Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.05 pm

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

Mr Speaker, as a small and open economy, our businesses' ability to move goods swiftly and securely across borders is crucial for maintaining our competitive edge as a global trade hub.

Today, we are proposing amendments to the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act 1995 to strengthen the integrity of our trading processes and enforcement capabilities. This will reinforce Singapore's status as a trusted and reliable global trade hub.

Allow me to share the two key proposals of this amendment Bill. First, the Bill will strengthen our regulatory framework for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates (TICs). Second, it will facilitate Singapore Customs' investigative powers to uphold the integrity of Singapore's trade regime.

Our first proposal is to introduce a new Part 3 to the Act to provide further legal and regulatory certainty for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates. Trade Information Certificates are documents used by businesses in international trade to ascertain certain information about goods. An example would be information on the "Country of Origin of goods".

To be clear, Trade Information Certificates issued locally are not mandated by the Singapore Government for the trade of goods. However, our local exporters often require them, as the certificates can be requested by the regulatory agencies of other countries or their commercial partners.

Currently, Singapore Customs and relevant regulatory agencies in Singapore issue these certificates. Trade Information Certificates may also be issued by authorised non-governmental organisations. For example, Singapore Customs has authorised five trade associations and chambers to issue Certificates of Origin to businesses that require them for commercial purposes.

The Bill provides for other eligible entities to be authorised as alternative issuers of Trade Information Certificates, while ensuring the integrity of the certificate issuance process.

The Bill also introduces offence provisions for furnishing false or misleading Trade Information Certificates or tampering with these certificates. This is to deter any person who has an intention to falsify or tamper with Trade Information Certificates. In addition, with the amendments, it will be an offence if an individual makes false declaration or provides false information to Singapore Customs or authorised certificate issuers in their application of Trade Information Certificates.

Under the existing Act, an appeal may be made to the Minister in respect of any matter mentioned in the Act.

The new Part 5 of the Act expands on this and enables the Minister to designate a representative to hear and determine any such appeal to ensure that appeals may be dealt with expeditiously. Such representatives may include Second Minister, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary.

Essentially, these amendments help to preserve Singapore's reputation as a credible trade hub by ensuring the legitimacy of our Trade Information Certificates.

Our second proposal seeks to enhance Singapore Customs' operational effectiveness through amendments to facilitate the investigation of offences and expand the scope of situations for granting a search warrant.

Currently, Singapore Customs can apply to a Magistrate for a search warrant to enter premises to investigate offences under the Act. To do so, Singapore Customs is required to reasonably prove that the premises contain goods relevant to the investigation. However, there have been instances where Singapore Customs was not able to obtain a search warrant, as it was only made aware of the potential offence after the goods had left Singapore.

Nonetheless, the premises may contain other evidence useful for the investigations, such as books, documents and records related to the potential offence.

Clause 10 of the Bill expands the scope for granting a search warrant to include circumstances where Singapore Customs have reasonable proof that the premises contain other forms of evidence related to the potential offence under this Act.

Foreign jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Australia, have similar laws.

Clause 10 also enables Singapore Customs to inspect relevant computers or associated devices found at the premises; and preserve any relevant books, records or cash, that could be evidence of an offence under the Act or its regulations.

Clause 13 builds on existing provisions of the Act to make it an offence to alter, suppress, conceal or destroy books, records, documents or other articles with the intent to delay or obstruct the conduct of an investigation.

The amendments to Singapore Customs' enforcement powers under the Bill are aligned with similar provisions in the Customs Act. I would like to assure Members that such powers will only be exercised in the interest of facilitating Singapore Customs' investigation of offences.

The amendments will enable Singapore Customs' regulatory and enforcement operations to be more effective and also strengthen the deterrent effect for offences under the Act.

In closing, the amendment Bill seeks to strengthen legal and regulatory framework for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates in Singapore as well as to facilitate Singapore Customs' investigation of offences. These efforts will ultimately strengthen Singapore's status as a trusted and reliable global trade hub and a responsible trade partner on the global stage. Sir, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Victor Lye.

