Digital Infrastructure Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan.

1.12 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and for a thoughtful debate. Members raised practical questions about competitiveness, sustainability, scarce resources, jobs and skills, and whether our digital infrastructure will remain secure and resilient as our dependence on it grows.

The debate has reinforced three broad principles behind the Bill. First, we should plan ahead. We should not wait for a serious disruption or acute resource pressures before putting the right framework in place. Second, we should grow in a disciplined way. Singapore needs more compute as our economy digitalises and AI becomes more widely used. But land, power, water and our carbon budget are finite. Our objective cannot simply be more capacity. It must be greater value from the capacity that we host. Third, clear and proportionate regulation is not the opposite of competitiveness. Predictable and credible regulation is part of competitiveness.

I will respond to Members' remarks under seven broad themes: first, competitiveness; second, the value and growth of data centres; third, the transition for existing facilities; fourth, the impact on Singaporeans; fifth, sustainability; sixth, security and resilience; and finally, the international context.

Before I turn to the main themes, let me acknowledge several broader points raised by Members, including questions on low-carbon energy supply, frontier AI models for cybersecurity, urban heat, e-waste, battery storage and the regional impacts of data centres and energy developments.

These are important issues, but not all fall within the scope of this Bill. I will address those that are relevant to the Bill in my response today. For the others, I would encourage Members to pursue them with the relevant agencies and Ministries through the appropriate Parliamentary channels.

Let me start with Singapore's competitiveness as a digital infrastructure hub.

Ms Lee Hui Ying, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Sharael Taha asked whether higher standards and compliance costs could push investment elsewhere in the region.

Cost matters. But Singapore does not compete by having the cheapest land or the cheapest electricity. Other markets have more of both. Furthermore, the future of compute infrastructure will increasingly be regional. Data centre operators and cloud service providers take a regional view when making investments. Some workloads will naturally locate where land and energy are more abundant.

Singapore's role is different. It is a trusted, connected and high-value hub for workloads where reliability, security, resilience, connectivity and proximity to enterprise activities matter most. That means we do not need to host every megawatt. We need to host the right capacity and make the capacity we host work harder for Singapore. The recent Data Centre – Call for Application exercise for which we received more than 20 applications, shows that operators continue to see Singapore as a key part of their regional strategy.

As Mr Edward Chia observed, regulatory quality can itself be part of Singapore's competitive moat. Good regulation is not about having the most rules. It is about having the right rules, applied predictably.

Ms Eileen Chong noted that much of the technical detail and operational requirements will be set out in regulations and Codes of Practice, and asked how trade-offs between different requirements will be weighed. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked how we can avoid creeping regulation. Ms Nadia Samdin asked how existing Singapore standards will fit with the Codes of Practice and Dr Neo Kok Beng asked how industry's views will shape them.

The approach is straightforward. We are setting a clear floor, and making sure those covered by the regime meet it and will raise that floor over time when it is practical and necessary.

The Bill sets out the architecture and policy objectives. IMDA will develop the detailed requirements with industry, drawing on international standards and existing Singapore standards. New requirements will come with consultation and appropriate transition time. Codes of Practices are a regulatory tool used in many sectors, such as the telecommunications sector. IMDA and the industry players are familiar with this approach. Under this Bill, licensees will be required to comply with the Codes and IMDA can take enforcement action if they do not.

Members also asked when the regime will take effect.

After the Bill is passed, we will bring it into force in stages as the subsidiary legislation, Codes of Practice and licensing processes are finalised. These details will be developed with industry over the coming year, before the requirements are finalised. We expect the approved Act to come into force in 2027. Existing operators will then have six months from commencement to apply for a licence. They can continue operating while IMDA considers their application.

Ms Chong also asked how the licensing process can be kept simple for operators who already deal with several regulators and made suggestions on minimising regulatory burden. Similar concerns were raised by respondents in the public consultation on the Bill.

It is our intent to minimise administrative burden for service providers and operators. We will streamline operational processes for all data centre operators and foundational digital infrastructure services covered under the Bill and seek views from the industry to ensure that these are practical for licensees. Where possible, we will use existing industry-recognised audits and certifications for demonstration of compliance to minimise duplicative effort for licensees.

Several Members asked a basic but important question: data centres use substantial land, power and water. What do Singapore and Singaporeans get in return?

Let me be clear. We do not view data centres as a standalone industry sector to be grown for its own sake. They underpin many important sectors – financial services, digital payments, healthcare systems, logistics platforms and Government services. They are also important connectivity nodes linking domestic, regional and international networks. The digital economy that runs on this infrastructure contributed about 20% of our GDP in 2025. The value is not in the data centre itself. It is in what the data centre enables.

Members have made similar points in their remarks. Mr Shawn Loh put it this way: he said Singapore should not pursue the greatest possible volume of digital infrastructure, but the greatest value from it. Mr Sharael put it another way – every megawatt must count. Mr Victor Lye further noted that the measure should not only be value promised per megawatt, but value realised per megawatt. I agree with them. However, we should be clear that infrastructure is an input, not the outcome.

