Investment schemes and the company registers
Checking a promoter before investing
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for promoters of investment schemes (a) whether ScamShield will let the public check, for free, a promoter’s directorships, bankruptcy, involvement in wound up companies and foreign regulators’ alerts before investing; and (b) whether the Government will warn the public of promoters that its registers show as undischarged bankrupts or directors of companies wound up with unpaid debts, before victims report losses.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Sir, ScamShield is not a suitable tool for consumers to perform due diligence on persons offering investment schemes. Rather, it serves as an anti-scam tool for consumers to check, block and report messages, websites and phone numbers suspected to be scam related.
An information on a person’s directorships and other business involvements, as well as bankruptcy status, is publicly available for a fee on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority’s (ACRA) Bizfile website and the Ministry of Law Insolvency Office’s website. Consumers should approach every investment opportunity with caution and deal only with entities licensed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and their appointed representatives.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Four supplementary questions.
Supplementary question one: of the 11,582 undischarged bankrupts at the end of July, how many are listed today as directors of active companies? If the Ministry does not know today, will it provide the figure to the House?
Supplementary question two: I am concerned with a type of corporate scheme whose losses can be prevented with information we already have on national registers. It was reported in June that a Singapore company borrowed from individuals at 16% per year and paid interest for years. A lender who wanted their principal repaid had to sue and won, and around the same time, a bankruptcy order was made against the director. In June 2026, nine months on, the director was still listed on 15 active companies.
ACRA’s own guidance tells the public to “avoid dealing with anyone who is bankrupt but still appears to be involved in running a business”. Since the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) sends its records to ACRA directly, but the Official Assignee does not, will the Government do so and provide bankruptcy information for free in the spirit of protecting our local investors?
Supplementary question three: another type of scheme was reported in August, about self-styled wealth gurus who have been declared bankrupt with investors’ money tied up in schemes promising returns of up to 15% a year. Schemes of this type are sold at wealth seminars and on social media. Will the Government, on receiving a pattern of such reports about possible investment fraud, proactively put up public information, so as to prevent other investors from falling into the same trap?
Supplementary question four: in cases like these - some would call them “schemes”, I would call them “scams” - is warning the prospective investor being pitched as any agency’s job, or does the Government see its duty to local investors as beginning mainly when they make a Police report?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I think on the first one, on bankruptcy figures, and on the third one, on ICA, passport investment fraud, I would ask that he file separate Parliamentary Questions for the relevant agencies. The relevant agencies can go into those details.
He also mentioned about bankruptcy information for free. That is on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), and I have a response from ACRA. It says that the fee for a bankruptcy profile currently has been capped at $5.50 per copy for the past 14 years. But ACRA periodically reviews its fees to ensure that they remain appropriate, taking into account factors, such as cost recovery service provision and accessibility.
But I wanted to zoom out a little bit, and I understand where the Member is coming from in terms of helping to address scams and investment schemes that might be detrimental to consumers. There are a few things we can do collectively and where Government can also play an important part. If a consumer comes across an investment opportunity that could be a potential scam or if you do not know if it is a potential scam, please do call the ScamShield hotline because it has the latest information on scam trends, including fraudulent investment schemes. You have that agency and onus to do so.
Second, if you are also unsure, please verify licensed entities and appointed reps by checking the Financial Institutions Directory and the financial institution representative register on the MAS website. So, that is what you can immediately do if you are a potential investor that have some concerns or want to find out about whether an investment opportunity is too good to be true.
At the same time, MAS and the Government also has a lot of initiatives to push through and to raise awareness about investment scams. For example, MoneySense, which is MAS’ national financial education programme, reminds consumers of the importance of understanding the features and risks of products and opportunities that potential investors might consider. And specific to investment scams, the MAS works with the police force and the financial industry to educate customers and consumers on red flags. What kind of red flags? For example, the promise of high return with very low or no risk, pressure tactics, unverifiable track records, and it also teaches consumers how to verify if an entity or person is regulated by MAS.
So, yes, Government has its role to play. We also raise awareness. And I also ask for potential investors to consumers to also take that agency to find out and to exercise due caution when entering into investment products or services.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong. Last supplementary question.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you. I understand the principle of caveat emptor. But for the two cases these investment schemes were advertised at about 5% to 16% a year; especially in the first case, it was advertised at 16% per year.
That is why I would ask the Minister of State whether he would not agree that there is actually much more that can be done in terms of making information more widely available so that our investors can do their due diligence much more easily.
