Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.54 pm

The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Since our early days as a trading port, Singapore's destiny has been shaped by the sea. Access to the sea brought us opportunities, enabled our nation to thrive and allowed us to define our place in the world.

But the sea which has served as our lifeblood could also pose a threat to our very existence. Singapore's Third National Climate Change Study (V3) projects that our sea levels may rise up to 1.15 metres by the end of this century, reaching up to five metres above today's mean sea level when coupled with storm surges and high tides.

This is serious. It means that around 30% of Singapore could be flooded by seawater. Our businesses along the coast, such as shipyards or ports that rely on having access to the sea, will be at risk of coastal flooding. In fact, Singapore already experiences coastal flooding during spring tides today, resulting in some parts of East Coast Park and Pulau Ubin being flooded. If we do nothing, places, like Changi Beach Park or East Coast Park, could become memories of the past.

We must therefore embark on coastal protection against sea level rise, to protect our land, our people and our livelihoods. In 2020, to prepare Singapore for this long-term endeavour, we amended the Public Utilities Act (PUA) to designate the Public Utilities Board (PUB), Singapore's National Water Agency, as our coastal protection agency.

Planning, design and construction of coastal protection takes time. The implementation needs to be carefully phased, to take into account the resources available and to tie in with other development timelines.

We are thus introducing the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill, or "the Bill" for short, principally to introduce legislative and regulatory levers to undergird coastal protection work moving forward. These new coastal protection elements will be introduced into the existing Sewerage and Drainage Act (SDA), which will be renamed the Sewerage, Drainage and Coastal Protection Act (SDCPA).

I will go through the Bill in several parts.

First, I will explain our approach to coastal protection and PUB's role as the national coastal protection agency. Second, who should undertake responsibility for coastal protection. Third, how PUB will ensure completion of Singapore's coastal protection. Fourth, when coastal protection obligations for landowners will be imposed. Fifth, PUB's enforcement powers. Sixth, related and miscellaneous amendments pertaining to PUB's functions.

First, on our approach to coastal protection and PUB's role as the national coastal protection agency. The goal of coastal protection is to stop seawater from flooding our land. This will protect our assets and livelihoods and preserve the functionality of the land.

To do so, we will need to establish a continuous line of defence that will protect against permanent coastal flooding caused by sea level rise, as well as transient coastal flooding from high tides and storm surges. The Bill will provide PUB with the powers to determine the location of this continuous line of defence and gazette this line as an Absolute Protection Boundary.

PUB will decide where the Absolute Protection Boundaries are after carrying out studies on the different regions of Singapore. However, we may want to allow for transient coastal flooding in some places. There are some areas where access to the sea should be retained, such as beaches and coastal parks. We will therefore gazette Protection Boundaries to delineate the boundaries behind which the land must be protected from permanent coastal flooding.

In relation to these Boundaries, the Bill sets out four categories of Prescribed Places, which would have corresponding requirements of coastal protection measures to be put in place.

The first category comprises Prescribed Places at the Absolute Protection Boundaries. These will need to be protected against permanent and transient coastal flooding.

The second category will comprise Prescribed Places bound by two boundary lines, the Absolute Protection Boundary on the landward side of the area, and Protection Boundary on the seaward side. These places are known as "Transiently Floodable Areas (Coastal)". These need not be protected against permanent flooding but need to be protected against transient coastal flooding. [Please refer to ​"Clarification by Minister for Sustainability and the Environment", Official Report, 6 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 26, Correction By Written Statement section.]

The third and fourth categories of Prescribed Places are Sheltered Structures within transiently floodable areas, such as food and beverage (F&B) venues as well as nearshore and offshore structures, like boardwalks and jetties. Where these structures need to be functional at all times, they would need to be protected against permanent and transient coastal flooding. That said, exemptions can be sought if these structures can be allowed to flood transiently.

Not every existing land plot by the coast will be a Prescribed Place. For example, PUB has adopted the "Long Island" project for City-East Coast under which the Absolute Protection Boundary will be located on new reclaimed land and the adjoining tidal gates that will be built.

Another example is the Greater Southern Waterfront which will have coastal barriers installed across the entrances of Keppel Harbour and Cruise Bay, to protect the land areas encircled by them. The residential and commercial areas along HarbourFront and Keppel Bay, as protected by these coastal barriers, will therefore not be Prescribed Places.

The Bill provides for coastal protection responsibilities to be undertaken by owners of Prescribed Places, or "landowners" for short. This is our current practice for coastal management. Today, landowners along the coast already protect their buildings and infrastructure against coastal erosion. From time to time, they top up the crest level or repair their coastal structures although they do so without direction from PUB and do not necessarily join the coastal structures up with their neighbours'.

We believe that this approach of decentralising the responsibility of implementing coastal protection measures will achieve a solution that will work for the owner and achieve the public good of coastal protection. Our land is scarce, and we should optimise it where possible. Therefore, we want to provide landowners the flexibility to select coastal protection measures that best meet their land use and waterfront needs. This will also avoid extensive reallocation or acquisition of land at the national level by the Government, which could potentially sterilise the valuable coastal land that we have.

Under the new section 30E of the Bill, each landowner must ensure that there is a coastal protection measure for the Prescribed Place by a stipulated date. All landowners within the same region will have to complete their measures by the date to accord protection to all within the region. These owners include the Government, Statutory Boards, as well as lessees with leases longer than three years. The majority of the coastal protection measures will be implemented by the Government and Statutory Boards as they own about 70% of the coastline.

As we engaged stakeholders, indeed, it became clear to us that different landowners require customised coastal protection measures to suit their individual needs. The measures differ because of their unique land use and operational requirements. For instance, for a shipyard with a dry dock, he may choose to build a seawall along the perimeter of the dry dock except the seaward entrance. Landowners may also have preferred timelines to carry out their construction work. It would not be practical, nor desirable, for the Government to implement standard coastal protection measures for such a wide range of land uses, from ports, ship building yards to petrochemical plants.

We have engaged the vast majority of affected landowners prior to tabling this Bill. During our engagements with them, some shared that they had not factored the cost for additional coastal protection measures when the land was leased or purchased. We have considered their views and will be supporting landowners to fulfil their obligations through a few ways:

First, we will provide a capital grant. The grant will cover the cost of studies, services diversion, as well as the construction necessary to implement coastal protection measures.

The grant will be sized according to cost norms, considering prevailing market rates and inflation. Landowners can apply for the capital grant after the legal obligation to implement measures has been formally imposed on them. The total grant amount will be split into reimbursement tranches to help with landowners’ planning and cashflow. We will further develop the grant details and share more information when ready.

Second, we will offer technical advice and consultations to landowners. At the same time, we have been levelling up industry competency on coastal protection through training programmes. This will ensure that the local engineering industry has the proficiency to provide professional services to landowners to take on these projects and implement the measures to the standard required by PUB.

While coastal protection works are undertaken by individual landowners, PUB will coordinate the works around the entire island, so that we can safeguard the long-term functionality of these coastal protection measures.

To keep seawater out, coastal protection measures need to be connected to each other, and the connection must be watertight. section 30G requires landowners to connect their coastal protection measures with their adjacent neighbours. It also details how the responsibility of performing the connection will be allocated. Where necessary, section 30P allows PUB to require neighbours to permit entry to their premises or render assistance, for the purposes of connecting the coastal protection measures.

PUB will maintain centralised control and oversight of coastal protection through sections 30F and 30H. Landowners will be required to seek PUB’s approval before undertaking coastal protection works, or before altering existing coastal protection measures. Similar to other utility corridors, works within a designated coastal protection safety corridor, or Safety Corridor for short, will be regulated under the new section 30N.

The coastal protection measures and the Safety Corridor will be delineated in the Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan, or Interpretation Plan, under section 30C. This will be hosted on digital systems accessible to the public, where relevant details of coastal protection measures, and the locations of the Safety Corridor will be available.

Section 30I requires landowners to maintain, repair, inspect and monitor their measures. Under section 30O, it will be an offence to damage the measures. Should there be any observed damage to the measures, landowners will be required under section 30J to inform PUB and submit a rectification plan.

For landowners with deployable barriers, section 30K states that regulations may require these landowners to deploy the barriers before an imminent coastal flooding event, as required by PUB.

PUB will develop forecasting abilities to anticipate potential coastal floods, so that early warning can be provided to landowners in a timely manner.

To ensure public safety in transiently floodable areas along the coast, where transient flooding might occur, landowners of premises within the areas will be required under section 30L to prepare a flood response plan and periodically conduct drills based on the flood response plan.

