Parliament sitting 7 July 2026
Sitting date: 2026-07-07
Fifteenth Parliament, First Session, Volume 96, Sitting No 32 — Tuesday, 7 July 2026. The House met at 10:30 AM.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Goh Pei Ming: Thank you. There is currently no evidence to suggest that this is a coordinated campaign by any particular government or organisation. Investigations revealed that the content likely originated from a China-based platform, and was subsequently carried on other platforms and websites, including those in our local information space.
The posts attempted to sow discord by inciting ill-will against our Indian community and sought to undermine Singapore's model of multiculturalism. The content was assessed to constitute an offence of knowingly promoting feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on grounds of race and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony in Singapore under section 298A(a) of the Penal Code. The Government has issued Disabling Directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) to block access by Singapore users to the 14 online social media posts.
In recent years, there has been an increase in artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled and inauthentic content on a range of topics which has seeped into Singapore's online infospace. We monitor the infospace closely and will not hesitate to take measures if it is in Singapore's interests.
The Government regularly reviews our laws to ensure that they are updated and fit for purpose to deal with the evolving landscape.
Aside from the legislative measures, building up a discerning and resilient populace against external influences is equally important. The Ministry of Defence drives National Education and Total Defence to build a shared understanding of Singapore's foundational values and principles to deepen our public's sense of identity and nationhood, and to strengthen awareness of and collective resolve against threats that may undermine social cohesion and resilience, including foreign interference. The SG101 website is a one-stop Government site that consolidates educational resources on foreign interference, as well as Singapore's positions on sensitive issues to help the public better understand our national positions and to stay resilient against attempts to divide us.
The National Library Board works to cultivate critical reading as a foundational skill and to engage the public through its Source, Understand, Research, and Evaluate (S.U.R.E) programme, and this equips our citizens with the skills to verify and fact-check online content.
In addition, we regularly conduct briefings, dialogues and workshops to raise awareness of foreign interference amongst groups including our public servants, national servicemen and students. The Ministry of Home Affairs also rolled out a campaign in 2025 on the use of deepfake videos, AI-generated content and other inauthentic online posts to influence overseas jurisdictions to alert Singaporeans to this threat. This effort will continue, so as to raise awareness of the role that our Singaporeans can play.
Ultimately, a discerning population is the most important defence against attempts to influence or divide our society. We urge Singaporeans to be discerning when consuming and disseminating information online, and to reject all attempts to divide our society.
We take a serious view of threats to our social cohesion and racial harmony, including external actors, and will act resolutely against them.
Some of this information, we may not find that it is suitable to release to the public, but we do look at every single case. We track the data over time to ensure that there is no coordinated campaign. More importantly, we will not hesitate to take action if there is a need to protect Singapore's interests.
Ultimately, we hold the view that any country out there would agree with us that we are just safeguarding our information space. And if we are interested in protecting our social cohesion – and we are – they will agree with us that such content is unacceptable and that the stance that we have taken is totally understandable.
This diversity in Singapore's fabric is our greatest strength, but it requires deliberate and constant protection against division. These videos strike at the very foundation of what makes Singapore home for all of us. That is why the Government acted firmly against these videos, especially also because they originated from a foreign source. We must reject all attempts that seek to divide us.
The Member asked about proactiveness and effectiveness. He also mentioned that we do have various Acts in place. Yes, I would like to reiterate that the Government has various legislative levers, some more recently introduced, in place to deal with such threats. These include FICA, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, POFMA, as well as OCHA. These are a range of levers that allow us to be able to act decisively should any such narrative or attempt to divide us arise.
I want to make the point that having these laws allows us to be very proactive, going upstream to demonstrate that we not only have the laws and that we are also willing to exercise these laws to protect our citizens and our social fabric before our racial harmony is affected. Our online directions under FICA were first issued or first used in July 2024. We have also used other various online directions under OCHA. They have been generally effective as the social media companies have worked with us and complied with the directions issued by the Government. Of course, we will from time to time continue to review the laws to ensure that they are fit for purpose, to continue to be proactive in this space.
In my main reply earlier, I have also listed various efforts in terms of public education. I would like to reiterate that a discerning public is the most effective tool to fight against such foreign interferences to split our society. Every incident that has happened is also a potential learning opportunity that we will use to educate our public to fight such division efforts.
Sir, Question Nos 6 to 12 on today's Order Paper addresses the use of dialects in films. The two sets of questions, while distinct, are related. So, may I seek your permission to allow the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) to provide the answers to Question Nos 6 to 12, before the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, and MDDI address any supplementary questions that Members may have? Members may be better informed after hearing both sets of responses and that might give better clarity to our discussions.
Mr Speaker: Yes, you may. Please proceed.
Mr David Neo: The Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched in 1979. By promoting a common language across the Chinese community, it helps Chinese Singaporeans from different dialect backgrounds to communicate with one another and it preserves access to the Chinese culture through Mandarin, rather than through separate dialects.
By simplifying the linguistic environment, it also gives our bilingual policy the best chance to succeed. These objectives remain valid today.
The Promote Mandarin Council, which comprises distinguished private and public individuals across all different sectors who are volunteers, regularly reviews the campaign to keep its framing, approach and objectives relevant and meaningful in Singapore's multicultural context. It is important to do so as the language environment continues to evolve.
Singapore families are using English more at home and much as our young want to be better at Mandarin, the opportunities to do so may be insufficient. So, hence the campaign has evolved from promoting Mandarin as a common language, to strengthening their appreciation for our Singapore Chinese cultural identity and making the learning of Mandarin fun and enjoyable. Its current tag line, "讲华语，我也可以", or "Speak Mandarin? Yes, I can", encourages everyone to learn Mandarin even as English becomes more dominant in daily life.
In education, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Education are setting aside more curriculum time to expose young Chinese students to Mandarin. For older students, we provide opportunities to those with the aptitude and interest to develop into bicultural talents. It is a challenging task and our Chinese teachers are working very hard. We will continue to do our best to continue to uphold the bilingual policy.
As the use of English continues to displace mother tongues, the use of dialects in Singapore, has continued to decline. We increasingly see dialect artistic materials, not as competing against the use of Mandarin, but as part of our heritage and cultural practices that deepen Singaporeans' appreciation of our cultural heritage. Hence, the National Arts Council supports arts groups that practises traditional forms of dialect cultures such as the Siong Leng Musical Association, which preserves Nanyin and Nam Hwa Opera, the Teochew opera group. The National Heritage Board recognises and supports practitioners and groups that transmit Chinese dialect culture. Clan associations, such as the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan or the Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan and Hainan Hwee Kuan also conduct regular dialect classes for interested Singaporeans.
Our linguistic diversity and heritage are distinctive parts of Singapore Chinese culture. The Government welcomes ideas to preserve dialect cultures while upholding the importance of Mandarin. We will continue to take in feedback and we will work with the community to consider carefully what further steps are appropriate to support and to promote our distinctive Singapore Chinese culture within our multicultural society.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Yes, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Speaker, my response will cover the questions raised by Mr Cai Yinzhou, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Kenneth Tiong, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Dr Neo Kok Beng in today's Order Paper, as well as related questions by Mr Darryl David and Ms Mariam Jaafar for subsequent Sittings. If Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.
Guidelines on language use in media are implemented by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). They support the Government's longstanding policy to promote Mandarin as one of four official languages and have generally served us well. However, as noted in the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY's) earlier reply today, Singapore's language environment has evolved. Recognising this, in implementing the guidelines, IMDA has exercised greater flexibility to allow more dialect content in films.
Each year, around 30 to 40 dialect films are screened at film festivals. At the same time, IMDA has allowed unrestricted screenings of films with substantial use of dialect, such as "881", "Long Long Time Ago" and "Wonderland". For the film "Dear You", IMDA has approved a total of 272 screenings of the Teochew version and is prepared to approve additional screenings should the film distributor request them in response to audience demand.
Beyond these implementation changes, several Members have called for the guidelines themselves to be reviewed. We recognise that the circumstances have changed since the guidelines were first introduced. There is, therefore, scope to consider how we can expand the space for dialects, while continuing to uphold the importance of Mandarin. In doing so, we should also take into account the different media platforms. For example, there are no dialect restrictions for arts performances or content available on the Internet and online streaming services. On free-to-air television and radio, we believe that Mandarin should continue to be the mainstay. For cinemas, we are prepared to allow more screenings of dialect-language films, so as to provide audiences with greater access to such content. We appreciate the feedback from Members and will carefully consider what further steps are appropriate.
Mr Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.
Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Speaker. I would like to declare my interest as Advisor to Chinatown Heritage Centre, an attraction referencing 1950s' Singapore, with our exhibits featuring dialect content. "Parasite" sparked conversations on inequality. "How to Make Millions before Grandma Dies" spurred end-of-life conversations. "Dear You" has renewed interest in the sacrifices of our forefathers and personal heritage. Locally, "Parasite" screened close to 12,000 sessions. "How to Make Millions before Grandma Dies" around 5,000. "Dear You", in Mandarin, 2,570; while its Teochew version, the original, a mere 126 public screenings as of early-July.
My first question to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) is, today, cinema is the only mainstream medium in Singapore where Chinese dialect content is restricted. Over-the-top (OTT) streaming on social media platforms and YouTube all already carry dialect content without equivalent restrictions. Should cinema remain subject to the campaign's dialect restriction rationale?
There is also a commercial case, our cinema operators have been under real pressure. "Dear You" shows that original dialect programming can be an asset, not a niche indulgence. Would the Ministry go further in the review to consider removing this default restriction? In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): As the saying goes, "The master leads you through the door, but the practice is yours to pursue." Yet dialect arts face a more fundamental problem today – the masters are growing old and no young people are walking through that door. Dialect artists are gradually passing on, with no one to carry the torch, and the flame risks being extinguished. What concrete plans does the MCCY have to support the preservation of dialect arts and ensure that they continue to thrive in Singapore?
Mandarin is the bridge that connects us in society. Dialect is what connects us, heart to heart, with our grandparents at home.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications on the review of the use of dialect in cinema and films. As I have explained in my reply, we are getting feedback from different parties – industry stakeholders and community partners. We appreciate and welcome the conversations that have arisen from the "Dear You" screening.
The Member talked about screening of the original Teochew dialect of the film being popular. We have said that we will provide flexibility and we will continue to provide flexibility. In practice, if the film distributor feels that audience demand is there for the Teochew original film, we will provide flexibility. But more importantly, having a Mandarin version creates a bigger access to many more audiences in Singapore.
The Member mentioned OTT platforms, Internet streaming for example. Different platforms have, historically, been regulated differently based on different reach of audiences. Cinemas, being a public-regulated exhibition space in Singapore, ought to be seen closer to mainstream media. Having said that, we appreciate that the language environment has changed and we are prepared to see how we can expand access to dialect movies as we undertake our review.
Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong. Sorry, Minister David Neo.
The Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr David Neo): Mr Speaker, to answer the Mandarin portion of the Member's question and in the spirit of the Speak Mandarin Campaign, if you would allow me to take this supplementary question in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): Chinese dialect art forms are an important part of the traditional arts. Over the years, the National Arts Council (NAC) has nurtured and supported Chinese dialect art forms through funding arts groups and help them engage audiences. In 2025 alone, NAC funded 10 productions, spanning Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese and Hainanese opera. We will continue to expand the space for our Chinese dialect art forms and nurture the next generation of practitioners.
Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask whether MCCY will be working with IMDA to review the relevance of the policy, which still requires permission for us to screen dialect films. Instead of trying to see where we can exercise more flexibility, why not consider offering the freedom of simply just screening these dialect films?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her support. MCCY and MDDI are open to ideas about how can we preserve dialect cultures while upholding the importance of Mandarin, and we will continue to take in all the feedback and consider carefully the appropriate next steps on how to do this well.
Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Government: given that the media is the primary vehicle for youth cultural engagement, whether either Ministry agrees to review the lifting of the 1981 dialect broadcast restrictions? And a question for Senior Minister of State Tan: will the Ministry consider establishing a standing institutional arrangement between IMDA and the National Heritage Board (NHB), with regard to a consultation on the heritage aspects for dialect films?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, IMDA works very closely with different Government agencies including the NHB. There is no need for an explicit institution arrangement as they are already doing so. We do consider the context in which the dialect is used in the film — whether it reflects the cultural context of the movie of that time.
Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): I have two supplementary questions, one for MCCY. What steps is MCCY taking to ensure that Chinese-dialect cultures are being systematically documented, preserved and transmitted? The second is for MDDI: will the Ministry publish clearer guidelines incorporating the said flexibility for dialect general screenings?
Mr David Neo: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions. When it comes to documentation, the NHB works very closely with heritage practitioners, clan associations and all who are keen, to research and document our dialects and cultural heritage. We will continue to work with all our clan associations, heritage practitioners and all who are keen to document and to expand the space for our Singapore Chinese dialect culture.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): For the past 40 years or so, has the Speak Mandarin Campaign not been geared more towards encouraging English-speaking Chinese Singaporeans to speak Mandarin, instead of changing the language speaking habits of dialect-speaking Singaporeans? Can case-by-case basis in the guidelines be interpreted as allowing certain dialect films a general commercial release, without restrictions on the number of screenings?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, our implementation of the guidelines, of the regulations have evolved with the changing language environment. We are reviewing our current film classification framework with respect to the use of dialect in films. We will take some time to do so because it is an evolution, it is a thoughtful approach.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): As Singapore's population ages, does the Government regard original language Chinese dialect films as supporting active ageing, social inclusion and inter-generational bonding? Has IMDA assessed audience demand for original language Chinese dialect films, particularly among seniors and younger Singaporeans?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I must add that beyond just films and cinema, there are many other venues for seniors and younger ones to engage with the dialect culture — clan associations, programmes, different streaming applications or even activities in the community. We will certainly consider the different inputs as part of the review.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): (In Mandarin, then Teochew, then English): Mr Speaker, I have three questions. First: which version did the Ministers themselves watch? Second: is the Government's goal to promote Mandarin, or to restrict dialects? If the goal is simply to promote Mandarin, will the Government review all measures that exist purely to restrict dialects? Third: dialect courses run by clan associations are currently open only to members of the respective dialect group. Will the Government consider expanding eligibility to a wider audience?
Mr David Neo: (In Mandarin): First of all, we Ministers have no time to watch movies. [Laughter.] (In English): To the Member's question about dialect classes, we work with the clan associations all the time. If there is a demand, I think they will be more than happy to extend their classes to more people.
Mr Tan Kiat How: (In Mandarin): This film has been deeply moving and has resonated with local audiences. As Singapore's linguistic landscape has evolved, the Government has from time to time reviewed its approach to dialect films, adjusting to meet demand. We will continue to listen to public feedback and give serious consideration to whether restrictions can be further relaxed.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): I would like to thank IMDA for its flexibility in allowing the filming of "Dear You" in the Teochew dialect. Will IMDA consider adopting a more open and transparent approach when it comes to dialect films going forward?
Mr Tan Kiat How: (In Mandarin): We have always maintained a practical and flexible approach. If demand grows, we can allow more screenings of Teochew dialect films. But what is equally important is that we do not lose sight of our original objective — and that objective is to promote the speaking of Mandarin.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): I wonder whether we might consider designating one of our six radio stations to play songs from the olden days – perhaps with around 50% in Mandarin and the remaining 50% in dialects.
Mr Tan Kiat How: (In Mandarin): We feel that Mandarin should remain the mainstream language. That said, there is some flexibility — on Channel 8, for instance, there is a designated morning slot for dialect broadcasts. We have taken note of the warm reception that "Dear You" has received from our people, and we will look into this film policy further.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the related oral questions, as well as written questions, all filed by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, for a subsequent Sitting. The hon Member may wish to withdraw her Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if her queries are answered in today's Sitting.
Sir, these questions pertain to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Mutual Evaluation Report of Singapore 2026 and span matters within the purview of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
In the event that there are any supplementary questions that pertain to MOF, MHA and MAS, Sir, I seek your permission for such supplementary questions to be answered by the Ministers overseeing those Ministries and agency.
Mr Speaker: Alright, please go ahead.
Mr Murali Pillai: Thank you, Speaker. Sir, the FATF is the global body that leads action to tackle risks associated with money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing (ML/TF/PF). Members periodically undergo a peer assessment, known as a "Mutual Evaluation" (ME), of their level of compliance with the FATF Standards and effectiveness of their anti money laundering, countering of terrorism financing (AML/CFT) and countering proliferation financing framework.
Singapore was one of the first countries and the first international financial centre assessed in this fifth round of the FATF MEs. Against this context, Singapore performed credibly and achieved better overall results than we did in the fourth round. In recognition of this, the FATF has placed Singapore on regular follow-up, which is the category for countries that have been assessed to have performed well.
With that, let me now cover the four areas raised in the PQs.
On international cooperation, the FATF found Singapore provides timely, quality and constructive assistance to our foreign counterparts. Straightforward requests are executed in as little as three days, while complex requests are executed within an average of about 10 weeks. We will continue to strengthen our cooperation with foreign counterparts, including better explaining our requirements for assistance.
