Mr Speaker, the co-location of Customs, Immigration, and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities for the Rapid Transit System (Link) represents a significant step in the long history of Singapore-Malaysia connectivity. In developing this framework, I believe that the Ministry has looked toward international models like the Channel Tunnel between the UK and France. The 1986 Treaty of Canterbury taught us that for a cross-border rail to succeed, sovereignty must be expressed through clear 'Control Zones' rather than rigid physical borders. While the Workers’ Party supports the principles of efficiency and bilateral cooperation underpinning this Bill, I have several clarifications regarding legal jurisdiction, officer protection, and commuter rights.
1. The Mechanics of Custody Transfer
The Ministry has stated that Malaysian officers who detain an individual must hand them over to Singapore officers "as soon as is practicable." In the Channel Tunnel context, delays in these handovers occasionally led to legal challenges regarding the lawfulness of detention. In a facility designed for 10,000 passengers per hour, "practicable" is a subjective term. What is the physical and operational infrastructure in place at Woodlands North to ensure this transfer happens immediately? Will there be a permanent, co-located Singapore Police Force presence within the Malaysian Designated Area to ensure there is zero "dead time" between detention and handover?
2. Jurisdiction and the Right of Investigation
The Bill establishes concurrent criminal jurisdiction for incidents on trains in transit and along the tracks, with the country where the journey concludes having the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. The Channel Tunnel model uses a 'Primary Jurisdiction' rule to avoid confusion, yet it leaves room for the home country to step in for its own citizens.
While my colleague, Aljunied GRC MP， Ms Sylvia Lim， will have a more specific query relating to this issue in her speech on this Bill, I would like to ask whether the Minister can clarify the specific public interest criteria used to determine when Singapore would waive its jurisdiction, especially if a crime is committed against a Singaporean on a Johor-bound train?
We must also ensure a transparent mechanism exists to update victims’ families if a case is handed over to foreign authorities.
3. Emergency Coordination on the Marine Viaduct
The RTS Link involves a 25-meter high marine viaduct across the Straits of Johor. Learning from the 1996 Eurotunnel fire, we know that seconds are lost if emergency responders face jurisdictional paralysis. Under Part 5 of the Bill, how will the division of labor between the SCDF and the Jabatan Bomba dan Penyelamat Malaysia and permitted under this Bill, be managed during a mid-track emergency? Will there be a single, unified incident commander to prevent confusion on the viaduct, and how frequently will joint tabletop exercises be mandated by law?
4. Accessibility and Inclusion within Designated Areas
With the heavy reliance on automated e-gates and QR-code clearance, we must not overlook vulnerable commuters. Within the Malaysian Designated Area at Woodlands North, will there be a guaranteed minimum quota of manual counters staffed by Singapore officers? This is essential for our seniors and persons with disabilities who may struggle with automated systems in a high-pressure environment.
5. Substantive Reciprocity for Singaporean Personnel
According to MHAs’ media release of 7 April 2026, for cross-border incidents (such as an incident that occurs on board a train in transit), the Bill provides that Singapore and Malaysian incident management officers may respond to cross border incidents on/near trains and railway tracks in Malaysia and Singapore, respectively, and that both countries’ incident management officers will be accorded powers, rights, and immunities for this purpose, subject to limitations. No Singapore officer in Malaysia may make an arrest in Malaysia, and no Malaysian officer in Singapore may make an arrest in Singapore.
Indeed, for this arrangement to be truly reciprocal, our officers at Bukit Chagar must have the same operational autonomy and protection as Malaysian officers have here. For good order, I seek the Minister’s confirmation that both the powers accorded and the functional immunity provided to Singaporean officers under Malaysia’s RTS Link Act 2026 are substantively identical in scope to the protections we are granting under this Bill?
In its media release, MHA also referred to the Channel Fixed Link. A point of friction in the Channel Tunnel model was the disparity in the powers granted to officers operating in the other's territory. I understand that under the Sangatte Protocol, British officers on French soil lacked equivalent powers to domestic law enforcement and could not execute independent arrests, which led to persistent ambiguity regarding the use of force, such as applying restraints, pending French police intervention. Given that MHA has explicitly looked to the Channel Tunnel model for the RTS framework, I wonder whether the Ministry has studied the relevance of their operational experience to our RTS, and if it is relevant, whether expected similar operational gaps have been addressed.
6. Safeguarding Data in Inviolable Equipment
MHA has noted that Singapore-issued equipment at Bukit Chagar will be inviolable. While the hardware is protected, I seek clarity on the digital data. Will the data collected by our officers in Johor be transmitted via a dedicated, air-gapped network back to Singapore to prevent any potential interception vulnerabilities while operating on foreign soil?
7. Transparency in Revoking Recognition
Finally, the Minister reserves the power to revoke the recognition of a Malaysian officer without giving a reason. While I understand the security necessity, may I ask if there is a predefined framework of "red flags" agreed upon with our counterparts. Maintaining a stable, professional relationship between both border forces is critical to preventing operational friction.
Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.
议长先生，新柔地铁（RTS）对新马两国的联系至关重要。本次审议的《跨境铁路（边境管制一地两检）法案》（Cross-Border Railways (Border Control Co-location) Bill），正是为了给这一重要工程提供法律框架。
政府参考了英国与法国之间的英吉利海峡隧道（Channel Tunnel）模式，这种“一地两检”的安排能提高通关效率，但我也需要澄清一些法律和运作上的细节。
1. 拘留与交接的程序
当马来西亚官员在新加坡境内的“指定区”拘留人员时，法案规定必须“在可行的情况下”尽快交接给新加坡警方。在人流量极大的情况下，“尽快”可能很难界定。我想请问政府，兀兰北站是否有足够的设施确保交接过程没有“真空期”？
2. 刑事管辖权
法案通常让“目的地国家”优先调查案件。但如果受害者是新加坡人，而案件发生在前往柔佛的火车上，新加坡政府会在什么情况下放弃管辖权？我们也必须确保受害者家属能得到透明的信息更新。
3. 海上高架桥的紧急救援
地铁轨道横跨柔佛海峡。如果轨道中间发生火灾等紧急情况，新加坡民防部队和大马消拯局如何分工？是否会有一个统一的指挥官，以避免在救灾的关键 时刻 产生混乱？
4. 弱势群体的通关需求
虽然现在广泛使用自动通关闸门和QR码，但许多年长者和残障人士可能在使用上会有困难。我希望政府能保证，在兀兰北站的马来西亚通关区内，依然保留足够的人工柜台。
5. 官员的法律保障与数据安全
新加坡官员在马来西亚新山的武吉查卡（Bukit Chagar）执勤时，是否享有与马来西亚官员在新加坡同等的法律保护和操作自主权？此外，我们在当地收集的通关数据，是否通过独立的加密网络传回新加坡，以防止外泄？
议长先生，虽然我有上述几点需要厘清之处，但我依然支持这项法案。
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, the success of the RTS Link will be measured not just by the speed of the commute, but by the robustness of the legal and operational safeguards that protect it. We must ensure that this milestone project remains a safe and reliable link for generations to come. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
