Hansard Explorer

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry.

1.52 pm

The Minister of State for Energy, Trade and Industry (Ms Gan Siow Huang) (for the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry)): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Energy, Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry), I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

On 1 October 2026, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) was renamed the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry (METI).

This is a significant milestone. MTI was established in 1979. This is the first time in almost five decades that its name has changed. The change reflects how fundamental energy has become to Singapore's economic competitiveness, industrial transformation and long-term resilience.

Singapore's energy system has evolved alongside our economic development and trade relationships.

In 2001, the Government undertook major restructuring of the power sector. This included the corporatisation and privatisation of power assets. The national grid was placed under Singapore Power. Power generation was opened up to commercial parties, and we progressively liberalised the wholesale and retail electricity markets to give consumers more choices.

The Energy Market Authority of Singapore (EMA) was then established under MTI to oversee this newly liberalised sector.

Since then, our energy system has evolved substantially, including the development of competitive electricity markets, diversification into liquefied natural gas (LNG), and more recently, our transition towards cleaner sources of energy.

What has changed is the scale and strategic importance of the energy challenge.

As Minister Tan See Leng said at last week's Singapore Energy Lecture, energy is an existential priority. Our economic growth and quality of life depend on reliable and affordable energy. At the same time, Singapore must decarbonise despite our constraints as a small, alternative energy-disadvantaged country.

That is why adding "energy" to the Ministry's name matters. It signals our determination to give energy the strategic attention it requires and to manage energy policy as an integral part of our economic strategy.

For Singaporeans, this ultimately means ensuring confidence that the lights will stay on; keeping energy costs competitive and manageable; building the infrastructure needed to support new investments and good jobs; and developing cleaner energy options for future generations.

But METI is more than just about energy. Our broader mission remains to secure Singapore's economic future and to create good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.

As we set out at this year's Committee of Supply, this means strengthening our leadership in advanced manufacturing and other growth sectors, harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) and innovation, helping enterprises transform and internationalise, strengthening Singapore's position as a trusted and well-connected global hub, and expanding our economic space even as the global environment becomes more uncertain.

Bringing energy explicitly alongside trade and industry reflects the integrated way in which Singapore must pursue our next phase of growth.

Mr Speaker, let me now turn to the Bill.

The amendments in the Bill are a consequence of the Ministry's renaming and the amendments are technical in nature.

Clause 2 deletes the definition of "Minister" in the Carbon Pricing Act 2018. Clause 3 similarly deletes the definitions of "Minister" in sections 262 and 492 of the Copyright Act 2021.

The effect of these deletions is that under the Interpretation Act 1965, the Minister will be the Minister for the time being charged by the Prime Minister with responsibility for the relevant provisions of those Acts.

Clause 4 updates the reference to the "Ministry of Trade and Industry" in the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Act 2022 to the "Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry". Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

1.57 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill, which updates our laws following the renaming of MTI to METI from 1 October 2026.

These technical amendments also provide an opportunity to clarify how statutory responsibilities will remain transparent as energy receives greater institutional emphasis. I have two areas of clarification.

First, clarity in the exercise of statutory powers. The Bill updates the Ministry's name in the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore Act. It also removes specific definitions of "Minister" from the Carbon Pricing Act and two provisions of the Copyright Act. The Interpretation Act provides a general definition linking "Minister" to responsibility for the relevant department or subject. I recognise the flexibility this provides when portfolios change.

Could the Minister of State clarify who will exercise each of the affected functions and whether any change in their allocation is intended? This includes the Copyright Act functions relating to royalties and Tribunal inquiries. In particular, how will responsibilities under the Carbon Pricing Act be divided between METI and the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), including responsibility for carbon tax allowances?

For the public and businesses, clear responsibility matters when seeking a decision or clarification. Could the Government make it easier to identify the responsible Ministry through accessible, regularly updated guidance alongside the formal notifications?

Second, ensuring the organisational arrangements can deliver our energy priorities. In January this year, I asked whether the Government would consider a dedicated Ministry of Energy, given rising demand from activities such as AI, data centres and advanced manufacturing and given our geopolitical environment. Deputy Prime Minister Gan explained the arrangements already in place, including the energy and carbon cluster. He said there were no plans then for a separate Ministry, but that the organisation of this work would continue to evolve.

So, I welcome the stronger emphasis on energy within METI. Bringing energy planning closely together with economic policy can help us match new investments with the power infrastructure they require. Could the Minister of State elaborate on the advantages of this integrated approach, and how the Government will assess whether these arrangements remain adequate as the task grows?

