The following question stood in the name of Ms Joan Pereira –
1 To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what regulatory and enforcement measures are in place to ensure that longevity-medicine clinics adhere to safe medical practices and science-based and evidence-based treatments for the protection of clients and patients.
\tMs Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Question No 1.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, all outpatient medical service providers, including those offering medical services associated with longevity, must be licensed and comply with the requirements under the Healthcare Services Act (HCSA).
In addition, medical practitioners are required to adhere to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG). Both HCSA and SMC ECEG require medical service providers and practitioners to provide only safe, rational and evidence-based medical treatments in accordance with accepted clinical practice. Where non-standard medical treatments are considered, they should only be provided in the context of a clinical study. Such studies must comply with the ethical requirements for research studies including prior approval from a local Institutional Research Board.
These services are monitored through routine inspections and compliance audits, which may also be triggered by complaints. Providers that fail to meet standards may be subject to regulatory action or enforcement measures including imprisonment and financial penalties. If the Ministry receives information that a medical practitioner has engaged in practices which are not in accordance with the SMC ECEG, the Ministry will lodge a complaint against the medical practitioner to the SMC.
The public is encouraged to discuss with their doctor on appropriate and evidence-based tests and treatments recommended in their individual circumstances, to avoid unnecessary interventions and costs. For the general population, adopting healthy lifestyle habits such as a balanced diet, adequate sleep, regular exercise and staying socially engaged remains foundational to maintaining good health.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Tripartite Discussions on Advance Mandatory Retrenchment Notification","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on tripartite discussions on advance Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN); and (b) how does Singapore’s MRN framework compare with international peers.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): At present, firms with 10 or more employees are required to submit a mandatory retrenchment notification (MRN) to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) within five working days of notifying employees of their retrenchment.
Not all jurisdictions require employers to notify their governments when conducting retrenchments. And among those countries that do, practices vary. Some countries, like Singapore, adopt a regime where notification to the Government is made within a specified period after the employees are informed. In many other countries, employers must notify the Government a fixed number of days before the employee's last working day. So, the starting point is different.
Nevertheless, we have been able to achieve comparable outcomes. That is because employers here notify the Government shortly after informing their employees, and employees are typically informed well in advance of their last working day. In 2025, 77% of MRNs were submitted at least seven days ahead of the employee's last working day and 73% of MRNs were submitted at least two weeks ahead.
As part of an ongoing review of the Employment Act, tripartite partners are studying how to encourage earlier notification by employers – both to affected employees and to the Government. In particular, we would like to see notification to the Government happening before or by the employee's last working day as far as possible. Because this will enable timely employment facilitation support and outplacement services for the affected employees. We will provide an update on the tripartite discussions in due course.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
\tMr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I thank the Minister for sharing the response to the Parliamentary Question by the fellow Member of the House. I was wondering, and I think I have brought this up before on previous occasions, whether we can consider stricter penalties against those who do not comply, with this requirement. Because as the Minister shared earlier, there are more than 20% of companies that do not comply with the MRN requirement. So, whether MOM will consider tougher, more stringent measures, as a form of deterrence to would-be offenders.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Currently, the penalty for non-compliance is an administrative penalty of $1,000 for the first contravention and $2,000 for subsequent contraventions. The Member would be happy to note that the majority – and I want to emphasise, the majority – of employers comply with the MRN requirement. In 2025, 80% of the MRNs were submitted within the five-working-day deadline. This is an improvement from the 70% in 2024.
Late submissions were often due to administrative oversight. Companies who submit MRNs late are issued with caution letters. Most of these companies have been compliant thereafter. For the recalcitrant employers, we will impose administrative penalties.
Currently, the MRN compliance rate has been high. We do not see a need to raise the penalties at this point in time. I want to emphasise, at this point in time. Nevertheless, we will review our enforcement approach and our penalties regularly. And we will work closely with our tripartite partners, and we will assess if there is a need to review and to raise the penalties.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
\tMr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): I understand the intent behind the early notification, to better support displaced workers. I have two clarifications, if I may.
Based on past data, most workers take a few months to secure the next job. In that context, may I ask whether there is evidence that advancing notification by a short period materially improves re-employment outcomes beyond providing just earlier visibility?
At the same time, many employers have actually shared that restructuring decisions are often iterative and only finalised when all options to preserve jobs have been exhausted. Given these trade-offs, could the Minister elaborate on whether tripartite discussions are considering an alternative approach, one that focuses less on mandating earlier notification, but more on strengthening immediate post-notification support, such as rapid job matching, industry redeployment and place-and-train mechanism, which I believe may have more direct impact on worker outcomes?
\tDr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not have the exact data that the Member has requested. But we can go back, assess and check, and trawl through our available data to see whether we have such data.
What we have is that for the last three years ending 2024 – that means 2022, 2023 and 2024 – seven in 10 retrenched workers, who have received career coaching from both Workforce Singapore and/or the Employment and Employability Institute's (e2i's) career coaches, were actually placed within six months. The median time to placement averaged around three months.
Today, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation reaches out to all retrenched locals with available contact details to provide them with employment facilitation support. We will continue with our efforts to support all retrenched locals.
To the Member's second point, we recognise that if we require all companies to notify the Government in advance, in some cases, that requirement could inadvertently affect our workers adversely; not to the same desired impact that we want to to help our workers with. From many accounts, many discussions that we have had with employers, during retrenchments, which is often a painful process, many companies do try to preserve as many jobs as possible through backend negotiations. So, we are conscious and we are mindful of that potential impact if we want to mandate advance notification. Because this may – and I want to emphasise that this may – push companies to finalise the retrenchments faster and therefore, discourage such backend negotiations. Our tripartite partners are indeed mindful of such concerns and they will continue to take a very careful and balanced approach in the discussions. Such discussions are still ongoing because of the review of the Employment Act.
I hope that gives you the reassurance that this series of discussions, even as we are now debating it, answering this Parliamentary Question in the House, at the backend, these negotiations and discussions are ongoing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Survey Finding of Workers Being Overqualified for Their Roles and Implications on Career and Wage Progression, and Underemployment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the findings that one in five resident workers are overqualified for their roles according to a study released on 14 April 2026 (a) what are the implications for underemployment among younger workers, women and lower-income groups; and (b) what preventative measures are in place to reduce persistent mismatch and strengthen skills utilisation.
4 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry assess the impact of rising overqualification on (i) long-term career pathways and (ii) wage progression; and (b) what steps are being taken to enhance (i) job redesign, (ii) skills-based progression, and (iii) workforce readiness for future shifts in jobs and job scopes.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to address the following Parliamentary Questions on overqualification together.
\tMr Speaker: That would be Question Nos 3 and 4?
Dr Tan See Leng: Oral Question Nos 3 and 4, and also written questions filed by Ms Jessica Tan and Dr Wan Rizal for today's Sitting; and oral and written questions filed by Mr Yip Hon Weng1, Ms Cassandra Lee and Mr David Hoe2 for subsequent Sittings.
Mr Speaker: Please go ahead.
Dr Tan See Leng: I would also like to invite Mr Yip, Ms Lee and Mr Hoe to seek clarifications today, and consider withdrawing their questions filed for future Sittings if their questions have been addressed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, 19.4% of the resident workforce was overqualified in 2025. This was below the high-income countries' average of 21.6%. The vast majority of cases were voluntary. Of these overqualified, about nine in 10, or about 17.7% of the resident workforce, were voluntarily overqualified. I want to state, voluntarily overqualified. The remaining one in 10 of overqualified individuals were involuntarily overqualified.
As Ms Jessica Tan and Mr David Hoe noted, the voluntarily overqualified could include women and caregivers who may choose roles to explore a new career direction or to better fit around their family circumstances, even if they are overqualified for those roles.
In contrast, the involuntary overqualification rate was low at 1.7% of the resident workforce and has remained stable over the past decade.
To Dr Wan Rizal's question, involuntarily overqualified workers tend to be younger and tertiary-educated. This is consistent with typical early career pathways where workers may initially take on roles that do not fully utilise their qualifications before transitioning into better-matched roles as they gain experience.
The sector with the highest number of involuntarily overqualified workers was Transportation and Storage. Members are encouraged to refer to the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Occasional Paper for more details.
Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Tan also asked about the impact of overqualification on longer-term career pathways. MOM currently does not track longitudinal outcomes of overqualified individuals. However, broader labour market outcomes remain favourable. If you look at the median income of full-time employed tertiary graduates over the past decade, the median incomes have risen from $5,800 to $7,600 over the 10 years, and this reflects continued wage progression.
We remain committed to help all individuals find jobs that can meet their personal needs as well as their career aspirations. This includes helping lower-wage workers, which Ms Tan asked about, find the jobs that can better utilise their skills, as they may be in entry-level jobs that do not do so.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Tan asked about our broader strategies to reduce skills mismatches. At the pre-employment phase, the institutes of higher learning (IHLs) work closely with industry partners to equip students with industry-relevant technical competencies and skills. And beyond initial qualifications, all of our workers are encouraged to, and they must, embrace lifelong learning.
The merger of Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) into the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) – later on today, I will be passing a Bill on that – will help our workers to do so by creating a single touchpoint for training, for career guidance and job opportunities. I do hope that Members of the House will support the Bill unanimously.
By bringing together the capabilities of both agencies, SWDA and its tripartite partners will be able to provide personalised career and skills insights and guidance to help jobseekers find options that better match their skills and their preferences.
Efforts by SWDA and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute will also build on existing upskilling and reskilling programmes that support our workers. These include Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs), the Mid-Career Pathways Programme and the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme. Female caregivers returning to work from a career break can also access career guidance and skills training through WSG's herCareer initiative.
To address diverse needs and working arrangement preferences, MOM and tripartite partners promote a range of work and career options. This includes supporting enterprise job redesign for flexible work arrangements (FWAs) through the SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+). Based on MOM's surveys, around 70% of firms offered FWAs in 2025, and this is up from 50% about six years earlier, in 2019.
Mr Speaker: Ms Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I thank the Minister for the reassurance and for his reply. I would like to follow up on the long-term implications, particularly around how we are measuring the effects of overqualification on career and wage trajectories. I hear the Minister that we do not collect this data today, so I would like to ask how that goes. And I also like to build on the point about future workforce readiness, especially in terms of how we track skills utilisation and progression over time.
So, if I could ask the Minister, what indicators do the Ministry use to determine if overqualification is becoming persistent rather than transitional and what thresholds would trigger further intervention?
My second supplementary question is, does the Minister assess whether over qualification today may reduce readiness from emerging roles tomorrow and how is this risk being mitigated? Because overqualifications can depress wage trajectories, weaken skills utilisation and reduce long-term workforce competitiveness.
So, if the Minister can share how the Ministry tracks long-term wage career progression outcomes for workers, especially for younger graduates who remain overqualified for extended periods, and how these insights are being used to strengthen job redesign and skills-based progression efforts across sectors.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Ms Tan for her very insightful four or five questions. Sorry if I miscounted them.
We have just started publishing this data because this particular indicator itself on overqualification, based on what we are doing, with regard to the data, it is actually quite new. We were able to derive these statistics using occupation and education data, which is captured from our annual labour workforce surveys, enabling us to determine whether a worker possesses educational qualifications that are higher than the typical requirements of a job. Because up till now, based on even international published statistics, underemployment data typically use a time-related measure, and today, the time-related measure still remains the only internationally accepted statistical definition of underemployment and as a proxy, overqualification.
So, we are starting, we will continue to monitor the trends over a longer time horizon. How do we measure success? We will, first and foremost, of course, focus on more of the macroeconomic data pertaining to our gross domestic product (GDP) growth and also, our median wages.
Today, hopefully with your support, with the formation of the new SWDA and the passage of the Bill later on this afternoon, we will focus on initially very targeted groups – the fresh graduates, the mid-career workers, to the elderly workers, and on top of that, also for caregivers returning to work.
With the different interventions across the different cohorts, segments and sectors, we would be able to, in time, track this data better and provide regular updates to this House. At the moment, even this publication of this Occasional Paper, we actually work with the International Labour Organization and we also work with the Labour Movement to triangulate the data sets.
We believe that, with the passage of time, we are also using – it is not a buzzword, but we are indeed using artificial intelligence at the different level of data analytics and triangulation, to allow us to work closely with our businesses and with the employers across different sectors, starting with those areas that we are more familiar with, to be able to better tweak and refine our policies to help our locals.
I hope that gives you enough reassurance. We are starting here and we welcome ideas from Members of the House to help us to refine, improve and also to have better reach, more precise policies to reach out and uplift all of our fellow Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his response. I have two specific supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to clarify whether MOM is looking at strengthening support for caregivers, specifically dealing with possible bias that employers might have for those who take a career break.
I also just want to highlight this to the Minister, that stepping out for caregiving should not mean stepping down permanently. I hope the Minister can give assurance to caregivers that they will be able to assume back to their previous role, because many of these caregivers are parents with young children.
Secondly, let me address the concerns of our youths. How would MOM also assure youths that might not have many internships or less connected backgrounds, that they will not be significantly disadvantaged in a labour market that increasingly rewards early internship networks and overseas exposure, as reflected in The Straits Times article this morning?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank Mr Hoe for his first point, which is an exhortation. Indeed, I think it is precisely why we are all coming together and to see how we can reach out to more caregivers, particularly should they choose the option of coming back to work. I think the Member would appreciate that the needs of caregivers are varied and they are also very, very complex. I do not think there is a one-size-fit-all policy that would go in, flood the system and uplift everyone. I do not think that any policy can do that.
If you just disburse in the form of a broad-based support, we may also end up not being able to get the desired outcome for those that need it the most.
So, our approach has always been to work with different sectors, depending on the type of industry that the particular caregiver wants to come back into. And I agree with the Member: stepping out does not mean stepping back or stepping down. There will be plans to work according to the sectors, for them to have a refresh and upgrade of the skills, to retool, to reskill, so that they are ready should they choose to come back into the workforce.
For youth internship, I indeed take note of the article today written by Ms Lin Suling in The Straits Times, it was a very long opinion editoral. But let me address one part which I think is important. Today, the statistics that were cited in the article pertain to fresh graduate employment outcomes, which indeed have softened from recent peaks. The peak was coming out from COVID-19, and everybody was rushing to fulfil backlog of orders, there was a big rush for graduates, for talent, coming on board.
But we should not be just looking at an isolated year-by-year number. The employment rates, if you look amongst young degree holders, and let us look at that age cohort, from 25 to 29 years old, they have actually remained broadly stable – and this has been at around 90% or nine in 10 over the past decade.
What this tells us and the article is actually quite precise in talking about fresh graduates. But I think it also demonstrates that some graduates may take longer to secure full-time roles initially. Most are able to find employment over time. So therefore, this points to a longer school-to-work transition, rather than a broad decline in graduate employment.
And I take the Member's point with utmost importance, about the ability for our undergraduates to secure internships. What we are now actively doing is working – of course, this is before the SWDA is formed – we are actively working with our IHLs to bring attachments and exposure, with experienced volunteer career advisors, to build the networks for many of these young undergraduates while they are in-flight through our IHLs.
\t
We hope to strengthen that programme even more. We hope to work even more closely with the Ministry of Education with regard to career advisory services exposure. We have got quite a good measure of success with the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme and I said that we have extended it this year.
We will continue to get these insights to see how we can work, particularly in sectors that are growth sectors that have a long runway, a long career trajectory, for our undergraduates. We are going to emphasise the foremost importance of this in the next few months. I hope that gives you the reassurance.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. I just have a very short supplementary question, which is, what additional support, besides CCP and the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme, is available for mid-career workers who may be persistently over-qualified in their roles, especially those who have undergone reskilling, but still remain mismatched. Some suggestions would include things like hand-holding, coaching and even case management for this group of workers. I do see a lot of them at my Meet-the-People Session.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, our jobs are evolving very quickly and companies are also having to keep up with that very rapid transformation of what is happening in the world economy. There is not a particular, single policy that we can introduce that would be a panacea to cover every single potential mid-career displacement.
But what we are now doing that is an even higher step-up from what we have been doing all this while, is that, beyond just working with that potentially displaced worker or that displaced worker, we are also working with the businesses as well. This year at Budget Committee of Supply, if you recall, I introduced a step-up to the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package with a SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+). Through that, we not only fund workers in reskilling, upskilling, career guidance, enhancing Career Health SG, CareersFinder – many of these, I will talk about later on this afternoon – we are also funding companies to continue to press on with Job Redesign to improve their productivity through the Productivity Solutions Grant; through many of the enterprise development grants, which are disbursed by the economic agencies under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, which I am also closely working for.
So, there are multiple measures. On top of that, across different sectors, across different industries, when we get feedback, we will not hesitate to put up training programmes for those who want to seek a pivot or switch. The Infocomm Media Development Authority has the TechSkills Accelerator programme. The Monetary Authority of Singapore has a finance programme. In the biopharma sector, we have a biopharma talent track programme that allows many of them to switch, and also, programmes in healthcare.
So, the possibilities are there. They are wide. They are varied, as long as we are able to encourage, to socialise the idea with our workforce that they are not discouraged, there will be something for everyone.
I can go on for the whole list of the different programmes that we have available, but I think it would probably be beyond the scope of this particular Parliamentary Question session. But suffice to say that there are a lot of programmes out there. Even for myself, holding many of the different portfolios and also with the different programmes that we have, when I want to search for something during my Meet-the-People Session, I also rely on ChatGPT to navigate my own Ministry's myriad of programmes that we have.
So, I think you can envisage – it is actually a very comprehensive and a wide series of help that we have.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Manpower with one in five Singapore workers overqualified for their roles according to a study released on 14 April 2026 (a) what is the overarching strategy to address this mismatch, beyond existing measures on promoting skills over academic qualifications; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that tertiary courses and career guidance align with industry needs to help students make informed choices.","2 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Manpower in light of findings that about one in five Singapore workers are overqualified for their jobs (a) whether the Ministry has studied how workers voluntarily stepping into lower-level or part-time roles for caregiving or family reasons fare when seeking to return to jobs commensurate with their qualifications and experience; and (b) whether targeted return-pathways support can be strengthened for such workers."],"footNoteQuestions":["3","4"],"questionNo":"3-4"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Response to Risks from Frontier AI Models with Potential to Steal Data, Disrupt Critical Infrastructure and Exploit Software Vulnerabilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Saktiandi Supaat –
5 To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the Government's assessment of the risks from AI models claiming to be sufficiently advanced to steal data or disrupt critical infrastructure, to Singapore's financial system and critical infrastructure; (b) whether such AI-enabled cyber risks could constitute a new class of systemic financial risk; and (c) what early-warning indicators or triggers, if any, are being developed to detect such threats.
6 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of recent reports on frontier AI models, such as Anthropic's Mythos with advanced capabilities to autonomously identify and exploit software vulnerabilities (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the potential cybersecurity threats posed by such models; and (b) whether the Government is reviewing Singapore's current cybersecurity frameworks and safeguards to address these emerging risks.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Question No 5, Sir.
The Senior Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, my response will cover the questions raised by Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Edward Chia in today's Order Paper. Can I get permission to take Question Nos 5 and 6 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Tan Kiat How: And my reply will also address related questions from Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua filed for tomorrow's Sitting. If the Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions.
We share the Members' concerns and have been tracking these developments closely for some time.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
Let me first address Mr Louis Chua's question on access. The Government does not have access to Mythos. Anthropic has released it only to a limited set of partners under a controlled preview, and we are not aware of any local bank that has been granted access. More broadly, we do not assume that we will always have early access to every frontier model. Instead, we maintain close working relationships with various partners, including major artificial intelligence (AI) labs and cybersecurity firms to track capability developments and to assess safety and security implications when new capabilities emerge. We are also working with partners who have access to Mythos to better understand its capabilities and implications.
We should understand the advances in capabilities enabled by Mythos to be part of a continuum rather than a step change. Models like OpenAI's GPT-5.5 already show comparable cybersecurity capabilities and are more widely available. Open-source AI models are also rapidly improving and are likely to reach similar capabilities within months.
With AI, vulnerabilities that once took expert teams weeks to detect manually can now be identified autonomously in hours, sometimes minutes. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities much faster than our traditional patching cycles can address.
AI is also changing how attacks are carried out. For example, Google reported in 2025 that threat actors had used AI to develop a new class of malware. Unlike traditional malware that is hard-coded at the point of creation, the PROMPTFLUX malware was designed to consult a live AI model during attacks. The AI would rewrite portions of the malware code in real-time to evade detection.
Another example is high-fidelity deepfake frauds. In a 2024 case, criminals used an AI-generated deepfake video call to impersonate a multinational firm's chief financial officer and trick an employee into transferring $25.6 million to fraudulent accounts. Similar attempts have been made against business executives internationally and in Singapore too. Today, voice cloning requires only seconds of audio and impersonation tools are readily available.
These attacks are faster, more scalable and significantly more sophisticated. What we have not yet seen is fully autonomous AI agents running end-to-end campaigns. But this is a matter of time given the trajectory of technological developments.
So, the issue is not any single model like Mythos. The underlying shift is broader and the risks are real. We are treating them with the seriousness they deserve.
To Mr Saktiandi Supaat's query, we view AI-enabled cyber risk as an amplification of an existing systemic risk, rather than a wholly new category. The fundamentals to strengthen an organisation's cybersecurity matters more than ever. Therefore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has convened the chief executive officers of major financial institutions to discuss the threat landscape and drive collective action on technology and cyber resilience. Financial institutions are treating this with the seriousness it deserves and have been strengthening their posture.
The same urgency extends across all sectors. The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) will issue a letter to the boards and senior leadership of all critical information infrastructure (CII) owners today. This letter sets out clear expectations, including a review of cyber risk posture in light of AI-enabled threats. Our Government agencies are similarly on alert.
This is not an issue that should be delegated to IT teams alone. It demands leadership attention at the highest levels, including board members and chief executives. This applies whether an organisation runs information technology (IT), operational technology (OT), or both types of systems. The priority is to get the fundamentals right – and do so quickly.
Five areas matter.
First, revisit your cybersecurity risk assessment. Update these for IT and OT systems to account for the AI-enabled changes in the threat environment – in particular, the narrowing window between the discovery of a vulnerability and its exploitation by attackers.
Second, know what you have. Most breaches begin at an unmanaged asset – a forgotten internet-facing system, a third-party dependency, a shadow cloud account. You cannot defend what you cannot see. Ensure you have visibility over your current inventory.
Third, patch faster, monitor continuously. The time window between vulnerability disclosure and exploitation is collapsing. Periodic audits are not enough. Organisations need to move towards continuous monitoring, automated detection and tested incident response.
Fourth, govern your own use of AI. AI tools introduce new vulnerabilities, particularly when connected to sensitive data, code or critical systems. CSA's addendum on Securing Agentic AI, launched in October last year, sets out practical guidance on mapping workflows and applying controls across the entire life-cycle.
Fifth, use AI in defence. The same capabilities adversaries are deploying can be turned to detection, triaging and response. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked whether the Government is investing in AI-powered tools for active vulnerability and patch testing. The answer is yes. The Government has been fast-tracking capability building in using AI for cybersecurity for some time, working with industry to access and adapt the best tools available globally. At the same time, we are developing capabilities in-house, so that we are not dependent on any single external party. These are being piloted within Government and will be extended to more agencies and CII owners when ready.
To Mr Louis Chua's question on assessment capabilities, CSA leads this effort, working closely with relevant Government agencies and industry experts to exchange insights on the threats and mitigation measures. CSA is also reviewing standards and obligations for CII owners to account for the faster attack timelines. Under the Cybersecurity Act, CSA has the authority to direct and enforce action where necessary.
On Mythos specifically: without direct access, we cannot test the model ourselves. But we assess the risk based on published evaluations, threat intelligence and our ongoing engagement with the major AI labs. Where credible evidence emerges of a material risk to systems of national consequence, we work with and advise CII owners to patch and harden their systems. This is the approach we have used to date and we will continue to do so.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about early warning indicators and triggers. We have an established approach to do this. First, we closely engage technology partners for early visibility and insights into new capabilities as they emerge. Second, CSA monitors active exploitation patterns and shares threat intelligence and advisories through established channels. Third, we conduct attack-surface monitoring and increasingly we are leveraging AI to do so.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about patching protocols and timelines. This is not a new problem. It has been existing. There are established practices for patching that can manage disruption to services. This includes staged rollouts and pre-tested roll-back procedures.
These efforts form a broader national effort to raise cybersecurity standards across all sectors. There is no silver bullet and no one-time fixes. We must adapt and adjust to new risks. This requires all stakeholders to play their part actively and responsibly.
Many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) do not have a chief information security officer (CISO) or even a dedicated IT team. To help our SMEs, CSA's SG Cyber Safe programme provides accessible cyber-hygiene guidance. This includes the CISO-as-a-Service and the Cyber Essentials and Cyber Trust Marks, which support organisations to assess and improve their security posture.
Individuals have a role to play as well. Three things matter most, as outlined in CSA's \"Stop and Check\" campaign. First, use two-factor authentication and strong passphrases. Second, update software promptly to ensure that cyber criminals cannot find and use vulnerabilities to infect devices with malware, steal data or take control of devices. Third, use ScamShield and anti-virus to safeguard devices and accounts. Basic cyber hygiene matters.
In conclusion, the Government will continue to raise awareness, set standards and support organisations in building robust cyber-defences. But resilience depends on everyone doing their part. We must act early and decisively and stay ahead of the threat.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I have three supplementary questions. First of all, frontier models require a significant amount of compute and are likely to be concentrated among well-resourced organisations, leading to concerns about accessibility and uneven capabilities.
In this context, my first supplementary question is whether Singapore is actually working with international partners to establish norms, safeguards and coordinated responses to the risk posed by frontier AI models in cybersecurity?
The second supplementary question is whether the cybersecurity framework today, including those under the Cybersecurity Act and the CSA guidelines, are sufficient to address these emerging threats? Are they still fit for purpose?
And third, most importantly, how will the Government ensure that SMEs are not left behind and have access to these emerging new frontier capabilities to defend against such threats?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, let me first set in context my response to Mr Edward Chia. As I mentioned earlier, the enhanced capabilities that frontier models bring to the table is on a continuum. It is not suddenly a step jump or a discontinuous capability that we are not prepared for. We have been monitoring this space for some time and are actively working with international partners, both technology companies developing those AI frontier models as well as governmental organisations, on these threats, including those from intelligence and security agencies.
These threats are not new. We have been monitoring this for some time and we have been taking steps to mitigate the risk. That is the first point.
The second is that – I will go back to the same point I made earlier – fundamentals matter. Let me use an analogy. As an organisation or an individual, you lock the front door, or you secure the locks of your front door when you leave the building or when you leave your house. These are fundamentals.
But over time, when we adopt more digital solutions, digital devices, adopt more different services in our organisation, even in our personal lives, we are almost thinking about it like building more annexes and building more facilities. Which means that your attack surface is much wider because you might have forgotten that you might have left a window open, your back door open, or a new annex in your building has a vulnerability. And what AI empowers or enables the bad actors to do is this that makes them much more capable and much faster in detecting those vulnerabilities and exploiting them.
So, first and foremost, it is about securing your own building, your own house, your own organisation, your own digital systems, making sure that vulnerabilities are detected early and locked down. And put in place enough investments to maintain your property, your digital systems, so that these vulnerabilities would not be exploited by others. So, basic hygiene matters, and I spoke about it extensively in my Parliamentary Question reply.
Thirdly, we are mindful that SMEs may not have such capabilities and we deployed different resources supporting them to: firstly do a self-check, a hygiene check, on their own systems through the various cyber essential marks and trust marks – they can look at the guidelines published by CSA; secondly, even as SMEs digitalise and adopt AI technology in their organisations, you want to make sure they are safe and there are guidelines in place for them to think about how to deploy AI solutions in their organisations and in their businesses.
And through programmes like SMEs Go Digital, where we work with our industry partners providing these technology solutions and pre-approve them for support, we make sure those basic cybersecurity hygiene practices are baked into those systems. So, we are taking a holistic view on it. But these threats are not new and we have been monitoring them for some time.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. My supplementary question is on talent. Given that cyber threats, especially AI-driven ones, are really borderless and driven by highly sophisticated global actors, could the Senior Minister of State clarify whether Singapore faces constraint in attracting and retaining top-tier global cybersecurity and AI talent needed to safeguard our systems? How confident is the Government that we have sufficient depth of experience and expertise to protect critical infrastructure and maintain public trust, rather than falling behind more advanced threat actors?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his supplementary question. I cannot agree more with him that talent is the most critical piece in cybersecurity. As we talk about adopting AI, it is important for us also to adopt AI as the good guys, the defenders – how are we building capabilities in AI to detect, to triage, to respond across the board. And talent is most critical.
But there is no one singular definition of what kind of cybersecurity talent is needed. It is a whole spectrum – from running operations to detection, to be able to do red teaming and penetration testing to sniff out vulnerabilities before the bad actors can do that. It requires a whole range of talent. It is not just technical talent but actually, a lot of times, it is understanding the psyche of the bad actors and how do we put ourselves in those shoes and to detect those vulnerabilities.
So, we require talent from different sources. That is why over the years, CSA, together with various Government agencies, including our security agencies, have been putting in place different schemes and programmes to support Singaporeans who wish to have a career in cybersecurity. It is a rewarding career – you are doing good, making an impact and it is a meaningful career with good prospects. And we are working very closely with the institutes of higher learning, our different schools, to have those pathways, not just for fresh graduates but also mid-career individuals who want to transit to a cybersecurity career.
And in fact, I read a quite useful article yesterday in CNA about talent, and we are doing much more. So, if anyone is keen to have a career in cybersecurity, please check out the resources. We certainly welcome more talent.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just three quick supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.
First, I think the Senior Minister of State talks about gaining access to the best tools available globally. In so doing, is the Government working to gain direct access to the Anthropic Mythos model to enable the Government to better strengthen its cybersecurity defences?
Second, I think the Senior Minister of State also talked about how it is working with partners that actually have access. So, I was wondering if there has been any outcomes or patches to threats and vulnerabilities that have already been done, and if there have been any successes that the Senior Minister of State can share.
And lastly, in terms of the level of risk assessment through the CII, what is the Government's assessment of it right now, and how is it directly supporting the CII providers other than getting them to take action right now?
\tMr Tan Kiat How: Sir, let me start by highlighting what I said earlier in my Parliamentary Question reply – that we have to look at this as not as just a single episode or single frontier model making announcement. Because this is a trend that we have seen for some time, and we have been monitoring the trend and taking action for period of time. And it is not just about a single model but broadly, even open-source models, we have built up capabilities over time and within matter of months because of how fast AI technology is developing.
We work closely with all AI labs, cybersecurity firms as well as different partners around the world to have early access, if we can, to different models and frontier models to test the capabilities. So, this is something we are working on.
On his second question around our risk assessment, well, we have been monitoring this trend for some time. Over the last months and year, we have been issuing different advisories. Some of them we publish and are publicly available, like how we think about securing agentic AI software systems in our organisations. Some, we work directly with CII owners.
In this House, during the Budget and Committee of Supply speeches, I shared with the House that I have been visiting every of the CII sectors – 11 critical information infrastructure sectors – over the past months and year. I am pleased to share with everyone that I have completed all 11. And the reason why I do so is to personally engage the leadership of each CII sector to understand what they are doing and to reinforce the threat that we are seeing because of AI capabilities. And I am very heartened that all the senior leadership, from chief executives to board members, are aware of the risks and are taking steps. So, they are not taking this lightly. They are putting in place, not just processes and investments to secure themselves and their systems, but also proactively thinking about how to secure their AI uses in their organisations.
I will use an analogy. When you want to have a fast car, you have a strong engine under the hood of your car. AI is that engine. You want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible to be competitive. But at the same time, you need to have the safety features, the guardrails, your safety belts, good brakes in place. And organisations are thinking about how to secure the AI solutions in their organisations, even as they think about using AI to defend.
Lastly, I must also say that we have been working very closely with all of the CII sectors, I shared in this House during the Committee of Supply debates that the Government and CSA are leaning forward. We will share selected threat intelligence information with selected CII owners so that they can better monitor and detect threats against them, especially from advanced persistent threat actors. Secondly, in-house, we are building capabilities within the Government on how to detect those threats using AI and we will share those tools, where necessary, with CII owners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Guidelines from Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Education arising from the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying (a) what guidelines will schools apply to requests by parents of offenders or victims of bullying for a change of class or a transfer of school; and (b) how will schools assess whether restorative actions such as relationship repair are successful before allowing affected students to continue in the same learning environment.
8 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Education arising from the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying (a) whether the reasons why caning remains a suitable and effective punishment for upper primary and older boys can be shared; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that schools carry out caning with the necessary safeguards in place.
9 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Education arising from the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying (a) whether schools will be empowered to lodge cyberbullying reports for or against students to the Online Safety Commission; and (b) how will schools deal with cyberbullying content amongst students that may not reach the definitional threshold of online harms in the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025.
10 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education with the planned expansion of bullying reporting channels, including a new online platform (a) whether the Ministry can clarify who will manage and follow up on reports made through such channels; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that the platform design is (i) age-appropriate (ii) easy for students to use and (iii) able to support timely intervention.
11 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education with the introduction of the new online bullying reporting channel (a) how will the Ministry ensure that serious cases receive timely and adequate attention amid increased reporting volumes; and (b) whether triage frameworks, reporting guidelines or safeguards will be implemented to prioritise cases while recognising that perceptions of severity may differ among students and parents.
12 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Education (a) whether studies have been conducted to assess if the current resources set aside for counselling is sufficient in schools to deal with school bullying; and (b) whether school counsellors are sufficiently equipped to deal with the fast-evolving challenges of online bullying.
13 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) how will the Ministry assess whether the recommendations against bullying are effective; (b) what specific indicators and evaluation methodology will the Ministry use to assess the effectiveness and consistency of schools' implementation of the measures; and (c) what recourse students and parents will have should they disagree with schools' findings and decisions.
14 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what protocols are in place to ensure transparency in the handling of serious bullying cases; (b) what information is shared with victims' parents, such as the evidence considered and reasons for the disciplinary outcomes; and (c) whether more consistent disclosure practices across schools will be considered.
15 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education how the new anti-bullying measures will help teachers and school staff handle bullying cases promptly and fairly without adding unsustainable workload to frontline staff.
16 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) how the Ministry will ensure consistent implementation of the new anti-bullying guidelines across all schools; and (b) what audit or oversight mechanisms will be put in place to monitor compliance and hold schools accountable for lapses.
17 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Education (a) what performance indicators will the Ministry use to monitor the effectiveness of its overall framework and specific measures to address bullying in schools; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to make the reports on these indicators public.
18 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education under the new guidelines to deal with bullying in schools, (a) how do schools decide on the appropriate disciplinary response out of the measures given; and (b) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that responses are proportionate, student-centred, and applied consistently across schools.
19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education in relation to bullying in schools, (a) whether the Ministry tracks longitudinal outcomes such as the proportion of students who reoffend after a first serious bullying incident; and (b) how it evaluates which combinations of punishment and rehabilitative support are most effective in preventing recurrence.
20 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) with regard to the standardised caning measures outlined in the Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying, whether the distinctions in its application, including (i) between boys and girls and (ii) its commencement only from upper primary levels, are based on established research; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry can share the basis for these distinctions.
21 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted or relied on any studies evaluating the effectiveness of caning in reducing repeated bullying behaviour; and (b) what considerations inform its continued use, in light of international research linking corporal punishment to increased aggression and adverse long-term outcomes.
22 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry takes an evidence-informed approach to designing its overall framework and specific measures to address bullying in schools; (b) if so, what evidence has the Ministry taken on board to date in designing its overall framework and specific measures; and (c) whether it will consider convening a panel of experts to strengthen this evidence-informed approach.
23 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry requires schools to report bullying cases to the Ministry; and (b) what are the available channels for escalation or seeking further assistance should parents feel that their child's school has not handled their report of bullying adequately.
24 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education what is the Ministry's directive to schools on the appropriate circumstances to lodge a police report when a case of bullying is severe.
25 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there has been an increasing incidence of students creating and circulating AI-generated fake obscene images of fellow students in schools and educational institutions; and (b) whether the Ministry provides guidance on how such cases should be handled.
26 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education (a) whether any studies have been done to show the mental and emotional impact of caning on children and youths; and (b) if so, what are the findings of these studies that have resulted in the Ministry continuing with caning as a form of discipline for boys and male youths.
27 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Education in view of the planned implementation of standardised disciplinary measures in managing student misconduct (a) what outcomes framework, baselines, and quantified impact measurements, such as incident rates, recurrence, and reporting rates, will be used to assess bullying; (b) what is the intended timeframe for tracking such data; and (c) how will student well-being be measured and validated.
28 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education in light of the recommendations from the Ministry's Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying (a) whether the Ministry will enhance measures to support the mental and emotional wellness of students to help them deal with hurtful behaviours and bullying; and (b) whether there are any plans to strengthen mental and emotional wellness education in schools' curricula.
29 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education (a) what support is provided to victims of bullying who require care beyond school counselling, including referral pathways for clinical intervention; and (b) how does the Ministry safeguard students with mental health conditions or Special Educational Needs from being targeted by bullies.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Deputy Speaker, my response will address the questions raised by Members in relation to the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying. May I seek your permission to answer oral Question Nos 7 to 29 as well as written Question Nos 41 to 49 on today's Order Paper?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Desmond Lee: My response will also cover related oral and written Parliamentary Questions set down for today's and subsequent Sittings.
Sir, MOE, with the support of the COMmunity and PArents in Support of Schools (COMPASS) Council, completed the Comprehensive Action Review Against Bullying and announced the recommendations on 15 April this year. These span four key areas and nine measures, forming a comprehensive whole-of-society approach.
Let me briefly outline the four areas.
First, we will strengthen values education. Prevention must begin upstream. We will place greater emphasis on shaping students' character and social-emotional skills, so that they not only know what is right, but understand why it matters. Our schools will also foster a pro-social peer culture, where students look out for one another, be upstanders, stand together against hurtful behaviour and support those who are affected.
Second, we will strengthen the school culture and environment. Every school must be a safe, caring and enabling environment where every student can learn and grow, where bullying and hurtful behaviour have no place. We will deepen a culture of kindness and respect and promote empathy and kindness. At the same time, we will take more proactive action through early identification, better reporting channels, timely intervention and firm discipline for serious cases.
\t
Third, we will strengthen school capacity. We will provide our schools with additional resources to procure additional manpower and services, where needed, to support our teachers in student management processes. We will also enhance professional development for our educators and tap on technology to improve case management and facilitate timely communication and intervention when incidents happen.
Finally, we will strengthen partnerships with parents, families and the community because bullying and hurtful behaviour cannot be seen purely in the school context alone but must be seen in a context of what happens at home, in the community and in society. Parents and families can reinforce positive values and character at home and partner our schools to support their child's development and well-being. We will also work with community partners to promote mutual kindness and respect across all sectors of society.
Members asked about the methodology and findings of the Review. MOE looked at research and drew on resources from local and international experts and sources. These included mental health professionals, developmental and educational psychology researchers, sociology researchers and professional mediators. As part of the Review, we also engaged various stakeholders, including professionals, such as researchers, counsellors and psychologists, as well as school leaders, school staff, parents and students.
We engaged or received feedback from over 2,000 stakeholders in total. There was broad agreement that addressing bullying holistically requires a collective, sustained response involving our schools, our families and the wider community.
Members have asked a wide range of questions relating to specific areas and recommendations of the Review. I will address these questions by focus areas. Let me start with values education.
A key goal of our education system is to develop character and social-emotional skills. As I shared in this House last September, the character and citizenship education (CCE) curriculum already covers these areas, including respectful behaviour online and offline. CCE equips our students to disagree appropriately, cope with negative behaviour and overcome challenges. Schools also have peer support systems, where students learn to support and stand up for one another.
Following the Review, we have strengthened our CCE lessons with more interactive learning strategies and real-life scenarios. This better equips students to respond when they witness or experience bullying and other hurtful behaviour. We have also updated cyber wellness lessons to better address evolving online risks. These changes strengthen students' character and well-being whilst creating a more caring and supportive school environment.
Many Members have also asked about our schools' disciplinary measures arising from the Review. Our schools' approach to bullying and other forms of student misconduct is fundamentally an educative process. Schools follow a structured process to ensure students' safety and well-being while addressing root causes in a timely and consistent manner. This includes making a police report for cases which warrant police attention. Throughout this process, our schools work closely with parents, keeping them informed, collaborating on safety measures and prioritising the well-being of the students involved.
When incidents are reported, schools investigate before deciding on the appropriate disciplinary and restorative actions. Actions are tiered based on severity – from reflection and detention to suspension or caning for egregious or repeated serious offences. Disciplinary measures are always complemented with counselling and restorative actions, with the aim of helping our students learn, change their behaviour and repair damaged relationships.
Safety plans for affected students can include separating the students, removing hurtful online content and arranging for peer support. Where affected students require additional support to manage their emotions, they may be referred to school counsellors, Special Educational Needs (SEN) officers or to the Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health (REACH) teams for more specialised support, particularly when persistent distress is identified.
We recognise the need for greater consistency in the management of bullying across our schools. MOE has provided our schools with clearer guidelines on establishing offence management processes and disciplinary measures. As circumstances differ for each case, our schools will assess and take appropriate action aligned to these guidelines. All schools will also develop an anti-bullying policy by the end of this year that is based on MOE's guidelines.
To ensure case management processes remain calibrated across all our schools, MOE will conduct regular focus group discussions, school engagements and reviews. Our Cluster Superintendents, who oversee a group of schools, will provide further guidance and support to schools on the implementation of these processes.
Another important aspect pointed out by Members is parent engagement. When a case is reported to the school, the schools will maintain timely communication with parents, keeping them informed and partnering them to ensure the safety and well-being of their child. However, schools will require time to look into the incident and establish facts. The time taken will vary based on the complexity of the situation. Nonetheless, when an incident is reported, schools will prioritise immediate safety measures for all students involved.
In some cases, students may not report incidents to the school but may share them with their family or friends instead. In such situations, we encourage parents to report the incident to the school and work with the school to support their child. Should parents have concerns about how an incident is being managed, they should share their concerns with the school to better understand the school's approach and work with the school to resolve these concerns. Beyond that, parents can also provide feedback through MOE's online as well as offline feedback channels.
Some Members asked about caning as a disciplinary measure. This is not a new measure; it has been around for quite a long time. Studies show that poorly administered and frequent corporal punishment, particularly in unregulated settings, such as at home, is associated with negative outcomes.
We recognise this, and I want to emphasise that the context in our schools is quite different. Our schools use caning as a disciplinary measure, if all the other measures are inadequate given the gravity of the misconduct. They follow strict protocols to ensure safety for the student. For instance, caning must be approved by the Principal and administered only by authorised teachers.
Schools will consider factors, such as the maturity of the student and if caning will help the student learn from his mistake and understand the gravity of what he has done. In MOE's framework, schools exercise discretion on whether to use caning as a disciplinary consequence after assessing the circumstances of the offence committed. If it is used, it is never administered in isolation but always as part of a suite of restorative and disciplinary measures. Schools will monitor the student's well-being and progress after caning and counsel the student to reflect and learn, while supporting the student's rehabilitation.
Importantly, this approach is part of a framework of disciplinary measures which provides certainty of consequences, even as we support the student who committed the misconduct to learn from the experience. This approach is based on research which shows that children and youth learn to make better choices when there are clear boundaries enforced by firm, meaningful consequences. This has a positive impact on reducing bullying and enables the school community to feel safe to learn in an orderly environment.
Caning is meted out for boys only, and as I said earlier, only for egregious violations. This is aligned to the Education (Schools) Regulations, which only allows caning for male students. This takes reference from the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that women shall not be punished with caning. Nonetheless, this does not mean that girls who bully or engage in hurtful behaviour are less culpable. Our teachers and schools adopt a tiered approach to discipline that ensures that all students face consequences corresponding to the severity of their actions. Girls could receive consequences, for instance, such as detention and/or suspension, adjustment of their conduct grade and other school-based consequences.
MOE regularly reviews our discipline guidelines, to ensure that our disciplinary measures remain appropriate. We will continue to receive feedback and refine our approach based on ground wisdom and research.
I will now address the questions on reporting channels. I shared in this House last September about the various reporting channels available in our schools. The Review reinforced the importance of providing safe and accessible platforms for reporting students' well-being concerns.
From 2027, each school will have an online reporting platform available for students and parents. A school-based platform ensures that the platform is age-appropriate, accessible and familiar for students and parents to use. Schools will be provided with guidelines on managing reports received through the different reporting channels. However, urgent cases should still be reported directly to teachers and School Leaders rather than through the online reporting platform, so that prompt action can be taken.
Some Members have expressed concern on cyber incidents. MOE recognises the seriousness of cyber incidents, ranging from online harassment to obscene and inappropriate images that may be artificial intelligence (AI)-generated. MOE will continue to provide schools with guidance on managing all cyber-related incidents, including fact-finding processes and supporting students in reporting online harms.
When the Online Safety Commission (OSC) becomes operational by the end of next month, June 2026, victims of certain online harms, such as online harassment, doxxing and intimate image abuse, will be able to seek more timely assistance. Our schools will support the well-being of students who encounter negative cyber incidents and guide them to report to the OSC.
Questions were also raised by Members about incidents involving students with SEN or mental health conditions. While schools uphold disciplinary standards, our schools also take into consideration each student's specific needs and circumstances.
For students with SEN or mental health conditions who have been hurt, schools will first address the immediate safety concerns. Trained school personnel will also look out for signs of distress that may not be immediately visible or explicitly communicated and provide timely and appropriate support. The broader intent is always to enable affected students to regain their confidence and restore their sense of safety and well-being.
For students with SEN or mental health conditions who have hurt others, it is especially important to help them understand that such hurtful behaviour may affect others negatively. The consequences are educative, restorative and focused on helping the student learn and behave appropriately.
Members have also raised concerns about the impact of these recommendations on our staff workload.
Our intent is to go upstream, to reduce the incidence of bullying and hurtful behaviour, while strengthening and streamlining current practices. In the near term, of course, workload may increase as our schools implement these changes. MOE will, therefore, provide funding for our schools, on a needs-basis, to hire additional manpower or services to provide support while managing teacher workload. This manpower could include youth workers, restorative practitioners, pastoral care officers or parent liaison officers. MOE will also bolster support for our school counsellors when managing complex cases.
Over time, as processes and norms become clearer, workload ought to stabilise. And if the measures succeed in reducing bullying upstream, then the overall burden on our school staff ought to ease.
To streamline case management, MOE is also exploring technological solutions to help reduce the administrative load. For a start, MOE is developing an offence management system to support case investigation, documentation and monitoring.
We have received suggestions for MOE to set up a centralised anti-bullying unit to support our schools in managing egregious cases. We considered this carefully. Our schools are best placed to manage such cases and MOE Headquarters (HQ) will support our schools. Our teachers know their students well and understand the dynamics of their school communities. Where additional expertise and support is needed in specific areas or to deal with complex cases, our schools can tap on the needs-based funding to hire additional manpower or seek support and advice from their respective Cluster Superintendents.
On community partners, MOE recognises that the cultivation of values such as kindness, empathy and respect in our children requires efforts well beyond the school environment. We are grateful for community partners who share this commitment. For example, the Singapore Kindness Movement partners schools through programmes, such as Friends of Singa, Kindsville initiatives and Kindness Day SG, which encourage students to lead kindness initiatives.
The Centre for Fathering works with fathers to strengthen family bonds so that children feel secure turning to their parents when they face difficulties. We encourage community partners to share their expertise and initiatives as part of this society-wide effort against bullying.
Members have also asked about data, outcome indicators and measures of effectiveness. First, we will keep track of the implementation of these recommendations through regular engagements with educators and parents, as well as focus group discussions. Second, we will continue to watch student management outcomes. In terms of data on bullying incidence, as a baseline, bullying incidents in the last five years averaged three incidents per 1,000 in our primary school students and eight per 1,000 secondary school students per year. We will study these outcomes and trends, and review if more needs to be done.
We thank Members for their interest in this issue. While schools play a central role in creating a safe, caring and enabling environment for our students and teachers, addressing hurtful behaviour and bullying takes a whole of society effort. MOE will work with our schools, families and the wider community to create environments where every child feels safe, valued and supported to reach their full potential.
\t
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo.
Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Sir, I thank the Minister for his responses. I have two supplementary questions.
The first one, if the assessment is made that the affected students of a bullying case is not suited to remain in the same learning environment or should be separated, either in the same class or school, what are the measures the school will take to ensure that the final outcome is fair, equitable and in the best interest of all the affected students?
Second, I just wanted to clarify my Parliamentary Question No 9 on cyberbullying. Actually, what I wanted to seek clarification is that on the instances of cyberbullying, unlike the Australian Online Safety Act, which differentiates between cyberbullying material targeted at a child and cyber abuse targeted at an adult. Our equivalent does not have that. And while I agree that the OSC will be a good platform for parents, students and even schools to refer in such instances to, the thresholds may not be the same. What we constitute as cyberbullying to children, many online harms to adults may not be the same. And if the Online Commissioner is not in a position to intervene, then how would the schools deal with such cyberbullying cases?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his questions.
On his first question, if a parent feels strongly that the child needs to change seating, change class, change school, please work closely with our schools. And if needed, they will activate MOE to look at the specific circumstances and see what immediate safety plans need to be put in place and what longer-term arrangements need to be made.
On the Member's second question, I believe the OSC will take also a child-centered approach to understand cyber incidents, cyberbullying, cyber harassment, not just in relation to adults but also for children. And as I have said, we will work closely with parents, with schools, as well as the OSC when such incidents arise.
\t
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Minister mentioned the incidence rate of bullying behaviour in our schools and I would like to stress that this is based on reported incidences.
So, my questions to the Minister are, number one, does MOE and the Minister foresee that there will be an increase in reported incidences, and therefore the rate of bullying behaviour in our schools given the measures to roll out improved reporting and easier reporting of bullying behaviour?
And number two, given this backdrop, would bringing down the rate of bullying incidents in our schools be a meaningful measure of effectiveness, in MOE's view?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I would say the data that we have provided, as the Member pointed out, is based on what is reported. And so, when you look at this data, we are mindful that there can be overreporting and underreporting. Overreporting in the sense that from the child's perspective, they feel that they have been hurt. But again, it depends on their personal threshold and what we feel requires intervention. So, there might be some overreporting.
But there certainly may be underreporting. A child decides not to report for various reasons, or tells friends and parents, and the matter is not raised to the school's attention or is not picked up by our schools. So, we look at this data, but we also need to make sure that in every school, our school leaders are on top of the situation and are mindful of what is happening in the classrooms and outside the classrooms.
When we put in these measures, when there is greater awareness across the board, across society, among parents, among students, among peer support leaders, among educators, one could well expect that with that greater awareness and willingness to speak up and address this issue, more are reported. Not to mention that from next year, all schools should have online reporting platforms to supplement the face-to-face reporting to school leaders, peer support leaders, as well as teachers.
As to whether or not bringing the numbers down should be a meaningful key performance index, obviously, it is something that we want to watch, but it requires not just a downstream intervention and measures, but a lot of the work has to be upstream. It has to be about culture building. It is about the child and his or her understanding of how to relate to one another. And it also involves taking care of children with special needs or mental health challenges who may have challenges behaving in norms that we would otherwise expect. So, we have to be inclusive in that regard as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Abdul Muhaimin.
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. MOE has stated that the standardisation aims to ensure common baseline, while schools retain discretion based on individual circumstances. I have two supplementary questions for this.
How does the Ministry ensure that the discretion retained by individual schools does not result in significant disparities in how canning is administered? For instance, between schools that have well-resourced student development teams, and those that do not.
My second supplementary question: what oversight or audit mechanism exists to review whether mitigating factors such as special educational needs and mental well-being are in fact being properly assessed before caning is administered?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I want to thank the Member for his two good questions. The first, it is that perennial tussle or balance that has to be struck, not just in our schools, but in society as a whole – between ensuring consistency and standardisation versus giving safety valves, versus giving discretion for our schools and for figures of authority to assess each case on its circumstances and on its merits.
And certainly, in the context of a school which is fundamentally an educational institution, not just cognitively, but also socio-emotionally in terms of values, we want to look at the children concerned as well. Look at whether they have special needs, mental health challenges, whether they have challenges at home, or whether they are under peer pressure, and so on and so forth.
And so, it is always that balance between consistency and fairness, that principle, versus providing discretion to ensure that discipline ultimately has education as its core goal. And so, our schools have been given clearer guidelines, some benchmarks to look at for different kinds of offences.
Necessarily, there will need to be discretion. Facts will differ, gravity of the acts will differ. And therefore, they will exercise discretion, but with our cluster arrangements and with more frequent sharing and conferencing amongst each other, we will be able to take a look and make sure that on the whole, we address fairness while ensuring that each case is dealt with appropriately on its merits.
The other question the Member raised is on oversight, whether a child has those needs like education needs or mental health. Our teachers and our form teachers will know their children, will know their students. We will have SEN officers in school, we have counsellors, we have school welfare officers, and we have access to the REACH teams as well as external social, as well as health and mental health providers in the community so that we ensure a proper oversight when administering any form of discipline or any form of rehabilitative and corrective measures for our children.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just two supplementary questions for the Minister.
The Minister mentioned earlier about the revamping of CCE. I would like to ask Minister that are there specific strategies or techniques taught to students, either within CCE or in other aspects of school, in terms of self-regulation, how to manage their emotions, and so on, that might help them with their own behaviour management?
The second supplementary question is, the Minister talked about connecting with other agencies. Oftentimes I found that students who are involved in acts of bullying, they themselves perhaps are dealing with issues in their home space with their families. They could perhaps be themselves the victims of being bullied. Does MOE or the schools therefore work with other agencies, be it the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), to find out how they can help the students who commit acts of bullying if they are indeed also victims of bullying themselves?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Mr Deputy Speaker, on the first question on CCE, during our engagement sessions, one which I attended, parents spoke about whether we could look at more recent incidents in the school, and after the passing of a certain amount of time, use those relatively fresh experiences in the school to make the CCE lesson come alive – because it is very real, it is not hypothetical, it is not anonymised from some other place.
We looked at that and we felt that there was merit in that suggestion by some parents. Therefore, we have enhanced CCE so that there is role playing, there are more realistic scenarios and allow the children to take on different roles in order for them to do better perspective-taking and strengthen the sense of empathy, and allow them to not just experience the emotions, but also what it is to be an upstander, and what it is to seek help if you are playing the role of the victim. Or if you are a student, to be able to understand what kinds of words hurt, what kind of actions cut. And so that is how our CCE is being expanded.
Of course, there are other aspects of CCE and other curriculum throughout the whole school year where we teach students about cyber wellness, cyber well-being, and in learning about these technologies, they also learn how to use it appropriately when interacting with one another.
The Member's other point about families who face complex challenges at home that may manifest in terms of the child's behaviour, whether it is parentified behaviour, whether it is permissive parenting, whether it is a negative influence in the community or in the neighbourhood – this is something which our teachers will be more in touch with our students on; that is why the home-school partnership is so important. And that is why our partnerships with Family Service Centres, with the Social Service Offices (SSOs) as well as mental health agencies in the community, are so important.
\t
Mr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
(Extension of Question Time)
The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable questions for oral answer to continue until the completion of Question Nos 7 to 29, including relevant supplementary questions until 12.45 pm?
\tMr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Deputy Leader, please proceed.
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, that notwithstanding Standing Order No 22(1), Question Time at this day's Sitting continue until the completion of Question Nos 7 to 29, including supplementary questions until 12.45 pm. – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order. Questions for oral answers to continue.
IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES FROM COMPREHENSIVE ACTION REVIEW AGAINST BULLYING
(Resumption for Question Nos 7 to 29)
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response.
Some parents have met me at my Meet-the-People Session about disputes with schools, about how the teacher handles bullying cases when a kid is bullied. When there are disagreements between schools and parents on the severity of a bullying case, will MOE consider establishing a clearly defined independent, escalation pathway?
And my second supplementary question is, with the introduction of an easier reporting channel likely increasing volume, could the Ministry explain whether it is confident that serious cases will not be crowded out by less severe reports?
Mr Desmond Lee: On the Member's first question, our teachers and our School Leaders seek to investigate the facts, objectively try to address the incident – on the one hand support the affected child and on the other, making sure that the actor of the misconduct or alleged misconduct is dealt with appropriately. So, not just discipline but also an opportunity to reflect and learn.
And that is why his question emphasises why the relationship between parents and school is so important because in a small number of cases, unfortunately, parents' concern for the child results in a certain level of acrimony and adversarial approach taken by a parent of one child against the other child, who is viewed as the perpetrator. That can be very emotional. We fully understand parents' feelings and emotions when their child has been hurt or subject to hurtful behaviour or bullied, and the parent, of course, would expect certain things to be done.
But our schools and our teachers want to make sure that we address this fairly, even if firmly. So, we seek parents' support and understanding. Of course, our teachers will endeavour to do their best to build a positive relationship with not just the child but also with the parents at home.
If there is a need to escalate the matter, then certainly the School Leader and beyond that, the Cluster Superintendent and Zonal Director – these are people with experience who can be called upon through the MOE reporting channels to look into the matter.
On the Member's other question about how to ensure that minor cases do not crowd out more serious cases, certainly, we want to make sure that we look at the serious cases whilst not allowing minor incidents to then fester and become the shoots of more serious incidents, because it is better to nip in the bud. It is more important to take an upstream approach or midstream approach and see if there are concerning behaviours that need to be addressed early. So, certainly, we do not want to crowd out the serious cases, but we must not ignore the small little matters that can then blow up over time.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.
\tDr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I have met parents of victims of bullying cases at my Meet-the-People Session and usually two underlying themes are what they are concerned with: transparency of process and accountability of perpetrators.
I would like to ask: number one, does the Ministry facilitate formal apology protocols that provide closure for the victim? Number two, does the Ministry track whether victims continued to struggle after the case is closed and whether it sees the need to? And lastly, what extent will the recommendations from the Comprehensive Action Review be adapted for institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and will IHLs be required to adopt a centralised reporting platform, like the ones rolled out for the other schools?
Mr Desmond Lee: On the Member's second question, I think this is beyond the remit of today's focus, which is on general education. And of course, I can give an answer but our IHLs are autonomous, especially the autonomous universities, and they have their disciplinary mechanisms and approaches, there is a certain strand that runs through all of them. But I think it would beyond the limited time we have. So, I urge the Member to file another question to allow us to explain the approach in IHLs with regard to young adults.
On her first question about transparency and accountability, she is right on that point, because that is a mark of whether the trust is upheld between home and school – and that is something that we strive to upkeep with these latest series of enhancements to our framework.
With regard to formal apologies, there are some schools which will facilitate, as part of restorative practice, an opportunity to bring the two children or two young people together, or more if the incident involves more people, to try to bring closure when they are ready, particularly the student who has been subject to the bullying or hurtful behaviour. Sometimes it is written, sometimes it is oral but over time as we work more closely with restorative practice practitioners, we will be able to refine and improve on this aspect of closure. Because, ultimately, most of the time the students will have to remain in a learning environment and have to learn from what has happened – on the one hand to curb bad behaviour, on the other to strengthen one's resilience.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.
First, on what the Ministry has published on this matter, we read of course the recommendations being made about how to handle school bullying, but I was not able to find the fuller report or the findings on which the recommendations were based. So, I like to ask the Minister whether there is any concern about publishing more information about how MOE arrived at those recommendations – meaning, for example, what he mentioned the literature consulted, the findings from various focus groups and so on? So, that is the first question.
Second question is related to my Parliamentary Question No 25, which was on cyber incidents. I did not hear him answer whether there has been an increasing incidence of creating and circulating AI-generated fake obscene images between fellow students. So, has there been an increase noticed? And then on this point, I wanted to know what the schools could do if the perpetrators are not known. I mean, how are they supposed to handle such incidents because, obviously, their powers of investigation might be limited.
\t
\tMr Desmond Lee: On the Member's first question, let me discuss with my colleagues what additional material might be useful for our schools as well as for the public to understand, in terms of the basis for various recommendations.
On her second question about AI-generated fake obscene videos, I think I mentioned it in my reply that MOE will work closely with our schools to address these issues. I did a check. Such technology is relatively recent, over the last few years. And therefore, these new actions would involve an increase – from zero to a certain number. The numbers still remain small, but we are keeping a very close eye on it and with the formation of the OSC from next month, we work closely with them to help our students and help parents tackle such incidents as they arise.
Of course, to the extent that perpetrators are students, the culture building, the establishment of norms, the education on cyber wellness and how to use these powerful tools ethically and appropriately and legally will be very important.
But to the extent that these instances have occurred, I have mentioned that we will work with the families and the students, support them, work with the authorities like the OSC to have them taken down. It is not an easy task because there could be proliferation around different platforms, so that work will have to be not just immediate but follow through for some time yet.
And the Member asked what if the perpetrator is not known because these are people hiding behind the technological tools, then we may need to work with not just the OSC but with the Police. One may recall an unfortunate incident in 2024, where some secondary school students created AI-generated deep fakes of female students, obscene nudes – they were identified and they were dealt with firmly, not just through Police investigation but also by school disciplinary action.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: We have been on Question Nos 7 to 29 for close to 40 minutes. We have extended Question Time by 15 minutes, so I request supplementary questions to be short and if the Minister can give brief answers thereto. We have five minutes more. Mr Melvin Yong.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Thank you, Sir. I have three questions on the balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
One, how will schools be guided to balance disciplinary action with counselling and restorative practices? I think the Minister mentioned it.
Whether MOE will track recidivism rates to assess if these rehabilitation efforts are effective?
On cyberbullying, will MOE consider working with agencies, like IMDA and the social media platforms to enable faster take down of harmful content?
\t
\tMr Desmond Lee: The answer to one is that we, as I said, discipline, whether it is corrective, punitive, ultimately, it has to be educative in nature. So, disciplinary measures are always followed through with reflection, with counselling and so on and so forth.
On his second question, the answer is yes.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: He Ting Ru.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister for further colour about the longitudinal tracking of bullying incidents, as in my Parliamentary Question, both in terms of perpetrators and how does the Ministry actually track that. And also, in terms of the actual victims of the bullying incidents, so, how do you track, for example, the interventions taken, the punishments given, the disciplinary measures taken? How does and whether the Ministry tracks on the actual victims of the bullying incidents?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for her two questions.