As I explained earlier, we will publish the locations of the Absolute Protection Boundaries and Protection Boundaries for each region after our studies are completed. We will do so when we have a clearer plan on the recommended coastal protection measures of the region.

To provide landowners of Prescribed Places with sufficient lead time to fulfil their obligations, PUB will endeavour to inform them of their obligations about 10 years ahead of the expected completion date. PUB will send out a First Notification to them after it has identified the indicative location of the continuous line of defence. The Second Notification will follow later to inform them of the specific coastal protection requirements, and the date by which the coastal protection measures must be in place. Landowners will have at least five years from the Second Notification to implement their measures.

We will support landowners in fulfilling their obligations by publishing a Coastal Protection Code of Practice, or “the Code” for short. PUB aims to do so later this year, ahead of issuing the First Notifications. This will guide landowners and the industry on how to fulfil their coastal protection obligations. Landowners will have the flexibility to design the coastal protection measures around their needs, as long as they comply with the requirements stipulated in the Code.

As climate science continues to evolve, we will strike a balance between having protection early and overcommitting resources. We will want to have agility and flexibility in our coastal protection plans so that solutions can be adaptive to advancing climate projections and engineering solutions.

The fifth group of amendments will confer powers to enable PUB to carry out its coastal protection functions, deter undesirable behaviours and provide immunities for officers to carry out their duties.

There will be penalties for actions that affect the continuous line of defence, and for failure to comply with a written notice from PUB. Our guiding principle for penalties is to ensure they are comparable to similar offences within the current SDA and other Acts.

The Bill will amend section 43 of the SDA to provide PUB with emergency powers of entry, if, for example, the continuous line of defence is not yet complete due to delays, or a landowner cannot be contacted to deploy the coastal protection measure. This is especially important when an imminent coastal flooding event is forecasted. As a last resort, PUB may also use the power of forced entry to enter the premises to address the coastal flood risk.

This power of forced entry will only be used judiciously, and only where there is an imminent coastal flooding event. I would like to reassure Members that we have set a high bar to activate this clause.

Similar to other Acts, to aid enforcement, the Bill will provide authorised officers with immunities under section 71 of the SDCPA so that they can confidently carry out their duties. For the immunities to apply, authorised officers need to have acted in good faith and with reasonable care in the course of their actions.

Finally, the Bill amends the Significant Infrastructure Government Loan Act 2021 to adopt the new definition of “coastal management” inserted in the PUA by the Bill, as well as amends section 7 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 to include coastal management and sewerage.

There are also amendments to reflect the intended scope of Subsidiary Legislation on the Waterborne Tax and the Water Conservation Tax, and to regulate activities in reservoirs and waterways.

We have engaged the public and will continue to do so as we work on our coastal protection plans. Through Our Coastal Conversations, PUB’s flagship dialogue for coastal protection, we have engaged the community, including residents, business owners, recreational and nature groups, on what they hope to see at our coastlines and what they value about our coastal spaces.

Even as PUB coordinates the overall approach for coastal protection, we will work with landowners and support them in fulfilling their obligations.

The proposed amendments to the SDA which I mentioned, will commence this year. That said, affected landowners’ legal obligations will only begin taking effect closer to early 2030s, after the Absolute Protection Boundaries and Protection Boundaries are gazetted.

Today, as we stand on the firm foundations laid by our pioneers, so too must we build the safeguards of tomorrow. By laying a strong foundation for coastal protection, we ensure that future generations inherit a resilient and liveable Singapore, on which they can build their dreams for an even better and prosperous Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

3.14 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, 22 years ago, the Asian Tsunami happened and took away more than 200,000 lives. For weeks, my teammates and I were flying our helicopters to and fro along the coastline between Aceh and Meulaboh, distributing food, water and medical supplies to the survivors, as part of Singapore's humanitarian disaster relief efforts.

Until today, I can still remember vividly the sight of the massive scale of death and destruction along the coast of Sumatra. We were helping those who survived but we also witnessed first-hand the final journeys of others who did not.

The tsunami was a black swan event that no one had predicted. But had there been seawalls built along the coastline, the scale and impact of destruction may have been mitigated.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I share this experience because Singapore's weather has always been uneventful. We were fortunate to be spared from this catastrophic calamity as well as other extreme climatic conditions such as typhoons and floods that often befall our closest neighbours.

But with projections of rising sea levels of up to 1.15 metres by 2100 and up to two metres by 2150, we must remember that more than 30% of Singapore's land area is less than five metres above sea level. We must do all we can to protect our homes, our beaches, our parks and our factories from tidal waves and rising sea levels. Hence, I agree with the objectives outlined in this Coastal Protection Bill.

In response to this Bill, together with fellow People's Action Party (PAP) Members Nadia Samdin, Valerie Lee, Hany Soh, Lee Hui Ying as well as Cassandra Lee, we will cover concerns related to the integrity of water-tightness, clarity of Government funding, technical support from PUB, nature-based design solutions, impact on business operations, coordination between neighbouring companies, impact on land valuation as well as information asymmetry, defects and liability upon landownership change.

Mr Deputy Speaker, most regulatory requirements stipulated in respective codes of practice, such as building code, fire code and so on, impose requirements on respective buildings or structures independently. On the other hand, the effectiveness of the coastal protection code of practice lies in the water-tightness of adjacent coastal protection measures so as to ensure a continuous line of protection against tidal waves and rising sea levels.

Up to 100 companies are estimated to be affected by this Bill. The Coastal Protection Bill requires respective landowners to own, implement, maintain and operate coastal protection measures on their land premises. The purported rationale for placing the onus on landowners – no pun intended – is because landowners understand their sites best and thus have the flexibility to select measures that best suit their needs. They can even dovetail their infrastructure design and development with coastal protection works.

As mentioned, the crux of the water-tightness of this continuous coastal protection measures lies in the integrity of the adjoining sections between two sections of seawalls or coastal protection measures. If the design and construction of individual coastal protection measure are not well-coordinated and constructed – and there could potentially be up to 100 such potential points of weakness – how can PUB ensure that when the high seas hit our shores one day, the collective assembly of multiple sections of differently designed measures can indeed withstand the forces of nature?

I do not say this in anticipation of the shirking of individual responsibility. Even if everyone plays his or her part, even if all 100 companies or landowners have the best of intentions, they may have knowledge gaps and coordination failures. There is severe information asymmetry. This is a classic collective action problem.

How can we have an integrated and cohesive approach?

An alternative model would be for PUB to undertake the design and construction for all stretches of vulnerable coastal areas, both Government and privately owned land. The Bill would provide PUB the authority to access the site, coordinate with landowners and construct the required coastal protection measures. After the coastal protection measures have been constructed, the ownership will then be novated to the landowner. The long-term responsibility of maintenance and operations will also rest with the landowners.

After all, the Government, as the largest landowner of coastlines, will be responsible for implementing coastal protection for majority of coastlines.

In terms of funding, $5 billion had been topped up in 2025 to the national Coastal and Flood Protection Fund (CFPF). The cost of construction for all coastal protection measures could be recovered from this fund.

Sir, there is a time for individual creativity and innovation, and there is a time for central coordination. Coastal protection is a candidate for the latter even if we want to harness the power of the former.

I ask the Minister to consider a centralised approach towards the design and construction of all coastal protection measures to ensure the most robust outcomes. This also allows us to leverage economies of scale, working with qualified consultants and construction companies that have a good track record and quality of work. If the protection measures are well designed and well constructed from day one, the long-term maintenance will also be less onerous and better maintained.

To be clear, the crux is this – the responsibility is private, but the good is public. We may have 100 possible points of failure. Even one point of failure can cause massive damage. Our strongest remedy, our best hope, lies in one coordinating power. That way, our little island-nation can be truly well protected against the tidal waves during extreme weather and rising sea levels for the long run.

Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my suggestion, I support the Coastal Protection Bill.

3.22 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy 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 also be robust enough to manage the complexities of land tenure, private sector compliance and the preservation of our national identity.

Sir, Deputy Speaker, we are told that the Government will implement most of the coastal defence measures, given its ownership of 70% of the shoreline. Private owners and lessees who hold the remaining sections will need to implement their own coastal protection measures.

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 and future development schedules, ensuring both flexibility and efficiency in implementation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this flexibility. I would also like to ask the Minister to give us an indication of, among the non-state entities-related owners or lessees, the number or ratio of the non-Government entities or non-Government-linked corporations who are owners and lessees, be they individuals, Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs), clubs or other non-business or non-state entities.

I also like to ask whether there are any industrial lessees who may have shorter remaining tenures from now, for example, less than 10 years. 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 their lease to invest in multimillion-dollar seawalls.