This has direct implications for Singaporeans. Households need affordable electricity. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs), energy costs affect margins and the prices they charge. For businesses considering long-term investments, confidence in future power availability and regulatory clarity can also affect financing costs and investment decisions.

I welcome the recently announced Five-Year Energy Infrastructure Plan. Delivering these investments requires specialist capabilities and coordination across agencies. Is METI's enhanced energy focus supported by additional or redeployed resources in the Ministry and EMA, particularly for system planning, international negotiations and investment appraisal?

I also suggest that future updates to Parliament explain how these arrangements are helping to deliver infrastructure on time and manage the impact of the energy transition on household and business costs. This would allow us to assess the practical benefits of the stronger institutional focus.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clear statutory responsibility and effective delivery should reinforce each other. Singaporeans should be able to understand who is accountable and see how our energy arrangements support a secure and affordable energy future. With these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

2.00 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, the rather pedestrian title of this Bill, "Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2)" belies, as other have noted, the import of elevating energy into a core Ministry function within the Government. I would offer some thoughts on why I agree with taking energy even more seriously in our economy. I would then move on to discuss some broad contours of the future of a specific form of energy – nuclear – within this broader context.

Modern economics often focuses on just three main inputs to production: physical capital, human capital and labour. This is inherently logical. We wish to capture how demographic changes alter the size of the labour force, and how this workforce is complemented by education and experience on one hand, and equipment, machinery and structures on the other. Land is often glossed over as we transition from an agricultural economy where such an input would otherwise be paramount.

Energy often is too, because it is often a relatively minor cost, which simply scales up as production rises. To the extent that we seriously consider the impact of energy was often in the context of how it would affect the business cycle. The reality, of course, is that energy is not only important, but essential. It is difficult to imagine any modern economic process that does not require energy as a key input.

Indeed, this thermodynamic reality has returned to the forefront with the advent of AI and the robotics revolution, where data centres and industrial robots exhibit voracious energy needs.

We have a Ministry dedicated to labour and human capital – the Ministry of Manpower. And capital has traditionally fallen under the oversight of MTI. In reality, energy has always been part of the overall portfolio of the former MTI, and elevating energy into the Ministry's official name formalises the increasing centrality of this input into our economy. In light of this, the Workers' Party supports the Bill.

Sir, elevating energy's role in our public institutions also implies the need to seriously consider all forms of energy, including nuclear. I understand that this Bill is not fundamentally about how the Government plans to enfold nuclear into our energy supplies of the future. Still, the issue has previously been flagged by the Government, including Prime Minister Wong in May this year, and questions have been raised from both sides of this House on the matter. It is also of substantial public interest, including residents in Sengkang, who I represent.

There is little need to remind Members that as important as energy is in our economy, our supplies are always important and that this supply is not always secure. Indeed, recent diplomatic frictions that emerged over the transboundary haze and was followed by a decision, perhaps to alter the amount of natural gas exports to us.

This action underscores how our own economy often resides in the shadow of the largest one in Southeast Asia and that this neighbour has not been adverse to deploying geopolitical tools – that is, the exercise of economic relationships and instruments to meet geopolitical ends – to meet those goals.

Events elsewhere in the world, such as the challenges that Europe has faced in meeting its energy needs following the invasion of Ukraine and the global price spikes in fuel related to the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, also speak to the importance of energy security in an age of rising geopolitical risk.

The Government has remained relatively tight-lipped about its detailed plans for nuclear energy, typically deferring to the completion of the integrated nuclear energy review. This is fair. Nevertheless, the creation of this Bill offers an opportunity to sketch out some broad considerations that I hope that the Government would take into account in its ongoing review.

I will declare at this stage that I had previously received funding from the Public Policy and Nuclear Threats Program at the Institute of Global Conflict and Cooperation at University of California, San Diego, as well as the Nuclear Scholars Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC. I have also, in the course of my work at ESSEC Business School, consulted for the EDF Group, France's state-backed nuclear power utility. However, I have no direct financial interests in nuclear energy companies.

Sir, the first point I will make is that the supply chain for nuclear, while potentially more secure than that for gas, is not necessarily assured. The nuclear suppliers group is diverse and includes many countries that have historically been respectful of international contracts and maintain strong diplomatic and business relationships with us, such as Australia and Canada. But uranium yellowcake is subject to export control guidelines in line with the safeguards set by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

For small modular reactors (SMRs), the likely technology our country will pursue, the supply chain for raw fuel, also known as high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), is even more tenuous, being mainly supplied by China and Russia, countries that have not been shy to wielding geo-economic weapons. Beyond the reality of suppliers, issues such as counterfeit supplies and vendor reliability for SMRs have to be evaluated seriously.