On the longitudinal tracking of victims and alleged perpetrators, the school will have very close proximity with the students concerned. They will have a sense of whether a child learns from his or her mistake after the disciplinary and corrective and educative steps are put in place, and observe the child for the duration of his or her time in school. We will see how best to track this on the longer term, to look at overall recidivism rates.
With regard to victims as well, particularly, if the student has been a victim of a serious incident of bullying, counsellors will keep an eye. They work closely with not just the child concerned but also with the families as well.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr David Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive response.
My question comes from concerns from parents. Three supplementary questions specifically.
First, on disciplinary action: what guidance are given to school in deciding when it should be in school suspension and when it should be out-of-school suspension?
The second question for out-of-school suspension, how does the Ministry ensure that there will be avenues for guided reflection during the time of out-of-school suspension, so that this would be able to achieve the objective, which is supposed to be educative in nature?
Lastly, given that students may fear retaliation or social repercussion, what measures are there to protect students and assurance given to them that they will be protected after making a report?
\t
\t
\t
Mr Desmond Lee: On the Member's first question, I recall in September, we also had this discussion. When a student has to be suspended, part of it could be, as a safety planning arrangement, to have the perpetrator removed from the class or from the school. Part of it could be punitive in nature to say, \"Well, because of this behaviour, after investigation, you are suspended from coming to school to learn.\"
But as the Member rightly pointed out, for some students, they may not perceive that as being punitive. They do not feel that they are being deprived of something and do not feel that these are worthwhile consequences that cause them to want to behave better. And therefore, there is also, in-school suspension and school teachers, form teachers and School Leaders will know their students' background well and know how to position the application of these disciplinary measures in the way that reinforces that there are consequences for serious misconduct.
On fear of retaliation, there are, therefore, a whole range of school measures from peer support leaders being brought in; in addition, of course, school arrangements by staff to look after students who stand up or who report incidents that happen to them. And, of course, there are consequences if retaliation then leads to offences that are investigated.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Order End of Question Time. Personal Explanation by Mr Pritam Singh.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker.
At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East. I said, and I quote, \"Notwithstanding the expiry of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) contracts with Indonesia in 2028, is the Government in touch with both Indonesia and Malaysia, which supply close to half our piped LNG\", unquote. Both references to LNG are incorrect. The correct reference should be Piped Natural Gas (PNG).
Mr Deputy Speaker: I take it there is no clarification for Mr Singh. Order. A Personal Explanation from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification.
In my Committee of Supply speech on 5 March 2026, I had stated that, \"One objection is that there is an opportunity cost to foregone income, since such lots could generate potential revenue and this has sometimes been the Ministry of National Development's response to requests for converting car park spaces to other uses, such as community gardens.\"
This is incorrect. The Housing and Development Board takes into account, among other things, whether there are sufficient car park spaces to meet parking demand over time. This is the opportunity cost of forgone space, not forgone revenue, as I had mistakenly claimed.
As I briefly mentioned in our exchange on 7 April, if I were mistaken in my claim, I would retract it. I am therefore doing so.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sun Xueling, clarifications, not a debate.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Yes. I thank Assoc Prof Jamus Lim for retracting his earlier inaccurate statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Personal Explanations. Clarification by Minister of State for National Development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for National Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to make this clarification on the investigation processes conducted by the National Parks Board's (NPark's) Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS).
On 8 April 2026, I had mentioned in this Chamber that I would go back and check on any correspondence between Member Jamus Lim and the AVS relating to this topic.
During the Second Reading of the Veterinary Practice Bill on 8 April 2026, Member Jamus Lim made statements in relation to the fairness and independence of AVS' investigations. Specifically, he stated and I quote, \"A regulatory framework is only as strong as the practical implementation of fair and effective investigative actions, followed by reasonable and acceptable disciplinary procedures. I say this in part because, based on the experience of at least one of my residents, the prior regime may have fallen short. That resident has alleged that a key document submitted to AVS for investigation did not appear to be independently verified for authenticity. This, in turn, undermined her confidence in accountability of the whole process.\" End quote.
The Member also stated and I quote, \"I was not insinuating whether there were any lapses in her case or not, by AVS. But the point I was trying to make, and I will repeat it here, is that public trust and confidence in procedure is really important. And that is why I supported Part 6 of the Bill which confers a degree of independence and authority to investigators to go about the process of investigation, which I am sure in her case would lend her greater confidence.\" End quote.
Sir, the Member argued that a regulatory framework requires fair and effective investigations and also referred to his resident's allegation that AVS did not independently verify a key document. He also said that Part 6 of the Bill gives investigators independence and authority, which would lend his resident greater confidence. The Member emphasised that this was his resident's experience and he was not insinuating lapses on AVS' part.
However, juxtaposing the recitation of his resident's allegations that one, the prior regime may have fallen short; and two, that a key document submitted to AVS for verification did not appear to be independently verified, which in turn undermined his resident's confidence in the accountability of the process, with his statement that public trust and confidence in procedure is important, gives rise to a clear inference that AVS had not conducted its investigations on his resident's complaints fairly, effectively and independently.
Sir, as this is a serious allegation, I wrote to the Member after the Sitting to seek confirmation about the case concerned. I also asked if there was more than one case, as he had referred to the experience of at least one resident, which implies there could be more than one case. He has since confirmed he was referring to just one resident.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have checked on the case referred to by the Member and would like to provide a clarification for the record.
In October 2024, the Member's resident brought her dog to a veterinary clinic for medical attention as the dog was unwell. Unfortunately, the dog died after a medical procedure.
The resident then filed a complaint to AVS against the vet. The resident made two allegations material to our discussion today. I will address each allegation in turn and also explain AVS' findings.
The first allegation is about the lack of informed consent.
First, the resident alleged that informed consent was not given as the potential risks and benefits of the medical procedure were not explained to her.
As part of the investigation process, AVS had thoroughly reviewed the available evidence, including closed circuit television (CCTV) footage and medical records. AVS found no evidence of professional negligence or misconduct by the vet.
Contrary to the resident's claims, the evidence showed that the vet had informed the resident of the dog's prognosis and provided various treatment options. The CCTV footage also recorded the vet explaining the risks of the medical procedure, including heart failure and death.
Second, the resident claimed that the clinic had committed forgery, alleging that the signature on the consent form was forged and not hers, and that even if she had signed the form, the contents had been altered. This was despite the resident having previously acknowledged to AVS that she had signed a form digitally.
Sir, I believe this consent form is the \"key document\" that the resident had alleged was not, quote, \"independently verified for authenticity\", unquote. This form essentially stated that the resident gave consent for the vet to sedate or anaesthetise her dog for treatment or diagnostics or both.
As I mentioned earlier, AVS had reviewed the CCTV footage, medical records and case outcomes in the process of its investigation for professional negligence or misconduct. There was no evidence to suggest that forgery may have been committed by the clinic.
In addition to lodging a complaint to AVS, the resident also made a Police report alleging forgery. The Police conducted independent investigations and found no evidence of forgery by the clinic. Instead, the Police found evidence that she had signed a form digitally at the clinic, in the presence of its staff. Therefore, in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Police will not take further action.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, AVS had explained its investigation outcome to the resident. AVS had also kept Member Jamus Lim informed, as he had appealed to NParks and other Government agencies on the resident's behalf. The resident had copied the Member in her reply to AVS on 11 September 2025, regarding AVS' investigation outcome. NParks had also replied to the Member's appeal on 9 October 2025 and 25 February 2026.
Therefore, when the Member delivered his speech on the Veterinary Practice Bill on 8 April 2026, the Member would have known of three key pieces of information from correspondence copied or provided to the Member.
First, the Member knew that AVS had investigated the incident.
Second, he knew that AVS had found no professional negligence or misconduct by the vet.
Third, the Member knew that while AVS had found that there were \"areas for improvement in the [vet's] documentation of communications [with the resident]…this did not affect the outcome of [veterinary] case management\".
In fact, in an email to the resident on 28 October 2025, the Member himself noted that AVS had found, quote, \"no relevant regulatory violations\", unquote. He also told the resident, and I quote: \"I also hope that you are willing to accept that the route of appealing to the authorities is effectively closed, unless you are able to provide material new information to prompt them to reopen the case.\" Unquote.
The Member then suggested to the resident that she could consider pursuing the case via a civil suit, if she wished for some closure.
Sir, if Member Jamus Lim had put all these facts before Parliament and the public, it would have given Parliament a fuller and more complete picture of the matter. Instead, the impression he created was that AVS had not been thorough in its investigations. This is unwarranted and it is not fair to the AVS officers.
Sir, given the facts that I have set out earlier, the allegations that AVS had not independently verified a key document or that accountability in the process was lacking are clearly untrue. AVS carried out a thorough investigation, examined the evidence and took appropriate action where warranted, and did so independently.
The investigation panel in the resident's case included AVS officers, some of whom are veterinarians. These are public officers who handle complaints of professional misconduct seriously, professionally and without any vested interest in the outcome. These are public officers with the relevant domain expertise and knowledge, and hence, the credibility to carry out such investigations objectively and without fear or favour.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this clarification is to set the record straight on the rigour and impartiality of AVS' investigative processes.
I agree with the Member that public confidence and trust is important. That applies not only to the work of our public agencies and public officers, but also to what is said in this House and in this Chamber. That is why it is crucial to set out the facts for the record, and to uphold the public's confidence and trust in our institutions and to ensure fairness to our public officers. That is also why Members of Parliament (MPs) must take care to put out facts carefully and be careful when asserting allegations against public officers.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, is there anything you wish to add as a point of clarification? Please proceed.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): My thanks to the Minister of State for the update. I will convey this update to my resident.
I do not dispute the accounting of the Minister of State. Still, I believe, as I did then and as I still do now, that it is my role to raise the concerns of the lived experience of my residents.
Prior to the delivery of that speech, I had checked to see that I was faithfully representing her case, and I believe I did so.
This is my job. I am sure that the Minister of State will do the same for his residents.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan. Is there anything that you wish to clarify out of that response?
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for his response and for taking into account what I had just said.
Sir, all MPs, when we meet with our residents, we try to lend an empathetic ear. In this case, in this resident's case, she had lost her pet and it is understandable that she is upset. And I quote, the MP had said that, \"When you are a grieving parent to a fur baby, you might understandably be aggrieved and wish to look for an outlet.\" Unquote.
That outlet should not be at the expense of unfairly calling out and questioning the professionalism of our public officers. MPs have a responsibility in this regard to steward information and to present a full picture as possible. In this regard, the professionalism and the reputation of the AVS, our public officers, was called into question by what was being said and what was not being said in this House. That is the crux of the matter.
What was said, if I were to go to the facts, is that words that were being used was that \"the prior regime may have fallen short\"; second, that it \"undermined her confidence in [the] accountability of the whole process\"; and third, when the phrase \"at least one\" was used — why say \"at least one\", when there was just one? Because if you say \"at least one\", it also implies that there is more than one. What happens is that my colleagues also had to spend time to look into the cases and to check to see if there were more than one. So, that is what was said.
The second is what was left unsaid, which is also equally important. What was left unsaid was that in the emails and in the MP Appeal System (MPAS), the Member was informed that: one, he was aware of the fact that AVS had investigated the incident; he was aware of the processes; he was aware that AVS found no professional negligence or misconduct by the vet; he was aware and noted that AVS had found no relevant regulatory violations and he had also suggested to the resident to consider pursuing a civil suit.
So, where I am coming from, in being fair to our public officers, is that what is said is important, what is not said is important and if what was presented to Parliament and in fact, to the public, leaves an impression unfairly that the public officers had not done their job and it undermines the credibility and professionalism of the public officers, then we ought to take care of what we say and also take care with what we do not say.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Is there anything you wish to reply to on that, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim? None. Order. Business Motion by the Deputy Leader of the House.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rearrangement of Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, \"That notwithstanding Standing Order 26, the Private Member's Motion on 'An Artificial Intelligence (AI) Transition with No Jobless Growth' be taken immediately after the proceedings on the Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) Bill have been concluded.\"
Under the Standing Orders, the Introduction of Government Bills ordinarily takes precedence over a Private Member's Motion. In the ordinary course, therefore, the Private Member's Motion would have been dealt with only after all six Bills on the Order Paper have been completed. I am seeking a rearrangement of Business by moving this Business Motion as the subject matter of the SWDA Bill and the Private Member's Motion both pertain to jobs, employment and workforce development, and have common or related issues.
It would therefore be convenient and expedient to have them debated back-to-back so that this topic can be considered in its entirety before proceeding with the remaining Bills. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not proposing that the SWDA Bill and the Private Member's Motion be debated together. The proposal is for the SWDA Bill to be debated and voted upon first, and after that for the Private Member's Motion to be moved, debated and voted upon.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day and Notice of Motion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cross-Border Railways (Border Control Co-Location) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Second Minister for Home Affairs.
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link (RTS Link) is targeted to commence service this December. With a peak capacity of up to 10,000 passengers per hour per direction, the RTS Link will help relieve congestion on the Causeway.
A key feature of the RTS Link is the co-location of both countries' customs, immigration and quarantine (CIQ) facilities at each station. This allows passengers to undergo both departure and arrival immigration clearance before boarding the train, and no further immigration clearance is required upon disembarkation in the other country.
Co-location of CIQ facilities for cross-border travel is not a novel arrangement and many other countries have this model. For example, France and the United Kingdom (UK) have a longstanding similar arrangement for the Channel Tunnel, from which we took reference. Even so, as this arrangement may be new to some Singaporeans, allow me to sketch out how the process will work for a typical traveller taking the RTS Link from Woodlands North Station in Singapore to Bukit Chagar Station in Malaysia.
After going through the RTS Link fare gate at Woodlands North, the traveller will first undergo security checks and departure clearance by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers. The traveller will then proceed for arrival immigration clearance at Malaysia's CIQ zone at Woodlands North, which is located one level below ICA's departure clearance, in the same building. Malaysia's officers will be deployed there to conduct immigration clearance and also conduct selective security checks.
After arrival clearance, the traveller will go to the departure train platform and board the train to Bukit Chagar Station in Malaysia. The traveller will not need to undergo further immigration clearance upon arrival in Malaysia and can just walk off the train straight into Johor Bahru. Nevertheless, Malaysia's officers at Bukit Chagar Station may conduct further selective security checks, inspect customs permits, and collect taxes and duties, where necessary.
For travellers coming into Singapore, the immigration clearance process at Bukit Chagar Station in Malaysia will be identical, with travellers clearing both departure and arrival clearance at Bukit Chagar Station.
Through the co-located clearance arrangement, travellers will experience a more seamless and streamlined journey. For this arrangement to work, each country will deploy its officers to the other country's territory to carry out the necessary CIQ functions. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to these arrangements concerning the co-location of CIQ facilities as well as the coordination between Singapore and Malaysia in railway security matters and cross-border incident management.
These arrangements were codified in two bilateral treaties: the RTS Link Bilateral Agreement, signed in 2018; and the Supplementary Agreement to the Bilateral Agreement, signed in 2025.
The approach for the Bill is for its provisions in the main body to have application to railways constructed under Singapore's Cross-Border Railways Act 2018 in general, and for the provisions pertaining to specific railways, like the RTS Link in this case, to be contained in Schedules.
The bilateral treaties and provisions specific to the RTS Link are listed in the First and Second Schedules respectively. This allows our laws to accommodate future cross-border railways with a co-located model, should we come to such an arrangement in the future. The Bill, therefore, cannot be read in isolation and we must have regard to the arrangements contained in the Bilateral, as well as in the Supplementary Agreements.
In addition, in order to operationalise the co-located CIQ model, Malaysia must also pass domestic legislation to give effect to the arrangements that are set out in the bilateral treaties. This is because the arrangements are substantively mirrored for both countries.
In addition, reciprocity is a key principle which underpins the Bill's provisions. The privileges and protections that the Bill accords to Malaysia's officers deployed in Singapore are, by design, contingent upon the privileges and protections which Malaysia's legislation accords to Singapore officers deployed in Malaysia. Malaysia's legislation for the RTS Link passed both Chambers of its Parliament earlier this year and provides for these reciprocal privileges and protections.
The provisions of the Bill, Sir, cover four broad areas. First, co-located border control functions, in both Singapore and Malaysia. Second, cross-border incident management, including the establishment of concurrent criminal jurisdiction on board trains in transit between both countries. Third, other matters, such as data protection, as well as protection and immunities for Malaysia's officers deployed in Singapore. Fourth, related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Let me take this in turn.
I will start with the co-located border control functions in Singapore, addressed in Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. There are four main aspects to this.
First, the Bill circumscribes the areas in Singapore within which Malaysia's officers can perform their CIQ duties. For the RTS Link, these designated areas lie within the Woodlands North Station. Clause 7 empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to demarcate the designated areas. Clear signages will be displayed at all designated areas at the Woodlands North Station to ensure that the public is aware of the perimeter of these areas.
To be clear, there is no change to territorial boundaries and the designated areas for Malaysia remain Singapore's territory and subject to Singapore's laws. What this Bill does is to provide formal legal permission for Malaysia's officers operating in the designated areas in Singapore, to carry out their border clearance and security checks on travellers departing for Malaysia.
Clause 8 makes clear that Singapore law continues to apply within the designated areas. The list of Malaysian laws which would be allowed to apply within the designated areas are strictly for CIQ clearance and security checks, and these are contained in Paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule.
Second, the Bill empowers the Minister to approve which Malaysian officers may be deployed in Singapore. Clause 9 states that only officers whom the Minister recognises as Malaysian pre-clearance officers in relation to a cross-border railway are allowed to be deployed in Singapore. Clause 11 limits the duration of these deployments, and clause 12 authorises the Minister to withdraw recognition of any Malaysian officer at any time without providing a reason.
Under exceptional circumstances, such as a massive outage or, perhaps, a public health emergency, Malaysia might need to deploy additional manpower in the designated areas in Singapore at short notice. Clause 10 allows for such expeditious deployments for a limited period, provided the Malaysian Government gives written notice under this provision.
Third, the Bill authorises the calibrated exercise of powers by Malaysia's officers within the designated areas in Singapore. Clauses 4 and 5 provide a list of \"ordinary\", or routine, powers required for the conduct of CIQ duties in the context of a cross-border railway. These include requiring individuals to present travel and import documents, screening checks, such as requiring travellers to put their bags through scanners, and so on.
Clause 13 states that Malaysia's officers are authorised to conduct border clearance and railway security checks to the extent conferred by Malaysian border control laws. Their exercise of powers is subject to limits set out in clauses 14 to 18. This spells out the specific legal powers that Malaysia's officers can exercise within the designated areas and the scope of its application.
Paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule provides for \"special\", or additional, powers that Malaysia's officers may exercise whilst performing CIQ duties within the designated areas for the RTS Link. These include carrying restraining devices, such as batons and handcuffs when on official duty, and using reasonable force to detain disorderly individuals or those who pose a threat to public security.
When an individual is detained, Malaysia's officers must, as soon as is practicable, transfer custody of the person to an appropriate Singapore officer.
Fourth, the Bill empowers Singapore officers to check for items that are controlled or prohibited under Malaysian law. This is catered for to streamline the conduct of checks between Singapore and Malaysia under the co-located clearance model. Clause 19 enables Singapore officers to check for such items, even if they are not prohibited or controlled under Singapore law. Malaysian officers at Bukit Chagar station are similarly empowered by Malaysia's legislation to check for items prohibited or controlled under Singapore law. If an item that is prohibited or controlled under Malaysian law is found through these checks, clause 20 permits Singapore officers to allow the traveller to voluntarily discard the item as a condition for boarding the train.
There will, however, be exceptions, such as where an item poses a threat to human safety, is a live creature or constitutes evidential material relevant to an investigation. Then in such cases, the item must be removed from the traveller or taken possession of by Singapore officers.
Sir, we are committed to ensuring that Singapore officers deployed to Malaysia to safeguard our borders will be able to do so effectively and with peace of mind. And that is the focus of Part 4 of the Bill. Clause 22 states that, as a precondition for sending Singapore officers to Malaysia, the Minister must be satisfied that Malaysian law allows Singapore officers to conduct their official duties in Malaysia properly, under the orders of their own commanding officers and that they are conferred with the powers, duties and privileges of their counterparts in Malaysia.
This is in addition to the protections and immunities that Malaysia's legislation accords to Singapore officers deployed to Malaysia. Clause 24 makes clear that every Singapore officer deployed to Malaysia in relation to cross-border railways has the same powers, rights and immunities as they do when performing the same duties in Singapore.
The clause also provides the limits to the exercise of powers by Malaysia's officers in Singapore apply similarly to the exercise of powers by our officers in Malaysia. This means, for example, that Singapore officers are not allowed to make an arrest when in Malaysia's territory.
Clause 25 provides for prescribed Singapore border control laws to apply within Singapore's designated areas in Malaysia, to empower our officers to carry out border clearance and security checks. The list of Singapore border control laws applicable for the RTS Link is set out in paragraph 17 of the Second Schedule. This will ensure that the level of checks done is comparable to that at our other checkpoints and that there will be no compromise to our border security.
Besides checkpoint operations, we must also be prepared for contingencies that may occur on a moving train. Safety and security incidents may occur from time to time, due to technical faults or as a result of sabotage, resulting in trains stopping mid-way during the trip. Officers from both countries may then be required to respond, even if the incident occurs within the other country's territory.
For this reason, the Bill includes provisions for managing incidents that occur on the railway tracks or on trains moving between the countries, or what we call \"trains in transit\", for short. The codification in law provides legal certainty for the officers who will be called upon to respond.
Beyond the Bill's provisions, Singapore and Malaysia have also developed detailed protocols and standard operating procedures to facilitate timely and coordinated responses to such cross-border incidents on the RTS Link. Officers will be trained and empowered to keep travellers safe and secure. Both countries will hold joint exercises prior to the commencement of the operationalisation of the revenue service, and on a regular basis thereafter, to ensure continued operational readiness.
Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to give an overview of the key principles on which Singapore and Malaysia have agreed for managing cross-border incidents on the RTS Link. These principles form the basis of paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule:
First, where a train is able to complete its journey, any incident on board will be managed by the authorities of the country in which the train stops.
Second, if a train stalls and is unable to complete its journey, the country in whose territory the train is situated will manage the incident.
Third, if a train stalls at the stretch of railway tracks located between the respective administrative boundary markers of both countries, represented by Pier 47 for Malaysia and Pier 48 for Singapore, both countries have agreed to use the nose of the train as the marker to determine the country with primary responsibility to manage the incident.
The country with primary responsibility will be the Incident Manager in this case and will have command and control over incident management. So, in the case of a train bound for Singapore, so long as the nose of the train has not crossed Pier 48, Malaysia will be the Incident Manager. However, once the nose has crossed Pier 48, Singapore will be the Incident Manager. And this is so even if most of the train's length remains otherwise within Malaysia's territory. For a Malaysia-bound train, so long as the nose has not crossed Pier 47, Singapore will be the Incident Manager. Once the nose has crossed Pier 47, Malaysia will be the Incident Manager, and in similar terms, even if most of the train's length remains within Singapore's territory.
Fourth, in the absence of a train, for incidents occurring on the railway tracks between Piers 47 and 48, the country whose officers arrive on the scene first will be the Incident Manager. So, there might be a scenario where you might have persons on the track where there is no train, and in such a case, the country whose officers arrive first will take control of the situation and will be designated the Incident Manager.
Fifth, for all cross-border incidents, when one country has assumed the role of Incident Manager, the other country shall render the necessary support upon request.
Last, to ensure coordinated response, when each country's officers need to cross the administrative boundary marker of the other country during incident management, they must obtain prior consent of the other country before doing so. However, if the incident is determined to be a search and rescue operation or a medical evacuation, then each country's officers need only inform the other country before crossing over.
Part 5 of the Bill sets out the scope, duties and powers for officers managing cross-border incidents. Under clause 29, cross-border incident management operations will be limited to the premises where an incident has occurred and its immediate vicinity, as is reasonably necessary for an effective response.
Clause 28 empowers our officers to carry out cross-border incident management duties within the locations prescribed by clause 29, including in Malaysia's territory, if necessary. It also allows Malaysia's officers to carry out equivalent duties in Singapore's territory, if necessary.
Clause 27 spells out the scope of these duties. These include the protection of people from injury or death, and the protection of public property from damage or loss, whether arising from criminal acts or in any other way.
Paragraph 15 of the Second Schedule further sets out the range of powers that Malaysia's officers are allowed to exercise in Singapore's territory for the purpose of cross-border incident management at the RTS Link, and makes clear that these must be exercised with reasonable force.
Clause 30 limits the extent to which Malaysia's officers may exercise these powers, and clause 31 states that Malaysia's officers are not allowed to make any arrest in Singapore's territory during cross-border incident management operations and in the same vein, neither are Singapore's officers allowed to make any arrest in Malaysia's territory during such operations.
Apart from major cross-border incidents, we must also consider routine crimes that may take place on board RTS Link trains, such as theft or perhaps, outrage of modesty. Singapore and Malaysia have agreed that both countries will have concurrent criminal jurisdiction over criminal offences that occur on board trains in transit, as well as over the stretch of railway tracks located between Piers 47 and 48. Otherwise, the respective country in whose territory the offence happens will have criminal jurisdiction.
Clause 39 under Part 7 of the Bill establishes Singapore's jurisdiction over criminal offences on board trains in transit in the general context of cross-border railways, including when the train is in Malaysia's territory and at certain defined zones of the railway tracks.
For the RTS Link, any person who commits an offence under any Singapore law while on a train in transit would be treated as if the person had done so in Singapore. This then enables Singapore to investigate and prosecute offences committed at these locations, even if they might be outside Singapore.
Malaysia, through its legislation, has also established jurisdiction over criminal offences on board trains in transit and on the railway tracks between Piers 47 and 48. Singapore has worked out with Malaysia a method for determining which country has primary right to exercise jurisdiction in any given case.
If someone commits an offence on a moving train, what Singapore and Malaysia have agreed on is that the country where the train completes its journey will be accorded the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. In coming up with this principle, we took reference from the arrangement between the UK and France at the Channel Tunnel. This is also similar to the approach taken towards investigating offences on board airborne aircraft, where the destination country has primary right.
It therefore does not matter whether travellers file a Police report in Singapore or in Malaysia. We also have a referral system in place: if a country receives a report for which it does not have primary right to exercise jurisdiction, it will refer the case to the other country. Should the country without primary right wish to conduct investigations into the matter, it may request for the other country to waive its right. This framework ensures clarity of jurisdiction when the exact location of the offence is unclear. It also allows Singapore to investigate offences where there is public interest to do so.
The Bill also addresses other matters, such as those concerning data protection, as well as protection and immunities for Malaysia's officers in Singapore.
Let me just cover these provisions briefly. With both countries' CIQ facilities co-located in both stations, data protection is a key consideration, and this is the subject of Part 6 of the Bill. Clause 37 provides that all information and data collected or generated by Singapore officers in Malaysia in the course of official duties, whether within the designated areas or during cross-border incident management, these shall all be treated as if they were collected or generated in Singapore and governed by Singapore law.
Clause 38 provides that documents, devices and equipment belonging to the Singapore Government shall be immune from seizure, confiscation or any other form of interference when installed, kept or situated within defined areas in Malaysia. The protection of Singapore's data and the inviolability of our documents, devices and equipment have been provided for in Malaysia's legislation as well.
On a reciprocal basis, clause 35 of the Bill provides for the protection of information and data collected or generated by Malaysia's officers in Singapore, in the course of official duties. And similarly, clause 36 provides for the inviolability of documents, devices and equipment belonging to the Malaysian government when installed, kept or situated within defined areas in Singapore.
Part 8 of the Bill confers protection on Malaysia's officers deployed in Singapore. Clause 42 deems every officer that Malaysia deploys to Singapore, whether for the purpose of performing border control duties or cross-border incident management, to be a public servant for the purposes of specific provisions under the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act. This extends to Malaysia's officers the same level of protection against abuse as Singapore's public servants, in the course of their conducting official duties.
In addition, clause 43 confers immunity on the actions of Malaysia's officers in Singapore from Singapore's criminal, civil and administrative jurisdictions. This is provided those actions are committed in the course of official duties. The Malaysian government may waive this immunity at its discretion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I mentioned earlier that reciprocity underpins the provisions of this Bill, and we want our officers in Malaysia to be able to work with peace of mind. If it is found that what Malaysia's legislation accords to our officers are substantially less favourable than what this Bill accords to their officers, clause 44 empowers the Minister to issue regulations that disapply or modify any provision of the Bill in relation to Malaysia's officers in Singapore. This is our commitment to our own officers, who work tirelessly to safeguard Singapore's borders.
Sir, the last part of the Bill proposes amendments to other Acts that are consequential upon the enactment of this Bill or related to the purposes of this Bill.
First, amendments are proposed for the purpose of adapting existing laws to the requirements of a cross-border railway. For example, clause 63 amends section 5 of the Immigration Act to empower the Minister to prescribe an area outside Singapore as an authorised point of entry or immigration control post.
For the RTS Link, Singapore's designated areas at Bukit Chagar station will be prescribed as an authorised point of entry.
Another example is clause 51, which amends section 24 of the Coroners Act, so that coronial jurisdiction may be asserted in cases where a death occurs on a train in transit, even if outside Singapore, if the body is transported into Singapore. This allows Singapore to investigate cases of unnatural death that have been reported, where there is public interest to do so.
Second, amendments are proposed for the purpose of allowing the deployment of Singapore officers to Malaysian territory to perform official duties. Clauses 48, 65 and 70 amend the Civil Defence Act, the Immigration Act and the Police Force Act respectively. These amendments empower the Minister to send the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), ICA and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) officers to Malaysia for the purpose of performing official duties in relation to cross-border railways, including for cross-border incident management.
Third, Sir, amendments are proposed to extend criminal jurisdiction to Singapore's designated areas in Malaysia's territory for certain offences. These are largely offences under Singapore's immigration laws. For example, if ICA officers in Malaysia detect the use of forged passports, the amendments to the Passports Act under clause 69 would allow them to seize the forged passports.
Some offences under the Infectious Diseases Act and the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act have also been made extra-territorial, to the extent necessary for Singapore officers in Malaysia to enforce public health measures as well as our import laws.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the RTS Link will be a major artery for travel between Singapore and Malaysia. This Bill is a key supporting pillar of the RTS Link. It gives effect to a comprehensive set of arrangements that facilitate co-located CIQ clearance, and also undergirds jointly developed protocols for coordinated management of cross-border incidents. This will help to ensure that the RTS Link experience for travellers is not only convenient and seamless, but also safe and secure. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. This Bill lays the legal and operational foundation for the Johor Bahru-Singapore RTS Link. The RTS Link will significantly transform the way commuters move between the two countries, and I believe improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who cross the Singapore-Malaysia border every day.
More than 300,000 people travel across the Causeway every day, making it one of the busiest overland crossings in the world. Many commuters may spend hours each day in traffic congestion. This is time that could otherwise be spent at work, with family, or at rest. It also imposes a mental and physical toll on commuters, who must cope daily with uncertainty and long waiting times at checkpoints.
The RTS Link will have the capacity to serve up to 10,000 commuters during peak periods, for every hour and in each direction, with a train journey time of only about five minutes between the two stations. Further, passengers travelling in either direction will clear both Singapore and Malaysia authorities at the point of departure and need not go through immigration clearance at the point of arrival. This should significantly reduce congestion at checkpoints and shorten travel times. It will also provide greater comfort and predictability for commuters, which is particularly important for those who rely on cross-border travel for their livelihoods.
Singapore is well positioned to implement such seamless clearance arrangements. Our ICA has already deployed advanced automated clearance systems across our land, sea and air checkpoints. Many travellers today are familiar with biometric clearance lanes, which use facial recognition, iris scans and fingerprints to very quickly identify individuals and have them clear customs. These systems have proven to be efficient and secure. They allow us to process large volumes of travellers while maintaining high standards of border security.
Malaysia, too, has been investing in similar technologies. These developments give confidence that both countries have the technical capability and operational experience to support a smooth clearance process for RTS Link passengers, without compromising on safety or security standards.
I would like to seek clarification on a few points – though I have to acknowledge Minister has answered many of them in his opening remarks.
First, on the purpose of allowing Malaysian border controls to be applied within Singapore. The Bill provides for Malaysian officers to exercise powers under Malaysian border control laws within a designated area in Singapore. At the same time, it makes clear that Singapore law continues to apply within that area.
I think it would be helpful for the Minister to perhaps elaborate on why it is necessary for Malaysian law to have application within Singapore territory, rather than relying purely on Singapore law with the appropriate cooperation mechanisms? And also, if there are potential conflicts between Singapore law and Malaysian law on a particular issue, how will that be managed in practice?
Second, on the extent of powers that Malaysian officers may exercise while in Singapore. The Bill sets out a framework under which Malaysian officers may conduct border clearance and security checks within the designated area. At the same time, it imposes certain limits. For example, Malaysian officers are not permitted to make arrests in Singapore, and any detained persons or seized items must be transferred to Singapore authorities within a reasonable time.
Could the Minister clarify how will accountability and oversight be ensured for actions taken by foreign officers operating in Singapore? In addition, what avenues of recourse will be available to individuals who may have complaints about the conduct of such officers and how will these be investigated and resolved across jurisdictions?
Third, on the handling of routine crimes on board cross-border trains. I think the Minister has clarified exactly which laws will apply – and it appears that where train is stopped, it will be between Piers 47 and 48, the nose of the train that will define which law applies; and on a moving train it will be the destination country's laws that apply.
So, I think these are helpful clarifications and my only further questions are, operationally, will joint patrols or onboard security personnel be deployed in the trains? And if so, which countries will do this? And will those officers have the relevant authority to take action if and when an incident occurs even if it happens to be in the other territory?
Given that the travel time is only about five minutes, it may not be easy to ascertain exactly where an incident occurs and will be important for whichever officer is present to have the authority to deal with an incident as and when it rises.
Fourth, on the coordination in the event of cross-border incidents. The Bill provides provisions for incident management operations, including the ability of officers – so this was the point I mentioned earlier, operating with the other. I think this is sensible, but it will be good to know exactly what the boundaries are for these officers.
I will also be interested if the Minister can elaborate on how command and control will operate during such incidents? Who will have overall authority of an incident, and how will responsibilities be allocated between Singapore and Malaysian officers? So, say, for example, a train has a destination in Singapore. Malaysian officers spot the incident, who will that Malaysian officer report to and how will the incident be dealt with?
Also, will there be joint exercises conducted ahead of the RTS Link opening to ensure that both sides are well prepared to respond swiftly and cohesively, and any command-and-control issues will be dealt with easily as well.
Finally, on measures to prevent smuggling and the movement of contraband. Given the high volume of passengers expected to use the RTS Link, it is critical that robust safeguards are in place to prevent the smuggling of drugs, vapes, cigarettes and other prohibited items. The Bill provides for screening, inspection and the seizure of dangerous or controlled items, as well as the detention of certain individuals in certain circumstances.
Can the Minister provide more details on how these measures will be implemented operationally? For example, will technologies be used and if so, what technologies for screening and how will Singapore and Malaysian officers coordinate with each other?
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to touch on the broader principle underlying this Bill. The co-location of border controls necessarily involves a degree of legal and operational integration between two sovereign countries. It requires mutual trust, clear rules and strong safeguards to ensure that both security and sovereignty are preserved.
In this regard, I think the Bill strikes a good balance. It seeks to enable efficient cross-border travel while retaining Singapore's legal framework and ensuring that foreign officers cooperate within defined limits. It also provides for reciprocity, so that Singapore officers can exercise similar functions in Malaysia.
As we move towards opening the RTS Link, it is important that both countries get these arrangements right. Done well, this will not only ease congestion and improve the lives of both Singaporeans and Malaysians, but also strengthen the close economic and social ties between Singapore and Malaysia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the co-location of customs, immigration and quarantine facilities for the RTS Link represents a significant step in the long history of Singapore-Malaysia connectivity.
In developing this framework, I believe that the Ministry has looked towards international models like the Channel Tunnel between the UK and France. The 1986 Treaty of Canterbury taught us that for a cross-border rail to succeed, sovereignty must be expressed through clear control zones rather than rigid physical borders.
While the Workers' Party supports the principles of efficiency and bilateral cooperation underpinning this Bill, I have several clarifications regarding legal jurisdiction, officer protection and commuter rights.
One, the mechanics of custody transfer. The Ministry has stated that Malaysian officers who detain an individual must hand them over to Singapore officers as soon as is practicable.
In the Channel Tunnel context, delays in these handovers occasionally led to legal challenges regarding the lawfulness of detention. In a facility designed for 10,000 passengers per hour, practicable is a subjective term. So, what is the physical and operational infrastructure in place at Woodlands North to ensure this transfer happens immediately or as soon as practicable? Will there be a permanent co-located Singapore Police force presence within the Malaysian designated area to ensure there is zero dead time between detention and handover?
Two, jurisdiction and the rights of investigation. The Bill establishes concurrent criminal jurisdiction for incidents on trains in transit and along the tracks, with the country where the journey concludes having the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. The Channel Tunnel model uses a primary jurisdiction rule to avoid confusion, yet it leaves room for the home country to step in for their own citizens.
While my colleague, Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim will have a more specific query relating to this issue in her speech on this Bill later, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can clarify the specific public interest criteria used to determine when Singapore would waive the jurisdiction, especially if a crime is committed against a Singaporean on a Johor-bound train. We must also ensure a transparent mechanism exists to update victims' families if a case is handed over to foreign authorities.
Three, emergency coordination on the marine viaduct. The RTS Link involves a 25-metre-high marine viaduct across the Straits of Johor. Learning from the 1996 Euro Tunnel fire, we know that seconds are lost if emergency responders face jurisdictional paralysis.
Under Part 5 of this Bill, how will the division of labour between the SCDF and the Jabatan Bomba dan Penyelamat Malaysia be managed and permitted under the bill during a mid-track emergency? Will there be a single unified incident commander to prevent confusion on the viaduct, and how frequently will joint tabletop exercises be mandated by law?
Four, accessibility and inclusion within designated areas. With a heavy reliance on automated e-gates and QR code clearance. We must not overlook vulnerable commuters within the Malaysian designated area at Woodlands North. Will there be a guaranteed minimum quota of manual counters staffed by Singapore officers? This is essential for our seniors and persons with disabilities who may struggle with automated systems in a high-pressure environment.
Five, substantive reciprocity for Singaporean personnel. According to the Ministry of Home Affair's (MHA's) media release on 7 April 2026, for cross-border incidents, such as an incident that occurs on board a train in transit, the Bill provides that Singapore and Malaysia incident management officers may respond to cross-border incidents on or near trains and railway tracks in Malaysia and Singapore respectively, and that both countries' incident management officers will be accorded powers, rights and immunities for this purpose, subject to limitations; no Singapore officer in Malaysia may make an arrest and no Malaysian officer in Singapore may make an arrest in Singapore.
Indeed, for this arrangement to be truly reciprocal, our officers at Bukit Chagar must have the same operational autonomy and protection as the Malaysian officers have in Singapore. For good order, I seek the Minister's confirmation that both the powers accorded and the functional immunity provided to Singaporean officers under Malaysia's RTS Link Act 2026 are substantively identical in scope to the protections we are granting under this Bill.
In its media release, MHA also referred to the Channel Fixed Link. A point of friction in the Channel Tunnel model was the disparity in the powers granted to officers operating in the other's territory. I understand that under the Sangatte Protocol, British officers on French soil lacked equivalent powers to domestic law enforcement and could not execute independent arrest, which led to persistent ambiguity regarding the use of force, such as applying restraints, pending French police's intervention.
Given that MHA has explicitly looked to the Channel Tunnel model for the RTS Link framework, I wonder whether the Ministry has studied the relevance of their operational experience to our RTS Link, and if it is relevant, whether expected similar operational gaps have been or will be addressed.
Six, safeguarding data in inviolable equipment. MHA has noted that Singapore-issued equipment at Bukit Chagar will be inviolable. While the hardware is protected, I seek clarity on the digital data. Will the data collected by our officers in Johor be transmitted via a dedicated air-gapped network back to Singapore to prevent any potential interception vulnerabilities, while operating on foreign soil?
Seven, transparency in revoking recognition. The Minister reserves the power to revoke the recognition of Malaysian officer without giving a reason. While I understand the security necessity, may I ask if there is a predefined framework of red flags agreed upon with our counterparts? Maintaining a stable professional relationship between both border forces is critical to preventing operational friction. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please,
(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Johor-Singapore Rapid Transit System (RTS) is of vital importance to connectivity between Singapore and Malaysia. The Cross-Border Railways (Border Control Co-location) Bill currently before this House is intended to provide the legal framework for this significant project.
The Government has drawn reference from the Channel Tunnel model between the United Kingdom and France, where co-location arrangements have improved immigration clearance efficiency. That said, I wish to seek clarification on several legal and operational details.
First, detention and handover procedures. When Malaysian officers detain individuals within the designated zone on Singapore soil, the Bill stipulates that the handover to Singapore Police must occur \"as soon as practicable.\" During periods of extremely high passenger volume, what constitutes \"as soon as practicable\" may be difficult to define. I would like to ask the Government whether Woodlands North Station will have sufficient facilities to ensure there is no gap in accountability during the handover process.
Second, criminal jurisdiction. The Bill generally gives priority to the destination country in investigating cases. However, if the victim is a Singaporean and the incident occurs on a train bound for Johor, under what circumstances would the Singapore Government cede jurisdiction? We must ensure that the families of victims receive transparent and timely updates.
Third, emergency response on the marine viaduct. The rail track spans the Johor Strait. Should an emergency such as a fire occur in the middle of the track, how would the Singapore Civil Defence Force and Malaysia's Bomba delineate their respective responsibilities? Will there be a unified incident commander to prevent confusion during critical moments of a rescue operation?
Fourth, immigration Clearance for Vulnerable Groups. While automated clearance gates and QR codes are now widely used, many elderly persons and individuals with disabilities may encounter difficulties with these systems. I hope the Government can assure this House that sufficient manned counters will be retained within the Malaysian clearance zone at Woodlands North Station.
Fifth, legal protections for officers and data security. When Singapore officers are deployed at Bukit Chagar in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, do they enjoy the same legal protections and operational autonomy as their Malaysian counterparts enjoy when stationed in Singapore? Furthermore, will the immigration data collected onsite be transmitted back to Singapore via an independent encrypted network to guard against data breaches?
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought, I remain supportive of this Bill.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the success of the RTS Link will be measured not just by the speed of the commute, but by the robustness of the legal and operational safeguards that protect it. We must ensure that this milestone project remains a safe and reliable link for generations to come. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Cross-Border Railways (Border Control Co-location) Bill is not just logistics, but it is very important to our trust and cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia. We noted that the RTS Link has 10,000-passenger-per-hour capacity. And with such heavy traffic, definitely, something is going to happen, some incidents of any nature.
I wish to address some critical areas for discussion.
First, to address incidents, do we intend to post marshals or any of our Public Transport Security Command (TransCom) onboard, or are we just going to depend on onboard cameras or station-based deployments to detect such incidents?
Second, if we are deploying security onboard, are they allowed to carry firearms? And if they are allowed to carry firearms, how is it being governed in terms of jurisdiction? Because, if you move from one, let us say, leave the Woodlands North Station, which is towards Johor, then basically, by the point of destination, then actually, we do not have jurisdiction onboard. So, how do we address that and vice versa for the Malaysians?
Third, when our security reach the Johor station, then how does the security transit to the return trip because then, they will be carrying firearms, if that is the intention? So, I think all these need to be addressed carefully.
I would like to pose a scenario, but the Minister has addressed quite a lot and actually improved my understanding, especially in the \"nose\" between Piers 48 and 47. But I think this scenario is good for discussion.
In the case of, let us say, an \"emergency brake\" situation. Let us say a train leaves Bukit Chagar Station towards Singapore's Woodlands North Station, the destination onboard is under Singapore jurisdiction. However, before we reach Pier 47, that means at Pier 48, there is an emergency brake and maybe, there is an incident onboard and our security takes action. If the passengers do not disembark and the train carries on, then I think it is in Singapore's jurisdiction. But if, let us say, the train is being towed back to Bukit Chagar, then what will happen?
So, those are the scenarios that are possible that we have to think through. Maybe we have to do dry runs on it to resolve it.
In spite of this, this Bill is timely and I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the RTS Link is expected to start passenger service at the end of this year. This Bill seeks to co-locate border control procedures by both Singapore and Malaysia at the point of departure, enabling passengers to disembark upon arrival without further checks.
Having personally taken the Eurostar train from the UK to continental Europe, I have experienced how the co-location of British and French border Police at the St Pancras station in London saved time for passengers entering Europe by rail. Similarly, to ease travel between Singapore and Malaysia, this Bill to co-locate border controls should be supported.
My party colleague Dennis Tan has asked for clarifications on various aspects of the Bill. On my part, I wish to make brief observations on Part 7 of the Bill dealing with criminal jurisdiction.
According to the Ministry's media release of 7 April, there will be concurrent jurisdiction between Singapore and Malaysia for incidents on trains in transit and on the railway tracks between the two countries. This is reflected in clause 39(1) of the Bill.
As both countries could potentially exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in these locations, the Ministry states that there are arrangements on which country has precedence. It has explained that, in general, the country in whose territory the train journey is completed has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. Earlier, the Minister confirmed this in his Second Reading speech. Thus, if the journey is completed in Johor, Malaysia would have primary jurisdiction, and vice versa, if the journey is completed in Singapore.
These arrangements mentioned in the media release are not reflected in the language of Part 7 of the Bill. In contrast, the Malaysian law on this matter is more explicit. Section 19(2) of Malaysia's Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link Bill 2026 states that, and I quote, \"The government in whose territory the train journey is completed, shall have the primary right to exercise its criminal jurisdiction.\" Is there a reason why our Bill does not say this expressly?
The Ministry's media release goes on to state that the country with primary jurisdiction may waive its right if there is a request by the other country to take over the case on the ground that there is greater public interest for the requesting country to investigate and prosecute. We are thus given to understand that there would be situations where, even though the train was travelling to Singapore, Singapore may give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia. When Singapore may give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia is found in clause 39(2) of the Bill.
Clause 39(2) contains three cumulative conditions. First, the person must be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the country the conduct was engaged in, in this case, Malaysia. Second, Malaysia must not be subject to any obligation to cede jurisdiction to Singapore. And third, Malaysia must have brought criminal proceedings. If my understanding is correct, when all these three conditions are met, Singapore cannot prosecute the offender, even if the conduct occurred on a trip completed at Woodlands.
Sir, the second pre-condition is not clear to me. Under what circumstances would Malaysia be obligated to cede jurisdiction to Singapore? Could the Minister please clarify where these obligations are from, and in what situations would they arise?
Additionally, I note that the Bills of both countries do not mention an important consideration highlighted in MHA's media release, that one country may waive its jurisdiction at the request of the other if there is greater public interest for the requesting country to investigate and prosecute. Perhaps, the omission is because it is difficult to codify how a greater public interest should be assessed.
Nonetheless, there will be cases whereby both countries have real stakes in curbing the criminal activity and be equally interested to handle the case. For example, someone who is bringing controlled drugs from Malaysia to Singapore through the RTS Link would be simultaneously committing offences under the laws of both countries. What would be the protocol here? Who will determine whether there is greater public interest for Malaysia to prosecute, and how would this determination be made?
In that regard, I would like to make an observation about potential bilateral sensitivities that may arise. From my brief research into Malaysian law, it is clear that while we share a colonial heritage and had similar laws at one time, the criminal laws of our two countries have evolved to show significant differences. For example, while the offence of theft in both countries is still criminalised under section 379 of the Penal Code of both countries, the punishment for theft in Singapore carries a maximum of three years, while in Malaysia, the maximum jail term is up to seven years.
As for our drug laws, in Singapore, the mandatory death penalties still exist for certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, while under Malaysia's Dangerous Drugs Act, the mandatory death penalty has been abolished.
Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.
I personally do not think we need to harmonise the laws of both countries as each country is sovereign, has its own priorities and determines its own laws. Nevertheless, it would be useful to know if the Ministry foresees that such bilateral tensions may arise and whether there are any protocols in place to manage them.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill is timely as we gear up for the highly anticipated opening of the Johor Bahru-Singapore RTS Link. This Bill deals with the technical aspects of jurisdiction and law, yet it has very practical impact for the everyday commuter seeking to cross the border; shaping the way immigration is experienced at the checkpoints.
For the commuter, the questions are straightforward: when I make this journey, do I understand what rules apply, and can I rely on them being applied clearly and consistently? When Singaporeans tap in at Woodlands North, are they already subject to Malaysian law? If Singaporeans unknowingly carry something that is not allowed into Malaysia, will they be stopped on our side? If an incident happens mid-journey, who investigates and under which law? If there is an accident, a dispute, a lost item or even a medical emergency on the train, which country’s officers should we approach for help?
I support the Bill, and I would like to seek clarification on several aspects of the Bill hoping to cover some of the practical concerns that commuters may have arising from the Bill. Let me begin with the broader legislative framework.
Co-located border control is not new globally. But each of these systems is shaped by its own legal and bilateral context. So, my first question is this: how does our framework differ from those models and what were the specific design choices made for Singapore and Malaysia? Understanding this will help us better appreciate the safeguards embedded in our system, and whether there are lessons we have consciously adopted or chosen to depart from.
The Bill also envisages multiple zones as a commuter moves across the border: the designated areas, the defined zone and the train in transit. Across these zones, laws may shift or apply concurrently.
From a commuter's perspective, this raises a practical question: at what point do Malaysian cross-border laws apply within the Malaysia designated areas located in Singapore, and how does this interact with the continued application of Singapore law? For example, where a traveller carries an item that is unregulated in Singapore but regulated under Malaysian law will the traveller be stopped within the Malaysia designated area located in Singapore? Will there be an opportunity to dispose of the item? Or will enforcement proceed regardless?
Or to use another example, if a traveller carries the same amount of cash, will he face different obligations depending on where they are in the journey: where Singapore laws apply, a declaration is required if the traveller is entering or leaving Singapore with cash above S$20,000, whereas in areas where Malaysia laws apply, the threshold is US$10,000.
Will differences in the laws that apply have any practical impact on commuters, of course, beyond what is already encountered at conventional checkpoints, and how will these situations be managed operationally?
This leads me to my next point on concurrent criminal jurisdiction. Matters such as public disorder, voluntarily causing hurt, molestation and drug‑related offences in transit areas are not hypothetical concerns; they will need to be dealt with if and when they arise. I therefore wish to seek clarity on the precise circumstances and locations in which concurrent criminal jurisdiction is contemplated under the Bill, and on the mechanisms by which competing jurisdiction is intended to be managed.
Clause 39 in substance provides that if an offending conduct is committed while the train is in transit, or within the defined zone, it is treated as if the offending conduct took place in Singapore. Such cases can be tried in our Courts unless the other country has criminal jurisdiction, is under no obligation to cede such jurisdiction to Singapore and decides to commence criminal proceedings.
Clause 40 then adds that if criminal proceedings are sought to be brought in Singapore Courts on the basis that criminal jurisdiction under section 39, the Public Prosecutor's consent is required before such proceedings may be instituted.
This raises a number of questions.
First, where the same conduct is an offence under both Singapore and Malaysian law, and both countries have jurisdiction, how will it be decided which side will take the lead in the prosecution?
The Minister earlier mentioned that the country for which the train is bound will take the lead. Is this coded in our legislation? Will there be exceptions? For example, what if there is a disagreement on the proviso under clause 39(2)? If Singapore disagrees that there is no obligation to cede jurisdiction, for example?
Second, on clause 40, could the Minister clarify how the Public Prosecutor's consent mechanism will operate in practice? More broadly, how will this safeguard ensure that individuals are not exposed to the risk of double prosecution for the same conduct?
My next point relates to enforcement powers of pre-clearance officers. Clauses 15 and 18 make clear that the Malaysian preclearance officers in Singapore may remove items or detain individuals for the purposes of border control but they must transfer the custody to Singapore officers, and they do not have arrest powers.
I would like to understand what happens after that handover. If the Malaysian authorities intend to assume custody of the items or the individual, how will this be carried out? Will this be done through existing legal frameworks such as mutual legal assistance, operational cooperation or extradition processes?
Once the individual or item is in custody with Singapore authorities, will the case then proceed fully under Singapore's evidence laws and the criminal procedure?
Clause 24 is a mirror provision in that it provides the same limits on the powers of a Singapore preclearance officer in the Singapore designated area in Malaysia.
I would like to similarly understand what happens once the Singapore preclearance officer hands over the custody of the item or individual to his or her Malaysian counterpart.
On this note, how would Singapore criminal law apply in the designated area? In particular, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the effects of the clauses 26(3) to 26(6). These provisions in substance provide that conduct committed outside Singapore but within a designated Singapore area of the cross-border railway, which is Bukit Chagar is treated as though it has occurred in Singapore if it would be an offence under Singapore border control laws. Such conduct can be prosecuted and punished by Singapore Courts, regardless of whether it is an offence under Malaysian laws. However, Singapore officers cannot arrest the person for that conduct until the person is physically within Singapore. In this vein how does clause 26(6) apply since clauses 39 and 40 which deal with concurrent criminal jurisdiction does not expressly reference the designated area?
My next point relates to the powers, privileges and immunities of the officers. Clause 43 provides certain immunities to the Malaysian preclearance and incident management officers in the discharge of their duties. Could the Minister clarify what happens if those powers are exceeded? What channels of redress are available to affected individuals?
On clause 44, this provides for a reciprocity mechanism, where regulations may be made if the protections accorded to Singapore officers in Malaysia are substantially less favourable.
I would like to ask: has the Government reviewed Malaysia's corresponding legislation? And how will it assess whether the duties, powers and protections are, in law or in practice, substantially less favourable?
I am heartened that the Bill expressly addresses cross-border incidents, including security, public order and medical emergencies within the transit areas. There is a considered and well-structured approach in doing this.
But I would like to seek clarification on the operational aspects. For example, in the event of a train breakdown in transit, how will repairs, recovery or towing be handled? Will these arrangements be set out in subsidiary legislation, bilateral agreements, or operator-level protocols? How will we ensure that the experience of the traveller continues to be of good quality?
Second, on major incidents, where an incident extends beyond defined zones or requires coordinated response from both sides, how will the coordination be carried out in practice? What are the protocols for joint operations, and how will command and responsibility be determined in such situations? How will this impact response times to these major incidents? Much will depend on the ability of our officers on the ground to deal with the matters or seek or grant consent quickly. Clarity on these operational points will be important to ensure the framework works effectively on the ground.
On my final point, on data protection, the Bill provides that the collection and handling of biometric and other personal data within Singapore-designated areas in Malaysia. I would like to understand how this will be operationalised. How will such data be stored, processed and transmitted back to Singapore? What safeguards including infrastructural guardrails are in place to prevent unauthorised access or breaches? In the event of a data breach, what avenues of accountability and redress will there be?
I will conclude on a brief point on operational readiness. This Bill is a significant step forward. It supports a more efficient approach to cross-border movement between Singapore and Malaysia. But legislation alone is not sufficient. Much will depend on how these arrangements are implemented on the ground. Officers will need to be clear on the scope of their powers, the limits of their authority, and the zones within which they operate. Processes must be consistent. Checks must be carried out with diligence. And information must be handled securely and responsibly.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for hundreds of thousands of people in Singapore, the journey across the Causeway is not simply for leisure. It is a routine. It is a lifeline. It is part of how families manage their time, how workers earn their livelihoods and how businesses stay connected.
I have seen this journey. I have spoken to residents who make it. I have heard the stories of parents, workers and small business owners who depend on it.
The Johor Bahru-Singapore RTS Link promises to transform this experience. It promises to turn what is today sometimes a long commute into a seamless transit. It promises to turn uncertainty into predictability.
I support this Bill because for the RTS Link to succeed, the border clearance process must be as efficient as the journey itself. But a border made seamless for convenience must never become invisible for accountability. I have four areas of clarification.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, accountability and sovereignty in practice. Under section 35, certain data is governed by Malaysian law. Under section 36, some materials are immune from Singapore's legal processes. Under section 43, Malaysian officers are granted immunity for acts done in the discharge of their duties.
So, I ask: how is an ordinary resident able to distinguish between a legitimate official act and an abuse of power that results in harm? And if that line is crossed, who determines that?
Where such powers are exercised, accountability must be real and accessible. If a Singaporean suffers harm or has their data mishandled, what is their practical recourse? Will they be expected to navigate a foreign legal system?
For residents, this is not about legal theory. It is about whether help is real, accessible and within reach when something goes wrong.
I acknowledge that, in law, an officer acting outside the proper discharge of duty may not be protected by immunity. But for residents, the question is whether there is a clear and workable path to seek redress. This concern extends to international visitors. If something goes wrong on our soil, people must know where to turn to and who will answer. Will the Government consider a dedicated liaison mechanism to assist Singaporeans and visitors in navigating these cross-border issues?
I also return to reciprocity. Our officers will operate in Malaysia under similar arrangements. What support will they receive if they face disputes or accusations while carrying out their duties? Clause 44 allows the Minister to act if reciprocity fails. However, that is reactive. How will we monitor conditions proactively?
I also seek clarification on the practical limits of these arrangements. While Malaysian officers exercise powers within designated areas, can the Government clarify how Singapore law applies if they step outside these areas in a personal capacity? Similarly, if offences, such as bribery or misconduct, occur within the Malaysia designated area in Singapore, can Singapore authorities investigate and take action where conduct falls outside official duties?
On Singapore soil, accountability cannot stop at the boundary line of a designated area.
Second, Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, the privacy and dignity of travellers. The Explanatory Statement suggests that strip and body searches require consent. Yet, the Second Schedule allows such searches in certain situations. Can the Government clarify the thresholds clearly, particularly when non-consensual searches may be carried out based on reasonable suspicion?
Security must be firm, but it must also be understood. Malaysian officers may detain individuals and use reasonable force. To be clear, they cannot make arrests in Singapore. They must transfer custody to Singapore officers as soon as reasonably practicable. This is an important safeguard.
This also applies reciprocally. The issue is not whether powers exist. The issue is whether safeguards are consistently applied. Under section 16, questioning can take place without a Singapore officer present. For vulnerable individuals, this may be intimidating. What protections are in place? Can a resident request a Singapore officer?
Clause 15 requires detainees to be handed over without undue delay. But what does this mean operationally? Will the Ministry provide clear, public-facing guidelines so that travellers understand both their rights and the limits of these powers?
Trust is built not just on what powers exist, but on how clearly they are explained and how fairly they are exercised.
Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, incident response and safety. In a cross-border incident, seconds matter.
Clause 28 allows officers to operate across borders. But in the first critical minutes, who is in charge? Is there a single incident commander? In a crisis, clarity is not procedural. It is lifesaving. Clause 32 allows incident management officers to bear arms, subject to legal limits. Can the Minister clarify the rules governing the use of firearms and how accountability will be ensured if force is used? How will criminal jurisdiction under section 39 interact with immunity provisions under section 43?
When force is used, there must be no doubt about the answers and under which law. On clause 10, deemed recognition allows additional officers during serious incidents. How are these officers identified? What safeguards are in place? What are the time limits? Finally, once the immediate emergency is over, we must address legal accountability. If someone is harmed or an offence occurs on a train in transit, both countries hold concurrent jurisdiction. How will victims and their families know which country takes the lead in the investigation?
In a crisis, ambiguity is not neutral. It is a risk.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I raise one final point on enforcement. If a serious offence, such as drug trafficking, occurs within the Malaysian designated area in Singapore, which law applies? If an offence occurs in the Singapore designated area in Malaysia, when does Singapore law take effect? For offences committed in transit, how will section 39 be applied? Designated areas must not become legal grey zones when enforcement becomes uncertain. Clarity is essential to deterrence.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I return to the journey I spoke about at the beginning. The worker waiting before dawn. The parent planning the day around the crossing. The small business owner managing uncertainty.
This Bill will change that journey. I support that change. I support making movement faster and more predictable. But I have also raised important clarifications on accountability, dignity, crisis response and the application of the law. Because this Bill does not operate in isolation. When travel becomes easier, behaviour changes. When the border becomes faster, decisions become faster. And when cost pressures rise, people respond.
We are already in a period of global uncertainty. Rising costs are affecting households. Businesses are under pressure. In this environment, making Johor effectively next door will accelerate how Singaporeans respond to these pressures. When the border becomes easier to cross, spending becomes easier to shift.
This is why we must look beyond convenience. We must ask how this will affect our heartland businesses. We must ask how SMEs will compete. We must ask how local demand will evolve.
A faster border must not become a slower erosion of our heartland economy. Connectivity creates opportunity but it also creates competition. So, the question is not whether we should build this link. The question is whether we are ready for what it will bring – ready to ensure accountability remains clear, ready to ensure protections remain strong and ready to ensure our local economy remains resilient. Because in uncertain times, convenience alone is not enough. Confidence is what matters. And if we get this right, we will not only build a more efficient crossing. We will build a system that is fair, trusted and resilient. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the various Members for their speeches, their thoughtful comments and their strong support of the Bill. As some Members have noted, I have already covered some of the points in my opening speech, so I do not propose to repeat them, but nonetheless, there are quite a number of process questions which I thought I will just take in turn.
Mr Vikram Nair, Ms Cassandra Lee and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the implications arising from the application of Malaysian laws at Woodlands North Station. This is an important point, so, let me just take some time to clarify this.
First, the application of Malaysian border control laws is restricted to only the designated areas within Woodlands North Station. These designated areas will be clearly demarcated with signages, as required by clause 7 of the Bill. LTA will work closely with its Malaysian counterparts to ensure that there is clarity and there are sufficient signages, and that they are prominently displayed and presented in our official languages.
Second, I had mentioned that the application of Malaysia's border control laws in the designated areas in Woodlands North Station is for the sole purpose of empowering the Malaysian officers to conduct the necessary border clearances and security checks on travellers departing for Malaysia.
Members might recall that it is because they have their border control located within Singapore, so we need to give them legal effect for them to do the work that they do to clear, so that we also have a corresponding arrangement on the Bukit Chagar side. The effect of applying these laws in the designated areas would be similar to what travellers would encounter at the usual checkpoints in Malaysia when travelling to Malaysia. So, the experience is not altogether dissimilar, it is just that we put these powers and the framework into the checkpoint at Woodlands North Station and, correspondingly, on the other side, Bukit Chagar.