4.12 pm

Mr Victor Lye (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill 2025. The Bill strengthens Singapore's trade certification framework and customs enforcement. It safeguards the trust that underpins our open economy and modernises enforcement powers for a digital trading age.

Mr Deputy Speaker, some people think that Singapore does not impose tough enough penalties for customs offences just because of our imports are duty-free. This perception is misplaced.

Singapore may be trade facilitative but let it be known we take trade compliance seriously. This Bill makes that very clear. We expect importers and exporters to keep their trade operations in order. By clarifying authority and imposing penalties for false or misleading certificates, this Bill protects Singapore's standing as one of the most trusted certification regimes in the world.

In this speech, I would like to touch on four aspects: one, trust in Singapore’s trade ecosystem; two, ensuring accountability and deterrence; three, supporting our exporters; and four, strengthening digital enforcement.

One, trust in Singapore's trade ecosystem. Singapore's trade is powered by trust – that goods bearing our name are genuine, properly declared and lawfully certified.

The Bill introduces the concept of a Trade Information Certificate, covering certificates of origin, export, re-export and processing. It establishes clarity on who can issue such certificates and the conditions they must meet.

This is not theoretical. In June 2025, a logistics coordinator in Singapore was fined for falsifying and tampering with Certificates of Origin. Such acts undermine confidence in Singapore-issued documents and threaten our exporters' preferential access to foreign markets.

One concern under the new framework of Trade Information Certificates is to ensure that businesses get clear guidance on which existing trade documents fall within the new regime. Implementation will require transitional arrangements, training or outreach programmes to help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and trade associations adapt to the new trade certification regime. Financial or advisory support should be provided for businesses that must update internal systems or documentation procedures.

Two, ensuring accountability and deterrence. Fraudulent trade certification undermines legitimate global trade. The Bill's new offences for issuing or altering false trade information, with fines and imprisonment for repeat offenders, provide real deterrence. Those who misuse Singapore's name for gain must face the full weight of the law.

Three, supporting our exporters. The Bill supports our manufacturers, logistics operators and freight forwarders who depend on a smooth and credible certification process. This Bill recognises existing authorised self-certification schemes under regional agreements, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Wide Self-Certification Scheme. It grants continuity to currently authorised persons while having a fit-and-proper framework for new issuers. The detailed criteria and "fit and proper" processes to authorise certificate issuers, including what fees, renewal conditions and processing timelines, should be made known.

Four, strengthening digital enforcement. Trade documents are now digital. Fraudulent certificates can be created or modified electronically within minutes. The Bill empowers authorised officers to search and seize digital devices related to suspected trade offences. This is vital to investigate sophisticated cross-border schemes that rely on encrypted messaging and online platforms. With these expanded powers, my concerns are safeguards to protect privacy and commercially-sensitive information. Will there be independent oversight or audit mechanisms to ensure the proportional use of such powers?

I hope that SMEs, in particular, are not unduly burdened by compliance costs or uncertainties. How will the impact of these changes on Singapore's trade competitiveness be monitored? Will there be unintended trade diversion or increased documentation delays as a result of the new framework? How will such findings be reported and reviewed to address and mitigate any adverse effects?

I suggest that annual statistics on the number of Trade Information Certificates issued, rejected or found to be false, be published. There should be a formal review within two years of implementation to assess compliance cost, trade competitiveness impact and regulatory effectiveness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as global supply chains grow more complex, our advantage lies in trust – that a document issued in Singapore can be accepted anywhere in the world without question. This Bill protects Singapore's name, supports legitimate trade and ensures that enforcement keeps pace with the digital world. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

4.19 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Regulation of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill is a necessary legislative measure to safeguard the integrity and reputation of Singapore's trade ecosystem.