Members spoke about the need for digital infrastructure to support Singapore's AI ambition. Our ambition should not simply be to host the infrastructure of the AI economy, but to help Singapore enterprises create value on top of it. That informs our allocation of scarce data centre capacity.

Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Sharael Taha asked what kind of workloads Singapore should be positioning for.

We want to anchor high-value workloads where trust, security and continuity matter most. They fall broadly into two groups: one, workloads that need to sit close to the enterprise systems and users they serve, where speed matters, such as for banking and AI; and two, others that handle sensitive data that must be kept under the rules users trust. These include digital identity and healthcare applications.

For these workloads, Singapore's position at the centre of regional, financial and enterprise infrastructure and the trust in our institutions are a real advantage. That is why it is not sensible to place an arbitrary cap on data centre capacity, as suggested by Mr Louis Chua, Ms Nadia, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Sharael. Doing so would mean constraining the growth of our broader economy and the use of digital technologies in society that benefit all Singaporeans. The whole-of-nation trade-offs need to be made, but not by narrowly viewing this matter through the lens of any one sector, albeit one as an important as the data centre sector.

Let me also clarify the 1.6 gigawatts figure that a number of Members cited.

The 1.6 gigawatts cited is the maximum IT load capacity of data centres in Singapore. It includes the 200 megawatts allocated under the second Data Centre – Call for Application. The Data Centre Park's 700 megawatts refer to total electricity consumption. This includes energy used for both IT equipment and other facility-level functions, such as cooling and lighting. The park will house the data centres allocated under the second Data Centre – Call for Application and future allocations. These data centres are therefore counted in both figures, which is why the two cannot simply be added together.

In terms of actual electricity use, in 2024, data centres used about 6.5 terawatt-hours of electricity, slightly more than 10% of Singapore's total consumption.

We take a whole-of-economy view of land, power, water and our carbon budget, alongside economic, security and environmental considerations. EMA's power system planning already takes growth in energy-intensive sectors, including data centres and semiconductors, into account. Data centres' electricity use today translates to less than 5% of Singapore's total carbon emissions.

Our climate commitments are clear. Singapore has committed to reduce emissions to 45 to 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035 and to reach net zero by 2050. Data centre growth must therefore be managed within these constraints, just like any other energy-intensive sector.

The Bill's efficiency standards, together with green energy conditions for newly awarded capacity, are part of how we do this. That is the difference between maximising capacity and the stewardship capacity. We are not seeking maximum volume. We are seeking maximum value.

Ms He Ting Ru asked whether Singapore is shifting the environmental and social costs of data centre growth to our neighbours. We are not seeking to push data centre capacity out of Singapore. We continue to allocate new capacity here, including through the Data Centre – Call for Application process and the Jurong Island Data Centre Park. What we are doing is being selective about the capacity we host, ensuring that it is efficient, sustainable and delivers broader value.

Global compute demand will continue to grow across the region. Lowering our standards would not reduce that demand. It would simply mean less efficient data centres here. Our approach is therefore to hold the data centres we host to high standards for energy and resource efficiency. The objective should not be to shift the problem elsewhere, but to raise standards as the regional ecosystem grows. I have spoken to government officials from around the region and they have expressed interest in our approach here in Singapore. We will be happy to share our experience with them as they develop their own frameworks and to learn from their best practices.

Dr Choo Pei Ling, Mr Victor Lye, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how operators will be held to the commitments made when they secure scarce capacity.

New capacity is allocated selectively. We consider strategic value, broader economic contributions and sustainability. Where material commitments form part of the basis for awarding capacity, the Bill allows them to become licence conditions.

The principle is simple. If scarce national capacity was awarded on the basis of a commitment, that commitment should be delivered. EDB will continue to negotiate and monitor these strategic and economic commitments.

Economic contributions can include investment, business spending, jobs, talent development, innovation and ecosystem partnerships, and many others. For example, an operator may commit to R&D, product innovation or talent development that grows our digital economy, or partnerships with local ecosystem players. These go beyond running the data centre. They reflect a broader commitment to invest in Singapore.

Where circumstances genuinely change, EDB and IMDA can work with operators on alternative actions that deliver equivalent value. Enforcement is not the first response to every lapse, but persistent non-delivery or bad faith cannot be cost-free. This is how we move from value promised to value realised.

Ms Nadia and Mr Yip asked how firm enforcement can be squared with continuity of service for users. IMDA does consider the consequential impact of its regulatory actions. As I noted in my opening speech, the purpose of regulation is to fix the problem, not create a second problem for users.

Mr Chia, Dr Choo, Mr David Hoe, Mr Kwek, Mr Shawn Loh, Dr Neo, Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Dennis Tan asked about existing data centres and the transition to higher standards. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Sharael asked how many data centres the Bill will cover.

There are about 70 data centres in Singapore today, which will be required to meet the sustainability requirements. About two-thirds will also meet the 10-megawatt threshold that will require them to meet the security and resilience requirements. The baseline energy efficiency requirements will apply to all licensed data centres. Newer facilities can be designed to higher standards from the outset. We recognise that older facilities were built under different technical and commercial conditions and we will provide them reasonable time to improve. Our approach is progressive uplift – a common direction of travel, with transition calibrated to investment and technology realities.