As I mentioned earlier, the list of Malaysian laws that would apply in the designated areas is set out in Paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule. Without these laws in place in the framework that we have proposed in this Bill, in the designated areas in Woodlands North Station, Malaysian officers, who operate here, would have no legal backing to carry out their duties here, and then, in that respect, the co-located CIQ model would not work.
Third, there is no change to Singapore's territorial boundaries. Clause 8 of this Bill makes this point clear.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to emphasise this point. Singapore law remains in effect over the entirety of Woodlands North Station, even within the designated areas. Singapore officers are available to assist travellers if needed. If travellers encounter issues or need help in the designated areas, they should act similar to how they would anywhere else in Singapore and, where necessary, seek help from Singapore authorities.
Mr Vikram, Ms Lee and Mr Yip also asked about the recourse available if Malaysia's officers operating in Singapore exceed the scope of what they are allowed to do. Let me just reiterate a few points, some of which I have covered earlier. The Bill sets clear limits to the powers that the Malaysian officers have when they exercise their duties in Singapore.
For example, on the power to take possession of dangerous or controlled items uncovered during checks and detain individuals in connection with the above, clause 15 provides that Malaysian pre-clearance officers transfer custody of these items or individuals to a Singapore officer as soon as is practicable. Do not forget, they are located in the same space, in the same checkpoint, in both Bukit Chagar as well as in Woodlands North Station.
This means that if a Malaysian officer detects such items, he is required to contact ICA officers without undue delay, for ICA officers to then deal with in accordance with our domestic standard operating procedures and in accordance with Singapore law. Additionally, clause 18 makes clear that Malaysian officers are not allowed to make an arrest on Singapore's territory.
Second, and this also speaks to some of the questions that Mr Yip had raised, the immunities which the Bill confers on the actions of Malaysian officers are not unconditional. They are contingent on those actions being undertaken as part of their official duties in the designated areas. Actions taken outside of that or which exceed the scope of these duties would then not be protected by the immunities.
Finally, the Singapore Minister for Home Affairs has the power to withdraw recognition for any Malaysian pre-clearance officer at any time without giving any reason. We do this for obvious reasons. We want to have the flexibility and ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, and depending on what the facts might present at that location, whether we need to exercise this power.
I should make clear, for completeness, that we should distinguish the powers set out under the main provisions of the Bill and those under the Second Schedule. There might have been some conflation and so, I thought I will take some time to explain this.
The main body of the Bill is focused on what I called earlier, the \"ordinary\" powers. These are the baseline powers that are necessary for the day-to-day work of conducting border clearance and security checks. Basically, CIQ work. These include the powers to require travellers to present their passport, refuse entry of persons or goods and perform screening and other searches, such as body searches. These are powers that are already provided to our own officers today for routine border clearance and security checks.
The Second Schedule, however, contains \"special\" powers, or what I called \"special\" powers in my speech earlier. These are the powers that equip officers with the legal basis to manage non-routine situations and ensure travellers' safety and security. They are also no different from the powers that ICA officers already have today for managing incidents at the existing checkpoints.
These powers have been codified in the bilateral RTS Link Supplementary Agreement entered into with Malaysia. The circumstances in which these powers will be used are limited. For example, officers are allowed to use reasonable force for purposes of detaining an individual who behaves in a disorderly or threatening manner and to Mr Yip's point, conducting of strip or body searches without consent is strictly limited to individuals who present a danger to human life or safety.
Mr Yip asked whether Singapore officers deployed to Malaysia will be able to do their jobs effectively under adequate legal protection. The Bill contains several provisions and safeguards to this effect. Let me just reiterate them.
First, no Singapore officer will be deployed to Malaysia for cross-border railway duties unless the Minister is satisfied that Malaysian law allows the Singapore officer to do their official duties in Malaysia properly, under the command of their own commanding officers, and that they are conferred with the necessary powers, duties and privileges equivalent to their counterparts in Malaysia. That is made clear in clause 22 of the Bill.
As mentioned earlier, Malaysia's legislation, which is accessible online, affords protections and immunities to our officers based in Malaysia, similar to what this Bill accords to Malaysian officers based in Singapore. To Mr Dennis Tan's point about there being substantive reciprocity in powers and immunities, I will confirm to him that the answer is yes.
Second, clause 24 makes clear that every Singapore officer deployed to Malaysia in relation to cross-border railways has the same rights, powers and immunities as they do when performing the same duties in Singapore.
Third, the protections and immunities conferred on Malaysian officers in Singapore are conditional on our officers being accorded similar treatment when operating in Malaysia. Clause 44 of the Bill provides for the Minister to disapply any of these protections and immunities if there is a change in the level of protection and immunities afforded to our officers in Malaysia.
Mr Vikram asked about operational measures to prevent smuggling of prohibited or controlled items across the border. The co-location of CIQ facilities provide convenience for travellers, as many of my colleagues in this House have articulated, but we have worked hard to ensure that this does not come at the expense of border security.
So, let me just reiterate these steps. First, there will be multiple layers of checks. Under the Bill, Singapore officers have the powers to conduct selective checks within the designated areas at Bukit Chagar Station. So, we can do so in Malaysia. This is on top of the checks that Malaysian officers would have done and conducted on all travellers before they are granted departure clearance at the Bukit Chagar Station.
Second, when these same travellers arrive at Woodlands North Station, they may then also be subject to further selective security checks.
Third, as I have mentioned in my opening speech, Singapore and Malaysia have jointly developed a comprehensive set of standard operational procedures (SOPs) for the purposes of conducting border clearance and security checks in a co-located CIQ arrangement. These SOPs will ensure smooth coordination between each layer of checks and mitigate the risk of threats slipping through. And I believe earlier, a Member asked whether we are in contact, whether there will be joint exercises, the answer is, yes, there are. There are planning exercises as well also ground operational readiness exercises that we will conduct – not just before the start of the operationalisation of the RTS Link, but also subsequently as we continue to run both CIQs and the RTS Link.
Ms Cassandra Lee and Mr Yip asked how Singapore officers in Malaysia would handle individuals found to be carrying items controlled or prohibited under Singapore law, such as drugs or vapes. If our officers at Bukit Chagar Station detect attempts to bring in vapes or drugs, Malaysian laws would apply. The traveller in question would be handed over to the Malaysian authorities and the case would then be handled in accordance with Malaysian law and their position on offences on drugs and non-compliant vapes.
But regardless of how Malaysian law deals with such attempts, our focus is to harden our borders against such items and prevent them from coming into Singapore. So, we will do so when we have the ability to do checks, both at Bukit Chagar Station as well as at Woodlands North Station.
As Singapore officers are not granted powers of arrest when they are performing their duties in Malaysia, Ms Lee is correct to say that our officers would need to seek assistance by leveraging existing mechanisms and channels between both countries' law enforcement agencies. This is a reciprocal arrangement. We cannot arrest in Malaysia and Malaysian officers cannot arrest in Singapore. Should drugs be found or, in fact, any other illicit items be found during checks done in Singapore, Singapore law would then apply. And Singapore's zero-tolerance approach to drug trafficking will not change.
Mr Yip asked about deployment of officers to the other country during what paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule refers to as \"serious unplanned incidents\". As I have mentioned earlier, this is a contingency, with the intention to provide for an expeditious but a controlled way of deploying additional manpower in appropriate cases. I understand the point that Members have made about the urgency of the situation. Mr Tan mentioned fires, Mr Yip mentioned incidents and every second counts. We agree with that. We endeavor to strike a balance between that urgency and the propriety of both officers who respond to such incidents from both sides.
So, for example, during a major outage causing downtime on border clearance systems, it is in both countries' interests to ensure that there is additional manpower to maintain business continuity to continue the flow and clearance, security checks and so on, and also to minimise congestion. Such deployments should not exceed three days in the ordinary course, as provided for under paragraph 8 of the Second Schedule, unless the Malaysian Government puts in a request for a longer duration and the Minister approves this request.
Ms Lee asked how the co-located CIQ model of the RTS Link compares with co-located border control in other countries. One distinct feature of the RTS Link is where immigration clearance takes place. For the RTS Link, the traveller goes through departure and arrival clearances before embarkation. This is similar to the experience at the Channel Tunnel, which connects the UK and France, which Ms Lim also alluded to.
A different approach, however, is taken for the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. In that case, a traveller departing Shenzhen goes through departure and arrival clearances only upon disembarkation in Hong Kong. To return to Shenzhen – the reverse journey – he goes through departure and arrival clearances in Hong Kong before boarding the train.
I wish to assure this House that the model adopted for our RTS Link is the subject of quite extensive deliberations. We looked at different models. We discussed internally, as well as bilaterally with Malaysia. Obviously, the system has got to find consensus on both sides to be able to be equally applicable on both sides for this to work.
Ultimately, I want to assure the House that the aim is to provide a travel experience that is smooth and seamless, as many have articulated, but at the same time, strictly without compromising on safety and security, especially of our border controls.
Mr Vikram and Dr Neo Kok Beng asked whether there will be security personnel onboard the RTS Link trains. There are no plans to deploy our enforcement officers onboard the trains, but there will be comprehensive CCTV coverage of the interior of the train cabins that will be monitored backend in real-time. The rail operator also has the option of deploying roving staff onboard trains, as and when they decide necessary and they will be able to contact the operations control centre and provide any necessary assistance during the five-minute journey.
A few Members raised questions about concurrent criminal jurisdiction and cross-border incident management. In particular, Ms Lee, Mr Yip and Ms Sylvia Lim, asked about the method by which Singapore and Malaysia would determine the country with primary right to exercise jurisdiction over criminal offences on board a train in transit.
The country where the train completes its journey will be accorded the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. I mentioned this earlier in my opening speech, but I thought I will just repeat some of these points. So, therefore, if an offence is committed on a train that is journeying from Bukit Chagar Station to Woodlands North Station, then Singapore would have primary right and the converse is true. Earlier, a Member said, what happens if you break down halfway and you are towed back to your original station, then I suppose the destination will be where you are towed back to. And in that scenario, that would be the country that has the primary jurisdiction.
Should the offence be committed on a reverse journey, I do not need to repeat that. Members understand that it will be the converse on what I have just said earlier. Then Malaysia would have primary right. However, where there is public interest for us to conduct investigations into the matter, Singapore may request for Malaysia to waive its right.
We have not hard-coded what public interest might look like, because each scenario could well be different and it depends on the context, the different circumstances on which the case arises and the way in which we might view our interest in a particular offence or the individual concerned. So, we have not hard-coded that into the framework here, but there is an arrangement within the bilateral agreements. I would say also that it is not only in the context of such an arrangement where we have co-located the CIQs, that issues of public interests might arise. In fact, it arises all the time when there are cross-border incidents. And Members know that we have one of the busiest cross-border land checkpoints at the Causeway and we have been managing this with the Malaysians consistently. So, there will be no change to that.
The law enforcement agencies of the country with the primary right to exercise jurisdiction will work closely with the rail operator to gather and preserve any available evidence. For what we term as, \"live\" cross-border incidents, such as a train stalling on the tracks, both countries have agreed that the country assigned as incident manager would also have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction and carry out investigations.
That is the method and I want to emphasise that both countries have discussed and agreed on in the RTS Link Supplementary Agreement and both sides have an obligation, under those agreements, to abide by it. There are situations where one country may well want to assert jurisdiction, but there is also a process for countries to discuss, if both assessed that there is public interest in prosecuting the case.
As I mentioned earlier, we come across these occasions not infrequently. So, as long as both sides adhere to this agreement, it is unlikely that anyone will be exposed to double prosecution for the same conduct.
Ms Lim had asked, in particular, why the detail of these arrangements as to jurisdiction, have not been spelt out in this Bill. I would just like to remind this House that our Bill applies to cross-border railways generally. It is not just limited to giving effect to the bilateral arrangements for this particular RTS Link with Johor, with Bukit Chagar. It is purpose-built to accommodate similar treaties for other cross-border railways, if and when they arise.
We cannot foresee the precise details of those cross-border railways, whether there might be a co-location of CIQ or how the parties might take jurisdiction of the trains in the manner which I have articulated earlier. Therefore, our approach has been to espouse the broad principles on criminal jurisdiction in the Bill itself. And as I have mentioned earlier, some of the specifics that relate to the RTS Link in this case appear in the two Schedules that I have taken Members through earlier.
Malaysia, which Ms Lim had taken the trouble of looking up the legislation, has taken a different approach. Members will see that, in fact, the Malaysian Bill specifically mentions Singapore-Johor Link and it is designed specifically for this Link only. And that is why they have enacted an RTS-specific legislation which codifies the specific arrangements that we have agreed to bilaterally in our agreements in their Bill. So, they have taken a different approach from us.
Mr Vikram, Ms Lee and Mr Yip also asked how both sides would coordinate responses to major cross-border incidents and whether certain operational aspects would be addressed separately under other arrangements.
Sir, I had spoken earlier on the principles of cross-border incident management that both sides have agreed to abide by. These are important principles and they help determine the country that would have overall command and control of the management of a cross-border incident and ensure that both countries' responses are coordinated and do not pose unnecessary risk to friendly forces.
Both sides have also addressed other operational aspects of cross-border incident management via a comprehensive set of joint SOPs. These were developed with the rail operator's involvement, so that all the relevant stakeholders around such an incident that might occur, can work in tandem to respond effectively to such incidents.
Operational agencies from both countries, along with the rail operator, will conduct joint exercises later this year, ahead of the RTS Link service commencement, both to test as well as to validate the application of these SOPs.
Mr Yip had an additional question on ensuring officers' accountability during cross-border incident management.
Sir, every officer has to adhere to the established procedures and limits in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them. I had taken Members through earlier, what these limits would look like in my opening speech as well as earlier in my reply speech.
When discharging their duties, be it managing cross-border incidents or even carrying out routine duties at the CIQ zone, all officers remain under the order of their commanding officers. This is provided for under clauses 13, 22, 30 and 34 of the Bill.
Turning now to data protection, Ms Lee asked how the provisions regarding data protection would be operationalised. As I mentioned, the Bill will keep the data collected or generated by Singapore officers in Malaysia under the governance of Singapore law and provide for the immunity of our equipment and devices in Malaysia from seizure and also from other forms of interference.
Let me assure this House and all Members that the stringent requirements imposed on the handling, processing and storing of data in Singapore are similarly applicable to any data or information Singapore officers in Malaysia collect or generate in the course of their work. Mr Dennis Tan had asked whether the data that we collect, when transmitted back to Singapore, would be protected or secured and he asked whether it would be air-gapped. The answer is yes, it would be. So, we have a secure line that transmits that data.
Ms Lee also asked how the Government would hold relevant parties accountable in the event of a data breach. Since the data is collected, transmitted, kept and governed under Singapore law, any data breach would, therefore, be dealt with in accordance with Singapore law – something we are familiar with.
If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.
Sir, I believe I have covered Members' queries and questions, so, let me conclude.
I thank the Members for underscoring the point that this Bill is a key supporting pillar of the RTS Link and will bring convenience of travel to several segments of society. This Bill gives effect to a very comprehensive set of arrangements that facilitate co-located CIQ clearance and undergirds jointly developed protocols for coordinated management of cross-border incidents. This will, in turn, help to ensure that the RTS Link experience for travellers is not only convenient and seamless, but also safe and secure.
On that note, I thank the Members' support of this Bill, and Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications arising out of the Minister's response? Dr Neo, a short clarification, please.
Dr Neo Kok Beng: Yes, very short. I would just like to ask the Minister what is the main reason of not having security onboard? Is it because the timing of the ride is very short?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: It is a five-minute journey across both ways and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary. But as I mentioned in my reply speech, there is a provision and an option to activate personnel to be on the trains, if necessary, as a precaution. But as a default, we do not propose to start with having dedicated security personnel on the trains.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, a short clarification, please.
Ms Sylvia Lim: One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2). As I mentioned in my speech, there are three conditions to be satisfied if we were to give up primary jurisdiction, and one of them is that it must also be the case that Malaysia has no obligation to cede jurisdiction to us. So, what does that mean?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, let me explain that. In fact, I had turned it up to the same page; I thought the Member might ask that question.
Clause 39, if the Member has it with her, deals with a scenario where we take jurisdiction. So, if you look at clause 39(1), \"Any conduct engaged in by a person [whether] on board a...train... [in a] defined zone [and so on],... if engaged in within Singapore, would constitute an offence... [and it will be] treated... as if the person engaged in that conduct in Singapore.\" So, clause 39(1) is a provision that takes jurisdiction.
Clause 39(2), which the Member referred to, is a scenario where if a person is found – if you look at b(i) and b(ii) – where the authorities in that country, meaning Malaysia, \"not subject to any obligation to cede jurisdiction to...Singapore authorities.\"
To the Member Ms Lim, I remember that I had said that in the RTS Link bilateral agreements, we have come to an arrangement bilaterally on which countries would assume primary jurisdiction. The Member might recall that I talked about the trains, which direction, where the nose was and so on. And so that is the framework that determines the jurisdiction. So, it is in that context that we put in a provision that talks about a reference to when they might cede jurisdiction. Because otherwise, they would have jurisdiction over all matters. But that framework provides for when they will cede that to Singapore; and correspondingly on our part, when we might cede that to Malaysia.
So, if that scenario happens, and not just that, but then plus the other condition, which is that criminal proceedings are then brought in a country – that means no person would, on account of these provisions, not be prosecuted. So, even if it appears that an incident happened within the framework of what might be Malaysia's jurisdiction, but if the individual or the offence is not a subject of proceedings, then the conditions are not satisfied. So, I hope this makes it quite clear.
Mr Deputy Speaker: There being no further clarifications, I will put the question to the House.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Skills and Workforce Development Agency Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
At Budget 2026, the Prime Minister announced that we will merge SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) into a new Statutory Board jointly overseen by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).
A decade ago, we restructured the Workforce Development Agency into two agencies. WSG remained under MOM to focus on strengthening employment facilitation, services and programmes. SSG moved under MOE to enable it to work more closely with our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) to drive the SkillsFuture movement.
Since then, both agencies have come a long way in providing individuals and employers with more comprehensive support. SSG has built a vibrant continuing education and training (CET) landscape, ramping up offerings by private training providers and establishing the IHLs as a key pillar in the ecosystem.
Through the SkillsFuture Credit, SSG has mainstreamed the culture of lifelong learning in Singapore. The number of individuals participating in SSG-supported training each year has grown from 418,000 in 2016 to more than 600,000 in 2025. This is about one-fifth of the resident workforce. SSG has also introduced the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, extending significant support for mid-career Singaporeans to pursue a substantive skills reboot.
WSG has expanded its reach in supporting individuals and employers through employment facilitation, reskilling and job redesign. The number of individuals assisted by WSG and its partners has tripled from 127,000 in 2017 to 355,000 in 2025. WSG helped many Singaporeans to overcome episodes of economic slowdown, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. WSG has also expanded the range of support, with the introduction of the Polaris programme to support individuals in long-term career planning in an increasingly fast-changing labour market.
The 2016 restructuring substantially delivered what it set out to do. But over the last 10 years, the world around us has shifted, and the next 10 years will certainly not in any way resemble the last 10.
First, technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace. ChatGPT did not exist five years ago. The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) that we see today would have been science fiction in 2016. But the technological wave is now here, it is upon us and it is picking up speed and momentum.
Second, geopolitical shocks are reshaping the global economy in ways that were difficult to imagine a decade ago. Since 2016, we have lived through a global pandemic that shuttered economies overnight. Wars in Europe and now in the Middle East have upended energy markets, and a rupture in US-China relations is redrawing the map of global trade and investment. The more predictable world that our 2016 framework rested on is now gone.
Third, demographic change continues relentlessly. In 2015, roughly one in eight Singapore Citizens (SCs) was aged 65 and above. Today, it is more than one in five, crossing the threshold of a super-aged society. By 2030, it will be one in four.
While we had seen this demographic change coming, we are now feeling its impact more acutely. This further sharpens the imperative for us to strengthen the career longevity of our workforce. In short, we live in a different world from 10 years ago. What worked in the past decade will need significant transformation, to be more predictive, to be more anticipatory, as well as be more responsive and targeted moving forward.
To stay ahead of change, we must therefore be able to continuously adapt with the times as well as with new realities.
That is why we are bringing SSG and WSG together, combining the strengths that both agencies have built up over the past decade into a single upgraded engine for skills and workforce development, ready to support Singaporeans and employers to navigate an age of unprecedented change.
We will call the new agency the \"Skills and Workforce Development Agency\" (SWDA). The name reflects the agency's mission to develop and to advance Singapore's human potential. SWDA will focus on better serving individuals and employers and better partnering the broader ecosystem of providers of career and employment services as well as training.
Let me elaborate on each in turn.
First, individuals. In the world we live in today, many of us are worried about whether our job will still exist in time to come; whether we can find another job with the same pay and seniority if we lose our jobs; whether our skills built up over an entire career may become obsolete faster than we can keep up.
These are legitimate and valid concerns. But our collective response, how do we respond to it, must be one of proactive action, not passive anxiety.
SWDA will enable Singaporeans to take purposeful action to stay adaptable, to stay resilient in a fast-changing and uncertain economy. It will support you to build up your career health consistently, strengthening immunity to disruptions and instilling agility to seize new opportunities. It will help you to make better training and career decisions in support of your longer-term career goals. It will help you to bounce back after facing career setbacks. And SWDA will do all of these by bringing the capabilities of SSG and WSG together, integrating them to deliver timely and trusted career and skills insights with smarter training and career services, and do that even more than before.
SWDA will build a more comprehensive offering of tools, services and programmes to journey with individuals through different life stages. For fresh graduates navigating your first steps in the job market, SWDA will expand opportunities for you to gain real work experience and secure your footing.
We will partner companies to provide attachment and traineeship programmes that will give you concrete work experience and exposure, which will then create pathways for you to enter growth sectors with strong manpower demand.
We will develop new or expand existing programmes, like the BioPharma Talent Builder programme, which equips you to take on jobs in leading biomedical firms. For those still uncertain about your career trajectory after graduation, SWDA will offer career guidance to help you identify potential career pathways in line with your aspirations, your goals and your values.
For mid-career workers, whether facing mid-career stagnations, feeling apprehensive about being displaced, encountering retrenchments, or returning to work after a caregiving break or simply planning ahead, the hardest part is often not knowing where to start and when to take the first step.
SWDA will enhance career guidance, will enhance job matching and reskilling support to provide more transition pathways. This includes expanding partnerships with private career service providers and employer networks to deliver more resources for you to navigate the labour market, help you make personalised career plans and connect to new prospects.
In partnership with the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech), we have rolled out an AI advisor called Career Kaki that serves as a personal digital concierge for careers and skills, available at any time of the day to help those who are unsure of their next steps. SWDA will continue to expand and improve on these service offerings.
For senior workers who have much to contribute with your networks and your experience, and if you are keen to do so, SWDA is part of the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment that is developing an integrated approach to support longer careers. Working with progressive companies and human resource professionals, SWDA will develop and will scale solutions for longer, multi-stage careers and promote age-inclusive jobs and workplaces.
Members of the House, preparing our workforce for AI is a key priority. At Budget 2026, the Prime Minister announced the latest addition to SWDA's offering – free access to premium AI tools for those who take up selected training courses. This is one of the priorities that SWDA will deliver in the coming months, as part of a holistic suite of efforts to help workers future-proof their skills and strengthen career health in an AI-enabled economy.
SWDA will offer individuals a more seamless journey through an integrated touchpoint. Instead of navigating programmes offered by two agencies, individuals will now have a single interface to the full suite of career guidance, skills training and job matching support offered by SWDA. It will offer an enhanced digital experience, with AI-powered personalised career guidance, recommendations of in-demand training courses, and exploratory tools for employment opportunities based on one's portfolio of skills.
Second, the other part of our equation, which is a big one – and that is for employers, SWDA can provide support for their recruitment efforts. For those employers' business looking to fill job vacancies, SWDA can help to accelerate hiring of suitable candidates from its pool of jobseekers and trainees, leveraging the Careers and Skills Passport as a common verified information source on the work experience and the skillsets of candidates.
SWDA will also be a stronger partner to employers in workforce development. By unifying skills intelligence with labour market data, it will give businesses sharper, more actionable insights and modalities to support skills-first workforce planning, hiring and internal mobility.
It will support the delivery of training that is more relevant to the needs of employers. SWDA's suite of programmes can help employers reskill employees to transfer to new job roles, hence, expanding the pool of available candidates beyond external hires.
Beyond recruitment and training, SWDA will support employers through the challenges of deeper workforce transformation. As AI continues to reshape job roles and business models, SWDA will provide employers with integrated support across workforce restructuring, job redesign and capability development.
Through the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package, SWDA will bring together workforce transformation schemes from SSG and WSG in an integrated enterprise digital portal to support holistic workforce transformation.
The recently implemented SkillsFuture Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+), is a key resource that employers can tap on to redesign job roles, build internal capabilities and adopt workforce tech solutions for workforce transformation.
In the second half of this year, employers will be able to invest in workforce development with greater ease through the redesigned SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit.
Overall, the aim is to help businesses plan more effectively, hire more confidently and adapt their workforce more quickly to evolving needs.
This will build on ongoing work. In the Financial Services sector, WSG, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Institute of Banking and Finance launched a Jobs Transformation Map (JTM) on Generative AI for Financial Services, partnering 11 financial institutions to unpack what AI adoption means for specific job roles and showcase the opportunities for employees that job redesign and reskilling can potentially bring.
The JTM showed how finance and insurance companies can reshape roles in customer service, relationship management and risk management, improving productivity and enabling employees to move up the value chain. It also highlighted new job opportunities in areas such as AI governance. SWDA will bring this approach to support transformation in other sectors, including adoption of AI and managing its impact on jobs.
In sum, whether you are dealing with urgent manpower issues for the here and now, or growing your team to expand operations, or even restructuring your workforce to support a pivot in your business, SWDA will work with you, will partner you to transform your business and your workforce.
Third, SWDA will strengthen the ecosystem of service providers of career and employment services and training. SSG has already built up a strong training sector over the past decade. SWDA will bolster other parts of this ecosystem that serve workers and employers on their career as well as their workforce needs. This includes recruitment agencies, staffing agencies, career coaching and career guidance providers, human resources (HR) consultancy, technology firms, online job portals and the like.
SWDA will work with industry to raise the quality standards, improve accessibility and develop new solutions by spurring both innovation and collaboration.
Our goal ultimately is a vibrant private sector, complemented with public employment services and programmes that will be a catalyst and enabler for broad-based workforce transformation and adaptation, amidst the rapid changes in our labour market.
This work has already started. Last year, we launched the Alliance for Action on Advancing Career and Employment Services (AfA-ACES) comprising representatives from this ecosystem. Nine pilots are already underway, testing innovative models targeting under-served groups, including fresh graduates, families with complex needs and those returning to the labour force after a period of absence. There are also pilots to work with employers to design more flexible work models and adopt skills-based practices.
These pilots may give rise to new programmes and services. More importantly, through these pilots, we are discovering together the strengths of our ecosystem today and the opportunities to take it to the next level tomorrow.
Later this year, the AfA-ACES will release its recommendations, which will chart plans to transform the ecosystem to serve individuals and employers more effectively.
Mr Deputy Speaker, beyond the structures and services that SWDA will put in place, our deeper ambition is to shift the culture and the mindsets around careers and learning. This is something that I will appeal to everyone because it requires a whole-of-society approach.
In an era where AI is rapidly transforming job requirements at a pace that no single institution can fully anticipate, lifelong learning and career health must become the norm and it must become a practical reality.
It must be something that Singaporeans can and should invest in and take ownership of throughout their entire working life and is not a resource that you can turn to only when the circumstances compel you to do so.
Employers too should continuously invest in your employees' career health so that your employees are well-equipped to contribute to the success of your business. The aspiration is to build a Singapore workforce that meets change with confidence, one that is oriented not merely towards managing disruption, but towards seizing the opportunities that come with it. So not one that is responsive and reactive but one that is preemptive and proactive.
SWDA will work with our tripartite partners to catalyse this shift, building on the SkillsFuture movement and the Career Health SG initiative under it. This entails talking about lifelong learning and career health regularly, including at the workplace, internalising it and promoting good career health habits.
This requires training and career guidance to be very accessible to the broad middle. Our assurance to every worker and every employer is this: work with us, and we will walk with you. The Government and our tripartite partners will be with you, every step of the way.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the priorities I shared set out the mission of SWDA. To give effect to them, we have tabled the SWDA Bill. I will now outline its key components.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces the terms used in the Bill.
Part 2 establishes SWDA as a statutory board and describes the functions and powers of SWDA. SWDA's functions will cover the existing functions of SSG and WSG, and extend them to include promoting the development of career and employment services and training in Singapore.
Parts 3 to 6 set out SWDA's governance structures and requirements, which are aligned with the Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018. They cover the membership, the appointment and decision-making procedures of the SWDA Board, as well as personnel and financial matters.
Parts 7 and 8 set out the enforcement powers necessary for the administration of the Bill and its general provisions, including the power to make regulations and to issue codes of practice or guidelines for providers of career and employment services and training.
Part 9 provides for the transfer of undertakings and employees from WSG and SSG to SWDA. Employees of WSG and SSG will be transferred to SWDA on terms that are no less favourable than their present ones.
We have been closely engaging and supporting all officers, to ensure that both their well-being and career aspirations are well-cared for amidst this transition.
The refreshed mission of SWDA will provide new growth opportunities and career pathways for staff. We will also provide opportunities for officers to equip themselves for new job roles, so that no one will inadvertently fall through the cracks.
Parts 10 and 11 repeal the SSG Act and the WSG Act and make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. The key amendments are to the Private Education Act and Skills Development Levy Act, which will be administered by SWDA.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore has consistently demonstrated a willingness to adapt its institutions to meet the demands of each new era. The establishment of the Workforce Development Agency in 2003, its subsequent restructuring into SSG and WSG in 2016, and now the creation of SWDA reflect the same underlying commitment: to invest in our people and to ensure that our institutions remain best positioned to do so.
The Bill presented today sets out the legislative framework to establish the Skills and Workforce Development Agency. If the Bill is passed, SWDA will be established in the third quarter of 2026 as a cornerstone in answering our workforce challenges in the decade ahead. It will support every Singaporean across a career that may be long, multi-staged, varied and non-linear.
It will help employers navigate transformation and meet their workforce needs with greater confidence. It will bring coherence and quality to the full ecosystem of career and employment services and training that our workers and businesses can depend on.
At its heart, the Bill affirms a conviction that this House has long held, that every Singaporean, at every stage of his or her working life, deserves support to grow, to adapt and to contribute to the nation's continued success.
With this, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, just last night, a regular at my Meet-the-People Sessions shared that she has started taking AI courses on her own. She is in her 50s and has worked as a HR administrator for over 20 years. She told me, \"Ms Yeo, I am not worried about robots taking my job, I just want to know that there is something thinking about what comes next for me.\"
That quiet anxiety is something we all hear often on the ground. Not panic, not resistance, just a very human need to know that someone is watching out for you.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is why this Bill matters. I support it and want to speak to what it must achieve, not as policy, but as lived experience. I declare my role as the Executive Secretary of the National Transport Workers Union, the Assistant Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Chairman of the Manpower Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC). And these are the lenses that I am using to speak on.
Ten years ago, we established SSG and reconstituted WSG. One focused on skills, the other on jobs. That model served us well. But the world of work has shifted. Today, careers are longer but no longer linear. The idea of one employer, one skillset, one trajectory belongs to an earlier generation.
At the same time, AI is shortening the half-life of skills. What took years to build can be reshaped within a few. So, the challenge is no longer just training workers or helping them find jobs. It is ensuring that training leads to jobs, jobs lead to wage growth and transformation produces gains that are shared with workers.
That is the gap this Bill is designed to close. The formation of the SWDA is a strategic reset, bringing skills and careers into one continuous journey.
As Manpower GPC Chairman, I recently visited three companies with my fellow GPC members to understand how tech-enabled, AI-powered business transformation and workforce upskilling are actually playing out on the ground, in real workplaces, with real workers.
I want to share what I saw, because these visits were not just informative. They were instructive. Each company showed a different face of Singapore's workforce and, together, they speak to why SWDA's mandate is as important as it is.
Our first visit was to SMRT Corporation. At SMRT, I witnessed what happens when a large employer commits fully to workforce transformation as a cultural and operational mission. SMRT has institutionalised the kaizen philosophy – a Japanese yet universal concept of continuous, incremental improvement – as a unifying mindset across all levels of the organisation. This is not a top-down directive. It is a shared way of working. Layered onto this, SMRT has adopted technology to unlock operational efficiencies – managing worker fatigue, boosting safety through predictive maintenance and redesigning workflows to reduce the physical burden on staff.
And who benefits most from this? Their older workers. Workers who have spent decades on the job, who know every quirk of the system, every subtle sound that signals a problem and now working smarter. Following re-training and job redesign, productivity improved. And critically, their wages have increased.
This is the promise of how continuous learning ensures that technology is done right: not replacing experienced workers but augmenting them. Giving them tools that honour their expertise, extending their working lives and rewarding their commitment.
I call on SWDA to support more companies, like SMRT, to ensure that workplace cultures support lifelong learning and to reward workers when they walk the talk.
Our second visit took us to FairPrice's Store of Tomorrow at Punggol Coast Mall – Singapore's first generative-AI-powered supermarket. And Mr Deputy Speaker, as a Member of Parliament for Punggol group representation constituency (GRC), I felt a particular sense of pride that this innovation is rooted right here in our Punggol community.
What I want to highlight is not the AI, impressive as it is, but how the transformation was designed. Staff was not presented with a finished product and told to adapt. They were involved from the beginning – shaping service design, store navigation, checkout and backend operations. Customers, too, were part of this co-creation.
Many of these frontline staff are women, including mid-career returnees who came back to work after years of caregiving, not the typical profile technology is designed for. Yet because FairPrice chose to design with them rather than for them, the result is a system that works for staff and customers alike.
The lesson is clear. When workers are treated as co-creators rather than recipients of change, transformation is smoother, adoption is faster and outcomes are better. SWDA must champion co-design not as a nice-to-have, but as a defining feature of how Singapore approaches workforce transformation.
We know AI will reshape our workforce and our workplaces, but how it unfolds in practice will depend on pioneers on the ground. My Manpower GPC colleagues and I saw this firsthand at FairPrice – a company willing to reimagine not just its own operations, but the broader retail cluster. They have taken bold steps to reimagine not just their own operations, but the broader retail cluster, helping workers and Singaporeans begin to see and experience what an AI-enabled workplace could look like.
So, my call to SWDA is this: support more of such companies. Enable them to experiment, to learn and to lead to boldly go where no one has gone before. And in doing so, light the way for their sectors and for Singapore's future of work.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our Manpower GPC's third visit was to Chye Thiam Maintenance, and I would like to dwell into this visit because it speaks to a segment of our workforce that is too often less visible in conversations about workplace transformation and that is of our lower wage workers and senior workers.
Chye Thiam Maintenance is a homegrown company many of us would recognise from the orange and yellow vehicles that keep our estates, malls and highways clean. From a small family outfit, they have grown into a team of 3,500 strong. Over the decades, they have continued investing in technology and machinery and at every stage, their workers moved forward with these changes, not out of them. In the past two years, they introduced robo-sweepers and autonomous service vehicles. But the real story is what came with it – job redesign, skills upgrading and new roles.
Workers trained to operate autonomous equipment now receive AV allowances, recognising their higher skills and responsibilities they carry. This is a small but important signal, that when work changes, we recognise and reward it differently. And the result is clear. Technology did not replace workers. It raised the quality of jobs, creating pathways for seniors and lower-wage workers to move into safer, more skilled and better-paying jobs.
For Chye Thiam Maintenance, embracing technology also brought in more business and, with it, the ability to hire more and uplift more. This is the virtuous cycle we want to see: when innovation drives both enterprise growth and worker progression. Chye Thiam Maintenance is also an accredited training organisation, working with our agencies to build structured training programmes tailored to their workforce. This is important.
What they have done is to build a wage and career ladder with support and guidance from our agencies. As a local company, Chye Thiam Maintenance shows us that with the right intent and support from the Government, transformation can be inclusive – not by asking workers to simply \"keep up\", but by enabling them to move forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as we look toward the work of the SWDA, it must support more local enterprises and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) on their journeys and scale support as our local companies grow from SMEs to large local enterprises (LLEs), so that productivity gains translate into more better jobs, better wages and, above all, greater dignity at work.
Mr Speaker, across all three companies, a common theme emerges. These employers adopted AI and technology to transform their businesses without leaving their workers behind. They built a culture of employee stake-holding in transformation and one of lifelong learning. Supported by grants and partnerships, they took on the responsibility of designing and delivering training. And their workers came out on the other side with better conditions, new skills and wage growth. That is the model exactly that Singapore needs to scale.
The merger of SSG and WSG must lead to bold steps, not incremental ones, to streamline programme delivery, simplify grant and funding administration, and take a genuinely customer-centric approach that puts real worker and employer outcomes right at the centre.
I am confident that our ecosystem partners stand ready to work alongside SWDA in this – the Tripartite Jobs Council, our trade associations and chambers, employment agencies, and our unions, of course. They are already embedded in companies and communities across Singapore. They have the trust of workers and employers built up over years. SWDA must build on this, not bypass it.
I want to make this call specifically: SWDA must establish regular, ongoing engagement with these stakeholders not just at the point of policy design, but continuously. The world of work is changing faster than any policy cycle. Policies that are not continuously grounded become policies that do not work.
SWDA is also well-positioned to drive research to develop a data-driven view of jobs of the future and to deliver design grants that supercharge company transformation. This research role is important and I welcome it, particularly as companies and sectors embark on their starship enterprise reimagination journeys with their workers. Indeed, to go boldly where no one else has gone before.
But in implementing transformation, SWDA must be a champion of a human-centric, worker-centric approach. This will make the difference between transformation that works for people, and transformation that works for productivity metrics alone.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let me put faces to what success should look like and would look like, if SWDA gets it right. These are composite sketches drawn from real ground conversations. I have changed names.
Joanne, not her real name, spent nearly a decade out of the workforce, first caring for her young children, then for her mother who had a stroke. When she finally could return to work, she came to see me. She was 46. She had real skills, genuine experience and she was ready. But her retirement savings were depleted from years without Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. She had a caregiving gap in her resume and she needed to undergo re-training but had no financial buffer to sustain her through it.
If SWDA gets this right, Joanne would be supported by a structured return-to-work pathway for caregivers – one that bundles caregiver respite support to free her time for training, a training allowance to sustain her through the programme and a CPF top-up in her first month back at work.
Our NTUC's C U Back @ Work programme has shown us that this model works. Since we launched it in 2023, we have close to 1,000 CUBbies in the programme, and in 2025, we expanded it to professional, manager and executive (PME) roles, including accounting and office administration. SWDA must build on this, not reinvent it. And it must make these pathways permanent and accessible to all the Joannes across the whole entire island, not just those few lucky ones who were lucky enough to find their way to us.
Sakthi – not his real name, but he will recognise himself – is a bus captain. He has been on the road for over 20 years. He takes pride in his work and his passengers know him by name. But here is what most commuters do not know. His lunch break is 25 minutes. Between runs, some breaks are as short as six minutes and he starts his day at 4.30 am. He can drive up to 16 runs in a day. And at 60 years old, the fatigue is real and it can be a safety matter, not just only a welfare one.
If SWDA gets this right, AI-informed fatigue monitoring and job redesign can enable Sakthi to work a smarter shift structure, one that is informed by data about when fatigue peaks, that keeps him safe, keeps his passengers safe and keeps him economically active and contributing for longer. Older workers are experienced contributors who deserve workplaces designed with them in mind and not around them.
David, not his real name, was a mid-career IT professional when his company restructured. He was retrenched at 52. While he searched for work, he turned to platform driving to keep his family afloat. The flexibility suited him. The income helped. But now, two years in, he reads the news about autonomous vehicles (AVs) and he comes to me with a question that I have heard more than once: \"Ms Yeo, if the technology matures, what will belong of me?\"
He wants to reskill. He knows the window is open, but he cannot afford to stop driving. His family needs the income now, not after he has completed the training programme.
If SWDA gets it right, David would have the access to structured financial support that allows him to transition gradually, to drive part-time while undertaking a credentialled reskilling programme connected to real employment pipelines in sectors where his original IT background, will open doors.
Joanne, Sakthi and David, they are not unusual cases. They walk into my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). They sit across from me at kopi chit-chats. They come to our union dialogues. They are the reason this Bill matters, and the reason I hope we will measure SWDA's success not just by the programmes launched or grants disbursed, but by the number of real Singaporeans whose working lives genuinely change for the better.
Mr Deputy Speaker, 10 years ago, we built the foundations. Today, we are building the integration. And 10 years from now, I hope we will look back on this Bill as the moment Singapore chose to ensure that our next bound of growth is one that every worker can be part of.
The Labour Movement stands ready and our unions, our Tripartite Jobs Council will continue to walk the ground and we will hold SWDA and ourselves to the standard of making transformation inclusive, practical and human-centred.
To my resident at MPS who just wants to know that someone is thinking about what comes next for her, I want to say: This is exactly what we are here to do today. I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): I declare my interest as the owner and director of a company that provides software to training providers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the SWDA Bill officially consolidates career and employment services with skills training under a single administrative mandate. This is a welcome integration.
First, it has the potential to eliminate institutional silos. This lowers the risk of skills development and training occurring without an active alignment to available job frequencies.
Second, it could prevent fragmented journeys of jobseekers, reducing the friction for Singaporeans. Who previously had to navigate disparate digital platforms and physical agency locations for career coaching and skills upgrading.
Third, it could resolve data administrative silos by integrating the training records formerly held by Skills Future Singapore, with employment and placement records held by WSG. This integration has the potential to empower career coaches to provide holistic data-driven interventions.
The Bill fundamentally reverses the 2016 policy decision to bifurcate the then Workforce Development Agency into SSG and WSG.
The Minister just explained that WSG may remain under MOM to focus on strengthening employment facilitation services and programmes, while SSG moved under MOE to enable it to work more closely with our IHLs to drive the skills future movement.
It is not clear to me why WDA had to split in order to achieve this. How will the Government measure the success of this merger compared to the 2016 separation? Specifically, what key performance indicators (KPIs) will the new agency use to meaningfully tackle structural issues in labour mobility and skills development?
The new agency's functions straddle both education and manpower. Yet, no current political office holder spans both Ministries. Does the Prime Minister intend to appoint a bridging political office holder, such as a Minister of State for Manpower and Education?
The Bill's Explanatory Note states that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. But surely, the cost of this re-merger will not be zero. Could the Minister enumerate the actual cost associated with this restructuring, including the budget set aside for rebranding efforts, the updating of physical and digital collateral as well as the integration of various IT and payroll systems, among other things, across the merging entities? Would the Minister share how this compare to the costs associated with separating these agencies in 2016?
The Bill specifies that the agency will provide for or facilitate the provision of career advisory and employment assistance services. Would the SWDA be providing job search assistance directly under this new integrated agency model?
Currently, the Government relies heavily on third parties, such as the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and other private career matching providers. If the SWDA were to directly provide these services, it would be able to leverage its access to MOM data regarding labour market mismatches and real time hiring trends to adapt assistance in a more timely fashion to rapid economic shifts. How would the Government ensure performance accountability of the job search assistance provided by these external partners?
Job search assistance should not merely involve resume touch-ups and pointing job seekers to employment portals. Will the Government commit to a more intensive assistance in the job search process, particularly for those who have experienced persistent structural unemployment despite their most earnest efforts?
Let me set the scene. Today, many jobseekers apply for dozens of jobs daily without customising their resumes to the specific job descriptions. In parallel, organisations utilise automated tracking systems that filter applications strictly by their degree of match with the job description, sometimes discarding all applications did that that do not meet at least a 90% keyword match. Consequently, many qualified applicants may not get a call-up for the interview.
Will SWDA require job assistance programmes to guide job seekers on such technical skills? Will SWDA officers take on a more active role in bridging the gap between employer needs and candidate profiles? For instance, if the agency identifies a candidate whose profile closely matches a job description, will officers proactively pitch this candidate to the employer and advocate for them to be considered for an interview? While the onus ultimately remains on the candidate to prove their worth during the interview, this active matching by the agency would at least help jobseekers get their foot in the door.
Job assistance programmes should also actively bridge skills gaps in networking and help jobseekers leverage professional connections. Such skills are critically important and often not taught in formal schooling.
The Bill in clause 68 specifies the transfer of properties, rights and liabilities, which inherently includes the vast network of educational initiatives and career guidance programmes. Students should be exposed to different careers earlier, ideally starting at lower secondary level when they will be choosing their GCE \"O\" and \"N\" level subjects. This early intervention will steer students away from simply settling for subjects or courses they have no genuine interest in because they do not know any better. Would the SWDA work directly with schools to provide systematic and regular career guidance or exposure to students? This would shift the burden of career guidance away from teachers and allow students to have some exposure to industry experts as they decide on what career best works for their individual goals and talents. This would not only lead to better personal outcomes but also yield better long-term workforce outcomes.
To complement this early intervention, will the Government encourage university and polytechnic admissions officers to further expand their quotas for aptitude-based admissions? We must shift the admissions waiting towards an applicant's demonstrated passion and aptitude for a specific field, rather than relying too heavily on relative academic grade cut-offs.
Furthermore, will the Government work with the IHLs to afford students greater flexibility to make mid-stream switches in their educational journeys without the fear of having to start from scratch? This will go some way in creating a workforce of the future that is adaptable, brave and agile. Ultimately, these measures will minimise the systemic waste of public and private resources that occurs when graduates abandon courses and careers they were never genuinely interested in pursuing.
Next, I turn to the harmonisation with other partners.
First, economic planning. While the Bill successfully merges functions that currently sit in MOM and MOE, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) remains an underlying driver that sets the industry transformation maps (ITMs). The agency has been described as a job skills integrator. However, the roadmap for our industries is set by the ITMs under MTI. Will the Minister explain how this new agency will coordinate work with MTI to ensure that it harmonises its ITMs with training curricula in real time? Will the Minister be able to address the potential risks that by merging MOM and MOE functions, we are simply creating a new larger silo that is disconnected from MTI's strategic planning?
Secondly, the Community Development Councils (CDCs) have launched the Jobs Nearby @ CDC initiative to help Singaporeans find jobs closer to home. Would the agency be tracking the performance of this initiative and help train the job ambassadors?
Mr Deputy Speaker, good intentions do not survive without good measurement. Without clear published performance indicators, this merger risks the same fate as the 2016 separation – celebrated at the inception, reversed a decade later.
I would therefore suggest the Ministry consider the following KPIs for the agency as a starting framework to ensure better accountability.
First, the proportion of public training subsidies going to courses that yield documented employment outcomes within six months. Public expenditure must be rigorously tracked against its economic purpose. We must move beyond simply tracking whether a jobseeker found any employment. The agency should expand the existing training quality and outcomes measurement surveys to measure whether workers are actively applying the newly acquired competencies in their roles six months after they complete the course. By doing so, we ensure that every public dollar spent genuinely contributes to a successful job placement or career advancement. SWDA should be required to publish these outcome-based figures annually.
Second, the percentage of subsidised training enrolments in courses mapped to documented shortage occupation list occupations. Parliament should be able to see year-on-year whether the public's training dollars are flowing towards gaps our economy has already documented.
Third, median time to employment following SWDA-assisted job searches, broken down by age band, professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) versus non-PMET status and by individual service providers. The Government now publishes aggregate figures for these. These aggregated figures will better hold the agency and its service providers to account. These are not novel metrics. They are the logical extension of data that SWDA will already hold. The integration the Bill promises makes these metrics achievable. The question is whether the Government is prepared to track and publish them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, ultimately, this merger must amount to more than just a mere reshuffling of bureaucratic boxes. Administrative neatness means little to the displaced mid-career worker stuck in a job search black hole or the young student pressured into an educational path they have no passion for. The true test of the SWDA will not be how smoothly it integrates its backend systems, but its courage to embrace transparent KPIs, its willingness to proactively champion our job seekers and its agility to move at the speed of our economy. If we are reversing a decade's old policy in the name of deeper synergy, the Government must ensure that this synergy actually translates into tangible, measurable resilience for Singaporean workers. Sir, notwithstanding the concerns I raised, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.10 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.45 pm until 4.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Integrating WSG and SSG strengthens the effectiveness of Singapore's workforce and skills development ecosystem and attests to the Government's ability and agility in responding to change in our labour landscape.
Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for his opening speech earlier for reassuring us that workers, staff and employees in both WSG and SSG will not be adversely affected by this merger.
Last year marked 10 years since the national SkillsFuture movement was launched to promote lifelong learning as a national priority. In this House, I called for a timely review of services delivered across WSG, SSG and other arms like the IHLs and NTUC's e2i, to reduce duplication of resources and provide even more seamless end-to-end support for workers, jobseekers and employers. I am glad that this call has been heard.
The creation of SWDA responds to trends like increased geo-political and economic volatility, new technologies and diverse career aspirations. Rationalising the ambits of WSG and SSG provides a strategic window to critically assess what has worked and what has not. Identifying where the gaps are, who are the underserved and what are the bold steps we need to take to ensure our workers stay afloat, abreast and ahead.
To this end, I offer three priorities for the next bound of Singapore's skills and workforce development ecosystem, what I call the three \"highs\", not \"Hi\" but \"high\" – high speed, high quality and high returns.
First, high speed. This refers to speed-to-market for training curriculum when new skills become in-demand and career transition programmes when industries face sunset. In a fast-changing and highly competitive global labour landscape, the earliest bird catches the best worm.
SWDA will need to accelerate operational speed by reducing administrative burden, sharing data analytics and consolidating support packages into a \"one-stop shop\" experience for anyone, anytime, and anywhere. The success of this vision will depend on faster rather than slower clearance chains with joint oversight.
SWDA must also make clear to employers that delays in early job redesign and training investment will compound real costs through widening skills gap, tardy transformation and weakened competition positions, while early adopters who step up will reap strong gains and benefits.
This can be made possible by closer integration of training design with company training and transformation committees to ensure a smoother training-to-work journey for in-service workers. Furthermore, proactively undertaking job redesign can also ensure more immediate fit for freshly trained new hires, especially mid-career trainees whose freshly acquired skills and track-record experience in critical thinking and business problem solving present good value to prospective employers.
High speed also in absorbing shocks, is also key during times of geopolitical and economic volatility, which are set to persist. The Government has done this well, for example, through the Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce and Homefront Crisis Ministerial Committee. However, I urge that more can be done to support impacted workers.
Business restructuring and AI-driven disruption have slowed hiring and growth of entry-level jobs. Graduates across our autonomous universities (AUs), including our private education institutions in the past year, secured fewer full-time positions across the board. Will SWDA consider launching an extended and higher-value iteration of the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme, with opportunities ranging from one to two years and with monthly traineeship allowances on-par with starting salaries?
As only over 3,000 involuntarily unemployed workers received at least one payout, out of the 10,000 SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS) applications received and despite 60,000 workers expected to be eligible for the scheme every year, will SWDA consider reviewing the scheme's salary cap, criteria for involuntary unemployment and service delivery experience? For example, job matching and career guidance services can be integrated with the JS scheme to fulfil the vision of being a \"one-stop shop\" for involuntarily unemployed workers.
Following the European Union, South Korea and Vietnam's introduction of AI legislation and explicit classification of employment-related AI as \"high risk\", will SWDA require responsible practices, such as anti-discrimination risk assessments, human oversight and right-to-know transparency, when deploying AI-enabled human resources technology under the Workforce Development Grant (Job Redesign+) programme?
Second, high quality. Measures have been recently rolled out to raise the quality of training providers seeking course approvals and funding, including requiring more practice hours and suspension for those with low ratings. These are steps in the right direction. However, we must also be mindful that what is considered useful is different to every learner. Apart from audit compliance and learner satisfaction, high-quality job-related learning must mean industry application or validation, such as employer co-design, work-integrated learning, like attachments or paid-per-task opportunities, portfolio building and access to mentorship or networking. This increases potential employment outcomes for learners while allowing employers to assess candidates with lower risk.
For non-job-related learning for exploratory or personal interest reasons, high quality can be defined as learners motivated for further learning and future pursuits, as opposed to poor experiences becoming barriers to developing a mindset of lifelong learning.
I also encourage SWDA to review the quality of student internships as internship-stacking and credit-bearing internships become more commonplace, especially for non-university graduates whose starting salaries lag their university peers. This includes safeguards to ensure fair allowances, reasonable work hours and safe and meaningful tasks. Investing in high quality student internships will benefit the same employers when graduates enter the workforce.
Third and final high – high returns. Unlike other countries, where unions need to lobby for fairer access to training opportunities and employment support, Singapore has invested billions into our workforce and skills development ecosystem, and earlier than most. We also have a highly educated workforce with over 60% of resident workers holding tertiary qualifications, and over 40% holding degrees. On paper, this should translate into a highly productive and skilled workforce. It is worthwhile asking: do the returns justify our investments?
Granted, returns may be hard to quantify, as they go beyond employment outcomes, wage progression and training participation rates among vulnerable worker segments. Investing in a culture of lifelong learning and employment support has ripple effects on the resilience and diversity of our workforce. At the same time, a disconnect between training supply and labour demand results in underutilised talent and skills or qualifications mismatch, which drive employers to hire externally. In other words, we end up paying twice, once to train Singaporeans and, again, to import foreign skills, while weakening the Singaporean Core.
In Singapore, we do not have a shortage of funding or initiatives. We have a coordination problem. Our workforce and skills development ecosystem has matured beyond the experimental, piloting phase. Moving forward, I submit that funding must be more closely tied to or even conditional upon outcomes, that is, whether quantitative, like time-to-placement, or qualitative, like more meaningful and autonomous tasks within work scope. Can SWDA also share its plans to successfully integrate jobs and skills infrastructure and management strategy to increase return-on-investment?
Time, skills and qualifications mismatches were raised as a point of concern in NTUC's recently released two-year study with the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) on underemployment. This refers to when workers can work more hours or take on higher-skilled roles but are unable to or choose not to. We therefore recommend an expanded definition of underemployment and closer tracking of these trends. SWDA can develop a robust and centralised tracking system to track longitudinal outcomes of its various courses, programmes and credit schemes as well as workers' career health to ensure returns commensurate with cost.
To conclude, the creation of SWDA holds powerful potential for a higher-speed, higher-quality and higher-returns skills and workforce development ecosystem, given the successful integration of jobs and skills infrastructure and management strategy. I encourage SWDA to boldly reimagine what learning and working can look like for the next generation and plant seeds early, just as the Government did with WSG and SSG over a decade ago.
I also invite SWDA to leverage the Tripartite Jobs Council as it operates within the wider workforce ecosystem to transform skills and jobs, because this will be SWDA's key ground like into the heart of workplaces and worker groups. Can Singapore become a leader in innovative and inclusive learning practices, such as peer learning through communities of practice, residency programmes and incubators for non-traditional career aspirations or non-traditional learners, like caregivers, seniors and persons with disabilities? Can Singapore accomplish a triple-win by fostering a workforce with higher productivity, higher resilience and higher flexibility to meet the needs of workers, learners and employers? If we continue to be proactive rather than reactive, I believe we can. We must remember that today, we no longer just learn, work and retire. We learn, work, learn, work, learn, work, and maybe, retire.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support the establishment of the Skills and Workforce Development Authority, and I hope that this newly established statutory board will operate in bold and innovative ways across three areas to meet the changes of the world and the wave of artificial intelligence, ensuring that no Singaporean is left behind.
First, we need to make job redesign a priority. The latest survey report released by the Ministry of Manpower shows that among businesses which have already adopted or intend to adopt AI, more are focused on training and skills upgrading rather than on redesigning jobs.
This reflects a concern that employers will integrate AI into existing workflows without necessarily placing employees' well-being at the centre – without making their future work more valuable, more meaningful and more sustainable.
I therefore hope that the authorities will invest more resources and place greater emphasis on job redesign, making it a priority in strengthening the competitiveness of our workforce.
Second, I hope the authorities can address the shortcomings in Singapore's skills-based hiring model. Many surveys have found that the majority of Singapore employers still focus on applicants' academic qualifications and certificates rather than their skills.
As one of the largest employers, the Government has yet to begin tracking data on how many Public Service job advertisements include or omit academic qualification requirements. Mr Speaker, if even the Government has not made a clear start in moving in this direction, how can we encourage more employers to do the same?
I hope that as the Government leads the private sector in promoting skills-based hiring, it will also publish relevant data in tandem – for example, tracking how many employers have adopted this model during their recruitment.
Third, and more importantly, when we present data to measure outcomes, we should do so from the perspective of Singaporeans and examine the impact on them.
For employees, what we should be measuring is whether taking courses under the SkillsFuture training grant has actually improved their employment outcomes – for instance, whether their salaries have increased – rather than simply tracking how many people have enrolled in programmes or utilised subsidies.
On the employers' side, we should also track whether productivity has improved after job redesign, rather than merely looking at whether employees have attended training courses or received subsidies.
The establishment of this new agency is a fresh starting point. I hope we can also seize this opportunity to write a new chapter for the future of Singapore's employment and workforce – one that is told from the perspective of workers.
(In English): Mr Speaker, much of the conversation about workforce development and transformation has come from individuals who are senior enough to shape their organisations or by economists and academics looking at workforce transformation or the workforce from the macro perspective.
Today, I would like to offer a view from the middle. I speak as a millennial worker who has spent almost nine years in the workforce. I have spent my working life, so far, as an individual contributor, someone who implements strategic decisions more than I make them – a team member who is good at her job, but rarely at the table where such decisions are made. From where I stand, a lot of what workers have heard about workforce transformation has been directed at us. We are told, embrace new technology – learn, use, master. Do not let anxiety hold you back.
I understand why. Workers are the ones whose livelihoods are on the line. But we are only one side of the transformation equation.
So, today, I want to talk about how the new SWDA must also hold employers accountable. I have three asks.
Mr Speaker, my first ask is that the agency makes job redesign a genuine priority. Currently, job redesign is buried in a sub-Clause under Section 5 of the Bill, which outlines the new agency's functions. It is defined as the review and re-allocation by an employer of duties and tasks among employees. I looked up where this definition could have come from. It appears to have been taken word for word from the 2003 Workforce Singapore Agency Act. Is the 23-year-old definition still adequate for the age of AI?
Job redesign, today, cannot simply mean re-allocating tasks between employees. It must ask a more fundamental question. Given what technology can do now, what should people be doing instead? It is the difference between a company that adopts AI by simply layering it onto existing workflows and hoping for the best, versus one that considers which parts of a job can be transformed, automated or augmented by technology, and then deliberately shaping the human role into something more valuable, purposeful and sustainable.
Early data shows a challenge. A recent MOM survey shows that the majority of Singapore companies have not adopted AI. Among the 28.5% that have begun using AI, meaningful integration remains limited. For companies that have started or plan to support the use of AI for employees, their focus remains overwhelmingly on training and upskilling and the provision of AI tools and subscriptions, rather than job redesign and career progression.
If we invest in upskilling workers, but do not change what they come back to – the same job scope, the same workflow, plus a backlog of work and emails that accumulated while we were upskilling – then we have not transformed anything. So, I ask the Minister, will the new agency be resourced and empowered to drive job redesign at the scale that Singapore genuinely needs?
Mr Speaker, my second ask is for the agency to close the implementation gap in skills-based hiring. We have invested significantly into SkillsFuture. Workers have put in time, effort and money into acquiring new skills, but too often they return to a job market only to be filtered out because they do not have the right paper qualifications or past job titles.
The evidence tells us that we have a challenge with employer behaviour. Singapore ranked 12 out of 30 countries in the inaugural Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-Institute for Adult Learning (OECD-IAL) Skills-First Readiness and Adoption Index published last year, where we fall short is not in worker willingness to upskill, it is in employer adoption of skills-first hiring practises. Only 21% of Singapore employers saw removing degree requirements and adopting skills-first hiring as a promising way to increase talent availability.
And when it comes to employers who would not prioritise a university degree when assessing candidates' skills, Singapore ranked last.
The index findings confirmed what a 2023 Boston Consulting Group's Skills-Based Hiring Trend Report had already shown. While the United States (US), UK and Australia had all reduced degree requirements when hiring for university-level jobs between 2017 and 2022, Singapore moved in the opposite direction. Degree requirements increased by 5.3% in the same period.
And here is what is more concerning. While much has been said about making skills-based hiring a priority and I recognise the groundwork done by introducing the skills-based hiring handbook and establishing the Centre for Skills-First Practices, it is unclear whether any of this has materially changed how Singapore employers hire.
I filed a Parliamentary Question last November, asking what percentage of public service jobs waived formal academic qualifications and employers' skills-based assessment as a primary hiring criterion. The answer I received was that the Public Service, our largest employer \"do not track the number of job postings that do or do not include formal academic requirements in their criteria.\"
I also did not get a direct response to the second part of my question about target and timelines established to accelerate skills-based hiring across public agencies.
Mr Speaker, if our largest employer cannot tell us if it is moving in the right direction, how can other Singapore employers be persuaded to do the same. Will the new agency work with the Public Service to lead the adoption of skills-based hiring across public sector jobs?
Having already released relevant toolkit to support employers, will the new agency now commit to tracking and posting statistics on the adoption of skills-based hiring by Singapore employers? This could begin with a baseline that tracks the proportion of skills-based job postings, broken down by sector and employers' size. Singaporeans should be able to see year-on-year whether hiring culture is genuinely shifting or whether we still are, as the OECD Index found, bound by a stubborn paper ceiling.
My third and final ask, Mr Speaker, is perhaps the most important – measure what genuinely changes in workers' lives and not just what the agency has done.
Over the years, we have gotten very good accounting output: how many individuals assisted? How many programmes launched? How many events conducted and persons engaged? These numbers appear in annual reports, announced with pride. But does the completed course means that a worker's prospects have actually improved? Does the formation of a company training committee mean a company has genuinely transformed?
I want to propose a simple but demanding shift from measuring output to tracking outcomes.
At the individual worker level, we should track wage progression and job retention. Track what proportion of SkillsFuture Credits were used for training that resulted in demonstrable career benefits, not just the uptake of SkillsFture programmes but the programmes' impact on workers' lives.
At the employer level, track whether companies are actually redesigning jobs and seeing productivity gains, not just sending staff for courses to access grants. Track if companies are hiring differently, valuing demonstrated skills. Are they also less likely to conduct retrenchments because they invested in their people before a downturn? These are harder to measure. They require follow through and some courage in data collection.