Moving on to Beneficial Ownership (BO). The FATF acknowledged that Singapore has taken significant steps to prevent the misuse of legal persons and legal arrangements. First, we have a central BO registry for all companies and Limited Liability Partnerships. Second, AML/CFT-obligated entities, such as banks, are required to conduct customer due diligence checks. Third, BO information obtained by AML/CFT obligated entities is readily available to law enforcement agencies in a timely manner. We will carefully study the FATF's recommendations and consider whether further enhancements will be needed.
Let me now turn to the matter of financial penalties against financial institutions (FIs) and virtual asset service providers (VASPs). The FATF has acknowledged Singapore's stepped-up sanctions — the maximum financial penalties imposed on FIs and VASPs increased from $800,000 in the previous ME to $5.8 million this round. The FATF has recommended us to review the dissuasiveness and proportionality of our financial penalties. We will consider the recommendation.
Moving to countering proliferation financing. The FATF has found that Singapore has a robust countering proliferation financing legal framework, and strong coordination and cooperation among Singapore authorities. The FATF has recommended a deepening of our PF risk understanding and strengthening the risk mitigation measures. We will continue to improve our risk understanding as PF risks change and evolve.
In conclusion, Singapore has performed credibly in this latest round of MEs. Where the FATF has made recommendations to strengthen certain aspects of our framework, the Government will carefully study them and develop action plans that are risk-proportionate and suited to Singapore's context.
Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Allow me to first declare that I work in an FI. Two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State. The first is on BO: will the central register's coverage be extended to Variable Capital Companies and unregistered foreign companies, and if so, any timeline? The second: Singapore makes four times fewer Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) requests than it receives — how does the Ministry intend to increase the use of MLAs or other cooperation channels, especially for scams?
Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I am obliged to the hon Member for his two supplementary questions. On the first, our operational experience is that law enforcement agencies can and have gotten timely and accurate BO information in relation to legal persons and legal arrangements. There was no evidence that the BO information was inaccurate.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Mr Murali Pillai: Sorry, Sir. There is still a second supplementary question that has to be answered, Sir.
Mr Speaker: That is right. Who is going to take that? Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann): Sir, given the increasingly transnational nature of crime and the rapid advancement of digital finance, international cooperation is indeed key. Singapore will continue to issue MLAs where it is appropriate, but also pursue international cooperation in informal manner.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations, and ship-to-ship transfers are a key vector for PF. What else is the Government going to do about the maritime sector?
Mr Speaker: Minister Chee.
The Minister for National Development (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am answering in my capacity as the Deputy Chairman of MAS. Sir, these representative offices of foreign flag states based in Singapore are subject to and must comply with Singapore's laws, including United Nations Security Council sanctions. Singapore has and will continue to engage these entities to alert them to the PF risks and to remind them of their countering PF obligations.
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, Singapore disposed of 3.36 million tonnes of waste in 2025, with 1.67 million tonnes from domestic sources and 1.69 million tonnes from non-domestic sources. A breakdown by the type of the amounts of waste generated, disposed of and recycled can be found on the National Environment Agency (NEA) website.
Sir, technological solutions are available to recycle most waste streams if properly separated and treated. However, even if recycling is technically possible, it may not always be practical or economical to do so. There are several economic, logistical and behavioural factors determining our recycling rates: the business case for recycling has deteriorated due to rising logistics, freight, manpower and energy costs; export markets for recyclables have become increasingly stringent; and the contamination of recyclables remains a persistent challenge.
The definitions of recycling rates also vary internationally, with no consensus. Comparing recycling rates across countries is therefore not always meaningful if the bases are different.
However, we do believe that we can and must do more to strengthen resource circularity in Singapore. This is why the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and NEA will be reviewing the 2019 Zero Waste Masterplan. Under the 2019 Masterplan, we had set a target of 70% recycling rate by 2030 and to reduce the waste sent to landfill per capita per day by 30% by 2030. While we are striving to achieve these targets, we will review them for relevance.
For households, the blue bin network under the National Recycling Programme remains the primary channel for recycling. PWCs have deployed additional bins at around 700 locations and increased the collection frequency at more than 1,100 locations. NEA has also worked with all PWCs to offer dedicated collection of paper and cardboard since December 2025.
Recycling is important, but we must also reinforce the other "2Rs" – Reducing waste at the outset and Reusing where possible. Domestic waste generated per capita has fallen by 21% over the past decade, and non-domestic waste generated per unit gross domestic product has dropped by more than 30% over the same period.
I thank Members for their interest in the Zero Waste Masterplan review. The work on this is still ongoing. We will engage the public and industry as part of the review process and share more details in due course.
Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil. I have two supplementary questions. Will NEA consider adjusting gate fees for industrial and commercial waste collection to shift behaviour of businesses towards higher recycling rates, especially for food waste? Will there be any plans for NEA to consider a national recycling campaign to reduce blue bin waste contamination?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her questions. Indeed, we do have to shift behaviours. We will consider her suggestion on looking at the fees. The issue of blue bin contamination will certainly form an important part of the review of the Zero Waste Masterplan.
Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): I have two supplementary questions. Beyond recycling rates, can the Ministry consider complementary indicators and targets such as waste reduction, material circularity or recycling contamination rates? How will the Ministry assess whether public education campaigns are working?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her two supplementary questions. The study and the review will address whether we should introduce new indicators or change the emphasis between the indicators that we currently track. We do track the waste production recycling rates and many other outcome indicators, and we will continue to do so.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Our waste generation per capita has fallen from 1.06 kilogrammes in 2015 to 0.83 kilogrammes today. What are the measures MSE will take to help Singaporeans realise this? What are the policy thresholds that MSE considers to disincentivise single-use packaging?
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her questions and also for highlighting that waste generation is falling. The suggestions she has made around packaging regulations and RFID-based sorting are things we can look at. We have to look at it holistically — whether it is about a policy threshold for a disincentive, technology implementation or regulation, what is the outcome around waste generated.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question on whether there are any recycling plans in the pipeline for collaborations with our partners in the region or globally.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, about half of our recycling material is exported and processed overseas. Those arrangements allow for businesses to address a larger market and become sustainable as a commercial interest. We will continue to work with stakeholders and partners on making sure that this is a viable process.
The great majority of nursing homes placed on closer monitoring take adequate corrective actions and sustain the improvements. However, if the gaps are serious, repeated and there is a lack of serious effort to rectify them, such as in the case of Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, MOH will have to escalate our measures. These two cases of licence revocation are therefore an outcome of the regulatory framework working as intended.
In response to previous identified non-compliances, MOH conducted a thematic audit focusing on compliance with infection prevention and control practices, and basic custodial and nursing care for selected higher-risk operators. After the gaps were first identified, operators were given an opportunity to rectify the lapses, during which we intensified our monitoring of and engagement with the operators. When we ascertained that the remediation efforts were inadequate or were not sustained for the two operators, we revoked their licences and arranged for Vanguard Healthcare to step in.
MOH and the Agency for Integrated Care will also be sharing the findings of our recent audits, and the various manpower training and grant support available with the nursing home sector.
In response to Mr Fadli Fawzi, like all regulatory functions, it is impossible to eradicate and prevent recurrences of lapses. But with a robust regime, we can uphold good standards of operations and constructive relationships between the regulator and operator to better serve the residents.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked about claims and compensation. MOH's regulatory framework aims at assessing licensees' care delivery practices and protocols in compliance with the Healthcare Services Act to ensure resident safety. However, as the provision of care is a contract between the resident and the nursing home, MOH is unable to coordinate private claims from residents or their families against the nursing home.
Mr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, are there any other nursing homes that have been found to have significant lapses in an initial audit, similar to Windsor Convalescent Home and LC Nursing Home, but have been given the opportunity to rectify these lapses and are still being monitored by MOH? If so, how many? My second question is, will MOH consider providing smaller nursing home operators with greater support, for example, through a review of foreign manpower requirements? My third question is, for the transparency and welfare of residents, will MOH reconsider its stance of not informing residents and their family about audit findings before any regulatory action is confirmed?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, first and foremost, I would like to assure Members and members of public that MOH has a robust regime to make sure that our nursing home operators maintain good standard of care. The audit findings for these two nursing homes are a feature, not a bug of our regulatory framework. A large majority of these nursing homes with identified areas of improvement have taken steps to rectify them and sustain the improvements over time. To his point about supporting nursing homes, we do support our nursing homes through different support from manpower training grants to other support, raising the collective standard of care and professionalism. On informing the family members, MOH's first priority is to make sure those improvements are done, lapses are rectified and to make sure nothing endangers the residents' safety. MOH is continually looking at how we can provide meaningful information for caregivers and family members to make a decision.
A key success factor for such operations is clear communication with residents, notwithstanding that residents were largely very appreciative of the efforts to keep them safe. This is because in the absence of authoritative information, rumours will spread. Hence, in this case, the public would need to know exactly what to expect from the screening, the details and locations of the clusters, and be assured that the risk of TB transmission through casual visits or sharing a meal was low.