Mr Alvin Tan: In these kinds of schemes where there could be outsized returns, if you are unsure, please call ScamShield, the scam hotline. If you still want to go check and see whether these companies are verified, they are licensed by MAS, please go to the website. And if you are unsure, also, please make a Police report.
So, yes, there is caveat emptor, but the Government also provides platforms for those that are potential investors to go find out more. At the same time, I think all of us can raise our resilience against investment scams by being even more alert to many of these too good to be true scams or schemes that are out there.
Mr Speaker: As everyone says, when it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true.
Oral question, answered in the House on 7 October. First copy of the Official Report, 7 October 2026, question 20, “Public Access on Investment Schemes Promoters’ Directorships, Bankruptcy and Regulatory Alerts”.
Note. On (a), the Minister of State said that ScamShield “is not a suitable tool for consumers to perform due diligence on persons offering investment schemes”, and that information on directorships and bankruptcy status “is publicly available for a fee” from ACRA’s Bizfile website and the Insolvency Office. Part (b), on warning the public about particular promoters, was answered with the general measures: the ScamShield hotline, MAS’s registers of licensed entities and representatives, MAS’s public education on red flags, and a Police report where in doubt. On the supplementary questions, ACRA’s fee for a bankruptcy profile has been capped at $5.50 a copy for 14 years and is reviewed periodically. For the count of bankrupts listed as directors, and for one other supplementary question, the Minister of State asked that separate Parliamentary Questions be filed to the relevant agencies.
When a director should be disqualified
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance regarding the Companies Act 1967 (a) how many persons were disqualified or debarred as directors annually since 2021, by provision; (b) how many section 149 reports of unfit conduct were made to the Minister; and (c) whether section 155A, which disqualifies directors of three dormant companies struck off the register, will be extended to directors of companies that have gone into insolvent liquidation.
Ms Indranee Rajah: From 2021 to 2025, an average of around 230 persons each year were disqualified or debarred from acting as directors as a result of regulatory action by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).
Section 155A of the Companies Act disqualifies a person who had been a director of three or more companies that had been struck off by the Registrar within a five-year period. This provision disqualifies directors who demonstrate a repeated pattern of failing to ensure that their companies meet statutory obligations, such as filing Annual Returns with ACRA.
Section 149 of the Companies Act provides for the disqualification of unfit directors of insolvent companies. No reports have been made to the Minister under this provision since 2021.
A company may become insolvent for a range of reasons, including business conditions beyond a director’s control. Insolvency does not, by itself, indicate misconduct or a director being unfit to hold the position. Hence, a director is not automatically disqualified solely on the basis that their company entered insolvent liquidation. Section 149 provides for disqualification where the director’s conduct makes them unfit to manage a company. In such cases, the Court may, upon the application of the Minister or the Official Receiver, disqualify such a person from acting as a director for up to five years. This approach strikes a balance between entrepreneurial activity and protection of the public.
Oral question, not reached in Question Time on 7 October, answered in writing. Official Report, 7 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 39), question 87, “Data on Directors’ Debarment, Unfit Conduct Reports and Insolvent Liquidation Since 2021”.
Note. Part (a) is answered as a five-year average of about 230 persons a year, not by year and by provision. On (b), no report has been made to the Minister under section 149 since 2021; the answer does not say how many directors, if any, have been disqualified under that section. On (c), the present approach stays. A director is not disqualified automatically when a company goes into insolvent liquidation, since insolvency “does not, by itself, indicate misconduct”, and section 149 is the route for an unfit director of an insolvent company.
Violence and misconduct
Hurt to an intimate partner
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) why the 2019 Penal Code amendments, which doubled penalties for offences against domestic workers, vulnerable persons and intimate partners, made every offence against the first two arrestable but not the third; and (b) whether voluntarily causing hurt to an intimate partner will be made arrestable without a prior protection order, or the Police empowered to issue protection notices.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sim Ann): Sir, the 2019 amendments to the Penal Code were introduced to strengthen the legal protection of vulnerable victims. This comprises domestic workers, vulnerable persons due to mental or physical disabilities, and children below 14 years old. Penalties for Penal Code offences committed against such victims were enhanced and all Penal Code offences committed against such vulnerable victims were made arrestable. This is in recognition of these vulnerable victims’ inability to protect themselves against the offenders and to allow the Police to intervene quickly.