The agency should also publish anonymised employer level outcome data by sector and by company size. Let Singaporeans see who is genuinely transforming and who is performing transformation.
At the workforce level, track whether anxiety is coming down and resilience is going up. Track whether wages and productivity are moving in tandem. Are the benefits of transformation reaching workers across the income and skills spectrum, or whether they are concentrating as they often do at the top?
I hope the new agency's annual report will from day one commit to tracking these outcomes rather than cataloguing programmes launched. If we cannot measure it, we cannot improve it.
And Mr Speaker, I want to now close where I started – as a Singaporean worker watching this transformation unfold from the middle. Most of us are willing to learn. Some of us have already tried. What we need now is not more inspiration or encouragement. We need a system that holds employers and that moves employers and workers forward together and that holds both sides to account, one where upskilling leads somewhere, where hiring is fair and where success is measured, not in programmes run but in lives that have durably improved.
The new SWDA carries a mandate that workers have heard different versions of before and that is precisely why it should do things differently. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. For many of my residents – mid-career PMETs navigating transitions, older workers trying to stay relevant, caregivers balancing work and family, younger workers facing contract roles and SMEs struggling with manpower constraints – this Bill can have real, practical implications. It reshapes how Singapore supports workers and employers at a time when economic change is accelerating amidst disruptions driven by AI and technical advancements as well as geopolitical uncertainties.
Merging two agencies is a major organisational change. What are the key milestones and expected timelines for full integration so that workers, employers and training providers know what to anticipate?
Can the Minister share what safeguards will be in place to ensure that individuals currently in training and active job-search continue training and receive uninterrupted career guidance and job-matching support during this transition? Will service levels be set and monitored during this period to ensure that workers and employers are not adversely impacted?
Now let me talk about supporting workers. Residents often share the challenges they face navigating multiple touchpoints for training, job matching and career guidance.
This Bill strengthens career guidance, training and job matching by giving the new agency explicit statutory functions from providing career advisory services, to developing and accrediting training, to delivering employment facilitation – enabling a fully integrated end-to end support system for every individual. With integration, I am glad to hear the Minister assuring that the agency will strengthen personalised career coaching for mid-career and older workers as they face the steepest barriers.
Clause 5 gives the new agency clear statutory powers to support workers facing sectoral disruptions – through career transitions, targeted training pathways and job-matching.
Workers in certain sectors like aviation, retail, hospitality, logistics and administrative roles have faced rapid changes. The new agency can be proactive rather than reactive to better anticipate sectoral shifts as well as work with employers and design training aligned with real hiring needs, for sectors undergoing sectoral transformation.
Can the Minister share how the new agency will use the coordination powers outlined in the Bill to intervene early in disrupted sectors to support workers before displacement occurs?
Let me now touch about flexibility of training. Many workers – especially caregivers – need modular, flexible or part time options. How will the agency ensure that flexible training formats and blended learning pathways are expanded to support workers with irregular schedules and those with caregiving responsibilities? How will the new agency ensure that these flexible options meet industry-recognised outcomes, deliver clear learning outcomes, and remain aligned with employer and sector needs? This is important because it ensures that workers who need flexibility are not disadvantaged, and that the skills they acquire remain credible and valued in the labour market.
Let me now touch on supporting younger workers. I have previously shared feedback from our young residents which indicate an increasing trend of younger workers entering the workforce through contract roles, or have employment disrupted due to business restructuring or transformation. Many have shared with me the anxieties and the challenges they face re-entering the workforce after their contracts end, or when their roles evolve or phased out.
Can the Minister clarify how the new agency will support younger workers whose employment are disrupted by restructuring or who struggle to secure stable roles after completing contract work?
A lot has been said about AI and the Minister too shared on this. AI is reshaping job roles across every sector, and workers need timely, coordinated support to navigate these changes. Clause 5 of the Bill equips the new agency to identify emerging needs early and develop and accredit training and provide career guidance for workers whose roles are being transformed.
Can I ask the Minister to also share what the agency can do to help workers understand how AI will affect their roles, access relevant training early, and transition into new or redesigned jobs with confidence? Will the agency proactively monitor emerging AI trends and their impact on job roles and skills requirements? And how will the agency work with employers, unions, sector agencies and technology partners to identify early signals of job transformation, update the skills frameworks ahead of time and, most importantly, ensure workers receive timely guidance and training before disruptions take hold?
Now let me touch on employers. SMEs often tell us that they are overwhelmed by multiple schemes and processes and a single integrated agency will simplify this experience.
A clear and streamlined interface for employers is essential if we want job redesign, training grants and manpower advisory to be easily accessible, especially for SMEs who often lack dedicated HR capacity. The Bill provides the foundation which empower the new agency to offer integrated manpower advisory, and workforce upgrading support and enables coordination across job redesign, training and grant programmes. This creates the basis for a single, coherent touchpoint for employers.
The Minister did share that there would alignment of skills development with labour data, labour market data and integrated workforce development and transformation. He also spoke about the importance of partnership. So, I would like seek clarification on how the agency will work with the various industry players, industry associations, unions and sector partners to ensure that the SMEs receive timely, practical and sector relevant support as they navigate the workforce transformation and adopt new practices on the ground.
A challenge that employers frequently face is that training does not always match real operational needs. How will the agency ensure that employer feedback is systematically incorporated into training pathways and programme design? And will employers be engaged in curriculum design and workforce planning?
Finally, before I conclude, I would like to ask Minister to share what measures will be in place to assess the effectiveness of the new integrated agency?
Mr Speaker, the questions and clarifications I have raised – and there are many – reflect broader concerns about the potential gaps that remain, even with the consolidation of functions of SSG and WSG, and the clearer mandates set out in this Bill. Consolidation alone does not guarantee a seamless experience for workers or employers, nor does it automatically ensure that the new agency will be able to proactively address technological disruptions or uphold the quality and effectiveness of training and support across all formats.
These outcomes will depend heavily on strong implementation, clear accountability for results, and close partnership with employers, unions, industry associations and training providers. It is this ecosystem alignment – not structure alone – that will determine whether the agency can deliver on the full promise of the Bill and provide meaningful, timely support for both workers and employers as our economy continues to transform.
A key point I pick up throughout the Minister's speech is that while the integration of SSG and WSG is important, it is the role it plays in building and strengthening the ecosystem that is critical. And Mr Speaker, I stress this point because I think it is a recognition that one agency cannot the panacea to solve all problems and the recognition that it takes all of us and I think the Minister touched on this about the need for a mindset and a cultural change and a partnership.
So, I would like to say that I do agree with him, but it goes beyond integration. It will be really a whole shift in how all parties work together.
Mr Speaker, this Bill gives us an important opportunity to strengthen the way we support our workers and employers through economic and technological change. If we get it right, we can build a more responsive, integrated and future ready ecosystem that helps workers navigate disruption with confidence and enables employers, especially our SMEs, to transform and grow. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, over the past decade, SSG and WSG have each delivered important outcomes. SSG has built a culture of lifelong learning and expanded access to training. WSG has evolved from a placement agency into one that supports career guidance, transitions and employability. Taken together, they have supported many workers and firms and have laid the foundation for a more resilient workforce.
At the same time, AI and other technologies are already reshaping how work is done. This is affecting hiring decisions, job design and workforce structures. In this environment, the link between growth, jobs and skills is becoming less direct.
Sir, a worker does not experience the system in two parts. He experiences it as one journey, from training to employment, to career and wage progression. And the same is true from a business perspective. A business does not think in terms of training policy versus employment policy. It thinks in terms of whether it can access the right skills, at the right time and at a cost it can sustain.
This is where the rationale for the merger becomes clear.
The intention is to create a more coordinated system, one that connects skills to jobs and jobs back to skills in a continuous loop. It signals a shift towards a user-centric system where support is organised around the journey of workers and the workforce needs of businesses rather than around individual programmes.
I support this. However, the key question is how this translates into a better experience for businesses on the ground. I have six areas of clarifications.
First, companies today trying to reskill and redeploy workers must navigate multiple schemes, portals and processes. Even where support exists, it is not always clear how the different pieces fit together. Similar programmes, such as WSG's Career Conversion Programmes and SSG's Career Transition Programmes, operate with different rules, funding structures and employer touchpoints. SMEs do not have the internal capacity to interpret policy intent, design training pathways and manage compliance across multiple schemes.
In a fast-moving environment, these delays directly affect competitiveness and workforce outcomes. I would like to ask how the agency intends to operationalise this user-centric model so that it delivers a genuinely simpler and more intuitive experience where workers and businesses can navigate a single, coherent pathway, rather than multiple disconnected ones?
And beyond the front-end experience, how will the agency address the underlying system design? Today, many programmes are designed to achieve similar outcomes but operate in parallel. Even if access is streamlined, fragmentation can persist behind the scenes.
Will the agency use this merger to rationalise and align these overlapping schemes into a more coherent, employer-facing system so that a firm pursuing a single objective, such as redeployment or upskilling, does not have to operate across multiple tracks? A related point is preserving a strong employer focus. While the merger brings jobs and skills together, the third leg is business demand, which ultimately generates those jobs.
Businesses are not just consumers of programmes; they are the source of job creation and the drivers of skills demand. How will the agency ensure it remains deeply employer-responsive and not primarily programme-driven? In particular, how will it prioritise skills that employers need now rather than courses that are easier to scale or administer?
In this regard, while not suggesting further structural changes, it is important that the jobs and skills system remains closely anchored to enterprise transformation efforts led by Enterprise Singapore and supported by the trade associations and chambers (TACs), which are closest to business needs.
A second area of responsiveness is sector-specific realities.
Different sectors face very different workforce dynamics. Manufacturing firms are upgrading automation. Digital firms are competing globally for talent. Healthcare providers are managing acute manpower shortages. Sustainability-focused sectors are adapting to new regulatory demands. Each requires distinct workforce strategies.
Feedback from the Singapore Manufacturing Federation suggests that sector-embedded models, such as the SkillsFuture Queen Bee approach, have been effective precisely because they are grounded in industry practice and supported by TACs. Even after the merger, it will be important to preserve and deepen this sector responsiveness. I would, therefore, like to ask how the agency intends to retain and strengthen sector-specific expertise. Will industry-led frameworks, co-developed with TACs, continue to shape programme design? And will support remain differentiated for SMEs and large enterprises, given that the majority of our workforce is employed by SMEs?
A third area is the funding and compliance framework.
The Bill introduces stronger powers around verification, inspection and recovery of funding. These are necessary, particularly considering past abuses. But in recent years, the cumulative effect of tighter controls had been longer reimbursement timelines, heavier documentation requirements and increased administrative burden even for firms with strong track records.
For SMEs, this creates real cashflow strains, as firms often have to carry training and wage costs for extended periods while awaiting reimbursement.
In this regard, can the agency move towards a more risk-based approach? Can we differentiate between employers with established compliance histories and higher-risk cases? Can audits be more targeted and reliance placed more on post-disbursement or exception-based checks?
Related to this is how sensitive business information will be handled. Businesses understand the need for verification but may want clearer safeguards when requests touch on customer confidentiality, intellectual property or regulated information.
A fourth area is capability translation.
For many SMEs, the constraint is not access to training, but the ability to translate training into productivity. What SMEs need is more applied support, contextualised training, embedded learning and project-based approaches tied to real operational challenges. In this regard, will the agency place greater emphasis on applied, firm-level capability so that training is more directly linked to measurable business outcomes?
A fifth area is speed and responsiveness.
As AI accelerates, workforce disruption may become more frequent and more compressed in time. From a worker's perspective, the key issue is not just whether training is available, but how quickly that translates into re-employment. Will the agency place a stronger emphasis on what we may call the \"rebound\"? How quickly and effectively workers are supported from displacement back into meaningful employment?
The use of integrated intelligence to identify at-risk workers earlier is a promising development. How proactive will these interventions be in practice, and how will businesses be engaged when early signals of workforce disruption are identified?
At the same time, many firms would prefer to redesign roles and redeploy workers internally rather than retrench. Will the agency consider strengthening incentives and support for such employer-led redeployment, so that companies are encouraged to build and transition their existing workforce?
Finally, Mr Speaker, there is the issue of service standards and transition discipline.
As the ecosystem of training, career and employment service providers expands, it will be important to ensure consistency in quality, standards and outcomes across providers. I would like to ask how the agency intends to manage this as the ecosystem grows.
Sir, the direction of the merger is clear, but during any integration, there is a risk that existing schemes, applications and commitments to businesses may become disrupted or delayed. Many companies are already participating in ongoing programmes offered by WSG and SSG. These should not be slowed down or require rework simply because the administering structure has changed.
I would like to ask whether the Government will provide clear transition assurance that existing schemes, pending applications and ongoing commitments will continue to be honoured under their current terms and timelines, as far as possible?
I note that the Bill provides for transitional regulations over a two-year period. Given the scale of integration, I would like to ask what further measures may be considered should issues persist beyond that period?
Lastly, I would also like to ask whether the agency will consider publishing a service charter, setting out expected response times, processing timelines, escalating channels and sector points of contact. For SMEs in particular, delays in approvals or unclear responses can directly affect hiring, training and transformation decisions.
Mr Speaker, the intent of this Bill is sound. It reflects the need for a more coordinated and integrated workforce system at a time when the pace of economic and technological change is accelerating. As we move into the next phase of transformation, the success of this merger will allow Singaporeans and our businesses to navigate a much more complex and uncertain future with confidence.
Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, this Bill is about bringing skills, career and employment functions under one agency. But that itself, is only the means, it is not the end. The real question is pretty simple: will this make life easier and clearer for Singaporeans trying to find their way in a changing economy?
In my Budget speech, I spoke about transitions and the need to have greater clarity and I think that is exactly the issue here that we are addressing.
For many students, fresh graduates and workers today, the problem is not just whether support exists. The problem is whether the way forward is clear, whether there is clarity. In what jobs are growing,\twhat skills really matter, which pathway is worth taking and who can help me get there? And that is why this Bill matters.
This Bill gives SWDA a broad remit across career, employment and training matters. It is meant to support students preparing for entry into the labour market, Singaporean's seeking employment or re-employment and employees seeking to develop their careers and remain in productive employment.
Sir, I want to speak from two vantage points that I have seen firsthand as an educator: pre-employment training students and continuing education and training learners. These are two different groups. They have different pressures. But both are really asking the same question: where does this path lead to?
And to me that is where SWDA comes in. In fact, if I may put it very bluntly and simply, SWDA must be the bridge between learning and work.
Let me start with the pre-employment training (PET) students. As a former educator, I have seen many students do everything right. They study hard, they complete their courses, they submit their work, mostly. They try to make good decisions. But as graduation approaches, many still become quite anxious. Not because they do not want to start work. Not because they are lazy. Not because they are not sure how to turn what they have learnt into a real first job.
Because they ask: fundamentally, does this qualification still matter?\tWill employers value me for what I can do?\tDo I still need more training? Do I need experience before I can even get experience?
This is what I would call the first-job gap. It is the gap between finishing a formative stage of life and seeing a real route towards meaningful work. It is in that gap that confidence can disappear very quickly. I have seen capable, hardworking and promising students lose their footing at exactly the moment they should have been stepping forward with confidence.
Some took temporary work while trying to find their footing. Some drifted into jobs beyond what they have been trained for, not because they chose that path confidently, but because they could not see a way into something better. What they lacked was not willingness. What they lacked was a clear bridge into work. And many parents are asking the same things in their own way: after all that effort, after all these years of study, is there a real pathway to a real job?
Sir, I acknowledge that the Government has already taken steps to support fresh graduates. The GRiT programme is one such measure. It helps fresh graduates gain experience and skills through structured traineeships and I find it very useful. But it is still largely help that comes at a point after graduation and this issue is now even more urgent. The newly announced Tripartite Jobs Council reflects that reality that workers and businesses are already facing disruption from AI and economic change.
If one part of that is to help young people and fresh graduates find their footing, then that only reinforces the point that we cannot wait until the end of the journey to intervene. So, we must shape the pathways earlier. So, when we talk about workforce development, we cannot wait until the end of the journey and then say: \"Here are some portals, here are some schemes, good luck.\" That is not the pathway. That is a scavenger hunt.
So, SWDA must move upstream. That means better career guidance earlier in the student's journey. It means clearer signals on which jobs are growing and which skills matter. It means making internships, attachments and industry projects more normal, not something enjoyed mainly by those who already have the right networks. And it means making the school-to-work transition less dependent on luck. Our young people do not just need more options. They need better direction.
Sir, there is another group that I have also worked closely over the years, and these are the CET learners. Recently, some of them just graduated from their polytechnics and they messaged me: how happy do were to finish that line. They shared, over time, that their challenge is really different.
For a CET learner, going back to class is rarely a small decision. Many are already working and they have family responsibilities. Some are under financial pressure. Some have not studied for many years. Some are trying to recover from retrenchment, stagnation or simply a loss of confidence.
So, when a CET learner signs up for a course, normally, it is not casual. It is often an act of hope. They are saying: I am willing to learn again. I am willing to put in the effort. But I need to know this leads to somewhere.
This is a transition gap. It is the gap between returning to learn and actually improving one's job prospects, income, confidence or long-term mobility, and this is where frustration can bite hard because many adult learners are not looking for enrichment. They are looking for improvement. They do not want a certificate that just sits in a folder. They want to know: will this help me pivot? Will this improve my employability? Will this help me a role with prospects? And will these skills that I have learnt be recognised?
I have taught adult learners who came to class after work, carrying family responsibilities and financial pressure, like I mentioned earlier. They were serious, disciplined and were not there to collect papers. Their question was always practical: if I invest my evenings, my weekends and my energy in this, will it really lead to better jobs, better wages, or a more secure future? So, that is a fair question. In fact, that is the right question.
So, if SWDA is to succeed, it must not only support participation in CET. It must ensure CET is much more closely connected to job transitions, employer recognition and actual labour market demand. Otherwise, we are asking people to invest time, effort and money into learning without giving them a clearer route forward and that would be deeply unfair.
Sir, when we look at PET students and CET learners together, the lesson is clear. The issue in Singapore today is not just whether we have the courses. It is not whether we have job vacancies. It is whether people can move from learning to work with greater confidence and less guesswork.
This is why this merger matters. If SWDA works well, it can make that journey clearer, more practical and certainly, more credible, and this is where the merger in the right direction. It talks about moving beyond fragmented support towards upstream guidance, better triaging, stronger service integration and support that comes before crisis, not after.
Sir, I hope SWDA will focus on four practical shifts.
First, make jobs and skills information far more usable. A student should be able to understand what jobs are growing, what adjacent roles exist and what skills employers value. An adult learner should be able to understand whether a course is likely to help with employability, a job move or a proper pivot.
Second, strengthen work-integrated learning and applied exposure. Internships, attachments, project work and structured pathways into first jobs should not be left to chance. They should become more systematic, especially for those who do not already start with advantages.
Third, make skills-based matching real. Workers should be able to see what skills they already have, what roles they may be suited for, what gaps remain and what support can help them close that gap, and employers should be encouraged to hire with a clearer view of skills and potential, not just relying on pedigree shortcuts. This is also where I think we can learn from what is already happening on the ground.
Today, Singaporeans already have Government tools, such as MyCareersFuture and the Careers and Skills Passport to support job search and career planning. At the same time, e2i's NTUC AI Career Coach is trying to make career support more integrated and easier to use. The issue is not which platform exists or which platform is better. The issue is whether SWDA can make an overall experience more joined-up, so that workers do not feel like they are moving across separate islands of support.
Fourth, support must arrive before the crisis, not after. Too often, help comes after someone has already lost confidence, momentum or income. We need a system that can identify risk earlier and support people while they still have time and options. That is a smarter policy. And frankly, that is a more humane policy.
Sir, a central agency is useful. But an agency alone does not place workers. A good system does. And that is why strong tripartite coordination remains essential, including how SWDA works alongside the newly announced Tripartite Jobs Council so that training, transformation and job transitions reinforce one another, because people do not experience policy in neat categories. They experience it in much more simply, either I got help in time or I was left to figure it out by myself. That is the real test.
Sir, we should also be careful about how we define success. It is not enough to count how many people joined a particular programme, attended a course or received support. I think the real questions are: Did they get a job? Was it a suitable job? Did they stay? Did they progress? Did their wages improve? Workers should be able to land, stay and progress. If SWDA is bringing skills and employment together, then it should also bring measurements together. Otherwise, we may end up celebrating activity without knowing whether lives are actually improving.
Sir, this also matters deeply for communities working hard to turn aspiration into mobility. Sir, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): In my work with M3+ Focus Area Four (FA4), and now as co-chair of the newly formed Economic Resilience Committee with Mr Saktiandi, it is clear to me that many Malay/Muslim youth, workers and families are not asking for sympathy.
They want clarity.
They want practical support.
They want fair access to good jobs and real opportunities for advancement.
And this matters because each group requires a different form of support; youth who are just entering the workforce, fresh graduates seeking their first opportunity, mid-career workers who are adapting, professionals who want to remain relevant and entrepreneurs who want to continue to grow.
In my work with M3+ FA4, this issue not just being studied at a policy level, but as a real effort to help job seekers and workers who are trying to adapt, upskill and regain their footing.
In efforts such as the digital measures that we have launched, it also demonstrates that different groups require different kinds of support – youth as early adopters, families as users that need guidance, the workforce as practical users and seniors as users who need to be reassured.
What matters now is ensuring that this confidence translates into good jobs, career advancement and economic resilience.
We have made progress in education and training.
But for many Malay/Muslim families, the real question is whether the pathway is clear for them?
Clear from school to employment.
Clear from training to a job.
Clear from unstable work to a better career.
This is where the role of SWDA must truly be felt on the ground.
As part of the efforts by FA4 effort as well as the Economic Resilience Committee, I hope we can work closely with SWDA so that the support provided truly matches the needs of different groups: whether they are youth, fresh graduates, mid-career workers, professionals and entrepreneurs.
This includes identifying growth sectors with strong potential, connecting our community to those opportunities, and building pathways that can genuinely translate into good jobs, career advancement and long-term economic resilience.
For me, this is not merely a matter of access.
This is a matter of mobility.
(In English): Sir, if SWDA succeeds, our PET students will step into work with greater confidence, our CET learners will have greater assurance that learning can lead to real progress and our workers will move faster into suitable roles with less confusion and less anxiety.
Sir, in supporting this Bill, I hope the Government can clarify three practical points.
First, how will SWDA move upstream to close both the first-job gap for students and the transition gap for adult learners, so that pathways become clearer much earlier? Second, how will SWDA measure success beyond participation numbers, including whether people are placed into suitable jobs, whether they stay, whether they progress and whether their wages improve over time? Third, what concrete service experience should Singaporeans feel within the next one or two years in guidance, in matching and transition support that will show this merger is actually making the pathway much clearer. With those clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, today, workers have to reskill and upskill amidst a rapidly evolving economy in order to remain relevant and competitive in a challenging workforce. One of the ways that our policies seek to do so is by getting workers to undertake further training and education. Yet this, in itself, is challenging. Attending courses, often whilst juggling work and other life commitments, requires a significant expenditure of energy, time and also money.
As we debate the merger of SSG and WSG into the SWDA, we must ensure that processes and policies instituted in the new agency are ultimately rooted in people, a people-centric approach. They must lead to fruitful employment opportunities for workers and result in a deep pool of talent for employers to draw from.
A people-centric approach to skills upgrading should also be easy for training providers to navigate. Adult private education institutes established under clause 78 of the Bill will be under the purview of two Ministries: MOE and MOM.
However, given that institutions would have to satisfy both academic standards and industrial needs, can the Minister clarify what would be the new agency's approach should there be any tension between these two aims? For example, how do we resolve competing aims that may arise out of the short-term workforce needs of industry against a longer-term educational and development lens? How will we end up preventing the creation of a two-headed monster in this new agency? Specifically, what safeguards will we put in place to prevent fragmented oversight or conflicting directives within the agency?
Another crucial aspect of a people-centred SWDA is to ensure open availability of granular information for the public and policymakers alike to analyse the outcome of the agency's policies. This is established under clause 5(1)(g), which articulates the agency's responsibility to collect and publish data on career, employment and training matters alongside labour market insights,
WSG's annual report noted that in 2024, around 40,000 local workers managed to secure employment via WSG and e2I's career matching services. Do we have data that shows that the opportunities matched and employment secured via these services do match jobseeker skills and qualifications? Effective job matching requires career advisers with wide networks and a deep understanding of their industry. What is the Minister's assessment of the Volunteer Career Adviser Scheme's effectiveness in job matching and what are the Government's future plans regarding the scheme?
Drilling down further into our existing programmes, the Career Conversion Programme and GRIT programme are aimed at mid-career workers and fresh graduates respectively. In addition to providing work experience, these programmes also provide participants a pathway towards full-time employment with their host organisation.
How do we ensure that employers are not exploiting these schemes as a revolving door of Government-subsidised labour, instead of meaningfully inducting participants into full-time roles in their host organisations after the programme is completed? Although retention data is available at the industry level via Parliamentary Questions, it would be informative to study the proportion of participants retained as full-time employees by their respective host organisations at the employer level, including how long such employees stayed.
As mentioned by my Sengkang colleague, Jamus Lim, during Committee of Supply this year, we could allow a maximum number of times for an employer to participate in a programme but not employ any trainees upon completion of the programme. This could be a start to help us identify if there are employers who may be exploiting such schemes for cheaper labour, ultimately running counter to the spirit of such programmes.
There was also a rush by many Singaporeans to redeem their expiring SkillsFuture credits last year. Yet were these credits utilised for courses and programmes that genuinely improved our people's employability or offer positive contributions to personal growth and development that trickle into other dive domains? A Forum letter to The Straits Times at the end of last year voiced a concern about the quality of some SkillsFuture courses – overpriced, with poor learning outcomes and laughable assessments.
Currently, SSG-funded courses are evaluated via the training quality and outcomes measurement framework, which surveys participants. However, such self-reported surveys may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of these courses in enhancing the employment prospects of their attendees.
To measure employment outcomes, we need to focus more on objective metrics, such as longer-term post-course employment status, in order to more accurately evaluate whether these courses genuinely improve employment outcomes. This analysis could be carried out, for example, using CPF data to determine the effectiveness of each SkillsFuture course.
While it can be argued that having these schemes are reflective of a government willing to invest in building the capabilities of its people, the jury is still out on their return on investment without sufficient data publicly available.
The Workers' Party manifesto includes calls for the Government to track and publish clear KPIs on the effectiveness of SkillsFuture and career coaching programmes. Such data may include the take-up rate, duration of employment and post-training placement. Having public data allows the public to know about the effectiveness of their schemes and will aid to pinpoint potential areas for improvement.
Also, while the Government is an active creator of early career opportunities, such as internships and traineeships, I also hope that we can work towards providing more opportunities for mid-career transitioners as well.
I would also like to make a few remarks on how we develop a significant part of our workforce – persons with disabilities (PwDs). If we wish to see the greater integration of PwDs into the wider community, the targets we set must encompass a wider range of factors. For instance, while the Enabling Masterplan 2030 aims to achieve a 40% employment rate among PwDs by that year, there are other factors to be considered as well.
While skill and qualification-related underemployment within the overall labour market was tracked in a recent NTUC study on underemployment, the Disabled People's Association (DPA) suggested in 2024 that these metrics should also be tracked for the PwD community. Coordination with SG Enable needs to take place to collect and publish data surrounding the retention of participants under the School-To-Work and Place-and-Train programmes to ensure these programmes' effectiveness and boosting full-time employment among PwDs. As many job seekers with disabilities experience demoralising hurdles when job hunting, a people-centric and inclusive SWDA should be attuned to the needs of PwDs, thus helping to address under employment among PwDs.
Although the employment rate for PwDs has increased to 34.7% in 2025, many PwDs have expressed concerns that the roles offered to them by employment support services often do not meet their career aspirations and skillsets. Interviews with PwDs by the DPA also highlighted the tendency for jobseekers with disabilities to be pigeonholed into certain roles, especially within the services industry. If we wish for PwDs to thrive in our society, they should not be constrained to a select few job scopes. I hope that the SWDA would factor in the prior skills and experience of jobseekers with disabilities when job matching. Additional support could be regarded via an in-house accessibility office, which could provide services, such as consulting with employers regarding reasonable accommodations.
We must additionally ensure that PwDs have fewer barriers to access the wide range of courses available for re-skilling and upskilling. This is in alignment with Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which calls on governments to enable PwDs' effective access to general technical and vocational guidance programmes, placement services and vocational and continuing training.
Many PwDs were affected by the recent closure of Mountbatten Vocational School, which provides PwDs with higher support needs and avenue to pick up skills in preparation for a subsequent education at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) or entry into the workforce. For PwDs with lower support needs, many have cited difficulty participating in SkillsFuture courses due to accessibility issues. This is backed up by the 2024 Disability Trends report highlighting that 61.6% of PwDs noted that they found it difficult to attend training programmes due to barriers because of their disability.
While the Enabling Academy's work in developing training courses catered to PwDs on topics, such as AI and cooking, is important, in the spirit of inclusivity, SkillsFuture courses should be made accessible to all via the provision of reasonable accommodations, a point that I and others in this House have previously made.
Finally, what it means to be a people-centred economy. During the recent Budget Statement, the Prime Minister highlighted the outsized role AI plays in our economic strategy. In the domain of reskilling, this includes revamping the SkillsFuture website with an increased focus on AI and offering participants of select AI courses, a free six-month premium AI subscription. Similarly, the recently updated criteria for courses to obtain Government funding requires either certification from a course endorsement body, or 50% of the skills taught should be listed on the Course Approval Skills List (CASL).
For the CASL, in particular, the skills listed support good growth jobs and are important for Singapore's economy. While skills important to the social sector, such as social services, youth development and casework management, are included in the CASL, I believe we can do more to drive up our social service manpower capacity and overall interest in the sector. As I previously mentioned in my Budget 2024 speech, I hope that the agency would platform these skills in addition to economic growth drivers, such as tech and AI.
To conclude, while the SWDA drives economic growth by widening and deepening our talent pool, the agency work also affects the livelihoods of individual Singaporeans, and we must ensure that it is people centric. This involves untangling unnecessary red tape for training providers and broadening the types of data collected to monitor the agency's effectiveness in securing fruitful employment opportunities and outcomes for Singaporeans. Furthermore, the agency should also boost its capabilities serving marginalised communities, such as PwDs and ex-offenders, whilst promoting the people sector, not just focus on areas with strong economic potential. Notwithstanding this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, this Bill comes at a time when our workforce is navigating significant uncertainty, amid economic pressures and disruptive technological change. Jobs are being redesigned, new roles are emerging and existing roles are evolving at a faster pace than ever before.
For many workers, especially mid-career and lower-wage workers, these changes bring both opportunity and uncertainty. In this context, the need for a more integrated and responsive workforce development system is clear. By bringing together SSG and WSG under a single Statutory Board, this Bill strengthens coherence across skills development, employment facilitation and career progression. The Labour Movement supports this direction.
Mr Speaker, workers do not experience their careers in neat, distinct stages. Skills acquisition, employment and progression are closely interlinked. Bringing these functions together within a single agency can reduce fragmentation and improve coordination.
For workers, this should mean a more seamless experience, where access to career guidance, training and job placements are better aligned. As this integration is implemented, it will be important to ensure that processes remain streamlined and responsive to both workers and employers.
In particular, we must ensure that this more integrated system delivers for those who need it most.
Mr Speaker, lower-wage workers must benefit meaningfully from this integration. They often face greater constraints in accessing training and career opportunities. The system must therefore be designed with their needs in mind. It should be accessible, adequately supported and outcome-focused, so that workers can upgrade without undue strain and see clear improvements in employment and wages.
In this regard, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) remains a key pillar in our efforts. PWM has uplifted lower-wage workers by linking wages to skills, productivity and career progression. It has also contributed to sustained wage growth across several sectors.
For PWM to remain effective, it must be supported by a well-aligned skills ecosystem. In this regard, I have three suggestions: first, I urge the new agency to align training pathways more closely with PWM job ladders, so that workers can clearly see how skills upgrading leads to wage progression; second, I encourage continued collaboration with tripartite partners to keep sectoral skills frameworks current and responsive; third, I call on the new agency to expand workplace-based training, enabling workers to upgrade while remaining employed.
At the same time, sustained wage growth depends on continued productivity gains. Mr Speaker, I would like to ask how the new agency intends to support companies, especially SMEs in PWM sectors, to undertake job redesign and productivity improvements and better wage outcomes for our lower-wage workers. Can it provide more structured advisory support, practical tools and targeted funding to help companies adopt technology and better match skills to jobs? This will be key to ensuring that productivity keeps pace with wage increases and that PWM remains sustainable over the long term.
Building on this link between skills and progression, let me turn to the Careers and Skills Passport that was introduced in 2024 and also mentioned by the Minister in his opening speech. This initiative can complement PWM, particularly in sectors where wage progression is tied to clearly defined skills ladders. The passport provides workers with a consolidated record of their skills and experience, improving both transparency and portability.
However, one key question is whether lower-wage workers, especially those in PWM sectors, are actively using the passport today. If not, what more can be done to raise awareness, improve accessibility and encourage adoption among this group? We must ensure that tools, like the Careers and Skills Passport, are not just used by those who are already ahead, but also by those we most want to uplift.
How does the new agency plan to integrate the passport with sectoral skills frameworks, particularly in PWM sectors? And how will it support employers, especially SMEs, to use the passport more effectively in hiring and progression decisions? Stronger and more inclusive adoption can improve skills recognition and job matching outcomes.
Beyond supporting workers in employment and progression, we must also ensure that those who step out of the workforce can return with confidence.
Mr Speaker, as the new agency builds pathways to support individuals returning to work, this must include not only caregivers but also workers who have experienced injury or sudden illness.
As I have previously highlighted in this House, returning to work after an injury or an illness is often not straightforward. Workers may face reduced capacity, loss of confidence and uncertainty about how to re-enter employment. A setback in health should not become a permanent setback in employment.
At the same time, employers may be unsure how best to accommodate such workers. Recovery is not just a medical issue, it is also a workplace issue. We therefore need a more structured and coordinated approach. I would like to encourage the new agency to strengthen support for those returning to the workforce in three areas.
First, job redesign and matching. Jobs must adapt to workers, just as workers adapt to jobs. Can the new agency work more closely with employers to redesign roles and identify suitable job opportunities?
Second, skills recovery and transition. How will the new agency support targeted training and career guidance to help these workers re-enter the workforce?
Third, employer support and incentives. Can the new agency consider introducing targeted support for flexible work arrangements, such as a \"Flexi-Work\" grant to encourage modified roles, reduced hours, or even phased return-to-work options?
A phased return to work can make the difference between dropping out and staying in the workforce. More broadly, we must move from ad hoc support to a structured return-to-work system, so that workers are not left behind due to unforeseen life circumstances.
Mr Speaker, this Bill lays the foundation for a more integrated and responsive workforce development system. The Labour Movement supports its intent.
Success will be judged by how well we improve the lived experience of workers – whether they can move with confidence between jobs, whether skills upgrading leads to real wage progression and whether lower-wage workers see sustained improvements in their livelihoods. If we keep these outcomes at the centre of our efforts, this reform will strengthen both our workforce system and the compact between workers, employers and the Government. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on these points.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Speaker, we are asked today to approve the merger of two agencies. I would use this occasion to ask whether the system they inherit is the right one.
We often speak of skills upgrading and credentials. The real question is simpler: are we building real capabilities for our workers?
Here is where I think the Government has done well. WSG's Place-and-Train Career Conversion Programmes are – by the Government's 2024 evaluation – a success. Close to 18,000 mid-career Singaporeans were placed between 2017 and 2022. Wages rose by up to 6.5% by year four. Employment retention improved by four percentage points. And the biggest gains went to non-PMET and mature workers – the groups the credit-based system has struggled to reach.
I also would like to acknowledge the 38 Skills Frameworks that were co-built with industry, unions and professional bodies. They are a useful compilation of the skills and competencies expected for each role in these sectors.
But as those who have been hiring managers know: what is in the frameworks sets necessary but insufficient bars. You still need interviews and competency tests to actually hire well.
This success of this Place-and-Train employer-anchored programme contrasts with other parts of the system which are not doing so well, such as the credit-based, individual-based SkillsFuture programme.
The credit-based side of the system has struggled on both integrity and take-up. In 2017, a syndicate fraud extracted nearly $40 million through fake enrolments. The Auditor-General later found millions more in overpayments and uncollected levies. On demand: the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme – the flagship of mid-career upskilling, offering a $4,000 top-up – had reached only 28,000 out of 1.2 million eligible citizens by end-2024, which is only 2%.
I do not think this is an execution failure, but a flaw in the policy idea itself.
The SkillsFuture system of the last decade is an example of the individual-credit system: the Government funds individuals to purchase courses from a permissive provider market. Suppliers capture the funds; fraud is possible; links with entry-level capability are weak. The largest meta-analysis of active labour-market programmes – Card, Kluve and Weber, 2018, with 207 estimates across 200-plus studies – found classroom training shows weak or negative short-run effects, with gains emerging only at the two- to three-year mark, and concentrated on the long-term unemployed.
The populations best served by these programmes are the displaced and long-term jobless, not mid-career workers who need to shore up against job precarity or climb the wage ladder.
In France, they tried this model. In 2015, under President Hollande, they launched the Compte Personnel de Formation, a personal training account. Training hours attached to the person, not the job. The 2018 Macron reform converted those hours to euros – €500 a year, capped at €5,000, with higher caps for the lower-qualified. Then, in 2019 they built an app, Mon Compte Formation, a consumer-grade marketplace where any worker could browse, book or pay for any accredited course in a few taps. Employers and unions were disintermediated and cut out entirely. Twenty-one million accounts were activated. More than two million training purchases a year. It was one of the boldest individual-credit experiments of any major economy.
The result is instructive. TRACFIN, France's financial intelligence unit, recorded a five-fold rise in suspected fraud in a single year, from €8 million in 2020 to €43 million in 2021. Cold callers and fictitious providers followed the money. France spent the next four years walking it back: banning cold-calling, imposing co-payments that have since been raised twice, capping the most-abused course categories. France had the digital infrastructure, had the regulators and had the financial intelligence unit. What it did not have was any party other than the state itself bearing consequences for training quality.
The principal-agent problem is not solved by transparency, digitisation or individual choice. The chain of transmission of consequences for an individual credit system, from ministry to agency to provider to learner to employer, is such that nobody bears the consequences of low-quality training. It is a principal-agent problem. No one is a principal.
The Career Conversion Programmes work because an employer is the principal before training begins. The individual-credit channel, by design, lacks that principal and no amount of enforcement can substitute for it.
It seems SkillsFuture has unfolded in a similar way. Can we redesign the system so that employers, not individuals purchasing courses, become the accountable parties? Not individual choice, which is what we have, but structured employer accountability: sectoral associations and firms bearing reputational and financial consequences for training quality. This would sharpen the Skills Frameworks too. Employers with skin in the game will push for a fuller accounting of what a job actually requires, not just entry criteria, but the tacit knowledge needed to stay and grow.
When funds are provisioned individually, the government defaults to input-side accountability: ensuring providers are accredited, claims meet thresholds and participants receive a certification. Whether the credential improves a worker's employability is not measurable at the point of purchase, only in labour outcomes, years later. The system optimises for what it can count, not what it should produce.
I think it is desirable to have sectoral associations and firms lead the upskilling journey directly to solve the principal-agent problem and consequently, invest in deep, long-duration training.
How do other economies solve the principal-agent problem?
Germany's apprenticeship system operates within one of Europe's most mobile credentialed labour markets, their Industrie- und Handelskammer or Chambers of Industry and Commerce certification is portable. The goal is workers who are chosen repeatedly at a premium, not workers who cannot leave. German apprentices earn about 15% more than the untrained two decades after entry, with lower unemployment risk and faster re-employment.
Economic skill-formation literature identifies three conditions for firms to invest in deep, long-duration training.
First, wage compression – sectoral bargaining that narrows pay differentials within a sector so rivals cannot simply poach trained workers at a premium.
Second, portable credentials – standardised, externally certified occupational profiles, so a worker's skill is legible to the whole labour market and the worker is willing to invest their own time.
Third, industry co-governance of curriculum – so that what is taught tracks what industry actually needs.
Singapore has the second of these, roughly. SkillsFuture certifications approximate portable credentials. Industry transformation maps and trade associations do consultative work that touches co-governance, but it is advisory, not binding – no sectoral employer body exercises a sign-off or veto on SkillsFuture curriculum, and no named individual's reputation moves with and is staked on the employment outcomes.
As I understand it, NTUC mainly bargains at the enterprise level rather than at the collective sector level.
So, I think we have neither true industry co-governance of curriculums, nor do we have sectoral bargaining to achieve wage compression. Some will say Singapore is too small for German-style sectoral institutions. Switzerland, population nine million, sustains deep sectoral bargaining and apprenticeship in pharma, watchmaking, and machine tools. Size is not the binding constraint. Institutional architecture is.
I have two proposals.
First, sectoral bargaining. NTUC's current architecture is attuned to individual employer engagement. That is not the right vehicle for deep tacit-knowledge sectors. These sectors need binding sectoral wage scales, not just floors, but scales that compress the wage distribution.
Right now, a firm that invests in deep training risks losing that worker to a competitor the day after certification. Wage compression fixes this. It narrows pay gaps so poaching is not worth it. The return on training stays with the firm that trained. That is why German firms fund three-year apprenticeships at their own expense.
The PWM lifts wages for lower-wage workers, and it does so well. But it sets floors, not scales. It says to the worker: train, and you move up. What we need is a structure that says to the employer: train deeply, because you will keep the return.
Not every sector is suitable. Sectoral bargaining fits sectors with deep tacit knowledge – semiconductor backend, aerospace MRO, petrochemicals, marine and offshore – but perhaps not faster-moving industries like AI.
Second, co-governance with consequences. Named industry entities and individuals should have sign-off and veto on SkillsFuture curricula, not as advisors, but as accountable parties whose reputations move with employment outcomes. We must also lower the accreditation barriers that keep the most credible practitioners out. The Advanced Certificate in Learning and Performance requires 71 hours of coursework, screening out the domain experts we need and screening in those with time to spare.
For faster-moving industries – AI, software, frontier hardware – the fixes above may not work. Skills change too fast; firms are too few and too mobile. What works in these sectors is something different: knowledge spreading through people working near each other. That is how Shenzhen and Silicon Valley were built – rapid knowledge diffusion through firms, suppliers and people solving problems together, carrying what they learned into the next job.
We cannot build a Shenzhen-scale agglomeration on 750 square kilometres. But we can do two things.
One, engineer knowledge diffusion through people, not papers.
To produce an industrial commons here, first, we will need to revive the engineering society ethos. If we are serious about capability over credentials, the most basic question is: do our workers and engineers know how things work?
We need to know how things work at the level of teardown and re-assembly because that is the foundation of any serious industrial capability. The model is Munro and Associates in Michigan, which has spent close to four decades disassembling competitor vehicles down to the last fastener and producing the detailed cost, design and process reports that the global automotive industry treats as authoritative. Japan's National Institutes of Technology teach 15-year-olds to disassemble electromechanical systems in formal \"Reverse Engineering\" courses. The US military reverse-engineered the Iranian Shahed drone and fielded its own version in Venezuela at $35,000 per unit, versus $1.3 million for a Tomahawk cruise missile.
Understanding how things are built is not a hobby. It is a strategic capability. There is no reason it cannot exist here as public infrastructure.
I propose we establish physical teardown facilities at our ITEs and polytechnics – not as one-off workshops, but as a vertical curriculum progressing from guided disassembly to design analysis to cost modelling. We should reverse-engineer frontier hardware – electric vehicles, batteries, solar, drones.
Structured public reports should feed the industrial commons. Such facilities could also be housed at A*STAR's centres, which I understand already runs model factories and joint industry labs. Partnered with ITEs and polytechnics, with structured access for SMEs, they would form a strong starting point.
For ordinary citizens, the National Library Board's MakeIT at Libraries – its free maker-space programme run with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), offering 3D printing, digital cutting, robotics and coding classes in selected regional libraries – teaches the basics well. I have observed 3D printing and robotics classes there, and the starter sessions are well-designed. But the curriculum stops there, with no intermediate or advanced progression.
If we are serious about life-long learning, MakeIT needs a vertical curriculum – Stage 2 and Stage 3 modules, project-based, progressing from operating the machines to designing with them and using them more intensely – not just a wider menu of first lessons.
Our industrial clusters are well-designed. But co-location is necessary, not sufficient. Knowledge does not diffuse simply because firms share a postcode. It diffuses through people. Tacit production knowledge – the working understanding of why a process line behaves the way it does, what failure modes to watch for, which suppliers to trust – does not transfer through papers or seminars. It transfers through people, on the floor, over months.
Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) is the clearest example: between 1973 and 2008, 13,000 ITRI staff moved into Taiwanese industry, many of them seeding what became TSMC, UMC and the wider Hsinchu semiconductor cluster. Engineer circulation, not patents or licensing, was the primary transmission mechanism.
To speed up the rate of knowledge diffusion, I also propose an Industrial Commons Rotation: a statutory obligation on large firms – Government-linked corporations and major anchor MNCs – to second mid-senior technical staff into SMEs within the same sectoral cluster for six- to 18-month rotations, with reciprocal SME-to-large-firm flows so the small firms' problem-solving feeds back into the larger firms' processes. We can do this as a pilot in the tacit-knowledge sectors I named earlier – semiconductor back-end, aerospace MRO, petrochemicals, marine and offshore.
If we want an industrial commons, we must make the people circulate.
Teacher rotation through industry should also try to be a statutory requirement. Polytechnic and ITE instructors can currently take industry attachments as a form of voluntary continuing professional development, but the mechanism is discretionary, not structural. I propose a pilot: 12 months in industry for every 60 months of teaching.
This is the first task: making the knowledge already inside Singapore circulate.
The second task is to go to where the knowledge is being created.
The Overseas Markets Immersion Programme (OMIP), launched in 2024, is the right vehicle in form. In substance, it is far too small. The initial target was 250 individuals over two years; about 120 had been supported by early 2026. Salary support of up to 70% for nine months, capped at $5,000 a month, with a minimum salary threshold of $4,000 a month effectively restricts it to PMETs.
If I had to name one programme that could be reframed tomorrow at low cost and high return, it is OMIP. Three changes.
First, expand it by an order of magnitude – from a 250-person pilot to a 5,000-person annual cohort within five years.
Second, remove the minimum salary threshold for technical and operational roles in priority sectors, so ITE-trained engineers and polytechnic graduates can be deployed to cutting-edge manufacturing clusters in China, Japan and Europe – not only PMETs in regional roles.
Third, reframe the strategic purpose. OMIP is currently designed as outbound business development support – helping Singapore companies expand into new markets. It should also be inbound knowledge acquisition – sending Singaporeans to where manufacturing knowledge is being created, to bring it back. The architecture is broad enough to hold both, if we choose to use it that way.
Sir, in closing. The deepest lesson of the last decade of skills policy, here and abroad, is this: the state cannot substitute for the firm as the principal in a worker's training. We have spent 10 years and considerable public money trying. The next 10 years should be spent designing the system in which sectors and firms – and the workers themselves, through their unions – are forced to care about the answer.
Sectoral co-governance with named accountability. Sectoral bargaining where tacit knowledge is deep. Engineered knowledge diffusion where it is not. And an order-of-magnitude expansion of how we send Singaporeans to where cutting-edge knowledge actually lives.
Capability is tacit knowledge. It deepens inside sectors and firms, which is why we need sectoral architecture that holds workers there long enough for it to form. And it circulates through an industrial commons – which is why we need engineers, instructors, and Singaporeans abroad moving through that commons, carrying knowledge with them. The state is an orchestrator, it builds the architecture in which both happen. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sanjeev Tiwari.
Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest that SSG and WSG are represented by the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees where I am the general secretary, and the new agency will be in due course.
Mr Speaker, across Singapore today, as many of the hon Members have highlighted as well, there is much anxiety among workers. In the PME who has just been made redundant, in the fresh graduate sending out applications that go unanswered, in the 58-year-old who wonders if anyone will hire him again, in the caregiver who stepped away for five years now does not know how to step back in.
These are not statistics. These are people. And they are watching us today. They want to know how will SWDA do better.
I rise to support this Bill because the merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore is just not good policy. It is the right thing to do for every Singaporean worker.
Mr Speaker, for years we have operated with the logical but limiting division of labour: SSG accredited courses and administered SkillsFuture credits; WSG managed career conversion, hiring incentives and improved job matching. Two agencies, two mandates, two systems.
But here is the truth: learning and working are not two separate journeys. They are one.
When these two functions live in separate houses, workers and jobseekers fall through the gaps between them. They complete a course and find no pathway to a job. They get placed in a job with no support to grow. We called it an ecosystem. For many workers, it felt like a maze.
The merger closes that gap. It signals that a course without a career pathway is incomplete and a job placement without skills development is unsustainable.
Mr Speaker, training is not the destination. It is the vehicle. We have celebrated completion rates. We have counted the number of courses taken, credits used, certificates earned. While those numbers matter, they are not the finish line.
The finish line is this: did training lead to a better job? A higher wage? A worker who feels more secure, more valued, more able to provide for their family?
Because if a worker sacrifices evenings and weekends to attend training, pushes through self-doubt and emerges with a certificate that leads nowhere or worse, leads to a job that pays the same, or continues receiving job application rejections as before, then we have failed them. The training system has taken their time, resources and their hope but have returned nothing of real value.
The new agency's mandate must be clear: measure outcomes, not just outputs.
What does real outcome look like? An increase in real wages. Progression to a higher-value role, not a lateral transfer, not a downgrade. A worker with the dignity of a career that moves forward and upwards.
Course accreditation must no longer ask only if this course is well-designed? It must ask: does this course lead to real employment and real outcomes? Does it lead to wage and career progression? Is it connected to industries that are hiring, and hiring at fair wages?
The merged agency now has access to both SSG's training ecosystem and WSG's employment data. It can see both sides of the equation. That intelligence must be used boldly.
And to employers, I say this directly: the social compact must be both ways. When a worker reskills, their wage, the title must reflect that upgrade. Hiring a reskilled worker at the same salary as before is not transformation, it is tokenism.
Better training must mean better jobs. Better jobs must mean better wages. Better wages must mean better lives. Every link in that chain must hold.
Mr Speaker, I would like to make three specific calls.
First, publish the outcomes that matter. I urge the new agency to track and publish time-to-placement, wage growth post-training and job-fit rates. Not buried in annual reports. Visible, searchable, accountable – these indicators will help to keep the system honest.
Second, scale sector-level transformation to reach SMEs. We already have strong models. The SkillsFuture Queen Bee initiative, working alongside NTUC's Company Training Committees, has delivered real results. At ST Engineering, jobs were redesigned, workers were upgraded, productivity improved. Through the SSG-NTUC-FairPrice Group partnership, 1,000 workers across their SME supplier network are being upskilled, lifting the entire ecosystem, not just one company.
But these remain uneven successes. Many SMEs are not plugged into these ecosystems. This is why SWDA should leverage the upcoming Tripartite Jobs Council as a greater partner than just a consultative forum. It should see the Tripartite Jobs Council as a driver on the ground coordination amidst all this AI disruption, to bring about sector-wide transformation so that good jobs and sustained careers reach whole industries and not just flagship firms.
SWDA should see the advantages of tapping on the strengths of tripartite partners like NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation to reach the employers and workers.
Third, worker voice in governance. SWDA will make decisions that directly shape livelihoods and career paths of hundreds of Singaporeans. I ask: will there be worker representation at the board level and not just through consultations but as part of the governance structure itself?
A worker voice is not symbolic. It grounds the agency in reality whether training leads to real jobs, whether transitions are navigable, whether policies reflect what happens in the workplaces.
Mr Speaker, this promise must reach everyone. For mid-career workers, the new agency must be a lifeline. Income support, skills training and job placement must be delivered as a package and not patchwork. A worker who needs six months to reskill cannot survive on willpower alone. And at the end of that journey, there must be a job waiting.
For senior workers above 50, we must be honest. Ageism still exists in our hiring landscape. The new agency must not just train senior workers, it must work aggressively with employers to shift mindsets. Senior workers bring institutional knowledge, emotional intelligence and resilience that no algorithm can replicate. They must be placed in roles that honour their experience and not sidelined beneath their capabilities.
For lower-income workers and those without degrees: the SkillsFuture movement has always risked being captured by the already-advantaged. The new agency must reach down to these workers, not wait for them to come to the agency. Community outreach, vernacular language support, simplified processes and critically, training pathways that lead to genuine wage progression because they have the most to gain.
For young people from ITE and polytechnics, do not assume that they have it easy. Many feel invisible in a system that celebrates degrees. The ITE Work-Study Diploma has grown from four courses and 100 trainees to 45 courses and 1,600 trainees in 2025. The new agency must amplify this, creating celebrated, visible pathway for skills-based careers with competitive wages and real advancement so that choosing skills over a degree is never seen as settling.
Mr Speaker, the new agency must have these three principles to carry forward.
First, seamlessness. The same agency that funds your course must connect you to a job that values those skills and tracks whether your wages have improved. One account, one advisor, one journey.
Two, intelligence. Labour market data must ensure we never train workers for yesterday's economy. The agency must stay ahead of industry shifts, and recalibrate constantly measuring success in real wages and real career growth.
Humanity. Data and dashboards matter. But what matters more is that every Singaporean who walks into a career centre, logs onto a portal or calls a helpline feels seen, feels that someone genuinely is in their corner, not to tick a box, but to walk with them until they reach a better place.
Mr Speaker in conclusion, I welcome the provisions ensuring that SSG and WSG officers transfer on terms no less favourable. These officers have built deep expertise, they are not just assets to be reorganised, they are the people who will deliver this transformation. They deserve clarity, investment and pathways to grow alongside the agency that they are building.
The merger of SSG and WSG gives us the chance to build something better. A single, powerful, compassionate agency that does not just create programmes to train and place workers but to transform their lives. Because better training must lead to better jobs. Better jobs must lead to better wages. And better wages must lead to better lives for every Singaporean, without an exception. No worker left behind. One agency. One vision. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of the SWDA Bill. This is a significant and forward-looking Bill. It reflects a deeper shift in how we think about jobs, skills and careers in Singapore.
At its core, this Bill recognises a structural reality, that skills development and employment outcomes can no longer be treated as separate policy domains. So, training and employment must connect more tightly, not only in policy design, but in how Singaporeans experience the system.
The merger of SSG and WSG into a single agency is therefore not just an administrative consolidation. It is a deliberate move towards a more integrated, end-to-end workforce system. In the next decade, we should be measuring success by not how many courses a worker attends but how many transitions are completed into good jobs with progression.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is about integrating with the labour market.
Today, training and employment are delivered by separate agencies and both have done commendable work. But separation can create a gap. Skills are acquired, but jobs may not follow. Workers may complete courses without clear pathways into employment. At the same time, employers may report difficulty finding job-ready talent.
Some residents have shared these concerns with me. They are middle-aged, mid-career PMETs who have lost their jobs. They made the effort to upskill. They used their SkillsFuture subsidies and trained in areas like AI, data analysis and project management. Yet despite their efforts, they still find it difficult to secure work that is commensurate with their skills and seniority. Some have also shared that while they are prepared to learn, they are less clear about what a realistic entry point looks like when moving into a brand new sector.
Mr Speaker, Sir, one issue I have observed is expectations. When some mid-career workers used SkillsFuture to take courses in high demand areas like AI, data or project management, product management, they may understandably hope to re-enter at the same level of seniority and remuneration they previously held.
But in practice, they are competing with candidates who already have track records in these sectors and employers may be hiring for proven experience, not only course completion. When outcomes do not match expectations, some become discouraged, disgruntled and conclude that their training did not work even though the real barrier may be the entry point into a new industry.
This raises a policy question for the new agency. Could the Minister clarify how the new agency will position SkillsFuture as a pathway for sector entry and conversion or as a pathway for in sector progression? Because the citizens advice and expectations differ in each case. If we try to signal both at once, we risk sending mixed messages and confusing citizens at the very point that they seek and need clarity.
I therefore suggest that the new agency consider finetuning SkillsFuture into clearer pathways.
One pathway could focus on sector entry and conversion with transparent expectations on likely starting roles, salary ranges and the additional steps needed beyond courses, such as supervised projects, apprenticeship or structured workplace attachments.
Another pathway could then focus on progression for those who are already in the sector where SkillsFuture support deeper specialisation and advancement of skills.
This distinction will make the citizen journey clearer and help training translate more reliable into hiring outcomes.
So, the key issue here is not willingness of the individual. It is linkage. The linkage between training choices, employer recognition and hiring outcomes. Courses build capability but pathways will build confidence.
The new agency presents an opportunity to close this gap. It can move us towards a system where training is not only supply-driven but aligned to real labour market demand. And it can make pathways clearer at the point where a worker must decide what he must do, he or she must do next.
But integration is not automatic. It takes coordination. It takes timely intelligence. And it takes a clear focus on outcomes.
I therefore seek clarification from the Minister on how the new agency will define and track success. For example, will the agency track placement rates within six to 12 months? Job match quality? Wage outcomes? And progression over time, especially for mid-career switches?
Ultimately, the goal must be simple. Every Singaporean who invests his time and effort into upgrading should see a meaningful return, in real employment opportunity.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point relates to a life-course approach to workforce development. Many Singaporeans may have to reskill and pivot multiple times in their career. So, workforce support cannot be activated only when one loses a job or signs up for a course. It must be continuous, anticipatory and personalised.
Some workers may also need more flexible routes to sustain household income during these transition phases, including fractional work arrangements or micro-entrepreneurship, where appropriate. But for many, the barrier is not motivation. It is time. It is confidence. And it is navigation.
The formation of this new agency provides an opportunity to move in that direction. With a unified view of skills and employment data, the agency can offer more proactive, tailored and personalised support. It can identify at-risk workers earlier, guide them towards the relevant training and support smoother transitions into new roles.
At the same time, I seek clarification on how the agency intends to balance standardisation and customisation. A centralised and standardised system of course can achieve efficiency. But it must remain responsive to diverse needs. This includes mid-career professionals, lower-wage workers, gig workers, those in emerging sectors, and those returning to work after caregiving responsibilities. In other words, Mr Speaker, Sir, the system must be integrated, but it cannot become impersonal.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point relates to equity. Singapore has achieved high participation in training programmes. But participation alone does not necessarily translate into equitable outcomes.
We must ensure the benefits of this integrated system are accessible to all, especially those who need it most. This includes lower-income workers, those with lower educational attainment and workers in sectors undergoing disruption. Those in the low buffer households. Equity is not just about access to training. It is also about whether the system is navigable for those with the least time, least confidence and least support.
We should also recognise a practical constraint here. The ability to upgrade while in employment is not available to all. While we have encouraged employers to send workers for training, companies may still prioritise those who are already seen as higher potential. More vulnerable workers can be overlooked or sidelined and this becomes a compounding disadvantage when they eventually face displacement.
Moreover, a number of disadvantaged Singaporeans work beyond their main jobs to supplement household incomes. Others face health and family constraints. These realities limit their capacity to train after hours.
I would therefore ask the Minister how the new agency will ensure that these training pathways remain accessible and relevant to these groups I have mentioned. How will support be sufficiently intensive to those who face greater barriers? And how will outcomes be tracked, not just in aggregate, but across different segments of the workforce?
Because if the system is seamless only for those already in advantaged positions, then it truly is not seamless.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the SWDA Bill represents a significant step forward in how Singapore approaches workforce policy. It shifts us from separate interventions towards a more integrated, continuous and responsive system.
But integration cannot be just WSG and SSG shaking hands. Our residents must feel that their hands are held throughout the employment journey. With these comments, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Terence Ho.
Assoc Prof Terence Ho (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as the Executive Director of the Institute for Adult Learning, which receives funding from the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency.
Like many other Members of this House, I welcome the merger of the SSG and WSG agencies to form SWDA.
The merits of this merger are clear: it will align training closely with labour market needs, strengthening the nexus between training, employability and employment outcomes. It will also improve the user experience for workers and jobseekers who tap on the two agencies' funding and online resources for their skills and career development. Likewise, enterprises that receive public funding for skills and workforce development will have a more seamless interface with the Government.
With significant workforce disruption on the horizon, the formation of SWDA would strengthen the ecosystem of support for workers to reskill and invest in their career health.
Notwithstanding, there are several points I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on.
Since the launch of the SkillsFuture movement in 2015, the IHLs have pivoted from focusing mainly on PET to also embracing CET, building up their CET course offerings and becoming partners in lifelong learning for their students and graduates.
As the new agency is under MOM, how will it ensure that this momentum is not lost, and that the IHLs will continue to develop as institutions of lifelong learning? In particular, how will MOM coordinate with MOE to provide direction to SWDA on CET?
While Singapore's lifelong learning efforts must support employability, there are other objectives as well. Besides working adults, retirees too must be encouraged to continue learning to keep their minds supple and engaged. Hence, I would like to clarify whether SWDA will actively promote lifelong learning that is not targeted at employment. Will the agency give sufficient attention to the broader aims of lifelong learning as well, particularly given Singapore's growing senior population?
With the formation of SWDA, there is opportunity to merge or streamline the myskillsfuture and mycareersfuture online portals for a more seamless user journey for those looking to reskill for new jobs and careers. I would like to ask what the plans are for the two portals, and in particular, how user experience can be improved.
The Government is investing considerable resources in training and reskilling. This gives substance to the creed that every worker matters, and to the commitment that every worker who wishes to will be supported to reskill for new jobs and careers, even as technology transforms work. At the same time, it is important to ensure that public money is well spent – and this is a point that many in the House have raised. Two questions follow.
First, while the Bill addresses abusive funding arrangements and false or misleading advertisements, including setting out penalties and remedial measures, I would like to ask if the Ministry could elaborate on the steps that will be taken to reduce the risk of fraud or abuse of grants.
Second, and this is critical, could the Ministry share how it will assess the returns on investment in training. For instance, will SWDA monitor how skills acquired through training are deployed at the workplace and assess their impact on employment outcomes? It may be timely for a systematic evaluation of the various SkillsFuture and Workforce Singapore programmes to determine which ought to be scaled up, and conversely, which ought to be scaled back or discontinued.