Further, measures will need to be taken to minimise disruptions to businesses and the community. Hence, eligible hawkers and tenants also received rental, and service and conservancy charge rebates to mitigate the temporary impact on their businesses.
Finally, partnerships between CDA, community stakeholders and grassroots organisations are critical. This ensures that public health measures are coordinated with community engagement and that any concerns are addressed promptly.
Mr Speaker: I will allow a short supplementary question. Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Obliged, Speaker. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I refer to the notice that was released by CDC on 30 April where it said that the mandatory screening exercise would take place over three days, 4 to 7 May. The impression that was created, in my view, suggested one of urgency and criticality, but the very act which triggered the exercise, the identification of 13 cases with genetic similarities, occurred over a period of three years from January 2023 to February 2026. So, does the Senior Minister of State not agree that in future, perhaps, a longer timeline for a screening exercise, or a differentiated regime for hawkers on the one hand and residents who may have transited through those areas, could be considered?
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications and questions. First, like I said in my earlier reply, CDA will have to do such precautionary screenings on a regular basis, when needed. This is really part of our more proactive sentinel surveillance stance. The second, CDA has explained that the 13 cases were over a period of three years, but recent developments in whole genome sequencing capabilities were able to track that the TB bacteria was genetically linked across 13 individuals. As a matter of precaution, we wanted to make sure we test everyone there, those who are working there and those who frequent facilities often. There are many learning points on how we could have explained it better, as the Member has pointed out, and we take those learnings to heart. CDA will see how to better improve the public communications to assure people.
On 14 January 2026, this House debated and passed a Motion on "Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of the Opposition". The resolutions in that Motion relating to Mr Singh were all dealt with and concluded on that day. One matter, however, remained outstanding.
Members will recall that in the fifth limb of that Motion, this House noted "that the High Court judgment and the Committee's findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, which have to be considered separately". That is unfinished business which has to be dealt with. The question is what to do with the findings regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal in the COP Report on the "Complaint against Ms Raeesah Khan for Untruth Spoken in Parliament", specifically the Committee's finding that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were untruthful to the COP about what was said at the 8 August meeting. I am now dealing with that today.
To recap briefly, a key issue in the COP inquiry was what was said at the meeting of 8 August 2021 between Ms Khan and the three senior Workers' Party (WP) leaders: Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. In particular, whether Ms Khan was told to suppress the fact that she had told an untruth in Parliament, that is, that she should "take it to the grave". The three WP leaders all denied this. The Committee found otherwise.
As the findings against Mr Singh were the most serious, the House referred his case to the Public Prosecutor. This enabled the matter to be independently investigated and if charges were brought, Mr Singh would be able to defend himself with the benefit of legal representation, and it would be for the Court to determine whether the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, the Committee found that they had lied about what was said at the meeting of 8 August. The Report stated, and I quote, "Ms Lim and Mr Faisal attended the 8 August meeting. They agreed (to Mr Singh's advice) that the Untruth should be buried, and that Ms Khan would not have to tell the truth. They did not tell the truth to the Committee about that meeting."
However, the Committee considered Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's roles in the matter to be subsidiary, and noted that both had been somewhat helpful to the Committee, albeit in a limited way. The Committee therefore recommended that consideration of what, if anything, should be done about their conduct of stating untruths to the Committee should be deferred until the conclusion of investigations and/or criminal proceedings against Mr Singh. Parliament accepted the Committee's recommendation.
This was done to be fair to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. If the investigations or court proceedings produced evidence inconsistent with the Committee's findings, Parliament could take that into account before deciding what, if any, action should be taken. Pending that process, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were given the benefit of the doubt.
The criminal proceedings against Mr Singh concluded on 4 December 2025 when the High Court Judgement was delivered.
On 14 January 2026, Parliament passed a resolution noting that the High Court Judgement and the Committee's findings had implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Let me explain why.
During the Committee hearings: (a) Ms Lim denied that Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to take her Untruth to the grave. She said that there was no discussion on this point. (b) Mr Faisal's evidence was that all three WP leaders did not remark on Ms Khan's confession that she had lied and did not discuss what to do about it. (c) Thus, at the COP hearings, both Ms Lim and Mr Faisal denied that Mr Singh had advised Ms Khan to take her lie to the grave, and said that the matter was not discussed.
However, now, after a full investigation, trial and appeal dealing with this issue, the Courts have expressly and conclusively found that: (a) At the 8 August 2021 meeting – at which all three WP leaders were present – Ms Khan's Untruth was discussed. (b) Mr Singh had lied when he denied that he told Ms Khan to "take it to the grave" – "it" meaning her Untruth.
The Courts' findings directly contradict Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's evidence. It follows logically from the Courts' findings that their evidence to the Committee was not true. The Court Judgment effectively confirmed the findings of the Committee in relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.
The question that arises is what is to be done in light of this. That is the unresolved issue that was deferred for decision.
In principle, if someone gave untrue evidence to a Committee of Parliament and did so knowingly or intentionally, this would be dishonourable conduct and a serious contempt of Parliament and would be dealt with under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA). Ordinarily, if there is evidence someone has lied to a Select Committee, I would initiate the PPIPA process for dealing with such conduct.
However, there are certain timelines within which such action must take place. Let me explain.
In most cases, offences under the PPIPA can be dealt with fairly quickly and in the same session of Parliament. Occasionally, the offence may occur in one session of Parliament but for whatever reason Parliament may not be able to deal with it immediately and it is dealt with in a subsequent session of Parliament. However, in the interests of finality, there are constraints on this.
Under section 22 of the PPIPA, Parliament has the power to punish offences which have been committed in either (a) the preceding session or (b) the last session of the preceding Parliament.
The previous Parliament – that is the 14th Parliament – was first constituted on 24 August 2020. It was prorogued on 24 March 2023 and re-opened on 10 April 2023. It was dissolved on 15 April 2025. The 14th Parliament therefore had two sessions.
In this case, the relevant conduct of Ms Lim and Mr Faisal took place in 2021, during the First Session of the 14th Parliament.
Mr Singh was convicted by the District Court on 17 February 2025. This was during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament. However, Parliament rightly deferred consideration of Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's cases until the Court process had concluded.
Those proceedings concluded only on 4 December 2025, when the High Court delivered its judgment. By then, the 14th Parliament had been dissolved, a General Election had taken place, and the 15th Parliament had begun.
Under section 22 of the PPIPA, this 15th Parliament can only deal with offences committed either in this Session of the 15th Parliament, or during the Second Session of the 14th Parliament.
As the conduct in question took place during the First Session of the 14th Parliament, it is no longer open to this 15th Parliament to impose any penalties in respect of this conduct under the PPIPA.
This does not mean that Parliament is without recourse. The House could, if it wished, pass a Motion to express regret at such conduct. Such a Motion would serve to signal Parliament's disapproval, as it did in Mr Singh's case in January this year. However, it should be noted that in the January Motion, this House had already signalled its clear disapproval of lying to Parliament or its Committees.
Given the very specific circumstances of this case, it is my view that no further action need be taken by this House in relation to the Committee's finding regarding Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Had the timelines been different, I would have proposed a different course of action.
This outcome has happened because even though this House was entitled to act on the Committee's findings in 2021, it decided to give Ms Lim and Mr Faisal the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Even though the Committee's findings have now been effectively confirmed by the High Court Judgment, the law in this case, the time-bar provisions of the PPIPA must be observed.
Unless any Member objects, we can now bring this matter to a close.
Mr Speaker: Before I call on hon Members for clarifications if any, I should point out that pursuant to Standing Order 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions. I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise, so that the Leader of the House can answer as many clarifications as possible. Likewise, I will ask Leader of the House to also keep your answers clear and concise. Any clarifications for the Minister? Ms Lim.
12.17 pm
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bill. Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.Motions
Reinforcing Singapore's Position as a Global Transport Hub (Motion)
12.19 pm
Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Mr Speaker, I move, "That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore."
The Motion was also entered on the Order Paper under the names of Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui, Mr Jackson Lam, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
The Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport, comprising Ms Tin Pei Ling as Chairperson and fellow PAP MPs Mr Edward Chia, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Jackson Lam, as well as Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Sharael Taha, moved this Motion as Singapore is compelled to rethink how it remains globally connected amid a dynamic geopolitical environment and emerging technological changes.
[Full debate — GPC members' and other MPs' speeches — to be entered separately, each with its own {{Hansard-item-cargo}} call and debate_id=reinforcing-transport-hub-motion-2026, speaker_mp_id set to that MP.]
6.56 pm
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications that Members would like to seek?
