing concerns and adapting our approach, as needed.”
“Given that many local businesses may be using older systems, what specific financial assistance or incentives will be provided to help them upgrade and meet these new standards? How will the Government balance the immediate financial burden of retrofitting against the long-term benefits of energy savings, particularly for SMEs? Could this lead to unintended consequences, such as increased costs being passed down to consumers, especially in sectors like retail and food and beverage? This could further inflate living costs. Are there lessons and resources from past energy efficiency initiatives that can help develop a targeted support strategy for older facilities? Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill's emphasis on energy managers and their role in ensuring compliance leads to more responsibility for these individuals. How will the Ministry ensure that training for energy managers is accessible to smaller firms, not just large enterprises? What measures are in place to prevent the concentration of expertise within larger corporations, which would marginalise smaller businesses? If energy management expertise becomes concentrated solely within large corporations, smaller businesses may fall behind in meeting the new requirements. This could lead to penalties and the loss of their competitive edge. Moreover, the need to hire or train energy managers may inadvertently increase manpower costs for SMEs that are trying to tightly manage their overheads. For larger businesses, will this requirement make Singapore a less cost-effective location? Coupled with the expenses to comply with MEES requirements, could this drive towards sustainability hinder our economic attractiveness? I propose a proactive approach to address this resource disparity.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has significant implications for our nation's sustainability efforts. I support the intent of this Bill to enhance energy efficiency. However, I have several clarifications regarding its potential impact on our residents and local businesses. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the expanded registration requirements, ongoing monitoring and potential penalties raises concerns about their impact on small businesses. How will the Government support small businesses with limited resources to meet these new energy efficiency monitoring requirements? Will the Ministry consider implementing simplified reporting mechanisms tailored to their capacity? With penalties for non-compliance reaching $5,000, we must consider whether smaller players could be disproportionately affected compared to larger corporations. For a small enterprise already struggling with rent and low profit margins, a $5,000 fine for minor lapse in energy reporting could wipe out their profits for a month. Meanwhile, a multinational corporation would barely notice such a penalty. This disparity feels unjust. Additionally, how would the Ministry ensure that the registration process for these new registrable relevant persons is smooth and efficient? We need to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on businesses. Offering grace periods and flexibility, especially for those with a proven history of compliance, would show a commitment to supporting those already making an effort. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the requirement for existing systems to meet MEES presents a potential challenge. Retrofitting older facilities can be costly.”
“Lastly, we examined the new medical institution approval framework and its potential impact on patient-provider relationships, underscoring the importance of maintaining continuity of care. As we move forward, let us commit to creating a healthcare system that truly prioritises the needs of our residents, particularly our seniors and those with mobility challenges. It is our duty to ensure that no one is left behind in accessing essential healthcare services. Together, we can build a healthcare system that is not only robust and efficient, but also compassionate and inclusive. I support the Bill.”
“Moreover, there should be a minimum notice period before approval changes take effect. This will allow patients sufficient time to make alternative arrangements and avoid disruptions to their treatment. For many patients, especially seniors, the relationship with their healthcare provider is critical in managing their health. This bond of trust and familiar routine provides comfort and encourages adherence to treatment plans, particularly for those with complex or chronic conditions. Disrupting this vital connection by forcing a change of providers can be unsettling and may even lead to patients abandoning necessary care. Therefore, adequate time to adapt is crucial. A sufficient notice period before any approval changes is essential to allow patients, especially elderly residents, to adjust to new arrangements and maintain continuity of care without undue stress and disruption. A medical institution's approval process should not dictate a resident's access to essential and affordable healthcare. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must carefully consider the implications of the MediShield Life Scheme (Amendment) Bill to ensure that it serves all Singaporeans equitably. We have discussed the importance of premium transparency, emphasising the need for accessible information for our elderly residents, both online and offline. I highlighted the necessity for a clear Telehealth Approval Framework that supports accessibility while avoiding unnecessary restrictions. I raised concerns about the expansion of means-testing powers, stressing the need for robust safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals, especially those who may appear asset-rich but struggle financially.”