We also told that the Government will provide financial and technical support. The Minister mentioned grants.

Can the Government elaborate with some detail the financial support, that is, the grant details as well as the technical support it is giving under the new law, including the level of support? How would the packages work for multinational companies (MNCs) as well as small and medium sized companies (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 reserve for major Government-linked Corporations 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 specialised 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.

Mr Deputy 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 go 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 midway through the 10-year notice period?

Next, under the Bill, the landowner 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 cost back to the owner before the 10-year window expires? Would there be onsite 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 owners 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 economies of scale for the lessees, for the landowners.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill mandates that landowners comply with the standard 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 formalise the integration of nature-based solutions such as mangroves and hybrid revetments, and how the designation of transiently floodable areas will be utilised to preserve uninterrupted public access to our waterfronts. Will the Government consider requiring the Code of Practice to mandate a nature-first visibility assessment before landowners are permitted to resort to traditional concrete seawalls?

Mr Deputy 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 prioritised or expended. For greater transparency on fund usage and decision-making, I hope the Government will consider tabling an annual coastal resilience report detailing Coastal and Flood Protection Fund disbursements and progress across both public and private sectors. May I also ask how much of this Fund is being tagged for the initiatives under this Bill once passed? What is the public-private split in the expenditure? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the principles of this Bill. However, I do have some concerns regarding the implementation.

First, industrial lesses with shorter lease terms. I understand that the Government will provide financial and technical assistance to landowners, but the specific details have not yet been announced. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether there are many affected private lesses who currently have remaining lease terms of less than 10 years.

Given that the sea wall construction is expensive, I am concerned about whether these businesses can obtain sufficient support to ensure that their operations are not negatively affected. At the same time, I am also concerned about how to avoid businesses pulling out early due to unviable investments, thereby leaving gaps in our line of defence.

Second, project supervision and insolvency risk. While the 10-year timeline is long enough, I am concerned about how we can prevent project delays due to businesses having insufficient financial resources or going bandcrupt. I suggest that the authorities should establish progress indicators or consider implementing a performance bond system to ensure that coastal defence works can be completed on schedule.

Third, regarding natural heritage and public spaces. I am concerned with the upcoming Coastal Protection Code of Practice – how it will balance the hard engineering standards with ecological protection. I hope that the Code will adopt nature-based solutions, such as mangroves and adopt designs for transient floodable areas, ensuring that while strengthening coastal defences, the public can still continue to enjoy precious waterfront spaces.

Fourth, as we strengthen our coastal defences, we must never sacrifice kampung heritage or cultural landmarks for the sake of engineering efficiency. I suggest incorporating cultural heritage assessment into the engineering process, so that while protecting our land, we can also safeguard the collective memory of Singaporeans.

Although I have the above concerns, I support this Bill. I hope that through strict supervision, we can protect our coastline and also the long-term interests of all Singaporeans.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy 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 interest of all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

3.33 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, according to Singapore's Third National Climate Change Study, and just as what Minister Grace Fu has shared with this House earlier, Singapore's mean sea level may rise up to 1.1 metre by end-century, higher than previous estimates of one metre.

Coastal protection measures will only become increasingly relevant and critical. To me, the purport of this Bill hits the nail on the head. However, the devil is in the details.

I therefore raise several clarifications to MSE.

Firstly, the Government and Statutory Boards currently own approximately 70% of Singapore's coastal line, which leaves about 30% private-owned or leased. While PUB consulted a wide range of stakeholders for the purposes of our coastal protection plan, how extensive were its consultations with the roughly 30% of the private owners or lessors of our Singapore coastal line?

These are the specific stakeholders whose concerns and feedback must be heard. For the practicality of this Bill's proposals and our coastal protection plan ought to be guided by the said group. This is not confined to the effectiveness of the Coastal Protection Measures but also and, perhaps, more importantly, the administrations of the Code of Practice and grants, which will all go towards the success or failure of the policy's objectives.

Secondly, given that the Government will itself be implementing Coastal Protection Measures for the 70% of coastal line it owns, has PUB considered extending any economies of scale to be reaped to the private owners or lessors? In this regard, perhaps PUB could consider an "opt-in", at least for the implementation or installation of the Costal Protection Measures for private owners or lessors instead of requiring them to procure the same from scratch.

Thirdly, in the 10-year period for private owners and lessors to plan and implement Coastal Protection Measures, will they be required to provide progress updates to PUB? If so, how does PUB intend to ensure that the responsibility does not fall through the cracks when there is a transition in ownership or occupation by a lessor?

Lastly, speaking from the perspective of conveyancing lawyer, how does the agencies ensure that the requirements are accurately reflected during the legal requisition stage? Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

3.36 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Our identity as a nation is inseparable from identity as an island. We were a small coastal settlement before we were a colony and a natural harbour before we were a nation.

The Singapore River was what made us prosperous and the Straits of Malacca made us globally relevant. This is not incidental to our story. It is the whole story, and it is not unique to us either. Wherever human beings have built something lasting, they have built it near water. And today, 40% of the world's population stays within 100 kilometres of a coast. The world's most beloved cities – Shanghai, New York, Barcelona, our own Marina Bay – they sit at the meeting point of land and water. This Bill is protecting the relationship between us, our island and the sea that made it.

Mr Speaker, the decisions we make as we implement this Bill will not be felt by us, but by Singaporeans who are, today, in primary school, in their parents' arms or not yet born. Singapore's own climate scientists project sea levels around our island could rise by up to 1.15 metres by 2100, and up to two metres by the middle of the next century.

To put that in perspective, a two-metre rise would submerge most of Kallang and Marine Parade, and parts of the Central Business District as well. So, we are legislating right now for the people who will live in that world. And that is the reason I want to speak today, about what we are defending for and what we can become in the act of defending it.

I want to make two arguments: one, that how we design our coastal defences matters as much as whether we build them; and two, that what Singapore builds here has the potential to serve not just our own shores but the shores of nations across our region and, in doing so, build a new pillar of Singapore's economy.

Mr Speaker, I want to begin with a question of philosophy – the design philosophy that will be embedded in the Code of Practice flowing from this Bill. The conventional framing of coastal defence is adversarial – water is the threat, infrastructure is the shield, we build the wall, we hold the line and we keep the sea at bay.

But this Bill already contains the seed of a different philosophy. It introduces concept of the transiently floodable area, a coastal zone designed to accept water periodically, rather than resist it permanently, it opens the door to designing with water rather than purely against it.

So, my question to the Minister is about execution. Will the Code of Practice merely dictate technical details, like the height of sea walls and the specifications of pumps, or will it actively incentivise developers and landowners to think about what these spaces could be for the 99% of the time that they are dry?

A transiently floodable area that is well designed becomes a park, a waterfront promenade, a community space. One that is not well designed becomes a fenced-off eyesore. And which Singapore do we want to build?

This is not a novel ambition. Some of the world's most admired cities already have shown what designing with water looks like in practice. Rotterdam has water squares, which are sunken public plazas that fill during heavy rain and function as parks and markets the rest of the time. Copenhagen has redesigned entire boulevards to channel floodwater while remaining fully functional streets. These are not compromises. They are celebrated urban transformations; places people actively want to be that also happen to function as flood management systems.

Singapore also already knows how to do this. Marina Bay is simultaneously a reservoir, a tidal barrier and one of the most iconic public spaces in Asia. We did not choose between flood defence and urban liveability. We achieved both.

The "Long Island" project off the East Coast, with 20 kilometres of new waterfront, is an opportunity on the same scale. The engineering case is being made. What I would ask is that the design case be made with equal ambition. Not just how do we protect this land from the sea, but what kind of coastline do we want future Singaporeans to inherit.

Designing with water does not prescribe a single solution. It is a broad philosophy that can encompass built solutions, hybrid structures or nature-based solutions. But the last category, nature-based solutions, deserve special mention because of the scientific case for it being so strong.

A 2025 study in Nature's Communication, Earth and Environment found that mangrove forests wider than 500 metres dissipate at least 75% of incoming wave energy. Coral reef restoration costs roughly one-fifteenth the per metre cost of artificial breakwaters. Singapore's own 100k Corals Initiative, launched in December of 2024, is already integrating living reefs into our coastal protection strategy. The science is clear. Nature-based solutions are, in many cases, superior to hard engineering – on cost, on performance and on liveability.

