I raised a Parliamentary Question on whether public officials purchasing property based on non-public land-use information violates statutory duties or civil service rules. The query was sparked by a recent National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. I pressed the government to expand asset declaration requirements to cover immediate family members and co-habitants. I also asked if retrospective checks for anomalies would be conducted on past property transactions near unannounced infrastructure projects.
The Coordinating Minister for Public Services affirmed that public officers must never use non-public information for personal gain. He noted that doing so violates the Public Service Code of Conduct and may breach laws like the Official Secrets Act. The Minister explained that declarations currently cover spouses and financially dependent children. He added that authorities reviewed 191 officers involved in rail planning between 2007 and 2014, referring eight cases to the police for further examination.
Strict rules are essential to maintain public trust in our public service. Asset declarations should extend to all immediate family members and co-habitants to prevent loopholes, and routine retrospective checks must be conducted across all major land-use projects to deter any potential abuse of privileged information.
This was my full question in Parliament on 6 Oct 2026:
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether public officials’ purchasing property based on non-public land-use information constitutes a breach of statutory duties or civil service rules; (b) whether public officials’ asset declaration rules will be expanded to cover immediate family members and co-habitants; and (c) whether retrospective checks for anomalies will be conducted on past property transactions near unannounced infrastructure projects.
Incentivising Smooth Bus Driving
Many public transport passengers have experienced bus journeys characterised by abrupt braking and rapid acceleration, even in the absence of emergency maneuvers or sudden road obstructions.
I raised a Parliamentary Question asking if the Ministry of Transport would require bus operators to display QR codes on all public buses for immediate public feedback on bus captains’ driving. I also suggested introducing tiered incentives to bus captains tied to telematics-derived smooth driving scores and commuter feedback.
The Minister for Transport replied that bus operators already have incentive frameworks rewarding safe driving using telematics data and feedback. He noted that commuters can give feedback through existing channels, with some operators already displaying QR codes.
While existing channels exist, displaying QR codes prominently across all buses makes it easier for commuters to report issues or praise good driving. Integrating telematics directly into driving incentives will ensure smoother, safer journeys for commuters.
This is the full Parliamentary exchange from 7 Oct 2026:
Improving Bus Captain Driving Standards Through Public Feedback and Telematics
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider requiring bus operators to (i) display QR codes on all public buses to enable immediate public feedback on driving performance of bus captains and (ii) introduce tiered incentives for bus captains tied to telematics-derived smooth driving scores and commuter feedback.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Each bus operator already has its own incentive framework to reward safe driving practices among bus captains. These incentive frameworks take into consideration commuter feedback as well as telematics data on harsh braking and acceleration, among other factors.
Commuters are also already able to provide immediate feedback on safety concerns through multiple existing channels, both directly to bus operators and via the Land Transport Authority (LTA). Some operators already display QR codes that commuters can use to provide feedback on their journeys, and we will continue to encourage operators to find ways to solicit timely feedback to improve their services.
Evaluating Peak Hour Bus Capacity
My residents living along Bedok Reservoir Road and Upper Serangoon Crescent have raised concerns regarding public bus availability, citing long waiting times, limited service options and difficulty boarding buses during peak hours.
I raised a Parliamentary Question on how passenger capacity and loading data for public bus routes are evaluated during peak morning travel windows. I asked whether data collection accounts for commuters who cannot board crowded buses and whether critical micro-windows are evaluated separately from hourly averages.
The Minister for Transport shared that loading data is measured via farecard data against bus capacity. He said that for routes with high loading over the heaviest 30-minute window, the authorities conduct on-site surveys and review commuter feedback to identify unable-to-board situations before making service adjustments.
This is the full question and answer in Parliament on 7 Oct 2026:
Evaluating Public Bus Passenger Capacity, Boarding Demand and Peak-hour Performance Metrics
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) how are passenger capacity and loading data for public bus routes evaluated during peak morning travel windows; (b) whether data collection accounts for unserved commuters who are unable to board because buses arrive at capacity; and (c) whether peak hour performance reviews evaluate critical micro-windows separately from broader hourly averages.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Loading data for buses is measured by farecard data against the capacity of the buses deployed. For routes with high peak hour loading over the heaviest 30-minute window, the Land Transport Authority will work with the respective operators to monitor bus stops along the route for unable-to-board situations using on-site surveys and commuter feedback. When frequent unable-to-board situations are observed, service adjustments will be made.