“The amendments raise several critical questions. How will these expanded powers impact residents who are asset-rich but cash-poor, a situation particularly prevalent among our elderly population? Many seniors own their homes, bought during their working lives, giving the appearance of wealth, yet may struggle to meet daily expenses. Will this Bill inadvertently penalise them for having illiquid assets? What concrete safeguards are being put in place to prevent the over-zealous application of these new powers? Without clear guidelines and robust oversight, there is a real risk of denying subsidies to deserving individuals based on overly strict interpretations of their financial situations. The Bill also lacks clarity on how means-testing information will be used. We need transparent criteria to ensure fairness. Means-testing should serve as a safety net, ensuring that those genuinely in need receive the support they require. It should not become a barrier to accessing vital healthcare services. Fourthly, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are worries that the new framework for approving medical institutions outlined in section 3A might impact residents' ability to access their chosen healthcare providers. How will this transition impact residents currently receiving treatments at institutions that may not receive approval under the new framework? Will they be forced to switch providers mid-treatment, potentially compromising their health and well-being? How will the Ministry ensure equitable access to care across all regions? Is there recourse for residents if their preferred local medical institution loses approval? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that residents' voices are heard and their concerns addressed if their preferred provider is no longer approved?”
“This Bill appears to grant broad powers to approve or restrict specific delivery modes without a clear criterion. Why is this the case? Granting extensive powers without clear guidelines can lead to ambiguity and unpredictability. How will residents know which telehealth services are claimable under MediShield Life? A clear and readily available list of approved services is essential for both patients and providers. Furthermore, what will happen to existing telehealth claims when a provider's delivery mode approvals are modified? Will there be a grace period or transitional arrangements to avoid disrupting ongoing care? Clarity on this point is important to maintain patient trust and ensuring continuity of care. Regularly updating and clearly communicating telehealth claim approvals to the public can improve accessibility and transparency. Additionally, should we not include statutory consultation requirements before restricting service delivery modes? Such consultations would ensure that decisions are well-informed and consider the needs of all stakeholders while protecting patients from unintended consequences. Despite the risks, telehealth holds immense potential for improving healthcare access, especially for those with mobility limitations. We must ensure this potential is not hampered by unnecessary restrictions. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed expansion of means-testing powers under section 28(1A) may spark anxiety among constituents. While I recognise the importance of responsible resource allocation, this expansion requires careful consideration to prevent vulnerable individuals from falling through the cracks. Simply expanding these powers without simultaneously strengthening the appeals process and establishing clear safeguards can be problematic.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill promises important refinements to our MediShield Life scheme. Nevertheless, I seek clarifications on four key areas to ensure fair healthcare access for all Singaporeans, especially the elderly and those with limited mobility. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about the potential impact of moving towards online publication on our less digitally savvy seniors. The Bill proposes that premium rates be specified in a prescribed manner, which may include a website. While I understand the intention to leverage digital platforms, many seniors still struggle with digital literacy. This shift could create a significant barrier to assessing vital information about their healthcare costs. How will elderly residents who may not feel comfortable navigating online resources, access and understand their premium rates? What safeguards will be implemented to ensure they receive adequate notice of any premium changes? Unexpected increases without sufficient warning could place an undue financial burden on vulnerable individuals. Should we not mandate both online and offline channels for premium information to ensure accessibility, transparency and fairness for all Singaporeans, regardless of their digital skills? [Mr Speaker in the Chair] In our digital-first, but not digital-only society, we must ensure our elderly residents are not left behind in understanding their healthcare costs. One suggestion is to conduct community outreach programmes for seniors to help them understand premium changes. Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Telehealth Approval Framework can be clearer in some sections. This could impact telehealth access, particularly with the new provisions in section 3A regarding "service delivery mode".”
“Firstly, maintaining a balance between international cooperation and privacy, safeguarding customer data held by financial institutions, ensuring protection against unjust foreign confiscation orders and lastly, reinforcing transparency in how residents' data and property are managed in international criminal cases. As we move forward, it is essential to uphold the delicate balance between justice and privacy. I hope the Government will carefully consider my clarifications. Let us work together to build a system that not only strengthens our defences, but also respects and protects the rights of every Singaporean. Only then we can truly create a secure, resilient and trusted nation. I support the Bill.”
“This additional layer of protection could prevent disproportionate or unjust seizures originating from other jurisdictions. Supporting international justice is essential, but we must also safeguard Singaporeans from potentially unjust claims on their property. I urge the Minister of State to address these concerns and confirm that the fundamental property rights of our citizens will not be compromised. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past two years, we have witnessed an alarming rise in money laundering cases, not only globally, but right here in Singapore. I have consistently advocated for stronger measures against financial crime, both inside and outside this House. I appreciate the Government's firm stance demonstrated through recent Bills like the Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters Bill and the Corporate Service Providers Bill. With each of these Bills, I have raised questions in Parliament regarding major financial crimes and our strategies for tackling them. Tightening our laws, collaborating closely with international partners and enhancing due diligence are vital in today's landscape. Staying vigilant and proactive is our only means to ensure Singapore remains a trusted financial hub. Protecting their integrity is paramount. This is why I am glad this Bill is being tabled. It represents another critical step forward in our enforcement against complex financial crimes. I fully support our fight against cross-border crime. These issues are significant concerns for all Singaporeans, especially as criminals grow increasingly sophisticated. If implemented with care, these amendments will substantially bolster our enforcement efforts. However, I have raised several clarifications.”