So, I would ask the Minister to let the Code of Practice embed an active design philosophy, one that goes beyond technical standards to incentivise integrated water-positive solutions, especially nature-based ones.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me turn to what I think is the most forward-looking dimension of this moment. Singapore is committing $100 billion over 100 years to coastal protection. We are building legal frameworks, engineering standards, a digital Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan and a technical Code of Practice. We are adapting polar technology for tropical conditions at Pulau Tekong. We are generating what the Centre for Climate Research Singapore describes as the world's highest resolution climate projections for Southeast Asia. We are doing all of this on a tropical island in an equatorial climate surrounded by the ecosystems – mangroves, coral reefs, tropical peat coastlines – that define coastal defence in this part of the world. No one else is doing this at this scale in this geography.

That matters because the countries that need coastal resilience expertise most urgently are not the Dutch. They are our neighbours. A landmark 2019 study in Nature Communications found that by 2050, land currently home to 300 million people will experience annual coastal flooding and five of the six most exposed nations are in Asia.

Jakarta alone has 40% of its land below sea level, with some districts sinking at 180 millimetres a year. Ho Chi Minh City already loses $1.3 billion annually to coastal flooding and the Maldives faces projected damages of up to 12.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2100.

These nations need solutions, and the dominant global expertise in coastal protection, the Dutch model, built over centuries, was designed for temperate conditions, for clay soils and North Sea storm surges. Not for tropical peat that subsides at five centimetres per year, not for monsoon hydrology and compound flooding and not for the mangroves and coral reefs that must be both engineered and ecologically sustained.

Researchers have documented what they call the impasse in transferring Dutch delta plans to Jakarta. The soils, the institutions and the ecological conditions are simply too different. The Dutch water export sector generates nearly €10 billion annually. The Bangladesh Delta Plan, the Mekong Delta Plan and the rebuilding of the City of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Dutch expertise sits at the centre of all of them. They turn centuries of national need into a global industry, and that is a model worth studying and emulating.

Singapore is positioned to do for the tropics what the Dutch did for the temperate world. We have the research infrastructure – the Earth Observatory of Singapore, the Tropical Marine Science Institute, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore – and we have the training networks.

The Singapore Cooperation Programme has trained close to 150,000 officials from over 180 countries. We host the ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Centre and we lead on green finance through the Singapore-Asia Taxonomy and we now have, through this Bill, a legal and regulatory framework for tropical coastal protection being built from first principles. The intellectual property being developed through this programme, the engineering standards, the legal frameworks and the climate models represent enormous potential value. The question is whether Singapore captures that value or whether we simply execute the work and let others package and export it.

So, I would ask the Minister if there is a deliberate strategy to position Singapore as the global centre of excellence for tropical coastal resilience to ensure that the expertise developed through this $100 billion programme generates not just a protected coastline for Singapore but a new export industry, one that creates high-value jobs for Singaporeans and allows us to serve Jakarta, Manila, Dhaka and the small island states of the Pacific with solutions designed for their conditions.

And there is an additional dimension beyond commerce. Singapore does not exist in isolation. The SIJORI Growth Triangle – Singapore, Johor, Riau – is deeply integrated with our economy and our workforce and our daily life. Flood risk in these communities is not an abstract concern for us. Helping our immediate neighbours build resilience is straightforward in Singapore's interest. A Singapore that exports coastal resilient expertise is not being just generous; it is being strategic.

Mr Speaker, let me close where I began, with the water. Every generation of Singaporeans has wagered on this island's future. The founding generation wagered that city with no hinterland could become a nation. The generation that built our water infrastructure wagered that necessity could become self-sufficiency. Both were right. The generation now in Parliament is being asked to protect this island and the relationship with the water that made us for the generations that follow.

I believe we can do more than just protect what we have. We want future Singaporeans to look back at this moment and see a generation that designed with the water, shared what it learnt and left a coastline more alive than the one it inherited. This is a compact worth making. We are not the owners of this coastline, we are its stewards, and future generations will judge whether we kept it well.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.

3.47 pm

Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Singapore is a land-scarce, island nation. The impact of the rising sea levels from climate change is significant. I support the Bill as it recognises the longer-term challenge that Singapore faces.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

I take care of the division of Ayer Rajah. Ayer Rajah extends across southwest of Singapore's coast. It includes the coastal areas that are home to several private businesses that, under this new legislation, must implement, operate and maintain coastal protection measures. I have spoken with some of these affected businesses at an engagement session held at Ayer Rajah community centre (CC) earlier in February. Businesses have shared their concerns with me. Many are positive and cooperative. They tell me that PUB has been actively engaging them. For that, I thank PUB and the agencies.

Today, I wish to focus my remarks and suggestions on four aspects: first, the transfer and apportionment of responsibilities and liabilities upon change of ownership and in co-ownership situations; second, the cost on private businesses and support; third, the requirement of appointing a flood protection manager; and fourth, the impact on our coastal marine environment.

First, on transfer and apportionment of responsibilities and liabilities. During the engagement, one question that we had in the room was the issue of latent defects in coastal protection measures and how liability will be managed when ownership or long‑term leases change hands.

Coastal protection projects have long life cycles. It is possible that planning and design are undertaken by one owner, while the responsibility and implementation or construction falls upon a subsequent owner. Moreover, the owner that has to upkeep the measures may not be the original owner who had planned and constructed these measures.

If defects in design or construction emerge years after completion, will the incoming owner be obliged to rectify them at their own cost or will there be a period of time after the transfer of ownership during which the new owner may seek recourse against the previous owner who carried out the works? Especially if the previous owner had received financial support from the Government to carry out those works?

Landowners will be given at least 10 years' advance notice to implement coastal protection measures. Where a transfer of lease or ownership transfer occurs within this first 10-year notice period but before the end of the timeline, and the first owner completes the planning for such a set of measures, will the subsequent owner be bound by those approved plans? If deficiencies later emerge in the plans, will the subsequent owner have recourse against the first owner? The situation becomes even more complex if the land is sold mid‑construction.

On co-ownership, the Bill imposes duties on owners and long‑term lessees of prescribed places, but it does not break down what happens where more than one person owns the land, for example where the land is held in joint tenancy or tenancy‑in‑common. There is a question as to whether, co‑owners of the same prescribed place are intended to be jointly and severally liable for compliance with the implementation, operation, maintenance and rectification obligations.

May I invite the Government to consider statutory guidance on the transfer of obligations and latent‑defect liability and the assignment of liability between co-owners.

Second, the set up of a tribunal or adjudication body to address issues at first instance. This is similar to the Strata Titles Board, which hears matters related to certain disputes arising in respect of strata titled property and orders for collective sales of property under the Land Titles (Strata) Act.

Third, model clauses addressing issues of liability for parties' adoption in agreement. I recognise that some of the issues outlined may need to be privately addressed through commercial negotiations, and it may not be feasible to legislate for many of the circumstances. However, greater clarity on how obligations and liability transfer with ownership or are apportioned will help prevent disputes and protect incoming landowners. This is particularly important in an uncertain economic climate, where policymaking must remain flexible. Further, clear allocation of risks and responsibilities would give companies and investors more certainty, and therefore greater ease in attracting financing for these coastal protection projects.

Next, implications on businesses and their opportunity, costs and support. The Government has announced that it will provide businesses affected with both technical and financial support and I appreciate that details will be disclosed at the appropriate juncture. I would like to raise a few points for consideration.

Coastal protection infrastructure often involves substantial capital expenditure. Beyond the construction of coastal defences, costs can also include studies needed to properly assess flood risk. For new landowners, such expenses will naturally be priced into land costs. The mode of grant, of disbursement, will also make a significant difference to business owners and their decision to take up coastal land.

Upfront disbursements would provide business owners with greater certainty and allay concerns around cash flow, while subsequent reimbursements may cause more hesitation amongst business owners. As for leaseholders, they would now have to consider the remaining length of their land tenures when deciding whether such investments are financially feasible. New lessees may also seek to negotiate shorter tenures to avoid the obligations under the Bill.

Higher financial support at the stage of title acquisition, whether in the form of upfront subsidies or subsequent disbursements, can help lower the financial barrier and more effectively address the cost burden on businesses. While we want to protect our coastlines, it is equally important that we continue to sustain the commercial viability of coastal properties for businesses.

Another suggestion is to view the implementation of coastal protection measures as investments. In a recent Straits Times report, it was suggested that public financing alone may not be sufficient to support all coastal works. Financial instruments, such as sustainability-linked insurance or green bonds, may allow the private sector to structure the financing for coastal protection measures as an investment rather than cost. Affected businesses sharing the same stretch of coastline could also consider coming together to get joint funding for a coastal project, with payments made based on the share of the land that they occupy.