The Bill primarily seeks to prevent the fraudulent issuance and misuse of Trade Information Certificates, which are official documents that are like a passport for goods. The fraudulent misuse of Trade Information Certificates, ultimately, damages our nation's status as a trusted global trading hub. False Certificates of Origin and other Trade Information Certificates undermine the integrity of global trade data, facilitate customs duties evasion and allow unsafe or substandard goods to enter markets under false pretenses. This abuse, whether involving exports to foreign markets or goods transiting through Singapore, is a clear threat to our national trade integrity and reputation.

The amendments also rectify operational gaps by explicitly expanding the scope for search warrants to include documents and records, recognising that the critical evidence in fraud cases is often digital or paper, rather than physical goods. These are important steps, but their implementation requires careful scrutiny.

The Bill appears to be a response to the problem of trade circumvention, sometimes pejoratively referred to as "Southeast Asia washing", where traders exploit major global trading hubs, like Singapore, to circumvent foreign trade restrictions and tariffs. It tackles this by directly regulating Origin and Non-Manipulation Certificates, introducing a new offence for knowingly issuing false Trade Information Certificates and mandating strict record-keeping for preferential Certificates of Origin.

Complex, high-volume trade circumvention schemes are almost certainly orchestrated by sophisticated actors who command the necessary supply chains. If the Bill's primary purpose is to stop this high-level fraud, we must ensure that the severe compliance burden does not fall disproportionately on our SMEs.

Could I ask the Minister of State, of all the instances where Singapore Customs has detected trade circumvention via fraudulent Trade Information Certificates, what percentage of these cases involved small local traders versus large multinational companies or their subsidiaries? How will the Ministry ensure that the compliance burden under this Bill does not become an unintended barrier to trade for the low-risk majority?

This Bill is no simple administrative update. It is a significant shift in regulatory liability that demands substantial internal investments from every trader. While I support the Bill's intent, I wish to focus on the significant statutory compliance burden this Bill introduces, specifically for our SMEs.

The introduction of an entirely new statutory framework for Trade Information Certificates converts what was often an administrative arrangement into a formal, highly regulated process with severe penalties for non-compliance. More accurately, the new record-keeping offence for manufacturers and exporters who issue preferential Certificates of Origin is a substantial shift. This provision formalises a duty with clear legal consequences, compelling traders to guarantee the proactive quality and accuracy of their records to substantiate the certificate claim, moving well beyond the simpler duty of document retention.

Furthermore, the Bill expands Singapore Customs' enforcement powers, directly linking the integrity of Trade Information Certificates to the potential seizure of physical goods. This means that the quality of a single document can now potentially stall an entire shipment, placing immense and immediate operational risk on every trading firm. The severe penalties, reaching up to $100,000 for a first offence, risk deterring smaller firms from participating in complex preferential trade, which requires them to issue or obtain these high-liability certificates.

The Bill could expose the inadequacy of many traders' existing internal information systems, their expertise and organisational control.

The Networked Trade Platform, the national digital business-to-Government platform for regulatory compliance, and the Singapore Trade Data Exchange (SGTraDex), a business-to-business platform for operational data exchange, both allow traders to digitally transact with our trade ecosystem. While these platforms are excellent for data exchange, they cannot automate the internal corporate hygiene now mandated by law. The expanded Government powers under this Bill, which include searching for books, documents and records, necessitate significant investment in internal corporate governance.

SMEs face a significant administrative cost of interpretation as well. These include hiring consultants or dedicating management time to fully understand the legal nuances of the new offences and record-keeping obligations. This requires a mandatory upgrade to auditable Document Retention Mechanisms to secure, systematically organise and retrieve records for five years or more. The documentation complexity is far beyond the existing trade permit submissions. Therefore, the true compliance costs are not in the permit fees, but in the internal process control required to prevent an honest mistake from becoming a high-penalty offence. Furthermore, the severity of the new penalty regime necessitates substantial human capital investment and training.

To mitigate these foreseen problems and ensure the Bill does not become an unintended barrier to trade, I urge the Government to provide robust, targeted assistance to traders to help them comply with the Bill's obligations.