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this House affirms the importance of strengthening Singapore's long-term economic competitiveness by leveraging international cooperation, frontier technologies and world-class infrastructure to reinforce Singapore's position as a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, and to anchor good jobs in Singapore." — Tin Pei Ling
We are at the critical juncture today. We are committed to specific green goals, including on carbon emissions. We are also committed to building a vibrant aviation industry to provide good jobs and continued growth, but we cannot meet both ambitions under the current "business as usual" paradigm.
We need a leap of imagination and technology, a completely new way of doing things. It is a risky move, but we have made decisive breaks before.
Five decades ago, we made a big bet to move our airport from Paya Lebar to Changi. We put in place attractive air hub policies, make concerted efforts to grow airlines, airports and ground-handling capabilities. Today, we have a successful and multiple award-winning Changi Airport and SIA. Changi Airport is now ranked fourth business busiest airport in international passenger traffic and SIA has clinched the world's best airline successively.
Changi Airport is also one of the world's largest air cargo transshipment hub. Today, the aviation industry accounts for 5% of Singapore's GDP, or around $30 billion. Planning and construction for T5 is currently underway to create future capacity to handle up to 114 million passengers per annum, and SIA currently has 164 aircraft in its fleet, with another 49 aircraft on its order books.
The aerospace maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) industry houses regional headquarters for more than 130 companies, including leading ones such as Airbus, Boeing, Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, and so on. And Singapore's aerospace output exceeded $18 billion in 2024 and accounts for about 10% of global MRO output.
This series of successes in our aviation sector are not coincidental. It took many years of long-term planning, significant investment, systematic development and well-coordinated implementation. The same big leap to create our new and next competitive advantage must begin now.
Our Singaporean psyche of "never rest on our laurels" and "plan for rainy days" will keep us thinking of how do we stay ahead of competition, not just by doing more of what we excel in, but to identify critical weaknesses and develop new competitive advantages.
In key air hubs around the world, there are three constraints limiting growth. First, capacity; second, manpower; and third, carbon emissions.
With the third runway completed and T5 construction underway, the first constraint on capacity growth is being addressed.
The second constraint on manpower is an ongoing challenge. Many airport staff had left the industry during the pandemic. We have an ageing population and worsening climate conditions.
To tackle this, we have started concerted R&D innovation efforts in Changi Airport over the past few years, leveraging technology developments in AVs, robotics and AI. In the next decade or so, we should see a new generation of autonomous solutions deployed, particularly in traditionally manpower heavy roles, such as in-ground handling and facilities management. Also, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) has launched the One Aviation Manpower Fund to attract and retain talents in the aviation sector, with some $200 million of government grant allocated.
The third constraint in carbon emissions is probably the hardest to crack. In a recent report published by Transport and Environment, an aviation think tank, Changi Airport is ranked ninth in the world in terms of Scope 3 carbon emissions. As an expanding air hub, Changi Airport will inevitably chalk up higher carbon emissions so long as aircraft engines continue to burn jet fuel.
In 2024, CAAS released the Sustainable Air Hub Blueprint, the key recommendations included improving the efficiency of air traffic management, increased solar panel deployment in Changi and Seletar airports, expand the use of clean energy around ground vehicles and adopting sustainability aviation fuel by airlines. The Sustainability Aviation Fuel Levy Bill was passed in October 2025 in this House and will take effect from 2027, barring further delays.
The goal is to create certainty in aggregate demand, so as to prime local sustainability aviation fuel production at-scale by key producers, such as Neste.
In 2022, Neste established the world's largest sustainability aviation fuel production facility in Singapore. The intent is to start small with 1% to 3% sustainability aviation fuel uplift, because the price of sustainability aviation fuel is currently at least two to five times the cost of normal aviation fuel. Coupled with the recent war in the Middle East that already drove fuel prices to double their original levels, aviation authorities worldwide will be reluctant to mandate a more aggressive sustainability aviation fuel policy.
Moreover, feedstock availability to produce sustainability aviation fuel is limited, so the ability to meet long-term supply capacity at the market competitive cost may still be in question.
Like all fossil fuels, the supply of aviation fuel will one day run out. In recent years, there are two other streams of technology development for aircraft powered by clean energy.
In 2020, Airbus announced the hydrogen powered aircraft concept, ZEROe, for roll-out in 2035. However, presumably due to uncertainties of hydrogen as a fuel and the challenges of deploying hydrogen in an operational environment, Airbus has shelved the ZEROe prototype from 2035 by five to 10 years. Instead, Airbus announced, in March 2025, the Open Fan engine, next-generation single-aisle hybrid-electric aircraft that will enter operations in the second half of the 2030s.
Meanwhile, another track to design and manufacture battery-operated hybrid-electric and electric aircraft has been progressing steadily. With the rapid improvements in battery technology, it is estimated that in 15 years' time, hybrid-electric aircraft flights for short-haul flights within a range of 1,000 nautical miles will become a reality.
From Singapore, popular destinations within a 1,000 nautical mile radius include Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Phuket, Langkawi, Medan and Tioman. Worldwide, about half of flights operated are short-haul flights under three-hour flight times and up to 1,000 nautical mile range. Short-haul flights create four times more carbon emissions per seat, compared to long-haul flights. Hence, decarbonisation of short-haul flights should be prioritised and switching them to fully electric flights will reduce overall aviation carbon emissions by an estimated 20%.
As battery technology developments have been making rapid progress, hybrid-electric and eventually, fully electric aircraft could replace conventional aircraft for these routes. This is a game changer in carbon emissions reduction, and we must spot the trend and the technology early. If we can do so and establish ourselves as an international green air hub, that will not only address our growing carbon emissions challenge, but also cement our position in sustainable aviation and in turn, create many new opportunities for Singapore's aviation and aerospace industry.
We have done this before for new technologies in the past. For example, the Economic Development Board (EDB) brought in Hyundai Motors Group to set up its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing plants in Singapore, even though we did not have any car manufacturing track record and facilities.
To become an international green air hub, Singapore can be established as a centre of excellence for the R&D of hybrid-electric and electric aircraft, manufacture the aircraft parts in land abundant Johor, under our Special Economic Zone collaboration framework, assemble the aircraft back in Changi East Industrial Zone and finally, test flight the aircraft in Changi Airport. This approach is how Toulouse became the home of Airbus and Seattle became the home of Boeing decades ago. However, with trillions of dollars worth of back orders, neither of these two hubs are focused on becoming hubs of the future aircraft.
We are already halfway there. We are an established international aviation and aerospace hub, with a mature and thriving ecosystem of aviation, original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), MRO facilities, IHLs training aerospace engineers and technicians, 80 airlines, three runways and we will have five terminals and a new aviation industrial zone. We have a biennial Singapore Airshow and a very pro-innovation, pro-investment funding and financing environment.
Moreover, Singapore sits in the centre of the world's fastest growing region for aviation, comprising India, China and Southeast Asia. The carbon emissions in the supply chain logistics in terms of aircraft manufacturing, assembly testing and delivery would be minimised.
There is a famous saying by a Chinese philosopher, Mencius: "To achieve success, the right timing, right place and right people must coexist."
Now is the time, Singapore is the place, what is needed to turn us into an international green air hub is the right partners who share this ambition and are willing to work together to realise this vision.
Our Singapore is already home to the regional headquarters of conventional aircraft manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, smaller aircraft manufacturers, such as Embraer and Avions de Transport Régional, and new players in the electric aircraft space, such as Elysian Aircraft, Heart Aerospace, Nimbus Aviation, Electra and Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation, are mostly based in the Western world in North America and Europe.
Similar to how the Chinese EV manufacturers are disrupting the automobile industry, this electric aircraft companies will be the new darlings shaping the future of the aviation industry. The first step is to attract this disruptors, electric aircraft manufacturers to set up base in Singapore for R&D. Next is to connect them with funding platforms, such as the National Research Foundation (NRF) and EDB, as well as the private and institutional investors and banking sector financiers. Under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025), significant R&D funding for aviation sector, for manufacturing, trade and connectivity purposes has been set aside.
And finally, to connect the electric aircraft manufacturers with their potential customers, namely major airlines operating short-haul routes in the region, such as SIA, Scoot, Lion Air, AirAsia Group and VietJet.
The value we bring as an established international air hub to these electric aircraft manufacturers is invaluable, because they can immediately plug into a robust and ready machinery, and fulfil fast-growing aggregated demand, financed by low-cost and abundant funding. The aircraft manufacturers can stay focused on their niche expertise and bring product to market in the shortest time.
Finally, what is all this for? An international green air hub does not just benefit the aviation industry. It is an asset for all Singaporeans. We will be an R&D Centre of Excellence for the IHLs and young aerospace engineers for the long term. Currently, the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University both offer undergraduate courses in aerospace engineering. Graduates may join MRO companies like ST Aerospace or aircraft engine companies like Rolls Royce, but doing mostly maintenance work.