The 2019 Penal Code amendments did not make every offence against intimate or close partners arrestable, although they also enhance the maximum penalties for specific offences, such as hurt and sexual offences, most of which were already arrestable. This is because relative to domestic workers, mentally or physically vulnerable persons and children who are in an inherently vulnerable position in society, adults who encounter intimate partner violence may be better placed to seek help and access protection with appropriate support from social services and through legal remedies, which have all been strengthened.
The Women’s Charter was amended in 2023 to empower victim survivors of domestic violence to better protect themselves and strengthen the Government’s ability to intervene in such cases. Today, the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s (MSF’s 24-hour Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team (DVERT) is empowered to issue emergency orders on site in high-risk cases to restrain perpetrators from committing further violence against a family member. A breach of the emergency order, including any domestic exclusion, stay away or no contact order imposed under it is an arrestable offence. The Police is not empowered to issue protection orders. Nevertheless, Police officers respond jointly with DVERT officers in such high-risk cases and handle cases with law-and-order issues.
The Police set up the sexual crime and family violence command in 2023 to better manage sexual crime and domestic violence cases. Since 2022, the Police have trained and deployed family violence Community Policing Officers to handle and monitor cases of domestic violence. This includes making referrals to Protection Specialist Centres and Family Service Centres where necessary.
We believe that the above approach embodies a strong stance against domestic violence while accounting for the fact that it can take various forms and vary in severity, and the appropriate response will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The offence of voluntarily causing hurt against victims in intimate or close relationships with the offender is not automatically arrestable. However, the Police already makes arrests where there are grounds to do so, such as where offences like voluntarily causing grievous hurt or criminal intimidation have been committed.
This approach strikes a balance because there are cases where parties come to the Police to say that they do not want to proceed with the complaint. This is because on reflection they realise that both parties were at fault and both may have been violent too, and that they would like to repair the relationship, which could be difficult if a party is arrested and the matter escalated.
Nevertheless, if there are clear grounds to do so, offenders can still be prosecuted when it is assessed to be the most appropriate action to take. The Government will continue to review and strengthen our whole of society approach to protect and support victims survivors of domestic violence.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Domestic violence is unacceptable. Yet, while an employer who assaults a domestic worker can be arrested on the spot, the same person who assaults their spouse cannot be arrested unless a protection order is already in force. My question is, why?
Second supplementary question. The 2021 Taskforce on Family Violence suggested making hurt and family violence arrestable and the Police undertook to review it. So, the Government accepted that in principle. What did the review conclude and when?
Third supplementary question. MSF reported last December that new spousal abuse cases rose from 2,008 in 2023, to 2,136 in 2024 and were higher again in the first half of 2025. In 2019, the House was told that the Government was moving incrementally. Is leaving hurt to a partner non-arrestable a fundamental design principle of the Government’s legal framework or is it something that the Government will consider changing?
Ms Sim Ann: Sir, I have provided the reason why in my main reply just now, but I will elaborate.
Sir, the Government takes violence in intimate relationships seriously. We should not conflate the issue of seriousness with the issue of arrestability. Domestic violence is a serious matter. The Government takes a strong stance against it and this is reflected in the enhanced penalties for offences against intimate partners, as well as the significant strengthening of our domestic violence framework in recent years. Victims of intimate partner violence are already protected by Police powers of arrest, where an arrestable offence, such as voluntarily causing grievous hurt, has been committed.
The specific issue here is voluntarily causing hurt, which is a non-arrestable offence. The policy question is whether every instance of voluntarily causing hurt should automatically attract and arrest power, or whether intervention should be calibrated according to the risks and circumstances of each case, as per the framework we have against domestic violence today.
The 2019 amendments created exceptions to the general position for offences against specified categories of persons, recognising particular concerns about their capacity to protect themselves, given their inherently vulnerable position in society. And these concerns justify additional safeguards across these categories. The amendments did not create an equivalent category wide exception for intimate partners, but this does not mean that intimate partner violence is less serious. The classification of voluntarily causing hurt as a non-arrestable offence does not make such conduct lawful or place an offender beyond prosecution, nor does it prevent protective intervention.
As I have explained in the main reply, MSF’s DVERT is able to issue emergency orders on site in high-risk cases; emergency orders can impose immediate restrictions; breaches are arrestable; and the Police can arrest where other arrestable offences are disclosed.
Oral question, answered in the House on 7 October. First copy of the Official Report, 7 October 2026, question 21, “Proposal to Make Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Intimate Partner an Arrestable Offence Without Prior Protection Order”.