Mr Shawn Loh made a broader point. Stewardship is not only about deciding what new capacity to add; it is also about continually reviewing the capacity we already have. I agree with him. That is the approach that we are taking.

Technology and workloads will not stand still. Existing facilities should therefore have pathways to upgrade, redevelop or, where commercially appropriate, retire over time, balanced with investment certainty, reasonable transition periods and continuity for customers.

Operators can tap existing schemes to improve energy efficiency, such as the EDB's Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions, which offsets the cost of upgrading to more energy-efficient equipment; and IMDA's Energy Efficiency Grant, which supports data centre users to refresh their IT equipment to more efficient technology. Operators that find major redevelopment more practical can explore opportunities, such as the low-carbon Data Centre Park on Jurong Island. The destination is higher performance across the sector, and we want the transition path to be practical and orderly.

Let me now turn to the impact of data centre growth on Singaporeans, which several Members spoke about. Mr Chia, Mr Chua, Ms He, Mr Loh and Ms Nadia were concerned that households may end up subsidising data centres' electricity costs, including the cost of grid upgrades to support growing data centre demand.

That is unfortunately a challenge that many jurisdictions around the world are grappling with. The situation in Singapore is different.

Data centres do not buy electricity at the regulated household tariff. Like other large industrial consumers, they buy electricity from retailers at commercial rates, or directly from the wholesale electricity market. They also pay for their own dedicated grid connections. The household tariff is driven mainly by fuel and electricity generation costs, and the growth of data centres is not expected to raise these costs.

As overall electricity demand grows, the grid may need to be expanded or reinforced. These system-level upgrades benefit the reliability and resilience of the entire grid, and their costs are shared across users through the existing grid-charging framework.

At the same time, it does not mean that large users of water and electricity resources are given a free pass. They must be held to high standards. For example, because data centres are major users of resources, we subject their growth to greater scrutiny and progressively higher efficiency expectations. Their projected electricity and water demand is factored into our national infrastructure planning, new capacity is allocated selectively, and their growth must remain within our climate and resource constraints

This is not a new approach. We have done so for some time. In 2019, we paused new data centre capacity. Since 2022, new capacity has been allocated through the Data Centre – Call for Application exercises, to data centres that contribute to our strategic and economic priorities and adopt best-in-class sustainability practices. We also worked with industry on energy efficiency standards. This Bill takes this further by raising baseline energy efficiency standards across all data centres in Singapore, including existing ones.

Several Members asked how we will prepare Singaporeans to take up the jobs that the data centre sector will create. Mr Shawn Loh noted that data centres are capital-intensive and create relatively few jobs directly. That is true. But few people working inside a facility does not mean that few people depend on it. Therefore, we should distinguish between the jobs inside a data centre and the jobs enabled by a data centre. Many sectors, such as the financial services, healthcare, manufacturing, logistics, software and AI, all depend on this infrastructure. At the same time, those direct jobs are increasingly specialised – data centre operations, mechanical and electrical engineering, cybersecurity, energy management and sustainability. These are good jobs with good prospects.

We are building this pipeline together with industry and our institutions. For example, data centre operators have partnered the Institute of Technical Education and the Singapore Institute of Technology on Work-Study Programmes, which offer diplomas and specialised degrees in green data centres.

Dr Neo also highlighted professional capability. Resilient infrastructure ultimately depends on capable people. As Mr Loh put it, our aim should not merely be to develop enough people to maintain the facilities located here, but to anchor the expertise needed to design, transform and manage the next generation of digital infrastructure. We agree with him. As the industry moves up the value chain, Singaporeans should be able to move up with it.

The same applies to innovation. Singapore’s constraints in cooling, energy efficiency and grid integration are real. But constraints can also drive solutions with value beyond Singapore. Our constraints should push us to innovate, not hold us back.

It is in this spirit that we worked with industry to develop Singapore Standards that push the boundaries of data centre efficiency. They cover operating data centres in a tropical climate, the use of energy-efficient IT equipment and liquid cooling. As Dr Neo suggested, these industry-led standards, alongside the industry’s practical experience, can be brought together, for example, by industry associations, like SGTech, to provide a useful reference for other data centres in the region.

Talent development is also one of the contributions we assess when allocating new data centre capacity. Where such commitments formed part of the award, the Bill allows them to be captured as licence conditions.

Mr Dennis Tan asked why Government data centres are exempt from sustainability requirements. Let me first clarify that today, more than 80% of the Government’s digital workloads are hosted in commercial data centres, which are subject to the sustainability requirements.

The remaining workloads hosted on Government-owned data centres are typically for highly critical and essential needs like security. Such data centres are also held to sustainability standards under GreenGov.SG, which are on par with the requirements that will be imposed under the Bill. Data centres run by the autonomous universities, such as the National Supercomputing Centre, also report under GreenGov.SG.