“The updated regulations permit financial institutions greater access to customer data, which can be a sensitive matter for many residents. What protections are in place for Singaporean and Permanent Resident customers when their financial data is requested by foreign entities? There is considerable variation in data protection standards globally. How can we ensure that our citizens' financial data will be safeguarded, regardless of the requesting country? Additionally, the Bill must promote transparency. There should be a clear and transparent process for residents to be informed of any data requests involving their accounts. Ideally, they should have the right to contest these requests. Singaporeans place great trust in our financial system. We must not allow unchecked access to customer data by foreign entities to erode that trust. Residents deserve assurances that their privacy and financial security are protected. Furthermore, as Singapore is recognised as a safe haven for global investments, can the Minister of State confirm that our banks have the authority to refuse financial disclosures if complying would harm their reputations? We need to understand whether they can decline unjust requests. Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point pertains to property confiscation orders. This is an issue that directly affects Singaporeans with assets or ties overseas. What safeguards exist to protect residents from unjust foreign confiscation orders? Given that foreign legal standards can vary widely, how can Singaporeans contest potentially unfair seizures based on foreign laws? I also propose implementing a cap or stricter criteria for enforcing foreign confiscation orders. Will there be a review process to ensure that foreign orders are sound or even in line with our local laws?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents another critical step forward in strengthening our enforcement against complex financial crimes. However, the Bill needs examination to ensure we balance effective crime control with the rights of Singaporeans. Today, I would like to raise several clarifications. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have concerns regarding privacy and safety. The proposed changes, particularly those broadening cooperation and permitting statements for foreign criminal probes, raise important questions. How can we ensure that we balance international cooperation with our citizens' fundamental right to privacy? Striking this balance is challenging. We need strong assurances that the privacy rights of Singaporeans will not be compromised. Additionally, what is the plan for cooperating with non-prescribed foreign countries? While broad cooperation can be beneficial, it must come with reciprocity and robust safeguards. Moreover, how will the Government protect sensitive information shared with foreign authorities, ensuring it is used only for its intended purpose? Can the Minister of State outline these safeguards and explain how they will be enforced? It is important that residents are informed if and when their information is shared, and that they have avenues for recourse if they believe their rights have been violated. Cooperation is key to tackling cross-border crime. However, it should not come at the expense of our residents' privacy. I urge the Minister of State to address these concerns to alleviate the worries of Singaporeans and ensure that the right safeguards are in place. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point addresses the confidentiality of banking information.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State and Minister of State for their replies. Incidents like this can affect public trust in telecommunications as a reliable service. So, in assessing future response strategies, is the Ministry considering any initiatives to improve public awareness or preparedness in such outrages? For example, I think earlier there was mention about these alternative lines. Are there plans to better educate the public on these alternative ways to assess emergency services if similar outrages affect these public channels in the future?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Many of my Yio Chu Kang residents are seniors and many of them have mobility issues. Hence, telehealth services would be useful for them. In fact, we are working with National Healthcare Group (NHG) Polyclinic to get some of my seniors to use telehealth services rather than make a physical trip to the polyclinic. I hope this incident will not hinder the push for telehealth services, which will benefit many residents on the ground. My question is, given this incident, can the Ministry share how we can continue to promote telehealth services amongst the seniors and continue to build trust and confidence in this mode of service delivery?”
“Third, we need to strike the right balance between protecting our social interests and maintaining Singapore's attractiveness to global insurers. And fourth, we should implement an impartial appeals process to ensure that decisions are fair and inspire confidence. I am also glad to see that it was reported that Allianz has agreed to consider revising its offer to Income after the current deal was prevented by the Singapore Government. This demonstrates a willingness to work within our regulatory framework. This also underscores a critical point: mutual respect between private companies and the Government is critical for maintaining a healthy business environment. It ensures that while we protect the interests of our people, we remain open to constructive dialogue with global investors. Let us ensure that this Bill positions us for growth while safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders, both local and international. Let us keep the process clear, fair and consistent. This is not just about regulatory oversight. It is about protecting our reputation as a trusted financial hub and, most importantly, prioritising the well-being of Singaporeans. Let us support the amendments with these considerations in mind, so that we can build a stronger, more resilient insurance sector. With this, I support the Bill.”