First, Enterprise Singapore should create a Trade Compliance Technology Grant. It could expand on the existing Enterprise Development Grant, specifically for technology adoption by SMEs related to this Bill's requirements. This funding could cover up to 80% of the cost of the adoption or upgrade of traders' Enterprise Resource Planning systems and specialised Document Management Systems to meet the new requirements under this Bill.

This grant should also extend financial support to a trader's internal information technology (IT) department, should they wish to implement the enhancements themselves without engaging third-party vendors.

Second, technical support to traders must be bolstered. Singapore Customs and the Infocomm and Media Development Authority must ensure all the necessary Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are made available for traders to interface between their ERP systems and both Networked Trade Platform and SGTraDex. These APIs must be accurately and comprehensively documented and supported by a responsive and competent technical and functional help desk service.

Third, we need to provide specialist advisory support needed to help local traders bridge the compliance knowledge gap. I propose a Trade Compliance Advisory Grant that SMEs can tap on to subsidise the cost of engaging trade lawyers or consultants. These experts can help draft the necessary Standard Operating Procedures and establish a robust corporate governance framework demanded by the Bill.

Fourth, Customs could also partner with trade associations to offer heavily subsidised specialised training subsidies for SME traders, with a curriculum focused on managing internal compliance systems, enhanced record-keeping obligations and risk management related to the Bill.

This Bill could also open up career opportunities for Singaporeans wishing to specialise in trade compliance or pivot from another industry. SkillsFuture Credit and other training grants must be made available to individuals wishing to upskill themselves in this area. If Singapore is to champion ASEAN digitalisation and lead in digital trade infrastructure, we must first ensure our local traders have the necessary resources, systems and trained personnel to meet the highest standards of trade data integrity.

Finally, the Ministry should adopt a "fix, do not fine" approach for initial or inadvertent breaches. It should be formalised as a clear, tiered enforcement framework designed to differentiate between genuine error and deliberate fraud.

Tier 1 should cover honest mistakes by first-time offenders and minor breaches. Singapore Customs should issue only a Notice of Advisory or impose a Mandatory Remediation Period. The trader must submit a corrective action plan and leverage the proposed grants to implement a system upgrade, with no financial penalty at this stage. This encourages self-correction and transparency. Tier 2 would cover negligence, repeated minor breaches or first-time significant breaches. A composition sum and mandatory training would be a more proportionate and effective response. The full penalty regime, including the severe statutory fines, must be reserved strictly for Tier 3, which covers fraud or gross negligence, where the breach involves knowing falsehoods, deliberate tampering or clear intent to evade duties.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill's success hinges on how well traders comply with these requirements. We must ensure that deterrence is targeted at the fraudulent few, while genuine traders are supported with the tools and clarity necessary to meet these new stringent requirements.

In summary, the bill addresses serious harm to our trade integrity, but risks imposing disproportionate burdens on SMEs. To mitigate these burdens, I propose the Government support through targeted grants for enhancements to internal systems, consultancy services and a commitment to a tiered, fixed loan fine and enforcement framework to guide honest traders into compliance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

4.29 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, the amendments to the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act have a twofold aim: to introduce a Trade Information Certificates, which I will go ahead and call it as TICs – it is an unfortunate acronym, I noticed that the Minister of State Gan skillfully avoided this – and to expand the scope of search authority for customs officials.

My hon friend, Gerald Giam, has just spoken on the importance of further empowering traders, especially smaller ones, through targeted assistance, as they navigate the new stipulations that they would have to comply with resulting from this proposed legislation.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

On my part, I will take a step back and focus mainly on implications of clause 3 which provides the framework for a more robust and comprehensive trade monitoring regime and what this will have on our international trading relations. Specifically, I will probe more into whether how, even as TICs improve our importing and exporting firms' adherence to our international trading obligations, they also carry additional costs, without fully resolving certain concerns.

Rules of Origin have long been required to ensure that free trade agreements (FTAs) signed between contracting nations do not inadvertently undermine those that are not party to the same agreement. Without Rules of Origin, goods from, say, Turkiye, that entered Singapore preferentially may then subsequently be exported to the Philippines tariff-free as a result of ASEAN, even though the latter did not agree to the rates set forth in the Turkiye-Singapore FTA.