One of my young residents, N, 18 years old, is an aspiring final year student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, studying aerospace engineering. She is mulling over whether she should continue to pursue a university degree in aerospace engineering or a more traditional engineering degree in mechanical engineering. She shared that if there are more exciting R&D opportunities in aerospace, like designing and manufacturing an aircraft, her decision would have been very clear.
Young Singaporeans want to be challenged and we can create opportunities for them. We can also attract world-class talents in aerospace engineering to work and live here. In time, Singaporean engineers and designers can become world-class leaders in this nascent field.
More importantly, aviation manufacturing is a high tech, high value industry and these new career pathways will create many high-paying jobs. They can apply the latest AI and 3D printing technologies to design and build an electric aircraft from scratch. Adrian Gooz and Akim Niyonzimas, the founders of Nimbus Aviation, shared that his team used AI and 3D printing to design and build its aircraft prototype, massively reducing the cost of R&D and the time required to commercialise a solution.
Moreover, many young people very much care about the environment and want to contribute to the decarbonisation journey. Creating an electric aircraft that can dramatically reduce aviation carbon footprint would be a dream career for many young engineers.
Mr Speaker, as I said earlier, we are today at a critical juncture. It is our time for an ambitious goal for air transport, from Paya Lebar to Changi almost 50 years ago, from fossil to green aviation today.
I hope the Minister for Transport and his team will carefully consider my proposal to create an international green air hub and grow the Centre of Excellence for electric aircraft manufacturing in Singapore. This will be a new engine of growth. This is the use of frontier technologies to secure good jobs for Singaporeans.
This is the story of the past, which has given us our prosperity and our place in this world today and this can be the story of our future – and we must take to the skies and reshape our destiny once again. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
Today's Motion affirms the role of a world-class infrastructure in reinforcing Singapore's position as a global transport hub and anchoring good jobs in, Singapore. All of us here can appreciate how and why this is important.
However, I hope the House will join me in reflecting whether our world-class infrastructure should only have the purposes of consolidating our status as a transport hub and anchoring jobs here. Should we not ponder on the question who should our world-class infrastructure serve? Should our class infrastructure merely facilitate the movement of capital, goods and talent across borders? Or should it also improve and enhance the everyday lives of Singaporeans?
My answer, Mr Speaker, is that our world-class infrastructure should not just create economic opportunities for Singaporeans. No doubt that is an important objective. However, it is also imperative that our class infrastructure is something that serves our citizens directly.
As far as possible, our infrastructure should not merely facilitate Singaporeans getting good jobs but also tangibly improve the lived experiences of our people. By this, I mean ensuring that Singaporeans can genuinely enjoy or benefit from our infrastructure.
Changi Airport offers an example of what I mean. Changi is unquestionably a world-class aviation hub. It is also well loved by Singaporeans, something that we all are proud of. Even if one is not catching a flight, one can spend an afternoon at Jewel. Families can gather there for meal at one of the many wonderful restaurants. Couples can go for a date at the Canopy Park and everyone, young and old, can enjoy the Rain Vortex.
Changi Airport is an excellent model of infrastructure that generates economic value while simultaneously enriching the everyday lives of Singaporeans. Yes, the airport creates job opportunities but it also offers social and recreational amenities to ordinary Singaporeans, including those who are not frequent flyers. And I think it is good that Changi Airport is not merely the preserve of jetsetting elite but open to all Singaporeans in the sense that there will always be something for someone to do that even if they are not catching a flight.
Sir, this element of public access is what our world-class infrastructure should always aspire to include. In our pursuit to be a globally connected aviation, maritime and logistics hub, we must ensure that Singaporeans are not and do not feel alienated from the world-class infrastructure which underpins and makes possible the hub status.
Allow me to further illustrate my point with the more mundane example of expressways. They undoubtedly facilitate trade and logistics. Goods can be efficiently transported from our port terminals to our industrial estates and commercial zones and vice versa.
But while we appreciate the economic efficiencies created by our network of expressways, we should also keep in mind that two-thirds of Singaporean resident households that do not own cars, including myself. Non-car owning Singaporeans can only directly benefit from an eight-lane expressway if they are riding in a private hire car, or one of the bus services that ply an expressway sector.
It is thus heartening that the upcoming of North-South Corridor is designed to be multimodal with dedicated bus lanes and cycling paths to allow as many ordinary Singaporeans, including those who do not own cars to directly use and benefit from the new expressway.
These two examples of our airport and our expressways hopefully clarify my point that our infrastructure should be designed with public access in mind. Our people should be able to use our world-class infrastructure to enhance our immediate quality of life.
Sir, while we are on the topic of public access to our world-class infrastructure, I want to reiterate the Workers' Party's (WP's) call for public transport to be made free for seniors and people with disabilities during off-peak periods.
I have previously in raised in this House that the Freedom Pass in London is a worthy model to consider emulating. The Freedom Pass is given to London residents above the age of 66 and those with eligible disabilities to freely travel across the Transport for London network. There are, however, peak hour restrictions on weekday mornings for holders of the older persons' Freedom Pass.
There is a study on the Freedom Pass, which was published in 2014, and I hope to read part of the abstract into the record. In their article, "More than A to B: the role of free bus travel for the mobility and well-being of older citizens in London", the author stated that "travelling by bus provided opportunities for meaningful social interaction. Travelling as art of the 'general public' provided a sense of belonging and visibility in the public arena, a socially acceptable way of tackling chronic loneliness. The Freedom Pass was described not only as providing access to essential goods and services but also as a widely prized mechanism for participation in life of the city."
What the research suggests is that providing free travel on public transport helps with seniors' well-being and enables their civic participation. Crucially, it makes senior citizens feel like they belong and have a place in society.
This comes back to my earlier point that Singaporeans must not feel alienated from our world-class infrastructure. Singaporeans, regardless of age or means, must be able to use that infrastructure, not merely benefit economically from them.
I should acknowledge that my hon friend from Sengkang, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, had also called for off-peak public transport to be made free for seniors and persons with disabilities during the 14th Parliament. The then Minister for Transport, S Iswaran, rebuffed this proposal with the warning that the ensuing financial burden is by no means insignificant.
The WP has consistently argued that public transport should be viewed primarily as a public service rather than a profit centre. Especially for our seniors, public transport helps to fulfil important non-material needs such as for companionship, community and belonging. These are sometimes overlooked when we consider the matter only in terms of dollars and cents.
Sir, the Freedom Pass has demonstrated its value for the senior citizens of London. As Singapore becomes a super-aged society, I believe that our senior citizens here similarly deserve their own Merdeka Pass.
Mr Speaker, the Motion also mentions the role of frontier technologies in anchoring good jobs in Singapore. While AI threatens to change the face of many professions, we continue to face persistent labour shortages in the public transportation sector. Currently, less than a third of bus captains are Singaporeans. The Acting Minister for Transport has also acknowledged that recruitment and retention are the biggest challenges preventing further expansion of the bus network.
Frontier technologies, like AVs, could offer a potential solution. AVs have already been trialled in Punggol to ply short, fixed route services and self-driving public bus services will also be piloted in Marina Bay and One-North from the second half of 2026.
Should the self-driving public bus service pilots in Marina Bay and One-North be successful, I would like to suggest that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) next consider deploying self-driving public buses to build a network of night bus services. We could start by running self-driving night buses along existing Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines when these lines are closed during the overnight hours. Late night bus services have in the past suffer from low ridership and the NightRider and Nite Owl Services have been discontinued since the COVID-19 pandemic.
But even before the pandemic, we never had a proper network of late bus services that replicate even on a limited basis the connectivity provided during daylight hours, unlike in other major global cities like London, New York, Hong Kong or Beijing. The pre-pandemic NightRider and Nite Owl services only operated uni-directionally, from the city to various housing estates, and primarily serviced people having a night out in the city.
But a proper network of self-driving late night buses bus services, running along existing MRT lines would be truly revolutionary for Singapore. It would not just benefit Singaporeans enjoying the nightlife, but also people who finish or start work after the MRT shuts down, and staff and travellers going to the airport for late night flights. Affordable late-night mobility should be part of a vibrant, world city like Singapore. And with AVs, what was previously economically and logistically infeasible could become a reality.
I urge LTA to seriously consider trialling self-driving buses on bus routes overnight as well, as this is a use case that could benefit many Singaporeans while traffic levels and any risk posed by the AVs to public safety are also much lower.
Eventually, we can even consider expanding AVs to support school bus services, which is another area where a shortage of drivers and rising cost pressures have made it more difficult for school bus operators to sustain operations. For example, AVs could be used to shuttle students who live more than four kilometres from their school since bus operators are now no longer contractually required serve them.