Outreach to Isolated Informal Caregivers
I raised a Parliamentary Question asking if proactive outreach mechanisms exist to identify isolated informal caregivers of senior citizens who are not connected to healthcare networks. I also asked whether dedicated caregiver touchpoints will be set up in every estate alongside a centralised national caregiver registry.
The Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health explained that caregiver support is accessible through touchpoints like AIC Links and community agencies. Caregiver Support Touchpoints will be introduced from 2027 at five aged care service centres and three Enabling Services Hubs to proactively identify needs and connect caregivers to support.
Expanding physical touchpoints is a positive step forward. Many informal family caregivers face financial stress from medical costs, severe physical and emotional exhaustion, and difficulty balancing care duties with work. We need systematic community outreach and registry mechanisms to ensure every informal caregiver receives timely assistance before experiencing burnout.
This is the full Parliamentary Question and the answer on 7 Oct 2026:
Outreach to Identify Isolated Informal Caregivers of Senior Citizens
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what proactive outreach mechanisms exist to identify isolated informal caregivers of senior citizens not connected to healthcare networks; and (b) given that Active Ageing Centres focus primarily on senior care recipients, whether the Ministry will set up dedicated caregiver touchpoints in every estate and establish a centralised national caregiver registry to systematically connect those caring for seniors to support services.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our approach for strong caregiver support is to make the support easily accessible for caregivers, through various touchpoints, such as AIC Links, Community Care Organisations, and Social Service Agencies. From 2027, we will introduce Caregiver Support Touchpoints (CSTs) to further improve access. We welcome other community organisations to complement our work by conducting appropriate outreach to caregivers, to connect them to the CSTs.
The first CSTs will be set up at five aged care service centres and three Enabling Services Hubs starting next year. These sites were chosen around places where care recipients are served to make it easier for caregivers to get help. The CSTs will proactively identify caregivers’ needs, explain the types of support available, and connect them to appropriate support, including respite services, training and financial support.
The most important support for caregivers is to strengthen the broader care ecosystem so that caregivers receive help and respite from caring for their loved ones. Through initiatives such as Age Well SG and the recommendations of the Taskforce on Assurance for Families with People with Disabilities, we are anchoring care in the community, and making care services more accessible and affordable.
Ensuring Smart Glasses Don’t Infringe Personal Privacy
I raised a question in Parliament on 6 May whether the government will introduce new regulations for visual indicator requirements on smart glasses to prevent covert recording in public spaces, and how it ensures AI wearables do not collect biometric or environmental data from non-users without consent.
I was concerned that current regulations fall short against covert video recording because of a lack of mandatory visual indicator requirements for wearable devices in public spaces.
The Minister explained that existing frameworks like the Personal Data Protection Act apply regardless of device form factor, while noting that non-consensual recording of private content remains punishable under criminal law.
How can we better protect everyday public privacy from intrusive smart technologies?
This is the full question and answer from 6 May 2026:
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry will introduce new regulations for visual indicator requirements for smart glasses to prevent surreptitious recording in public spaces; and (b) how the Ministry ensures that AI-enabled wearable devices used by individuals do not facilitate the mass collection of biometric or environmental data without the explicit consent of non-users in the vicinity.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), organisations, including individuals creating content for commercial purposes, are accountable for how personal data is collected and used. The taking of photographs or making of video or audio recordings is subject to the same rules and principles regardless of the form factor of the device.
While the PDPA generally does not require consent to be sought from persons for photography or recording in public spaces, organisations must ensure that any subsequent use or disclosure of the personal data, including for AI features, is for a reasonable purpose and complies with any other applicable laws.
Regardless of the capacity they are acting in, individuals should also note that non-consensual recording, sharing or other misuse of intimate or private content may constitute criminal offences under existing laws, including the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act. Under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act, creators of online content may also be held accountable for harms caused to victims.
Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)
More Frequent Service for Bus 228
I raised a question in Parliament about intervals for Bus 228 after I made multiple appeals to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) on behalf of my residents regarding the frequency of this service. Residents in Bedok Reservoir often face overcrowded buses and miss arrivals altogether due to packed vehicles. I asked whether LTA would review public bus standards to reduce the scheduled intervals during school dismissal hours. I specifically asked if intervals for Bus Service 228 between 1.15 pm and 2.15 pm could be reduced to match morning and evening peak hour frequencies.