The problem, however, is that the proliferation of FTAs has contributed to a so-called "spaghetti bowl" of messy, overlapping, and hard-to-enforce duties and barriers, which has been criticised by some as undermining the multilateral trading system. Singapore has been somewhat more guilty than most, given our penchant for signing FTAs, resulting in our own char kway teow of interweaving trade agreements, several times more than the average economy, and incorporating a host of non-harmonised trading rules.

Managing this web of interlocking trading relationships, therefore, necessitates a decisive system of monitoring and reporting Rules of Origin. Singapore had previously implemented this administratively, using Certificates of Origin. Such Certificates of Origin carried limited oversight and enforcement were prone to error or differences of interpretation and relied on honest and accurate self-declarations.

The statutory backbone provided by the TIC regime will, undoubtedly, make some headway in tightening Rules of Origin, although elevated reporting and accountability requirements, along with expanded enforcement powers.

Still, Rules of Origin may be circumvented under the revised legislation. For example, TICs cannot preclude a situation where an importer deliberately overstates the cost of local material or labour used to determine origin. This is fraudulent, of course, but detection would only be heightened under the new regime if there were also additional resources dedicated to effect random scrutiny of TIC submissions, perhaps with the use of AI-enhanced fraud detection methods.

But slippages may result even when the intent is not nefarious. For instance, third-party invoicing, the practice of using preferential Certificates of Origin issued by a third country that may not be a member of FTA, has, historically, been accepted by Singapore Customs. Still, there is no immediate assurance that the standards for Rules of Origin applied by the third country would be as stringent as those that we are now developing here.

In such cases, it would be helpful to understand how Customs plans to deal with these inadvertent violations of Rules of Origin. The suggestion by Member Gerald Giam for a tiered enforcement framework may assuage concerns among those who fear excessive punishment for first-time offences.

Similarly, Mr Gerald Giam has pointed to the need for technical and financial support to small traders that may be overwhelmed by their now more-burdensome reporting obligations. On my part, I would also suggest that the Ministry consider some form of streamlined submission or automatic reporting process for regular importers which bring in essentially the same set of goods, similar to how income tax reporting is more straightforward for wage income earners that have not undergone changes in jobs recently.

The balance between the two objectives – punishment for intentional misrepresentation, tempered by some degree of leniency for unwitting mistakes – will have practical implications not only for our traders and businesses, but also for how Singapore navigates its ongoing trade negotiations with the rest of the world.

After all, earlier this year, there were accusations that Singapore was being used as a transshipment hub to bypass sanctions, resulting in our classification as a Tier Two nation for the purposes of access to AI technology from the US. This was a matter that was discussed in Parliament then, but a thorough revision of the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act was not mooted then, with only a reference to the Strategic Goods Control Act. Notably, since that time, new reports have emerged to suggest that such illicit activity appears somewhat undeterred, as evidenced by firms, such as Singapore-registered Megaspeed and its Malaysian subsidiary Speedmatrix.

Similarly, we know that trade in goods and services is accompanied by corresponding financial flows. Over the past two years, this House has passed related legislation to further curb illicit financial flows. Yet, it has not appeared to have deterred the activities of Cambodian businessman Chen Zhi and the Prince Group.

It would be helpful to have a better understanding of how the Ministry now believes that the revised Certificates of Origin and Non-Manipulation will help avoid repeating such outcomes. Relatedly, will the decision by the US to suspend the de minimus exemption which the Bill does not appear to address directly, require additional subsidiary legislation, or will the information to be reported in TICs be sufficient to ensure future compliance?