Note. On (a), the 2019 amendments made every Penal Code offence arrestable where the victim is a domestic worker, a person vulnerable through mental or physical disability, or a child under 14, in recognition of their “inability to protect themselves”. Intimate partners were treated differently because adults “may be better placed to seek help and access protection”. On (b), voluntarily causing hurt to an intimate partner remains “not automatically arrestable”, which the Second Minister described as a balance, since some complainants later ask not to proceed. The Police are “not empowered to issue protection orders”; MSF’s Domestic Violence Emergency Response Team can issue emergency orders on site in high-risk cases, and a breach is arrestable. On the third supplementary question, the Second Minister framed the choice as whether every instance of hurt should “automatically attract” an arrest power or whether intervention should be calibrated to risk, as the present framework does. The second supplementary question, on the review of arrestability after the 2021 Taskforce on Family Violence, was not taken up.
Sexual misconduct in private education
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) whether institutions under the Private Education Act must report sexual misconduct allegations to the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA), and how many have SWDA and its predecessor entities received annually since 2021; (b) how many section 18 directions to cease deploying teachers followed; and (c) whether they will be required, like the universities, to have Victim Care Units, no-contact orders and codes of conduct.
Mr Desmond Lee: Private Education Institutions (PEIs) are expected to provide a safe learning environment for their students, and ensure that their teachers are fit and proper persons. PEIs are also expected to address any allegation of sexual misconduct seriously, including making a Police report if a criminal offence may be involved.
The Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) has received six reports of sexual misconduct allegations involving PEIs since 2021, three of which involved teaching staff. No directions under section 18 of the Private Education Act (PEA), which requires a PEI to cease deploying a teacher, were issued, as the circumstances of these cases did not require such a direction.
As commercial entities, PEIs independently manage their support measures and services, including the provision of care centres and codes of conduct.
Oral question, not reached in Question Time on 6 October, answered in writing. Official Report, 6 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 38), question 71, “Reports of Sexual Misconduct Allegations by Institutions under Private Education Act”.
Note. SWDA has received six reports since 2021, three involving teaching staff, given as a total rather than by year. The answer sets out what institutions are expected to do, including making a Police report where a criminal offence may be involved, but does not say whether they must report allegations to SWDA. No section 18 direction was issued. On (c), support measures, including care centres and codes of conduct, are left to each institution as a commercial entity.
Schools
The smaller-classes pilot
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education regarding the six-school pilot from 2027 (a) what the pilot will establish about implementing smaller classes, whose benefit the Ministry has accepted since 2018; (b) whether other schools may adopt smaller classes based on its findings before a system-wide decision; and (c) what additional teachers it requires, and whether recruitment for wider adoption will begin alongside it rather than after it.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address questions 47 and 48 in today’s Order Paper and related questions raised by Mr Kenneth Tiong, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms He Ting Ru in yesterday’s Order Paper.
To strengthen holistic development and better prepare students for the future, the Ministry of Education (MOE) is embarking on a pilot with six schools to redesign classrooms, to enable us to reimagine learning. We want to explore how teaching and learning can be further strengthened by using more learner-centred pedagogies that support students’ holistic development and the acquisition of important life skills. Our schools already use a range of learner-centred pedagogies today. We want to create more opportunities to deepen these practices. For example, our teachers can devote more time to facilitate collaborative learning, where students work together to tackle authentic problems, exchange perspectives and refine their thinking. Learner-centred approaches can be better supported by smaller classes, more flexible learning spaces – including the use of outdoor spaces and place-based learning, purposeful use of technology alongside hands-on activities, and better recalibration of teachers’ work.
On class sizes, MOE’s approach has consistently been guided by the learning needs of our students. We already use smaller classes selectively where greater teacher attention is needed, such as for younger learners and students requiring learning support.
The pilot builds on this approach, but goes beyond class sizes. Smaller classes create opportunities for more learner-centred approaches, but also require us to rethink how teaching and learning are organised. The pilot will study how factors such as teaching loads, timetabling, teachers’ responsibilities, technology and learning spaces can work together to support these shifts. As these elements are closely interconnected, the pilot will allow us to test and refine different approaches before considering broader implementation.
MOE will work with pilot schools to try out how these approaches can be effected in a sustainable manner in Singapore, taking into account different student profiles and operating contexts. This includes classes with higher learning support needs. We will also monitor student outcomes and teachers’ workload, and ascertain the resources required accordingly.