On training grants, funding for WSQ courses is based on the number of trainees who successfully complete and pass the course. While training providers should select students carefully and equip them to succeed, it is to be expected that a small number of trainees will fail to complete or pass the course. It is also important to avoid a situation where because of financial considerations, there is pressure on adult educators to do no more than teach to the test or even pass students who in fact do not make the mark. I would like to ask what steps can be taken to minimise such risks. For instance, could training providers be compensated for trainees who do not manage to pass the course – say up to five or 10% of a class – since the training providers would have incurred costs for these trainees?
In this era of rapid change, training and learning must be nimble and responsive to changing market needs. Training providers may need a \"fail fast, learn fast\" approach in launching new courses or experimenting with new teaching methods or technologies.
How will SWDA ensure timely course approval, balancing quality considerations with the need for speed in mounting new courses or updating curricula in response to changing technology and job demands?
While a certain risk tolerance is needed for innovation and agility, funding should also reward impact and steer support towards training that proves effective. In this regard, are there plans to review grant structure and KPIs to incentivise desired outcomes from training, beyond training placement and completion rates?
Ultimately, workers must take responsibility in planning for their career and skills development needs. They must invest proactively in career health and not just act when their jobs and livelihoods are at imminent risk. How then can SWDA help to foster agency in individuals to do so? What new approaches, if any, will the agency take in engaging workers?
For learning to bring tangible benefit to enterprises and organisations, it must move beyond episodic programmes and courses to become deeply embedded in organisational strategy and DNA. Data from the OECD's Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies suggest that for innovation-intensive workplaces, non-formal and informal learning are most prevalent. Formal training must therefore be complemented and integrated with workplace learning.
In this regard, how can SWDA help enterprises become learning organisations where there is strong alignment between business strategy and people strategy, and where learning takes place in the flow of work? Can learning at work be codified and skills recognised to facilitate portability, such as through portfolio-based recognition or skills credentialling? How does SWDA plan to scale impact across the large number of SMEs in different industries that need support?
This House will shortly debate a Motion on an AI Transition with No Jobless Growth. The future of work and the human contribution to work are fundamental to Singapore's social compact. How can Singapore build up expertise in human-centric job redesign so that wherever possible, AI will augment rather than replace human capabilities? How can SWDA help organisations build capability in job redesign and workplace learning? Embedding capabilities within organisations is key, as job redesign and reskilling are not a one-off exercise, but something that enterprises and organisations will have to go through repeatedly as technology continually reshapes work.
Skills-first employment practices will be critical in the new ecosystem of learning and work. This means recognising skills rather than just academic credentials as the primary currency for recruitment, career development and advancement. This provides more mobility for workers, so that their career paths are not constrained by their past educational backgrounds. It also helps employers tap on a wider pool of talent and utilise employee skills more fully. For these reasons, skills-first practices are important for job market efficiency.
I would, therefore, like to ask whether the new agency will continue to champion skills-first employment practices and what more can be done to facilitate and accelerate that adoption of skills-first practices by employers, workers and training providers.
Mr Speaker, the formation of the SWDA will position Singapore strongly as a leader in lifelong learning, career resilience and human-centric job redesign, provided there is sustained investment in research and talent to build expertise in these areas. The Institute for Adult Learning, as the national centre of excellence in adult learning, stands ready to support SWDA in this important work. What is at stake is nothing less than Singapore's work-based social compact. For this reason, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Loh.
Mr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, I first declare my interest as group managing director of Commonwealth Capital Group. We steward more than 1,000 livelihoods and interact with Government agencies on workforce development initiatives.
Mr Speaker, there is a storm outside literally. You could hear the thunder just now. Thankfully, I am from the Party that uses lightning as a symbol and we are not afraid of storms.
There are also other storms in the world today. And this Bill provides for a change that is an appropriate response to inexorable trends from these storms, trends that I highlighted in my maiden Parliamentary speech – that the technology cycle has shortened significantly and, therefore, skills are becoming obsolete faster.
At the same time, we are living longer. If you combine these two trends, the natural conclusion is that the traditional \"learn, work, retire\" trajectory is a relic of the past. A young Singaporean today may have to navigate a 50-year career spanning multiple companies and, perhaps, quite possibly multiple industries.
We can, therefore, no longer rely on what we learnt in pre-employment training to carry us through to retirement. Perhaps, there may even come a point in time that we learnt in the first year of tertiary education will become irrelevant by the time we graduate. We see this manifest in greater anxieties across the workforce, especially on the faces of new graduates and older PMETs. I have spoken to many in Jalan Besar and Whampoa-Boon Keng and I feel for them.
The new integrated SWDA reflects two important generational shifts for our system.
First, a shift from focusing on education only before getting a job, towards continuing education and training throughout the lifetime. This is a clear direction, given that SSG and all of its resources would effectively be moving from the MOE to the MOM.
I support this. But I also hope we will retain some of the strengths of the earlier model at MOE, which developed a strong nexus between our IHLs and the SkillsFuture movement. MOE could and should maintain some level of oversight and accountability. Perhaps, the Government should consider appointing one of our MOE political officeholders to have a secondary role at MOM. I am sure the Minister for Manpower would welcome that extra help.
Yet, this is only the first step. The longer-term question is how to redirect more of our limited resources and efforts towards continuing education and training. We have to move away from the mindset that a degree or a diploma is the be-all and end-all of learning. In fact, it is but the start of a lifetime of acquiring and applying new skills.
I sometimes wonder why we need to cram so much knowledge into our students before they join the workforce. Is it not better to provide a shorter duration of pre-employment training and to redirect more resources to mid-career training programmes?
The second shift is a shift from a supply-driven model that is less likely to lead to a job, to a demand-led model, which is closer to the employers and to the marketplace. I have also mentioned in Parliament before about the need to be more focussed with our Government-funded programmes to move away from SkillsFuture programmes that are unlikely to lead to employment which, in my mind, is not an effective use of the Government's resources.
We all have residents who tell us that they attend SkillsFuture courses, thinking that they would find jobs, only to be bitterly disappointed. As many Members of Parliament, like Dr Wan Rizal said, we do not want a situation where Singaporeans are spending time and effort to learn skills that employers simply do not want.
It is therefore better to put these resources into the hands of those who are most likely to know which skills are valued. These are the employers who compete daily in the marketplace to stay relevant. They are our best bet to forward-sense the demand signals of a constantly changing market. These are also our trade associations and our unions, who are able to aggregate demand across multiple employers. In fact, Mr Kenneth Tiong also spoke about trade associations and accrediting training. So, perhaps the political officeholder at MOE and MOM can also have a role at NTUC: three-in-one, like the coffee, and we need to give a caffeine boost to our skills and workforce development initiatives.
Therefore, I hope that SWDA under MOM will have renewed focus and an increase in resources to support enterprise-led on-the-job training as well as training only if it is accredited by trade associations or our unions. We should move away from short-term SkillsFuture courses that do not have good employment outcomes.
By helping companies to hire workers first and then train them on the job, the skills being taught are immediately relevant and utilised for both employers and employees. And in a world where younger workers may find themselves irrelevant, we should not discriminate against long-term jobseekers by age. Anyone looking for a job for more than six months, even a recent graduate, should qualify for the same support.
And as a final point, just as we want employers and employees to be adaptable and agile, I hope the SWDA will, likewise, be the same. The agency must be adaptable enough to embrace the uncertainty that we cannot possibly know which skills are in demand in the future. These jobs have not even been created.
The agency must also be agile enough to work within a changing landscape of partners, such as the e2i and the new Tripartite Jobs Council, for the delivery of programmes. I hope that MOM can also clarify how there will be synergies and not a duplication of programmes.
Overall, as many other Members have said, the success of the SWDA will depend on how we can structure the right incentives and measure the right outcomes.
The right incentives, so that any training provider knows that we are looking for good long term employment outcomes and not just a good course feedback form. The right incentives, so that employers are able to train more workers to acquire the right skills and stay employable, instead of expecting to only hire workers after they are fully trained. And most importantly, the right incentives, so that employees have greater assurance that if they put in effort to find a job or to go for training, they will have a better chance of growing with a good job.
Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and let us weather the next storm together.
Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to state that I am a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers and also an Adjunct Professor at the Singapore Institute of Technology.
As a practising engineer and an active educator, I have dedicated my career to the mastery of professional skills and the transfer of industry relevant knowledge to the workforce or through the CET programmes. I have been in CET training for more than 10 years and I am honoured to be awarded the SkillsFuture Fellowship in 2023.
The merger of SSG and WSG is a relevant one in our job-skills ecosystems. I think the more important thing is to make sure that the input, the training and the skills and acquisitions, link directly to the output which are relevant jobs and a high-value career.
I would like to emphasise on certain points which we can make the links tighter.
First, recognition. The recognition of the training or the skills is the currency of the labour market. For many specialised roles, a certificate of completion is not sufficient. My industry, like engineering or the built environment, and cybersecurity, all the industries that basically operate on a system of professional accreditation.
In these sectors, specific jobs require certified training and accumulated experience that then result in formal industry recognition. Without this, even the most hardworking worker may find their career progression stalled because they lack the \"professional currency\" for higher-tier employment. That means that for the new agency, collaborations or the integration of the career pathway of professionals will be very important in the skills training.
Professional institutions, whether it is accounting or corporate secretaries or insurance, they have well-defined pathway for career progression based on expertise and experience, or capabilities and competencies. Our employers recognise such industrial accreditation and certification for their skills mastery.
As a SkillsFuture Fellow and a trainer, I have seen many talented individuals pick up different skillsets, maybe a little bit haphazardly, but struggle to have these skills \"counted\" toward the professional titles. If SWDA can align our skills frameworks with the accreditation standards of these professional institutions, then we will have turned \"lifelong learning\" into \"lifelong career advancement\".
As an example, in engineering or in the Institution of Engineers, Singapore, we have three tiers – from chartered technicians to chartered technologists, to chartered engineers. Depending on the academic level, you enter at different stages, then you can continue to progress based on the experience you acquire and also the course and skills mastery that you achieve. It is not necessary for you to get a degree in order to become a chartered engineer. You can actually progress through your skills mastery through experience and expertise.
So, let me give an example – we have chartered engineers in system engineering, and we can have chartered technicians in railway. And so, you can continue to progress.
I would like to suggest that SWDA partner closely with the professional institutions and the authorised training providers, which includes the universities and the polytechnics, to develop training programmes and courses that are aligned with professional accreditations. Which means that, when they are developing the modules or the courses, they must make sure that the professional institutions are involved and can recognise such courses and also the experiences that are being acquired.
So, we must ensure that the skills we develop are the same skills that the industry rewards. By closely integrating the link between training and professional accreditation, we will provide our workforce with more than just knowledge. We provide them with a recognised professional career pathway.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohammad] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Skills and Workforce Development Agency Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.
Ms Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. It is clear that our workforce faces significant challenges today.
In the recent Committee of Supply debate on manpower, I highlighted the critical need to refresh our career and employment services ecosystem and the need for a new compact among all the stakeholders.
I also noted the critical role of the Government. The Government is uniquely positioned to identify emerging trends, anticipate disruptions and take a macro helicopter view. This perspective allows it to connect the dots across education, training and employment, and to align stakeholders to the evolving needs of our economy.
The macro mission of the new SWDA dovetails with what I have outlined, and one can clearly see the potential for great synergy in addressing the challenges faced by both workers and employers.
Sir, WSG and SSG have been around for some time, and I see this merger as a chance to take stock and recalibrate. There is no better time to ask some hard questions. What is the mission of this new agency? What does success look like? What are the metrics and the KPIs that we are measuring success with? How do we know that public resources are deployed efficiently and impactfully? These are important questions, and I will explain why.
Mr Speaker, an entire industry has sprung up around SkillsFuture training since its inception. There are thousands of courses and hundreds of training providers. Let me share some examples.
There are courses on Japanese finger painting and finger knitting. There is a course listed titled \"武侠小说系列探索\", aimed at letting seniors relive their youth. There are courses on mindfulness, well-being and many on wine appreciation.
One could argue that wine appreciation may be relevant for some professionals, but I was rather taken aback to learn that such classes are popular because participants can enjoy wine and snacks at lower costs than a wine bar, especially when fees are covered by SkillsFuture credits. There appears to be an attitude that since this is public money, one might as well spend it.
Some of these courses are eligible for both subsidies and credit usage. One example is a course on basic washroom cleaning, a useful lifeskill perhaps. But I was surprised to discover that this course was offered by a provider that specialises in wine appreciation.
Sir, I would be very happy to host such lifestyle and wellness classes at Mountbatten Community Club. But as we move forward, some hard questions must be asked. Do these courses truly align with the mission of the SkillsFuture movement and the broader mission of the new agency? Is SkillsFuture the appropriate funding mechanism for them or would agencies like the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth or the People's Association be more suitable platforms? Do such courses consume credits that could be deployed more impactfully elsewhere? Do they dilute the mission and blur our understanding of how successful the scheme really is?
We should also ask how courses are curated. Do they genuinely enhance skills employability? Are trainees the intended audience? Are they taking these courses to upgrade themselves meaningfully and are the training providers suitably qualified?
Sir, SkillsFuture has been an impactful initiative. My intention is not to criticise but to ask how we can do better. I recognise the challenges of scaling and curating a large ecosystem, but this merger should bring renewed clarity and focus on higher objectives.
To that end, I would like to make a suggestion. While some people have not used their SkillsFuture credits at all, others have deeply embraced lifelong learning. Many of them are PMETs, a group significantly impacted by disruption. They take specialised courses, stack micro credentials and pursue professional qualifications. These pathways are more costly, but they are also more impactful.
The $4,000 mid-career top-up provides a meaningful baseline, but for these individuals, it may not be enough. We should review our approach to SkillsFuture credit caps. Instead of a one-size fits-all approach, we should consider providing greater support to those who demonstrate a commitment to continuous upgrading. By doing so, we encourage deeper, more purposeful learning and better support workers who take charge of their career health, and strive to remain relevant and competitive. To me, those who are willing to put in more effort to better themselves deserves more support. We should give it to them.
Lastly, Sir, I end with an observation. The most critical stakeholder here is the individual worker. Everything that we are doing today – upskilling, AI initiatives, career services – prepares workers for the jobs of tomorrow. But we must also prepare them for the jobs of the day after tomorrow. What would that look like?
The truth is, we simply do not know. So, how do we prepare? We foster not just lifelong learning but also resilience and adaptability. The worker who thrives is not just one with the right skills but one with the right mindset, one who is agile, embraces change and is comfortable with uncertainty.
This must start in our schools. Our education system must equip our young, not just with knowledge but with the ability to adapt, pivot and confront the unknown. We must teach them grit. If we can align a well-calibrated system with a workforce that is resilient, agile and continuously learning, then we will be in a very strong position to meet the challenges ahead.
Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.
Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, over the past two decades, we have invested heavily in building a national culture of lifelong learning. The former WDA, established in 2003, responded to structural shifts in our economy with a clear mandate – strengthen employability through a more systematic approach to skills development and CET. It did so through initiatives, such as the WSQ framework, accreditation of training providers and funding for job-relevant courses.
In 2016, WDA was restructured into two agencies – SSG, which focuses on skills training, CET and SkillsFuture policy; and WSG, which focuses on job design, career coaching and job matching. This separation was deliberate. Each agency addressed a different part of the employment cycle, with SSG adopting perhaps a \"train first, and then find jobs\" approach and WSG, a \"find jobs, then train\" model.
However, if we assess how the system operates today, then several issues present themselves.
The \"train first, then find jobs\" approach runs the risk of creating incentives for training providers to prioritise course volume over employment outcomes. Some providers secure accreditation without clear evidence of labour market demand or meaningful links to career progression and then market these courses aggressively, sometimes targeting vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. Sometimes these courses are promoted with limited actual career pathways.
As a result, SkillsFuture risked being seen less as a national upskilling effort and more as a commercial opportunity for some providers. The system is now crowded with courses of uneven quality, making it difficult for individuals to identify those that genuinely improve employability.
At the same time, the signalling value of SkillsFuture certifications has possibly weakened over time. Employers cannot always distinguish between courses that build real capabilities and those that do not and therefore, do not consistently recognise these certifications with perhaps the same confidence as qualifications from our IHLs. This, again, weakens the link between training and hiring, and diminishes the value of the effort individuals invest in upskilling.
The \"find jobs, then train\" approach takes a different approach to the issue and faces a different constraint. Employers hire to meet immediate needs and prioritise candidates who can perform from the outset. It is what they typically do. But for mid-career workers seeking to switch industries, this creates somewhat of a structural barrier. They must demonstrate skills and experience they have not yet had the opportunity to acquire, making it a bit challenging and sometimes even difficult to access new roles not even when training support is available.
Taken together, these approaches are not flawed in intent, but they are incomplete in isolation. One allows training to drift away from validated job demand and the other reflects demand but does not create sufficient entry points for those without prior experience. So, the core issue is a lack of alignment between training, jobs and career progression.
And this is precisely why the shift towards an integrated \"train-for-jobs\" model under SWDA is both timely and necessary. By bringing together career guidance, skills development and job placement into a coherent system, we can better support Singaporeans across every stage of their working lives.
Sir, to correct current misalignments in the system, our funding model must shift decisively. Today, funding largely follows enrolment and course completion, that is, a participation-based funding model. But participation in courses alone is not the objective. The real measure of success is whether training improves a person's working life, whether training improves their life as a whole, whether it leads to employment, enables a career transition or results in wage progression.
I would therefore propose a move towards a more explicit outcome-based funding model. Under this approach, funding for training providers is tied to tangible career outcomes, such as job placement, successful transitions and wage growth, with part of the funding possibly deferred until these outcomes are achieved. This anchors the system in real economic value. Providers must demonstrate not only that individuals attend courses but that they benefit meaningfully in the labour market.
This shift brings three key benefits.
First, it raises the quality of training. Providers will now be incentivised or will be motivated to design programmes aligned with validated market demand and deliver practical, job-relevant skills. Such courses will need to deliver these skills that can be translated into employable outcomes rather than just simply meeting accreditation requirements.
Second, it corrects misaligned incentives that have led to unintended outcomes, including the proliferation of low-value courses and those marketed aggressively to various vulnerable groups, as I mentioned earlier. An outcome-based funding model reduces the viability of such offerings and re-focuses the ecosystem on meaningful skills development.
Third, and critically, it restores the credibility and employer recognition of SkillsFuture certifications. Today, as I said before, these certifications are possibly not consistently valued in the same way as qualifications from our IHLs, due to uneven quality, and some employers might not even be prepared to rely on SkillsFuture certifications as indicators of job readiness.
By strengthening outcome-based discipline, we improve quality assurance, build employer trust and position SkillsFuture certificates as credible signals of capability, not just proof of course completion. This marks an important shift from participation to labour market signalling.
At the same time, we must be clear, Sir, about the purpose of SkillsFuture. It is fundamentally an instrument of economic mobility and employability. Its primary role is to help Singaporeans access better jobs, transition across sectors and progress in their careers.
Of course, this will not diminish the importance of personal enrichment. Learning for interest, creativity or well-being remains valuable. However, we should distinguish clearly between hobby-related learning or interest-related and job-linked training.
One way forward is a two-tier system. With Tier One focusing on job-linked training, with stronger subsidies tied to clear employment outcomes. Tier Two, perhaps, could support personal enrichment, where individuals may still use their SkillsFuture credits, but with limited or no additional subsidies and with a mandatory co-payment requirement.
This preserves the spirit of lifelong learning while sharpening policy focus. It directs public resources toward workforce outcomes without losing the broader benefits of learning for personal growth.
Sir, beyond funding, we must address a broader structural issue – coherence across the CET ecosystem.
We have built substantial CET capacity across our IHLs, each offering a wide range of programmes through their respective CET centres. While this improves course access and diversity, we have yet to achieve coherence across the system. Courses from different IHLs could possibly overlap, compete or lack clear differentiation, leading to duplication and inefficiencies.
The establishment of SWDA creates an opportunity to address this. SWDA can serve as a national planner, a coordinator, of CET supply and an aggregator of demand signals across sectors. It can coordinate sector-based course mapping to align programmes with industry needs and establish clearer differentiation across institutions. For example, ITE focusing on applied skills, polytechnics on industry practice and autonomous universities on advanced and specialised domains. This allows institutions to complement rather than compete with one another.
At the same time, if SWDA is to deliver end-to-end support, we must look upstream. Today, the system engages individuals largely after they enter the workforce or when they are actively seeking employment. But misalignment often begins earlier, when students make decisions about subject combinations, courses of study and career pathways without possibly a clear understanding of what labour market realities are.
We should, therefore, treat career guidance as a sort of early intervention policy. SWDA can work through strategic partnerships with IHL career centres and, where appropriate, with even MOE's education and career guidance ecosystem in secondary schools, junior colleges and so on. This is not about expanding SWDA's mandates, but about better aligning existing efforts. By connecting career guidance, training pathways and job opportunities, we can reduce downstream mismatches and give young Singaporeans greater clarity and confidence in navigating their careers at an early age.
Mr Speaker, the establishment of SWDA is not merely an administrative merger. It represents a fundamental shift in how we think about work, skills and mobility in Singapore.
This is not just about improving training systems. It is about how Singapore competes in an economy where industries reconfigure quickly, job roles evolve constantly and the shelf-life of skills continues to shorten. Our advantage can no longer rest on static qualifications. It must rest on a system that enables continuous adaptation.
In this economy where jobs evolve faster than qualifications, our system must evolve faster than jobs. We must give every Singaporean the confidence to move across roles, sectors and stages of life without being constrained by outdated skills or unclear pathways. We must strengthen not only employability, but also the dignity of work where the effort to upskill is recognised and where transitions are supported.
As we strengthen this system, Sir, we should recognise that more than a million Singaporeans have already utilised their initial SkillsFuture credits. If lifelong learning is to remain a national strategy, it is timely to consider a further tranche of SkillsFuture credit, carefully calibrated and aligned with an outcome-based approach. This will signal continued commitment while reinforcing the importance of using these public resources meaningfully.
Ultimately, the success of SWDA will be measured by whether Singaporeans feel more confident navigating change whether they can learn, adapt and progress with assurance. That is the system we must build: one that supports mobility, rewards effort and outcome, and gives every Singaporean the confidence to step forward, even as the ground beneath them continues to shift.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, we used to think of building our careers as climbing a ladder of success – a clear, upward climb where each rung represents a promotion, a new qualification or a better job. If one works hard and steadily, one is expected to move up.
But in today's economy, that is no longer the case.
A more accurate image may be a rock wall – one that is constantly changing and where there is no single fixed path upwards. Different holds appear at different times. Some routes are visible only to those who have been guided or trained to see them. Success is no longer simply climbing higher in a straight line but about knowing where to move next, which skills to build, how to switch routes entirely and being able to try again after falling from the rock wall.
This Bill responds to that reality. It supports Singaporeans in navigating a changing labour market by bringing skills and jobs under one roof through a new SWDA, so that Singaporeans experience a more integrated and truly \"no wrong door\" system.
I support this Bill because it strengthens three things. It clarifies our mission. It tightens our safeguards. It lays the foundation for a lifelong and person-centred view of work.
First, on clarifying our mission.
I would like to share Mr Lim Boon Cheng's experience when he was laid off suddenly. He took a SkillsFuture course in coffeemaking and with a strong, enterprising spirit, he launched Hans Coffee, a hole-in-the wall cafe right in the heart of a wet market in Bishan! These are the kinds of stories we want to see more of.
However, not all SkillsFuture courses have had yielded such results. A resident wrote to me, just today, sharing his difficult mid-career transition. He completed a desktop support engineering course under the SkillsFuture Career Transition programme in 2025 to transition into an entry-level IT role in the hopes of improving his employment prospects. The training provider also said that they would support job placement efforts, but entry-level opportunities in this field are limited, competition is stiff, the market for such roles is niche and many employers prioritise candidates with relevant experience.
Thus, despite acquiring the relevant certifications, he has not received any job offers. Despite these setbacks, my resident continued to persevere, attending career fairs and employment programmes and he demonstrated openness to take up different roles, even taking on a part-time assignment-based respite caregiver role. He is waiting for confirmation on applications for programme executive roles, school administrative staff roles and even a role with the social service agency. It is a far cry from the IT role he had trained and applied for. Yet, he demonstrates diligence and determination.
He wrote, \"I remain committed to securing full-time employment and contributing meaningful to the workforce. I am sharing my situation as I feel that while training support is available, there appear to be gaps in translating training into actual employment opportunities, availability of suitable entry-roles for mid-career individuals, post-event follow-up and job matching support. In addition, it would be very helpful if there could be structured, on-the-job training, practical attachments or industry-based training opportunities to allow individuals, like myself, to gain relevant hands-on experience.\"
I hope SWDA will consider my resident's requests and I also hope that SWDA, as a single Agency, with responsibility for identifying current and emerging skills in close partnership with industries and tripartite partners, can help provide jobseekers with better clarity and concrete pathways that show which courses to take, which work-study options to consider and which jobs are realistically within reach.
Second, this Bill strengthens safeguards and raises standards.
When we encourage people to invest their time and savings into training, we carry a responsibility to keep them safe from bad actors. We have seen how some providers try to exploit subsidies or use misleading marketing to pull learners in. I, therefore, welcome the stronger tools enacted in this Bill to act against abusive funding arrangements and false advertising.
Third, this Bill opens the way to a more lifelong and human-centred approach to work.
Work is not only about income. It is often an outpouring of a person's purpose and sense of identity. When someone is displaced from work, the impact ripples through the household. Children worry about money, caregivers feel guilt and stress, and the family's collective mental health can suffer. The integrated mandate of this agency gives us a chance to design support that sees the core and the heart of the whole person, and not just the vacancy to be filled.
I am encouraged that the agency will work with schools, IHLs, employers and tripartite partners. I hope it will also work closely with community partners and social service agencies. Many of those who struggle most with training and transitions face multiple stressors at the same time, including caregiving responsibilities, chronic illness, housing challenges and debt. When these issues remain unaddressed, even the best-designed course or job match may not last.
With all of these, Mr Speaker, I have several questions for the Government as we look ahead to execution and the longer term.
First, on near-term execution. How will the Government ensure that the transition from SSG and WSG to the new agency is seamless from the public's perspective?
Second, on long-term plans in a changing economy. We know that the pace of change will accelerate as AI, demographic shifts and climate transition reshape entire sectors. Does the Government see the agency playing a concretely anticipatory role, working with industry bodies to prepare training and transition pathways before major disruptions occur, especially since AI drives structural workforce changes that may lead to substantial layoffs and job obsolescence. How will it move beyond reactive job-matching to help firms proactively redesign career trajectories, ensuring the wider labour force will be meaningfully uplifted, rather than being left to face these shifts alone?
How might the agency evolve to support increasingly salient forms of work, such as gig workers, freelancers and those in informal care roles who may not fit neatly into traditional employer-employee models? And will the agency track and report not just training participation, but also outcomes, like wage progression, job stability and well-being, so that Singaporeans can see whether the system is truly working for all of them together?
Third, on supporting those at greatest risk of being left behind. In this House, I have spoken before about what it feels like to be at the margins and to feel that the system is not set up for you. Many lower-income workers, older workers and caregivers express similar anxieties. They know that there are many schemes, yet they do not know where to start and they worry that they cannot keep up.
In Bishan East-Sin Ming, we have a Career Navigators programme, where volunteers work closely with e2i and journey alongside jobseekers. Can the Government share how the new agency will work with the community to proactively identify and support these groups, perhaps through neighbourhood-based outreach or peer mentors? How will we design flexible training models that respect caregiving responsibilities, health conditions and different learning needs? And can we make more space for a modular learning and micro-credentials that still add up to meaningful progression, so that those who cannot commit to a long qualification do not feel shut out.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is about the kind of Singapore we choose to be in an uncertain world. Do we, as a nation, leave people to fend for themselves in a race that only some can win, or do we commit to walking with them as they learn, work and care?
I believe this new agency is key to a further and necessary shift in our national psyche. Over the last decade, SkillsFuture has successfully changed the mindset of our society toward the necessity of lifelong learning. For the next phase, I hope the new SWDA will lead us toward a deeper transformation.
To return to the analogy of the rock wall that I used at the beginning of my speech, the SWDA is the rope system, anchored firmly by the state, employers and unions together. It ensures that when a worker reaches for a hold and slips, they are not left to fall without support, but are given the safety to regain their footing, to be guided back to the wall and to continue their ascent with renewed confidence and clearer direction.
I hope that as we build this new Agency, we hold fast to a simple measure of success: that more Singaporeans, especially those who feel anxious today, can say with confidence that even if they stumble in their climb, they are not alone and they are able to rise again.
I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, at my Meet-the-People Session, I regularly meet residents who come to me looking for jobs. Some are fresh jobseekers, anxious about their first step into the workforce. Many are older workers and mid-career PMEs, trying to find their footing again after displacement.
One resident, Mr K, came to see me. He had attended many SkillsFuture courses. He went to e2i for help. He met a job coach, worked on his curriculum vitae, took advice, followed through on what was recommended. But he still could not land a job. When he came back again, it was not because he had not tried. It was because, in his own words, the problem was not effort but his age. And it was the gap between what he had hoped for and what the market was willing to offer.
Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr K's story is not unique. I am sure many Members have similar stories to tell. And this is precisely why this Bill matters.
I rise in support of the intention behind the new SWDA to bring skills, careers and workforce support together into a more coherent and coordinated system.
As this is an enabling Bill, Parliament's responsibility is not only to examine the powers that are being created, but to ask a deeper question. What outcomes will these powers guarantee for our people?
My residents, especially older workers, displaced PMEs and fresh graduates do not merely need a larger agency. They need earlier help, clearer pathways, fairer decisions and measurable results. It is in this spirit that I seek clarifications in five areas.
First, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the strategic rationale of the merger. We began with one agency more than a decade ago under the WDA, moved to two with SSG and WSG and now returning to one. So, the fundamental question is not whether integration sounds right. The question is what has fundamentally changed. If SSG and WSG have largely achieved their intended objectives, then what specific coordination gaps or overlaps remain today? What could not be done under two agencies that now requires a single statutory board with a consolidated and expanded mandate under section 5?
This is a question of design clarity. If the problem is fragmentation between agencies, then consolidation is logical. But if the problem lies in execution on the ground, then merging agencies alone may not solve anything.
Section 5 confers a broad mandate, including additional functions assigned by the Minister. At the same time, clause 6 gives the agency wide-ranging operational powers, from funding to partnerships. This reinforces the need for clarity on how such broad discretion will translate into better outcomes for residents.
We must, therefore, be clear. Are we streamlining the system or are we concentrating complexity within a single institution? Because structure is only a means. The real test is whether this design will improve outcomes for residents like Mr K.
Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, on timing. This is about when the system intervenes. For displaced PMEs and older workers, timing determines outcome. Support that comes from redundancy often comes too late.
This Bill gives the agency the power to act. But it does not impose a duty to act early. Clause 5(3) makes clear that these functions do not create an enforceable duty. Section 5(1)(g) allows the collection and analysis of labour market data. But such data has already been collected across agencies. The question is not data collection, but whether data now leads to earlier and more decisive intervention.
So, what triggers early action? Will it be wage decline, sector disruption or repeated job transitions? Will outreach be proactive or still largely reactive? And if decisions are data driven, what resources does a resident have, if the system misclassifies risk?
When we speak of success, how will it be measured? Is it participation in programmes, or is it how quickly someone returns to work, at what age and what wage, and for how long they remain employed? More fundamentally, should we move decisively towards a place-and-train model, where employment is secured upfront and training follows rather than asking residents to train first without a clear job pathway?
To strengthen this pillar, I suggest: first, clear triggers for proactive intervention. Second, public reporting on time to placement and retention outcomes. And third, defined governance and appeal mechanisms for data and AI-driven decisions. Because for residents like Mr K, help that comes too late does not change the outcome.
Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, on service delivery. This is about how residents experience the system. The Bill defines functions and powers, but it does not define service guarantees. Section 5(1)(c) speaks of coordination. But coordination must translate into a real experience. Will residents be case managed end-to-end, or will they still move across multiple touchpoints?
How will MyCareersFuture and MySkillsFuture be streamlined under SWDA to provide a truly integrated, one-stop platform for individuals? If these platforms remain separate, we risk preserving fragmentation in the user journey, even as we merge agencies at the top.
If the intention is seamless service, why is there no explicit \"no wrong door\" commitment? This matters especially for older workers and residents who require high-touch support. Section 66 allows for codes and guidelines. But these do not have legislative effect. If these codes are non-legislative, how will Parliament know what standards are actually being enforced in practice?
To make the system real for residents, I suggest that we need: first, a formal \"no wrong door\" protocol. Second, published service standards for response and case continuity. And third, transparency on digital versus assisted access. Because residents, like Mr K, do not see agencies. They experience whether someone stays with them throughout the journey or whether they are passed along.
Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, on quality and funding. This is about what we fund and what we measure. Mr K did everything right. He attended courses. He sought help. But the system did not deliver the outcome he needed. That is the gap we must confront. Clause 52 addresses false advertising. But there is a deeper issue. Possible misleading quality. Courses that are technically compliant but may not improve employability.
A course that is completed but does not improve employability is not a success. It is a displacement deferred. Hence, will SWDA track whether training actually leads to jobs? Will providers be assessed based on placement rates, wage outcomes and retention? Will low-performing programmes be removed?
What mechanisms will SWDA put in place to ensure that training curricula of its funded courses are tightly aligned with industry demand and not lagging behind it? Will there be stronger accountability for training providers whose programmes do not lead to actual job placements?
We must also avoid a system where providers focus only on easy cases. Those who need the most support must not be left behind. To strengthen this pillar, I suggest first, having outcome-based reporting by programme type; second, disclosure of placement and wage outcomes; and third, funding tied to sustained employment, not just completion. Because for residents, like Mr K, training is not the goal. A job is the goal.
Finally, Mr Speaker Sir, on implementation. This is about who delivers the system. Sections 69 and 70 protect staff transfers. That ensures continuity at the point of merger. But what happens after? Once integration begins in earnest, what is the plan for restructuring? Will there be duplication? Will roles be restructured? How will officers be redeployed?
We must provide clarity to those who will implement this system. We must also clarify the role of ecosystem partners, especially NTUC and e2i. They are central to outreach and delivery. But the Bill does not define their role in the new structure. Will they be delivery partners, referral partners or advisory partners? Will there be a formal tripartite framework? Will standards be consistent across all partners? And critically, will residents have a single complaints and appeals pathway? Because integration at the top must not lead to fragmentation below.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to Mr K. He did everything we asked of him. But effort did not lead to a desirable outcome. That is the gap this Bill must close. Because we are not just preparing Singaporeans for the jobs of today. We are also preparing them for the jobs of tomorrow in a future shaped by technology and AI.
The Prime Minister reminded us in Budget 2026 and also at May Day that AI will transform the way we work, the way businesses operate and the way jobs are created. Skills will age more quickly, industries will shift faster and workers will have to adapt continuously.
So, the question before us is not just how we help someone find a job. The question is whether we are building a system that helps Singaporeans stay employable and employed over a lifetime.
As Vice Chair of the Health GPC, I often reflect on how we approach healthcare. We do not wait for people to fall sick before we act. We screen early, we intervene upstream and we support individuals over time. We should take the same approach to careers. SWDA should not just be reactive. It should be proactive. It should help Singaporeans monitor their career health, anticipate change and act early.
And if I may summarise the key points I have raised in my speech. First, clarity of purpose in this merger. Second, earlier and more proactive interventions. Third, a truly seamless resident experience. Fourth, accountability for training quality and outcomes. And fifth, clarity in implementation and partnerships.
Ultimately, all of these come down to one test. When a person steps forward, when he invests his time in training, when he does everything right, does that training lead to a job and does that job last? Not enrolment, but employment. Not completion, but continuation. Because without that, the system risks measuring effort, not outcomes.
If SWDA can track that, measure it and act on it, then residents, like Mr K, will not have to come back again asking for help. They will move forward. And this system will not just deliver programmes. It will deliver outcomes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is essential that the skills upgrading of our workers is more closely mapped to our economic needs and there are good jobs for our workers. In that regard, I therefore support the Bill to merge and form the SWDA, but I have some clarifications on some of the underlying principles, perceptions and operational issues.
First, merger as a force multiplier. There is an obvious synergy between the educational and training work that is currently spearheaded by SSG, and the workforce design and transformation that is supported by WSG. After all, both Agencies were restructured out of the WDA that was set up in 2003 to focus on CET to mitigate against job displacement of Singaporeans. Even after they were housed under different Agencies, SSG and WSG, they collaborate to work together to build a robust and integrated jobs and skills ecosystem.
So, when we look at the functions of the new SWDA under clause 5 of the Bill, what are the new thrusts that go beyond the existing functions in the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Act 2016 and in the Workforce Singapore Agency Act 2003? It would be helpful for Singaporeans to understand that this is not merely a bureaucratic combination, but a transformational change where one plus one gives you more than two.
Post-merger, how would existing initiatives and programmes be continued and/or enhanced? This is especially with the skills and jobs initiatives and workgroups that have only been rolled out in the past 12 months or so, such as AfA-ACES and the Tripartite Workgroup on Human Capital Capability Development (TWG-HC). May I ask whether the Minister can share how the continuity of these initiatives, programmes and workgroups will or will not be affected by the establishment of SWDA?
More fundamentally, this brings up the question of how we have been measuring the success of our skills and jobs transformation efforts? What metrics are being used? A few years down the road, what objective and subjective indicators can we rely upon to tell us whether the SWDA has been a true force multiplier, or merely an administrative combination of SSG and WSG with no real value add to outcomes?
Second, costs and drawbacks of the merger. There may be some perception that the merger is unnecessary wastage since we had split the WDA to create SSG and WSG in 2016, and now we are bridging it under one umbrella agency again.
From my reading of the Hansard, I do not think there is any inconsistency between the rationale behind creating SSG to create better synergies with MOE and education institutions, and the SWDA's objective of a unified strategy for the training, career and employment services ecosystem. But perhaps the Minister could help to assuage any such concerns?
What are the estimated costs of bringing the SSG and WSG together as one SWDA? I expect that some costs will need to be expended for rebranding, including on materials and collaterals. In addition, has there been any assessment of the costs of the increased size of the organisation, along with any associated externalities? Notwithstanding the vesting provisions at clause 68 of the Bill, I presume there will also be administrative costs in reflecting changes to the bank accounts, property and funds held by the respective agencies.
Third, operational issues. Finally, my last group of clarifications relate to operational issues of the new SWDA. Beyond organisational structure, the effectiveness of the SWDA will ultimately depend on how quickly it can translate industry signals into skills development and training outcomes.
Clause 9 of the Bill provides that the new SWDA will consist of seven to 15 members. What is the role of these members and what kind of knowledge, skills and experience would these members be expected to possess? Would this be a tripartite group in and of itself, or is it expected that the new SWDA will continually engage with and partner NTUC and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) in devising and executing its plans? How is the relationship between the new SWDA, NTUC and SNEF expected to be like on a working level?
Could the Minister also elaborate on the intended composition of the SWDA Board and the types of knowledge, skills and experience that these members are expected to bring? Given the fast-changing nature of the global economy and labour market, it would be useful to understand whether there will be strong representation from the private sector, particularly senior HR practitioners and business leaders at the managing director level and above from multinational corporations and leading local enterprises.
Such practitioners are often at the frontline of hiring, skills transformation and workforce planning, and are therefore well-placed to provide timely insights into emerging skills gaps and evolving job roles. Their perspectives could help ensure that SWDA remains closely attuned to real-world industry developments and is able to respond more quickly to shifts in demand. In addition, will there be mechanisms beyond Board representation, such as advisory panels or sector-specific councils, to systematically capture and incorporate these industry insights into policy design and programme implementation?
For public servants that are currently serving under SSG and WSG, may I ask how would their roles be restructured or reorganised after the merger? While clauses 69 and 70 of the Bill seek to transfer every SSG and WSG employee to the new SWDA and present their employment terms, I do not suppose the intention is for every such employee to retain their current portfolios in the new and enhanced SWDA.
The Prime Minister's Budget 2026 speech also announced that the new SWDA will be jointly overseen by the MOM and the MOE, some of the Members before me have already mentioned this. When the proposed WSDA Bill refers to \"Minister\" without specifying his/her portfolio, for example at clauses 1, 4 and 7, does that refer to the Minister for Manpower or the Minister for Education? It may be helpful to have a simple, graphical representation of the allocation of Ministerial responsibility, so that it is clear to members of the public, or even us Members of Parliament, on who we should be raising specific SWDA-related issues to.
Mr Speaker, Sir, building on the point about the joint oversight by MOM and MOE, I would like to seek clarification on how SWDA will work more closely with our ITEs, polytechnics and universities to ensure that curricula remain aligned with rapidly evolving industry needs.
Today, the pace of change in areas, such as AI, advanced manufacturing and digital services, is accelerating. Skills that are relevant today may become outdated within just a few years. While our institutions have done well to update programmes periodically, there may be scope to move towards a more dynamic and iterative model of curriculum design.
For instance, could the Minister elaborate on whether SWDA will play a more active role in feeding real-time industry insights into curriculum development, so that the course content, modules and skill pathways can be refreshed more frequently and responsively? This would help, importantly, ensure that our students graduate not just with qualifications, but with skills that are immediately relevant and adaptable to the needs of employers and are not redundant in five years.
In this regard, will there be structured mechanisms for closer and more continuous engagement between industry, training providers and MOE, so that we can better anticipate skills demand rather than respond to it after the fact?
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this move to consolidate our efforts to uplift our training, career and employment services ecosystem holistically is welcome. Amidst rapid technological advancements, such as AI and geopolitical shifts that are getting more uncertain and unpredictable, change is the only constant. We must continue to keep our world-leading and maturing workforce nimble, so that we can capitalise on the opportunities that spring up and capture value and good jobs for Singaporeans today and tomorrow and for our students still in school, in our HILs, at the moment.
Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Choo.
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr Desmond Choo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Skills and Workforce Development Agency Bill.
When the Workforce Development Agency was split in 2016 to form the SSG and WSG, it was the right move for that time. Each agency had a clear mission. SSG focused on kickstarting and building lifelong learning and continuing education among Singaporeans. WSG focused on job matching and employment support.
Both agencies have made real contributions over the past decade. The question before us today is whether our institutions are still suited to the labour market that Singaporeans now face. This Bill is a timely and necessary response to a changed world of work.
In the past, we could treat skills and employment as two separate journeys. You went to school to get skills and then you went to the job market to find work. But today, skills and work are tied together in an ongoing journey.
Based on an NTUC survey, more than three in four workers expect to make career changes in their lifetime. They see a winding path due to change, new responsibilities and the need to be ready for what the future holds, and that is why the merger matters. It recognises that career security is the new social compact. It does not mean workers expect the Government to guarantee every job.
Singaporeans understand that change and disruption are part of modern working life, but they do expect something fair and fundamental. If you work hard, learnt and adapt, they should have a fair chance to progress, to move into new opportunities and to provide for their families with dignity and confidence.
Career security is not the promise of no disruption. It is a promise that workers will not be left alone to navigate disruption.
Back in 2016, I argued that training and job outcomes must stay connected. I still believe in that today. The true test of a policy is not how many people attend the course or how many certificates are handed out. The real test is whether workers can move into better jobs and feel more confident about the future.
Right now, the system can feel a bit fragmented for some workers. They might get career guidance in one office. They go to another place for training advice. They look for job support somewhere else. When you are in the middle of a stressful career change, this fragmented journey can make things appear harder. You are left to bridge the gaps yourself.
The new SWDA seeks to change this by bringing everything under one roof. It will link business transformation, training and employment support into a smoother workstream. We must remember that training, by itself, is not enough if the jobs themselves are not being redesigned. Skills training must match work, how work is actually being organised in the real world. When merging these agencies, we ensure that training is always tied to real industry needs.
Mr Speaker, the anxieties in the workplace are also changing. Many workers are not only worried about losing their jobs, they are worried about falling behind. They are worried that the skills they have today may not be enough for tomorrow. When workers make the effort to upskill but cannot see how that leads to better jobs or real mobility, confidence in the system starts to weaken, and when effort no longer appears to lead to opportunity, the issue is not just economic, it is social as well.
One area that deserves close attention is what some have called the broken wrong, something I spoke about during my Budget speech. Many academics and researchers have also spoken up on this matter, and you will find increasing literature on this topic.
For young people, the first foothold in the labour market matters. It shapes confidence, habits, skills and future earnings. It often sets the direction of an entire career, but today the first rung is less secure. Entry-level work is changing. Employers are rethinking junior roles. New technologies, including AI, are changing what firms expect, even from those just entering the workforce. For some young workers, the challenge is no longer simply finding a job. It is finding a start.
If the first rung weakens, it affects progression, wage growth and long-term mobility. The old assumption that one can simply enter, learn on a job and move up steadily can no longer be taken for granted. New entrants need stronger career guidance earlier. They need better information on where demand is growing and training that is more closely tied to real workplace needs. They may also need more support in moving from school to work and from first job to a sustainable career.
This is where a more integrated agency can make a real difference. When the same system can connect career guidance, training advice, market labour signals and employment support, it becomes easier to help younger Singaporeans where they are most likely to fall through the cracks.
Mr Speaker, Sir, no statutory board, however well designed, can build career security on its own. This effort requires the full strength of tripartism.
Government can shape policy and provide systems of support. Employers create jobs, redesign work and invest in their people. Unions bring workers' voice, trust and a deep understanding of how change is felt on the ground. Training providers helped turn broad ambition to practical capability.
All parts of this ecosystem matter.
We recently announced the Tripartite Jobs Council on May Day. This Council will help workers and the businesses navigate the big changes brought by AI. It will work hand-in-hand with the SWDA to make sure that businesses adopt new technology, that workers are trained and supported to move into new roles.
The Labour Movement stands ready to support this effort in concrete ways. NTUC has a long-standing partnership with Government on business transformation, training and worker support. Through our unions and our work on the ground, we see where anxieties are rising and where support is most needed. We can help workers and employers understand where opportunities lie and navigate the path from uncertainty to action.
The e2i will continue its deep partnership with the new Agency. Over the years, WSG has transferred various career jobs and skill centres to e2i, enabling it to serve more jobseekers on the ground. Building on this foundation, e2i can work closely with the new agency to translate national strategies into practical support through direct engagement with workers and businesses on career guidance, job matching and workforce transformation.
This is especially important for younger workers. As the broken ground becomes a more real concern, support should begin earlier. Career guidance should not only start after a young person struggles to find work. It should begin before graduation and continue through the early career years, where expectations are shifting quickly and confidence is still being formed.
Let me share two examples of how this can be done.
First, e2i can and will bring its labour market knowledge, employer network and ground-sensing to partnerships with IHLs. Its recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with National University of Singapore and Singapore Institute of Technology showed how this can strengthen students' career readiness, connect them to broader range of opportunities and help them understand the skills needed in a changing workplace.
Second, NTUC can scale up our AI career coach. This tool has already seen over 9,000 sign-ups, providing 24/7 help to young people as they take first steps into the workforce.
Mr Speaker, NTUC will also continue to support workers making career transitions. For many mid-career workers, the fear is not only just change itself but the cost of change. A transition may mean temporary income loss, uncertainty for the family and real doubt about whether a new path will work out. Workers need support, the lowest the affliction or transition, gives them greater confidence to make a move where change becomes necessary.
With the merger of this agency, we should consider a few things.
First, expand place-and-train programmes. This is where a worker is matched to a job before they start training. It gives them certainty of a pay cheque and a clear path forward, reducing the stress in their lives. NTUC Learning Hub can further support this new social compact by helping workers and employers translate transformation into capability. We know training only works if it is tied to a real job. Through our Company Training Committees, we help companies, especially small businesses, figure out how to redesign their work and help their workers to improve.
NTUC Learning Hub can play a vital role here. They do not just offer random courses. They build skills pathways that industries actually value. For example, the Tech Talent Academy works with tech firms like AWS, Microsoft and Goggle to train and place workers into tech jobs. Since 2024, the Tech Talent Academy has trained over 53,000 workers. About 4,000 of these were people switching careers through the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme. More than half of them have already found jobs in a softening job market. This shows that when we link training directly to employment, better things can happen.
Mr Speaker, the success of this Bill will be judged by whether workers experience a system that is more coherent or responsive and more relevant to their daily lives. If this new agency can help Singapore move closer to that goal, it will build the social compact for a new era of work. The Government has an important role, but it cannot do this alone. NTUC will continue with the new SWDA to strength career security for workers at every stage of their life. Career security is the new social compact. This Bill is an important step towards building that compact for workers for today and tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister Dr Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support as well as their questions and suggestions on the SWDA Bill. There are many points raised. I will attempt to address all of them holistically. I will group the issues raised thematically and of course, reply to the questions as best as possible.
I have decided to group it into eight broad pillars. First, why this merger, why now. Second, raising the quality as well as the forms of training. Three, connecting training to matching them to good jobs. Four, catering to diverse and ever-changing needs. Five, become even more proactive and to provide anticipatory support. Six, what are the outcome measures of success. Seven, the governance of the new merged entity. And of course, eight, last but not least, on transition and continuity.
So, why this merger and why now?
First, I would like to address some fundamental questions raised over the purpose of this merger. In particular, Mr Gerald Giam characterised the merger as a reversal of the position from 2016. I disagree with this characterisation. It is more important to ask if the restructuring in 2016 was the right call then and whether the merger, moving forward is the right call now and for the future. The answer to both questions is yes. Let me explain.
The restructuring in 2016 allowed SSG and WSG to develop specialised capabilities in adult training and employment facilitation respectively. The House then supported the Skills Future Singapore Agency Bill in 2016. Mr Giam's former colleague, Mr Leon Pereira, supported the aim to bring about a far-reaching change in our adult education and training landscape by establishing an agency that is solely focused on adult education in ways that are intimately linked to economic goals. This is in the Hansard.
SSG has achieved that aim. Through SSG's nexus with MOE, the IHLs have become the key pillars of CET delivery today. Meanwhile, WSG expanded public employment services and introduced new programmes to address mismatches. Both agencies have substantially achieved the objectives of the restructuring. Earlier on, when I gave the speech, I elaborated extensively on the achievements of SSG and WSG.
As for why the merger is the right decision today, let me quote John Maynard Keynes, which is the father of macroeconomics, \"When the facts change, I change my mind.\"
Members of the House, with the rapid advances in AI, with technology disruptions happening at a rapid pace and mounting geopolitical disruptions, our operating reality has changed significantly and so must we.
The next bound of our workforce strategy requires an end-to-end system that connects skills to jobs more quickly and more accurately than before. It requires a more integrated structure so that we can be more agile and nimble in predicting, in pre-empting and preparing for new opportunities and disruptions. It also requires a greater variety, a greater volume of services to meet the ever more complex and diverse needs of workers and their employers.
So, hence, in addition to delivering better services and programmes, SWDA has an expanded mandate to develop the broader career employment and training ecosystem in Singapore, supporting innovative solutions and improving access to quality services. This is what will make SWDA more than the sum of its parts.
To address Mr Saktiandi Supaat's question, this is a key function in the SWDA Bill which goes beyond those in the SSG and the WSG Act.
At the same time, we must not lose the specialised capabilities that we have built over the past 10 years.
Mr Shawn Loh rightly highlighted the importance of preserving the strong relationship between IHLs and the SkillsFuture movement. And Assoc Prof Terence Ho asked how we will ensure that IHLs will continue to develop as institutions of lifelong learning. Through MOE's joint oversight of SWDA, we will continue to deepen this relationship, strengthen complementarity between IHLs and private training providers and improve coordination between CET and pre-employment training.
To address Ms He Ting Ru's question on how SWDA might manage the reporting relationship to two Ministries, MOM will be the parent Ministry of SWDA, but the joint oversight arrangement with MOE, that means between myself and Minister Desmond Lee, will bring the IHLs into closer alignment with our workforce agenda, ensuring that skills development is pursued in a coherent way. Members of the House, this is not a two-headed monster. This is a two-horse chariot, pulling in the same direction, charging ahead. [Applause.]
Mr Saktiandi and Mr Giam asked about the costs. The 2016 restructuring of WDA into two separate Statutory Boards did not require additional funding from the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, the merger also not require additional budget allocation. There will be some costs incurred for branding, marketing and systems integration. These costs would have been budgeted for any regular refreshes, even if there was no merger. These costs will be managed within the existing budgets of SSG and WSG, and their reserves.
On the second point, raising the quality and the focus of training, Ms Gho Sze Kee asked about the curation of SkillsFuture courses. She is right that not everything in the SkillsFuture catalogue has been directed towards our workforce development goals. But SkillsFuture is much more than just training for industry.
SkillsFuture is a national movement to promote a culture of lifelong learning. Cultivating the habit of lifelong learning matters. Remember I kept emphasising earlier on about getting everyone to have that mindset change. So, how do we initiate them, how do we start them into that habit, that matters.
In response to Assoc Prof Terence Ho's question, lifelong learning that is not targeted at employment will still come under SWDA's purview. SWDA will work with agencies, such as the People's Association on the curation of such programmes. And we encourage all Singaporeans to learn not just for their current job, or the next job, but also in their areas of interest. Not all training leads to immediate employment and wage gains. And so, the SkillsFuture catalogue includes some interest-based courses.
However, when it comes to funding, we do make a distinction, a very clear distinction between industry-oriented and interest-based courses.
While the base tier of SkillsFuture Credit is applicable to a wide range of courses, including those for personal interests, Government funding for course fees is only applicable for courses that offer skills relevant to that specific industry, which will support the workforce's upskilling needs. The additional SkillsFuture Credit for mid-careerists is further scoped to courses that meet more stringent criteria on employability outcomes and industry relevance.
On a third group, connecting and matching training to good jobs, it is essential that SWDA's good work is closely linked to industry and of top tier quality.
I would like to address two misconceptions from Mr Kenneth Tiong's speech.
First, unlike what Mr Tiong shared earlier on, there are significant guardrails to ensuring that SkillsFuture courses are top quality, with industry playing a big role in ensuring the relevance of training.
Our trade associations and chambers, and professional bodies, they come together to help curate and signpost courses and some employers serve as SkillsFuture Queen Bees to provide training for other companies, including SMEs in their respective sectors. As SWDA, we will work with industry to play an even bigger role, which also brings me to my second point.
I think Mr Tiong, perhaps, may not have fully understood. He has over-simplified SkillsFuture. It is not just an individual credit scheme. SkillsFuture sits alongside the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit, which employers can use to send their workers for training. These employers and individuals need to co-pay for training programmes, whether through their credits or out-of-pocket, and they must also invest their time and effort. This creates skin in the game. Companies and workers must choose the best courses worth their while and training providers must regularly up the game to compete.
The Government, of course, plays a role in regulating the provider, the course and adult educator as well. And as pointed out by Ms Jessica Tan, our success depends on the ecosystem. On the individuals, employers and other stakeholders and partners playing a big role.
This ecosystem is, therefore, central to the SkillsFuture movement and will continue to be so under SWDA. As Mr Darryl David rightly pointed out, SkillsFuture is fundamentally an instrument of economic mobility and employability.
This now brings me to the core of SWDA's mandate and that is to support Singaporeans at every stage of their careers through promoting lifelong learning, strengthening their career health and enhancing access to good jobs.
Dr Wan Rizal identified two distinct gaps that SWDA must close. The first-job gap for fresh graduates and the career transition gap for mid-careerists. Mr Darryl David highlighted that students often make decisions about courses and career pathways without a clear understanding of labour market realities. Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Jessica Tan also raised concerns on how SWDA will support entry-level hiring amidst business restructuring and AI-driven change.
On supporting fresh graduates to get their first jobs, I agree with Dr Wan Rizal and Mr Darryl David that we cannot wait until students graduate before we intervene.
SWDA will work with IHLs and MOE to bring industry exposure upstream so that our students can have a clearer picture of the labour market well before they graduate. I am not confident that we can go all the way to the secondary school as suggested by a Member here, but we certainly will go upstream to bring the industry exposure to our undergraduates.
This means more systematic pathways into industry attachments and clearer signals on skills and roles in demand. At the same time, we will review measures to better support graduates who face difficulties in securing employment.
To support mid-careerists to chart their careers amidst a fast-evolving world, SWDA will empower them to take charge and strengthen their career health. We will make good quality career guidance services more accessible to the broad middle of workers and equip them with data-driven insights on jobs and skills so that they can undertake the right training that connects them to the opportunities that they are seeking.
We will look at tying course funding more closely to demand signals so that training translates into better career prospects.
The calls from Mr Darryl David, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Shawn Loh and Assoc Prof Terence Ho to tighten the nexus between training grants and employment outcomes are directionally aligned with our plans. Dr Neo Kok Beng's suggestion for SWDA to partner professional institutions to align training to professional accreditations will also help to ensure that the skills acquired are recognised by the industry and can pave the way for career progression.
We are also supporting Singaporeans to acquire the skills and the perspectives needed for a globalised economy. The OMIP that Mr Tiong talked about allows companies to send to Singaporeans on overseas postings to build first-hand knowledge of international markets and bring these insights back home. We agree that such schemes can be made accessible to benefit even more Singaporeans and we have announced at the Committee of Supply this year that we will be expanding OMIP to young professionals even earlier in their careers.
Supporting our workers to acquire skills, experience and career agility is only part of the equation. To maximise their potential, workers must also be able to signal their skills and experience to employers, be matched to jobs that make use of these skills and experience and to be rewarded fairly.
To this end, SWDA will also work to reduce information asymmetries in the labour market to facilitate more efficient job matching.
MyCareersFuture.gov.sg will continue to be our national jobs bank, where good jobs are visible, accessible and intelligently matched to jobseekers. To strengthen the pipeline of quality job listings, MOM, SWDA and sector agencies will work together to encourage more companies to list vacancies on the portal.
Today, there are already over 60,000 job postings published on MyCareersFuture. We aspire to reach 100,000 job postings in 12 months from SWDA's establishment. We have forged partnerships with five online job portals. Singaporeans can use verified employment history and training data in their Careers and Skills Passport to apply for jobs on these job portals. The results are promising. Applicants with verified credentials are 1.5 times more likely to be shortlisted by hirers.
In line with SWDA's expanded mandate, we will build ecosystem enablers, such as data sharing mechanisms and accreditation frameworks, to facilitate faster and better job matches.
The fourth pillar: catering to diverse and ever-changing needs.
Several Members have asked how SWDA will serve the diverse needs of workers and employers. Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Dr Hamid Razak, Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Jessica Tan have asked about worker segments, such as caregivers, seniors, persons with disabilities, ex-offenders and those who have experienced health setbacks.
We will partner community organisations, like SG Enable, Yellow Ribbon Singapore and Community Development Councils, to reach the more vulnerable segments. As Mr Melvin Yong suggested, we are also studying ways to provide stronger support for more flexible work models, such as fractional work, that may better cater to their needs.
Mr Yip asked specifically about the role of NTUC and e2i. e2i operates 27 out of 31 touchpoints islandwide for career matching and advisory. NTUC is spearheading the Company Training Committee initiative, which involves $300 million funding to drive enterprise and workforce transformation.
Echoing Mr Desmond Choo, the labour movement will continue to be a strategic partner of SWDA in translating national strategies to practical support by providing high-touch support to different worker segments through employment facilitation, training and workforce transformation.
For employers, they also have diverse needs depending on their industry size, sector and business development plans. Mr Mark Lee asked whether support will be differentiated for SMEs and large enterprises and whether SWDA will retain sector-specific expertise. SWDA will tailor its strategies to better suit the different profiles of the companies that it serves.
In line with suggestions from Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Eileen Chong, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Mark Lee and Assoc Prof Terence Ho, SWDA will also explore ways to step up support for job redesign and on-job-training so that training is customised to different workplaces and different business models, helping our workers to take on higher-value-added jobs.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling called for SWDA to support more companies in job redesign and workforce transformation, just like FairPrice Store of Tomorrow at Punggol. This will indeed be a priority for SWDA. And then to address Ms Chong's question about how we will support skill-based HR practices, we have recently introduced tools, like TalentTrack and TalentTrack+, which help employers assess the skills readiness of their workforce and identify suitable training interventions.
Mr Gerald Giam also asked how will SWDA coordinate with the economic agencies under MTI. Today, WSG and SSG already work closely with MTI and sector agencies through established inter-agency coordination platforms. With the merger, we will build on these mechanisms to deepen this coordination even further, tightening the nexus between jobs and skills and between enterprise and workforce transformation.
Mr Giam, perhaps it is late in the evening and he may have forgotten, I personally have a stake in this because I am also a Minister in the Ministry of Trade and Industry. So, I wear two hats. Perhaps I am the political officeholder that he is talking about striding two Ministries because I am also the current Manpower Minister. So, the Member can be assured on this point.
Mr Shawn Loh, Mr Mark Lee, Ms Elysa Chen and Ms Jessica Tan asked whether and how SWDA will work with TACs, industry bodies and sectoral partners. Let me reassure them, reassure all Members, that they will be key partners of SWDA in supporting employers and they will play three important roles. It will not be limited to these three roles, but they will play three very important roles.
First, as advocates for the manpower needs of their respective sectors. TACs and industry bodies will help SWDA to sharpen its workforce development programmes. Against the backdrop of recent global developments, such as trade tariffs and the Middle East oil crisis, the SNEF and the Singapore Business Federation have provided timely insights on hiring sentiments and business outlook through dipstick business polls. This helped to inform the Government's policy responses.
Second, they will serve as key programme partners that will increase the breadth and depth of SWDA's coverage.
The Singapore Business Federation and SNEF, for example, have already been appointed as anchor programme partners for the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package. This is our response to Assoc Prof Terence Ho's question about how SWDA will scale impact across the large number of SMEs in different industries.
The third point, they will serve as multipliers, amplifying outreach to employers and driving mindset change on workforce transformation. SNEF has been co-leading tripartite efforts, such as the Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment and the Tripartite Workgroup on Human Capital Capability Development, and can support efforts to engender mindset shifts towards the hiring of senior workers and HR practices.
Members may be wondering how SWDA's approach to working with partners will be different from before. There will be two key shifts.
First, what we partner on. Today, most partnerships are focussed on training. WSG has also partnered on job matching, career guidance and job redesign but these partnerships have been more targeted and scoped. With SWDA, we will expand and deepen these partnerships to spur new innovations, raise the quality of career and employment services and training. Our initial efforts have begun through pilots under the AfA-ACES and we will continue to build on these.