Other exempted data centres, such as those supporting utilities, for example, power plants, are highly specialised and comprise very different electronic equipment compared to commercial data centres. Therefore, commercial cooling and IT efficiency solutions do not fully apply to them. These facilities only account for a small proportion of our overall data centre capacity.

The scope of the Digital Infrastructure Act is appropriate and will cover the vast majority of data centres that are consequential. We will review the scope in future if needed.

Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Saktiandi asked whether compliance costs will be passed on to SMEs that rely on cloud and hosting services. We are mindful of compliance costs of any regulations and have calibrated the requirements accordingly. The specific security and resilience requirements will largely be aligned with international and industry standards that operators are familiar with, and many already implement them. On sustainability, better energy efficiency will also benefit operators and their customers through operational cost savings in the long run.

The broader point is that regulation has costs, but poor resilience has costs too: downtime, lost transactions and disruption to businesses. The question is whether the standards create greater value and resilience than the costs that they impose. This matters especially for SMEs. Most do not negotiate directly with data centres or cloud operators. They depend on digital services built on top of this infrastructure and have less bargaining power when something goes wrong. Baseline resilience therefore benefits them too.

Ms He was concerned that some data centres are located near residential neighbourhoods. Sir, land use for data centres in Singapore is centrally planned, and we work closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority and JTC on this. All data centres are sited in industrial estates. For instance, the latest development is a purpose-built Data Centre Park on Jurong Island. There are also requirements to have sufficient separation between industrial estates and residential communities. Data centres set up in Singapore are also required to adhere to prevailing requirements for industrial premises, such as noise, water and air pollution.

Again, our situation is very different from that of many other jurisdictions around the world. Singapore’s future-oriented, systematic approach in urban planning provides us with levers to ensure that our industries, including data centres, address environmental concerns upfront.

Members also raised a wide range of sustainability issues: PUE, IT efficiency, water, cleaner energy, storage, cooling technologies and absolute resource use. All these matter. As I said in my opening speech, PUE is a useful starting point, but it is not the endpoint. A facility can improve its efficiency even as its total demand rises. Efficiency matters, but so does total resource used.

Our objective should be a better overall resource outcome, not simply a better number on one indicator. Detailed measurement and technical standards, including how PUE is measured, should therefore continue to evolve with industry experience and technology. IMDA will engage industry on these details.

Mr Hoe asked whether there is an order of priority to use less electricity first, then cleaner electricity, then carbon credits. Mr Ng asked that green energy for data centres be "new, real, and able to reach Singapore".

The Bill is structured to provide for both. New data centres awarded capacity under the latest Data Centre – Call for Applications exercise must source at least 50% of their energy from eligible green pathways. These pathways deliberately include emerging options, such as low-carbon hydrogen, ammonia and biomethane.

Mr Chua and Ms He asked about the progress and certainty of the green pathways materialising. The new data centres were required to submit credible proposals to meet their low-carbon energy commitments. We expect data centres to deliver on these proposals, and the Bill will allow us to hold the data centres accountable if they do not do so.

But there is a broader opportunity here. The Jurong Island Data Centre Park is not simply about adding more data centre capacity. It is about using the scale of data centre demand to help develop new low-carbon energy pathways for Singapore. The 50% requirement helps create demand for these emerging options, while Jurong Island also allows us to explore shared infrastructure, such as cooling and other utilities. In other words, we are not just greening data centres. We are using data centres as pathfinders and early demand drivers to green the energy system. Carbon credits come in only as a remedy, when a green energy project fails to deliver. They are not an alternative an operator can choose instead of the green energy it committed to.

Members also suggested batteries, district cooling, using the waste heat generated, flexible demand and new cooling approaches. These ideas are useful. Operators are incentivised to explore such innovative approaches. The Government is happy to engage them on these ideas.

At the same time, we should not wait until every technology is perfect before we begin, but neither should we lock ourselves too early into solutions that are not yet ready.

Ms He, Mr Hoe, Ms Nadia, Ms Poh and Mr Dennis Tan noted that data centres are also large consumers of water, and asked whether water efficiency requirements will be introduced. Today, most of the water used by the data centre sector is NEWater, which is mainly supplied for industrial and cooling purposes.

Our starting point is the existing standards and guidelines. For instance, PUB has introduced a Water Usage Effectiveness target of two cubic metres per megawatt-hour or lower for new and existing data centres, as part of the target set in the Green Data Centre Roadmap.

Singapore is among the few jurisdictions in the world to set a water efficiency target for the data centre sector, and we will continue to monitor international and technological developments.

Having said that, the Bill puts in place the legislative basis to impose water efficiency requirements on new and existing data centres in future. PUB's Industrial Water Solutions Innovation Ecosystem Alliance for Data Centres, which brings industry, academia and trade associations together to develop and validate practical water efficient cooling solutions for Singapore's tropical conditions, will inform any future water efficiency requirements.