Another model is for landowners to obtain financing and manage the design, implementation and ongoing maintenance of the coastal protection measures end‑to‑end, passing the relevant costs on to new lessees over time. With this model, Enterprise Singapore and sustainability funds may find it to be an attractive proposition to become coastal landowners. These approaches open the door to new streams of investment and innovative financing products. I hope the Government will explore and encourage these alternative financing avenues at an appropriate juncture.

On technical support, 70% of Singapore's coastline is state-managed. As the Government will undertake coastal protection measures for the majority of the coastline, the Ministry is likely to be best placed to identify trusted consultants and contractors for coastal protection. Will the Government consider developing a vetted panel of contractors or an accreditation scheme for private sector use?

I ask for a panel, because many business owners have shared with me that they have different needs, and some have indicated that they already have plans to construct some infrastructure over the next few years while others say that they have components that can be submerged with no issue to flood risk. So, there are specific needs and we hope that the companies can seek their own contractors and consultants when implementing the projects. I suggest that Singapore-based firms be prioritised, if we have such a list, so that public spending in this area also strengthens our local economy.

Next on flood protection manager. Some companies I have engaged with have asked about the specific responsibilities of a flood protection manager, and I would like to seek clarification on the Government’s plans on how the scheme will be implemented.

The Bill provides for the establishment, registration and regulation of flood protection managers including the qualifications and standards a person must satisfy, and the training and assessments a person must undergo, before being appointed. How does the Government envision the training and certification pathways for flood protection managers? Will such training and accreditation be made through SkillsFuture? Will the Government consider transitional support, such as grant schemes, training credits or phased compliance, to assist smaller affected landowners and lessees who may not have the manpower or expertise to take on such operational demands?

Lastly, on the impact on our coastal marine environment. More than two-thirds of Singapore's coral reefs have been lost to coastal development and reclamation since 1960s. Our Southern Coast is home to some of our reefs and unique marine life. I ask if the Government will require affected landowners and lessees to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments, and if there are plans for the Government to assist with mitigating some of the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the coastal protection measures. I also urge the Government to give due consideration to natural coastal protection solutions, which can safeguard our coastlines while preserving the ecosystem. In Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Singapore is a land scarce nation. The impact of rising sea levels brings long term and real challenges. I support the Coastal Protection and Other Amendments Bill and is committed to establishing a continuous coastal protection line to effectively address the risk brought by climate change. This Bill makes coastal protection a responsibility shared between the Government and private parties.

At a practical level, a considerable portion of the affected private owners and businesses are concentrated in the Ayer Rajah area that I serve. Therefore, in my exchanges with these businesses, I have heard more directly about the specific difficulties and considerations they face when fulfilling the relevant requirements.

What businesses are most concerned about is cost and uncertainties. Coastal protection projects often involve substantial capital expenditure, not only for the construction itself, but also for preliminary risk assessment, design and subsequent long-term maintenance and rectification. How these costs are borne and when they are invested will directly affect businesses' investment decisions regarding the coastal areas. Especially for lessees, they must also weigh the relationship between lease tenure and investment recovery, otherwise they may face situations where huge investments are made, but very difficult to recoup.

Another key issue is the continuity and allocation of responsibilities. Coastal protection projects have long cycles and may be completed by different owners in phases. When ownership or leases are transferred during the process, how responsibilities transfer accordingly and who bears the responsibility if problems emerge in the past design or construction remain uncertain. If clear rules are lacking, businesses will face higher risks during transaction or financing and may therefore become more conservative, affecting their overall investment willingness.

Against this backdrop, clearer institutional arrangements are particularly important. Clear allocation of responsibilities and risks not only help reduce disputes, but also provides businesses and investors with greater certainty, making it easier to obtain financing support.

At the same time, I also believe the Government can play a greater coordinating role. For example, integrating resources to form a list of professional consultants and contractors for industry reference to reduce cost and uncertainties for businesses when selecting professional capabilities and improve overall project quality.

I also suggest that when formulating relevant lists, priorities should be given to capable Singapore companies so public resources can create positive cycles in the local economy and further drive the development of local professional capabilities.

In terms of the manpower, the "flood protection manager system" is necessary. Businesses are also concerned about specific implementation matters, including training, certification and compliance's cost. For SMEs, there need to be corresponding transitional and support measures to ensure policies can be smoothly implemented.

Finally, while addressing coastal protection, we must also consider the ecological environment. Our country has lost about two-thirds of its coral reefs since the 1960s, while existing ones mainly distributed in the Southern waters. I urge the Government to strengthen environment impact assessments when implementing projects and adopt nature-based solutions to enhance coastal protection capabilities while protecting our marine ecosystem.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.

4.01 pm

Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small-island nation, the dangers of rising sea levels to us are real. By the year 2100, sea levels would have risen to 1.15 metres, possibly surging to five metres during weather events. This is higher than more than 30% of Singapore.

Smaller island-nations, such as Tuvalu and Kiribati have had to make plans for relocation of their population. We are fortunate and lucky to be larger. But, fail to plan, plan to fail – our future generations may one day face the prospect of having to leave our island. I thus support this Bill as it makes the preparations we need to stay on the map, even into the next century.

I have three areas of clarifications.

First, our coastal protection requires us to build a continuous line of defence. This means implementation must be consistent and well-integrated. However, under this Bill, the responsibility is decentralised to individual landowners. Each may take a different approach to comply with the Bill. Responsible landowners would invest heavily in constructing their coastal defences, but some may choose to minimise costs, especially if they are on a temporary lease.

Will the Code of conduct provide sufficient guidance to promote consistent implementation between landowners? Or will PUB act as an overall coordinator to pre-approve coastal defence plans? Would it be more efficient for the Government to build maybe the entire coastal defence line, and then seek reimbursement from landowners?

The Bill makes reference to implementing coastal management via nature-based solutions. This is ideal as nature-based solutions bring added benefits, such as preserving biodiversity and reducing emissions. How will we encourage landowners to adopt nature-based solutions? These could be more difficult to set up and integrate in a continuous defence line. Will there be technical guidance to help them integrate nature-based solutions with other coastal management features?

Second, how will we manage the smooth implementation of this Bill over such a long timeframe? Over 10 years, and surely by the year 2100, we can expect that landowners, lessees and personnel have gone through various changes. Effective handover of knowledge is crucial for these measures to be effective.

Will PUB set guidelines or conditions for the handover of technical knowledge to new landowners or lessees to preserve critical technical knowledge of privately-built coastal defences during transitions? Can critical data be centrally stored in the Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan, so that new owners, or even the Government, can step in where needed?

It is also important to stay accountable and be accountable for financial support that we provide over such a long period. How will the use of the grants be tracked over this period to ensure funds are properly deployed to coastal protection? What happens if landowners receive the grant and then liquidate or sell the property during the 10-year term?

Lastly, we must strike a difficult balance between building resilience for the future and succeeding in the present. Coastal landowners are those in key strategic sectors, such as shipping and energy. Singapore's future also requires that they can stay competitive in the global economy.

Constructing and maintaining coastal protections is a costly responsibility. In-depth studies and top-quality workmanship are needed to build effective defences. After construction, the coastal defences also need constant maintenance from sea erosion damage. Has the Government assessed how this Bill will affect business competitiveness for our coastal landowners?

Like the seas, businesses have its high and low tides. What happens to maintenance when coastal landowners face difficult market conditions or short-term liquidity challenges? Do we have contingency plans in place to provide support? Otherwise, we might not only have poorly maintained structures, but possibly lose valuable businesses. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): As a small-island nation, rising sea levels pose a real threat to Singapore. By 2100, sea levels are projected to rise to 1.15 metres, and during extreme weather, could even surge to five metres. This is already higher than over 30% of Singapore's land. Some smaller island-nations have already had to plan to relocate their citizens. If we do not plan early, our descendants may one day also face a situation of having to leave this island. Therefore, I support this Bill.

There are three things that I would like to raise. First, our coastal protection needs to establish a continuous line of defence. This implementation process must remain consistent and highly integrated. I would like to ask, can the Coastal Protection Code of Practice provide sufficient guidance to encourage different landowners to implement consistently, or will PUB serve as an overall coordinator, pre-approving relevant coastal protection plans?

Second, how do we ensure that this Bill can be smoothly implemented over such a long period of time? Financial support over such a long duration also needs to ensure there is proper accountability. How can we track the use of funding during this period to ensure that funds are properly used for coastal protection?

Finally, we must strike a difficult balance between preparing for the future and immediate needs. Building and maintaining coastal protection facilities is an expensive responsibility. Once built, these facilities will still need maintenance to cope with erosive damages from sea water. When coastal landowners face difficult market conditions or short-term cash flow challenges, how should maintenance work continue?