Second, who do we partner with? SSG works with about 500 training providers while WSG has only a handful of appointed partners for career matching and guidance.
So, with this merger, SWDA will broaden this network beyond training providers to include more recruitment agencies, online job portals and other ecosystem players to diversify services. The goal is for workers and employers to have more options and better support, even as we safeguard and uplift the quality of service provision.
Moving to the fifth group, which is more proactive and more anticipatory support. In a more volatile global environment, the needs of worker and employer segments evolve very rapidly. Ms Elysa Chen, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Mark Lee asked how SWDA would play a more proactive and anticipatory role, to prepare workers and businesses ahead of disruptions.
Data will be the critical enabler – SWDA will tap on various data sources, including MOM's rich labour market data, demand signals from job postings as well as training take-up. We can splice and fuse the data in new ways to triangulate and distil fresh jobs as well as provide skills insights. These insights can then be applied to personalise services and deliver more targeted support proactively.
We seek to leverage these insights to help more individuals enter into good jobs, build careers with better prospects and extend their career trajectories. As I explained earlier, SWDA will also work with the broader career and employment services and training ecosystem to create more value out of shared data, through analysis or building of value-added services.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about the relationship between SWDA, NTUC and SNEF, and if SWDA will engage them in devising and executing its plans. Ms Yeo Wan Ling called on SWDA to establish regular contact with stakeholders to remain plugged in with ground realities.
NTUC and SNEF and their networks – they have and they are formidable resources. SWDA will leverage with their resources, their network, to intervene more decisively ahead of upcoming disruptions or downturns. This is also why we recently announced, just last week, on Friday, the set-up of a Tripartite Jobs Council, co-chaired by NTUC, SNEF and MOM to bring our collective capabilities to bear on the challenges and the opportunities brought by AI. Many Members today also spoke about AI.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling spoke about the importance of treating workers as co-creators for AI adoption to ensure better outcomes. Ms Eileen Chong spoke about making job redesign a priority when companies integrate AI into their workflows. Later this evening, depending on what time we end or tomorrow, this House will discuss how we can work together in an era where AI transformation is increasingly pervasive. And I will speak about the importance of concurrent enterprise and workforce transformation in making AI adoption more human-centric.
Moving on to the sixth point, which is on what measurements of success do we look at. So, several Members indeed asked us, how would we measure SWDA's success? For individuals, our ultimate goal is to help Singaporeans enter into good jobs and progress in their careers. We will measure SWDA's effectiveness in doing so through indicators, such as time to placement and wage growth, in addition to training and placement numbers.
We already track these outcome indicators today to measure the effectiveness of our interventions. For example, about nine in 10 Career Conversion Programme participants remain employed 24 months after embarking on the programme and about six in 10 of those who participated in these Career Conversion Programmes earn more than their last drawn salaries.
For employers, we will look at outcomes on adoption of progressive practices in areas, such as job redesign, on-job-training and skills-first hiring. As a first step, we have introduced the Singapore Opportunity Index to provide transparency to job seekers on employers who promote opportunity and deliver strong career outcomes for their workers.
So, to Ms Chong's point, we are tracking such indicators and we will continue to do so. We will continue to tweak and refine, and up the ante. At the economy level, SWDA will contribute to a more inclusive labour market with high resident labour force participation and sustained wage growth. Median wages have grown over the last decade and we will do our best to extend that growth trajectory.
While not so easily measured, we also want to engender a culture of lifelong learning and career health to take root in the DNA of the Singapore workforce.
On my last two points, just bear with me, the seventh point on governance. On the SWDA Board, Mr Saktiandi asked about its composition and the knowledge it will bring. Mr Sanjeev Tiwari asked whether there will be worker representation. The Board will draw from diverse backgrounds – public sector representatives, senior business leaders from multinational corporations and local enterprises across different sectors and key partners, such as NTUC, SNEF and the trade associations and chambers.
Beyond the Board, we also plan to engage international experts, so that our labour market programmes are informed by global trends and by effective interventions elsewhere. The composition of the Board will be announced ahead of SWDA's establishment.
Moving on to the last group – Transition and Continuity. Mr Mark Lee, Ms Elysa Chen, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have asked about the impact of the transition on existing schemes, applications and commitments. I would like assure Members that SSG's and WSG's operations will be fully undertaken by SWDA from Day One. We will ensure uninterrupted service delivery and the existing grant and employment assistance commitments will be honoured.
To the concerns raised by Mr Mark Lee, Mr Shawn Loh and Ms Yeo Wan Ling about potential overlaps, over time, we will work to rationalise programmes and streamline touchpoints to simplify the user journey.
Specific to Mr Yip Hon Weng's and Assoc Prof Terence Ho's questions on whether MyCareersFuture and MySkillsFuture will be streamlined, we will holistically review the user journey across digital touchpoints, to build a more seamless user experience with better signposting to guide users to the appropriate digital services.
Mr Saktiandi and Mr Yip also asked about how the roles of SSG and WSG employees will change, while Ms Elysa Chen asked how front-line officers will be equipped to adopt a holistic instead of scheme-by-scheme mindset. We will organise SWDA by stakeholder segments so that those at the frontline can provide more holistic support across jobs and skills for their clients.
As SWDA builds a more integrated operating model, roles and structures will evolve. We have identified suitable roles for all officers and we are committed to managing this with care. We will redeploy officers where their experience is most valuable and we will develop those who need new skills to take on new roles.
Our people have been the backbone of SSG's and WSG's achievements. SWDA's success will depend on all of them and on bringing them alongside with us.
Mr Speaker, may I say a few words in Mandarin?
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, you have about four minutes left. Just to let you know. If you need more than that, the Deputy Leader may want to move an exemption.
Dr Tan See Leng: I think I will need about 10 minutes.
Mr Speaker: In that case, I will just ask Deputy Leader to so move.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister Tan See Leng's speech, please?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48(8) in respect of Minister Tan's speech. ‒ [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Skills and Workforce Development Agency Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan See Leng, you may resume.
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): Accelerating technological development and the constantly changing international economic environment are making our labour market increasingly complex.
Skills and career development are like rowing against the current – if you do not advance, you will fall behind.
If Singaporeans do not proactively upgrade their skills and plan their careers early, they will inevitably find themselves struggling to keep pace in the labour market and may even miss out on valuable opportunities. If businesses do not keep up with the times and continually innovate, they will inevitably fall behind in market competition.
Today, Lianhe Zaobao reported that five polytechnics presented the SkillsFuture Lifelong Learning Awards to a total of 15 recipients. This included two individuals aged over 50 among them – Mr Wang Boyu Peter and Ms Serene Soh Sze-Mei . When interviewed, Ms Soh said something that captured the essence of it all: \"Age is not an issue. As long as you are willing to take that first step, you can still embark on a new career.\"
Mr Wang and Ms Soh are role models for lifelong learning. We can learn from their proactive and determined spirit of self-improvement, as we adapt to the rapidly changing demands of the labour market.
The merger of Workforce Singapore and SkillsFuture Singapore will combine the strengths of both agencies, providing Singaporeans and employers with more comprehensive and effective support.
The establishment of the Skills and Workforce Development Authority will be an important milestone in our nation's human capital development. It will serve as the engine for career health and lifelong learning. Whether you are just entering the workforce, looking to switch careers or hoping to take your career to the next level, we will journey with you.
We hope to work together with every Singaporean to build a sturdy \"career-ship\" – so that at every stage of your career journey, you can steer its direction with greater confidence and find your own development path amidst changes.
(In English): The formation of SWDA is more than a change in the machinery of our Government. It is a statement of intent – that Singapore will never leave its workers alone in navigating an increasingly complex labour market. That we will build systems worthy of the trust Singaporeans place in them. That we will measure ourselves not by the number of courses run or amount of grants disbursed, but by whether people can find good jobs, grow in their careers and face the future with confidence.
We are doing this at a moment of uncertainty. AI and technology are reshaping industries faster than we can predict. The global economic headwinds are real. The past certainties about career paths and job security are giving way to something significantly more fluid and they are generating more anxiety, more apprehensions for many of us.
But if you look at our history, Singapore has never thrived by waiting for the storm to pass. We thrive by building better ships. The SWDA is one such ship – built to carry our workers and our economy through whatever comes next. I look forward, I invite all of you to come on board and let us sail together. Mr Speaker, with that, I seek to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: After more than five hours and 22 speeches, any clarifications for the Minister? Looks like — oh, sorry, Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister.
First of all, the Minister says that MyCareersFuture has 60,000 postings. It aspires to 100,000. There is a widespread perception that job postings on MyCareersFuture is a compliance exercise rather than reflects genuine hiring channels. So, how would the Minister ensure that more of these MyCareersFuture's postings are genuine vacancies?
Second question, the Minister has not addressed my point on sectoral bargaining. Let me put the question more directly.
The economic skill formation literature is quite clear that firms tend to under-invest in deep skills training when they face poaching risks – they lose the worker, the day after they have spent a lot of time training, putting them through expensive training.
Wage compression through sectoral bargaining is the established solution. NTUC currently bargains at the enterprise level. So, is it the Government's position that NTUC should not bargain at the sectoral level or that sectoral bargaining is unnecessary? Thank you.
Dr Tan See Leng: I do not have the exact statistics in terms of what the Member was talking about, and I would ask him to also point me perhaps to the statistics that say that all the advertisements in MyCareersFuture are just a paper exercise. If he can highlight any specific company or instance of companies posting on this particular portal as a paper exercise, we will not hesitate to investigate the company. But rather than make a blank statement, come up with the specifics.
With regard to poaching risks, I want to also share a different perspective.
Companies that invest in the training of their workers, whether they work through the NTUC CTCs or they work through our job redesign package, work through WSG's Career Conversion Programmes, have seen better retention for their employees and, in fact, many of the companies that engage in this type of training tend to attract more talent into their companies against companies who do not.
I have been in private sector all my life. A certain amount of poaching exists, even amongst doctors, medical professionals. They move from groups to groups, but that does not mean that because of that, the entire industry is, therefore, at risk of being undermined or competed away. Perhaps, I can share more of these insights separately. Perhaps, inviting Mr Tiong to file a separate Parliamentary question at another Sitting, given the fact that we have just finished five hours of this debate.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, can the Minister elaborate a bit more about how SWDA will enhance the job search assistance programme? Specifically, will career counsellors move beyond basic resume editing and portal referrals to leverage real time vacancy data for proactive matching and advocate for candidates?
Dr Tan See Leng: Today, SWDA will leverage on MOM's labour data. The different engines that we have, the different portals that we have within the umbrella of the Government, provide significant opportunities for AI-powered recommendations. First and foremost, on the jobs and skills that is needed and this will help users to better plan for the upskilling and career needs.
NTUC has its own AI career coach, which, just now, one of the Labour Movement or Labour Members of Parliament have shared. On top of that, the Career and Skills Passports with the skills that have been recorded can be more precisely mapped to the different sectoral skills framework to allow for a more differentiated, a more precise matching. A lot of that enhancement of that data coming together will allow us to, therefore, be able to provide a shorter time to matching, and at the same time a more precise matching and more targeted towards skills-based hiring compared to what it is currently, and we will continue to measure that and provide regular updates.
Mr Speaker: Ms Eileen Chong.
Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarification regarding measurement.
I am actually really heartened to hear that that MOM is actively tracking the outcomes for individuals who undergo the career conversion programmes, but I also would like to point out that the number of individuals covered by the career conversion programmes are only a small subset of Singaporeans who do undergo many other kinds of career-related training under the SkillsFuture scheme. So, I would like to ask if the Minister will also like to confirm then that the new agency will indeed also be extending the tracking of these outcomes and whether it is working for these other Singaporeans who are undergoing training so that Singaporeans can have a clearer picture of what works, what works well, what is not working, and I hope the Minister can agree that, by collecting and publicising data like that, that it will only help to further reinforce the importance of lifelong learning and upskilling amongst Singaporeans once they see the numbers for themselves.
Dr Tan See Leng: I have provided just now in my round-up speech about the impact of the career conversion programmes, which is organised by WSG, and I did not add NTUC CTC's success rates as well. I do not have it with me. Of course, the Secretary-General will be able to provide that. But suffice to say, to further add on to your other colleague, Mr Giam's earlier point, the SWDA's integrated intelligence function will provide forward-looking signals on what roles and what skillsets are in demand, so then this will allow students and even their families in the IHLs to make more informed decisions.
SWDA will also make the jobs and the skills intelligence accessible through its digital platform, through the multiple career advisory touchpoints. And guidance is available at the point of decision making, not only after they have entered a particular job itself. So, with that, I believe that that matching should be even more pervasive, and it will reach out to a wider segment of the population.
On top of that, we are not just focusing on the workforce. We are also focusing on the employers. I have also announced at Budget this year, we are enhancing the Enterprise Workforce Transformation Package and the grants will tie the companies to specific deliverables with regard to job redesign. The details will be further shared once SWDA comes into existence in July. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.
Mr Speaker: Mr Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I thank the Minister for responding to my question just now. I am actually glad to hear that there will be more precise matching with the help of SWDA's – what did the Minister call – the integrated intelligence function. But can I ask if this function will be provided to all jobseekers who approach SWDA or its agencies, like e2i, to seek for job assistance, because it would not be helpful if only a small proportion of jobseekers get to benefit from it, while the rest are just provided with a resume touchup or referrals to portals?
Dr Tan See Leng: Core to the success of this entire exercise requires mindset change, and I did make that a very clear point when I first started my speech. We have, over the past few years, rolled out many initiatives, including career health.
The case we exhort, that we encourage all of our Singapore residents to do is to really take an interest in their own career health, going into their own career health to update whether it is their own training, and look at what are the adjacencies in terms of the skills training that will be required to keep up with the latest development in the industry and economic development.
When they continue to keep up, our portal will also be able to push courses to them, because we would have triangulated from trade associations and chambers, from the employers, from industry as to how the industry is moving, in what directions they are moving. Regardless of what we do, some sectors will face a sunset phase. This happens in all businesses. And for them, this would then allow them to decide whether they want to upgrade themselves in a different industry, allow them to pivot across.
As long as they go on that career health, going on to CareersFinder, SWDA will work with them every step of the way.
Mr Speaker: Alright, I believe all the clarifications have been addressed.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Tan See Leng]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"An Artificial Intelligence (AI) Transition with No Jobless Growth","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, I move*, \"That this House (1) recognises the transformative power of new technologies, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), to drive Singapore's next phase of economic development; (2) emphasises that Singapore's approach to AI-enabled growth must be anchored in fairness, resilience, and opportunity for all; (3) resolves to equip and support workers and enterprises to seize new opportunities and advance together; and (4) affirms that economic progress must remain inclusive, and that Singapore must not have jobless growth, because every worker matters.\"
[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Mr Mark Lee, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Yeo Wan Ling. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) where together with my NTUC's sisters and brothers gathered in the Public Gallery, we champion workers' wages, welfare and work prospects.
This Motion represents the voices of our leaders and workers discussing AI transition in the last two years or so.
I want to speak today, to the young graduates wondering if their skills will be enough; to the mid-career professionals asking whether their experience still counts; to the blue-collar workers worried if they will have good jobs in an AI-enabled economy.
Since Independence, Singapore's growth has been anchored in a simple but powerful compact: as our economy advances, our workers advance together. Today, in an AI-enabled world, we must renew that compact, deliberately and together.
AI is no longer just a tool. It is reshaping how work is done, how we serve customers and how value is created.
Consulting firms, such as KPMG and Accenture, are starting to include the use of AI to achieve business outcomes as a staff assessment. More recently, leading technology firms, like Meta and Microsoft, have announced global restructuring plans.
AI may not be the only driver of these changes. But they show clearly that the nature of work is changing fast.
Workers are anxious and paying close attention. I understand these concerns. AI is impacting junior roles, which were once the first rung of a career ladder. Routine, process-heavy tasks are increasingly automated.
Across the economy, AI is reducing the need for junior staff to spend long hours on data processing and standardised modelling. AI is also reshaping professional, manager and executive (PME) jobs in higher-end professions, like doctors, lawyers and accountants. At the same time, AI is also creating new jobs and roles.
But even as new opportunities emerge, workers have real and understandable concerns. Young graduates ask: where do I start, and how do I build the right skills when the first rung is now higher? Many mid-career PMEs and workers ask: will my experience count? Will my experience continue to matter? How can AI strengthen my role and not replace me?
Taken together, these shifts challenge the assumption that economic growth will always lead to more and better jobs.
Our economic agencies continue to bring in good investments. The Government has set out clear ambitions to strengthen an AI-enabled economy. But for many Singaporeans on the ground, two questions remain: how can I take part in this growth and benefit from it? How will this growth translate into fair opportunities for me?
Around the world, we can see the extremes of what happens when these questions are left unanswered.
On one extreme, some societies allow technology to race ahead. Displaced workers are left to fend for themselves. Economists warn of scars when job disruption is unmanaged. At the other extreme, fear takes hold. Workers push back defensively. In Hollywood, writers and actors have taken to picket lines and public demonstrations over the use of AI.
These are not paths that we want for Singapore. This is why today, my fellow Parliamentarians and I put forward this Motion to set out a clear agenda for AI adoption, one that strengthens Singapore's competitiveness, supports our enterprises and empowers our workers. We must build on our tripartite strengths for this new AI-enabled era to ensure that it benefits all workers.
To that end, Mr Mark Lee will address the clarity for enterprises, our AI front door; Mr Saktiandi Supaat will speak on building an inclusive AI-enabled economy for Singapore; and Ms Yeo Wan Ling will speak on job redesign for the future of work.
Sir, this phase of economic growth is different from the past.
AI is advancing at such speed that even its creators are acknowledging its limits and the need for guardrails, safeguards. In fact, AI has widened the scope of what one person can do quite incredibly. In many countries, \"solopreneuers\", or one-person outfits, are using AI to carry out work previously done by whole teams. AI is, therefore, not just reshaping jobs. It is reshaping business models and organisational structures.
Against this backdrop, the concerns raised to the Labour Movement are grounded in lived experience. One in five respondents NTUC surveyed cite job security as their top concern, linked to anxieties around AI and automation. Workers worry their skills may not keep pace. Parents are concerned about their children's employability.
Enterprises share concerns too. Many want to transform but are weighing workforce readiness and implementation costs.
Today, more than 60 AI Centres of Excellence in Singapore are supporting AI deployment across workplaces. NTUC is also seeing more than double the number of enterprises seeking support on AI-related projects and asking how to seize new opportunities.
Mr Speaker, I firmly believe that we must act early. We must strengthen our plans and responses at this stage of the AI-enabled growth, before disruption takes hold.
As Singapore pushes ahead strategically on AI, our desired outcomes are clear: to grow our economic pie as large as possible, while ensuring that this growth translates into good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans; to enable enterprises to use AI technologies to transform, and train workers to do higher-value work, take on broader roles and create more value; and to invest in our workers and empower them, preparing them early to move into AI-augmented roles.
This is the proactive AI future we must work towards because our people are our greatest strength. Not AI instead of workers, but AI working for workers across all collars, across enterprises.
I am sure that everyone in this House agrees. AI is no longer optional. Used well, it can raise productivity, unlock new possibilities and strengthen our competitiveness. But every worker, who puts in the fair share of effort must be able to see where they can fit into this new economy and be supported to get there. This is how we anchor AI-enabled growth in fairness, resilience and opportunity for all.
Singapore has never waited for disruption to hit before acting. We have always chosen to look ahead and prepare early.
When technology reshaped work in the past, tripartite partners stepped up together: during the National Computerisation Plan in the 1980s; through the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience during the global financial crisis; and through the NTUC Job Security Council during COVID-19, which helped thousands of workers displaced overnight to return to work.
We must do likewise in this era.
At Budget, our Government underscored the need to support workers and companies to adapt and succeed in an AI-enabled economy, with the Prime Minister chairing the National AI Council. NTUC also launched AI-Ready SG to empower more workers to use AI in their daily work, with AI-enabled tools to support jobseekers and workers of all collars.
To build further on this, tripartite partners have set up the Tripartite Jobs Council, TJC in short, to support enterprise transformation, job redesign and worker transitions, forging win-win.
What matters now is how we take this tripartite commitment to act early and act together, with a humble approach that keeps us close to the ground, so that our AI ambitions translate into confidence and opportunities for enterprises and, most importantly, Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker, Sir, to give effect to this Motion, allow me to outline four practical moves.
First, we must build market intelligence and foresight for an AI-enabled economy. In this period of rapid change, workers and enterprises do not just need more information. They need trusted intelligence, grounded in Singapore's own labour market realities. Today, workers and enterprises face a fragmented, sometimes even conflicting, view of the AI landscape. Some global reports warn of large-scale job displacement. Others say that AI is the future of white-collar work. The landing point is fuzzy and still uncertain.
That is why Singapore needs our own trusted system of market intelligence and foresight, one that reflects our sectoral mix, workforce profile and enterprise realities. Workers, both white and blue collars alike, need practical answers and guidance: which roles are evolving? Which ones are likely to disappear? Which skills will matter more? Where are the new jobs? What should I do next?
For youths, this could mean clearer signals on which skills will open doors so that training pathways can be better designed to match labour demand. It also means a less anxious transition from school to work, even as entry level roles change.
For PMEs and blue-collar workers, this means early guidance on how to upskill, use AI to augment their roles, expand their job scope and improve work prospects. With targeted reskilling, workers can raise their value and move confidently into new, redesigned or adjacent roles.
Good research can also help us avoid reactive policymaking because intervening only after displacement has occurred is far more costly, financially, economically and socially. By reskilling workers before their roles diminish, they are also far more likely to stay employed and progress.
This is why a market intelligence and foresight system, tailored to Singapore, matters. It brings together insights from trade associations on how industries are adopting AI, enterprise data on job redesign and productivity shifts, and union sensing on worker concerns, skills stress points and what upskilling is actually working. This is foresight and intelligence that Singaporeans can trust because it combines macro data on the one hand and ground realities on the other, from unions who know their workers, as well from employers navigating AI transformation.
With such a system, tripartite partners can better make sense of how work is evolving. Enterprises and workers will not be left guessing. They will have clearer direction, more time to prepare and better support to move into new opportunities.
Second, we must enable enterprises to transform with AI and do so in a way that benefits workers.
Enterprises must be empowered to adopt AI, with workers actively involved so that transformation delivers stronger business performance and better workforce outcomes. We can already see some possibilities of what can happen when AI adoption is intentional, phased and paired with workforce upgrading.
At Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), supported by the Singapore Port Workers Union (SPWU) and the Port Officers' Union (POU), AI-enabled systems are progressively rolled out to improve operational planning and safety. At ST Engineering Land Systems, together with the ST Engineering Staff Union and the former SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG), workers across more than 40 suppliers are being trained in AI and new precision engineering tools to meet the evolving needs of advanced manufacturing.
But small and medium enterprises (SMEs) often face tighter constraints in resources, expertise and bandwidth. This matters because SMEs employ about 70% of our workforce. Supporting more SMEs means more workers can benefit from AI-enabled transformation.
Across enterprises large and small, we must ensure that training, job progression and wage outcomes are built into the transformation process from Day One. This is how growth stays inclusive. Worker outcomes must be part of the business transformation plans, not left to chance or treated as an afterthought.
This is why NTUC pioneered the concept of the Company Training Committee (CTC), so that transformation uplifts businesses and workers together. Since the first CTC in 2019, we have formed more than 3,800 CTCs, with projects and training benefiting more than 300,000 blue- and white-collar workers. We forged skills training, job redesign and clearer career development pathways together with transforming businesses.
Let me illustrate what this looks like in practice in the healthcare sector.
Tan Tock Seng Hospital and the Healthcare Services Employees' Union are tapping on the CTC to scale PreSAGE. PreSAGE is a smart patient monitoring system for fall-risk patients. It uses an AI-trained system with thermal sensors above the patient's bed to capture heat patterns. When the patient is predicted to enter an unsafe fall zone, the AI system triggers an alert to nurses to respond.
This system is always on. It watches out for patients 24/7. This means nurses no longer need to go ward after ward, potentially across 1,200 beds, to manually check where the fall sensor mats need to be placed. This new workflow is faster and smarter and less demanding.
This is what AI-augmenting work looks like. AI changes tasks and workflows. It designs out tedious, repetitive, labour-intensive work and it makes, in this case, nursing more sustainable and meaningful, especially also for the older staff.
We are also partnering GP+ Co-operative to support general practitioners (GPs) to use AI, to upskill clinic staff on case documentation and raise overall productivity. In this case, NTUC and our unions stand with GP doctors, not only as healthcare professionals but also as small business owners navigating change.
The CTC works because it is built on a win-win foundation – enterprises transform and workers progress with them.
Up to now, the Labour Movement has spearheaded the CTC initiative. Going forward, I propose that we do so together with the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) as part of the new Tripartite Jobs Council (TJC). In other words, both NTUC and SNEF will work together to expand and scale the CTCs nationwide. Together, with our networks, we can reach more enterprises and more workers. We can provide more focused AI-related support and achieve more win-win outcomes.
And, in that process, Minister Tan See Leng is just walking back into the Chamber, we will likely need more resources for this new CTC implementation approach. NTUC will work through the details with SNEF and put up our requests for funding when ready, and we hope the Government will provide its full support.
Third, enabling workers to seize new opportunities. As AI reshapes industries and business models, the impact on jobs will continue to evolve. For our youths and our workers, having clearer signals, better pathways and practical support can help them move into new opportunities.
This support has to start early. Through the TJC, we should strengthen our outreach to IHLs so that students can gain labour-market insights and plan their career moves earlier during their studies. We can do more as an ecosystem to help our youths make informed choices and shorten the transition from school to work.
I met several young professionals recently when I visited Amazon Web Services (AWS). Some of these fresh graduates had initial anxieties but ultimately managed to secure positions after a period of job searches. Ending up in AWS is a good outcome. But it raised a question in my mind too. Could the journey have been smoother with earlier career guidance, better insight into employer needs and stronger matching for internships and entry-level roles?
NTUC's e2i has developed an AI Career Coach to help youths and jobseekers improve their resumes, practise mock job interviews and receive feedback for improvement. Through tailored job suggestions, youths can get a boost to help with their job searches and perhaps, make the process that little bit less daunting.
For PMEs and mid-career workers, the challenge is different; 56% of PMEs surveyed by NTUC felt that they need to upskill to keep pace with AI. Our PMEs will need confidence that skills upgrading can translate into real job opportunities and that their experience will continue to matter.
To address the needs, NTUC LearningHub has developed AI skills pathways at different levels of proficiency. Since the launch of NTUC's AI-Ready SG initiative in February, more than 4,000 workers have embarked on AI training to level up their AI skills. NTUC LearningHub intends to scale these efforts under AI-Ready SG to more than one million training places over the next few years.
Our unions will do their part as well. The Union Training Assistance Programme will be expanded to help offset the cost of subscriptions to selected AI tools. Our unions will also work closely with sectoral champions to ensure that AI training for our workers is practical and support their daily work. Sector by sector, company by company, we will help enterprises and workers utilise the CTC to transform their business processes and operating models to reap the benefits of AI.
Today, there is strong demand for digital transformation and AI-related CTC projects. I visited SIN Assurance PAC earlier this year, a public accounting firm that offers audit and assurance services. Journal entry testing used to involve long hours of repetitive scanning and junior auditors depended heavily on managers for technical guidance. Using the CTC grant, the firm implemented a quality management tool that eliminated tedious and time-consuming manual tracking of spreadsheets. It also adopted robotic process automation and deployed an AI-enabled chatbot to improve audit efficiency and accuracy.
Technology is now a force multiplier for SMEs like SIN(G) Assurance PAC. It enables workers to apply their professional judgement to higher-value work. Cases like these show us that when transformation is done with workers at the centre, enterprises and workers both benefit.
NTUC has co-developed AI Transformation Blueprints with AI Singapore to help companies assess their readiness, identify gaps and implement the most suitable AI solutions. We are also partnering AWS and Huawei as Lead Multipliers to bring their expertise, solutions and networks to help more enterprises and workers.
We will bring these capabilities to the TJC, so that we can pool resources and make it easier for workers of all collars to seize new opportunities as AI reshapes work.
Fourth, we must enable displaced workers to bounce back with dignity and confidence. The impact of AI on jobs will continue to evolve. We must keep a vigilant watch on emerging AI governance issues and adapt our policies, even our laws.
Keeping human-in-the-loop will be important, especially in areas like hiring, work allocation, performance management and dismissal decisions. But even with these best efforts, we must be honest that some displacement will still occur, particularly among the PMEs. In the age where AI displacement may be more pronounced, we must find ways to reach affected workers early and shorten the time between disruption and recovery. For displaced workers who have put in years of hard work, retrenchment can feel sudden and deeply unsettling, as if the ground has shifted from beneath them. That is why our support systems must act as early as possible and support these affected workers to bounce back on their feet.
I have called in this House for advance notification of retrenchments to the Government. This should be done before the employee's last working day. I am glad that this is being studied in the ongoing review of the Employment Act. The purpose is to help affected workers adapt and bounce back as quickly as possible while keeping our labour market flexible and dynamic.
In practice, especially for larger-scale retrenchments, earlier notice allows our unions, allows e2i, through its network of 27 National Career Centres, to come in early to support affected workers. I am heartened that many companies undergoing restructuring already provide such early notification. This has allowed tripartite partners to deploy career and emotional support onsite. In such cases, we were able to offer immediate reskilling pathways and work directly with employers to line up suitable vacancies, sometimes even before the affected workers' last day of work.
Beyond job matching, displaced workers must be supported to bounce back too with dignity, with real opportunities to train, transit and move to the next good job.
Let me share one such example. Mr Hong, a mid-career IT manager in the retail industry, was retrenched when his company offshored its IT support. Despite 15 years of experience managing enterprise IT systems, his opportunities were limited. He felt dejected, lost and unsure where to restart. Thankfully, with career guidance and coaching from NTUC's e2i, Mr Hong was able to pivot to the healthcare industry as an IT manager within a short time.
Like Mr Hong, many workers feel vulnerable after retrenchment, especially after years of contribution to the same organisation. For those with a mortgage, with school-going children or with ageing parents to support, the pressure to find a job quickly is very real. That is why financial support during transition matters. It is not welfare. It is an investment in worker outcomes.
We are glad that the Government has taken on board NTUC's suggestions to introduce the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS). It provides time-bound support, tied to active job searches and training. The Labour Movement now proposes to expand the coverage of the scheme.
Today, this JSS is pegged to a median income of about $5,000. But in the AI era, many PMEs earning above this level may face the same displacement risks and the same need for structured transition support. Adjusting coverage closer to the PME median gross income levels would better reflect the realities of the AI-driven disruption.
Our aim is not to preserve old jobs. It is to help Singaporeans move, over time, more confidently into the next good job faster. Together with earlier notification, quicker and more coordinated mobilisation, we can ensure that displaced workers recover faster and bounce back with confidence.
(In Mandarin): In this AI-era, countries are transforming rapidly, businesses are adapting and jobs are changing.
Young people are asking, \"What should I study to go further in my career?\" Workers are also asking, \"How can my experience continue to add value in this age of AI?\"
Therefore, we must act early. We must integrate business transformation with worker training to ensure that economic growth translates into quality jobs for our workers. NTUC, the Government and employers have established the Tripartite Jobs Council to drive AI transformation and employment support.
NTUC will work with Institutes of Higher Learning to strengthen career coaching and career planning, so that graduating youth are able to find suitable jobs more quickly. At the same time, we propose for local businesses, unions and academia to jointly study the impact of AI on employment. Through NTUC's Company Training Committee Grant, we will strengthen support for businesses to adopt AI and seize new opportunities.
In doing so, white-collar workers will be able to harness AI and take on higher value work. Blue-collar workers will also be able to upgrade their AI skills and access new growth pathways. For those who need to switch careers, we will walk alongside them as they make a fresh start.
Mr Speaker, by staying united and through collective effort, we will be able to progress more steadily and reach greater heights in the AI-era – one that every Singaporean has a place.
(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. I began this speech with the questions on many workers' minds: how can I take part in the AI growth and benefit from it? How can I translate into fair opportunities for me?
Singapore has invested much in education and the skills of our workforce. As we enter the next phase of growth, we must review our steadfast commitment to support our workers. Young graduates, white-collar PMEs, younger or older, blue-collar workers alike.
The four practical moves I have outlined are a call for collective action in this AI transition. Act early so we understand how jobs are changing and give workers and businesses better foresight. Support enterprise transformation while uplifting workers for win-win outcomes. Enable workers to seize new opportunities as jobs evolve. And when disruption occurs, ensure that workers bounce back with dignity and confidence.
This renewed compact must be the foundation of our unique tripartism in the AI-era, keeping enterprises competitive and workers firmly at the heart of our progress. Because in Singapore, every worker matters. Sir, I seek to move.
Mr Speaker: The question is as moved by Mr Ng Chee Meng. Mr Ng? You would like to adjourn the debate?
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Yes, Sir. Timing tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: You need to move that the debate be now adjourned.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate do now adjourn.\" – [Mr Ng Chee Meng]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate what day?
Mr Ng Chee Meng: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Speaker: So be it. Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building a Democracy of Deeds ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, in 1971, Mr S Rajaratnam spoke about how we needed to build a \"democracy of deeds\" in Singapore, where an active citizenry works with the Government to solve problems. Rather than a \"democracy of words\" – mere political rhetoric or adversarial debate.
Fifty-five years on, this concept of a \"democracy of deeds\" remains deeply relevant. Indeed, a \"we first\" society which the Prime Minister has rallied us towards, is a society where the democracy of deeds flourishes. How would such a society look like? Sir, we are still in an early phase, but I hope Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru can serve as a living prototype. Through several initiatives, we have observed the democracy of deeds manifest in three ways.
First, residents taking the responsibility to act and solve problems. Second, residents having the imagination to create shared spaces. Third, residents demonstrating the maturity to reach consensus through dialogue.
I will illustrate each of these.
First, civic responsibility. In August last year, a group of residents of Seng Poh estate in Tiong Bahru led by Mr Kelvin Ang wrote to me. They had observed a worsening issue of the blue recycling bins in their estate being contaminated and becoming littering spots which spoilt the environment of their beautiful neighbourhood.
They sought my support to try a different approach. Remove the blue bins and they would organise regular recycling collection drives instead to ensure that residents sorted and deposited clean recyclables. So, I contacted the National Environment Agency (NEA) to give my support for the initiative and requested that they partner us too.
What heartened me most was that our residents were stepping forth to take on responsibility for a shared problem and that NEA was prepared to cede some level of control and test a different approach with us.
Today, the \"Bye Bye Blue Bins\" pilot in Seng Poh estate is ongoing. We have removed the bins for three weeks and have conducted two recycling collection drives. For the first event, we had 50 households turn up with about 200 kilogrammes of recyclables. For the second event, we had more than 100 households turn up with about 600 kilogrammes of recyclables. So, it is growing.
The residents who proposed the initiative have worked incredibly hard, not just to organise the recycling collection events, but to knock on doors, put up and distribute flyers all over the estate so that fellow residents know about the initiative and have avenues to provide feedback. They have also been working closely with the Town Council to coordinate enforcement.
While the early results have been encouraging, it is early days yet. The team is collecting feedback and will continue to improve the approach.
Second, civic imagination. In December last year, another resident, also from Seng Poh estate, Mr Warren Wee, wrote to me as well. He is an art curator and wanted to organise a digital art exhibition at the Tiong Bahru Air Raid Shelter where he would invite both local and international artists to present their works.
I gave him my support as well. His exhibition ran for a week from 19 to 26 January this year and I visited it three times. The first at his invitation for the opening reception, but the latter two were my own accord to bring the media and friends because I thought it was an excellent exhibition and I was very proud to share what our local boy had achieved. Shin Min ran an article about the exhibition, spotlighting an artificial intelligence (AI) work by Ms Bianca Tse from Hong Kong, which seeks to recreate the Kowloon Walled City.
I spoke to Bianca. She told me that the setting of the Tiong Bahru Air Raid Shelter captured the emotions she wanted to evoke through the work of the Walled City. Both were harsh environments which yet sheltered resilient communities.
Anyone who has visited the Air Raid Shelter will know what she means. It has been largely untouched since the 1940s. Very dark, little ventilation. There are areas which are leaking and there are broken bricks in some places. Hardly a welcoming environment.
Yet, Warren had the determination and boldness to conceptualise a digital art exhibition in the Shelter. He brought in works, like Bianca's, which spoke to the natural conditions of the Shelter and put in quite significant resources himself to ensure that it would be fit and safe for the public to spend some time in.
Warren told me he was fascinated by the space since he was young. Its heritage, its history, how it would have held more than 1,600 residents during the second world war. He asked if it would be possible for the Government to retrofit it basically, for better ventilation and environment, and his dream will be to run it as a more permanent art museum and heritage node.
Third, civic dialogue and consensus. Just last month, I partnered the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) to conduct a Participatory Budgeting (PB) pilot in Spottiswoode Park estate. The concept is simple. We set aside a budget of $200,000; residents develop and pitch ideas on enhancements for their neighbourhood. They sell their ideas to their fellow residents, the ideas are put to a vote and those that fall within the budget get implemented. So, ideas from residents, voted by residents, built for residents.
When IPS approached me with the concept last year, I was enthusiastic to pilot it. Because I strongly believe in the potential of such a project in strengthening the sense of ownership and belonging of our residents and that given the right resources and facilitation, our residents will be able to develop the best ideas for their neighbourhoods.
We completed the kick-off session for the pilot two weeks ago. Close to 200 residents turned up, a good range of ages reflecting the general demographics of the estate. We collected more than 120 ideas. But that was only the beginning.
Since then, IPS has worked with the residents to categorise the ideas into seven areas. They conducted a deep dive with 25 residents last weekend. Residents volunteered to lead the work, set out detailed proposals based on the ideas in collaboration with the other residents. These residents will be hard at work over the next couple of weeks. Then, the ideas will be put to a feasibility committee made up of the technical agencies before we proceed with an exhibition and voting.
Mr Speaker, these initiatives have had a catalytic effect on the rest of Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. Residents from other estates in the division have written to me, volunteering to lead similar \"Bye Bye Blue Bins\" initiatives in their own estates. Other have asked when can they introduce PB in their estates as well.
It is my hope and belief that some of these pilots we are conducting here can be scaled up to other parts of Singapore. But let me share some early reflections on the role of the Government, citizens and the Member of Parliament in making the transition.
First, the Government. I want to acknowledge the significant effort and investments by the Government in developing a suite of funds to spear and support community-led initiatives. These include the $50 million SG Partnerships Fund under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's (MSE's) $50 million SG Eco Fund to support community-driven sustainability projects, and the Lively Places Fund co-run by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB).
In fact, another of my residents, Ms Diana Lau, from Boon Tiong estate applied herself for the Lively Places Fund and led the painting of a beautiful community street mural at Eng Hoon Street, turning what was a relatively underutilised pedestrianised street into a vibrant community hub and Instagrammable location.
I strongly support these funds. They help meaningful ground-up initiatives. However, my sense is that these initiatives are positioned to run alongside the Government's infrastructure and planning approach. They are \"good to have\" micro-activations of public spaces which otherwise do not interact with or influence the core of the Government's plans and policies.
But to build a democracy of deeds, I believe we should go much further and deeper, to place citizenship engagement right at the heart of our infrastructure and planning approach, in shaping our communities and our neighbourhoods.
I will make three specific recommendations.
First, how we manage state properties. Currently, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) tenders out such properties, using the price-quality system when they want the properties to be managed in ways that address other objectives, such as heritage rejuvenation. This has led to high-quality lifestyle hubs, such as New Bahru and Kada, which require professionalised operations and commercial viability to run.
I would like to advocate for an alternative model as well. One where the Government invites ground-up proposals for state properties – proposals which produce social impact. It can be a community hub for youths or a heritage living space, perhaps, even a creative arts museum, like what my resident Warren envisaged for the Tiong Bahru Air Raid Shelter. They can become community regeneration stations.
Instead of selecting a proposal based on rental bid, the Government chooses proposals based on the proposal's potential social impact. The selected proposals are awarded the use of the property or site for a given tenure free of charge. Under this model, we may see more social enterprises and ground-up collectives being awarded the use of such properties.
Sir, we have over 2,600 state properties in Singapore. Former schools, community centres, camps, many of some heritage significance, many located within residential estates. Imagine the energy that will be brought to our neighbourhoods if just a segment of them are converted to such community regeneration stations.
Second, how we conduct Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). I am very glad that HDB agreed to partner us for the PB in Spottiswoode Park. I see this as the first step in seeing how we can potentially incorporate such a process into NRP.
We scheduled the PB pilot to run alongside the NRP process in Spottiswoode Park, so that all the implementing agencies, as well as our residents can experience how these can work side by side, and the difference in their level of engagement and their appetite for each of them.
With the findings from the Spottiswoode Park NRP+PB, I hope HDB can consider enhancing NRP to also include a segment for PB – so that residents across Singapore have the base layer of NRP improvements, as well as a PB component where they dream, propose and vote for their own ideas, to look forward to.
Third, how we conduct recycling and other sustainability initiatives. I am similarly heartened that NEA and CORA, the recycling operator, also agreed to partner us for our \"Bye Bye Blue Bins\" pilot. This boldness to try out something different is refreshing and invigorating for residents who are prepared to step up.
Instead of a one-size fits all approach, where waste is centrally collected and recycling contamination relatively high, a localised recycling approach may be much more effective in Singapore.
Mr Speaker, developing Community Regeneration Stations incorporating PB as a component under NRP, facilitating localised sustainability models – these are all concrete steps to build Singapore as a democracy of deeds. I am sure there are several other areas. Many, if not all of our Government agencies have a key role to play. However, for it to happen, I believe we need MCCY to lead the whole-of-Government charge in three key areas.
First, ambition. We need to set out a clear ambition – to go beyond funding, to deeply involved partnerships, where the agencies work closely with residents to design and activate their neighbourhoods.
Second, we need coordination. We need strong coordination to ensure that the ambition permeates the whole-of-Government to develop a coherent agenda and programme which residents can refer to and see where they want to contribute.
Third, skills. We need public officers skilled at facilitating such partnerships with citizens. MCCY has been building this up through the SG Partnerships Office (SGPO), but we will need much more investment. MCCY can also work with partners, such as IPS to build a wider pool of skilled, not-for-profit, community-based facilitators.
Let me move on to the role of the citizen. As each of the initiatives I have highlighted show, the citizens have a very involved, time and effort intensive. It is not days, but weeks and months of effort. It is not raising suggestions, but detailing solutions, assessing trade-offs, convincing fellow citizens. It is not \"I\" versus the Government, or \"I\" versus my neighbour, but \"we\" – all together.
For every resident in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru who has participated in each of the initiatives, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you for stepping up, leading the way and showing us all how it can be done.
Finally, the role of the Member of Parliament. Sir, for each of the ground-up or civic participation initiatives I have championed, I have been under no illusions. It does not matter if the proposal came from my resident. The buck stops with me.
When the residents came to me about removing the blue bins, a dozen scenarios of how it could go wrong crossed my mind. Residents complaining about being inconvenienced. Littering bins overflowing. Original blue bin locations becoming littering slots. Low participation rate during the collection events. Volunteers getting disillusioned and abandoning the pilot.
The same for the PB pilot. With a great number of residents involved, much more could have gone. What expectations would they have? Would a vocal minority dominate the room? Would they be able to agree on the process to find a way forward?
I thought about each and every one of these concerns and decided to proceed. Not because I had all the answers. But because I trusted my residents. I trusted that they would recognise the heart and efforts of their fellow residents, our community partners and the Government agencies; that they would see that this is something special we are creating in Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru and be prepared to give it a chance as we adjust and improve along the way till we get it.
And that, Mr Speaker, is really all there is to building a democracy of deeds. It starts with trust and ends with action. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Goh Hanyan): Mr Speaker, Mr Foo has spoken passionately about what he calls a democracy of deeds and I want to start by crediting that work.
Democracy of deeds is a simple yet powerful idea – that a thriving society is built not just by its government, but by everyone who lives in it through acts of participation. This is precisely what we in government believe Singapore needs more of.
A strong Singapore requires both sides to show up. We need a society that sees shaping our shared future as something worth giving time and effort to. And we need a government that meets that energy with equal seriousness, building structures and a culture to make genuine partnership possible.
People are already showing up – as we have seen from Mr Foo's examples – and we want to encourage them. We are on a journey to learn how to step back so that citizens step forward for the issues that matter to them.
To shift the question from \"What can the Government do for you?\" to \"How might we partner together?\"
This shift – from government for the people, to the government with the people – is something we are actively leaning into, across three fronts: deepening citizen participation in plans and policies; expanding volunteerism; and enabling citizen-led initiatives.
The first is how citizens participate in shaping Government's plans and policies. This calls for openness from Government to share trade-offs and welcome diverse perspectives to shape outcomes. When people are trusted with real questions and agency, we believe the proposals that emerge are stronger, and so is the relationship between citizen and state.
While the Government has traditionally led in these areas, this has started to change in recent years. PUB's Our Coastal Conversations is an example where the public discussed how we can protect our land against rising sea levels. At a session for City-East Coast, we listened to participants, whose views shaped our recommendations for Changi Beach Park.
We also agree with Mr Foo that citizen engagement should be at the heart of infrastructure planning, and are learning from ground-up trials.
Today, HBD and Town Councils already engage residents on neighbourhood upgrades. To take this further, MCCY, Ministry of National Development and HDB are piloting different ways to deepen this engagement as part of NRP in Boon Lay and Canberra. We will learn from these pilots to improve citizen involvement in the NRP consultation process.
Likewise, we are open to resident-led efforts that strengthen our recycling ecosystem. For example, MSE is partnering Zero Waste SG's trial of dedicated recycling bins for clean stream recyclables in Pioneer.
We are encouraged that Mr Foo's residents have seen early success with their own collection drives and are looking forward to learning from their efforts.
Mr Foo also suggested an approach centred on social impact and ground-up proposals for state properties. We share this vision. Social and community value are already key considerations in how state properties are allocated. The Singapore Land Authority will continue to engage social startups and non-government organisations to understand their needs, and work with agencies to unlock more state properties with social impact.
Beyond these areas, the spirit of collaboration is just as vital, if not more so, for the next generation. When you give young people a real responsibility, they rise to meet it.
In 2023, the National Youth Council introduced the Youth Panels for young Singaporeans to be co-authors of national initiatives and policies they are passionate about. We will launch the next run of Youth Panels later this year for more youths to step forward and contribute.
The goal here is not consultation for its own sake. It is a government and its people thinking through hard problems side by side and arriving at better answers. That is the ideal we are holding ourselves to and will continue creating opportunities to do so.
The second front is volunteerism. Volunteerism is citizenship in action and that instinct is alive and well. Many Singaporeans want to give their time and their skills to causes they believe in.
Here, our role is to strengthen the conditions to help it to flourish. We have learned that to sustain it, people need clear pathways to match their causes to their strengths and the assurance that their contributions make a difference. We have been working hard to strengthen the volunteering ecosystem to make it more easy for Singaporeans to step forward and more meaningful for them to stay on. Our island-wide network of 24 SG Cares Volunteer Centres works with community partners to identify town-level needs, such as senior befriending, and reaches out to interested citizens in areas to meet those needs.
For our youths, Youth Corps Singapore has been championing youth volunteerism by bringing together youths to do good – and many of them are already doing so. In 2025, more than 10,000 Youth Corps Leaders and volunteers contributed over 75,000 hours of service, impacting some 6,500 beneficiaries.
Regardless of age, a giving society is one where people feel connected to something that is larger than themselves. We want every Singaporean who steps forward to find exactly that.
The third front is when Singaporeans take it upon themselves to build what their communities need, ahead of any policies or programmes. For these efforts to thrive, Government plays the role of enabler and partner. That means providing funding that is accessible, processes that are responsive and a willingness to hold space and follow the lead of citizens who are closest to the opportunity.
The residents of Tanjong Pagar group representative constituency are a great example of this – no one understands the community better than the very people who live in it.
There are many other inspiring examples. Through the National Heritage Board's Heritage Activation Nodes, community partners and residents in Katong-Joo Chiat, Clementi and Punggol have been creating heritage programmes, mobilising 460 volunteers and forging close to 120 partnerships since 2024. We will be expanding these nodes to more neighbourhoods this year, including Tiong Bahru and Telok Blangah. We are excited about the possibilities.
Our young people are perhaps most willing to simply start; to see something their community needs and build it. What they need from us is access to resources and a system that backs them. This is exactly what we are doing through the National Youth Council's Young ChangeMakers Grant, where youths themselves are empowered to evaluate and approve Government funding for projects by fellow Singaporeans.
Earlier this year, I also announced that we will launch the Somerset Belt Youth CoLab. A team of 15 youth leaders will be given dedicated spaces and funding to activate these spaces at *SCAPE and the Somerset Belt. They are now working with youth communities to plan for the upcoming Youth Month in July.
All that I have shared are proof of what is possible when Singaporeans step forward. We want to make it easier for more of this to happen. For starters, we formed the SGPO as the first stop for any citizen who wants to partner the Government. Anyone can submit your ideas through the Partners Portal. SGPO will open doors to the right partners – providing support from venues to volunteers and publicity – to bring your ideas to life. If your idea is not fully formed, SGPO's Citizens' Circles will offer a safe space for you to refine your ideas with agencies and fellow citizens.
Finally, as Mr Foo pointed out, we launched the $50 million SG Partnerships Fund this year to support citizens and ground-ups at any stage – from starting up to scaling up. Ultimately, the most enduring community efforts are those that belong to people who built them. We want to give those efforts the best possible start and will refine our measures to keep barriers low and support relevant.
Finally, undergirding all three fronts is a commitment that we are making to ourselves. That partnering citizens well is a capability the Government must build with intention. We are investing in structures, skills and the culture to engage citizens meaningfully.
The formation of the SGPO I mentioned earlier is a signal of that commitment. MCCY has been facilitating the building of engagement capabilities across Government, and at all levels. We are training our officers and our leaders, sharing best practices, and providing more opportunities for ground learning.
Our goal is to rally agencies to step forward and work closely with our citizens across all three fronts that I spoke about today.
We will continue pressing on to build a Public Service that is ready to partner citizens sincerely and wholeheartedly – and become better partners that our citizens can count on.
I thank Mr Foo again for sharing what his residents have accomplished. He has reminded us that when Government and people lean in jointly, the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. That instinct and belief that we are stronger together is one of Singapore's greatest strengths, and it is one we must never take for granted. A democracy of deeds is something we build iteratively – learning as we go and always searching for a deeper partnership with our people. That is the work ahead and we take it on with conviction.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.00 am. Order. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 9.30 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Global Fertiliser Supply Chain Disruptions on Singapore's Food Security and Local Food Production","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given ongoing disruption to global fertiliser supply chains (a) what is the Government's assessment of the impact on (i) Singapore's food security, particularly for vulnerable households and (ii) local food production targets; and (b) what further contingency measures will be put in place to safeguard food security and mitigate price increases amid rising input costs.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The ongoing disruption to global fertiliser supply chains due to the Middle East conflict has not had any significant impact on our food supply yet.
Nonetheless, if the disruption continues, reduced application of fertilisers could translate to lower agricultural yield globally in future crop cycles. This may, in turn, adversely affect animal feed production, which are formulated from food crops, such as corn and wheat, and lead to potential downstream global production constraints for animal proteins. We, therefore, cannot rule out some eventual disruption to global and local food supply.
The Government is monitoring our food supply situation closely. We stand ready to leverage our food security pillars of diversification, global partnerships, local production and stockpiling efforts when required. In addition, since the start of this Middle East conflict, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has stepped up efforts to further strengthen our resilience. First, we have been engaging importers and retailers to share with them information on possible risks to food supply, so that they may ready alternative supply lines and prepare for possible disruptions. Second, we have recently approved new sources of meat and meat products, such as from Latvia, Lithuania, Greece and Peru. Third, SFA has also been closely engaging local farms to understand the impact of the conflict on their operations and are looking at ways to support local farms in managing production costs and weathering this crisis, building on recently announced efforts, like the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund 2.
At the same time, our supply resilience strategies cannot fully insulate us from food inflation caused by structural global factors. We must expect that the increase in energy, shipping and fertiliser costs due to the developments in the Middle East will translate to higher global prices for various commodities, including food.
Last month, the Government announced broad-based support measures for households and businesses. These will help to cushion some of these cost pressures. We will continue to monitor developments and stand ready to do more if the situation worsens.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning Personal Data Request Response Timeline with Data Retention Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information how the Ministry ensures that the timelines for responding to personal data access requests under the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 are aligned with typical data retention practices so that individuals are able to meaningfully exercise their access rights.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Personal Data Protection Act requires organisations to respond to personal data access requests as soon as reasonably practicable. If the organisation is unable to provide the requested personal data within 30 days after receiving the request, the organisation must within that time inform the individual in writing of when it will respond to the request. Organisations must also implement policies and practices to handle access requests, which include having appropriate measures to preserve the requested personal data while the request is being processed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Mandatory Monthly Rest Day Requirement for Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the effectiveness of the mandatory monthly rest day requirement for migrant domestic workers since its implementation in 2023, including trends in take-up, compliance and worker well-being; and (b) whether any refinements to the policy or support measures are being considered.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) recognises the importance of rest for migrant domestic workers (MDWs) and has progressively strengthened safeguards over the years. Since 2023, we have mandated that MDWs must be given at least one rest day a month that cannot be compensated away.
The vast majority of employers are in compliance with the mandatory rest day policy. Out of the 300,000 MDWs in Singapore, MOM has taken enforcement action against just about 90 employers each year for failing to comply with the monthly rest day requirement. The majority of employers provide more than one rest day a month for their MDWs. In terms of well-being, 99% of MDWs reported being satisfied with their level of emotional support in MOM's last survey in 2021, an increase from 93% in 2015.
MOM has no plans at present to introduce further changes to the rest day policy. We will continue to monitor rest day compliance and refine our policy measures where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment Stability among Migrant Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has assessed employment stability among migrant domestic workers (MDWs), including trends in the duration of employment and early cessations; (b) what factors affecting the employment stability of MDWs have been identified; and (c) whether any measures are being considered to support longer and more stable employment outcomes.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has been tracking the employment stability of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) based on the first six months of employment, which provides an indicator of a match between the employer and MDW. The average retention rate of MDWs who have stayed with the same employer for at least six months has been stable at around 64% for the last five years.
Early cessations of MDW contracts are typically due to mismatches in expectations of the job scope and working conditions, and communication barriers between employers and MDWs. To address these mismatches, employment agencies, the Centre for Domestic Employees (CDE) and various voluntary welfare organisations provide important mediating support between the employer and MDW. CDE conducts two interviews for first-time MDWs during the first year of their employment, to help them settle into their new working and living environments. To help MDWs better communicate with their employers, non-profit organisations, such as the Archdiocesan Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Brahm Centre and AIDHA offer basic language training for MDWs in English and Mandarin.
MOM has no plans at present to introduce new regulatory measures for MDW employment. We will continue to monitor the trend of early cessations of MDW employment contracts and review our measures if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse for Healthcare Workers under Tripartite Framework when Institutions Fail to Follow Up on Reports for Non-police Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what alternative recourse exists for healthcare workers under the Tripartite Framework for the Prevention of Abuse and Harassment in Healthcare when institutions fail to follow up on incident reports for non-police cases; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider centrally tracking the resolution and post-incident management outcomes of all reported cases to ensure full institutional accountability.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health took the lead in developing the policy to protect healthcare workers against abuse and harassment, worked with Tripartite partners to develop the guidelines and support healthcare institutions in executing the policy.
However, the Ministry does not centrally track the resolution and post-incident management outcomes of all abuse and harassment cases and does not plan to do so. It will not be helpful to create the impression that this is an exercise of setting, tracking and chasing numbers and KPIs. Healthcare institutions need to own and internalise the policy, carry them out, protect healthcare workers while being fair to patients and know that the Ministry stands behind them.
We thank the Member for his concern for the welfare of healthcare workers and welcome him to let us know if there is any specific case that he wishes to bring to our attention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measuring Employment Outcomes of Part-time, Mature-entry and SkillsFuture-funded Students at Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Education (a) whether employment outcome tracking under the Graduate Employment Survey framework covers part-time, mature-entry and SkillsFuture-funded students at the Institutes of Higher Learning on the same basis as full-time students; and (b) if not, what separate mechanisms exist to measure their employment outcomes.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Graduate Employment Surveys conducted by the various Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) cover graduates from all full-time Pre-Employment Training programmes, including adult learners.
The Ministry of Education monitors the outcomes for other funded continuing education and training (CET) programmes, including part-time programmes at the IHLs, via surveys and studies using administrative data.
For part-time full qualification programmes at the IHLs, given the diversity in adult learner profiles, we conduct econometric studies to understand the causal links between their participation in the programmes and employment outcomes. For instance, the Ministry of Trade and Industry published a study in 2024 that used administrative data to show that learners who completed Academic CET post-diploma programmes at the Polytechnics, which are generally conducted on a part-time basis, enjoyed a wage premium of up to 11%, when compared to a control group of individuals with similar profiles.
Wage and employment outcomes do not tell us the full picture. Reskilling may have helped workers, who were otherwise at risk of displacement, keep their jobs or take on new job roles within their existing organisations. To complement employment outcomes reporting, SkillsFuture Singapore also administers the Training Quality and Outcomes Measures survey for SkillsFuture funded programmes, which includes whether the training has helped learners to be more effective at their jobs, improved their work performance or allowed them to take on enhanced responsibilities at work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improving Employment Outcomes of Graduates of Local Private Educational Institutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
38 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Education how does the Ministry plan to work with local private educational institutions (PEIs) to improve the employment outcomes of PEI graduates, in view of the higher incidence of overqualification and lower rates of full-time employment after graduation among these graduates as compared to graduates from local publicly-funded institutes of higher learning.
Mr Desmond Lee: Private education institutions should work with industry to regularly review their curriculum and course offerings for relevance to potential employers. This positions their graduates to secure good jobs post-graduation. To help prospective students to make informed decisions on their education choices and pathways, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) conducts and publishes the results of the Private Education Institution (PEI) Graduate Employment Survey annually. However, SSG does not review or endorse the quality of PEIs and their programmes.
To support Singaporeans, including PEI graduates, in their job search, the Government provides a range of programmes, including career matching services through Workforce Singapore's Careers Connect and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute's career centres, SkillsFuture training and conversion programmes and Government-funded traineeships.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Social Media Platforms Given Negligent Finding on Meta and Alphabet","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the implications of the US Court's verdict in March 2026 that Meta and Alphabet are liable for negligently designing social media platforms that caused addiction on the regulation of social media platforms in Singapore; and (b) whether there is a timeline for implementing restrictions on social media features such as infinite scroll to protect against addiction.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will cover the questions raised by Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Louis Chua, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Abdul Muhaimin in today's Order Paper, as well as questions by Mr Chua, Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Victor Lye filed for subsequent Sittings relating to the Government's measures to enhance safeguards for children and adolescents when they go on social media platforms. [Please refer to \"Review of Current Regulations and Protection Measures For Children and Teenagers Against Social Media Addiction\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Written Answers to Questions section; \"Regulating Young People's Access to Social Media Given Negligent Finding on Meta and Alphabet In US\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Oral Answers to Questions section; and \"Assessment of Age-based Restrictions for Addictive Design Features on Social Media and Gaming Platforms\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions section.]
If the Members of Parliament are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.
We share the concerns Members have raised regarding online safety for children and youths on social media platforms. Today, the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services already requires designated social media services to put in place systems and processes to minimise users' exposure to harmful online content, especially younger users.
As the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) announced during our Committee of Supply debate, we plan to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services. Age assurance is a critical step in ensuring that designated social media services can identify young users and provide them with protective measures on their platforms. We will also consider similar safeguards for online gaming.
We are determined to go further to enhance safeguards for children on designated social media services. MDDI is carefully studying features on these services, such as direct messaging and autoplay, which can result in unwanted interactions with strangers or excessive use for children and adolescents.
To that end, MDDI is in active discussions with the designated social media services, to outline our expectations of the standards they must meet. We will also consult the public, including parents and youths, to better understand their experiences and perspectives across different age groups, to determine the safeguards that are necessary and appropriate. The outcome of these engagements will shape our policy response, which may include restricting access to services with age-inappropriate features.
Beyond regulatory measures, the Government has stepped up efforts to support parents in guiding their children's digital use. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has disallowed the use of smartphones and smartwatches during school hours, including during co-curricular activities, in primary and secondary schools. The Ministry of Health updated its Guidance on Screen Use in Children aged below 12 years to provide parents with clearer and more actionable guidance on screen use practices in children. The Health Promotion Board, MOE and Ministry of Social and Family Development jointly developed the Parenting for Wellness toolkit to equip parents with key knowledge and skills to parent effectively in the digital age, and prepare their children to navigate the digital environment safely. The Infocomm Media Development Authority has also launched a set of resources on the Digital for Life portal to empower parents to help their child develop healthy digital habits from young, with content tailored to children's different developmental stages and key digital milestones.
Through these regulatory and public education efforts, we will continue to foster a digital environment where our children can grow and thrive safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards for Deployment of Employment-related AI","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider the practices in other advanced economies in implementing stronger safeguards for employment-related AI, such as requiring deployers to conduct risk assessments, ensure human oversight, provide right-to-know transparency and penalties for non-compliance, instead of relying on voluntary frameworks given the high level of AI exposure in Singapore’s labour market.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government is actively monitoring trends in artificial intelligence (AI) adoption. Different countries have adopted different approaches to regulate the use of AI tools in employment. Some jurisdictions, such as the European Union and the United States, have implemented legislation, while others, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have published non-binding guidelines. However, the effectiveness of these measures and their impact on businesses and workers are not clear. Hence, under the overarching ambit of the National AI Council and together with tripartite partners, we are studying the use of AI tools by businesses and its impact on employment, before deciding the most appropriate approach for Singapore. We aim to create an enabling environment for AI tools to be deployed in a responsible manner, while allowing businesses and workers to benefit from the efficiencies that AI can bring.