Several Members asked for more transparency on the sector's electricity and water use. Some data is already published. For example, EMA's Singapore Energy Statistics reports electricity consumption by sector, including the information and communication sector, which includes data centres. PUB publishes the water efficiency benchmark for data centres.

The relevant agencies will consider what further sector level information can usefully be made available without disclosing commercially sensitive information. The relevant agencies will have to consider the reporting approach for various industry sectors, not just data centres.

Under the Bill, licensees will report regularly to IMDA. This gives IMDA the information it needs to regulate the sector and supports the Government's planning for national energy and water needs. As we implement the Digital Infrastructure Act, IMDA will consider how to put out updates on the progress of the licensees in meeting the necessary requirements.

Sir, let me now turn to the Bill's security and resilience aspects. Dr Choo, Mr Hoe, Mr Kwek, Ms Nadia, Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip raised questions about shared dependencies, incident reporting, overseas providers and whether resilience plans will work in practice.

Cyber threats matter, but major disruptions can also come from power or cooling failures, equipment faults, human error or misconfiguration. We therefore need to look at operational resilience more broadly. Several Members highlighted common points of failure – a bank, hospital and Government service may each have sound recovery plans, yet all depend on the same cloud provider, network or data centre.

As Mr Victor Lye observed, individual resilience does not necessarily produce national resilience. The Bill, therefore, gives the Government visibility across major providers. A single operator sees its own incident. The regulator needs to see the whole system. This helps us identify common dependencies and patterns that no individual operator may be able to see. IMDA, as the sector regulator, works closely with the relevant national agencies, like the National Security Coordination Secretariat on these inter-dependencies matters.

Mr Yip made the practical point that a plan on paper is not the same as recovery in practice. The Bill gives IMDA powers to set business continuity, disaster recovery and incident reporting requirements. The practices and measures for testing, assurance and remediation are better developed through the Codes of Practice with industry and sector regulators. In consultation with licensees, IMDA will establish the necessary regime to assess compliance with the proposed Act, regulations, licence conditions and Codes of Practice.

Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked about communications with users during disruptions. The key is that accurate information should move quickly through the service chain to the people and businesses affected. We agree with him. There is, however, an important difference between cybersecurity incidents and service disruptions.

In a cybersecurity incident, users may not know they have been affected and may need to take action to protect themselves. In a service disruption, users know when the service is down. What they need is timely information on restoration delivered through the platforms that serve them. Nonetheless, we could explore including such user notification requirements in subsequent regulations or Codes of Practice, if necessary, and in consultation with industry.

Several Members also asked the Government to publish more information on incidents and whether operators deliver on their commitments. Much of what licensees report is commercially sensitive and the Bill protects it, but the information will be put to good use. We will review incidents, share key learnings with operators and incorporate them into Codes of Practice, where appropriate.

Mr Chia and Mr Saktiandi were concerned about overlapping requirements between the Bill and the Cybersecurity Act, and Ms Chong called for a streamlined process for application, audit reporting and renewal.

It is our intent to minimise administrative burden for service providers and operators. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we aim to streamline processes, such as using a single application form and licence documentation for all data centres and foundational digital infrastructure services covered under the Bill, and we will work with industry to ensure that these are practical for all licensees.

Ms Nadia and Mr Chia asked about control and corporate structure, and which party will be issued the license.

IMDA will provide greater clarity on how we assess which entity has control over the data centre and should be licensed. This is something that IMDA is familiar with, the concept of effective control and assessing different corporate structures. These are issues that IMDA deal with in other sectors that it regulates, such as the telecommunications sector, and assessment often depends on the specific corporate structure and details of the licensee.

MDDI, CSA and IMDA will also streamline requirements and processes under both the Digital Infrastructure Act and Cybersecurity Act regimes. Where reporting requirements for cybersecurity incidents are similar, licensees will only need to report to IMDA, which will share the relevant information with CSA. In effect, IMDA will be the single port of call that Mr Saktiandi asked for.

Mr Hoe, Mr Victor Lye and Mr Saktiandi also raised broader questions about sovereign compute and assured access to critical capabilities. This issue goes beyond the scope of the Bill and is still evolving rapidly. As this matter falls broadly under a remit of MDDI, let me just say a few words about it.

As pointed out by Mr Victor Lye, Singapore cannot and does not need to own every layer of the technology stack. For some capabilities, domestic capacity may matter. For others, assured access through diversified international providers may be sufficient. For strategically important capabilities, we may need both. We also seek to maintain strong partnerships with leading companies across the tech stack and at the same time, build the capabilities to use different models and technology.

Dr Choo and Mr Lye asked about services that fall below the thresholds, and whether several smaller providers could together become systemically important. The thresholds target providers whose disruption would be most widely felt and were developed through extensive surveying of the industry. We will review the scope of the Act and update it if needed.

Mr Hoe, Ms Nadia and Mr Yip asked how we will ensure that services provided from overseas remain resilient, including whether overseas providers can act quickly in a disruption. Our focus is on the services nexus to Singapore, and not whether the service provider is a foreign or local entity. The Bill regulates major foundational digital infrastructure service providers that provide services to users in Singapore or from Singapore, where a disruption could cause widespread impact on users.