These findings will inform whether the approaches are viable, sustainable and applicable to more schools. We will share the findings when ready.
Oral question, not reached in Question Time on 6 October. That day the Ministry said it would answer orally at the next available opportunity, together with the other questions on the topic (Official Report, 6 October 2026, Vol 96 No 38, question 77). The reply came in writing on 7 October, when questions on the same pilot from Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Charlene Chen were also not reached. Official Report, 7 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 39), questions 47 and 48, “Measurable Indicators in Smaller Class Size Pilot Study”.
Note. On (a), the pilot will study how teaching loads, timetabling, teachers’ responsibilities, technology and learning spaces work together, and its findings “will inform whether the approaches are viable, sustainable and applicable to more schools”. On (b), broader implementation will be considered after the approaches are tested and refined; the answer does not say whether a school outside the pilot may adopt smaller classes in the meantime. On (c), the Ministry will “ascertain the resources required” through the pilot, and recruitment is not mentioned. The findings will be shared “when ready”.
Rental housing
Rent under the Joint Singles Scheme
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether tenants of a Joint Singles Scheme flat are informed at allocation that rent is charged on a household basis; (b) what has the review on extending individual charging to Joint Singles Scheme households concluded; (c) whether the household’s rental arrears affect a tenant’s eligibility to buy a flat; and (d) if so, whether HDB will disregard a co-tenant’s non-payment.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: HDB rental flat applicants under the Joint Singles Scheme are informed at the point of flat allocation that they are jointly responsible for the full rent amount. This provides tenants flexibility to decide amongst themselves how to split the rent.
In considering a rental flat tenant’s eligibility to purchase a flat, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will assess each case based on its own merits, including which party is responsible for the non-payment of rent.
Oral question, not reached in Question Time on 6 October, answered in writing. Official Report, 6 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 38), question 87, “Charging on Household Basis for Rental Flat under Joint Singles Scheme”.
Note. Tenants are told at allocation that they are jointly responsible for the full rent. When a rental tenant applies to buy a flat, HDB assesses the case on its merits, “including which party is responsible for the non-payment of rent”, so a tenant whose co-tenant has stopped paying can ask HDB to take that into account. Part (b), on the review of individual charging that the Ministry said in October 2023 it would carry out [1], is not addressed.
The public service and Meet-the-People Sessions
Volunteering at a Meet-the-People Session
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether volunteering at a Meet-the-People Session is a political activity under the rules for public officers, as MOE treats students’ attendance as exposure to community issues; (b) whether officers of the Civil Service and statutory boards may volunteer at any Member’s session regardless of party without seeking permission; and (c) whether the Public Service Division will inform officers accordingly in writing.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Public Service is politically impartial.
Public officers are expected to uphold this impartiality in activities they undertake outside their official duties.
In considering whether to take part in outside activities, including Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), public officers should avoid situations where their involvement could raise questions about the political impartiality of the Public Service, or give rise to the perception that their official position or public resources are being used for political purposes.
Officers who are unsure how these principles apply to their specific circumstances can seek guidance from their agencies.
Written question. Official Report, 6 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 38), Written Answers, question 2, “Guidelines on Volunteering at Meet-the-People Sessions for Civil Servants and Statutory Board Officers”.
Note. The answer does not say whether volunteering at a Meet-the-People Session is a political activity, and it does not bar public officers from volunteering. It gives the test an officer is to apply to any outside activity, Meet-the-People Sessions included: avoid involvement that could raise questions about the political impartiality of the Public Service, or suggest that an official position or public resources are being used for political purposes. An officer who is unsure can ask their agency. The answer does not say whether permission is needed, whether the Member’s party makes a difference, or whether the Public Service Division will write to officers.
Temasek and research funding
Temasek’s terms of reference and Charter
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether Temasek Holdings was issued terms of reference on incorporation in 1974, and whether they will be (i) published and (ii) deposited with the National Archives; (b) how the Government as sole shareholder approves Charter revisions; and (c) when and by whose decision the 2002 Charter’s role of nurturing new industry clusters in Singapore ended, and why it was removed in 2009.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The history and purpose of Temasek is well documented. There were no terms of reference issued to Temasek when it was first incorporated. But it has been clear since its early years that Temasek would operate independently and be commercially driven.
The Temasek Charter was introduced in 2002 to articulate Temasek’s role and approach as an investment company. It is a living document which Temasek reviews periodically, in consultation with the Government as its shareholder.