(In English): Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support for the smooth sailing implementation of this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

4.08 pm

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): I would like to declare my interest as an employee with a company that owns and operates assets along the coastlines. Speaker, as an island-nation, the sea has always shaped our geography, our history, it will also shape our future.

Today, as we debate the Coastal Protection Bill, we recognise a simple truth: rising sea levels and intensifying weather patterns are no longer distant projections, but real risks that require serious and long-term action.

When close to 30% of our island lies less than five metres above mean sea level, the need to strengthen our coastal resilience is clear. But our shorelines are not empty edges of the land. They host critical infrastructures and industries, keeping our nation alive economically and quite literally, including ports, petrochemical facilities, aviation infrastructure, logistics hubs and energy installations.

These coastal areas are part of our arteries and veins, sustaining us in our part of the world. And they provide thousands of jobs for our Singaporeans. I am sure we can all agree that coastal protection is necessary. The question before us is not whether we protect our coastlines, but how we ensure that implementation is effective, coordinated and sustainable over the long term.

As we move forward, it is therefore important that we consider how responsibilities and resources are allocated between the state, industries that operate along the coast and future generations – in a way that remains fair and economically sound.

With this, Speaker, I have a few clarifications to seek, centred around three themes: first, the scope of funding; second, implementation; and third, coordination efforts.

Under clause 13 of the Bill, landowners are obligated to ensure that there is at all times a coastal protection measure for the prescribed place that meets the coastal protection measures standards. It was reported that coastal protection site-specific study for the City-East Coast region, including areas, such as East Coast Park, began in 2021 and cost $18 million.

Naturally, we expect that studying and erecting sophisticated measures of a high standard will involve significant time and costs. I will like to ask broadly, whether the Ministry will consider centralising all expenditures, so that costs spillovers to consumers are well-managed, measured and not in the hands of commercial entities?

Notwithstanding, I understand that the Ministry intends to provide financial support in the form of a capital grant. May I ask the Minister to clarify the scope and extent of the capital grant?

While capital expenditure for the initial construction of coastal protection measures may be supported, coastal protection is not a one-time investment. Over time, these measures will erode, require upgrades and incur ongoing operational and maintenance costs. Will the Ministry consider whether support could extend to such incremental lifecycle costs, given that these measures ultimately contribute to national resilience?

In addition, some coastal sites host critical national infrastructure, such as power generation facilities or maritime installations. In such cases, will funding support be coordinated across the relevant Ministries, so that coastal protection for these strategic assets can be approached as a whole-of-Government effort, rather than solely through the landowners' framework?

Sir, coastal protection measures are often large in scale and can involve substantial construction activity, including sheet-piling, deep soil mixing and ground improvement works. They may include elevating land, implementing polder systems, and constructing floodgates or seawalls.

Such works can involve substantial construction activity, including sheet piling, deep soil mixing and ground improvement works. For coastal industrial sites, these works may take place within or near operating critical infrastructure. For instance, certain power generation facilities rely on seawater intake systems and are located close to the shoreline. Construction activities in the vicinity may carry risks of operational disruption if not carefully coordinated.

In this regard, may I ask whether the Ministry has considered how such risks will be managed? Would the Minister agree that coordination with the relevant agencies should not be left solely to the affected businesses or landowners and a single point of contact will be useful. Given the potential implications for essential services, a whole-of-Government coordination effort may be necessary, involving the relevant sectoral agencies alongside the implementing authorities.

Further, under the amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act, notifications will be issued to landowners. Could the Minister clarify what level of detail these notices will contain? In the initial batch of notices, will they indicate only general areas where measures are required or will they provide more precise specifications? Greater clarity at that early stage would help stakeholders plan investments and align their implementation timelines more effectively.

Sir, I earlier spoke about coordination between private companies and the Government. I would now like to ask about coordination between neighbouring landowners. Under the proposed new section 30G of the Sewerage and Drainage Act, landowners and long-term lessees of coastal land must ensure that their coastal protection measures connect seamlessly with those on adjacent plots.

While the intent of ensuring a continuous line of defence is very clear, implementation may not always be straightforward. In industrial clusters such as Jurong Island or Tuas, companies operate facilities with very different operational requirements and site configurations.

Left purely to neighbouring parties, coordination may become complex. Differences could arise over design choices, implementation timelines or cost allocation, and these issues may have knock-on effects on the integrity of the overall coastal defence line.

More broadly, coastal protection along an industrial coastline often involves inter-dependencies across multiple sites, not just between two neighbouring plots. How will the Ministry ensure that coordination occurs at the system level, so that the resulting infrastructure forms a coherent and effective defence rather than a series of fragmented measures?

Sir, coastal protection is not optional. It is essential national infrastructure. Much like our water systems, power grids and transport networks, protecting Singapore's coastline ultimately requires a coordinated, system-wide approach. The resilience of our coast should not depend on isolated pockets of protection, but on a continuous and well-planned defence of the entire shoreline. With these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

4.15 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I rise in support of the Coastal Protection Bill.

As an island city-state, our proximity and access to the sea is an important part of our identity. Along our shores are where many Singaporeans first learn to cycle, sail, fish, barbecue with family, dive or simply watch the sunset. For me, the coast is also where my husband and I enjoy slowing down with my son when time permits – pointing out boats along our shores.

Our coasts also support a wide range of activities and livelihoods: from sustaining trade to aquaculture and the protection of coastal habitats, such as mangroves and coral reefs. As climate change intensifies and Singapore strengthens coastal protection, these measures will inevitably shape our coastal environments and the people connected to them.

This Bill is an important step in ensuring that our shores remain safe, healthy and accessible for generations to come. Coastal protection, however, is technically complex and I am heartened that the Ministry and PUB have developed a nuanced plan that recognises the differing needs of stakeholders.

Sir, the Government will implement most of the coastal protection measures and the remaining coastline is occupied by private landowners and lessees. Naturally, their interests may be more site-specific than system-wide, and there may arise situations where a landowner implements a more modest measure, whereas integrated coastal defence requires more comprehensive works.

Could the Ministry share how PUB will guide and support landowners to take a holistic and long-term approach to coastal protection, rather than prioritising lowest-cost or short-term retrofits? Given that climate projections and requirements may evolve over time, could the Ministry also share how the Coastal Protection Code of Practice (COP) will be periodically updated, and how landowners will be supported if future standards require upgrades to earlier works?

I would also like to ask if the Ministry will consider including in its Code of Practice an encouragement and prioritisation for hybrid nature-based solutions that meet the technical requirements? In some parts of the world, coastal protection has successfully taken on an integrated approach that can attenuate wave energy, enhance biodiversity and in some cases even create usable public spaces alongside protection works. For example, sponge cities in Denmark and China or living shorelines in America.

Sir, water does not respect boundaries. Beyond individual sites, coastal protection also operates as a connected system which the Minister has emphasised. The Bill rightly requires continuity along the adjacent land parcels. Could the Ministry please elaborate how PUB will support the coordination, so that the overall coastal system functions cohesively? In the event there are differing timelines or approaches adopted by the neighbouring landowners, what mechanisms will PUB have to step in and ensure timely alignment so that gaps do not emerge so as to avoid implementation risks?

This need for continuity also extends over time beyond the parcels, as land ownership may change. The Bill allows for up to 10 years for owners to implement measures, which is helpful for long-term planning and coordination. However, there may be instances where land ownership changes during this period. Could the Ministry clarify how continuity of planning and coordination with new owners will be ensured if and when coastal land changes ownership after the protection requirements or boundaries have been designated? Has the Ministry considered how many such parcels have changed hands over the past 10 or 20 years?

Given these coordination and implementation complexities, support for landowners will be important. I therefore appreciate the technical expertise, planning coordination and financial assistance the Government will provide. As investment costs may be significant, it would be helpful if the Ministry could outline a little bit more, the financial and technical support available over the years, so as to provide greater assurance to landowners during implementation and more importantly for maintenance in the years to come as such measures will need to remain robust and effective?

Sir, coastal protection is a collective responsibility across Government, landowners and the wider community. We inherited a coastline shaped with foresight, and it is our responsibility now to safeguard the shores that support livelihoods, leisure and our connection to the sea. In doing so, we ensure that future generations will continue to know Singapore not only as a global city, but also as an island home that will endure and thrive in the face of climate change.

(In Malay): Waves roll by the shore,

Sea breeze greets the morning light,

Coastlines guarded more and more,

For future generations' sight.