The Minister replied that service intervals are based on ridership, resources and commuter feedback, adding that the authorities will monitor demand and adjust frequency if required.
While monitoring is helpful, standard off peak schedules fail to address the heavy localised crowding created during school dismissal hours. Deploying higher frequency buses during these peak student travel periods would greatly improve commuting conditions for our community.
How have bus arrival times on Service 228 affected your daily travel during afternoon hours?
This is the full question and answer from 8 Sep 2026:
Improving Intervals Between Public Bus Arrivals During Weekday School Dismissal Hours
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Land Transport Authority will review public bus service standards to include specific maximum scheduled intervals during weekday school dismissal hours; and (b) whether intervals for Bus Service 228 between 1.15 pm and 2.15 pm can be reduced from the current 12 to 13 minutes to match morning and evening peak hour levels.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Bus service intervals, including during weekday school dismissal hours, are determined based on ridership, resources and commuter feedback. This allows us to serve commuters based on actual travel patterns. We will continue to monitor the ridership and capacity on Service 228 between 1.15pm and 2.15pm and adjust the frequency of the service if required.
Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)
Securing the Resilience of Local Farms
Food is Defence: Securing the 2035 Targets
Gerald Giam (Aljunied)
9 Sep 2026
Mr Speaker,
Our local agriculture sector is a vital component of our national resilience, yet it continues to face severe structural headwinds that threaten its long-term viability.
Today, we are debating a motion to enhance food resilience and support efforts to ensure Singaporeans have access to an affordable food supply amidst geopolitical uncertainties and climate-related risks. While I agree with the intent of this motion, achieving genuine food resilience requires an earnest review of the structural market forces that are currently encumbering our local farmers.
In November 2025, the Government replaced our national commitment to produce 30 per cent of our nutritional needs locally by 2030—known as the “30 by 30” goal—with revised 2035 targets of 20 per cent for fibre and 30 per cent for protein, citing pandemic supply shocks, high energy and manpower costs, and tough financing conditions.
While SMS Zaqy Mohamad explicitly acknowledged the need for substitute demand, the Government’s primary remedies remain overwhelmingly focused on automation and agri-tech grants.
Helping entrepreneurs build high-tech farms while leaving them to compete against cheap imports creates a deep inconsistency: trying to solve a demand-side shortfall with supply-side fixes.
This reliance on capex-heavy supply fixes carries a fundamental flaw. Without more certain off-take, continuous supply-side grants risk creating projects that rely heavily on grants but fail once funding ends. Our farmers built what we asked them to build. The missing piece was not the grant—it was the buyer.
Without assured demand, local seafood and vegetable farms often operate below their installed planting capacity, struggling to compete against cheaper imports despite heavy technological investments.
To ensure the new 2035 targets do not suffer the same fate as the original 30 by 30 target, the Government needs to bridge the demand gap by reforming its procurement framework. I propose modernising public procurement to secure Singapore’s food resilience—to move away from qualitative preference points toward binding, structural procurement of local produce. The objective is to achieve the revised 2035 local production targets by dynamically leveraging institutional demand and resolving the issue of caterer margin compression.
We must first recognise the structural limitations of the current tender framework. When I raised a Parliamentary Question in November 2024 regarding local food uptake by major institutional buyers like the SAF and public hospitals, Minister Grace Fu highlighted qualitative preference points awarded under the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme.
While awarding bonus evaluation points in GeBIZ tenders is a useful first step in signalling intent, evidence indicates that it has not driven mass-scale volume uptake in critical categories. According to the Singapore Food Agency’s Singapore Food Statistics report, released in June 2025, locally farmed vegetables accounted for just 3 per cent of total domestic consumption, while local seafood dropped to 6.1 per cent.
There are three key reasons that this policy could be failing to drive purchase volume.
First, because GeBIZ tenders prioritise price competitiveness, caterers using premium local produce must absorb the price gap directly into their own margins, disincentivising purchases beyond the bare minimum.
Second, caterers can meet SFA’s 15 per cent Farm-to-Table threshold by buying low-cost items that already have price parity—like eggs or beansprouts—completely bypassing local leafy greens and fish.
