Mr Speaker, the Coastal Protection Bill represents a landmark shift in how we defend our island-nation against the slow-onset threat of rising sea levels. As a low-lying nation, we cannot afford to wait; however, as we move from planning to legislation, we must ensure that the "continuous line of defence" we build is not merely an engineering success, but one that is socially and fiscally responsible. Our legislative framework must be robust enough to manage the complexities of land tenure, private sector compliance, and the preservation of our national identity.
Mr Speaker, we are told that the Government will implement most of coastal defence measures, given its ownership of 70% of the shoreline. The private owners and lessees who hold the remaining sections will need to implement their own coastal protection measures.
The Dilemma of Lease Tenures and Compliance
Under the proposed legislation, private landowners and lessees are responsible for installing and upholding coastal protection structures. Authorities have clarified that owners will receive a minimum of 10 years' notice to carry out these works, with specific deadlines tailored to the findings and progress of individual site studies.
It appears that landowners have the autonomy to choose protection strategies that align with their specific requirements and conditions, enabling them to integrate coastal defence works into their existing or future development schedules, ensuring both flexibility and efficiency in implementation.
Mr Speaker, I support this flexibility. But I would also like to ask the Minister to give us an indication of, among the non-state entities related owner or lessees, what is the number or ratio of the non-government entities or non-government linked companies who are owners or lessees be they individuals, MCSTs, clubs or other non-business or state entities.
I would also like to ask whether there are any industrial lessees who may have shorter remaining tenures from now, for example, less than 10 years, and if so, how many of such companies are we looking at?
It would be a significant financial burden to ask a company with only or less than 10 or even 15 years left on its lease to invest in multi-million dollar seawalls.
We are also told that the government will provide financial and technical support. Can the government elaborate with some detail the financial support ie the grant details, and technical support it is giving under the new law, including the level of support and how will the packages work for MNCs as well as SMEs?
Equally how do we ensure that the non-commercial entities are adequately supported under this Bill?
Can the Minister provide a definitive timeline for the announcement of the financial support grant framework? Will there be tiered subsidies specifically for local SMEs who may lack the cash reserves of major GLCs and MNCs?
Will the financial support mentioned be a one-off grant at the onset, or will it help SMEs and MCSTs cover the recurring costs of specialized maintenance?
Further, will the Minister also consider a framework where lease extensions are tied to coastal protection investments? We must ensure that a continuous line does not suffer from fragmented tenures.
The Risk of Business Exit and Insolvency
Mr Speaker, the 10-year lead time provided is not necessarily a short runway, but it also creates a regulatory blind spot. What happens if a lessee fails to complete construction before giving up the lease?
If a waterfront company runs into financial problems or goes into liquidation and is not able to build or to complete the construction, we may also be left with a public safety risk that neighbours cannot fix alone. How will the Government intervene in such a situation? Separately, will the Government require performance bonds from private lessees to ensure funds are available to complete the project if the State or another state appointed entity is required to complete the works required?
Further, how will liability be transferred if a plot is returned to the State mid-way through the 10-year notice period?
Ensuring Timely Construction
Under the Bill, the land owner or lessee has 10 years to complete the coastal defences requirement.
How would the Government supervise and ensure timely construction commence and completion within the 10 year period? Is the government considering implementing mandatory construction milestones?
Does the PUB have step-in rights to take over any lagging project and charge the costs back to the owner before the 10-year window expires? Would there be on-site supervision by PUB to ensure project milestone completion?
How do we ensure that lessees account for their lack of action or delay?
May I also ask the Government to consider appointing one or a few specialised contractors to carry out the defence projects on behalf of all the landowners and lessees at a reduced price based on bulk contracts, possibly grouped in different geographical zones where the ground conditions may be different? This will also ensure that the contractor or contractors appointed will have the right expertise, experience, common understanding of each area and also economy of scale for the lessees.
Protecting our environment and heritage
Mr Speaker, the Bill mandates that landowners comply with the standards set out in the upcoming Coastal Protection Code of Practice. While this Code will provide the technical blueprint for our defences, we must ensure that these structures can complement and even enhance our natural environment and heritage.
I would like to ask the Minister to clarify how the Code will formalize the integration of nature-based solutions—such as mangroves and hybrid revetments—and how the designation of 'Transiently Floodable Areas' will be utilized to preserve uninterrupted public access to our waterfronts. Will the government consider requiring the Code of Practice to mandate a 'Nature-First' feasibility assessment before landowners are permitted to resort to traditional concrete seawalls?
Mr Speaker, our coastal protection efforts must be more than just an engineering success against rising waters. Even as I expect many of the current sites affected by the Bill may already be in use for industrial and commercial purposes, if there are segments containing any significant heritage value, the Government should have appropriate heritage assessment mechanisms to decide how any such historical markers can be suitably preserved and protected.
Finally, while this Bill interacts with the Coastal and Flood Protection Fund, it lacks a mandate for detailed parliamentary reports on how the $5 billion is prioritized. For greater transparency of fund usage and decision-making, I hope the Government will consider tabling an annual Coastal Resilience Report detailing CFPF disbursements and progress across both public and private sectors.
May I also ask how much of the Fund is being tapped for the initiatives under this Bill once passed and what is the public private split?
Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
议长先生，我支持这项法案的原则。但在执行细节上，我有几项顾虑：
第一，有关租约较短的工业租户。据我了解，政府将为土地所有者 提供财政与技术援助，但具体细节尚未公布。我想向部长查询，目前受影响的私人租户中，是否有很多人的租约剩余年限少于十年？鉴于海堤建设费用昂贵，我关注这些企业是否能获得充足的援助，以确保他们的业务不受到负面影响。同时，我也关注如何避免因投资 不具效益 而导致企业提前撤离，从而在防御线上留下缺口。
第二，有关工程监管与倒闭风险。十年的期限虽然充裕，但我也关注如何避免企业因财力不足或清盘而导致工程 延误。我建议当局应设立阶段性 进度指标，或考虑推行 履约保证金制度，确保防御工程能如期完成。
第三，有关自然遗产与公共空间。我关注即将出台的《海防标准守则》，将如何平衡硬性工程标准与生态保护。我期待守则能积极采用红树林等‘基于自然的解决方案’，并落实 ‘短暂 可淹没区’ 的设计，确保公众在加强海防的同时，能继续享有珍贵的海滨空间。
第四，我们在巩固海岸防线时，绝不能为了工程效率而牺牲甘榜遗迹或文化地标。我建议将“文化遗产评估”纳入工程流程，在保护国土的同时，也守护新加坡人的集体记忆。
议长先生，虽然我有上述几点担忧，但我依然支持这项法案。我希望通过现在实施更严格的监管, 我们不仅能保护海岸线，还能保护全体新加坡人的长远利益。
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, climate adaptation is a marathon that requires every stakeholder to stay the course. We must ensure our framework can withstand economic fluctuations and business exits over time. By implementing tighter supervision and clearer financial safeguards now, we protect not just our coastlines, but the long-term interests of all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