(In English): Thank you, Sir. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

4.20 pm

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Members for their support and comments on the Bill. Many Members of Parliament have given very good suggestions, have been very encouraging, I would say. Some even calling the Bill a strategic one, not just for the protection of Singapore's coastline but also as a new area of growth, new possibilities of jobs for Singaporeans. Indeed, we are very hopeful that coastal protection will be an area where Singapore, being a frontrunner, will be able to accumulate the expertise and experience that can then be useful to other countries and other cities.

Allow me to run through the queries and concerns raised by Members, which I will address in five broad themes.

First, on who should be responsible for coastal protection. Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked if the Government should instead implement coastal protection on behalf of landowners, to maximise efficiency and coordination.

Fundamentally, landowners should be responsible for the coastal protection measures on their land. This will allow for the optimisation of the very scarce and precious land that we have. Having the Government centrally implement solutions will be sub-optimal, since it may not be feasible to account for every landowner's unique needs and timelines. Landowners are most familiar with their sites and are better placed to implement coastal protection measures that best meet their business needs. Indeed, in our engagements, landowners expressed concern on the potential disruptions when enacting the coastal protection measures and wanted flexibility to dovetail coastal protection works with their redevelopment plans and business cycles.

Centralised specialised measures, like the barriers we are proposing for the Greater Southern Waterfront or the reclaimed "Long Island", are also not always relevant to the land uses in the region nor cost effective. That said, we will facilitate the process as much as possible.

For the companies that lease industrial land from JTC, actually this is the vast majority of the private landowners, PUB is working closely with JTC to explore a centralised procurement model, as well as other options that can support JTC's lessees in fulfilling their coastal protection obligations.

The responsibility for coastal protection will apply only to landowners of Prescribed Places. Ms Nadia Samdin asked if we would charge landowners who will be protected by centralised coastal protection schemes, such as the coastal barriers at the Greater Southern Waterfront. We will not be recovering the cost of these measures from the landowners, just like how we are not imposing any costs on inland landowners. These costs will be borne by the Government, who will own, implement and operate the coastal barriers.

We will gazette the Absolute Protection Boundaries in Subsidiary Legislation, and publish it in the Coastal Protection Interpretation Plan, which would be discoverable during legal conveyancing.

These efforts would help address Ms Nadia Samdin's and Ms Hany Soh's as well Ms Poh Li San's points on ensuring that there is no information asymmetry and that coastal protection obligations do not fall through the cracks in the event of a change in land ownership. In addition, ahead of the formal gazetting, PUB will work towards publishing the indicative locations of the Absolute Protection Boundaries and the Protection Boundaries in the public domain, so that prospective lessees and landowners will be aware of their potential obligations.

Ms Cassandra Lee also asked about liabilities and responsibilities arising from the transfer of land ownership. Our principle is that landowners will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the coastal protection measures on their land. When there is a transfer of ownership, the transfer of liability is no different from when property changes hands today. In addition, the previous landowner would have had to engage a Qualified Person to certify that the structure is up to standard, before PUB approves it as a coastal protection measure. Landowners would also have to regularly inspect and maintain any coastal protection measures they have, according to PUB's standards.

Ms Cassandra Lee had questions on what happens if there are multiple owners, and what their respective obligations would be. Under the new Section 2D of the Bill, the Government will make clear in regulations whether the lessor or the lessee is considered for the relevant coastal protection obligations. On the separate question of co-ownership, I would like to inform Ms Lee that we do not currently have any such cases. However, should this scenario arise, co-owners will each be responsible for coastal protection obligations.

The second set of questions covers how PUB will play a coordinating role among landowners, especially when the coastal protection measures must join up to form this continuous line of defence. Ms Lee Hui Ying spoke about the importance of preserving critical knowledge of the coastal protection measures, as land may change hands. I agree with her. Under the Bill, landowners will need to submit relevant reports and drawings, including as-built drawings and maintenance reports, to PUB.

PUB will also keep records of the reports and drawings, and can require a transfer of the records to the incoming landowner when there is a change in land ownership.

Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Nadia Samdin, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about the challenges on the ground for landowners and how PUB would facilitate coordination so that measures are connected and watertight. I would like to assure Members that PUB will facilitate coordination among affected landowners during the planning and implementation stages. The Bill has provided for this coordination role. Section 30G allows PUB to provide as-built drawings or plans of the neighbouring plot to a landowner, if necessary, to ensure that the connection is effected.

PUB aims to publish the Coastal Protection Code of Practice, as I mentioned earlier in the speech. This Code of Practice will be published later this year. It will set out the baseline planning, design, operation and maintenance requirements for landowners' compliance. It will also spell out what landowners need to take note of when connecting their measures, such as designing for watertightness.

Where necessary, PUB will use its enforcement powers to ensure the continuous line of defence is not compromised. This includes the scenario that Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about, for companies who face short-term liquidity challenges and are unable to maintain their coastal protection measures, or even non-compliant landowners who fail to fulfil their coastal protection responsibilities.

First, PUB has power under sections 41 and 44 to step in and undertake maintenance and repair works to ensure the functionality of the continuous line of defence and to recover the cost as necessary from the landowner subsequently.

Second, PUB has powers of forced entry, which we will use in the scenario when there is an imminent coastal flood, but the landowner does not have a fully implemented coastal protection measure in place and is unresponsive or uncontactable, notwithstanding efforts to contact them. When activating such powers of forced entry, PUB officers will be required to seek PUB senior management's approval before proceeding with forced entry into these premises.

PUB will do so to either activate a deployable measure or put in place an interim measure. This would only be used as a last resort when the officers have exhausted all other available options, including the deployment of measures outside of the premises. It is vital for PUB to have the forced entry power in such a scenario, to join up the continuous line of defence and ensure public safety and protect assets.

Third, on funding support. Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Nadia Samdin asked if maintenance of coastal protection measures will be funded through the grant. We are still working out the grant details, and more information will be released when ready.

The intent of the grant is to fund the necessary costs of putting in place the coastal protection measure. We have assessed that the maintenance required of measures such as seawalls and revetments are minimal, and that this would not be substantially different from how landowners might maintain their existing seawalls and revetments today.

Ms Lee Hui Ying also asked how the grant will be tracked and how it will account for changes in landownership. We are considering reimbursing the landowner in tranches. This would allow us to monitor the progress of works. Should there be a change in landownership before the completion date, the new landowner has the option of using the previous set of plans or submitting a fresh set of plans to PUB for approval.

Next, on preparing the industry. We are ramping up efforts to prepare the local industry as we embark on coastal protection. There are two main groups here – the consultants and the construction contractors that will put in place the coastal protection measures and the flood protection managers that will assist the landowner with meeting the coastal protection requirements.

On the issue of capability building, Ms Cassanda Lee asked if we would consider developing a list of contractors that landowners can engage. I believe Mr Dennis Tan made the same point.

PUB currently does not have any plans to maintain a list of pre-approved contractors. The coastal protection measures that landowners need to implement are unlikely to be significantly different from the seawalls, revetments or embankments that are seen in Singapore today. We are surrounded by sea and we have coastal protection measures today. Coastal landowners would likely be familiar with contractors involved in such works.

To Ms Nadia Samdin's point on how we will encourage landowners to take a long-term view during implementation, the Code of Practice will provide a set of minimum standards covering planning, design, operation and maintenance of coastal protection measures to ensure our continuous line of defence is sufficiently robust.

Landowners are also required to seek PUB's approval for their plans before construction. So, there is some quality checks on the part of PUB. This is when PUB can assess if the measure is sufficiently designed while keeping the longer-term needs in mind.

In my opening speech, I have also explained that the Code and what we are planning will also be updated in time to come, because we are continuously, regularly refining our projections on sea level rise, on storm surges and also, at the same time, researching into new engineering solutions, new technology that can help us. The Code will not be something that is fixed in time. I am sure we will review and we will update it over time.

We agree with Ms Cassandra Lee on the importance of flood protection managers. The intent of appointing flood protection managers is to have trained personnel who can assist landowners in fulfilling their coastal protection obligations such as inspecting and maintaining the measures. To ensure the flood protection managers are well positioned for their roles, we will work with professional bodies and industry associations to run training courses and accreditation. We will release details in due course.

The last group of questions relates to the impact to the environment. Very important questions, and I am sure many groups of nature lovers as well as members of the public, local community groups will also be keen to know how the coastlines will be affected by coastal protection measures.

Indeed, we placed a lot of emphasis in upfront site studies, in engagement, in listening very closely, in discussing, in to and fro exchange of ideas with relevant groups so that we can come together to agree on a set of workable designs. That is done at the site-specific study level.