Similarly, waste disposal presents its own post-use supply chain difficulties as overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency, under the rubric of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. I will observe here that Singapore is not currently a party to this convention, but I expect that we would participate should we go down the road of peaceful nuclear power generation. Perhaps the most critical question here is who we will end up partnering with for spent fuel management, given the absence of safe disposal facilities here. This opens up a whole Pandora's box of diplomatic challenges that could emerge that we must take seriously.

Second, it is worth pointing out that the economics of nuclear power, as challenging as they have already been even prior to recent advances in battery storage and renewable energy generation, have continued to work against the technology. This is even more so for the SMRs that we are considering, where cost estimates are especially shaky and demonstration projects have routinely overrun budgets. Moreover, at least one study has pointed to how the technology is most economically competitive in industrial applications, such as the production of ammonia, steel and oil refining, which are but a small share of our economy.

While some renewable options, such as offshore wind and solar, may be less reliable in our local context, it is hard to ignore the ever-increasing value proposition that these alternative sustainable energy options offer. It is clear that any benefits from energy security from nuclear power will need to confront this trade-off dynamically.

This is because energy and sustainability ultimately are two sides of the same coin. Yet this Bill will separate these functions into the new METI. This need not be an irreconcilable problem. After all, as Minister Grace Fu reminds us, final positions adopted by the Government undergo cross-agency and cross-Ministry consultation. But I would nevertheless seek a reassurance from MSE that it will not shirk in holding METI to account for sustainability considerations and net zero ambitions.

Third, as much as we seek to emphasise energy security, we must also be cognisant of existential security, which is foremost on the minds of the man or woman on the street when we raise the topic of nuclear power. For many accidents in nuclear power plants still conjure up images of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima, notwithstanding how those accidents involve older generation conventional reactors.

I grasp the psychological benefits of citing a future SMR on a proposed new Western Island, but the reality is that should there be a serious nuclear meltdown, the footprint of our nation is sufficiently small that the mainland would almost inevitably be affected.

The reassurance that would truly be required is therefore less about the precise geographic location as much as ensuring that any reactor technology adopted exhibits, as Generations III and III+ plants do, robust multi-layered containment and encasement systems that will limit fall-out in the event of an accident or attack.

This speaks to the issue of physical security. Nuclear facilities require protection, both in the case of conventional welfare as well as terrorist aggression.

Given how our region has the potential for instability and may even become a locus for great power confrontation, we could inadvertently expose ourselves to such collateral damage. Should warring parties decide that radioactive contamination, for instance, would be an acceptable tactic to deny sea route access to an adversary.

Locating a plant on that an island would also imply the need to bring our Navy in to defend the asset. This is inherently more complicated relative to a facility located deep within land.

Mr Speaker, I understand that these points on nuclear energy, while within the spirit of the Bill, go somewhat beyond the scope. Nevertheless, I hope that this House will be in a position for sober, considered debate on the future of nuclear energy in our country when the time arrives for such a discussion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

2.11 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which makes consequential legislative amendments following the renaming of MTI, to METI.

While the amendments are largely technical, the addition of the word "energy" to the Ministry's name carries broader significance. It underscores the importance of energy to Singapore's economic competitiveness, industrial development and national resilience.

Speaker, Sir, allow me also to congratulate Minister Tan See Leng and the entire METI family, particularly EMA, on the successful Singapore International Energy Week just last week. The announcements were timely: we heard about further geothermal studies, Singapore's preparations to assess advanced nuclear technologies, including SMRs and plans to develop the necessary nuclear talent pipeline. We also welcomed the National Energy Storage Systems Vision, which aims to triple our storage capacity to over 1 gigawatt-hour by 2030.

In reality, Singapore remains heavily dependent on imported energy in the near term. While we have strengthened our energy security through fuel reserves and plans for a second LNG terminal, we must also plan decades ahead. As a battery man, I am particularly excited by the National Energy Storage Systems Vision and the potential for batteries to contribute beyond frequency regulation, including peak shaving, demand response and other grid services.

Speaker, Sir, energy efficiency, industrial intensification and decarbonisation can no longer be viewed in isolation. This makes clarity in Ministerial responsibilities and coordination across agencies all the more important.