This is not to suggest that automation is a substitute for valuing human work. Even with AVs, Singaporeans will continue to depend on thousands of bus captains for the foreseeable future. While we rely on AVs to supplement our manpower needs, we must continue to make sure that our bus operators enjoy the wages, career progression and working conditions that commensurate with the skills and socially valuable work that they do. Bus driving should be seen as a profession Singaporeans should be proud to enter and not simply one that we struggle to fulfil.
Sir, in this speech, I only want to affirm that ordinary Singaporeans should not feel alienated from the world-class infrastructure sitting in our country.
As we have seen with Changi Airport, Singapore is capable of building infrastructure that both impresses the world and benefits the lives of Singaporeans. Changi drives our economic competitiveness while simultaneously being a place for Singaporeans to gather, relax, celebrate and create memories.
So, as we develop the infrastructure befitting a global hub status, I hope the House can appreciate that the real measure of a truly world-class infrastructure is whether the people who build our country can truly enjoy it.
As someone who has been in the transport sector for years, I have watched this space very closely. Almost 10 years ago, I took my very first AV ride with nuTonomy at One-North. It was groundbreaking for its time, but looking back, it was quite basic. If there was a simple obstacle on the road, the vehicle came to a dead halt, it could not even overtake.
Fast forward to the last couple of years. I have personally tested Waymo in the US, Mobileye in Germany, Baidu Apollo Go, WeRide and Pony.ai in China. The leap in technology is staggering. These are no longer mere "experiments". They are fully mature robotaxis taking fare-paying passengers, navigating complex mega-cities daily. Globally, over 10,000 robotaxis are already deployed across the US, China, Europe and the Middle East. Meanwhile, here at home, we are also conducting localised AV trials in Punggol.
Mr Speaker, the technology is ready. But the critical question is: are our people ready?
To understand what is at stake, we must look at the human face of the point-to-point (P2P) transport sector. In 2013, before the explosion of private hire cars (PHCs), Singapore had over 28,000 taxis. Today, the taxi fleet has shrunk to about 12,000, but we now have over 60,000 PHC drivers. Combined, that is over 70,000 Singaporeans earning a living on our roads.
For many of them, driving is a job of the last resort. It is the safety net that keeps their families afloat, bringing home an average of about $3,000 a month. Many have opted this line of job due to changes in industries. Driving taxis or PHCs, for some, is the job of last resort to maintain an average salary. If AVs were to replace just 10% of this fleet, displacing 7,000 drivers, where will they go? It will be an uphill battle for Singapore to find equivalent jobs with similar pay for 7,000 of our fellow citizens. Not all of them will be able to adapt to new jobs associated with our new AI-led economy. We cannot afford to let them become the collateral damage of progress.
Therefore, I would like to urge MOT and our tripartite partners to take a proactive, human-centric approach to this transition. I suggest a clear, strategic framework to deal with this situation.
First, we need to strategically deploy AVs to areas that are currently underserved by our pool of P2P drivers. Every day, passengers struggle to find rides to remote industrial areas like Tuas and Jurong Island, and to some extend, leisure spots like Sentosa and Mandai Wildlife Reserve – because drivers are reluctant to go there due to the low chance of finding a return passenger. Similarly, finding a ride in the wee hours of the morning remains a challenge for many commuters. Let us consider deploying AVs to plug these exact operational gaps and serve the underserved, rather than pitting machines against our drivers in high-demand zones.
Second, we must look at retraining with a dose of realism. I urge MOT to collaborate with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) or the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to convert some of our displaced P2P drivers into controllers at AV operations control centres to monitor fleets and to take over the AVs during unusual circumstances and during emergencies.
However, we need to be brutally honest with ourselves. This cannot be the only solution. As each controller is expected to oversee up to 15 AVs concurrently, the math simply does not add up. There will not be enough controller jobs for every displaced driver. Furthermore, these roles require entirely new tech skill sets that some existing drivers may not possess.
Therefore, MOT and NTUC need to work aggressively with various agencies, including the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and social service sectors to provide comprehensive Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs). We need to look beyond land transport and transition these drivers into other structural growth sectors of our economy, such as healthcare, or our booming aviation sector, including the upcoming new T5. It is highly unlikely that AVs will displace a massive number of P2P drivers in the near term, but we must start planning today, so that our people will be prepared.
Finally, Mr Speaker, we need a dual-speed strategy. While we have to move cautiously on robotaxis to ensure safety and because of the direct impact on Singaporean livelihoods, we should do the exact opposite where we face severe domestic shortages. We must deploy AVs where we have a high reliance on foreign labour.
Look at our public buses. LTA recently had to work with Public Transport Operators to significantly increase the starting pays and sign-on bonuses for bus captains. Why? Because local manpower is shrinking. In 2021, Singaporeans and Permanent Residents made up 54% of our bus captains. By 2025, that number dropped to just 41%, a worrying 13% drop.
Assuming they are completely safe, autonomous buses are the exact solution we need to mitigate this acute domestic manpower crunch. LTA is already trialing AVs for bus services 400 and 91, but we can consider doing more. I urge MOT to consider investing more capital, pouring in more resources and moving with a much greater sense of urgency.
The same logic applies to our maritime and aviation sectors. These critical economic engines have a heavy, structural reliance on foreign labour where deep automation would be immensely valuable. However, unlike robotaxis, AV deployment in these heavy industrial sectors yields lower immediate commercial returns, making private players hesitant to shoulder the massive upfront risk alone. MOT and the related agencies could intervene, co-invest and accelerate adoption by making far better use of the NRF's funding under the RIE2030 framework. Instead of small, isolated pilots, we need to direct these national resources toward high-impact, scaled-up industrial applications.
At Changi Airport, we also need to aggressively expand airside trials, utilising autonomous baggage tractors to optimise the ferrying of luggage and cargo dollies between terminals and aircraft. Simultaneously, at the Tuas Megaport, we need to accelerate the trial and push for the full commercial maturity of AGVs to replace foreign container truck drivers. By boldly backing these strategic sectors, we can solve our structural labour constraints while firmly securing Singapore's position as a premier, future-ready global transport hub. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): In early June this year, at the invitation of LTA, I brought nearly 50 residents and grassroots leaders to Punggol to personally experience a ride in the AVs. Although a safety driver was present onboard, residents could see it clearly for themselves that the steering wheel in the AV was turning on its own. Throughout the entire 20-minute journey, there was no need for any human intervention whatsoever. When obstacles appeared on the road, the self-driving car navigated around them with ease and continued on its way. One resident remarked with wonder: "With my eyes closed, I wouldn't have known I was in a self-driving car at all." I smiled and asked: "If there were no safety driver in the AV, would you still dare to ride in it?" Another resident immediately replied: "I'd want to even more – because without a driver around, you'd have more privacy!"
The positive response from residents surprised me somewhat. Everyone marvelled that self-driving cars were no longer a scene in a science fiction movie, but a reality right before our eyes. Yet even as people were excited about the technology, a moment of silence fell and residents, almost in unison, gave voice to a deep and shared concern: what will become of our taxi drivers and ride-hailing drivers in the future?
Mr Speaker, this is precisely the point that strikes closest to my heart. In Singapore, more than 70,000 taxi and private-hire drivers brave the roads day in and day out to earn their living. For them, ferrying passengers is the safety net that keeps their entire families fed, housed, and clothed.
While AVs may not pose too great a disruption to them in the near term, we must plan ahead. We cannot wait until the rain has soaked us through before thinking to find shelter. The tripartite partners must begin working together now to find alternative pathways for affected taxi and private-hire drivers. We cannot allow these drivers who have quietly served Singapore all these years to become casualties of technological progress. On the contrary, we must help them through the transition and make them a vital new force across our emerging industries.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, disruption is inevitable, but hardship for our workers is not. Innovation is a tool, but compassion must be our guide. Let us prepare Singapore for the AV revolution, not by rushing to replace our local drivers, but by strategically using technology to solve our deepest manpower deficits, while protecting, retraining and honouring the human beings who keep our nation moving every single day. I support the Motion.
The sea is not one sector among many for us; it is the foundation we were built on. We are an island that imports more than nine in 10 of our calories across the water and we sit astride the Straits of Malacca, through which roughly a quarter of all seaborne trade and nearly half the world's seaborne crude oil moves.
A nation this dependent on the sea cannot safely treat the capability to move on it as a commodity to be rented. Yet, over two decades, we quietly gave away one of its core sovereign capabilities – a shipping line of our own.
NOL, the national carrier, was sold to France's CMA CGM in 2016, the last act in a long dismantling: the tanker fleet to Malaysia in 2003, the headquarters in 2012, the logistics arm in 2015 and then, the line itself. In so doing, we exited an entire strategic domain.