Ms Cassandra Lee also asked whether environmental impact assessments (EIAs) will be required. We would like to assure the Member that coastal protection works in or near sensitive areas or that have potential transboundary impact will need to undergo in-depth consultation with technical agencies on the site's potential ecological and biodiversity value. If there is potentially significant environmental impact, agencies will require an environmental study to assess the full impact of the works and develop more extensive mitigation measures. PUB will have to conform and work within the EIA framework.

Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms Nadia Samdin, as well as Mr Andre Low, as well as Mr Dennis Tan, asked how we will encourage landowners to adopt nature-based solutions or to maintain some of their heritage value and whether there will be any technical guidance.

During our site-specific studies, we engage the community and nature groups to determine the location of the measures to preserve and encourage biodiversity where possible, including, for example, whether the continuous line of defence can be set behind mangroves to minimise the impact to them. This was done as part of PUB's "Coastal Conversations" for the Sungei Buloh area, for example.

So, my point is, the consideration for the environment, for the conservation of nature and the protection of biodiversity is done at the site study stage. When that is done, after consulting all relevant stakeholders, after arriving at the solution that we think is optimal, that itself will be developed into detailed requirements for the prescribed places, to be in the interpretation plan and to be gazetted.

So, by the time that the landowner receives specific requirements in their second notification, the consideration is already done. We would have moved back from protected area. The line would have been drawn behind and therefore, impacting the owners.

What the owners could do will be limited as far as environmental protection and consideration is concerned, although there are some considerations when it comes to using environmentally friendly, hybrid solutions, which over time, we hope to include in our Code of Practice that the landowners can then include in their specific sites.

This Bill does not dictate the site-specific study process. We will follow the prevailing EIA framework. Landowners have the flexibility to determine the coastal protection measures that best meet their land needs.

As part of the Coastal Protection and Flood Management Research Programme, there is ongoing research to assess the efficacy of hybrid nature-based solutions for coastal protection. Where applicable, these nature-based solutions will be shared in future editions of the Code of Practice.

I would just like to also repeat what Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan had said in the Committee of Supply, that we are going to publish a guidebook that is called the Flood Resilient Developments Guidebook, that is developed through an Alliance for Action on how we can incorporate some of these design elements. This guide will allow the landowners to have a collection of references that may be easier for them to consider as they carry out their works. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): Coastal protection is crucial as it affects our daily lives and safety. The Coastal Protection Bill will help Singapore establish a continuous line of defence along coastal areas to resist threats from rising sea levels, protecting our people, assets and livelihoods.

After the Bill is passed, landowners can choose measures that adapt to local conditions and adopt appropriate coastal protection measures according to their organisational needs.

As a regulatory authority, PUB will gazette the scope of the “Absolute Protection Boundaries” and “Protection Boundaries” to demarcate Prescribed Places. PUB will also ensure that coastal protection measures of adjoining sections can be properly connected. We will engage landowners and coordinate among them to ensure that they work closely together to adopt appropriate measures.

PUB will also provide technical advice and grants to assist them in fulfilling their coastal protection obligations. We appreciate all the suggestions made by our Members on how to better support the landowners. We will give them careful consideration.

The collective efforts currently made by coastal landowners for protection of the coast will lay a solid foundation for our country's coastal protection and benefit future generations. The Government will work together with the people to address rising sea levels due to climate change, implement long-term coastal protection measures and jointly build a more resilient, safe and prosperous Singapore.

(In English): Mr Speaker, coastal protection is a long-term endeavour to protect our people, assets and livelihoods. Coastal protection is not a burden that reduces business competitiveness. Rather, it is an investment to ensure business continuity in a world where climate risks will become more apparent.

In fact, as Mr Andre Low has alluded to and explained so passionately, there could be new opportunities generated for us as we build up expertise and experience in coastal protection.

This Bill lays the foundation to ensure a continuous line of defence that will protect Singapore against sea level rise for the next 50, 100 years and more. Together, we will work together for a more resilient and prosperous Singapore amidst the rising seas. Mr Speaker, I seek to move. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Clarifications for the Minister? Ms Poh Li San.

4.42 pm

Ms Poh Li San: Thank you, Speaker and thank you, Minister, for your closing speech. I have two clarifications.

First one, in clause 30G, it was mentioned that the new section in this clause provides for the owner the obligation for connecting the coastal protection measure for its prescribed place, to the coastal protection measure for an adjacent prescribed place.

As highlighted earlier in my speech, the crux of the problem is really the water tightness of the protection measure. In the event of a compromised measure due to the failure at the interface, would there then be a penalty meted out to the original landowner or on his neighbour? That is the first clarification.

The second one is, Minister also mentioned that penalties will be metered out to landowners who compromise the continuous coastline of defence. PUB will force-enter or take over the works, especially in the event of imminent flooding events.

My question is, if it is something that is quite an extreme weather, like a tidal wave that is expected to hit in the next hour or so, will PUB then be able to respond in time, put in some kind of temporary barriers?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The first question on responsibility, it will have to lie with the landowner that has executed the work. Of course, we will have to look at the facts of the case, whether it is due to the design or an implementation error, or is it due to maintenance errors.

If I were to put in principle, we are looking at responsible decisions made by the landowner. If you are the later one that is joining to one that is already been built, it is your responsibility to ensure that there is connection and the connection is water-tight.

The second question is on imminent flooding. It is a very important one. What we have in mind is not activate this preparedness or this preparation an hour before a flood arrives. We are investing a lot into the ability to forecast. And we hope that we are able to forecast days in advance. If we have days in advance, we could go around to look at areas where we can give advance notice to owners. Landowners could then put up some of their temporary or some of their defence. They can check, make sure that all the coastal protection measures are in place and working as they are intended to.

But if we are really unable to contact them, we will have some standard operating procedures – x number of hours from the expected time of arrival of the weather event, PUB will then have to execute.

And if they are unable to contact the landowner by a certain time and they have to access, they have no alternative except to enter the premises to erect some of these measures, then they have to seek the approval from their senior management and they will have enough time to erect temporary measures and interim measures.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister as well. I have just two points, mainly related to the site-specific studies, as it appears that this is a very key part of the process, and I am not sure if I missed it. First, in the event there are differing timelines or approaches adopted by neighbouring landowners, given that each measure will really depend on the site, what is the formal mechanism that PUB has to step in and ensure that there is alignment across implementation? That was the first question.

The second is, how will interested groups and members of the public be made aware about the timing of these site-specific studies and is there any opportunities for citizen scientists to get involved? Because I appreciate the Minister's assurances that nature will be well considered and integrated, but for nature-based solutions, these have to be very intentionally designed and woven in as part of the process.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Indeed so, Mr Speaker. We place a lot of emphasis on engaging the community, the local community. Earlier on, Ms Cassandra Lee talked about how businesses in her constituency have been consulted – that is really a reflection of the amount of effort and work that PUB colleagues have put in to reach out, to contact and to meet up and to have deep discussions about the obligations and the options.

Similarly, we have done so as we move from region to region, conducting site-specific studies, engaging local community, local businesses as well as nature groups, different nature groups, from those that are interested in plant materials to those who are interested in corals, we want to reach out as widely as possible.

Having done so over the last few years, I think we have created a good network among interested parties. And the stakeholders, important stakeholders have come forward and participated fully in the process, moving from region to region, as we finish one, we move onto another one.

You have seen the design reflecting the collective thinking on what is optimal for the country. So, where it is possible, we build tidal gates at the coastal area in Sentosa, in Keppel Bay, so that we can keep the coastline as pleasant as it is now. We can keep the movements of boats and also we can minimise the impact on the maritime environment.

At the same time, we have also moved back the boundary lines in some cases, allowing some transient flooding to occur at Sungei Buloh, really after having long discussions. Because I think the nature groups, having done these extensive discussions with us for many sessions, going through the options deeply, they understand also. If Singapore is flooded, it is difficult for us to protect other things around us. So, we also need to have some boundary, and so the Absolute Protection Boundary is set after due consideration. Where would be the appropriate line to be drawn so that we minimise the impact on the environment, so we maximise the protection of properties and lives – because that is the trade off that we are balancing. We want to be friendly to the environment, but at the same time we have to ensure that that is still an absolute boundary that is absolutely critical, crucial for the protection of our properties, our homes, our cars, our businesses and our lives.

Trade-offs have to be made, it is not an easy process, but we have done so already with many groups over several rounds, and we believe that we have come to a process that is useful for all parties, all parties – Government, people, users, sports users, recreation users, environmental activists – to come to a compromised position.

4.50 pm

Mr Speaker: I believe all the clarification questions have been addressed.

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 Grace Fu Hai Yien].

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