In this regard, employers must comply with the fair and merit-based employment practices in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and the upcoming Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) in the deployment of AI tools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring \"Nutrition Labels\" for AI-enabled Applications go Beyond Descriptive to Shape User Behaviour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Ms Cassandra Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how will the Ministry ensure that the proposed \"nutrition labels\" for AI-enabled applications go beyond being descriptive, but also shape user behaviour, especially among young users; and (b) whether baseline safeguards, such as age assurance, age-based access controls and default safety settings, will be mandated alongside these labels.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As part of our broader efforts to strengthen trust and safety in the digital space, the Ministry, together with Infocomm Media Development Authority, is exploring the concept of \"nutrition labels\" for service providers to disclose key information about the AI application's capabilities and limitations in a clear and accessible manner. We are currently in consultation with relevant service providers. This includes ascertaining how such information can help shape user behaviour. The provision of information will complement efforts to set baseline standards for online safety to better protect young users, such as the age assurance measures for app stores that took effect from 1 April.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Trend of Fix-term Contracts of Less Than One Year in Duration","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the 2025 data showing a rise in the share of fixed-term contracts of less than one year (a) whether the Ministry has studied the industries driving this trend; and (b) whether this shift reflects a move toward \"just-in-time\" hiring that may undermine workers' CPF contributions, housing loan eligibility, and career advancement.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower has observed only a slight increase in fixed-term contracts of less than one year among resident employees from 1.6% in 2024 to 1.7% in 2025. This was largely driven by sectors, such as accommodation and food services, where short-term and seasonal hiring is common.
Over the past decade, the share of such contracts has remained low and on a general downward trend, with permanent employment continuing to account for over nine in 10 resident employees. Taken together, the data do not point to a broad shift towards \"just-in-time\" hiring that would undermine workers' longer-term employment outcomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Progressive Wage Model Wages on Retrenchments in Food Services Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the long-term wage impact of the Progressive Wage Model in the food services sector on retrenchments in the sector; and (b) whether requirements for advanced retrenchment or restructuring notifications within this sector can be further strengthened to better enable our unions to assist affected workers.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for the food services sector is not expected to have a long-term adverse impact on retrenchments in the sector. Since the introduction of the PWM for the sector in 2023, the number of workers covered under the Food Services PWM increased from 49,000 in 2023 to 53,000 in 2025. While there are retrenchments in the sector, these can be due to many factors, including the overall economic situation, rising energy costs and food ingredient prices, enterprise restructuring and market competition. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is closely monitoring the situation and will work with other agencies to consider appropriate support if necessary.
To the Member’s second question, all companies with 10 or more employees are required to submit a Mandatory Retrenchment Notification (MRN) to MOM within five working days of informing any employee of their retrenchment. This often occurs before their last working day, allowing the provision of employment facilitation support before the employee leaves the company. The Tripartite Partners are currently discussing the reduction of MRN notice period. The outcome of the discussions will be released when ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Onsite Training and Re-skilling Support for Food Manufacturing Workers with Highly Specialised Skillsets to Enhance Their Employability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Manpower whether additional on-site training and re-skilling support can be provided for long-serving food manufacturing workers with highly specialised skillsets to enhance their employability should they face displacement due to restructuring or adoption of new technology.
Dr Tan See Leng: We work closely with tripartite partners, such as the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union, to reskill workers facing displacement and redeploy them to new jobs.
The Government has various programmes to help workers in food manufacturing re-skill into new growth roles either in the same company or another company. These include Career Conversion Programmes, the Mid-Career Pathways Programme and the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme. These various programmes cater to different profiles of workers, ranging from those who are ready to enter a new job to those who need additional training to support their transition.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considering Proximity to Child's Enrolled School When Assigning Flats under Public Rental and Parenthood Provisional Housing Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB considers proximity to a child's enrolled school when assigning flats under the Public Rental Scheme and the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme; (b) whether HDB tracks school transfers among children in such households following relocation; and (c) what measures are in place to minimise disruption to children’s education when tenants under either scheme are required to relocate.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under the Public Rental Scheme and the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme, applicants may select a rental flat from available vacancies across Singapore. However, due to the tight supply, applicants may not always be able to secure a rental flat in their most preferred location.
While we do not track the number of school transfers following rental relocation, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Ministry of Education (MOE) work together to assist families with school transfers. Where feasible, HDB will also align relocation flat selection exercises to MOE's school transfer cycles so that the child can start in the new school in the new school term. For public rental families who are enrolled in ComLink+, a dedicated family coach or case worker will walk alongside them through the transition, connecting their children with relevant children's development and education programmes in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Difference between Fresh Graduates' Wages in Singapore and East Asian Economies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has compared fresh graduate wages in Singapore with those in other East Asian economies; (b) if so, what the wage differences are and what accounts for them; and (c) what the Government's strategy is to sustain Singapore graduates' wage competitiveness amid disruption from automation and offshoring.
Dr Tan See Leng: Based on the latest available comparable data for 2023 and 2024, the median wage among fresh graduates in Singapore was higher than most major East Asian economies. When adjusted for purchasing power, Singapore's median wage among fresh graduates was higher than China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, but slightly lower than Hong Kong.
The observed wage differences, after adjusting for purchasing power, reflect differences in economic structure and the types of activities undertaken across economies. Singapore's economy is more akin to Hong Kong's, with a greater concentration in high value-added industries and services, and deeper integration into global supply chains. Singapore also hosts a strong base of multinational corporations and regional headquarters, which play an important role in job creation. These firms compete internationally for talent and offer competitive wages to candidates who possess the skills and qualifications that the jobs demand.
To sustain wage growth for our fresh graduates, we must continue to grow good jobs in Singapore by attracting investments, raising productivity and supporting growth sectors, such as advanced manufacturing, as well as the green and digital economy. At the same time, we will continue to equip our fresh graduates, in schools and after entering the workforce, with industry-relevant skills that supports sustainable wage growth.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revision of Earned Income Relief","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"51 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the earned income relief of $1,000 has ever been revised historically; and (b) whether the Government will consider increasing this cap, given high inflation over the post-pandemic period.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Government regularly reviews the personal income tax system so that it remains progressive, keeping the overall tax burden low for middle- and lower-income earners.
The earned income relief has been enhanced over the years. In addition to the base tier of $1,000, we have introduced higher relief tiers ranging from $4,000 to $12,000 for older workers and persons with disabilities.
The earned income relief should also be seen together with other tax reliefs and exemptions, such as the personal income tax exemption threshold of $20,000.
Taken together, one in three resident workers do not pay any personal income tax today. Among those who do, about eight in 10 have an effective tax rate of less than 6%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Effectiveness of Expanded Child Representative Panel of Syariah Court in Quantitative and Qualitative Terms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) whether the Government adopts any quantitative and qualitative measures to assess the effectiveness of the expanded Child Representative Panel of the Syariah Court; (b) if not, whether such measures will be adopted; and (c) whether parents will have access to reports by the Panel and, if not, why not.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: The appointment of a Child Representative (CR) is one of several judicial tools available to the Syariah Court (SYC) to arrive at outcomes that serve the welfare of the child. Through a report submitted to the Court, the CR presents the child's views to the Court and provides insights into the child's relationships with parents and other relevant parties, supporting judges in making decisions that are in the child's best interests.
Since the CR scheme was introduced in November 2023, feedback from the bench has been positive. SYC Judges have indicated that CR reports have been helpful in their deliberations to serve the best interests of children. The expansion of the panel from two to four with effect from April 2026 will further enable the SYC to engage more children across family cases while ensuring a manageable caseload for each CR.
CR reports are not disclosed to parents as confidentiality is essential to their effectiveness. Children whose parents are undergoing divorce are particularly vulnerable and will only speak openly if they feel psychologically safe to do so. If children knew their views might be shared with their parents, they may be deterred from expressing themselves freely, defeating the very purpose of the CR process. Safeguarding this confidentiality ensures that the Court receives the most honest and authentic account of the child's views and needs.
The SYC will continue to review the CR scheme across both the reach of the Panel and the quality of its work in supporting judicial decision-making, to ensure that children's genuine voices continue to be heard and considered in proceedings that affect their lives.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Observable Trends in Companies' Submissions of Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Manpower (a) since June 2025, how many mandatory retrenchment notification (MRN) submissions have been received; (b) of these, how many have been submitted later than the requisite period of five working days after affected employees were notified; and (c) whether this represents an increase over previous years.
Dr Tan See Leng: From June 2025 to March 2026, the Ministry of Manpower received around 6,100 Mandatory Retrenchment Notification submissions. Of these, 1,170 were submitted later than the requisite period of five working days after affected employees were notified.
This represents a compliance rate of about 80%, which is an improvement from the 2022 to 2025 average of about 70%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rehiring Trends amongst Singaporeans Retrenched in Past 12 Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has observed that Singaporeans who were retrenched in the past 12 months are taking longer to secure new employment compared to those retrenched in the preceding 12 months; and (b) if so, whether any observed differences are attributable to structural shifts, such as sector restructuring or skills mismatches.
Dr Tan See Leng: Re-entry durations have remained broadly stable. On average, retrenched residents took about 2.6 months to find new jobs in 2025, slightly longer than 2.5 months in 2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy and Pedagogical Reasons for Differing Score and Grade Benchmarks Used Across Education Stages","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the passing grades and their corresponding mark bands in the \"O\" and \"A\" Levels examinations; and (b) what are the policy and pedagogical reasons for the differing score and grade benchmarks used across education stages, given that there is no reference to what constitutes a pass or fail for individual PSLE subjects.
Mr Desmond Lee: The GCE O-Level examination uses a nine-point grading system, while the A-Level examination uses a seven-point grading system. Grades A1 to C6 for GCE O-Level and grades A to E for GCE A-Level are considered subject passes.
The pass grades in GCE O- and A-Level examinations indicate students' eligibility for post-secondary courses and enable Post-Secondary Education Institutions to make admission decisions on subject area specialisation. For example, students need to pass Mathematics to be eligible for courses, like engineering, at the polytechnics and universities.
The Primary School Leaving Examination's (PSLE's) Achievement Level (AL) grading system uses an eight-point grading system, AL1 to AL8. The PSLE is a placement examination where the results indicate which educational programme each student is ready for. Hence, the PSLE does not use a pass-fail nomenclature as there is a progression path for all students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Formalising Conversion Pathways for High-performing Contract Staff and Discouraging Perpetual Renewal of Short-term Contracts in Review of Tripartite Guidelines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will strengthen the Tripartite Guidelines on the Employment of Term Contract Employees to (i) encourage employers to formalise conversion pathways for high-performing contract staff and (ii) discourage the perpetual renewal of short-term contracts for essentially permanent roles; and (b) if so, how will it be strengthened.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employees under a contract of service, including those on fixed-term contracts, are protected under employment legislation, such as the Employment Act, the Central Provident Fund Act and Work Injury Compensation Act. However, fixed-term contract workers could be disadvantaged in terms of benefits, such as annual and medical leave, which revert to minimum levels upon contract renewals. This is why the tripartite partners had issued the Tripartite Advisory on the Employment of Term Contract Employees, which sets out good employment practices for employers when engaging employees on term contracts. Employers who adopt progressive practices on the employment of term contract employees are also recognised via a Tripartite Standard.
The tripartite partners will continue to review our good practices concerning fixed-term contracts, including as part of the on-going review of the Employment Act, to safeguard our workers' interests while providing adequate flexibility for our businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flexibility in Retail Electricity Market Contracts for Households to Renew Contract or Switch Suppliers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government has assessed if current contract renewal and switching window periods in the retail electricity market provide households with sufficient flexibility to respond to changing tariff conditions; and (b) whether enhancements are being considered to allow consumers to make more timely and informed plan choices.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Energy Market Authority (EMA) regulates the retail electricity market to ensure it remains competitive and meets the needs of consumers.
Most electricity retailers offer 12- and 24-month contracts, but shorter-term and no-contract plans are also available. Consumers may refer to EMA's price comparison tool on the Open Electricity Market website to compare standard price plans offered by electricity retailers. SP Group also offers the Regulated Tariff without any minimum contracting period.
EMA has enhanced safeguards for residential consumers on auto-renewal contracts. First, retailers must notify consumers twice before any auto-renewal, instead of once. Second, consumers will also be able to switch to another retailer or a new contract within 60 days after their previous contract is auto-renewed without any penalty. This is an extension from the current 30 days. These changes were announced in December 2025 and will come into effect from 19 June this year.
EMA will continue to monitor the retail electricity market and implement measures if necessary to protect consumer interests. We encourage consumers to study the various retail plans on offer to find one that meets their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Utility of Recommending and Subsidising Fertility Screening for Women Aged 30 and Men Aged 35","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the utility of recommending and subsidising fertility screening, including biomarkers such as the Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH), at age 30 for women and age 35 for men; and (b) whether the Ministry will add universal fertility screening to the Healthier SG screening programme, given that early detection enables less invasive interventions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) are fertility tests conducted prior to starting assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatment. These are already recommended and subsidised after assessed by a medical doctor to be clinically indicated, for example, if the woman is less than 35 years of age and has tried to conceive naturally for one year.
AMH and FSH are not the same as general health screenings supported under Healthier SG for the whole population. Instead, the medical doctor needs to take into account the health and underlying medical conditions of the couple, before prescribing it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Subsidies Given for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Medical Device","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what are the respective numbers of adults and children who have received subsidies for a continuous glucose monitoring medical device since its introduction in 2024; and (b) whether there are plans to expand subsidies to models other than the Dexcom G6, and if not, why not.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not specifically track the number of adults and children who received subsidies for Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) devices.
Whether a CGM is subsidized or not, depends on its cost effectiveness, which, in turn, depends on the price quoted by the supply for the Singapore market. MOH is in constant discussion with suppliers and regularly reviews CGM models for subsidy coverage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment on Public Response to Beverage Container Return Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the total number of Return Points deployed under the Beverage Container Return Scheme to date; (b) what are the total capital costs and average monthly electricity consumption of these machines; and (c) whether the Ministry has conducted a life cycle assessment to ensure the carbon footprint of operating these machines does not outweigh the recycling benefits.
66 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following the first month of the Beverage Container Return Scheme (a) what are the total collection volume and contamination rate; and (b) what measures are being taken to improve the average uptime and maintenance response times for Return Right machines that have experienced frequent technical malfunctions and offline periods since the April 2026 launch.
67 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider accepting all returned bottles under the Beverage Container Return Scheme, regardless of whether they possess the deposit mark and for an interim period, to encourage recycling behavior.
68 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the Ministry's assessment of the Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) one month after its launch; (b) whether there are plans to improve the markings of eligible containers; and (c) whether there are other BCRS refund options for less tech-savvy users, especially seniors.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank Members for their sustained interest in the Return Right Beverage Container Return Scheme, which commenced on 1 April this year.
All 1,070 reverse vending machines (RVMs) that were planned for the initial roll-out have been deployed and are operational. This will increase to around 2,000 RVMs within the first year of implementation. Each machine has an energy consumption rate that is lower than a drink vending machine.
As the scheme was launched just over a month ago, it is premature to draw any conclusions on the performance and effectiveness of the scheme. As there is a six-month transition period, the volume of containers returned in April is expectedly small. We anticipate the volume to increase significantly in July and August, when more labelled regulated beverages are introduced into the market.
There are no plans for the RVMs to accept non-labelled containers during the transition, as this could lead to greater confusion among the public. In the meantime, we encourage everyone to recycle beverage containers without the deposit mark using our blue bins.
We will continue to work with the scheme operator, BCRS Ltd, to fine-tune and improve the implementation of the scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Emerging Urban Wind Technologies and Their Role in Singapore's Clean Energy Strategy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government is evaluating emerging urban wind technologies, such as compact rooftop turbines, for low and variable wind conditions, given Singapore's land constraints and limited wind resources; and (b) what role can such technologies play in Singapore's distributed clean energy strategy.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As the Member has pointed out, Singapore has limited land and low wind speeds. Conventional wind energy technologies are, therefore, unsuitable in Singapore. Newer technologies, such as compact rooftop wind turbines, may be able to overcome these constraints partially, but their long-term cost-effectiveness and impact on rooftop solar will need to be studied. Building owners who wish to install such devices on their rooftops may do so as long as they comply with the relevant regulations and technical requirements, including engaging a licensed electrical worker to carry out any required electrical works.
The Government will continue to actively monitor the development of such turbines and other emerging energy technologies, as part of our efforts to build a diversified and resilient energy portfolio for Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Risks of Audible Notification Alerts on SG Alert Broadcast System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the SG Alert system allows users to opt for vibration-only notifications instead of audible tones; and (b) whether the Ministry has assessed the safety risks of audible alerts for individuals in active shooter or hostage situations.
Mr K Shanmugam: SG Alert is designed to expeditiously alert the public during time-sensitive and life-threatening emergencies, such as major fires, chemical incidents or terror attacks, so that they can take immediate action to protect themselves. Given the use cases, SG Alert does not allow users to opt for vibration-only notifications. SG Alert is, in fact, designed to override the phone's silent mode and emit a distinctive alert tone to attract the user's attention. It also displays a pop-up message that overrides whatever is on the phone screen.
For certain public security incidents, such as the ones mentioned by the Member, the Singapore Police Force may withhold the activation of SG Alert if it could endanger lives or hinder operations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Changes over Past Five Years in Waiting Time from First Unsuccessful BTO Application to Eventual Key Collection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the median total waiting time from a first unsuccessful BTO application to eventual key collection and how has this changed over the past five years; and (b) what is the projected median waiting time for applicants when the 55,000 BTO flats announced for 2025 to 2027 are fully launched.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Build-To-Order (BTO) projects completed from 2021 to 2024 were delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Across these four years, median actual waiting times exceeded median projected waiting times by three to nine months. By January 2025, all projects affected by COVID-19 were completed. Since then, projects completed in 2025 were delivered on or ahead of schedule, with the median waiting time about one month less than projected at launch.
For projects launched in 2025, the median projected waiting time was 47 months. We expect median waiting times to remain between three to four years for projects launched in 2026 and 2027.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Concerns of High-rise Living Such As Lift Availability and Fire Safety with Increase of 60-storey HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Assoc Prof Terence Ho asked the Minister for National Development in light of plans to develop 60-storey HDB flats, what steps is the Government taking to address concerns about high-rise living, such as lift availability and fire safety.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Building taller is one of our key strategies to intensify land use and keep up a robust supply of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. While 60-storeys is a first for HDB, there are taller residential buildings in Singapore and overseas.
Lift service standards will be maintained at a high level for our 60-storey HDB blocks. This is through the provision of more lifts to ensure reasonable waiting times and availability of alternative lifts in case of maintenance or service disruptions. There will also be lift zoning, with multiple lifts serving different floor zones. Backup generators will ensure continuous operations during power outages.
The 60-storey HDB blocks will comply with prevailing fire safety requirements for high-rise residential buildings. For residential buildings exceeding 40 storeys, refuge floors are required at intervals not exceeding 20 storeys. Refuge floors serve as a safe temporary holding space during fire evacuation. In addition, such buildings shall include the installation of wet rising mains and having at least two fire lifts to support the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) operations.
Elderly and mobility-impaired residents who need to evacuate in the event of a fire can do so with the help of community support. To this end, SCDF has been helping grassroots organisations, like the People Association's community emergency and engagement committees, to plan and conduct evacuation drills and exercises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Utilisation Patterns of EV Chargers at HDB Car Parks and Factors Determining Increased Deployment of Such Chargers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the utilisation patterns of Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers at HDB car parks have increased to more than 10%; (b) if so, what is the current utilisation pattern; (c) which estates have the highest utilisation rates; and (d) in addition to charging demand and electrical capacity, what other key factors does the Ministry consider when determining whether more EV chargers can be deployed in HDB car parks.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The average utilisation rate of EV chargers across all Housing and Development Board car parks during the three-hour peak of each car park is 36% in February 2026. Tengah has the highest peak utilisation rate, at 61%. Utilisation and charging behaviour vary across car parks and with charger power ratings.
Besides utilisation and availability of electrical capacity, availability of parking lots and nearby charging options are also considered when determining installation plans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocols Governing Third-party Construction Activities Near NetLink Trust's Fibre Infrastructure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether IMDA has reviewed the protocols governing third-party construction activities near NetLink Trust's fibre infrastructure; (b) what mandatory notification or supervision requirements apply before excavation commences near the Nationwide Broadband Network backbone; and (c) what enforcement action has been taken against the contractor responsible for the 18 April 2026 outage affecting approximately 5,000 households across Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Sengkang and Punggol.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will address the questions filed by Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Low Wu Yang Andre in today's Order Paper, as well as the question filed by Ms He Ting Ru for tomorrow's Sitting, as they relate to the same incident. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Adequacy of Path Diversity of Passive Fibre Infrastructure Owners\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
If the Member is satisfied with the response, she may wish to withdraw her question after this session.
On 18 April 2026, a subcontractor conducting boring works along Marymount Road for the North-South Corridor project struck and damaged 25 underground telecommunication cables owned by NetLink Trust and Singtel. This disrupted broadband services to approximately 5,000 subscribers in parts of Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Sengkang and Punggol. Broadband services were progressively restored, with full recovery taking approximately 20 hours. A disruption of this duration and scale is a significant service disruption.
We have rules in place to minimise the risk of telecommunication cable cuts due to construction activity and earthworks. In 2019, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) introduced the Earthworks Requirements for Prevention of Damage to Telecommunication Cables, under the Telecommunications Act. They set out a multi-step process that earthwork contractors must comply with before commencing any earthworks near underground telecommunications cables. Measures include, engaging licensed cable detection workers, verifying cable locations through trial holes and obtaining approval from relevant telecommunications operators before commencing earthworks. IMDA conducts regular dialogues with earthworks contractors to ensure that they are aware of these requirements and can take necessary precautions to prevent cable damage.
Contractors that fail to comply with the Earthworks Requirements, and damage telecommunications cables, face serious penalties. A contractor who damages telecommunications cables is liable, on conviction, to a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.
The Government's role is to raise awareness and introduce safety measures to prevent damage to telecommunication cables. When cable cuts still occur despite the best efforts to prevent them, IMDA will investigate and, where necessary, commence legal proceedings against the errant parties. The recovery of repair costs and losses is a commercial matter for the affected operators to pursue against the responsible parties.
Besides protecting our underground telecommunication cables from accidental cuts, IMDA also requires NetLink Trust to ensure that its network is resilient to outages. This includes investing in projects through a dedicated Capital Expenditure Reserve Fund, to enhance the capacity and resilience of its network. NetLink Trust has built in redundancy and path diversity in its cable routes, especially near its network core. However, nearer to homes, underground space constraints in a densely built-up city do not allow for the same degree of route duplication. Should service disruptions still occur, the Telecom Service Resiliency Code requires telecommunications operators to recover their services as quickly as possible.
Finally, we recognise the need to do more to prevent such incidents in future. IMDA is working with the Ministry of National Development and relevant infrastructure agencies to improve processes, raise the industry's capabilities, and promote the adoption of advanced non-invasive technologies to detect and avoid damaging underground cables.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Operator Licensing Arrangements to Improve Utilisation and Take-up Rates of Retail and Advertising Spaces within MRT Stations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has observed increasing vacancies or declining take up of retail and advertising spaces within MRT stations; (b) whether it has assessed the impact of rail operators' licence tenures on their ability to secure tenants; and (c) whether it will review existing operator and licensing arrangements between LTA and the existing operator to improve commercial utilisation and take-up rates.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Across the network, retail occupancy rates and advertising revenue in MRT stations fell during the COVID-19 pandemic but have since exceeded pre-pandemic levels.
As part of the transition to the New Rail Financing Framework, rail operators were issued fixed-term licences. It is the responsibility of the rail operator to anticipate any issues with sustaining occupancy and ensure that commercial spaces are properly utilised. The Land Transport Authority will provide flexibility to the operators on arrangements to utilise commercial spaces closer to the end of their licences, including agreements beyond the licence period.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Local Space Industry Experts to Develop and Teach Specialised Space Certification Courses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Education (a) whether specialised space certification courses offered in Singapore will be heavily subsidised for Singaporean students; and (b) how will the Government ensure that there are sufficient local space industry experts available to develop and teach these niche curricula.
Mr Desmond Lee: The talent needs for the Singapore space sector are generally met by graduates trained in existing disciplines, such as aerospace, electrical and mechanical engineering, computer engineering, computer science and data science. Some of our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) have also introduced space-related specialisations within existing courses. For example, Ngee Ann Polytechnic recently announced a Space Technology specialisation for third-year engineering students. Similarly, the National University of Singapore (NUS) offers the Space Technology Specialisation for electrical and computer engineering students. Singaporean students enrolled in these courses already benefit from significant subsidies for their education.
To further support the development of Singaporean talent, the National Space Agency of Singapore (NSAS) supports student training through projects, like NUS's Galassia CubeSat programme, where students get to design satellite missions. The Space Technology Development Programme administered by NSAS also supports the training and employment of researchers, scientists and engineers under qualifying research and development programmes within the IHLs and research institutions. These professionals could support the development and delivery of space-related curricula for students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Guidelines for Media on Photography or Video-taping of Suspects Escorted by Law Enforcement Officers to Public Places","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether any guidelines are given to media organisations regarding the taking of photographs or videos of suspects escorted by law enforcement officers to public places; and (b) how are the integrity of the investigation process and the presumption of innocence safeguarded in such situations. \n
Mr K Shanmugam: The general approach we take is not to disclose the identities of suspects before they are charged in Court. However, when suspects are escorted by law enforcement officers to public places, it is inevitable that photographs or videos of the suspects may be taken.
Law enforcement agencies do give guidelines to the media on their expected conduct at locations to where the suspect may be brought. Cordons are put in place, where necessary.
Respectable media organisations are aware that a person is not considered guilty until proven so in a Court of law. That principle guides their reporting. Should any media organisation cross that line, they may be held liable for contempt of Court.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Busking Permit Holders who Perform Regularly, and Measures to Set Higher Quality Bar and Help Buskers Hone Their Craft","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Assoc Prof Terence Ho asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how many busking permit holders perform regularly, such as at least once a week, at designated busking locations; (b) whether the Ministry would consider setting a higher quality bar for the most popular busking locations; and (c) whether more support can be given to help buskers hone their craft and grow their audiences.
Mr David Neo: The National Arts Council (NAC) administers the Busking Scheme, which issues Letters of Endorsement (LOE) for buskers to perform at more than 90 designated locations islandwide. Currently, almost 140, or around one-third of the over 500 busking acts, book slots at these locations at least once a week.
Both aspiring and renewing buskers participate in auditions where they are assessed by their fellow industry professionals on competency, expression, audience engagement and innovation. This is to ensure that they are able to deliver quality street experiences for Singaporeans. Once endorsed, buskers can access all designated locations, in line with NAC's approach of keeping the Busking Scheme inclusive and accessible. NAC engages the Busking Consultative Committee (BCC) and busking community on how standards can be collectively upheld.
NAC supports buskers through platforms, such as Buskers Connect, which facilitates networking and learning from one another. NAC also partners *SCAPE to offer workshops and performance opportunities for endorsed and aspiring buskers. Additional performance opportunities at ArtsEverywhere@CDC Street Performances help buskers reach new audiences and gain broader performance experience.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth will continue to work with NAC and the broader community of stakeholders to strengthen the busking ecosystem.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy on Exclusivity Arrangements between Singapore Sports Hub Venue Operator and Ticketing Companies, and on Transparency Requirements for Booking Fees Charged","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in view that the Singapore Sports Hub is under Government ownership, what is the Government's policy on (i) exclusivity arrangements between the venue operator and ticketing companies at the precinct and (ii) transparency requirements for booking fees charged to consumers at events held there.
Mr David Neo: The Kallang Group (TKG), which operates The Kallang, does not have an exclusive arrangement with any ticketing service provider (TSP).
Through a fair and transparent open tender process, TKG selects a panel of TSPs for events at The Kallang. Selected TSPs are required to maintain robust systems with capabilities, such as effective queue management, bot protection, scalability and secure ticket delivery.
Event hirers at The Kallang may choose any TSP from the panel. As is international standard practice, hirers have the commercial discretion to decide on the booking fee charged by the TSP, just as they do with ticket prices. For transparency, booking fees are stated on the event page and throughout the ticket purchase journey.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singaporeans Receiving Medical Benefits under Medical Benefits Scheme (Blood Transfusion Service)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how many Singaporeans and/or Permanent Residents have received medical benefits under the Medical Benefits Scheme (Blood Transfusion Service) or any other scheme arising from blood donation to date; and (b) how many Singaporeans continue to receive these benefits as of the year 2025.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Medical Benefits Scheme (MBS) was introduced in 1965 as a means of expressing appreciation to regular blood donors. It was discontinued on 1 July 2002 for all new and lapsed donors as Singapore moved to a fully non-remunerated voluntary blood donation system, in line with recommendations from the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Regular blood donors who started donating blood before the discontinuation of the MBS in 2002 continue to receive benefits under the scheme. There are currently 652 such individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation Criteria for Success of University Engineering Scholarship","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Education in respect of the University Engineering Scholarship (UES) (a) what are evaluation criteria on the success of UES and its current performance for the last three years; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending UES or introduce another scholarship scheme for local Polytechnic Diploma holders with GPA of 3.0 and above but without having obtained a Diploma with Merit.
Mr Desmond Lee: The University Engineering Scholarships (UES) recognise top polytechnic engineering graduates who pursue engineering or technology-related degrees at the autonomous universities (AUs). The intent is for them to take up jobs in the engineering or technology fields in Singapore. Since the scholarship's inception in 1997, close to 200 scholars have graduated and fulfilled their bond obligations at engineering and technology companies, such as Singapore Technologies Engineering, Micron Technology and Linde Gas Singapore.
There are many other engineering scholarships offered by other Government agencies, companies, as well as the AUs. As such, Ministry of Education has no plans to expand the UES' eligibility criteria or introduce a new scholarship scheme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rollout and Take-up of Long-Term Investment Fund and Private Credit Growth Fund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Mark Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Government can provide an update on the rollout and take-up of the (i) Long-Term Investment Fund and (ii) Private Credit Growth Fund respectively, including the current implementation status and profile of enterprises supported; and (b) whether there are plans to calibrate these funds in light of tightening global credit conditions arising from recent geopolitical developments.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has appointed the fund managers for the Long-Term Investment Fund and Private Credit Growth Fund. The fund managers are intended to provide customised financing solutions to quality companies to support their growth. The funds are in their final stages of establishment.
The launch of these funds will enable companies to access patient capital and flexible credit terms tailored to their needs as part of the suite of enterprise development tools offered by the Government. The appointed private fund managers will exercise commercial discipline in deploying capital, in line with their respective mandates and prevailing market conditions. This discipline remains relevant in times of tightening global credit conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Construction, Manufacturing, and Transport and Storage Sectors' Higher Share of Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Manpower pertaining to the Workplace Safety and Health Report 2025 (a) whether the Ministry has studied why construction, manufacturing, and transport and storage sectors continue to account for a disproportionate share of workplace deaths and serious injuries despite longstanding interventions; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider stronger deterrence measures, including higher penalties for repeat safety breaches.
Dr Tan See Leng: In 2025, Singapore's overall workplace safety and health performance improved to record-low fatal and major injury rates of 0.96 and 15.7 per 100,000 workers respectively. Construction, manufacturing, and transport and storage contributed to more than half of workplace fatal and major injuries in 2025. This is not surprising, since these sectors involve work activities that are inherently of higher risks, such as working-at-height and operation of machinery and vehicles. Nevertheless, all three sectors have seen steady improvement over the years.
In addition to conducting regular inspections in these sectors, the Ministry of Manpower has introduced targeted measures to strengthen deterrence. For example, since 2024, the installation of video surveillance systems has been mandatory at construction sites with contract values of $5 million or more. In 2025, we also tightened the licensing conditions for approved scaffold contractors (ASCs). ASCs that accumulate five or more composition fines for contraventions related to scaffold work or working-at-height will have their license suspended for three months.
Harsher penalties are already imposed for repeated breaches. For a repeated conviction for causing death, the maximum fine is doubled to $400,000 for errant individuals, over and above any imprisonment and $1 million for corporate entities. In addition, companies in the construction and manufacturing sectors are issued demerit points for safety breaches. Accumulation of demerit points may lead to debarment from hiring migrant workers and disqualification from participating in tenders for public sector construction projects.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Responsibility to Conduct Customer Due Diligence and Report Suspicious Transactions for Real Estate Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development under the current anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing rules governing real estate transactions, whether the obligations to conduct customer due diligence and to report suspicious transactions rest on buyers and sellers themselves or only on the regulated intermediaries such as, but not limited to, the lawyers and accountants involved in the transaction.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: To guard against money laundering and counter terrorism financing, including in the area of real estate transactions, the Government has in place a legal and regulatory framework where gatekeepers, such as financial institutions, lawyers, accountants and real estate salespersons, have to comply with anti-money laundering requirements including the conduct of customer due diligence.
Under the legal and regulatory framework, the financial institutions are under strict requirements to conduct rigorous Know Your Customer (KYC) processes when accounts are opened and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) on transactions.
Lawyers will also be involved in real estate transactions. Some of these transactions also involve accountants. Lawyers and accountants also have strict KYC and anti-money laundering obligations and are required to perform CDD.
Gatekeepers specific to the real estate sector, such as real estate salespersons, real estate agencies and developers also have the duty to perform CDD on their customers and are required to file a suspicious transaction report (STR) if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that any property may be connected to criminal conduct.
Together, the obligations imposed on these gatekeepers, as well as the supervision of these gatekeepers by the sectoral regulators ensure that Singapore has a strong anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime. Buyers and sellers may also be obliged to file an STR if their knowledge or suspicion that a property or transaction is connected with criminal conduct had arisen in the course of their trade, profession, business or employment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Inclusion of Sports in National School Games","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the presence of a sport in major Games is the primary criterion for its inclusion in the National School Games (NSG); (b) if not, what criteria does the Ministry use to determine which sports to include in the NSG; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider gathering public feedback on broadening the NSG by including this topic in its Education Conversations.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will also address the Parliamentary Questions raised by Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong for subsequent sittings. [Please refer to \"Resource Allocation for Sports that Lack Pathways to Major Games but Maintain Significant Student Participation and Developmental Value\", Official Report, 7 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 31, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"Inclusion in Major Games Influencing Choice of Sports Offered in National School Games and Advisory Role of SportSG and SpexSG\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions section.]
The primary objective of physical sports co-curricular activities is to develop our students in character and 21st century competencies through participation in sports. The National School Games (NSG) supports this objective.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) considers several factors when determining the inclusion and retention of sports in the NSG to ensure the sustainability of competitions. This includes students' interest levels, participation patterns of schools, availability of facilities, qualified coaches and officials and the ability of sports associations to support the running of the competitions.
Whether a sport is in the major Games is not a factor. While some NSG athletes might represent Singapore in the Major Games, this is not an objective of the NSG. As the NSG is a part of the national sports ecosystem, MOE works closely with Sport Singapore and Sport Excellence Singapore when considering the inclusion and retention of sports.
For the education conversations, MOE will engage the public and review ideas and suggestions to tackle the \"educational arms race\" and strengthen holistic development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developing Sports That Are Not Included in Major International Games","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how the Ministry and Sport Singapore will support National Sports Associations (NSAs) for sports not in major international Games but with growing youth participation; and (b) what specific criteria determine inclusion in the National School Games.
90 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether development of sports in Singapore is intended by the Government to be driven primarily by high-level participation and achievements at major games; and (b) whether diversity, inclusivity and long-term ecosystem growth are equally valued.
Mr David Neo: In answering this question, it is important for us to remind ourselves of what sport is and what sports stands for. Sports has the ability to bring people together, imbues character and promotes teamwork. And that is why we constantly promote wider participation in sports among our youths – because it is intrinsically valuable for youth development. It nurtures better Singaporeans.
Broad-based sport participation and high-performance sport are mutually reinforcing and support one another. Developing a wider interest and love for sports through a diverse range of sports expands the pipeline for high-performance sport and means stronger community and national support for our national athletes. When Team Singapore athletes excel on the world stage, it in turn inspires our youths to take up sports and strive for excellence.
The Government's approach to promoting sports programmes and competitions in schools goes well beyond those in the Major Games. Because sport serves a broader purpose for our youths – fostering interactions and social mixing among students and developing physical fitness and values, such as resilience and teamwork.
In selecting sports for the National School Games (NSG), the Ministry of Education (MOE) therefore incorporates factors, such as its value to student development, interest levels, school participation patterns, and the ecosystem's capacity, including facilities, qualified coaches and officials and the National Sports Associations' (NSA's) ability to support competitions. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and MOE will work with ready, willing and able NSAs to introduce more sports into the NSG to reflect the diverse interests of our youths.
For high-performance sport, the Government places great importance on identifying and developing athletes and has been increasing investments to help athletes compete better and longer. Developing a strong pipeline of youths in sports included in the Major Games is key to our high-performance strategy. We do this through structured youth pathways, deepening of coaching and specialist expertise and close partnerships with NSAs to identify and nurture talent early. Just last week, we announced our largest-ever cohort of 247 spexScholars and spexPotential recipients across 41 sports.
As a nation with a small population base and finite resources, we tier our support based on each sport's needs, readiness and potential contributions, with a focus on the Major Games as these are multi-sports and have the largest contingent of Team Singapore athletes, are most watched by and followed by Singaporeans, and most able to rally our nation and inspire the Singapore spirit.
The Government has also been investing in emerging sports. Through the Athletes' Inspire Fund, we have supported athletes in sports, such as pickleball, powerlifting, dodgeball and kickboxing. We have supported NSAs in hosting international competitions, such as the 2023 World Youth Tchoukball Championship. With the Government's support, Tchoukball Association of Singapore (TBAS) attained Charity status in 2024, unlocking access to the One Team Singapore Fund where the Government matches donations dollar-for-dollar. With the formation of SpexSG last month, we will work more closely with and empower NSAs to be strong stewards of their sports.
The sporting landscape is always evolving and the decision on which sports feature in future Major Games rests with international and regional multi-sport governing bodies. Against such a backdrop, we take a practical and long-term view to partner with our stakeholders and invest in sports that show potential, building pathways and community participation, because we value sport and the positive benefits it brings to Singaporeans in and of itself, in addition to being ready should opportunities arise. Emerging sports today can be part of Major Games tomorrow. Floorball is one such example – through sustained effort, community interest and a committed NSA, it was included as an official medal sport at the Southeast Asian Games since 2015.
The Government will continue to invest in sports that Singaporeans care about, as these are sports with the power to unite us and bring us together as a nation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Actions against Cyclists Riding on Public Roads without Helmets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs with respect to helmet compliance for cyclists on public roads (a) as of end 2025, what is the compliance rate for cyclists wearing helmets on public roads; (b) how many enforcement actions were taken in the past three years against cyclists riding on public roads without helmets; and (c) whether stricter enforcement will be taken to improve helmet compliance on public roads.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2023 to 2025, there were 1,992 instances of non-compliance by cyclists with the helmet-wearing rules. Traffic Police (TP) does not track the number of cycling trips on our roads and cannot compute the compliance rate.
To promote road safety, TP and the Land Transport Authority will continue to conduct regular enforcement at accident hotspots and locations reported by members of the public. These include locations where unsafe road behaviour involving cyclists is observed. Errant cyclists can be fined up to $1,000. In more serious cases where injury or harm is caused, the offender could be charged in Court for the relevant traffic offence and face more severe penalties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installing Cameras at Zebra Crossings in Housing Estates to Identify Vehicles that Fail to Stop for Pedestrians","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider installing cameras at zebra crossings in housing estates as an enforcement measure and to identify vehicles which fail to stop for pedestrians, endangering their safety.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Traffic Police (TP) installs enforcement cameras at speeding- and accident-prone locations along public roads, including at zebra crossings, where the terrain is assessed to be suitable. TP also works with the Land Transport Authority to implement road infrastructure, such as raised pedestrian crossings, humps and other road calming measures at suitable areas, to lower the safety risks.
93 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how LTA ensures contractors comply with the Code of Practice for advance road work signs; (b) in the last three years, how many contractors were penalised for non-compliance; and (c) whether LTA will introduce a dedicated public reporting mechanism, such as via the OneService app, for motorists to report inadequately marked work zones.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Code of Practice mandates all contractors to deploy qualified personnel to ensure the appropriate placement of barriers and advance warning signs for works. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts regular checks and contractors who do not adhere to the guidelines will be penalised. On average, about 130 enforcement actions were taken against contractors annually over the past three years.
Members of the public may report instances of non-compliance through feedback channels, including the LTA website and the OneService application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguarding against Disadvantage to Servicemen in Their Future Civilian Careers and Insurance Eligibility with Changes to NS Medical Classification System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Ms Mariam Jaafar asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence what long-term strategic measures are being implemented within the Medical Classification System (MCS) to ensure that the increased granularity of mental health data is used to optimise national manpower without creating a digital paper trail that could disadvantage servicemen in their future civilian careers or insurance eligibility.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Ministry of Defence/Singapore Armed Forces has always maintained strict confidentiality over our service personnel's medical information, including their mental health information. This will not change under the refreshed Medical Classification System.
Access is restricted to authorised personnel, in accordance with prevailing Ministry of Health and healthcare data governance requirements and is not shared with civilian employers or insurers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building on \"Made With Passion\" to Launch New Initiatives for SMEs to Venture Overseas by Capitalising on Singapore's Trust Premium","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government will consider building on the success of the \"Made With Passion\" initiative and introduce new initiatives for SMEs which are looking to venture overseas to capitalise on Singapore's trust premium and brand equity.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The \"Made with Passion\" (MWP) initiative was launched in 2020 by the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore (EnterpriseSG) to celebrate and support enterprising local brands and build on Singapore's destination brand. Today, there are more than 150 MWP brands. MWP also serves as a platform to promote awareness and drive the growth of local lifestyle brands through collaborations and participation in various partnerships and overseas opportunities. We are currently reviewing the initiative and will provide an update in due course.
The Government has introduced a suite of measures to support capability development and overseas ventures of our local companies, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
For example, to encourage more SMEs to internationalise and seek new opportunities abroad, the Government announced a series of enhancements at the Budget and Ministry of Trade and Industry's (MTI's) Committee of Supply debates this year. These include increasing support levels of up to 70% for internationalisation-related schemes, such as the Market Readiness Assistance (MRA) Grant. MRA helps to defray the cost of overseas market promotion, business development and set-up. EnterpriseSG also partners trade associations and chambers to support companies' participation in overseas business missions and trade shows. Besides being able to exhibit under a Singapore pavilion, the companies are also connected to in-market partners which aids their internationalisation journey.
MTI and EnterpriseSG, together with sector agencies, are continuing to review our initiatives to ensure our companies are equipped to pursue the growth strategies that best meet their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Criteria for Invoking Section 11(3)(b) of POFMA 2019 to Mandate Print Correction Notices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"96 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what are the criteria for invoking section 11(3)(b) of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 to mandate print correction notices; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that this remains a remedial tool rather than a way to financially penalise online platforms by forcing them to buy newspaper advertisements.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The \tMember's question has been addressed in the reply to Question No 28\ton the Order Paper for 8 April 2026. [Please refer to \"Rationale for Correction Direction Issued on 23 March 2026 for Correction Notice to Be Published in The Straits Times\", Official Report, 8 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 28, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Courier Hub Scheme in Reducing Parcel Sorting Activities at HDB Void Decks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Courier Hub Scheme has achieved its aim of reducing the more frequent and increasingly large parcel sorting activities by courier companies at HDB void decks; and (b) whether the Government is working on other scalable solutions.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Member may wish to refer to the written reply given by the Ministry of National Development to a related question posed by Ms Valerie Lee on 25 February 2026. [Please refer to \"Assessment of Effectiveness and Extension of Courier Hub Scheme to More Estates\", Official Report, 25 February 2026, Vol 96, Issue 19, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
We will continue to monitor and review the Courier Hub Scheme, alongside other solutions for last-mile delivery and parcel sorting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Occupancy Rates at Biopolis and One-north Area, and Proportion of Tenants Paying Subsidised or Grant-supported Rent","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the current occupancy rates of Biopolis and the wider one-north area, compared with Biopolis' 2003 launch; (b) what proportion of Biopolis tenants pay subsidised or grant-supported rent versus market rent; (c) whether A*STAR has plans to relocate from Biopolis; and (d) what is the Ministry's assessment of Biopolis' long-term viability as a biomedical research hub.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Biopolis was developed by JTC Corporation as a purpose-built biomedical research hub. The occupancy of Biopolis has grown from 63% at the launch of Phase One in 2003 to more than 90% today, with its rental rates pegged to market. The Greater one-north area, comprising research, science, engineering, artificial intelligence and infocomm technology, and start-up clusters across Biopolis, Fusionopolis, Ayer Rajah and Science Parks, has a similarly high occupancy rate of over 80%.
The Prime Minister had announced during Budget 2025, that we would refresh A*STAR's biomedical research infrastructure by extending it into the Greater one-north area. This refresh builds on the strong foundation established in Biopolis and brings A*STAR closer to key ecosystem partners, like the National University Health System (NUHS) clinical community, and venture builders in the Greater one-north area, strengthening the translation of research into commercial and public health solutions. More information on the refresh will be announced in due course.
Biopolis and the Greater one-north remain a key node in our biomedical research ecosystem, given its proximity to NUHS and the National University of Singapore. The Government will continue to invest in research and development to build long-term, strategic capabilities for our country.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives to Facilitate Mid-career Transitions from Adjacent Fields to Accelerate Growth of Local Space Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry what initiatives will the National Space Agency of Singapore implement to facilitate mid-career transitions and leverage existing expertise in adjacent fields, such as aviation, data science and software engineering, to accelerate the growth of the local space sector.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The space sector offers multiple pathways for Singaporeans to build meaningful careers and welcomes graduates trained in different disciplines, such as electrical and mechanical engineering, computer engineering, computer science and data science.
Mid-career professionals with experience in adjacent industries, such as aerospace, microelectronics, precision engineering and artificial intelligence, can contribute significantly to the space sector. They can reskill or upskill through existing continuing education and training courses, such as in satellite technologies, space mission design and space environment testing, offered by our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and supported by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). They can also access skills and career advisory services offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SSG. In addition, companies can tap on existing training grants and subsidies to reskill mid-career hires into new job roles.
The National Space Agency of Singapore will continue to work with WSG and SSG, our IHLs and industry partners to explore how we can further support the mid-career transition of individuals and build relevant capabilities for the sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Accidents Involving Public Bus Captains by Age Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) since 2023, what is the number of traffic accidents involving public bus captains, broken down by age groups (i) 50 and below (ii) 50 to 60 (iii) 60 to 70 and (iv) above 70; (b) whether accident severity differs across these groups; and (c) what additional measures are in place for older drivers to ensure the safety of drivers themselves, bus passengers and road users.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Since 2023, there were an average of 51 severe accidents per year attributed to bus captains aged 50 and younger; 27 attributed to bus captains aged between 51 to 60; 20 attributed to bus captains aged between 61 to 70; and three attributed to bus captains aged 71 and older. Accounting for the number of bus captains in each age band, bus captains aged 61 and above are more likely to be involved in severe accidents, even though the difference is relatively small in absolute terms.
Medical assessments are required for bus captains aged 50 and above during their vocational licence renewals, to ensure that they are medically fit to drive. Initiatives recommended by the Bus Safety Tripartite Taskforce are also being implemented to improve bus safety, such as the use of more technological tools, like 360-degree cameras, and reducing continuous driving time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Open Fort Canning Service Reservoir Area to Public Access and Leisure Activities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether PUB would consider opening the Fort Canning Service Reservoir area for public access and leisure activities.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Fort Canning Service Reservoir stores treated drinking water before it is piped to consumers. As such, it is a protected area that cannot be opened for public access and leisure activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Resident Workers Who Have Benefited from Capability Transfer Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower for the years of 2024 and 2025, (a) what is the number of resident workers who have benefited from the Capability Transfer Programme; and (b) what is the sector breakdown of companies that received funding support.
Dr Tan See Leng: More than 20 resident workers have benefited or are expected to benefit from projects approved through the Capability Transfer Programme in 2024 and 2025, bringing the total number of residents supported to date to more than 1,000. The companies that received funding support are from the precision engineering and environmental services sectors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Help SMEs Build True Energy Resilience and Limit Their Dependency on Interventions to Cushion Energy Price Shocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there is any policy safeguard to ensure that planned interventions to cushion ongoing energy price shocks that would limit the likelihood of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) from becoming dependent; and (b) whether the Government has further plans to help SMEs build true energy resilience, risk management, diversification or efficiency improvements, which would reduce their reliance on Government support.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question was addressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, the Acting Minister for Transport and Senior Minister of State for Finance, and the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, in their Ministerial Statements on the Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore at the Parliamentary Sitting on 7 April 2026. [Please refer to \"Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore\", Official Report, 7 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 27, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives and Strategies to Help Singaporeans and Enterprises Tap into Fast-growing Markets in Africa and Middle East","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what specific initiatives and strategies will the Government implement to help Singaporeans and enterprises tap into fast-growing markets in Africa and the Middle East, as announced in Budget 2026; (b) how have those plans been affected by the Middle East conflict which broke out in late February 2026; and (c) whether there are concrete roadmaps and measurable objectives for this effort.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has implemented a series of initiatives to support our enterprises' foray into emerging markets in Africa and the Middle East.
First, we are strengthening our trade architecture. We have an existing Free Trade Agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)1 since 2013 and are exploring free trade agreements with Egypt and the East African Community (EAC)2.
Second, Enterprise Singapore (EnterpriseSG) and the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) are expanding our presence in these regions. EnterpriseSG has five overseas offices in Africa and the Middle East, namely in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), South Africa, Kenya and Ghana. SBF launched the Singapore Enterprise Centre in Dubai in November, which is SBF's first overseas office in the Middle East. SBF is also planning a tentative business mission to Tanzania this year.
Third, we have enhanced support for Singapore companies to enter overseas markets. We have increased the Market Readiness Assistance Grant (MRA) support levels from 50% to 70% for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and 30% to 50% for non-SMEs from 1 April 2026. From second half of 2026, under EnterpriseSG's new Enterprise Development Grant for Growth and Excellence, we will also remove the \"new market\" criterion for activities supported under MRA, so enterprises can also deepen their presence in overseas markets. We also removed the maximum facility-level loan caps for the Enterprise Financing Scheme-Trade Loan and SME Fixed Assets Loan to better meet companies' financing needs for internationalisation.
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has introduced significant geopolitical uncertainties. We are nonetheless confident in the resilience and adaptability of our companies and will continue to support them as they seek business opportunities in these regions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The GCC market comprises KSA, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain.","2 : The EAC comprises Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda."],"footNoteQuestions":["104"],"questionNo":"104"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure Availability of Regular School Bus Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"105 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education in view of the continuing Middle East conflict (a) what additional measures are being considered to assist stakeholders, schools and students to ensure the availability of regular school bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider taking over the management of school bus operations with the present companies as its contractors.
106 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Education given that the 13% temporary transport support does not extend to ad hoc school bus services, (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the risk of private bus operators ceasing to serve schools due to unviable profit margins; and (b) what contingency measures are in place to ensure continued access to ad hoc transport services for external school activities.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address the questions raised by Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik on the temporary support for school bus operators amid the ongoing Middle East conflict.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) is providing temporary support to operators of regular bus services for primary and special education to help offset higher fuel costs arising from the ongoing Middle East conflict. In April, we provided support equivalent to 13% of school bus fare revenues. Given that fuel prices remain elevated, we intend to provide additional support for May and June. Beyond that, from July, the operators will be allowed to raise fares to reflect the cost increases, so that services remain viable.
For ad hoc bus service providers, MOE has advised schools to work with operators on reasonable rate adjustments. As of 28 April 2026, schools have facilitated temporary rate increases for 42 bus contracts, with more under consideration. We also encourage other procurers of transport services to adopt a similar approach, so that the burden is shared fairly.
MOE does not plan to take over school bus operations. Under the current model, schools select operators through a competitive bidding process. This allows them to have direct oversight over service quality and affordability, while giving operators the flexibility to customise their services. Where needed, MOE will step in to facilitate continuity – for example, by helping schools put in place replacement arrangements or novate existing contracts. MOE will continue working closely with schools and operators to ensure the sustainability of both regular and ad hoc bus services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Measures for Town Councils amidst Rising Energy Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development in light of concerns regarding liquefied natural gas supply constraints and price volatility (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of rising energy costs on Town Councils; and (b) whether support measures are being considered to help Town Councils absorb energy cost increases without passing the full burden to residents.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Government provides over $280 million a year in grants to help Town Councils with some of their operating expenses and reduce the costs borne by residents. Beyond these grants, Town Councils are responsible for their financial sustainability, by managing their income and expenses prudently.
To manage electricity costs, Town Councils can implement energy conservation measures, such as smart lighting systems and adjusting lighting hours and brightness. For example, the West Coast-Jurong West Town Council has piloted a smart lighting system that achieved energy savings of over 70%.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Online Sale of Components and Services for Illegal Modification of Personal Mobility Devices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) since January 2023, how many online listings for illegal modification parts, kits or services of personal mobility devices have been taken down in cooperation with local online platform operators; (b) whether any sellers of such parts or services have faced enforcement action; and (c) whether the Government intends to regulate the online sale of components enabling illegal modification of such devices.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Since January 2023, the Land Transport Authority has worked with major e-commerce platforms, like Carousell, Lazada and Shopee, to take down around 200 listings of non-compliant devices and illegal modification services. Earlier this year, an individual was caught publicising illegal device modification services online and is currently under investigation. We are studying how to further tighten legislation to deter illegal modification, including on the sale of components.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Regulate and Conduct Public Education to Address Safety and Public Disturbance Concerns by Active Mobility Users Near Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how many complaints on loud music by active mobility users using public paths and roads were received in the past three years; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider regulations and public education to address related safety and public disturbance concerns near housing estates.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Complaints on loud music by active mobility users on public paths and roads are not specifically tracked.
The Land Transport Authority conducts public education campaigns, community engagement programmes and works with active mobility community ambassadors to educate users on proper path etiquette. All path users are encouraged to be considerate and gracious to others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of Residential Properties Purchased by Foreigners Following Increase in Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty Rates in 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"112 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many residential properties have been purchased by foreigners following the increase in Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) rates in 2023; (b) how that compares with the number of such purchases over a similar duration before the ABSD increase; and (c) whether further measures are needed to promote a sustainable property market and prioritise housing for owner-occupation.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: In the three years since the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty rates were increased in April 2023, an average of 86 private residential properties were purchased by foreigners per quarter. This is significantly lower than the average of 237 private residential properties purchased by foreigners per quarter in the preceding three-year period.
We will continue to keep a close watch on the residential property market and adjust our measures as necessary, to maintain a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Supply Chain Sector amidst Ongoing Middle East Conflict","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"114 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry has been engaging stakeholders in the supply chain sector; (b) what are the key concerns raised by these stakeholders; and (c) how does the Government plan to support the supply chain sector in the midst of the ongoing Middle East conflict.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has engaged supply chain-related businesses through associations from the logistics and land transport sectors associations and trade associations and chambers. The businesses are concerned about rising costs due to the Middle East conflict affecting fuel, raw materials, transport and shipping costs.
To help businesses manage their overall costs in the immediate term, we have enhanced the Corporate Income Tax rebate announced at Budget 2026, from 40% to 50%, for the Year of Assessment 2026. The minimum benefit that an active company with at least one local employee will receive is now $2,000, up from $1,500. The total benefit cap for each company has been raised from $30,000 to $40,000.
The Government has also recently expanded the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) Base Tier to all sectors and extended this support for another year, to 31 March 2028. This will enable more businesses to benefit from the EEG, as they adopt eligible energy efficient solutions to become more energy resilient and sustainable.
These measures were announced at the previous Parliament Sitting as part of the Ministerial Statements on the impact of the Middle East conflict. We must be prepared for the effects of the war to persist with a prolonged conflict. The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely and is committed to roll out more support measures for businesses where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Competitive Conditions in Singapore's Live Events and Ticketing Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"115 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore has assessed the competitive conditions in Singapore's live events and ticketing industry, including the effects of vertical integration by dominant players across concert promotion and ticketing, in light of the recent US federal jury finding that Live Nation and Ticketmaster operated as a monopoly.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) regularly monitors developments across sectors to identify potential anti-competitive risks that may affect the efficient functioning of markets in Singapore.
In 2008, CCS found that a dominant ticketing company had abused its market position by entering into exclusive arrangements with large venue providers. It took action and directed the company to stop and remove these arrangements. The CCS also imposed financial penalties on the company.
Since then, the industry has seen increased competition with multiple ticketing service providers and a variety of venues operated by different entities, as well as a diverse range of event promoters.
In recent years, the CCS has not received complaints on competition concerns in the live events and ticketing industry. It will continue to monitor Singapore's ticketing market to ensure it remains competitive and that the live events and concert scene stays vibrant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessing Retail Margins during Periods of Moderated Inflation for Groceries, Food Services and Household Essential Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"116 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) in respect of sectors, such as groceries, food services and household essentials, whether the Government has assessed if retail margins have widened during periods of moderated inflation; and (b) what policy levers are available where cost pass-through appears asymmetric.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: When inflation moderated recently, we found no indication of profit margins widening in the retail trade and Food and Beverage services sectors. For instance, when Monetary Authority of Singapore Core Inflation eased from 4.2% in 2023 to 2.8% in 2024, gross operating surplus as a share of revenue in the retail trade and food and beverage services sectors declined by 0.52 and 0.03 percentage-points respectively over the same period1.
The Government adopts a multi-pronged strategy to mitigate any asymmetric cost pass-through by businesses. This includes promoting fair competition, diversifying our import sources to offer consumers more choices, as well as helping consumers to make informed decisions through greater price and information transparency. For instance, the Government worked with the Consumers Association of Singapore to develop Price Kaki, a mobile application that lets consumers compare the prices of a wide range of cooked food, groceries and other daily essentials across different operators.
Should there be evidence of anti-competitive conduct among businesses, such as price collusion, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore will investigate and take enforcement action against such businesses under the Competition Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Based on data from the Department of Statistics' latest 2024 Annual Survey of the services sector."],"footNoteQuestions":["116"],"questionNo":"116"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"SAFETY Mark for Power Banks Sold in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"117 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry will consider requiring the SAFETY Mark for power banks that are sold to consumers in Singapore, in addition to existing requirements for International Electrotechnical Commission certification; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Goods Safety Requirements) Regulations 2011, all power banks supplied in Singapore must comply with international safety standards, including the International Electrotechnical Commission standards. Under the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, the Consumer Product Safety Office (CPSO) conducts regular market surveillance to ensure that products sold in the market comply with these requirements. The failure to comply with any directive issued by the CPSO to cease the supply of non-compliant products may result in fines or imprisonment.
The Government is currently assessing the requirement for power banks to be listed as a Controlled Good under the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations. If so, all power banks will be subject to additional pre-market registration requirements prior to their sale in Singapore, including the need to affix the SAFETY Mark. It could also necessitate the inclusion of safety instructions and usage precautions to consumers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Exclusion of Families Receiving ComCare Assistance from ComLink+ Package for Debt Clearance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"120 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing the rationale for excluding families receiving ComCare assistance from the ComLink+ Package for Debt Clearance and (ii) extending this package to families receiving ComCare assistance with appropriate safeguards.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) helps individuals and families who face temporary setbacks and need help with basic living expenses.
ComLink+ families receiving ComCare SMTA have still not attained financial stability. Such families are, therefore, unlikely to be in a position to pay off their debts. To support these families, family coaches will work with them to secure employment or higher paying jobs first to ensure that they are financially stable and no longer require ComCare SMTA. These families then have the capacity to start saving part of their monthly income, after meeting their monthly expenses. For those with debts, the ComLink+ Progress Package for Debt Clearance can assist them to clear their debts faster.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of $81 Monthly Transport Pass for Full-time National Servicemen","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"122 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what proportion of full-time national servicemen (NSFs) are in stay-out postings without lodging or meals; (b) whether the Ministry considers the current purchasable $81 monthly transport pass adequate for NSFs earning $790 per month; and (c) whether the Ministry will provide, by default, free public transport for NSFs, as Austria does for their conscripts.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The vast majority of Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) are deployed to roles where their lodging and meals are provided. Only around 12% of NSFs in the SAF are stay-out personnel who are not provided lodging.
All NSFs, including stay-out personnel, are provided with the same monthly base allowance that is sized for their basic personal upkeep. In doing so, the transportation needs of NSFs have been considered, including the cost of the public transport concession card.
The cost of providing free transport for NSFs would need to be cross-subsidised by other commuters through higher fares, or by taxpayers. Some countries choose to provide conscripts with a national travel pass to cover their travel expenses. In Singapore, we have included the cost of public transport for NSFs in their NS allowances. Either way, the costs are funded by the Government and ultimately, by taxpayers.
We choose to take care of our NSFs by providing them with cash through their monthly NS allowance, rather than directly prescribing specific provisions for them. In this way, we give NSFs the agency to purchase items according to their needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Senior Management Accountability for Workplace Culture and Leadership Succession Metrics in Ministries and Statutory Boards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) how senior management in Ministries and Statutory Boards are held accountable for staff well-being, workplace culture and retention outcomes; and (b) whether the Public Service Division incorporates culture and management related indicators into performance assessments and succession planning for senior leaders.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): Staff well-being, workplace culture and good retention are important priorities for the Public Service, as they are in many other leading organisations. These are factors that ensure our public officers serve with purpose and deliver effectively for Singaporeans and Singapore.
Our Public Sector leaders are accountable not only for delivering on the agency's mission but also for organisational health and workforce outcomes. We take a holistic approach to assessing leadership performance and succession planning. Our leaders are evaluated across organisational and people outcomes and their abilities to deliver effectively on policies and programmes. These aspects are all essential competencies demanded of our leaders in the Public Sector.
When planning for succession, we consider their dispositions, strengths, experience and the specific needs of the agency. We recognise that not all leaders can be equally strong in all competencies. Our system therefore places strong emphasis on developing our leaders throughout their careers while also developing leadership teams where individuals complement each other's strengths to achieve high performance and meaningful impact.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Social Mobility for Children Born to Middle-Income Household Percentile Groups against Growing Stagnation Trends","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance apart from data on social mobility based on children born to fathers in the bottom 20% of earners (a) whether the Ministry can also share data on social mobility for middle-income households such as those born to fathers at the (i) 40th (ii) 60th and (iii) 80th percentile; and (b) whether there is any trend of growing stagnation for these groups.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: For children born to fathers who were in the 41st to 80th percentile of earners, the share of children in each income quintile has remained broadly stable across cohorts. See Chart 1 for more details.