Sir, while the new regime will impose a greater regulatory burden on our traders, it is also an important upgrade that will ensure that our nation continues to adhere to its international trading commitments. While the transition may initially be rocky, I believe that, in the longer run, our world-class trading and logistics sector will adapt and new compliance services will potentially emerge to support this endeavour. In a world where the rules-based order is being increasingly threatened, it is essential that Singapore continues to contribute towards sustaining the system that has served our small nation so well. For these reasons, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

4.37 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as someone who runs a business involved in the trading, importing and exporting of goods. Many of the procedures covered in this Bill – Certificates of Origin, transshipment documentation and customs checks – are part of my daily operations.

Singapore's economy has always depended on trade. Every shipment that leaves our port and every document that certifies its origin form what I call our trust chain. This is because trust is required at each stage: the manufacturer trusts that the supplier to provide genuine materials, the importer trusts that the documentation is accurate and ultimately, consumers trust that what they buy is what it claims to be.

This Bill strengthens that chain by tightening how Trade Information Certificates are issued, verified and enforced. I support this Bill because it enhances Singapore's credibility as a trusted trading hub, but I also believe enforcement must remain proportionate and practical for the businesses that keep our trade flowing.

Sir, the way global trade operates is changing. It is no longer just about moving goods quickly or cheaply. Partners now ask where a product was made, how it was produced and whether the supporting documents can stand up to scrutiny.

This Bill creates a clearer structure for Trade Information Certificates. These include Certificates of Origin, certificates confirming manufacture or processing in Singapore and certificates confirming that goods have been transshipped or re-exported here. It also introduces new offences for issuing or using false or misleading certificates and empowers the Director-General of Customs to suspend or revoke authorisation from certificate issuers who fail to meet the required standards. Customs officers will also have stronger powers to inspect premises, seize goods and obtain records where there is reason to believe offences have occurred.

These changes make sense. They help ensure that the documents accompanying Singapore's exports, from electronics to batteries and packaged food, remain trusted worldwide.

Around the world, we are seeing countries tighten their own trade documentation rules in response to growing fragmentation and uncertainty in global supply chains. In Vietnam, customs authorities have stepped up enforcement against false "Made in Vietnam" claims. Additionally, authorities in nations, such as South Korea and Thailand, have also increased inspections and seized falsified origin goods.

In Singapore, the upcoming Bill will further empower the Ministry of Trade and Industry and Singapore Customs to be able to better combat these threats. A key part of this Bill is the creation of a predictable system for verifying and issuing trade documents. Previously, certificates, such as Certificates of Origin or Certificates of Free Sale, were governed by different authorities. This amendment provides an overarching legal framework for comprehensiveness.

Also, under current export laws, the process is delegated but fragmented. An exporter may be requested by Customs to approach a certificate issuer, such as the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry or the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to get their Certificates of Origin. In the case of falsification, the issuer might not always be clear of its role and responsibility.

With amendment, if a certificate is found to be false, the enforcement process is clear and consistent.

Just as important, this framework is built for the digital era. It can plug directly into platforms, like TradeTrust and the Networked Trade Platform, allowing verification in real time. That saves businesses time and cost while giving foreign buyers and customs agencies confidence that every Singapore-issued document carries the same trusted signature.

Just last year, in 2024, Singapore's total trade in goods reached $1.29 trillion and exports were $674 billion. Re-exports made up more than half of that figure. That means most of what we trade depends on the reliability of our documentation and the confidence of our partners.

While the intent of this Bill is sound, we must also recognise its practical effects. For large exporters, compliance may simply mean tightening procedures. For smaller businesses, it could mean extra hours checking documents, filing records and verifying that every certificate comes from an authorised issuer.

A forwarder shared his account: that shipment delays can be caused by an oversight of the Harmonised System codes and cargos arranged by shippers, who are often are unfamiliar with requirements, cause delays. These delays could range from one in 30 shipments for experienced forwarders and regular goods to four in 10 for controlled items. The passing of this Bill will help to untie some of these knots.

Sir, for large firms, these are routine adjustments. For SMEs, they can be significant. But how can we help SMEs to transit, especially as 99% of our enterprises are made up of SMEs?

To keep the system pro-enterprise, I suggest three things.