Licensed overseas providers that provide their services to users in Singapore are therefore held to the same security and resilience requirements as local ones. They must put in place business continuity and disaster recovery plans that work in practice and notify IMDA of incidents within reporting timelines. Overseas providers must also appoint a person in Singapore to accept service of notices, directions and other documents under the Bill. Ms Lee Hui Ying asked whether IMDA should have step-in rights to put critical data centres under statutory trust or receivership, where an operator is unable or unwilling to act in the public interest.

Under clause 18 of the Bill, where a threat to the continuous provision of a major foundational digital infrastructure service creates a serious and imminent threat to Singapore, the Minister may direct any person to take the measures needed to prevent, detect or counter the threat. That is an important instrument to deal with the risk that I spoke about in my opening speech. I had also explained the safeguards that have been put in place.

Importantly, legal authority is not the same as operational capability. A modern data centre is highly specialised. The objective is to have the tools to protect and restore services effectively, not simply to maximise formal Government control.

Finally, Mr Chua, Ms He, Mr Saktiandi, Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Dennis Tan referred to how other jurisdictions regulate data centres and asked how the Bill compares. I refer the Members to the handout I distributed as part of my opening speech.

Around the world, governments are grappling with the same question: how do we keep data centres and cloud services – which are systemically important and resource-intensive – for them to be resilient, sustainable and accountable to the societies that host them? The tools differ, but the direction is broadly the same. Major jurisdictions are tightening resilience requirements for critical digital infrastructure, while others are raising energy and resource efficiency standards for data centres.

Sir, the questions Singapore is addressing through this Bill are the same ones other governments now face about resilience, sustainability, resource allocation and economic development. The difference is that we started early, years before these pressures became urgent. That gave us room to work through the issues collaboratively with industry, and to build the framework that we have in front of us today.

Sir, let me conclude and speak in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Members have raised many important issues today – how to ensure that our digital infrastructure is secure and resilient, and how to manage its demand for resources.

Many Members and Singaporeans are concerned that the high electricity consumption of data centres may cause household electricity bills to rise. In fact, data centres purchase electricity differently from households. They buy electricity at commercial rates from electricity retailers or the wholesale market and bear the cost of their own grid connections. Therefore, the growth of data centres will not directly drive up household electricity bills.

Of course, this does not mean that data centres can use electricity without restraint. We impose stringent requirements on them: one, all data centres, whether new or existing, must meet prescribed energy-efficiency standards; and two, newly approved data centres must source at least half of their energy from green energy sources.

Our approach is neither to pursue growth at all costs nor to constrain growth indiscriminately. Instead, we plan ahead, grow responsibly and sustainably, and continually raise standards as technology advances and circumstances evolve.

The Digital Infrastructure Bill provides the framework for us to achieve these objectives to ensure that critical digital infrastructure is secure and resilient, to provide businesses with clear and predictable rules, and to ensure that the benefits of growth accrue to Singapore and Singaporeans.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, today's debate has shown broad agreement on the destination, even if Members might have different suggestions or clarifications on certain details. Some Members want us to move faster in particular areas. Others are concerned about cost, implementation and competitiveness. These are legitimate concerns. Our responsibility is to balance them, to raise standards for security and sustainability, while supporting growth and keeping Singapore competitive.

That is the approach behind the Bill. We will plan ahead, rather than wait for problems to become crises. We will grow digital infrastructure selectively, make scarce resources work harder for Singapore and Singaporeans, and set clear rules while retaining room for standards and technology to improve. We will focus on outcomes. Not simply megawatts allocated, but value realised. Not simply buildings and servers but capabilities, businesses and services enabled. Not simply resilience on paper, but resilience in practice.

Most Singaporeans may never enter a data centre, but increasingly, much of everyday life depends on one. The real question is not how much capacity we need, but how good the infrastructure should be and what value Singapore gets in return.

Our ambition is not maximum compute and megawatts; it is maximum value from these capabilities that we host. That is what this Bill is designed to secure: digital infrastructure that is reliable when we need it, sustainable over time and worthy of Singapore's trust. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications for Senior Minister of State Tan? Mr Sharael Taha.

2.00 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I thank Senior Minister of State Tan for his comprehensive response to the points raised during the debate. I just have two further clarifications.

First, on the cost of resilience. Senior Minister of State Tan made the point that while these requirements would impose additional costs, the value of greater resilience outweighs these costs. I agree with that principle, but ultimately resilience does have an economic price. Has the Ministry assessed, even if it is at an indicative level, the incremental cost of compliance arising from these requirements? Perhaps as a percentage of operating cost per megawatt, for example. Importantly, after incorporating this additional cost, how does Singapore's overall cost competitiveness compare with the other data centres' location in the region?

My second clarification is a bit broader. The Bill before us is understandably relatively narrow and quite technical in scope, but what has become clear in today's debate is that the strategic considerations surrounding data centres are much broader. They touch on economic value creation, AI capability, access to right data, sustainability, energy security, even to jobs, trainings and how it affects our neighbourhoods.