And third, static one-to-two-year GeBIZ contracts demand fixed, long-term supply volumes. Because small high-tech farms cannot risk committing to fixed tonnages over two full years, they are locked out of public tenders—leaving them without the guaranteed off-take they need to scale.
Proposals
To address these limitations, I would like to propose four procurement approaches that can be implemented in Singapore.
Proposal 1: Set Institutional Procurement Targets
First, we must set institutional procurement targets tied to the 2035 goals. The Government must lead by example. Rather than only awarding discretionary evaluation points, public institutions such as the SAF, public hospitals and government ministries should aim to purchase local produce beyond the national 2035 targets. Specifically, they should set an institutional baseline of 35 per cent for protein across seafood and eggs, and 25 per cent for fibre via vegetables, within their catering budgets. Expanding this into binding institutional procurement targets across all public sector catering creates the guaranteed off-take our farmers desperately need.
State-level ring-fencing of institutional food budgets is a viable global model. For example, the European Commission introduced a draft proposal to mandate that fruit, vegetables and milk bought through its 220 million euro annual schools scheme must be made in Europe, explicitly prioritising domestic industries and local farms with low climate footprints over cheaper foreign imports.
To ensure compliance with Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement, which generally prohibit discriminatory non-tariff barriers, the Government can utilise perfectly legal workarounds. Under Article 23 of the WTO GPA, an explicit general exception is made for procurement necessary for the protection of essential security interests. Given that local food production is a matter of national security, this provision can be invoked.
Alternatively, procuring entities can legally set aside specific procurement thresholds for SMEs, naturally preferencing our local small-scale agricultural producers without violating national treatment rules.
While this is not an exhaustive list of legal workarounds, the point is that workarounds are possible with sufficient political will.
Proposal 2: Rebates for the purchase of SG-certified produce
Second, the Government should provide an automated flat-percentage rebate, such as a 25 per cent cashback, on all SG-certified produce purchased by institutional caterers. This figure should be calibrated to bridge the typical baseline price gap between local high-tech produce and cheaper regional imports, in order to achieve greater price parity.
To avoid overburdening caterers with manual invoice submissions, this rebate could be integrated directly into business-to-business distributor-level reporting. When a caterer buys from a certified local aggregator like the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited (SAFEF), the wholesale system logs the public institution contract code and automatically triggers the rebate credit from the Government, requiring minimal extra paperwork from the caterer.
This adapts the demand-side principles of the US state of Michigan’s 10 Cents a Meal for Michigan’s Kids and Farms programme. According to the programme’s 2023 to 2024 Evaluation Results published by the Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems, a US$3 million state investment generated an estimated US$10.2 million in economic impact, reaching 594,000 children.
By using an automated block rebate, Singapore removes administrative friction while achieving the same margin protection for buyers.
Proposal 3: Dynamic Food Procurement digital exchange
Third, we must build a B2B Dynamic Food Procurement digital exchange. While SAFEF’s SG Farm app tracks production metrics, it is not a transactional marketplace. A dedicated digital exchange allows institutional caterers to order flexibly from a pooled network of local farmers based on daily yields, bypassing rigid multi-year tenders.
Similar dynamic procurement models were successfully piloted in the UK’s Monmouthshire County and recommended in their National Food Strategy to direct public spend to local growers.
Proposal 4: Buyers Posting Forward Demand
Fourth, instead of expecting farmers to plant blindly and pray for buyers, institutions should post upcoming procurement requirements so farmers will sow precisely what is needed for harvest. This can be done using the Food Procurement digital exchange. Connecting demand directly to planting schedules provides farmers with predictable, long-term orders while giving caterers full visibility on incoming yields.
Public institutions can be instructed by the Government to share their forward demand on this platform. If we begin with the public institutional buyers, the local farming sector will readily plug into the system, as aligning with this forward demand will become the clearest pathway to securing predictable, long-term orders.
Fiscal Impact
To assess the fiscal impact of a flat cashback for institutional buyers, we can model the annual cost based on an order-of-magnitude estimate of public sector demand.
Across our major institutional buyers—including army camps, about 12,000 public hospital beds and 6,500 individuals in our prison facilities, total catering contracts across these core domains conservatively exceed S$300 million annually. It would be helpful if the Ministry could publish the actual consolidated public sector food procurement figures to enable an accurate evaluation of the scale of our institutional purchasing power.