Clause 2 of this Bill removes the specific definition of "Minister" under the Carbon Pricing Act, allowing Ministerial responsibilities to be assigned under the broader constitutional framework. I recognise the importance of such flexibility, particularly as policy issues become increasingly interdisciplinary.

Can the Minister of State clarify whether clause 2 is intended solely to provide administrative flexibility, or whether changes to the division of responsibilities between METI and MSE are envisaged? More importantly, how will the Government maintain clear accountability and coordination where carbon pricing, industrial decarbonisation and economic competitiveness intersect?

Speaker, Sir, as Singapore intensifies our industrial estates to optimise land use, we must also consider the increasing concentration of electricity demand.

Two mega trends drive our energy needs, electrification and digitalisation. This suggests that industries increasingly electrify their operations, while new sectors such as advanced manufacturing, semiconductors and data centres require substantial electricity capacity. One example is Micron, which has operations in my Naval Base constituency. Its expansion and resulting electricity needs illustrates why electricity infrastructure planning must keep pace with industrial investment.

With the newly announced Five-Year Energy Infrastructure Plan, can the Minister of State clarify whether JTC and EMA will make energy productivity and grid capacity explicit considerations in industrial estate planning and redevelopment, alongside land productivity?

Speaker, Sir, METI is also well positioned to turn Singapore's energy challenges into economic opportunities. Just as Singapore developed capabilities in water technology, we can develop expertise in energy storage, smart grids and energy management.

I have previously raised the potential of Battery Energy Storage Systems in Parliament. Beyond their role in supporting our electricity network, battery technologies also present opportunities for local engineering, systems integration and technology companies.

As we work towards the National Energy Storage Systems Vision, will METI consider strengthening the pathway from research and development to testing, commercial deployment and exports, so that Singapore companies can participate more meaningfully in the emerging energy economy?

Speaker, Sir, in our generation, it is no longer just about having sufficient energy to keep our lights on. It is also imperative that we have sufficient energy to power our future industries. Singapore overcame water scarcity through long-term planning, technology and innovation. We have a legacy of overcoming resource limitations through our resourcefulness.

We should aspire to achieve the same in energy. Our ambition should not stop at securing sufficient energy for Singapore. We must also use it more productively and develop the technologies, industries and capabilities that will power our future.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

2.17 pm

Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. This is a short Bill: four clauses, three pages. One, updates a name in the Gambling Regulatory Authority Act. Two, remove the fixed definition of "Minister" from the Carbon Pricing Act and the Copyright Act, so that the Prime Minister can assign responsibility for them.

But a Ministry's name is a statement of priority. Putting "Energy" first, ahead of "Trade" and "Industry", tells Singaporeans that energy is no longer a utility question or an environmental question alone. It is now formally an economic question – handled by the same Ministry that holds the same business portfolio. And if the Carbon Pricing Act follows, then energy cost and carbon cost will sit under one roof for the first time.

So, my question to the Minister is a simple one: for a small firm watching its electricity bill climb, what actually changes on 1 October? I will put that question in Mandarin, because that is the language many of those firms do business in. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): The Ministry of Trade and Industry is being renamed the Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry. The order of the name reflects the order of priority. From today, energy formally becomes an economic issue.

For SMEs, this is not news. Over the past year, the situation in the Middle East has sent oil and electricity prices fluctuating. For large companies, this is a job for the finance department; for small companies, it is the racing heartbeat of the boss looking at the bill every month.

In April and May this year, I asked two questions in Parliament: beyond providing subsidies when prices fluctuate, what long-term plans does the Government have to help SMEs build real energy resilience and reduce their reliance on assistance? Both times, the replies asked me to refer to the Ministerial Statement of 7 April.

Today, energy has been added to the Ministry's name. I would like to ask once more, and put forward three specific suggestions.

First, one ministry, one window. Currently, SMEs applying for energy efficiency grants have to go through Enterprise Singapore and NEA; the rules of the electricity market are the responsibility of the EMA; and the carbon tax is yet another system. Three agencies, three entry points. Now that the name has changed, can SMEs be allowed to walk through just one door and get their questions on energy savings, electricity bills and carbon costs answered in one go?

Second, the fixed-price safeguards must be understandable and usable for small firms. In September, the Minister told me in Parliament that retailers cannot unilaterally change fixed electricity prices, that a rise in fuel prices does not automatically constitute force majeure, and that if a retailer exits the market, consumers will not lose their power supply. These safeguards are important. But many small business owners do not even know these clauses are in their contracts. Can EMA produce a concise contract guide for SMEs, explaining what can be changed and what cannot?