My question is therefore about stewardship. Who within the Government takes the whole of Government view of this resource and ensure that we are not merely allocating megawatts, but maximising the economic and strategic value that Singapore derives from it? And as this consideration cuts across energy, economic development, AI, manpower, sustainability, security, digital policy, data sovereignty, where does the overall strategic ownership lie?

Will MDDI lead this stewardship and ensure that the decisions on data centres are constantly approached through this broader strategic lens?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I will answer the second question first. The Member just named the whole Cabinet. I think there are many issues that we debate in Parliament that cuts across different agencies and Ministries, and that is why the instinct of agencies and Ministries is to adopt a whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation approach. And this Bill reflects that.

Although MDDI is moving this Bill in Parliament and IMDA is the primary regulator for the licences that will be issued under the Bill, MDDI works very closely with IMDA and with many other Ministries.

We talked about strategic and economic commitments, and the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry will have an important role. That is why the EDB's specific role is captured in this Bill. I want to reassure he Member that this is something that we work on closely together as a whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation, including working through the trade-offs and constraints when energy-intensive sectors like data centres need to be hosted in Singapore. So, this is a whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation effort.

On resilience and cost of compliance, this is not something that can be so easily measured. I mentioned the benefits of resilience may very well outweigh the cost. This is not just in broad terms, but also addresses some of the questions by Members on SMEs that rely on digital services hosted by cloud services and data centres.

For SMEs, in particular, as I mentioned earlier in my reply, they often are price-takers when it comes to digital services. They do not negotiate directly with the data centres or cloud service providers. But when disruptions happen for whatever reasons, cyber or non-cyber, they are the ones impacted. And that is why having a baseline standard for both security and resilience is important for SMEs in particular.

On specific cost estimation, we have to work closely with the different data centre providers. There are many ways.

Let me set the context. All the security and resilience requirements that we will impose through Codes of Practices that are empowered by this Bill, are not requirements that the operators are unfamiliar with. These are international and industry standards. Some of the standards may be more customised and contextualised for Singapore's operating environment, because we are a dense urban city, in the tropics.

But these are not standards or practices that our industry players are unfamiliar with. And we have taken those considerations and factored those considerations into the Bill's development following extensive consultation with industry.

And the second point I will make is that meeting the requirements is not one-size-fits-all. It requires IMDA to work very closely with the specific operators as there may be different ways to meet a particular required resilience requirement. They may have to change certain configurations in the data centre, or they may make additional investments to put in some safeguards when disruptions happen.

There is no one-size-fits-all way of meeting all the requirements. It requires us to have an in-depth collaborative approach, but we want to hold them to high standards. I want to thank the Member for raising the point that resilience is important, and not just to look at the cost.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. Just two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State.

First, in terms of the data centre capacity, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that there will not be a hard cap per se. But in that sense, given that IMDA's Green Data Centre Route Map talks about adding about 300 megawatts of capacity in the near term and much more through wind energy deployment, is there any circumstances or timeline or how will the Ministry decide when will the additional capacity be released?

The second clarification, I understand from the Senior Minister of State's speech, that is about 6.5 terawatt-hours of electricity was consumed by data centres in 2024. How much of that is currently being powered by green energy? For Data Centre – Call for Application 2 with the additional 200 megawatts coming on, how much additional electricity consumption is there expected to be?

Because the question is, while we do expect the data centres to fulfil their green energy commitments on a system level, how much of that green energy will be available through the multiple pathways, since solar is the only one which is transparent right now?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, we will continue to review closely with other agencies on whether new capacity should be released for new data centres. We just had a Data Centre – Call for Application exercise, for 200 megawatts capacity, and we awarded that to four winning operators. We review this regularly.

As I mentioned earlier, data centres and digital infrastructure supports the broader economy. As the economy digitalises and uses more AI services, the demand will be there. And we will have to review along the way.

There is no fixed plan. But we have to be quite dynamic and look at some of the circumstances as things change. But we are very mindful of the overall constraint on electricity, water and carbon, and any growth needs to be constrained by overall cap.

Mr Chua mentioned about the 50% – that is, in the recent Data Centre – Call for Application, where the awarded data centre operators have to bring in at least 50% of their electricity use through green energy pathways. I mentioned in my reply that these are emerging areas, not solar. I mentioned ammonia, biomethane. It is precisely because we want them to be pathfinders and early demand drivers for creating new pathways. Will all this work? Well, we have to hold them to their commitments, but this is something we are working on together with them.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Thank you, Speaker, and I also thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. Two supplementary questions: the first relating to carbon credits and the second relating to our longer-term climate targets.

On carbon credits, I think the Senior Minister of State clarified that indeed this will be a backstop after exhausting all other efforts. I wanted to clarify how will the carbon credit quality limits and public disclosure of these carbon credits be handled?

And the second question is really whether or not this additional potential demand has been incorporated into Singapore's emissions trajectory and power sector decarbonisation plans towards our 2050 Net Zero climate targets. I do recall the Senior Minister of State had said that some points will be out of scope from his reply. I could not catch whether decarbonisation is one of them – although if it is, then I think that goes some way towards explaining the intention behind some of the questions as to strategic ownership and totality of use.