“Will this Bill create uncertainty for global insurers looking to enter Singapore? How can we ensure that our regulatory environment remains predictable and welcoming for foreign investments? Singapore has built a strong reputation as a pro-business destination. Could this discretionary power be perceived as a barrier, making global insurers hesitant to invest here? Might it also discourage entities from collaborating with our co-operatives, fearing heightened Ministerial scrutiny? We need to find a balance, one that protects our social objectives while preserving Singapore's status as a regional insurance hub. What assurances can we provide to international insurers that decisions will be made fairly and transparently? If we want to keep Singapore competitive, we cannot afford to close the door on international insurers. Fourth, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides for an appeals process. But how exactly will this process function? Who will hear these appeals? Will it be the same Minister who initially rejected the application, or will there be an independent committee? For the appeal process to be truly fair, it must be impartial. If the same person makes the decision and hears the appeal, how can we be confident that justice will be served? An independent appeals process would instill greater confidence in those affected by these decisions. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important step in strengthening our insurance sector. But we must ensure that our approach is balanced and transparent. First, we need clear definitions of what "public interest" is to avoid ambiguity and ensure accountability. Second, we must establish guiding principles for the Minister's decision-making to ensure consistency and maintain public trust.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2024. While I understand the need for regulatory oversights, there are important clarifications I would like to raise. First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill introduces a new section that allows the Minister to approve or reject applications involving co-operative insurers based on what is considered "public interest". While this power can be necessary, it raises questions about accountability and transparency. What exactly does "public interest" mean in this context? Will there be clear guidelines to ensure decisions are made transparently and not subject to varying interpretations? Transparency is key when invoking public interest. How can we ensure that those affected have a clear understanding of the reasoning behind these decisions? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, public interest must be more than just a catchphrase. It should come with clarity and accountability. Every decision should be transparent, especially when it directly impacts our people. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications about the extent of the Minister's powers. The Bill grants the Minister authority to decide or veto sales or acquisitions. This raises a critical question: will there be a set of guiding principles for such decisions? Singaporeans deserve to know that decisions affecting them are made with their best interests in mind, free from undue influence. Clear guidelines can provide that assurance and help maintain trust in the decision-making process. Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must consider the implications of this Bill for global insurers. How we wield these powers could send a strong message to international businesses.”
“Equally important, we need to make training facilities more accessible for our para athletes, giving them the space to rise above unique challenges and perform at their best. Let us also recognise the need for a dedicated community that supports athletes' mental well-being as they transition into their post-sports careers. Let us honour not just the triumphs of our Team Singapore Olympians and Paralympians, but also the sacrifices and dedication that fuel their success. Let us remember that behind every medal is a story of resilience, perseverance and national pride. Our athletes inspire us, unite us and remind us of the power of dreams. Many of them are here today. It is our duty to stand by them, not just in moments of victory but throughout their journey. This means investing in their future, ensuring their well-being and celebrating their efforts, win or lose. I call on this House to rally behind our athletes, not just with words of appreciation but with a sustained commitment to their growth and success. Let us build a Singapore where every aspiring athlete knows that they have a nation behind them supporting their dreams and cheering them on. With that, I wholeheartedly support this Motion and urge all of us to be unwavering champions for those who wear the flag on their chest with pride.”
“This approach, while potentially leading to varying levels of support across different sports, encourages our NSAs to strive for excellence, broaden their reach and inspire greater participation. Yet, I understand that this perspective may raise concerns. Some may question if this means focusing less on sports like football, which has traditionally seen significant investment but has faced some challenges in delivering results. But we should not overlook the deep connection many Singaporeans have with sports, like football, and its power to inspire unity and community spirit. Thus, with any approach, we must balance the goal of strategic investments with the broader value that sports bring to our society. By focusing our resources thoughtfully, we can maximise the positive impact of sports on our nation, ensuring that all Singaporeans, regardless of their sporting passion, feel a sense of pride and inspiration. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, supporting our athletes truly takes a village. It requires the entire ecosystem, from parents and coaches who nurture talent at a young age to the Government and private sector providing financial backing and to the community cheering them on at every step. This holistic support enables athletes to excel in their sporting careers and ensures that they are cared for as they transition into life beyond competition. We have made significant progress in supporting our athletes through initiatives like the spexPotential Scheme, the spexEducation Scholarship and the CPF top-ups for spexScholars. These programmes ensure that their education and future are secure, even as they pursue excellence in sports.”