The 2002 Charter referred, among other things, to Temasek investing in new businesses and new industry clusters, as well as divesting businesses which were no longer relevant and lacked international growth potential. These references described aspects of how Temasek invested and managed its portfolio; they were not in themselves fundamental to Temasek’s mandate.
In subsequent updates to the Charter, these specific references were therefore no longer considered necessary as part of the Charter. Their removal did not signify a change in Temasek’s mandate, nor a decision to stop investing in new businesses or promising sectors in Singapore. Temasek continues to invest and recycle capital into new opportunities, in Singapore and globally, where these are commercially attractive and consistent with its mandate to deliver sustainable returns over the long term.
Written question. Official Report, 7 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 39), Written Answers, question 4, “Temasek Holdings Founding Terms of Reference, Charter Revision Approval Process and Reasons for Discontinuation of Industry Cluster Nurturing Role”.
Note. No terms of reference were issued when Temasek was incorporated, so there are none to publish or deposit. On (b), Temasek reviews the Charter periodically “in consultation with the Government as its shareholder”; the answer does not describe an approval by the Government. On (c), the 2002 references to investing in new businesses and new industry clusters were dropped in subsequent updates to the Charter, as they “were not in themselves fundamental to Temasek’s mandate”. The answer does not say when the change was made or whose decision it was.
Research grants and changes of direction
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how many requests to change the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025) grant’s scope were approved and refused annually since 2021; (b) what proportion of its academic research funding was investigator-led, which the plan undertook to increase; and (c) whether RIE2030 will fund investigators and teams for a programme of research in a domain, free to change direction, rather than a fixed proposal.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): In the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 Plan (RIE2025), investigator-led projects, which are research proposals initiated by individuals on an individual project basis, rather than as part of a larger research programme, accounted for approximately 14% of academic research funding.
Grant recipients may propose changes to their project scopes where these are warranted due to scientific developments or other operational reasons. Such requests are generally considered favourably when the proposed changes remain aligned with the grant objectives. We do not track the exact number of requests for variations as this is not meaningful.
Written question. Official Report, 6 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 38), Written Answers, question 3, “Data on Grant Scope Change Approvals and Proportion of Investigator-led Funding under RIE2025, and Plans for Flexible Domain-based Research under RIE2030”.
Note. About 14% of RIE2025 academic research funding went to investigator-led projects, which the answer defines as proposals initiated by individuals on an individual project basis rather than as part of a larger research programme. The plan had undertaken to increase that proportion [2]; the answer gives no figure for the previous plan to compare it with. The number of scope-change requests is not tracked, and requests “are generally considered favourably” when they remain aligned with the grant objectives. Part (c), on how RIE2030 will fund research, is not addressed.
Durians
Singapore’s surviving durian trees
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether and when NParks will evaluate the fruit quality of durian trees surviving on Pulau Ubin, nature parks and military training areas; (b) whether superior trees will be conserved by grafting, given that durian seeds are unbankable; and (c) whether any selection will be registered under the Plant Varieties Protection Act 2004.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Durian trees found in Pulau Ubin and other areas managed by the National Parks Board (NParks) are not native to Singapore and are not a threatened species. NParks does not evaluate their fruit quality, and its conservation efforts do not include these trees.
Written question. Official Report, 7 October 2026 (Vol 96 No 39), Written Answers, question 44, “Fruit Quality Evaluation and Conservation of Superior Durian Trees on Pulau Ubin, Nature Parks and Military Training Areas”.
Note. NParks does not evaluate the fruit quality of these trees, and its conservation efforts do not include them, as they are not native to Singapore and not a threatened species. Part (c), on registration under the Plant Varieties Protection Act 2004, is not addressed.
Notes and sources
1. Ministry of National Development, written answer of 4 October 2023 on disputes between co-tenants of the Joint Singles Scheme over rental payment: “Currently, HDB charges rent to JSS tenants on a household basis as they are joint users of the same space.” The answer said: “we will review whether to expand this individual charging model to JSS households”. MND, written answer of 4 Oct 2023 · Hansard, 4 Oct 2023
2. RIE2025 Plan handbook, Academic Research chapter, pp 41-42: “In RIE2025, we will increase the proportion of academic research funding set aside for investigator-led research via schemes such as the MOE Academic Research Fund Tier 1 and 2 and NRF Fellowship and Investigator schemes.” RIE2025 Plan handbook