We did this right as every serious maritime nation moved the other way. France is putting 10 of the world's largest ships under its flag as a "strategic fleet" – requisitionable in a crisis, crewed by its own officers – using CMA CGM, the very company that bought our line.
Korea, after Hanjin collapsed the same year we sold NOL, poured state billions into rebuilding Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM) into a top 10 carrier through a dedicated sovereign vehicle. China built COSCO into an arm of national power. Even Australia, down to a dozen trading ships, is legislating a national strategic fleet.
These are not nostalgists. They are states that understand shipping is a strategic capability, not a commodity service to be rented.
And our own Government knows this – in the air! "For Changi to work well and succeed", it told this House, "You must first have an anchor national carrier – SIA". When SIA neared collapse, Temasek put in up to $15 billion dollars to keep it alive. SIA and NOL were both Temasek operators. We treat the airline, SIA, as strategic and rescue it. But we treat the sea carrier, NOL, as a commodity and sell it. Temasek has since bought into a different carrier – Pacific International Lines (PIL) – but we hold it for a return, not for a purpose.
So, Singapore stands as a major maritime hub with no national line of its own.
It sold NOL on the argument that container shipping is fungible. The box does not care whose ship it rides in.
It does not defend SIA on those grounds at all. It keeps the airline because a national carrier is a strategic asset in its own right: a capability the country controls, the people it trains and the option to direct it in a crisis. The Government has not stopped believing a national carrier is strategic – it has only stopped believing it for the sea.
The case for selling NOL rested on a category error: that a shipping line is just freight and freight is fungible. It is not. A national line is two strategic capabilities bound together.
First, it is the academy that makes our maritime people. It is a ladder that runs from the deck of the ship to the command of a port, and every rung is built on the one below. It begins at sea. A cadet stands his watches and qualifies as an officer of the watch, then as shift mate and, a decade or more on, as master. The engine room climbs the same way to the chief engineer.
None of this can be done in a classroom or bought with a grant because each certificate is a legal product of documented sea time on a working ship. That sea time is the entry ticket for the shore roles that keep the port's waters safe. The harbour pilot who boards and berths the largest ships afloat, and the surveyors who inspect them must, by the rules, hold those certificates. And above them sits the Port Master, the statutory officer who can order any vessel in our waters to move, stop or stay.
Singapore's Port Masters have been a line of master mariners – Captain M Segar, who came up as a cadet and a harbour pilot, then port master, then rose to assistant chief executive of MPA; and Captain Lee Cheng Wee, the harbour pilot in the early 1970s whom the Government held up in this year's Budget debate as an example for the next generation. No one is being made a master mariner by a scholarship.
Marine command is the one part of the port that still requires a master's ticket – and we are failing. Fewer than one in 12 officers on our own flag is Singaporean. Our cadets must seek their sea time on foreign ships and may face a lack of access.
Britain watched its officer corps age and shrink as its fleet flagged out and then had to pay shipowners, through the tax code, to train cadets again. Australia, down from 100 trading ships to about a dozen, is now legislating a strategic fleet to rebuild the skills they had lost. Ships can be bought or chartered within a year, but a generation of sea-experienced Singaporeans takes a generation to grow.
When Temasek sold NOL, it crystallised a financial gain – a one-time figure on a balance sheet – and sold the entire training ground which the whole ladder stands on. Cut the feet away at the foot of the ladder and a decade or more on, the top of it empties. This is what we are seeing. We have been in search of lost time ever since. In the long run, the seafaring core of our own port, our harbour pilots and the marine command above them, cannot be kept Singaporean. It must be staffed, like our own flag already is, by other nations' officers.
Second is directable capacity – the difference between sovereignty and dependence in a crisis.
Container space is rationed whenever effective capacity is squeezed faster than it can be replaced. The demand surged at the pandemic, when rates rose seven-fold, or risk-driven diversions, like the Red Sea, where rerouting every ship around Africa swallowed a-tenth of the world's capacity.
In such a crunch, the market does not serve all comers equally. The carriers still sailing gave priority to exporters under their own flag. Korea ordered HMM to ringfence space for Korean firms.
A nation relying on foreign lines is served last, at whatever price is named. A country that owns no capacity in a capacity crunch is a beggar for allocation and will be served with all others.
I put this to the Government in April. Its answer was that our supply lines are secured by diversification, our standing as a trusted hub and a wide network of global shipping lines. I respectfully disagree and I think it conflates the role of the port and the carrier.
It turns on the ambiguity in the word "node". When we call ourselves a node, we mean "leverage" – some power to bend the flow of trade our way. But a hub port only gives you half of that. It gives you centrality – the power to attract. But it does not give you leverage – the power to make ships that call, serve us first when it counts or to train our merchant navy.
After all, a neutral hub holds its traffic only by staying competitive. Even winning that competition, if it wins, is not the same as holding leverage. While Singapore is still the world's largest transshipment hub, the Maersk Hapag-Lloyd Gemini Network still chose Tanjung Pelepas over Singapore as its most important hub in 2025. The carrier picks its port, but the port cannot pick its carriers. When space runs short, it is the carrier that rations it, not the port.
The sale of NOL and the stripping before it, were Temasek's calls. The same Temasek that in 2020 put $15 billion dollars into rescuing SIA. One set of hands kept one national carrier and sold the other. It was a big failure of strategic judgement, and the Government should not have allowed Temasek to sell off NOL.
So, let us rebuild. I am asking the Government to treat sovereign shipping as what it is – a strategic capability to be rebuilt deliberately.
If we wanted to rebuild a national carrier, we would not start from zero. Through Heliconia, Temasek holds the majority of PIL, our largest homegrown carrier, which has 100-odd ships, profitable and strongest where the giants are thin – in Africa and the Global South. But Heliconia currently holds it the way it holds any company, as an investment for a return. It calls itself, in its own words, an SME-enabler. PIL is run as a profit-maximising line by a professional chief executive under no national duty of any kind, no obligation to reserve capacity for Singapore in a crisis, no Singaporean crew requirement even on the ships that fly our flag, no training quota and the one voluntary scheme it has is winding down – and no mandatory routes that it must run.
What it is missing is a purpose. PIL could be given a national mandate, held both for a return and also to train our officers, to hold capacity that can be directed when a crisis comes and backed to grow over time. PIL's moat is a niche – Africa and the global South. It is not fully the academy that we need because our port is an East-West machine – Asia, Europe and transpacific arteries, the largest ships afloat and transshipment at scale that only those lanes generate.
So, the real questions are how much of the East-West capability that we gave up with NOL we now have to rebuild and how far up the ladder we are willing to climb to do it.
Hard choices face this country again. At the floor, a national mandate over PIL as it stands, a training quota, reserved crisis capacity, a Singaporean crew requirement on the ships that fly our flag for a cost of about tens of millions a year. The next rung, back PIL to climb into the East-West trades. At first, through slot charters and vessel sharing, rebuilding the operational skills our hub actually runs on. At the top, owning mainline tonnage outright, the capital-heavy commitment a serious rebuild demands.
Each rung costs more and buys more sovereignty. The judgement is how far to climb. But standing still is also a choice and the one that ends in the port unable to crew its own senior ranks.
We should study all proven models. Korea's Korea Ocean Business Corporation is a statutory body charged by law with maintaining an essential national shipping system, financing the fleet and guaranteeing tonnage. We, too, should also consider a binding obligation to train our Singaporean cadets.
And to be clear about the costs, scale in the mainline trades is brutal and capital hungry, which is why it needs to be Government-backed, phased and built with patience. Korea rebuilt HMM over five years and several billion dollars. If we were to do it, it would cost us billions, too.
But to balk at that cost means having almost no Singaporean sailors manning Singapore's ports. Ultimately, we need to decide if we are going to create a system to perpetuate Singaporeans in our own maritime industry and ports, to rebuild our own leverage over shipping capacity – whether we are a country that means to own a ship or one content to crew someone else's. Or if we want to be a country that does not have the ships to train our own people in ship-faring and that will, in the next supply shock, stand as a price taker in its own port.
Speaker, in conclusion. France was our counterparty and is a mirror. It treats the company CMA CGM that bought our line NOL as a sovereignty asset and it is enlarging its national fleet, while we dismantled ours and called the matter settled. This is not settled. I have three questions for this Government.
One, by the same logic that makes SIA the anchor in the air, why does a national carrier stops mattering at the water's edge? Two, if we mean to grow our own seafarers, how do we make a master mariner with no fleet to make him or her on? And who then fills a marine command our own port depends on? And three, when shipping space is next rationed, what capacity can Singapore actually direct?
That the sale of NOL was a very poor decision, CMA CGM's ability to turn a net profit less than one year after acquisition clearly proves. My belief is that we must draw a line on Temasek's very poor decision to sell NOL in 2016, move on to rebuild our shipping capacity and make back the time we have lost. Thank you.