“CPF top-ups for spexScholars ensure their future, housing, healthcare and retirement remains secure, even as they pursue their dreams. Initiatives to make universities and workplaces more athlete-friendly further ease their path. Additionally, we must also consider greater accessibility in training facilities for our para athletes. They face unique challenges and often have to rise above societal expectations, facing obstacles beyond those of their able-bodied peers. Enhanced access to facilities can ensure that they too, have an environment that nurtures their talents and supports their pursuit of excellence. The establishment of the home of Team Singapore in Kallang, announced by the Prime Minister at this year's National Day Rally, is another significant milestone. It is more than a facility. It is a dedicated space where our athletes can train, study and live. By integrating the relocated sports school into this campus, we are creating an ideal environment for our athletes to thrive. It is a commitment to their daily grind and their highest ambitions, a signal that sports can be a viable career. These efforts matter because our athletes do more than just compete. They inspire us. Their achievements unite us, reminding us of what is possible when we push beyond our limits. They embody resilience and instill a sense of national pride that goes beyond medals. However, we must acknowledge that these initiatives require significant resources and we must be strategic with our investments. The Government should prioritise support for athletes and sports that deliver the greatest return for Singapore, whether that is through national unity or international acclaim.”
“The Government has been a critical part of this, from launching the spex scheme 30 years ago to establishing the Sports School in 2004. We have seen milestones, like the spex grants in 2007 and spex scholarships in 2013, which have transformed the sporting landscape. Today, organisations, like the SSI and NYSI, form the backbone in nurturing and supporting our aspiring athletes. The mental well-being of our athletes deserves our attention, not just as they strive for victory but also as they transition into their post-sport careers. This can be a particularly vulnerable time and we must ensure that support systems are in place to navigate this change. Do we currently offer a dedicated space where athletes in their post-sport careers can connect, share experiences and contribute their insights to shape future sporting policies? Creating such a community could be invaluable, both in safeguarding their mental health and in harnessing their expertise for the betterment of sports in Singapore. This would demonstrate a genuine commitment to their overall well-being, beyond the medals and accolades. The private sector has also played a role. Contributions from the Tote Board and sponsorships for the Major Games Awards Programmes highlight that supporting our athletes is a shared responsibility. It reminds us that our athletes are not alone on this journey. I am heartened that Singapore has taken further steps to support our sports community. The new spexPotential scheme ensures that aspiring athletes receive support earlier in their journey, long before they compete for regional and international honours. The spexEducation Undergraduate Scholarship guarantees that their education remains a priority.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, sports has always been a cornerstone of my life. From my school days to university and beyond, it has shaped who I am. In secondary school, I was part of the school's gymnastics team. In junior college, I competed in canoeing and dragon boating. These experiences went beyond competition. They taught me resilience, teamwork and determination, values that our Team Singapore, Olympians and Paralympians embody today. As a former sportsperson and teacher, I have had the opportunity to understand sports from the inside out. While studying sports science at Loughborough University, a leading sports institution, I saw first-hand, the grit required to compete at the very elite level. I still remember those freezing winter mornings, waking up at 4.00 am and working as a lifeguard, watching national-level swimmers push through endless laps until 8.00 am, only to head straight to class. Later, they would return for another training session in the evening. That level of commitment is something I see mirrored in our athletes back home. In Singapore, I have had the privilege of closely observing our national canoeing team. Their schedule is just as demanding, training many times a week, often with two sessions a day. Their spirit is unyielding, their pursuit of excellence is relentless. Our athletes possess a unique drive, persistent to a fault and talented beyond measure. Yet, success often comes with sacrifice. For many of our athletes, the pursuit of excellence means setting aside tertiary education, stable careers and even long-term financial security. These sacrifices are not always visible behind the shine of medals, but they are real and they deserve our recognition and support. Support for our athletes has grown over the years.”
“We must invest in sophisticated technology to stay agile in the face of AI advancements. It is equally important to empower citizens with digital literacy skills. Addressing foreign interference and ensuring swift enforcement within the election timeline is critical. Democracy must be defended not just at the ballot box, but in the digital space. Let us create legislation that safeguards our democracy and elections while protecting our citizens. I support the Bill.”