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, Ms Nadia's question on carbon credits needs to be seen in the context of this Bill. It is not the first solution that when operators cannot meet their green energy commitments, and they default to carbon credits. That is not the point. They have made commitments through the Data Centre – Call for Application exercise on green energy pathways, and we want to hold them to those commitments. That is why I mentioned to Mr Chua, these are important commitments. These are not easy commitments to make because we are asking them to make commitments on emerging green energy pathways. There is not a strong market today, and we are asking them to be the first demand driver and pathfinder.

While the first instinct is to hold them to those commitments. And carbon credits come in only as a remedy, which we hope to not get to. But we cannot allow them a free pass. If you make commitments and do not comply with them, there must be a cost. So, that is the context when we talk about carbon credits.

On climate targets, I already mentioned in my speech a number of times that we are resource-constrained. The data centre sector is one sector in the whole economy. We have to align with the commitments that nationally we have made around being Net Zero by 2050, and the different commitments we have made publicly and internationally. Any growth in the data centre sector will therefore have to come with trade-offs. These trade-offs will have to be made, and those trade-offs will have to be discussed internally within Government and with industry.

So, the short answer is yes to the second question that Ms Nadia has.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the clarifications so far. Just a quick follow-up to your last reply to Member Nadia Samdin on the carbon credit. I understand where he is coming from. So, if the companies are unable to fulfil the standards imposed on them, are they still allowed to fall back on carbon credits, and if so, what is this limit? Is it 5%?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I have already explained that in both my opening and closing remarks.

Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Thank you, Speaker. I am quite heartened by Senior Minister of State reply on the participation of the industries in coming out with the Codes of Practice, but since the data centre is a critical infrastructure, especially the foundational digital infrastructure, I would like to clarify whether the body of knowledge that is encompassed in these systems, will the operator be required in the Code of Practice to have accredited professionals – that they not just have the knowledge but have the competencies and the practices to operate the digital infrastructure. An example will be like BCA requiring a resident engineer or resident technical officer to be onsite for building activities.

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank Dr Neo for his question. There are two parts to the question. The first part of question is what Dr Neo spoke about in his remarks – that a number of Members made mention of that as well – that new data centres are sophisticated set-ups, high value, technologically advanced. The profile of people working at these centres is very different. These are high value roles with good prospects. The numbers may not be large, but they are very good, specialised roles.

We are working together with industry and our schools – I mentioned the Institute of Technical Education as well as Singapore Institute of Technology in my remarks earlier – to train Singaporeans to take on those opportunities. Not just for Singapore, but as data centres in the region become more sophisticated, much more advanced, those are good opportunities for our people. We are working closely with industry and our schools to make sure that Singaporeans, not just fresh graduates but also the mid-career workers to get those opportunities. So, that is one part of what Dr Neo talked about – highly technical, highly specialised professionals.

The second part is whether as part of the Codes of Practice, we should have regulatory tools, where you require certain roles to be done by people with specific skills sets, competencies, knowledge and to demonstrate those competencies, skills sets and knowledge through certain certification or certain demonstration of their ability.

That is something we will continue to work on with industry to see whether those roles require that demonstration. For example, when we talk about the built environment, Qualified Persons QPs) who submit their plans for approval, need to be of certain accreditation.

We have to look into this, but we will not front-run industry. That is a separate matter compared to the first one I mentioned.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarification. I have one clarification in relation to where we build our data centres. I believe the Senior Minister of State mentioned that this is done from a central planning perspective and it is planned centrally.

I mentioned in my speech that the Jurong West Data Centre Park owned by Google is one of the data centres that is located near a residential area. I believe it is just across the road from a residential neighbourhood. In my speech, I also mentioned that sometimes the excess heat generated from data centres can actually affect up to 500 metres away. If it is just across the street, I think it is logical to assume that there might be some disamenities.

So, can I ask for more clarification on how the Government intends to address some of these concerns on the disamenities that are associated with the building of data centres, whether new or existing?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, first and foremost, let me reiterate what I said in my closing remarks.

Data centres are zoned and built in industrial estates. That is the first point. A large concentration of those data centres is in industrial estates. I mentioned the purpose-sited Jurong Island Data Centre Park earlier. We are not building it within residential areas.

Even in industrial estates, there are requirements for a buffer between these facilities and the residential areas. I have asked my colleagues to check. Even the one in Jurong – because Ms He mentioned it in her speech yesterday – it is within the buffer requirements, within the approved limits.

Secondly, if there are specific issues that Ms He has on that particular data centre, I welcome her to share it separately with me, and my colleagues and I will take a look. But in the considerations of where we site data centres and the buffer zones, we have already considered the different disamenities that might occur, with different facilities, including data centres. That is why they are located in industrial estates.

Mr Speaker: I believe all the clarifications have been addressed by Senior Minister of State Tan.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Kiat How].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.