Because raw ingredients typically account for roughly 30 per cent of total catering contract values, this represents a S$90 million total addressable ingredient market. However, because local farms produce fresh vegetables, eggs and seafood rather than staple grains or red meats, our targets focus on fibre and protein.
Under my proposed institutional targets of 25 per cent for fibre and 35 per cent for protein, caterers would procure approximately S$23 million to S$32 million worth of SG-certified local produce annually.
Applying a 25 per cent cashback rebate strictly to this local off-take brings the total cost to the Government to between S$6 million and S$8 million annually. This modest annual expenditure stands in stark contrast to supply-side interventions like the initial S$60 million Agri-food Cluster Transformation Fund and its subsequent S$70 million top-up, which averages roughly S$14 million annually over five years.
Reallocating or matching even a fraction of this capital into a targeted demand-side rebate guarantees immediate off-take revenue for our local farms, and will be vastly more capital-efficient than repeatedly pouring tens of millions into supply-side grants for infrastructure that risks sitting under-utilised without guaranteed buyers.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, SMS Zaqy himself rightly identified the need for substitute demand. However, identifying the problem is only the first step. We need to follow through with active solutions, especially for the farmers who have poured their life savings into their farms, believing in Singapore’s food resilience ambitions. If we are serious about not repeating the failure of 30 by 30 when we arrive in 2035, we cannot keep pouring capital into supply while leaving demand to chance.
I urge the Government to study these structural reforms, which can be implemented at a modest and well-justified fiscal cost to secure a resilient, sustainable future for local food production.
I support the motion.
Strengthening Structural Safeguards Against Scam Losses
Scams (Countermeasures) and Other Matters Bill
Gerald Giam (Aljunied)
8 Sep 2026
Mr Speaker,
Scams continue to inflict immense financial and emotional distress on Singaporeans, and I welcome the government taking action to strengthen our legislative toolkit. I am heartened to see that the Scams (Countermeasures) and Other Matters Bill reflects key principles I advocated for during the Second Reading of the Protection from Scams Bill in January 2025.
To begin with, I previously highlighted the need for a centralised mechanism to share threat intelligence and disrupt scam vectors across sectors. The Bill moves in this direction by establishing statutory powers for Disclosure Orders, enabling crucial information sharing across banks, telcos and digital platforms to facilitate cross-sector fraud prevention.
I had urged the government to prioritise real-time intervention before stolen funds vanish. The Bill tackles these high-speed scenarios by empowering specified officers to issue swift Account Disabling Orders and Service Limitation Orders to freeze suspect bank accounts, crypto wallets and communication channels. We have already seen the value of proactive, real-time action in the recent joint police operation with crypto exchanges, which successfully foiled almost S$9 million in scam losses through rapid detection and data sharing.
I stressed the importance of greater accountability from digital platforms and service providers. The Bill strengthens deterrence by increasing maximum administrative financial penalties for non-compliant online providers to S$10 million, alongside targeted measures to crack down on money mules who surrender their credentials.
However, there are several critical areas that require further strengthening to build a more comprehensive framework.
First, the government should establish a clear statutory victim compensation framework that holds financial institutions, telcos and digital platforms accountable when their anti-scam measures fail to protect customers.
Second, a dedicated, independent investigative body should be set up to handle claims under the Shared Responsibility Framework (SRF). Under current SRF guidelines, the financial institution acts as the overall point of contact and conducts the initial assessment to determine whether it met its duties. While these are internal investigation teams independent of business units, this remains an internal process operated by the bank itself, presenting an inherent conflict of interest as the bank acts as both the investigator and an interested party with a financial incentive to deny liability.
Furthermore, while dissatisfied customers can escalate disputes to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), FIDReC is a dispute resolution and mediation body rather than a dedicated investigative agency with direct statutory powers to extract system logs, fraud detection records or independently audit technical records.
Third, MAS and IMDA should introduce a standardised public rating system to regularly assess and publish the anti-scam performance of financial institutions, telcos and online platforms. These public ratings need not disclose specific technical vulnerabilities. Rather, clear and standardised ratings would serve as a powerful incentive for entities to continuously improve their anti-scam measures. Public transparency enables consumers to make informed choices and vote with their wallets, creating healthy market forces that drive a race to the top.