“Moreover, with a condensed nine-day campaign period, what assurances can the Minister provide regarding timely and decisive enforcement? The rapid spread of online content demands an equally rapid response. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Bill. It is critical for protecting the integrity of our election process. Globally, we have seen the threat that deepfakes pose to elections. For example, in Moldova, a video of the President endorsing a pro-Russian political party caused public discord; in Slovakia, audio clips surfaced of a liberal party leader allegedly discussing vote rigging; and in the US, AI-generated content showed a dystopian future following President Biden's re-election bid. The threat of deepfakes is not a distant possibility. It is already at our doorstep. Deepfakes of our Senior Minister and Prime Minister have been used to promote fake investment products. We saw just now a deepfake of Minister Josephine Teo. This highlights the potential for misuse, even outside election cycles. These examples show that the threat is real, immediate and happening globally. Deepfakes can erode trust, destroy reputations and mislead citizens. We cannot allow technology to hijack our democracy. That is why I have raised several key questions today. Free speech should not be a free pass for spreading falsehoods. The Bill must carefully balance the freedom of speech with measures to counter misinformation. It needs clear definitions and safeguards against biased enforcement. Transparency and democracy must be upheld. Countering deepfakes demands a multi-faceted strategy. For instance, how will this Bill tackle fake accounts and deepfakes from private messaging channels?”
“It is not enough to penalise the creators of misinformation. We must arm our citizens with the tools to fight it themselves. We need to equip them to critically assess digital media, identify manipulation and avoid falling prey to misinformation. This cannot be achieved overnight. It requires a sustained, long-term investment in digital literacy programmes. Beyond penalties, is the Ministry planning any public education campaigns? Specifically, are there initiatives addressing AI-generated misinformation and improving digital literacy? How will these efforts be tailored to different demographics? Sixth, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill needs further clarification regarding its application to foreign influence. While it prohibits election advertising by foreign entities, the borderless nature of online content makes preventing foreign interference a challenge. How does the Ministry plan to address cases where content from overseas is designed to influence our elections? What protocols are in place to track, identify and block foreign-sourced digital manipulation? How can this be enforced on foreign-based entities, for instance, online media outlets based in foreign jurisdictions? Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must consider whether the timeframe for this Bill's provisions is sufficient. The Bill's provisions apply only after the Writ of Election is issued. However, misleading or manipulated content could circulate long before the campaign period begins. Given that election advertising can start unofficially well before the writ is issued, why does the Bill only cover the period after the writ is issued? Has the Ministry considered a broader timeframe? Could we establish a "pre-election period" with safeguards to address early content?”
“Furthermore, given the extremely short nine-day election campaign, how will the Ministry ensure timely follow-up on such requests? It is essential to balance efficiency and due process. We must ensure that fake accounts and deepfakes are not just detected but swiftly taken down before they poison public opinion. Additionally, I wonder if we are being harsh enough. Should we, for instance, mandate that perpetrators bear the onus of ensuring complete removal of such content from the Internet rather than simply issuing a correction notice? Many would simply ignore a correction notice and continue consuming the content. Should we not implement more punitive measures by working with social media companies to take down fake content? What mechanisms are in place for this? Considering the large amount of resources potentially incurred for rectifying the damage, we should consider holding perpetrators accountable for it. Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must acknowledge the challenges posed by rapid technological advancements. While this Bill focuses on identifying and mitigating manipulated content, we must recognise that detection technology may lag behind AI-driven content generation. This creates a real risk. Harmful content could spread before effective action can be taken. Given the fast-evolving nature of AI and digital manipulation, how does the Ministry plan to stay ahead? What systems, partnerships or research initiatives will ensure robust detection capabilities? How will corrective actions be taken swiftly and accurately? Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, legislative measures must be coupled with public awareness and education. Our citizens deserve the power to discern truth from lies. They must protect themselves and our democracy from the invisible hand of manipulation.”
