Sir, a defining characteristic of Singapore’s success has been its progressive attitude towards leveraging new ideas. I note this Bill introduces new provisions to support the use of new technologies and innovation to tackle an evolving security landscape. It takes into account learnings from the recent pandemic, factored use of digital technologies to improve both effectiveness and efficiency of border operations.
Singapore was early in reopening our boarders in 2022. Given the rebound of travel, it is timely for this Bill to be put before this House. These amendments will not only enable ICA to strengthen immigration controls but also help in its delivery of a more seamless checkpoint experience for residents and tourists. These steps will also help upkeep Singapore as a globally reputed transport and tourism hub.
As such, I support this Bill but would like to seek some clarifications.
The Bill introduces provisions to support ICA’s new procedures. This includes streamlining the clearance experience at Changi Airport, where a person’s biometric and flight information will be processed backend using a unique digital token at the various automated touchpoints.
With technology being at the core of this new operating model, any disruption to this critical system, will have considerable risk and costs that include security, reputational and financial. Given the technology risk around resiliency, can the Minister elaborate on the measures and safeguards to ensure service availability and the expected system uptime?
As system outages can be expected, can Minister also clarify the plans for redundancy and recoverability? For example, will sufficient ICA officers and related resources be available on standby to support an activation of manual clearance processes where required and what kind of tolerable service levels is being planned so that travellers can expect that the system should it not be available?
Regarding the access by the airport operator to biometric and flight information, can Minister elaborate on the measures and the safeguards against misuse, unlawful retention and cybersecurity risks? What are the level of governance standards around data usage applicable to ensure robust requirements across different organisations like Changi Airport and airline operators who may have differing data infrastructure and, therefore, security policies as well compared to, say, ICA? And will there be independent checks or audits by qualified authorities to ensure compliance?
I now turn to future-proofing against evolving challenges. I note that clause 27 of the Bill expands ICA’s powers to collect advance passenger information from currently, vessels, airlines and train operators, to across all modes of entry including from bus operators. ICA will also be able to issue NBDs to direct transport operators to deny the boarding of undesirable individuals, particularly those who pose a threat to our safety and security.
While I support the expanded collection of these data to strengthen our border controls, I note that there have been operational difficulties in this regard, where a number of airlines have failed to comply with the requirements to submit advance information to ICA since the inception of advance passenger screening in October 2019.
Can Minister clarify if ICA had sought to understand the root cause of these non-compliances and whether there are plans to improve or smoothen this reporting regime, other than by introducing a composition framework?
Also, considering that the bus operator sector is more fragmented than the airline industry, they also have customer management systems that are less sophisticated and there are ground concerns that such operators may face difficulties with compliance.
With this ground challenge known, how can ICA ensure the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of information submitted as well as compliance with any issued NBD by bus operators? Are there plans for ICA to create a generic portal to help such operators to comply with the new regulations?
Clause 8 also expands the powers of the Minister to prohibit the entry or transit by foreigners on public security or public health grounds. This includes Singapore PRs and pass-holders.
In this regard, especially in considering PRs who are more likely to have families in Singapore, of which some of whom may even be our citizens, can the Minister clarify the factors of assessment before the exercise of such powers and if there is a lead time for notification so that such affected persons and their families can make adequate preparations?
I next move on to the enhancing of border controls and the administration of passes and permits, and on this point, with respect to the recovery of funds from offenders for their repatriation.
I welcome clause 51 of the Bill, which empowers ICA to recover funds from all categories of persons to be removed from Singapore and not just prohibited immigrants.
In recognising the closure of this gap, may I also seek the Minister’s clarification on the number of cases and the total amount of repatriation costs unrecovered over the past five years?
Lastly, the Bill seeks to streamline processes regarding the loss and renewal of a PR status as well as the imposing and varying of PR conditions.
I agree with the underlying principle that the right to enter or stay in Singapore must be the prerogative of the Government. On this note, will ICA consider publishing high level guidelines on its assessment criteria to provide some clarity and, more importantly, to guide expected behaviour?
Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications, I am confident that this Bill will enable ICA to keep Singapore’s borders safe and secure in a dynamic operating landscape.
Watch the speech here.