Fourth, regulators should build upon the account-disabling powers in this Bill by mandating real-time fraud monitoring for digital wallet transactions after setup, as well as expanding algorithmic anomaly detection across retail stock brokerages and flagged messaging channels. Scammers routinely exploit social engineering to trick victims into approving initial digital wallet setups on services like Apple Pay or Google Pay, after which subsequent draining transactions can proceed without triggering multi-factor authentication.
Similarly, in stock ramp-and-dump schemes, scammers lure victims through chat groups to buy foreign micro-cap stocks on licensed exchanges. Requiring real-time pattern monitoring—such as flagging sudden coordinated retail buy orders or reported scam invitation links—will better ensure proactive intervention before funds are lost.
Fifth, a dedicated Scam Victim Restitution Fund should be established. As I raised in a Parliamentary Question on 28 February 2025, such a fund could be financed by confiscated assets so that local scam victims can receive a portion of recovered proceeds. While I acknowledge the operational complexities raised, establishing a structured fund would demonstrate tangible solidarity with victims who currently face low fund recovery rates. During that exchange, then-Minister of State Sun Xueling mentioned that various proposals were being considered to see how best to return recovered scam proceeds to victims. Could the Minister update this House on what proposals are currently being considered or implemented?
Mr Speaker, while this Bill provides vital emergency brakes, we can build greater resilience against scams by incorporating these structural safeguards. I urge the government to address these proposals in future legislation and regulations to ensure better protection and recourse for Singaporeans who are victims of scams.
Notwithstanding these concerns, I support the Bill.
This was an exchange I had with Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs) Goh Pei Ming in 9 Sep after his response to my speech:
Improving Fire Safety Enforcement
Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2026
Gerald Giam (Aljunied)
Parliament, 8 Sep 2026
Mr Speaker,
Like many MPs who serve in their respective town councils, I see the daily practicalities of managing common spaces in housing estates in my role as Chairperson of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. It is from this shared ground perspective that I welcome the Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2026.
This Bill introduces a range of vital updates to our public safety framework. The establishment of strict liability for obstructing fire accessways and fire safety measures brings much-needed clarity to statutory compliance. Elevating standards for shelter products through mandatory certification and accredited laboratory testing ensures that emergency shelters retain their protective integrity when residents need them most. Furthermore, introducing a streamlined class licensing system for petroleum and flammable materials seeks to balance regulatory oversight with business efficiency. These reflect a forward-looking approach to fire safety regulation.
It is precisely because this legislation provides such robust new mechanisms that we have a valuable opportunity to refine how these provisions are operationalised on the ground. By aligning daily administrative processes with the new legal tools in this Bill, we can achieve even greater speed and effectiveness in keeping the common spaces in our estates safe.
Currently, when a fire safety concern in an HDB flat is flagged, SCDF typically notifies the Town Council about the specific unit involved. However, under Section 28 of the Fire Safety Act, if an issue remains outstanding past SCDF’s strict 3-day action window—sometimes due to practical ground difficulties such as uncooperative residents or individuals who briefly remove clutter only to replace it days later—SCDF may serve a formal Fire Hazard Abatement Notice (FHAN) to the Town Council.
Under current practice, which I have observed, serving a statutory notice tends to result in a massive enforcement operation across the entire block, with multiple units served abatement notices by the Town Council. This can create significant friction and disruption for residents across the whole block, while introducing an administrative layer that actually delays taking swift, targeted action on the specific unit causing the hazard. Because of this, using Town Councils as administrative intermediaries under Section 28 is not always the most expeditious way to ensure fire hazards are removed.
At the same time, there is a need to address another growing challenge on the ground: the operational tendency for fire safety enforcement to become complaint-driven. It is not uncommon for fire safety complaints submitted to SCDF to be weaponised as part of ongoing neighbour disputes. When this happens, both SCDF and Town Councils may end up expending substantial time and resources addressing localised disputes rather than focusing on genuine, high-risk fire hazards. It is therefore important that enforcement against fire safety hazards is dictated primarily by objective risk assessments and proactive checks, rather than complaints.
This Bill provides SCDF with clear legal tools to move towards a far more direct, objective and expeditious enforcement posture. Specifically, Clause 12 replaces Section 27 of the Fire Safety Act to make it an explicit statutory offence for any person to cause an obstruction to an escape route or common property that renders escape in the event of a fire more difficult. Furthermore, Clause 10 inserts sections establishing that obstructing accessways or fire safety measures is an offence.