“We must remember – private does not mean harmless. Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to address concerns regarding political overreach. The vagueness of certain definitions within the Bill could be concerning. The terms "realistic but false representations" and "manipulated content" are broad. I understand the need to capture the evolving nature of digital manipulation. Nonetheless, this breadth could lead to confusion or inconsistent application. It could even lead to potential overreach in enforcement. I urge the Ministry to offer greater clarity on this point. Could the Minister elaborate on the specific types of content that would be considered an offence under this law? Additionally, how does the Ministry intend to differentiate between malicious manipulation and minor alterations? This would include artistic edits or satirical content. Clear definitions and guidelines are important. They ensure that this law meets its purpose while avoiding the stifling of legitimate political expression. Will the Ministry provide examples of content that would fall under this Bill's purview? Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must confront concerns about potential selective enforcement. The enforcement mechanisms could be seen as vulnerable to bias. This is particularly true for the provision allowing corrective directions by the Returning Officer. Such bias could lead to possible allegations of selective application. What concrete assurances can the Ministry provide to guarantee transparency and impartiality? How will the enforcement of this Bill remain demonstrably free from any unfair allegations of political bias? This is critical, especially since the Bill empowers candidates to request such corrective directions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill aims to safeguard the integrity of our elections. It is a response to the increasingly sophisticated technological threats we face today. However, I believe that robust legislation requires careful consideration. It also needs clear articulation to avoid unintended consequences. In this spirit, I seek several clarifications on the Bill. First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must carefully maintain the balance between two critical elements. These are our citizens' fundamental right to freedom of expression and our collective responsibility to share information responsibly. The Bill introduces significant penalties for sharing digitally altered content. Under clause 2, section 61a, it states that this offence does not apply to "private and domestic communications." Yet, many political messages are not created by political parties or candidates themselves. Instead, supporters or proxies, including fake accounts, generate these messages. Deepfake videos and misinformation can circulate not just on social media, but also through messaging channels, such as WhatsApp and Telegram. They are transmitted very quickly and can go viral easily. These channels are, hence, often more damaging than we realise. The harm could be done before anything is reported. Therefore, can the Minister clarify how the Bill will address fake accounts and deepfakes from these private accounts and messaging channels? Specifically, how will it deal with deepfakes or messages shared through these supposedly private communication channels? While we acknowledge the need to balance freedom of expression, we must also differentiate between harmless satire and intentional falsehoods. This distinction applies even if the content is shared privately.”
“Thank you Mr Speaker. I declare I work in a global investment firm that owns one of our rail operators. I have two clarifications. First is, I am glad to hear that the Ministry has outlined the steps taken to address the recent disruptions. But given these disruptions, can the Ministry share whether a comprehensive review of the entire MRT network is deemed necessary at this point in time? And second, how would these breakdowns in services impact on the Government's effort to promote a car-lite society and encourage reliance on rail transport?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Given the recent retrenchment exercise, how does the Ministry measure the effectiveness of current protocols in terms of protecting workers interests? And beyond just the timing of notifications, how does the Ministry encourage companies to communicate more transparently with employees and unions during retrenchment processes? And could more structured dialogues between companies, employees and unions be considered part of the tripartite guidelines and best practices?”
“In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, while this Bill aligns Singapore with global tax standards, we must ensure they do not place undue burdens on local businesses. I have proposed several measures in my speech. First, provide targeted relief and resources to help SMEs adapt if MNEs downsize or relocate. Second, consider exemptions or reduced compliance requirements for smaller subsidiaries to avoid excessive strain on local businesses. Third, introduce incentives for supporting initiatives, such as the RIC, and address the implications of Pillar One of BEPS 2.0 to maintain Singapore’s competitiveness. Most importantly, we must guarantee that the benefits of this new tax regime are tangible within our own communities. Corporations that have thrived in Singapore on our good governance, infrastructure and talent pool should contribute to the public good. We must use the additional tax revenue to strengthen our public infrastructure, enhance healthcare services and upskill our workforce, ensuring that Singaporeans see and feel the direct benefits. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a moment for us to reaffirm Singapore’s commitment to fairness and sustainability. We must ensure that our policies support economic resilience and social equity while keeping Singapore an attractive hub for global businesses. I urge the Government to engage closely with MNEs, SMEs and the public to implement this Bill, ensuring it leads to sustainable growth, innovation and shared prosperity for all Singaporeans. This is our opportunity to ensure that Singapore continues to lead on the global stage while protecting the interests of our people. Let us take decisive action to make sure that this Bill not only promotes global tax fairness, but also builds a more resilient and equitable future for Singapore.”