Third, information must be in a language they understand. Among the hawkers in our neighbourhoods, the car workshops and the small factories, many owners are used to Mandarin, Malay or Tamil. Last September, I suggested that the Government translate grant information into Mandarin. This should apply even more to energy-related grants and safeguards. A clear explanation written in one's mother tongue often does more for those who truly need help than a grant budget of a million dollars.

Mr Speaker, changing a name is easy; changing practice is hard. I support this Bill, and I look forward to METI delivering new answers under its new name.

( In English ): Just to conclude, let us make energy travel indefinitely in Singapore, METI. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

2.22 pm

Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Lee Hong Chuang for their support for the Bill. I also thank Members for their suggestions and we will give them serious consideration.

Let me respond to specific points raised by the Members. For the issues raised that are outside the scope of the Bill, I will provide brief responses to some of them. I invite Members to file Parliamentary Questions on issues that are outside the scope of the Bill if they would like a more detailed response.

First of all, to clarify, this specific Bill does not change the existing division of responsibilities between the Ministers, which are assigned by the Prime Minister and specified in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Ministerial Responsibility Notification) 2025.

METI works closely with all our partner Ministries to ensure a smooth and coordinated whole-of-Government effort to secure economic future in a low-carbon world. We work together on infrastructure planning, resilience measures, as well as carbon mitigation strategies.

In terms of the delineation of responsibilities between METI and MSE on carbon mitigation, METI deals primarily with industry and power sector decarbonisation and carbon tax allowances, whereas MSE and the National Climate Change Secretariat cover national mitigation issues, including carbon tax administration and policy across all sectors.

On civil nuclear energy development, METI provides policy stewardship and coordinates the agencies involved in the study of nuclear energy, ensuring that Singapore builds up its capabilities in a systematic and structured manner. METI also shapes Singapore's overall policy direction for nuclear energy as part of Singapore's broader energy goals.

MSE, on the other hand, drives policies on nuclear safety, radiation protection and regulatory aspects of nuclear energy.

Mr Speaker, the government is studying nuclear energy seriously and methodologically, and we are starting the hard work right now, including studying global developments and building capabilities steadily, step by step. METI does not do this alone, we work in partnership with MSE and the National Climate Change Secretariat and other Government agencies.

We also recognise that energy costs can affect SME's margins, pricing and investment decisions. Singapore cannot be fully insulated from changes in global energy prices. The Government will provide financial schemes to help companies become more energy efficient. Consumers can also play their part by using electricity more efficiently and conserving energy where possible. The Government will continue to support businesses, especially SMEs, in improving energy efficiency.

One example is the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG), which helps businesses defray the cost of adopting energy efficient equipment. Eligible companies can apply for EEG through the Business Grants Portal or approach any of the 10 SME Centres for further assistance. Businesses can also use the newly launched BizSG portal to discover our range of Government grants and support relevant to their needs.

Separately, EMA has put in place various measures to help businesses understand their rights in electricity, retail contracts, such as on contract transparency, renewal and termination. Such information is available online on EMA's Open Electricity Market website.

Next, on manpower and resources. Through internal restructuring, in recent years, both METI and EMA have devoted more resources to our energy priorities. A new energy and carbon cluster was set up in METI in 2024, operating alongside our trade and industry clusters. The cluster comprises six divisions, overseeing a range of energy- and carbon-related issues around infrastructure planning, policy and regulatory development, international partnerships, power sector decarbonisation and carbon market development. METI's headcount has grown in tandem with expanding work. Similarly, EMA's headcount has grown over the last five years, given its expanded range of responsibilities.

On the need for a separate Ministry for Energy, the Prime Minister had responded to this question in July 2026. As he said, the work on energy is still evolving and while a dedicated Ministry is not necessary at this juncture, the Government will consider the issue again should the work grow significantly in the future.

Mr Speaker, the amendments in this Bill are technical. The renaming of the Ministry underscores the increasingly important role of energy in Singapore's economic growth, climate goals and national resilience.

But even with the renaming, METI's core mission remains unchanged. We drive productivity-led growth. We safeguard and expand our economic space. We build a future ready economy where firms can thrive and create good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. This remains METI's commitment to Singaporeans. With this, Sir, I seek to move.

2.28 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications from members for Minister of State Gan? No.

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. – [Ms Gan Siow Huang].

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