1h ·
PPP is the ONLY Political Party that has raised the issue of Nuclear Power during Last Elections.
https://www.facebook.com/people/Der...9zDn9MUq_QO0IrxfoqG6uKC3YSmk1&__tn__=<<,P-y-R
13h ·
,
?
Singapore's pursuit of net-zero emissions has inevitably led policymakers to examine every available energy option, including nuclear power. In recent years, particular attention has been paid to Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), a new generation of nuclear technology marketed as safer, cheaper, and more suitable for countries with limited land.
The attraction is understandable. Singapore faces severe land constraints, has limited renewable energy potential compared to larger nations, and remains heavily dependent on imported natural gas. As the nation seeks a more resilient energy future, nuclear power will naturally enter the conversation.
The People's Power Party (PPP) stood alone in raising questions about nuclear power and climate policy during GE2025, underscoring its commitment to examining emerging challenges and making policy decisions with future generations in mind. While many parties focused on immediate concerns, PPP sought to start a national conversation on decisions whose consequences may endure for decades, if not generations. For many PPP candidates, the question of nuclear power is not merely an energy issue—it is one of the most important strategic decisions Singapore may face in the coming decades
Yet the question Singaporeans must ask is not whether nuclear power can generate electricity. The real question is whether a densely populated island of six million people can safely live with the consequences should something go wrong.
This is not merely an energy decision. It is a generational decision.
And before Singapore commits itself to a nuclear future, it must think thrice.
I noted PM Wong's recent public statement on this topic. To his credit, PM Wong acknowledged during a public engagement that safety remains one of the Government's foremost considerations when evaluating nuclear energy. That is reassuring. The issue deserves precisely this level of seriousness.
That position should be welcomed.
However, the more seriously Singapore studies nuclear deployment, the more important public scrutiny becomes.
One of the most prominent critics of small Modular Reactors (SMRs) is Dr. Edwin Lyman, Director of Nuclear Power Safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Dr. Lyman is not an activist without credentials. He holds a doctorate in physics and has spent decades studying nuclear reactor safety, nuclear security, and radiation risks. He has testified before the United States Congress and has been widely cited in discussions concerning reactor safety and nuclear regulation.
His central argument is straightforward:
Many of the promises surrounding SMRs remain largely unproven.
According to Dr. Lyman's analysis, SMRs may not ultimately be cheaper than conventional reactors. They may generate more radioactive waste per unit of electricity produced, and many proposed designs have yet to demonstrate commercial viability.
Most importantly, he argues that some SMR designs achieve lower costs by compromising essential safety features rather than fundamentally solving long-standing nuclear challenges.
Whether one agrees with all of his conclusions or not, Singaporeans should take his findings seriously rather than dismiss them as anti-nuclear rhetoric.
I believe nuclear energy is ultimately a question of public trust, perhaps even more than it is a question of engineering.
One of the most prominent advocates of advanced nuclear technology and SMR is Bill Gates, whose company TerraPower is developing next-generation reactor designs. Bill Gates has personally invested over US$1 billion of his own money into TerraPower. He has also pledged to commit billions more to see its primary nuclear reactor project through to completion. Separately, Singapore has developed several institutional relationships with various climate and sustainability initiatives linked to Gates and related investment ecosystems. More recently, Temasek operates as a commercial, corporate investor, funding Bill Gates’ climate-focused firm, Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV). It has also backed multiple flagship funds, including the BEV Select fund for scaling late-stage cleantech companies. In April 2024, Temasek partnered with Breakthrough Energy and Enterprise Singapore to launch the Breakthrough Energy Fellows – Southeast Asia hub. This multi-year initiative acts as a pre-venture innovation program, providing grants to scientists to help bring lab technologies into the market.
This does not imply any wrongdoing, nor does it suggest that Singapore's nuclear policy is influenced by any individual.
However, when considering a decision as consequential as nuclear deployment, transparency is essential. Singaporeans must be assured that any future decision is made independently, objectively, and solely in the national interest.
Parliament should therefore seek full transparency regarding any relationships between state-linked entities, international climate funds, advanced nuclear firms, and organisations with a commercial interest in SMRs.
The objective is not to cast suspicion, but to strengthen public trust. In this regard, I share the sentiments expressed by the Chief Justice on the importance of maintaining public confidence in our institutions, because once trust is eroded, it is often difficult to rebuild.
I feel that for a decision that will affect multiple generations, transparency is a prerequisite.
For Singapore, the biggest challenge may not be technology.
IMHO, it is space constraint and geography.
Every nuclear power plant requires some degree of emergency planning and physical separation from surrounding populations.
This issue is often overlooked in larger countries where vast areas of sparsely populated land exist. Singapore does not have the luxury of any sparsely populated land.