First, Government agencies should make compliance simple and clear. Enterprise Singapore and Singapore Customs can develop plain-language guides, checklists and templates to reduce the learning curve.

Second, there should be active support for capability building. SMEs could tap the Enterprise Development Grant or Productivity Solutions Grant to digitalise their processes. Trade associations and chambers, some of which will be appointed authorised issuers, can conduct courses to bring SMEs up to speed on the new Bill and required actions.

Third, enforcement should be proportionate. The strongest penalties should be reserved for deliberate fraud, not for first-time or administrative mistakes. Customs can start with education and correction before escalation.

Sir, I want to touch on one important procedural issue. The Bill expands Customs' power to obtain search warrants for books, records and digital documents.

This is a serious power. However, seizing goods in a warehouse is one thing; searching a company's office and taking computers or client records is another. I suggest that, where operationally feasible, only copies of books and digital records should be taken, to minimise business disruptions on potentially innocent businesses while investigations are still ongoing. We should be firm on fraud, but fair on process.

Sir, this Bill is part of a wider shift in global trade, from speed and volume to trust and traceability. We want Singapore to remain known not just for efficiency, but also reliability. In an age where trade is increasingly fragmented, Singapore's strength lies in making order out of complexity, not through bureaucracy, but through clarity and trust. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Regulation of Import and Export (Amendment) Bill. The new Bill strengthens regulation of trade documentation and certificates, making our export documents more credible and preventing issues with false certificates and false declarations.

However, when enforcing the law, we must also consider the practicalities of business operation. For SMEs, the new procedures will increase compliance costs and time. Hence, Government agencies should provide guidance and support, so businesses view compliance as an asset rather than a burden.

I would also like to suggest that searches of company documents or computers only be carried out when necessary to safeguard business operations and trust. Overall, as long as we find a balance between being strict and pragmatic, this Bill can help Singapore maintain its position as a trusted partner in global trade.

(In English): In closing, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. It strengthens Singapore's reputation as a trusted and responsible trading hub. But as we build this stronger trust chain, we must make sure it does not tie the hands of those who keep it running.

We should pair stronger enforcement with stronger support and ensure that compliance builds confidence, not fear. If we get this balance right, trade will continue to flow freely through Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan.

4.47 pm

Ms Gan Siow Huang: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Members Mr Victor Lye, Mr Gerald Giam, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Ng Shi Xuan who have spoken in support of the Bill.

I just want to clarify upfront that this Bill essentially seeks to preserve Singapore's reputation as a credible trade hub by ensuring that the Trade Information Certificates issued in connection with the Act are issued properly and the effectiveness of our enforcement against offences.

Currently, manufacturers and exporters are expected to abide by respective record-keeping requirements stated in the preferential tariff arrangement or agreement. This Bill does not amend or add to these requirements.

The introduction of the offence provision seeks to reinforce this requirement and ensure proper retention of records as specified in the preferential tariff arrangement or agreement. Such records would include copies of documents that were needed for the issuance of those preferential Certificates of Origin, such as commercial invoices and packing lists, which manufacturers and exporters are familiar with. Also, just to reassure Members here, the penalties prescribed are aligned with similar offences regulated under the Act.

Let me cover a few other points that have been raised.

First, on the impact of the Trade Information Certificates framework on businesses. Members have called for facilitative approaches and clear communication with businesses. I agree. I thank the Members for the practical suggestions made and we will consider them and take in feedback and further suggestions, especially from the businesses, trade association chambers, and exporters themselves.

There are avenues for businesses that require assistance to understand their responsibilities and comply with the regulations.

Singapore Customs regularly updates businesses on new information or changes in procedures through its website and circulars. This includes new entities authorised to issue specific Trade Information Certificates and changes to the types of certificates allowed for issuance.

Businesses can also seek information and guidance from the Centre for the Future of Trade and Investment. This is set up by Enterprise Singapore and Singapore Business Federation. Through the Centre for the Future of Trade and Investment, businesses may receive tailored support and practical business solutions. The Centre for the Future of Trade and Investment also regularly organises workshops, forums and seminars to assist businesses in enhancing their trade competencies and capabilities.