By removing the need to prove intent or prolonged negligence, the legislation provides SCDF with a clear, direct path to engage an offender immediately. Clause 9 also amends Section 21 to expand the powers of Supplementary Enforcement Officers, providing the statutory foundation for SCDF personnel to operate directly on the ground.
To maximise the efficiency of these new provisions, I seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State on four specific operational points:
First, when SCDF officers independently identify a unit-specific violation during their own estate checks, will SCDF issue direct advisories or notices to that specific occupier, rather than only issuing a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice to the Town Council?
Second, where an individual fire safety hazard requires formal intervention due to persistent non-compliance, will the Ministry leverage Clause 9 to deploy SCDF officers and Supplementary Enforcement Officers to engage the specific unit directly, so that the hazard is removed more expeditiously?
Third, when SCDF issues a FHAN to a Town Council, can the notice specify the exact offending unit numbers rather than broadly citing an entire block, which obliges Town Councils to execute blanket enforcement operations across the whole block?
Fourth, in light of the strict liability provisions in Clause 10, how will SCDF ensure that its enforcement priorities are guided by objective, professional risk assessments of genuine hazards, rather than being drawn into localised neighbour disputes?
Mr Speaker, let me be clear: I fully accept and embrace TC’s statutory duty to maintain common property and enforce estate by-laws. I am not seeking to pass off TC estate management responsibilities to SCDF. However, when it comes to fire safety enforcement, the focus should be on ensuring the expeditious removal of specific fire hazards. Residents recognise SCDF as the nation’s premier fire safety authority. When SCDF officers engage residents directly on fire hazards, they carry an unquestioned institutional authority that will likely command faster compliance and resolve hazards at the source.
The legal tools in this Bill allow us to build a more collaborative and efficient model: Town Councils will continue managing routine estate upkeep and resident education, while SCDF exercises its direct legal powers to resolve specific fire safety infringements. This ensures accountability falls directly on the individual creating the hazard and, most importantly, keeps our estates safe.
Sir, notwithstanding these points, I support the Bill.
Stop Overpaying for Public Transport
Are you spending more than necessary on public transport each month?
Are you spending more than necessary on public transport each month? You could be one of 114,000 adults and seniors who did so in April alone.
I raised this issue in Parliament on 5 April 2026 when I realised I was paying much more than I needed to. After observing commuters exiting the fare gates in Sembawang, the area that has recorded the longest commutes, I noticed very few adults had the distinctive orange light signalling a travel pass when they tapped their cards.
In his answer, the Minister for Transport noted that, in April 2026, about 56,000 adults and 58,000 seniors who did not have monthly passes each spent more on public transport than what the pass would have cost them.
I believe we need more extensive and better targeted outreach at MRT stations and on media channels to help commuters make smarter financial choices. Adult commuters spending over $122 and senior citizens spending over $55 every month could save substantially by purchasing a monthly travel pass. Students, NSFs, persons with disabilities and Workfare recipients could similarly benefit. See here for the full list of monthly passes.
Have you checked your monthly transport spending recently?
This is the full question and answer from 5 Aug 2026:
Data On Quantity And Usage Of Active Adult Monthly Travel Pass And Senior Citizen Monthly Concession Pass And Targeted Promotion To Eligible Commuters
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport:
a. how many active Adult Monthly Travel Passes and Senior Citizen Monthly Concession Passes are there currently;
b. how many adults and senior citizens spent more than $122 and $55 a month respectively on public transport in April 2026; and
c. whether the Ministry will systematically promote such monthly travel passes to eligible commuters to help them manage transport costs.
Reply by Minister for Transport Jeffrey Siow:
In April 2026, about 23,500 Adult Monthly Travel Passes and 41,800 Senior Citizen Monthly Concession Passes were sold. In the same month, about 56,000 adults and 58,000 seniors who did not have monthly passes each spent more on public transport than what the pass would have cost them.
In 2025, the Public Transport Council (PTC) reduced the prices of monthly passes by about 5% to encourage take up. PTC and SimplyGo also reaches out to commuters across various channels, including social media and online platforms, to raise awareness of the monthly passes.