I mentioned before, we are one of the most densely populated nations on Earth. If a nuclear facility is to be built, where exactly would a nuclear facility be located? Where would nuclear waste be stored? Changi? Bedok? Jurong West? Yishun? No one wants to live beside a nuclear facility.
Where would emergency planning zones be established?
Would nearby housing estates, schools, industrial facilities, ports, military installations, and transport infrastructure fall within those zones?
What happens if future safety assessments require larger exclusion areas than initially anticipated?
I hope people do not see me as being anti-nuclear questions.
These are just practical questions we need to answer.
In countries such as the United States, Canada, France, and Australia, discussions surrounding reactor deployment routinely involve surrounding communities, land-use planning, evacuation considerations, and public consultations.
Singapore should be no different. Will there be community discussion?
The burden should not be on citizens to prove a reactor is safe. The burden should be on policymakers to demonstrate precisely how safety can be maintained within one of the world's most densely populated urban environments.
Nuclear advocates often describe nuclear power as "clean energy." Singaporeans should carefully distinguish between two very different claims. This is very important.
The first claim is that nuclear power produces relatively low carbon emissions during electricity generation.
The second claim is that nuclear power is environmentally clean.
These are not the same. What do I mean?
Nuclear power may help countries reduce carbon emissions compared to fossil fuels.
However, nuclear energy also produces radioactive waste that remains hazardous for extraordinarily long periods of time.
The challenge is not merely generating electricity.
The challenge is safely managing waste long after today's policymakers, engineers, and voters are gone.
When discussing nuclear energy, Singaporeans should therefore ask:
Are we pursuing lower carbon emissions? Or are we pursuing a genuinely cleaner environment?
The answer may not always be the same.
A policy that score well under a carbon accounting framework does not automatically eliminate broader environmental risks. This means that nuclear power is not necessarily cleaner.
Every nation considering nuclear power eventually encounters the same problem.
Waste. To be precise, radioactive waste. SMRs do not eliminate radioactive waste. In fact, it produces more per unit.
They simply produce electricity through a different reactor configuration.
Spent nuclear fuel must still be stored, secured, monitored, and managed.
For larger countries, long-term storage may be distributed across vast territories. Singapore does not possess such geographical advantages.
Where would spent fuel be stored?
Would it remain on-site?
Would it be transported overseas?
If so, under what agreements?
These questions deserve answers before—not after—deployment.
A nuclear reactor in Singapore would not merely be a Singaporean issue. Why? Because of Singapore close proximity with Malaysia.
It would immediately become a regional issue.
Johor sits only kilometres away from parts of Singapore.
For example, IF the nuclear facility is to be built in Tuas, communities living in Iskandar and Gelang Patah could be geographically closer to the nuclear facility than Singaporeans living on the opposite side of the island.
Although Malaysia itself is not fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy, that does not mean Johoreans would automatically welcome a reactor across the Causeway.
If Singapore proceeds with nuclear deployment, several diplomatic questions arise:
Would Malaysia be formally consulted?
Would there be joint emergency response exercises?
Would environmental monitoring data be shared?
Would bilateral agreements govern accident response and liability arrangements?
Would Johoreans feel comfortable living next to a reactor operated by another sovereign state?
These questions are not technical. They are geopolitical.
Nuclear energy is not merely about engineering. It's about trust.
This is where Parliament has a crucial role. Opposition parties and Members of Parliament from all political parties should rigorously examine the assumptions behind any future nuclear proposal.
The goal should not be obstruction. The goal should be accountability.
Questions Parliament should ask include:
* What are the projected lifecycle costs of SMRs compared to alternative energy pathways?
* What assumptions underpin safety assessments?
* What exclusion or emergency planning zones would be required?
* What waste management arrangements would be necessary?
* What diplomatic consultations have been conducted with neighbouring countries?
* What contingency plans exist for severe accident scenarios?
* How would liability be allocated if a cross-border incident occurred?
These are precisely the questions a healthy democracy should be asking before embarking on a project of such magnitude.
Ultimately, nuclear power is unlike most policy choices.
Tax rates can be adjusted. Transport fares can be revised.
A nuclear programme, once established, creates commitments that may endure for generations.
Future Singaporeans would inherit both the benefits and the risks.
For that reason alone, the decision should not rest solely with technocrats, policymakers, investors, or energy experts.
The people themselves deserve a voice. If I were in Parliament, I would call for a national referendum on this issue, and I hope Members of Parliament across parties would do the same. Nuclear energy is a decision with consequences that could extend across generations, affecting safety, the environment, governance, and national development. For a matter of such magnitude, I believe the PAP administration should place the question before the people and allow Singaporeans to decide the nation's path forward through a national referendum.
Nuclear power is not any infrastructure project.
It represents a profound and potentially irreversible choice about Singapore's future.
, .
It is a decision about safety.
A decision about sovereignty. A decision about future generations.
And above all, it is a decision that every Singaporean will have to live with long after today's leaders have left office.