Our SME centres will also similarly advise SMEs on grants and support is available for them to be able to comply and be effective in the trade system.

Second, on matters related to non-governmental authorised certificate issuers. Currently, four chambers of commerce and the Singapore Manufacturing Federation are authorised to issue Certificates of Origin. These five organisations are required to carry out their duties in accordance with the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act. Singapore Customs regularly monitors these organisations to ensure that their verification of Singapore-origin goods is sufficiently robust, and this is helpful for businesses.

With the amendment, other non-governmental and private entities can now apply to Singapore Customs to be authorised certificate issuers. This gives businesses more options on where they can obtain Trade Information Certificates.

At the same time, we need to ensure that proper safeguards are in place, to be confident that the Trade Information Certificates are credible. To this end, Singapore Customs will authorise only an applicant that is deemed "fit and proper" to issue certificates. In addition, the Minister may make regulations, imposing requirements that applicants must satisfy in order to be authorised certificate issuers.

The amendment also provides for a transparent process under which errant authorised certificate issuers may have their authorisations suspended or revoked.

Another issue highlighted by Members is on deterring and detecting offences related to Trade Information Certificates.

Singapore Customs will continue to take a firm stance against deliberate false declarations on goods and will not hesitate to take action against violations of our domestic customs or trade regulations. For effective enforcement of our laws, Members would agree that Singapore Customs must take a risk-based, multi-prong approach in detecting, deterring and penalising offenders.

To detect non-compliance, Singapore Customs uses data analytics, information received from domestic and foreign counterparts, and non-intrusive cargo screening technology to identify suspicious declarations or shipments. To deter potential offenders, Customs issues circulars to remind businesses on the criteria for determining country of origin of goods and warn companies of the seriousness of committing fraud.

Customs will also be very careful about how they share the information and issue advisories, especially when the mistakes made are administrative in nature and are genuine honest mistakes by people who are not familiar with the rules. Against deliberate offenders, Customs will not hesitate to prosecute them and publicise serious fraudulent cases to reiterate the Government's zero tolerance for deliberate violation of Singapore laws.

Finally, let me address the points raised on ensuring proportionality in the strengthening of Singapore Customs' enforcement powers.

Members had questions and also some suggestions on safeguards and thresholds for granting search warrants for books and digital records.

Providing powers for enforcement agencies to inspect computers and associated devices is necessary in today's digital age. The use of such devices in import and export transactions is now standard practice, with related documents often stored electronically and serving as key evidence. As digitally-stored records can be moved or altered quite quickly, it is crucial to grant investigators the powers to inspect these devices to ensure that the investigations are effective and efficient.

I want to assure Members that every effort will be made to strike a balance between effective investigations and minimising disruption to legitimate business activities, and these are the majority. Most are legitimate. Customs will be very discreet and careful when applying for powers to search or to look through their documents.

Singapore Customs' powers will be exercised solely to facilitate investigations into potential offences committed by businesses with the intent to defraud our trading system.

I was looking through the breaches that Customs had detected in the past few years. The majority of breaches were administrative in nature. Some may be mistakes in the date of transaction or the number of the shipping container. For such mistakes, usually, Customs takes a very light touch. It is just an advisory and a caution issued to the exporters and the businesses.

I want to also reassure Members here that the expanded search powers will not be exercised frivolously. Where a search warrant is required, its application must be made on reasonable proof that the premises contain evidence relating to the offence.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that this amendment Bill will do two things: first, strengthens Singapore's regulatory framework for the issuance of Trade Information Certificates by authorised certificate issuers; second, strengthens Singapore Customs' investigative powers to uphold the integrity of our trade regime.

Mr Speaker, trade is three times our gross domestic product and is the lifeblood of Singapore's economy. With the support of the House today, this Bill will strengthen Singapore's position as a trusted and efficient trading hub and also maintain the competitive edge of Singapore's economy. Sir, I seek to move.

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Gan Siow Huang].

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