“Additionally, could the increased tax revenue be used to support initiatives, such as the RIC or the Research, Innovation and Enterprise (RIE) 2025 plan? These measures will help Singapore remain a competitive and attractive destination for investments while also benefiting our local workforce. Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth concern centres on Singapore’s global competitiveness. Section 17, which defines the effective tax rate for MNEs, could make Singapore less attractive to foreign investors. If MNEs find more tax-friendly environments elsewhere, we could see companies relocating their operations. Presently, there have been MNEs moving their headquarters or downsizing their operations in Singapore. This could be due to a variety of factors, including costs of business. This tax regime could further diminish the allure of having a presence in Singapore. What measures are in place to prevent this? How will the Bill ensure that Singapore remains an attractive hub for MNEs, even while adhering to global tax regulations? I suggest introducing additional tax incentives for MNEs to reinvest their savings into local workforce development, which will benefit both businesses and our workers. This would position Singapore as not only a tax-efficient jurisdiction, but also an innovation-driven economy. Furthermore, we must not overlook Pillar One of BEPS 2.0, which reallocates taxing rights to the markets where consumers are based. This could have significant implications for Singapore. I would like to understand the Government’s plans to address these challenges and ensure that Singapore's economy remains resilient in the face of such global changes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my second concern relates to the increased compliance burden on local subsidiaries of MNEs, particularly smaller subsidiaries. Sections 31 to 36 deal with registration and record-keeping requirements. These could be challenging for smaller entities with fewer resources. Has the Government assessed the compliance costs for these smaller subsidiaries? Should we consider exemptions or reduced obligations for those that may struggle with these requirements? Additionally, section 36, which imposes surcharges for failure to register, could disproportionately affect these smaller entities. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must find a balance between global tax fairness and the practical realities faced by smaller businesses. If not handled carefully, these compliance demands could lead to layoffs or reductions in employee benefits. It is important that we consider exemptions or reduced compliance burdens for smaller subsidiaries, to avoid placing unnecessary strain on local businesses and their employees. Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the MTT is intended to generate additional revenue, there appears to be a lack of clarity on how this revenue will directly benefit Singaporeans. Section 58 touches on the recovery of unpaid MTT. However, it does not specify how these funds will be allocated for the public good. What is the estimated additional revenue from enforcing this Bill in Singapore? How will these funds be directed to improve public infrastructure, healthcare and workforce development? I suggest the creation of a dedicated fund to ensure that MTT revenues are reinvested into areas that directly benefit Singaporeans. This would not only boost public confidence in the Bill, but also ensure transparency and accountability in how the revenue is spent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will touch on the MMT Bill. This is an important piece of legislation with wide-ranging implications for Singapore's economy. As someone who works in a global investment firm, I am deeply interested in how this Bill will impact both our local and international business environments. While I fully support the principle of global tax fairness as stated in the Bill, I have clarifications about the potential impact on our local businesses and Singapore’s competitive edge in the global market. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first concern is the economic impact on local businesses, particularly SMEs. Although the Bill primarily targets MNEs, the effects could trickle down. If MNEs choose to relocate or scale back operations in Singapore, it could hurt SMEs that rely on these larger corporations for business. Section 14 outlines the top-up tax chargeable on MNEs, but it is critical to consider the ripple effects that this might have on SMEs. These smaller businesses may lose significant revenue if MNEs move to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Are our local SMEs prepared to adapt if MNEs downsize or leave? What strategies are in place to help SMEs diversify their business models? Do we have initiatives to enhance their competitiveness so that they can remain resilient in this shifting landscape? Mr Speaker, Sir, if MNEs do shift their operations due to this new tax regime, we must equip our SMEs to respond effectively. Government-SME partnerships and incentives for innovation within local industries will be key to help these businesses thrive. I would also urge that we build in support measures for SMEs to mitigate any negative effects from potential MNE relocations.”
“Some cancers detected and treated early pose a low risk of recurrence. Similarly, stroke patients who have been treated and have recovered well are less likely to experience another stroke. Should not these patients, who are now relatively healthy, be reconsidered for inclusion? What avenues for recourse or appeal will CPF members have if their conditions improve but they are still rejected from extended HPS coverage or face higher premiums? Who will be on the medical review board making these decisions? Can individuals undergoing treatment for common age related conditions, or those at risk of developing them, expect to be covered under the expanded HPS? Just as important, how will we communicate the eligibility criteria to the public in a transparent and easily understood way? Clarity is essential to avoid disappointment and to ensure residents can rely on the protection that HPS promises. In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the intent behind these policy changes is commendable, we must commit to transparency and clear communication. When premiums increase, we must be prepared to explain why and show how these changes will bring tangible benefits. We must also outline the support available for those who struggle with higher premiums, such as subsidies, payment plans, or alternative solutions. Most importantly, we need to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent undue burdens and provide fair access for all Singaporeans, regardless of their financial situation. With these commitments, I believe this Bill can enhance the well-being of all Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.”