Methodological notes can be found in Chart 17 of the Ministry of Finance’s Occasional Paper1 on Income Growth, Inequality and Social Mobility Trends in Singapore.
We will continue to monitor social mobility trends and review our policies to ensure they remain effective in supporting Singaporeans across all income groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : https://isomer-user-content.by.gov.sg/153/d5ff0cb3-61ca-4a14-bb46-0060041c5f12/1a Occasional Paper on Income Growth Inequality and Social Mobility Trends in Singapore (MOF).pdf"],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Energy Disruption Intervention Measures, Protection of Essential Services and Sufficiency of Support Measures Amid Middle East Disruptions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what thresholds would trigger intervention or demand-reduction measures for electricity and transport fuel amid disruptions from the Middle East conflict; (b) how will essential services, critical infrastructure, and vulnerable households be protected if these disruptions persist; (c) whether existing support measures like U-Save rebates are sufficient; and (d) how will further assistance be calibrated if costs continue rising.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question was addressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, the Acting Minister for Transport and Senior Minister of State for Finance, and the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, in their Ministerial Statements on the Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore at the Parliamentary Sitting on 7 April 2026. [Please refer to \"Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore\", Official Report, 7 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 27, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"High-Energy Sector Conservation Targets, Incentive Mechanisms and Infrastructure Security Amid Middle East Disruptions","subTitle":"High-Energy Sector Conservation Targets, Incentive Mechanisms and Infrastructure Security Amid Middle East Disruptions","sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how does the Government ensure high-energy consumption sectors, such as petrochemicals, semiconductors, power generation, ports, aviation and data centres, actively contribute to national energy conservation; (b) what targets, monitoring, incentives or enforcement mechanisms exist; and (c) how can these sectors, together with essential services and critical infrastructure, support Singapore's energy security during prolonged energy disruptions amid the situation in the Middle East.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: While the situation in the Middle East has affected supply chains, Singapore has not experienced severe energy disruptions. We have taken steps to reduce risks of disruption to our electricity generation, such as those shared in our Ministerial Statements on the impact of the Middle East situation on 7 April. [Please refer to \"Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore\", Official Report, 7 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 27, Ministerial Statements section.]
That said, all sectors can contribute to our energy resilience through energy conservation. For example, under the Energy Conservation Act (ECA) administered and enforced by the National Environment Agency (NEA), high-energy consumption sectors, such as manufacturing, power, water and waste management must comply with mandatory energy management practices. Companies in these sectors with facilities that consume 54 terajoules or more of energy per year (equivalent to 15 GWh per year) are required to appoint certified energy managers, monitor and report energy use, conduct energy efficiency opportunities assessments, and implement energy efficiency improvement plans. Under the ECA, companies with energy intensive systems, such as water-cooled chilled water systems in industrial facilities, must also comply with mandated Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards. Contravention of ECA requirements will result in penalties, including fines. Since the introduction of the ECA in 2012, companies have achieved energy savings of about 2,700 terajoules (or 750 GWh) per year, which is enough to power approximately 165,000 Housing and Development Board 4-room flats.
Beyond regulations, the Government supports companies to invest in and improve their energy efficiency. For instance, the Government recently announced the expansion of the Energy Efficiency Grant Base Tier, which provides co-funding for pre-approved energy efficient equipment, to all sectors, and extended this support for another year, to 31 March 2028. The Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions also supports manufacturing facilities and data centres in undertaking projects that improve their energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Identifying Beneficiaries of Singapore-Hong Kong Bilateral Competition, and Managing Regulatory Divergence and Competitive Positioning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) which specific sectors has the Government identified as benefitting the most from Singapore-Hong Kong competition in global trade; (b) whether bilateral mechanisms exist to manage regulatory divergence between both cities; and (c) how does Singapore measure competitive positioning against Hong Kong beyond headline indices.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore and Hong Kong serve as complementary hubs to our respective regions. For example, our financial services, logistics, innovation and tourism sectors are able to leverage on this dynamic to drive excellence and attract global businesses to Asia. We also encourage initiatives for Hong Kong and Singapore to collaborate. For example, both sides maintain close collaborations through regular official exchanges and business events, like the Singapore Week of Innovation and Technology (SWITCH) and the Hong Kong Start-Up Express Competition. These engagements foster knowledge sharing, facilitate business partnerships and create synergies that expand opportunities for both cities.
It is not meaningful to identify sectors as benefiting one side more than the other. The fundamental benefit of global trade is that it lifts all sides. As global fragmentation increases, it is also vital for Singapore and Hong Kong to work together internationally to support the rules-based trading system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Middle East Tensions on Singapore's Oil Imports, Petroleum Reserves and Household Fuel Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what proportion of Singapore's oil imports currently transit routes affected by the tensions in the Middle East; (b) whether strategic petroleum reserves are being reviewed in view of sustained regional instability in the Middle East; and (c) how does the Government monitor fuel price pass-through to household and public transport costs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: This question was addressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, the Acting Minister for Transport and Senior Minister of State for Finance, and the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, in their Ministerial Statements on the Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore at the Parliamentary Sitting on 7 April 2026. [Please refer to \"Impact of the Middle East Situation on Singapore\", Official Report, 7 April 2026, Vol 96, Issue 27, Ministerial Statements section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics of Resident Workers Employed by Local Firms Across Revenue Tiers in Five-Year Intervals over Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry will be able to provide the number and percentage of resident workers employed by local firms earning annual revenue (i) above $500 million (ii) $101 to $500 million and (iii) $11 to $100 million, in five-year intervals over the past decade.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: According to the Ministry of Manpower's Labour Market Report 2Q 2024, 67% of employed residents were in local-owned firms as of June 2024.1 A breakdown of employed residents in local-owned firms by revenue bands is not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Data is based on firms with at least one employee. Self-employed residents are excluded. Foreign-owned firms are defined as those with less than 50% local equity, while local-owned firms are defined as those with at least 50% local equity."],"footNoteQuestions":["7"],"questionNo":"7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Criteria Framework Study on Decision-Making Process for Nuclear Energy Deployment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of Singapore's exploration of nuclear energy and the commissioning of a safety study (a) what criteria will determine any deployment decision; and (b) whether the study's findings will be made public.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has not made any decision on deploying nuclear energy in Singapore. Any decision to deploy new energy technologies will need to be considered against the technology's safety, reliability, affordability and environmental sustainability in Singapore's context.
Agencies have commissioned studies to support their analysis of various aspects of nuclear energy deployment. The National Environment Agency recently launched tenders for three studies to examine international safety standards, international environmental standards and regulatory frameworks for nuclear facilities, and environmental considerations for the potential deployment of nuclear energy in Singapore and the region. The Energy Market Authority also commenced a study with Mott MacDonald in September 2025 to evaluate the safety performance and technical feasibility of advanced nuclear energy technologies.
We will continue to update the public from time to time, so as to enhance Singaporeans' understanding of nuclear energy, and increase public awareness of the capabilities Singapore is building up to enable us to take a considered decision on whether to deploy nuclear energy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Factors Towards 2026 Forecast Upward Revision for MAS' Core Inflation and CPI-All Items, and Household Impact Assessment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) which expenditure components contributed to the upward revision in the 2026 forecasts for MAS Core Inflation and CPI-All Items inflation; and (b) what assessment has been made of the impact on lower- and middle-income households, especially households with higher spending on essential services.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The 2026 forecasts for the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Core Inflation and CPI-All Items inflation were both revised upwards to 1.5% to 2.5%, from 1.0% to 2.0%, in MAS' Monetary Policy Statement released on 14 April 2026.
The main drivers for the upward revision in inflation forecasts are higher projected electricity and town gas and transport-related services inflation due to the sharp increase in global crude oil and natural gas prices triggered by the Middle East conflict. At the same time, the higher global energy costs are expected to raise the costs of a broader range of Singapore's imported goods and services. Consequently, the projected inflation rates for domestic non-cooked food, food services and retail goods have also been revised upwards.
The impact of higher inflation will be felt by most households in Singapore. In particular, higher electricity and town gas and food inflation will affect lower- and middle-income households more as these items make up a larger share of their total expenditure. Nonetheless, the impact on their cost of living is expected to be partially offset by the reduced costs of healthcare and education services this year, due to enhancements to the public healthcare and education subsidies introduced in 2025 and early 2026.1
The Government has also put in place enhanced measures to help lower- and middle-income households, as well as more vulnerable groups, cope with rising costs during this period. For instance, the Government will temporarily co-fund the cost increases faced by operators of essential bus services, such as those for school students, seniors and persons with disabilities, so that these services can continue to operate without disruption. In addition, the Government will bring forward the disbursement of the $500 CDC Vouchers announced in Budget this year from January 2027 to June 2026 and also increase the Cost-of-Living Special Payment by $200 for all eligible Singaporeans.
The Government is monitoring the Middle East situation closely and stands ready to provide further assistance if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : These include enhancements to the Ministry of Education Financial Assistance Scheme at the start of 2026 and enhancements to the residential long-term care services subsidies from July 2026."],"footNoteQuestions":["9"],"questionNo":"9"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reconvening Committee Against Profiteering to Investigate Unjustifiable Price Increases of Essential Products and Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the current volatility in fuel and food prices, whether there are any plans to reconvene the Committee Against Profiteering to investigate feedback against unjustifiable price increases of essential products and services that use the global uncertainty as a cover.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As a small and open economy that imports most of our essential goods including food and fuel, Singapore is exposed to global supply chain disruptions and upward pressure on our domestic prices caused by the ongoing Middle East crisis.
The Committee Against Profiteering was established to review and investigate feedback on unjustified price increases of essential goods and services using the Goods and Services Tax increase as a cover, and to encourage businesses to be transparent and accurate when they communicate the reasons for any price increase to consumers.
The Government has adopted a multi-pronged strategy against profiteering. This includes promoting fair competition, diversifying our sources and broadening our economic partnerships and trade agreements, as well as helping consumers make informed decisions through greater price and information transparency. For instance, the Government has worked with the Consumers Association of Singapore to develop Price Kaki, a mobile application that allows consumers to compare the prices of a wide range of cooked food, groceries and other daily essentials across different operators.
Where there is evidence of anti-competitive conduct among businesses, such as price collusion, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore can investigate and take enforcement action against such businesses under the Competition Act. The Government will continue to monitor price changes closely and take further measures, if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Prepayment Regulations to Enhance Consumer Protection for Elderly Consumers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the significant prepayment losses by consumers in various sectors, particularly beauty and wellness, (a) whether the Ministry has information on the age groups of the victims; (b) if so, whether seniors aged above 60 had been more severely affected; and (c) whether the Ministry would review and tighten regulations regarding prepayments for greater consumer protection for the elderly.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Of the reports filed by consumers with the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) on prepayment losses in 2025, 32% of the cases concerned consumers aged 60 years old and above. They also make up 42% of the total amount of prepayment losses filed. Specifically, for prepayment loss reports filed in the beauty and wellness sector, consumers aged 60 and above make up 35% of the cases, and 31% of the total amount of losses. The percentages are reflective of the proportion of residents aged 60 and above in the total adult resident population of Singapore.
The Government has been working closely with CASE to educate and safeguard consumers against prepayment risks. For example, we have worked with CASE to develop industry-specific CaseTrust accreditation schemes, which include the beauty and wellness or renovation sectors. Consumers of CaseTrust-accredited businesses can claim a refund of the unused portion of their prepayments if the accredited business closes under the scheme's mandatory prepayment protection. CASE also organises consumer education events to raise awareness of prepayment risks, including talks catered to elderly consumers.
In addition, the Government has convened an independent Consumer Protection Review Panel to review key consumer concerns, including the adequacy of existing protections for high-value package purchases. The Panel is expected to share its findings and recommendations later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Energy Efficiency Grant Increase for SMEs and Non-SMEs Amid Rising Business Costs due to Strait of Hormuz's Prolonged Blockade","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government will consider further increasing the Energy Efficiency Grant to support (i) up to 90% for SMEs and (ii) up to 50% for non-SMEs, for the next 12 months, in view of rising business costs due to the prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: As a result of the Middle East conflict, businesses are expected to face higher energy costs for some time. To encourage our businesses to adopt energy efficient equipment, the Government recently announced the expansion of the Energy Efficiency Grant (EEG) Base Tier to all sectors and extended this support for another year, to 31 March 2028. This will enable more businesses to benefit from the EEG and adopt eligible energy-efficient solutions to be more energy resilient and sustainable.
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) already receive a higher support level of 70%, with non-SMEs receiving 30% under the current EEG. We will implement the expanded scheme at these grant support levels and monitor the adoption and impact of the EEG Base Tier expansion.
Beyond energy efficiency support, the Government has also taken steps to help businesses manage their overall costs. In the immediate term, we have enhanced the Corporate Income Tax rebate announced at Budget 2026 from 40% to 50% for the Year of Assessment 2026. The minimum benefit that an active company with at least one local employee will receive was also raised from $1,500 to $2,000. The total benefit cap for each company was raised from $30,000 to $40,000.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely and will roll out more support measures for businesses, where necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Industrial Land Leases Near-Expiration and Median Renewal from 2025 to 2030, and Take-up Rate for Enhanced Industrial Land Lease Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) from 2025 to 2030, what is the number of industrial land leases that are expiring and/or due for renewal and the median renewal tenure for each year respectively; and (b) what is the take-up rate under the Enhanced Industrial Land Lease Framework announced in March 2025.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Lease Renewal (LR) application window was previously six years before lease expiry. This was brought forward under the Enhanced Industrial Land Lease Framework to 10 years before lease expiry. Over 400 companies, an increase of approximately 50%, will now be eligible for LRs between 2026 and 2030. JTC has also expanded the definition of Plant and Machinery (P&M) investments, which are required for LR, to recognise auditable investments in innovation, research and development, digitalisation and IP creation. The typical renewal tenure is 20 years.
Other than enhancements to the LR process, JTC has offered an additional three years of lease tenure for all new greenfield industrial land allocations since March 2025 to cover businesses' building and development period. About 15 allocations have benefited from this.
JTC has also announced a new Flexible Lease Extension Initiative (FLEXI) scheme, which came into effect in January 2026. Although JTC has received early indications of interest from companies, no applications have been received as at end April 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Position on Anti-Scalping Legislation and Regulating Against Automated Bulk Ticket Purchases by Bots","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry given that concert ticket scam losses exceeded $1.1 million in 2023 to 2024 and consumer surveys show nearly 50% of Singaporeans identify scalping as a significant concern, whether the Ministry (i) has reviewed its 2019 position that anti-scalping legislation is not warranted and (ii) will consider legislation targeting the use of automated bots to purchase event tickets in bulk.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Government policy does not prohibit the resale of goods and services in Singapore, including that of concert tickets. Rather, the Government's approach is to safeguard consumers from unfair trading practices and scams, including false and misleading claims.
The Police step up public education efforts ahead of high-demand concerts with an elevated risk of ticketing scams to warn concertgoers against purchasing fraudulent tickets on secondary resale platforms. The Police have also worked with these platforms to remove resale listings that are suspected scams. We encourage consumers to check the terms and conditions carefully when they buy resale tickets and to validate the legitimacy of the tickets they are about to buy with the official event organisers. The Government is also looking into other solutions to further address concert ticket scams.
International experience has shown that anti-botting legislation are difficult to enforce effectively, as bot technologies evolve rapidly to bypass technical and legal barriers, and operators frequently reside outside national jurisdictions. Instead, major ticketing service providers are increasingly adopting technical safeguards, such as virtual waiting rooms, and human verification tools, such as CAPTCHA, to help ensure tickets are purchased by legitimate buyers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Workplace Personal Protection Orders Violation Cases and Enforcement Outcomes in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the past five years, how many individuals with Personal Protection Orders taken out against perpetrators reported that these same individuals continued to harass them at their workplaces and sought enforcement action each year; and (b) how many cases resulted in enforcement measures being taken.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police do not track breaches of Personal Protection Orders specific to harassment at workplaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Formal Recourse and Review Avenues for Individuals Barred Entry to Singapore Under FICA","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 or any other related powers have been invoked against individuals linked to Malaysian civil society organisations in the past two years; (b) what criteria does the Ministry apply to distinguish lawful commentary on Singapore policies from proscribed political interference; and (c) whether individuals barred entry have any formal avenue for recourse or review.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have not exercised powers under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) against individuals linked to Malaysian civil society organisations. When they seek to interfere, we have stopped them from coming into Singapore. But FICA can be used as necessary.
The Ministry of Home Affairs looks at various considerations when assessing if content should be considered normal political commentary or whether it amounts to unacceptable political interference. This includes the source and nature of the content, whether it is an established media, the degree of association the person has with Singapore, whether the foreign actor is masquerading as a local writer, whether he/she is acting on behalf of someone with the intent to cause damage to Singapore, and other factors. This assessment is fact-dependent and done on a case-by-case basis.
Individuals barred from entry into Singapore can appeal to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Updates on Singapore Police Force's Water Cannon Authorisation and Deployment Criteria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what criteria govern the authorisation and deployment of water cannon vehicles for crowd control and whether these have been recently updated; (b) whether a public proportionality framework for such equipment will be published; and (c) how the SPF incorporates international operational lessons to minimise bystander risks.
Mr K Shanmugam: The use of force by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to deal with public order incidents is governed by an internal framework. The framework calibrates the response according to the severity and risk of the incident, is grounded on de-escalation and premised on legality, proportionality and safety.
This framework applies in the deployment of water cannons. SPF's water cannons are intended only for large-scale incidents where there is significant public disorder. Even so, the officers must consider the safety of the public and rioters before deploying the cannons.
The SPF regularly reviews the framework and its tactics, incorporating lessons learnt from overseas and the latest technology.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Singapore Citizenship and Permanent Residency Granted by Age and Gender from 2015 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"18 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs for all individuals granted Singapore citizenship and Permanent Residency respectively for each year from 2015 to 2025, how many were between 18 and 45 years of age with a breakdown by gender.
Mr K Shanmugam: The average number of individuals granted Citizenship and Permanent Residency annually from 2015 to 2025 for the ages between 18 and 45, with a breakdown by sex is reflected in the table below.
19 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) since 2021, how many missing persons have been reported and how many have been found within a month; and (b) whether the Government has assessed the feasibility of using the new SG Alert system to send location-based notifications of missing persons to mobile phone users in the vicinity of the missing person report, and if not, why not.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2021 to 2025, there were around 1,300 missing persons reported annually. The Police do not track the time taken to locate a missing person. This can vary significantly from case to case. When the Police receive a missing person report, investigations will be launched to locate the person. The Police will accord priority to vulnerable missing persons, including young children, elderly persons and persons with intellectual disabilities. The large majority of vulnerable missing persons are found within the day.
SG Alert is designed to expeditiously alert the public to time-sensitive and life-threatening emergencies. When the public receives a SG Alert, it is a trigger to them to immediately take protective and life-preserving actions. Frequent and overuse of the SG Alert for a wide variety of scenarios, including to achieve objectives for which it is not designed, like notifications of missing persons, would desensitise the public to its alerts and the sense of urgency associated with it and reduce its effectiveness as a national emergency communication capability.
The Police have well-established procedures to locate missing persons, including appealing for information from the public where appropriate. Such appeals are published through various channels, including social media.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Internal Security Audit Protocols for Corruption Cases Involving Staff Members in Defence-Related Organisations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether there is an established protocol to conduct internal security audits whenever a staff member at a defence related organisation is charged with corruption; (b) if so, whether such audits specifically investigate if national security secrets or sensitive operational data have been compromised; and (c) what additional oversight measures are taken for procurement involving sensitive facilities.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Defence has established protocols to audit sensitive areas and corruption cases for security breaches. Appropriate scrutiny and governance measures are in place. We cannot share further details for security reasons.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Singaporeans and Permanent Residents Recruited for SAF Volunteer Corps by Gender from 2015 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence for each year from 2015 to 2025, how many (i) Singaporeans and (ii) Permanent Residents signed up to the SAF Volunteer Corps, with a breakdown by gender.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Since the Singapore Armed Forces Volunteer Corps (SAFVC) was established in 2014, over 1,500 men and women have completed training and served as SAFVC Volunteers (SVs). Presently, there are about 1,100 in-service SVs, comprising 52% male and 48% female. About seven in 10 of our in-service SVs are new Citizens or Permanent Residents.
Interest in joining the SAFVC has grown significantly over the years. In the past five years, we have received an annual average of around 900 applications, with about 1,300 applications received in 2025, compared to an annual average of around 600 from 2014 to 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data for Median Total Out-of-Pocket Expenditure from First Antenatal Visit to Delivery in Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry can provide data for the median out-of-pocket total payments from the first visit to childbirth for pregnancies managed by public hospitals; and (b) if so, what is the amount.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not specifically track bill data for specialist outpatient clinic antenatal care. In 2024, about eight in 10 Singapore Citizens had no out-of-pocket payments for subsidised deliveries at a public hospital.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Petrochemical Feedstock Cost Pressures on Public Hospital Procurement and Diversification of Medical Supply Chain","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether rising petrochemical feedstock costs due to Middle East tensions have increased procurement costs for public hospitals and polyclinics; (b) how the Ministry ensures such cost increases are not passed to patients; and (c) whether Singapore has diversified suppliers for plastics-dependent medical consumables beyond Middle East-linked supply chains.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) has seen some increases in procurement costs for certain medical consumables used in our public hospitals and polyclinics since the beginning of March 2026.
However, the impact has been manageable. Immediate supply disruption through the Straits of Hormuz are minimal as medical supplies from this route represent well below 1% of total medical supplies, which constitute about 12% of total healthcare costs. There has been no impact on our stockpiles.
Nevertheless, we are monitoring potential secondary effects. The global supply chain is intricate and disrupted petrochemical products could affect ingredients for medical consumables, like gloves and syringes, as well as chemicals used in pharmaceutical production. We are closely monitoring these downstream effects.
The Agency of Logistics and Procurement Services (ALPS) leverages bulk purchasing across the public healthcare system and works closely with suppliers to negotiate better rates and stabilise prices. MOH has also diversified our supplier base for medical consumables, sourcing from multiple regions, including Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Americas.
Our current response measures include maintaining stockpiles of essential supplies, monitoring usage, minimising wastage, working with trusted suppliers and preparing contingency plans. MOH will closely monitor global supply conditions and their impact on public healthcare costs and adjust our sourcing strategies accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Subsidies for Pre-IVF Fertility Tests in Ongoing Review of Fertility Health Policies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider subsidies for pre-IVF fertility tests as part of the ongoing review for fertility health policies.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Today, patients who are medically indicated to undergo fertility tests receive subsidies of up to 70% at public specialist outpatient clinics.
The Ministry of Health is working with the Prime Minister's Office on an ongoing review of fertility health policies, including financing support for fertility tests.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Current Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines and Expansion of Screening to Non-Smokers for Early Detection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review the Screening Test Review Committee's current lung cancer screening guidelines; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider expanding the use of low-dose computed tomography screening to non-smokers in Singapore to better reflect local risk profiles and improve early detection outcomes.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This question has been addressed by the Ministry of Health's answer to Oral Question No 15 during the Parliamentary sitting on 6 March 2026. [Please refer to \"Assessment of Taiwan's National Lung Cancer Early Detection Programme\", Official Report, 6 March 2026, Vol 96, Issue 26, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review on Integrated Shield Plan Distribution Model and Impact on Overall Healthcare Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will review the current Integrated Shield Plan distribution model, including commission structures, to assess their impact on overall healthcare costs; and (b) whether a direct-purchase insurance model can be introduced to cut out costs incurred from agent commission and to lower the costs of insurance premiums.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The bulk of premiums increases for Integrated Shield Plans are due to claims. Commissions constitute a small part of premiums. Financial advisors play a useful role to help consumers to assess and choose suitable insurance plans according to their needs. Insurers are free to introduce other distribution channels.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Participation Rates of Seniors in Fall-Risk Prevention Programmes and Outcomes in Past Five Years, and Future Expansion Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the number of seniors who have participated in fall-risk awareness or prevention programmes organised by the Government in the past five years; (b) what is the assessment on the effectiveness of these programmes in reducing falls and fall-related injuries; and (c) whether there are any plans to introduce new or expand these programmes, including any targets and timelines.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Seniors can access a wide range of programmes in the community that help reduce their risk of falls. These are offered by various organisations, such as the Health Promotion Board (HPB), Sport Singapore (SportSG), the People's Association and Active Ageing Centres (AACs).
Over the past five years, HPB's targeted programmes, like Steady Lah, and SportSG's Combat Age-related Loss of Muscle (CALM) programme at Active Health Labs and AACs have attracted a total participation of more than 25,000.
We have seen results from these targeted programmes. For example, seven in 10 seniors who attended HPB's targeted programmes demonstrated functional improvements in strength, flexibility and gait speed. For CALM, 85% of seniors improved in at least three of the five measurements, that is, skeletal muscle index, handgrip strength, gait speed, sit-to-stand and functional reach. HPB and SportSG plan to expand these programmes to reach another 10,000 seniors by end-2026.
Beyond these programmes, seniors can take part in self-directed activities, such as tapping on Age Strong on the Healthy 365 app that provides customised workouts and falls prevention tips.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Age-of-Diagnosis Trends for Key Cancers over Past 10 Years and Reviewing Subsidised Screening Age Thresholds for Younger Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the trend in age-of-diagnosis for colorectal, breast, lung and stomach cancers among Singapore residents over the past 10 years; (b) whether the refresh by the Screening Test Review Committee 2026 explicitly reviewed these age-of-diagnosis trends; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider lowering subsidised screening age thresholds in light of rising incidence among Singaporeans below current threshold ages.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Between 2013 to 2023, the median age at which individuals were diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung and stomach cancer has increased for all four cancers.
The Screening Test Review Committee in consultation with relevant clinical experts considers local epidemiological data, the available evidence for effectiveness of specific screening tests and relevant international and local guidelines in developing its recommendations.
The Ministry of Health's screening policies take reference from these recommendations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Recorded Pregnancy Losses and Demographic Trends in Singapore over Past Five Years, and Follow-Up Care and Psychological Support","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the annual number of recorded pregnancy losses in Singapore over the past five years, broken down by miscarriage, stillbirth and other categories; (b) what demographic and medical trends have been observed, including maternal age and underlying conditions; and (c) what proportion of women with pregnancy losses receive follow-up medical or psychological support.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not track the number of pregnancy losses.
Advanced maternal age is associated with an increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus and pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, which increase the risk of pregnancy loss. In Singapore, the median age of resident live-birth for first-time mothers has increased from 30 to 32 years old over the last 10 years.
All women with pregnancy loss at the public hospitals are given medical support. Psychological support is also available to all who require it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparative Study of Surgical Procedure Unit Costs in Singapore Against Other Ageing Developed Economies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has conducted comparative studies on the unit cost of common surgical procedures in Singapore against other developed economies with ageing populations, such as Japan; and (b) if so, what local key cost drivers have been identified.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health has not conducted such studies on the unit cost of specific surgical procedures against other developed economies because it is not meaningful. Cost structures vary across countries due to differences in labour market, economic conditions, demography and healthcare financing systems.
A broader comparison shows that Singapore spends less on healthcare as a share of gross domestic product than other developed economies, including Japan, yet maintains overall good health outcomes.
Key cost drivers of healthcare are our ageing population, medical advancements to improve life spans and increases in healthcare manpower and other operating costs. To manage these drivers, we promote value-based care, focus on population health, develop and publish fee benchmarks and curtailed over-coverage of insurance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introduction of Standardised Malnutrition Screening at Polyclinics and Active Ageing Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in respect of recent media reports that about 40 percent of hospitalised patients aged 65 and above were at risk of malnutrition in 2025, (a) whether the Ministry will introduce standardised malnutrition screening at all polyclinics and Active Ageing Centres; and (b) if so, what timeline is envisaged for this.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The answer to Question No 31 will be addressed together with similar questions filed by the Member at a subsequent sitting. [Please refer to \"Incorporating Dental Screening and Malnutrition Risk Assessment into Healthier SG\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Presence of US-Recalled Eye Drops in Singapore's Market and Regulatory Assurance of Eye Product Hygiene Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health with reference to the nationwide voluntary recall of eye drops in the United States initiated on 3 March 2026 (a) whether any of these eye products are sold in Singapore; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that the eye products sold in Singapore meet stringent hygiene standards.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The lubricating eyedrops manufactured by K.C. Pharmaceuticals and recalled by United States Food and Drug Administration in March 2026 are not registered for sale in Singapore.
All eyedrops need to be registered with the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) prior to any import or supply in Singapore. As part of the registration process, HSA reviews the product's quality, safety and performance, including the sterilisation process and shelf life in accordance with relevant international standards. Manufacturers must also hold a valid ISO 13485 certification, which is a validation that robust quality controls are in place throughout the design and production to ensure that stringent hygiene standards are met. In addition, HSA conducts post-market surveillance of any eye drops marketed if there are any adverse events reported, both locally and globally, to review if product recalls should be initiated.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Carbon Tax Revenue Allocation Across Decarbonisation, Business Transition and Household Support, and Mechanism for Independent Oversight","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what percentage of the carbon tax revenue collected since 2024 has been channelled to (i) facilitate the development of decarbonisation solutions (ii) support businesses' shift to new low-carbon and more energy-efficient solutions and (iii) cushion the impact on households; (b) whether there is an independent mechanism to track the distributional impact of such revenue; and (c) if not, whether such a mechanism will be established.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Government channels carbon tax revenue towards facilitating the development of decarbonisation solutions which require significant capital investment and supporting businesses' shift to new low-carbon and more energy efficient solutions.
Expenditures on decarbonisation and energy efficient solutions, thus far, comprise almost a quarter of carbon tax revenue collected since 2019. This includes support for manufacturing facilities and data centres under the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions (REG(E)), for them to undertake eligible projects that improve their energy efficiency and reduce emissions. We expect expenditures on decarbonisation to increase to support the implementation of future decarbonisation measures that are currently still in development and catalyse the development of nascent low-carbon technologies.
The tracking of the collection and expenditure of the carbon tax revenue is managed internally by the relevant Government agencies, like other taxes and fees. There is no intention to set up a separate tracking mechanism.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Equitable Distribution of Carbon Tax-Funded Decarbonisation Support Between SMEs and Large Firms and Safeguards Against Disproportionate Capture","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"
34 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) have received decarbonisation support financed by carbon tax revenues since 2022 compared to larger companies; (b) what mechanisms prevent larger firms from disproportionately capturing such support; and (c) whether the Government publishes verified emissions reductions achieved per dollar of carbon tax revenue spent. \n\n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Government is committed to supporting Singapore-based companies of all sizes in the transition to a low-carbon economy. We do this through measures that are funded by several revenue sources, including carbon tax revenue.
We tailor solutions to support businesses, recognising that smaller firms may require greater assistance to undertake capital-intensive investments. For example, under the Energy Efficiency Grant, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) receive up to 70% support for the adoption of pre-approved energy efficient equipment, compared to up to 30% for non-SMEs. The Government recently announced that the Energy Efficiency Grant (Base Tier) will be expanded from six eligible sectors to all sectors and extended to 31 March 2028 to better help our companies adopt energy efficient equipment. The Enterprise Development Grant for Sustainability also helps fund up to 70% of sustainability projects for SMEs, which could include resource optimisation projects that help them decarbonise.
Singapore's carbon tax is part of a suite of mitigation measures that support the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Government regularly publishes verified emission and carbon tax revenue figures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consideration to Release Water Sales Statistics by Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider releasing water sales statistics by industry, instead of the current disaggregation only into domestic and non-domestic use.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: We have no plans to release water sales statistics by industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Current Regulations and Protection Measures For Children and Teenagers Against Social Media Addiction","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information in light of reports that Meta and Google have been found liable in a social media addiction case in the United States, whether the Government will (i) review current regulations on social media use by children and teenagers and (ii) consider further measures to better protect youths from harmful or addictive online content.
37 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government will consider mandating daily usage time limits and restricted access hours on social media platforms for users under 14 years old, noting that China's Douyin currently imposes a 40-minute daily limit and restricts access to between 6am and 10pm for such users.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will cover the questions raised by Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Louis Chua, Miss Rachel Ong and Mr Abdul Muhaimin in today's Order Paper, as well as questions by Mr Chua, Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Victor Lye filed for subsequent sittings relating to the Government's measures to enhance safeguards for children and adolescents when they go on social media platforms. If the Members of Parliament (MPs) are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.
We share the concerns Members have raised regarding online safety for children and youths on social media platforms. Today, the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services already requires designated social media services to put in place systems and processes to minimise users' exposure to harmful online content, especially younger users.
As the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) announced during our Committee of Supply debate, we plan to extend age assurance requirements to designated social media services. Age assurance is a critical step in ensuring that designated social media services can identify young users and provide them with protective measures on their platforms. We will also consider similar safeguards for online gaming.
We are determined to go further to enhance safeguards for children on designated social media services. MDDI is carefully studying features on these services, such as direct messaging and autoplay, which can result in unwanted interactions with strangers or excessive use for children and adolescents.
To that end, MDDI is in active discussions with the designated social media services to outline our expectations of the standards they must meet. We will also consult the public, including parents and youths to better understand their experiences and perspectives across different age groups, to determine the safeguards that are necessary and appropriate. The outcome of these engagements will shape our policy response, which may include restricting access to services with age-inappropriate features.
Beyond regulatory measures, the Government has stepped up efforts to support parents in guiding their children's digital use. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has disallowed the use of smartphones and smartwatches during school hours, including during co-curricular activities, in primary and secondary schools. The Ministry of Health (MOH) updated its Guidance on Screen Use in Children aged below 12 years to provide parents with clearer and more actionable guidance on screen use practices in children. The Health Promotion Board, MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development jointly developed the Parenting for Wellness toolkit to equip parents with key knowledge and skills to parent effectively in the digital age and prepare their children to navigate the digital environment safely. The Infocomm Media Development Authority has also launched a set of resources on the Digital for Life portal to empower parents to help their child develop healthy digital habits from young, with content tailored to children's different developmental stages and key digital milestones.
Through these regulatory and public education efforts, we will continue to foster a digital environment where our children can grow and thrive safely.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Holding Gaming Platforms Accountable for Addictive Algorithmic Design Targeting Minors and Mandating Reporting on Usage Data and Duty-of-care Obligations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025 holds gaming platforms accountable for algorithmic design that foreseeably causes addiction in minors; (b) if so, what data must gaming platforms submit regarding usage patterns among users under 18 years old; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider imposing regulations that mandate duty-of-care obligations for addictive design features on gaming platforms.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Member’s questions centre on safeguards for young users of online gaming platforms and accountability of the platforms when harms occur.
The Code of Practice for Online Safety – App Distribution Services requires Designated App Distribution Services (DADSs) – Apple App Store, Google Play Store, Huawei AppGallery, Microsoft Store, and Samsung Galaxy Store – to put in place regulatory measures to minimise users’ risk of exposure to harmful content, including those found in gaming apps. Among other obligations, DADSs are required to put in place age assurance measures to reduce the likelihood of users under 18 accessing and downloading age-inappropriate apps, including gaming apps.
In addition, when harms occur, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act provides redress to victims. The Act covers 13 specified harms that are among the most severe and prevalent harms experienced by Singapore users, and include those occurring on gaming platforms. These harms may be caused by user behaviour and may also be amplified through algorithmic design. Platforms are held accountable for timely responses when notified of these harms. Failure to do so may be an offence and may result in civil liability.
The Ministry of Digital Development and Infocomm (MDDI) is committed to fostering safe and age-appropriate digital environments for young users. The Member may refer to recent statements about MDDI’s plans to improve online safety for young users such as minimising unwanted interactions and excessive use.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Personal Data Protection Act 2012 to Address Use of Inferred or Derived Data Generated by AI","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Ministry intends to review the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 to address the use of inferred or derived data, including behavioural profiles generated by Artificial Intelligence systems; and (b) if so, what principles will guide such a review.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Under the Personal Data Protection Act, data about an identifiable individual is considered personal data and an organisation has obligations to safeguard such data in its possession or control. This also covers data about the individual that an organisation derives in the course of business from such personal data.
The Personal Data Protection Commission has published Advisory Guidelines on the Use of Personal Data in Artificial Intelligence (AI) Recommendation and Decision Systems. It sets out principles to guide organisations and consumers on the responsible collection and use of personal data in AI systems, such as using data only for legitimate business purposes and limiting data collection to what is needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Defining Significant Telecommunication Outages to Hours Disrupted and Consumers Affected and Pursuing Third-Party Damages and Restitution for Disruption on 18 April 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how is a significant outage to telecommunication services defined in terms of the number of hours disrupted or consumers affected; (b) whether the current regulatory framework allows the Government to pursue third parties who damage the fibre network; and (c) if so, whether the Government will claim any financial restitutions for the damages caused by the disruption on 18 April 2026.
Mrs Josephine Teo: My response will address the questions filed by Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Low Wu Yang Andre in today's Order Paper, as well as the question filed by Ms He Ting Ru for tomorrow's Sitting, as they relate to the same incident. If the Member is satisfied with the response, she may wish to withdraw her question after this session. [Please refer to \"Reviewing Adequacy of Path Diversity of Passive Fibre Infrastructure Owners\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
On 18 April 2026, a subcontractor conducting boring works along Marymount Road for the North-South Corridor project struck and damaged 25 underground telecommunication cables owned by NetLink Trust and Singtel. This disrupted broadband services to approximately 5,000 subscribers in parts of Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, Sengkang and Punggol. Broadband services were progressively restored, with full recovery taking approximately 20 hours. A disruption of this duration and scale is a significant service disruption.
We have rules in place to minimise the risk of telecommunication cable cuts due to construction activity and earthworks. In 2019, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) introduced the Earthworks Requirements for Prevention of Damage to Telecommunication Cables, under the Telecommunications Act. They set out a multi-step process that earthwork contractors must comply with before commencing any earthworks near underground telecommunications cables. Measures include engaging licensed cable detection workers, verifying cable locations through trial holes and obtaining approval from relevant telecommunications operators before commencing earthworks. IMDA conducts regular dialogues with earthworks contractors to ensure that they are aware of these requirements and can take necessary precautions to prevent cable damage.
Contractors that fail to comply with the Earthworks Requirements and damage telecommunications cables face serious penalties. A contractor who damages telecommunications cables is liable, on conviction, to a fine of up to $1 million or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.
The Government's role is to raise awareness and introduce safety measures to prevent damage to telecommunication cables. When cable cuts still occur despite the best efforts to prevent them, IMDA will investigate and, where necessary, commence legal proceedings against the errant parties. The recovery of repair costs and losses is a commercial matter for the affected operators to pursue against the responsible parties.
Besides protecting our underground telecommunication cables from accidental cuts, IMDA also requires NetLink Trust to ensure that its network is resilient to outages. This includes investing in projects through a dedicated Capital Expenditure Reserve Fund, to enhance the capacity and resilience of its network. NetLink Trust has built in redundancy and path diversity in its cable routes, especially near its network core. However, nearer to homes, underground space constraints in a densely built-up city do not allow for the same degree of route duplication. Should service disruptions still occur, the Telecom Service Resiliency Code requires telecommunications operators to recover their services as quickly as possible.
Finally, we recognise the need to do more to prevent such incidents in future. IMDA is working with the Ministry of National Development and relevant infrastructure agencies to improve processes, raise the industry's capabilities and promote the adoption of advanced non-invasive technologies to detect and avoid damaging underground cables.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disciplinary Framework Against Bullying in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education as part of the new disciplinary framework against bullying (a) what safeguards will ensure that the framework is applied fairly in cases involving students with special educational needs or mental well-being issues; and (b) how will the Ministry ensure that suspensions, whether served in school or at home, are structured to be meaningful, supervised and restorative for the student.
42 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether child psychology experts were consulted in the decision to raise punitive measures for student misconduct and bullying; and (b) whether victim-centered rehabilitative or restorative measures will be explored before punishment.
43 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the mental health impact of schools caning boys as young as nine; (b) whether there is scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of caning in reducing student misconduct and bullying; (c) whether there are longitudinal studies on effects of school caning on children's cognitive development and behavioural problems in adulthood; and (d) what is the reason for applying caning only to boys.
44 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) what specific criteria and processes govern how a student's special educational needs (SEN) or mental health condition is assessed and weighed when determining disciplinary measures, including the decision to impose caning for a student offender; and (b) what structured support and follow-up protocols are in place for victims of bullying or misconduct who have SEN or mental health vulnerabilities.
45 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Education in respect of serious bullying cases, how the Ministry ensures that disciplinary actions are commensurate with the harm caused, including whether restorative measures such as structured apologies or rehabilitative programmes are used to provide accountability and closure for victims.
46 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Education (a) what common indicators will the Ministry use to assess the effectiveness of the new anti-bullying measures; and (b) whether the Ministry will track reporting rates, case response timelines, recurrence rates and student perceptions of safety across schools.
47 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education in view that standardised disciplinary measures will be implemented across all schools by 2027, (a) what outcomes framework will the Ministry use to evaluate whether the new measures reduce bullying incidence rates; and (b) whether the School Safety Scorecard or equivalent data will be published publicly to enable accountability.
48 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Minister for Education what are the Ministry's considerations for not setting up a centralised anti-bullying unit to support schools in investigating the most egregious cases of bullying and following up with disciplinary and rehabilitative actions, so as to avoid overburdening teachers.
49 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Education in respect of strengthening school-home-community partnerships to address bullying holistically (a) whether the Ministry will define standard roles and responsibilities for community partners; and (b) how the effectiveness of such partnerships in preventing and responding to bullying will be measured.
Mr Desmond Lee: My response will address the questions raised by members in relation to the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying. My response will also cover related oral and written Parliamentary Questions set down for today's and subsequent Sittings.
MOE, with the support of the COMPASS (COMmunity and PArents in Support of Schools) Council, completed the Comprehensive Action Review against Bullying and announced the recommendations on 15 April. These span four key areas and nine measures, forming a comprehensive whole-of-society approach.
Let me briefly outline the four areas.
First, we will strengthen values education. Prevention must start upstream. We will place greater emphasis on shaping students' character and social-emotional skills, so they not only know what is right, but understand why it matters. Our schools will also foster a pro-social peer culture where students look out for one another, stand together against hurtful behaviour and support those who are affected.
Second, we will strengthen the school environment. Every school must be a safe, caring and enabling environment where every student can learn and grow, where bullying and hurtful behaviour have no place. We will deepen a culture of kindness and respect, and promote empathy and kindness. At the same time, we will take more proactive action – through early identification, better reporting channels, timely intervention and firm discipline for serious cases.
Third, we will strengthen school capacity. We will provide schools with additional resources to procure additional manpower, where needed, to support our teachers in student management processes. We will also enhance professional development for our educators and tap on technology to improve case management and facilitate timely communication and intervention when incidents happen.
Finally, we will strengthen partnerships with parents, families and the community. Parents and families can reinforce positive values and character at home and partner schools to support their child's development and well-being. We will also work with community partners to promote mutual kindness and respect across all sectors of society.
Members asked about the methodology and findings of the Review. MOE looked at research and drew on resources from local and international experts. These included mental health professionals, developmental and educational psychology researchers, sociology researchers and professional mediators. As part of the review, we also engaged various stakeholders, including professionals such as researchers, counsellors and psychologists, as well as School Leaders, school staff, parents and students.
We engaged or received feedback from over 2,000 stakeholders in total. There was broad agreement that addressing bullying holistically requires a collective, sustained response involving schools, families and the wider community.
Members have asked questions relating to specific areas and recommendations of the Review. I will address these questions by focus areas. Let me start with values education.
A key goal of our education system is to develop character and social-emotional skills. As I shared in this House last September, the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) curriculum already covers these areas, including respectful behaviour online and offline. CCE equips our students to disagree appropriately, cope with negative behaviour and overcome challenges. Schools also have peer support systems, where students learn to support and stand up for one another.
Following the Review, we have strengthened CCE lessons with more interactive learning strategies and real-life scenarios. This better equips students to respond when they witness or experience bullying. We have also updated cyber wellness lessons to better address evolving online risks. These changes strengthen students' character and well-being whilst creating a more caring and supportive school environment.
Many Members have asked about our schools' disciplinary measures arising from the Review. Our schools' approach to bullying and other forms of student misconduct is fundamentally an educative process. Schools follow a structured process to ensure students' safety and well-being while addressing root causes in a timely and consistent manner. This includes making a Police report for cases which warrant Police attention. Throughout this process, schools work closely with parents, keeping them informed, collaborating on safety measures and prioritising the well-being of the students involved.
When incidents are reported, schools investigate before deciding on the appropriate disciplinary and restorative actions. Actions are tiered based on severity – from reflection and detention to suspension or caning for egregious or repeated serious offences. Disciplinary measures are always complemented with counselling and restorative actions, with the aim of helping students learn, change their behaviour and repair their relationships.
Safety plans for affected students can include separating the students, removing hurtful online content and arranging for peer support. Where affected students require additional support to manage their emotions, they may be referred to school counsellors, Special Educational Needs (SEN) Officers or to the REACH (Response, Early intervention and Assessment in Community mental Health) teams for more specialised support, particularly when persistent distress is identified.
We recognise the need for greater consistency in the management of bullying across schools. MOE has provided schools with clearer guidelines on establishing offence management processes and disciplinary measures. As circumstances differ for each case, schools will assess and take appropriate action aligned to these guidelines. All schools will also develop an anti-bullying policy by the end of 2026, based on MOE's guidelines.
To ensure case management processes remain calibrated across all schools, MOE will conduct regular focus group discussions, school engagements and reviews. Cluster superintendents, who oversee a group of schools, will provide further guidance and support to schools on the implementation of these processes.
Another important aspect pointed out by Members is parent engagement. When a case is reported to the school, the school will maintain timely communication with parents, keeping them informed and partnering them to ensure the safety and well-being of their child. However, schools will require time to look into the incident and establish facts. The time taken will vary based on the complexity of the situation. Nonetheless, when an incident is reported, schools will prioritise immediate safety measures for all students involved.
In some cases, students may not report incidents to the school but may share them with their family or friends instead. In such situations, we encourage parents to report the incident to the school and work with the school to support their child. Should parents have concerns about how an incident is managed, they should share their concerns with the school to better understand the school's approach and work with the school to resolve those concerns. Beyond that, parents can also provide feedback through MOE's online and offline feedback channels.
Some Members asked about caning as a disciplinary measure. Studies show that poorly administered and frequent corporal punishment, particularly in unregulated home settings, is associated with negative outcomes.
We recognise this, and I want to emphasise that the context in our schools is quite different. Our schools use caning as a disciplinary measure, if all the other measures are inadequate given the gravity of the misconduct. They follow strict protocols to ensure safety for the student. For instance, caning must be approved by the Principal and administered only by authorised teachers.
Schools will consider factors, such as the maturity of the student and if caning will help the student learn from his mistake. In MOE's framework, schools exercise discretion on whether to use caning as a disciplinary consequence after assessing the circumstances of the offence committed. If it is used, it is never administered in isolation but always as part of a suite of restorative and disciplinary measures. Schools will monitor the student's well-being and progress after caning and counsel the student to reflect and learn, while supporting the student's rehabilitation.
Importantly, this approach is part of a framework of disciplinary measures which provides certainty of consequences, even as we support the student perpetrator to learn from the experience. This approach is based on research which shows that children and youth learn to make better choices when there are clear boundaries enforced by firm, meaningful consequences. This has a positive impact on reducing bullying and enables the school community to feel safe to learn in an orderly environment.
Caning is meted out for boys only, and as I said earlier, is only for egregious violations. This is aligned to the Education (Schools) Regulations, which only allows caning for male students. This takes reference from the Criminal Procedure Code which states that women shall not be punished with caning. Nonetheless, this does not mean that girls who bully others are less culpable. Our schools adopt a tiered approach to discipline that ensures all students face consequences corresponding to the severity of their actions. Girls could receive consequences such as detention and/or suspension, adjustment of their conduct grade and other school-based consequences.
MOE regularly reviews our discipline guidelines, to ensure that our disciplinary measures remain appropriate. We will continue to refine our approach based on ground wisdom and research.
I will now address the questions on reporting channels. I shared in this House last September about the various reporting channels available in our schools. The Review reinforced the importance of providing safe and accessible platforms for reporting student well-being concerns.
From 2027, each school will have an online reporting platform available for students and parents. A school-based platform ensures that the platform is age-appropriate, accessible and familiar for students and parents to use. Schools will be provided with guidelines on managing reports received through the different reporting channels. However, urgent cases should still be reported directly to teachers and School Leaders rather than through the online reporting platform, so that prompt action will be taken.
Some Members have expressed concern on cyber incidents. MOE recognises the seriousness of cyber incidents, ranging from online harassment to obscene and inappropriate images that may be artificial intelligence-generated. MOE will continue to provide schools with guidance on managing all cyber-related incidents, including fact-finding processes and supporting students in reporting online harms.
When the Online Safety Commission (OSC) becomes operational by end-June 2026, victims of certain online harms, such as online harassment, doxxing and intimate image abuse, will be able to seek timely assistance. Schools will support the well-being of students who encounter negative cyber incidents and guide them to report to the OSC.
Questions were also raised by Members about incidents involving students with SEN or mental health conditions. While schools uphold disciplinary standards, schools also take into consideration each student's specific needs and circumstances.
For students with SEN or mental health conditions who have been hurt, schools will first address the immediate safety concerns. Trained school personnel will also look out for signs of distress that may not be immediately visible or explicitly communicated, and provide timely and appropriate support. The broader intent is always to enable affected students to regain their confidence and restore their sense of safety and belonging.
For students with SEN or mental health conditions who have hurt others, it is especially important to help them understand that such hurtful behaviour may affect others negatively. The consequences are educative, restorative and focused on helping the student learn and behave appropriately.
Members have raised concerns about the impact of these recommendations on staff workload.
Our intent is to go upstream – to reduce the incidence of bullying and hurtful behaviours, while strengthening and streamlining current practices. In the near term, workload may increase as our schools implement the changes. MOE will therefore provide funding for schools, on a needs-basis, to hire additional manpower to provide support while managing teacher workload. This manpower could include youth workers, pastoral care officers or parent liaison officers. MOE will also bolster support for our school counsellors when managing complex cases.
Over time, as process and norms become clearer, workload should stabilise. And if the measures succeed in reducing bullying upstream, the overall burden on our school staff should ease.
To streamline case management, MOE is also exploring technological solutions to help reduce the administrative load. For a start, MOE is developing an offence management system to support case investigation, documentation and monitoring.
We received suggestions for MOE to set up a centralised anti-bullying unit to support schools in managing egregious cases. We considered this carefully. Our schools are best placed to manage such cases. Our teachers know their students well and understand the dynamics of their school communities. Where additional expertise and support is needed in specific areas or to deal with complex cases, schools can tap on the needs-based funding to hire additional manpower or seek support and advice from their respective Cluster Superintendents.
On community partners, MOE recognises that the cultivation of values such as kindness, empathy and respect in our children requires efforts beyond the school environment. We are grateful for community partners who share this commitment. For example, the Singapore Kindness Movement partners schools through programmes, such as Friends of Singa, Kindsville initiatives and Kindness Day SG, which encourage students to lead kindness initiatives.
The Centre for Fathering works with fathers to strengthen family bonds so that children feel secure turning to their parents when they face difficulties. We encourage community partners to share their expertise and initiatives as part of this society-wide effort against bullying.
Members have also asked about data, outcome indicators and measures of effectiveness. First, we will keep track of the implementation of these recommendations through regular engagements with educators and parents, as well as focus group discussions. Second, we will continue to watch student management outcomes. In terms of data on bullying incidence, as a baseline, bullying incidents in the last five years averaged three incidents per 1,000 primary school students and eight per 1,000 secondary school students per year. We will study these outcomes and review if more needs to be done.
I thank Members for their interest in this issue. While schools play a central role in creating a safe, caring and enabling environment for our students, addressing hurtful behaviours and bullying takes a whole of society effort. MOE will work with our schools, families and the wider community to create environments where every child feels safe, valued and supported to reach their full potential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rates of Applied Learning Module Across Student Profiles, School Types, Providers and Funding Models","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the differences in Applied Learning Module take-up rates across school types and student profiles; (b) how does the balance of modules provided through ITE, polytechnics and private vendors vary across schools; and (c) how are such modules funded, including whether students on financial assistance receive subsidies.
Mr Desmond Lee: Students can take up to three Applied Learning Modules (ApLMs) during their secondary education. Students do not have to pay for ApLMs as the Ministry of Education (MOE) provides schools with grants to cover ApLM costs.
ApLMs offered by polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) span six broad clusters. These are Business, Engineering, Information Technology, Hospitality and Tourism, Mathematics and Science, and Media and Design. Schools register for their preferred modules on the ApLM portal. Schools can also engage the services of private vendors to customise and deliver other applied learning experiences as another form of ApLM.
More than four in five secondary schools enrol students in ApLM programmes each year. Schools with more students progressing to polytechnics and ITEs tend to have higher take-up rates. MOE does not track the take-up rate across student profiles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measuring and Addressing Food Waste Produced with Central Kitchen Meal Model and Implementing Measures to Reduce Food Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the average food waste, as a percentage of total food produced, since the start of the Central Kitchen Meal Model; (b) whether the Ministry has identified the main sources of such waste, including overproduction, logistical inefficiencies and student consumption patterns; and (c) what measures, if any, are being implemented to reduce the said food waste.
Mr Desmond Lee: We take food waste seriously because it is an environmental concern. In the context of school meals, food waste gives us an indication of whether students are taking well to the food from the school canteen. The same concern applies regardless whether the school is operating under the Individual Stallholder System or the Central Kitchen Meal Model (CKMM).
In the CKMM schools, our observations so far indicate that wastage patterns vary depending on several factors, including dish popularity, portion sizes and student receptivity to new menu items. Food items like vegetables and fruits tend to see higher waste, which is a pattern we also observe in canteens operating traditional stalls.
The Ministry of Education and schools are working closely with the three CKMM operators to continually refine meals based on students' feedback. Even though operators and schools cannot satisfy all taste preferences, we are taking measures such as replacing less popular dishes, offering smaller portion sizes relative to the age group, and making healthier options more appealing in presentation and preparation. We also work closely with the Health Promotion Board to balance nutritional requirements and taste, so that students will enjoy their meals and waste less food.
On food waste data, we have been actively collecting observations since the CKMM's rollout, and are in the process of establishing baseline measurements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Community Orders and Sentences Under Part 17 of Criminal Procedure Code in 2024 and 2025 and Top Five Offence Types","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Law for the years 2024 and 2025 respectively (a) in how many criminal cases handled by the State Courts were community orders or community sentences under Part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code made; and (b) what were the top five offence types for which such orders or sentences were made.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts. The top five offences for which such sentences were imposed were: (a) theft; (b) hurt offences; (c) Road Traffic Act 1961 offences such as driving without licence; (d) driving without insurance offences under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960; and (e) criminal trespass.
In 2025, community sentences under part 17 of the CPC were imposed in 112 criminal cases handled by the State Courts. The top five offences for which such sentences were imposed were: (a) theft; (b) Road Traffic Act offences, such as driving without licence; (c) hurt offences; (d) driving without insurance offences under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act; and (e) voyeurism and sexual exposure offences under sections 377BB to 377BF of the Penal Code 1871.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of AI Adoption on Junior Lawyer Training Pipelines and Addressing Developmental Gaps Through One-year Practice Training Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"53 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the risk that widespread AI adoption in law firms will reduce the volume of routine work, such as research and drafting, through which junior lawyers have traditionally developed professional judgment; and (b) whether the new one-year practice training framework under the revised admission process is designed to address this risk specifically.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity. [Please refer to \"Workload Reduction at Law Firms from AI Use and Guidelines for Such Use\", Official Report, 6 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 30, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing WICA 2019 Requirement for Doctor-Prescribed Therapy Billing and Application in Private Healthcare Settings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has reviewed the requirement under the Work Injury Compensation Act 2019 for physiotherapy and occupational therapy expenses to be prescribed and billed by a doctor; and (b) how this requirement is applied in private healthcare settings where such services are typically billed directly by therapists.
Dr Tan See Leng: Expenses for physiotherapy and occupational therapy services are claimable under the Work Injury Compensation Act when they are prescribed and billed in a hospital or by a registered medical practitioner in a private clinic. Services directly billed by therapists in private clinics are not claimable. This ensures appropriate medical oversight of the worker's treatment plan and avoids excessive escalation of healthcare and work injury insurance costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"New Singaporean Entrants Joining Food and Beverage Sector for Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in each of the past three years (a) how many new Singaporean entrants have joined the food and beverage sector; and (b) how are these figures distributed between full-time and part-time roles.
Dr Tan See Leng: In the past three years, the number of resident entrants into the Food and Beverage Services sector was 16,100 in 2023, 14,700 in 2024, and 14,000 in 2025. These entrants were broadly evenly distributed between full-time and part-time roles.
The breakdown is shown in Table 1.
56 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the impact of the age threshold of 67 years to qualify for the concessionary migrant domestic worker levy on Singapore citizens aged between 60 and 66 years who live alone and need a migrant domestic worker; and (b) whether a lower age threshold or additional means-tested concession will be considered for such seniors.
Dr Tan See Leng: The age threshold to qualify for the Migrant Domestic Worker (MDW) levy concession for seniors was increased from 65 to 67 in 2019 in light of the increasing life expectancy and improving health of Singaporeans.
Seniors below 67 years old who require assistance with at least one activity of daily living (ADL) continue to qualify for the MDW levy concession for Persons with Disability, in view of their caregiving needs. ADLs include washing, dressing, toileting, feeding and walking or moving around.
We have no plans to lower the age threshold and will continue to monitor and review the levy concession eligibility to support households with genuine caregiving needs in a targeted manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Resident Workforce Considered Involuntarily Overqualified by Age Group, Sector and Qualification and Tracking Wage Scarring","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the breakdown of the resident workforce that is involuntarily overqualified by (i) age group (ii) sector and (iii) highest qualification; and (b) whether the Ministry tracks wage scarring or slower career progression among workers assessed to be involuntarily overqualified.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Member may refer to the combined oral reply delivered on 5 May 2026. [Please refer to \"Survey Finding of Workers Being Overqualified for Their Roles and Implications on Career and Wage Progression, and Underemployment\", Official Report, 5 May 2026, Vol 96, Issue 29, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Uptake of CPF Investment Scheme and Proportion of Members Outperforming the OA Interest Rate in Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower in each year over the last 10 years (a) what is the number and proportion of CPF members who have invested under the CPF Investment Scheme and (b) of those who have invested their CPF-OA savings, the number and proportion of members who have outperformed the 2.5% interest rate (i) each year and (ii) cumulatively across 10 years.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board (CPFB) regularly publishes data on the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS) participation and CPFIS-Ordinary Account performance. The data requested by the Member can be found on CPFB's website.1
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : https://www.cpf.gov.sg/member/infohub/reports-and-statistics/cpf-statistics/investment-statistics"],"footNoteQuestions":["58"],"questionNo":"58"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Actions Against Employers' Unlawful Overtime Pay Arrangements and Existing Support for Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Manpower following the High Court's April 2026 ruling that using a fixed monthly allowance to offset overtime pay is unlawful (a) whether the Ministry has assessed how prevalent this practice is; (b) what enforcement actions the Ministry will take against employers found to have adopted similar arrangements; and (c) what support structures exist to help migrant workers pursue such pay claims after leaving Singapore.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations, employers of migrant workers cannot offset overtime payment from fixed monthly allowances specified in the employment contract.
Migrant workers who encounter such practices should inform the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). MOM will engage the companies concerned and, if necessary, take enforcement actions, including issuing warnings and imposing fines. So far, the number of such complaints has been small.
Migrant workers who face a shortfall in overtime payment should file a claim with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). Those with valid salary claims, including shortfall in overtime pay, can remain in Singapore to seek alternative employment until their claims are resolved at TADM or at adjudication at the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT). For those who prefer to return to their home countries, remote mediation by TADM and adjudication by the ECT can be arranged. Migrant workers can also approach the Migrant Workers' Centre for legal assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Greater CPF Investment Flexibility for Members Reinvesting Capital Gains after Using Ordinary Account Funds for Housing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether CPF members who had previously invested their Ordinary Account (OA) funds up to a higher investment limit may, after using OA funds for housing, be allowed to reinvest the capital gains from those investments without being constrained by the revised lower investment limit following a housing purchase; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider providing greater flexibility for such reinvestments.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) members who wish to reinvest their CPF Investment Scheme-Ordinary Account (CPFIS-OA) sale proceeds, including any capital gains, from their CPF Investment Account can already do so within two months of sale without being subject to the $20,000 OA balance threshold. The additional CPFIS-OA investment limits on stock and gold due to their inherently riskier nature, will nonetheless continue to apply.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Uptake of Uplifting Employment Credit and Employment Retention Rates of Ex-offenders in 2024 and 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower for the years 2024 and 2025 respectively (a) how many ex-offenders were hired by employers who claimed the Uplifting Employment Credit (UEC); (b) how many employers benefitted from the UEC in these years; and (c) what percentage of these employees remained in employment after six months of commencement.
Dr Tan See Leng: The requested figures are in the appended table.
62 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider implementing a simplified State Courts enforcement process or Government-led enforcement support for employees with established salary claims under (i) Singapore's Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management settlement agreements or (ii) Employment Claims Tribunal orders, where employers have defaulted on payment, to reduce the time, cost and procedural burden of enforcement.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) supports employees with the enforcement of their salary claims agreed under a Settlement Agreement or established through Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) orders. An employee who does not receive payment by the due date can approach TADM, which will engage the employer on the payment obligation. Upon TADM's intervention, most employers would comply with the agreements and Court orders. If the employers remain recalcitrant, TADM can advise the employee on the application process to the Courts to enforce the Court order.
The Ministry of Law had earlier announced that a new Bill will be introduced later this year on reforms to streamline the enforcement of civil judgments, including orders by the ECT. More details will be announced by the Ministry of Law in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Active CPF Members Making Higher CPF Contributions after Wage Ceiling Increase","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari asked the Minister for Manpower what is the proportion of active CPF Members who had to make higher contributions when the CPF Ordinary Wage ceiling was raised from $6,000 in 2023 to $8,000 in 2026.
Dr Tan See Leng: About 20% of active Central Provident Fund (CPF) members benefitted from higher CPF contributions, from themselves as well as their employers, when the CPF Ordinary Wage ceiling was raised from $6,000 in 2023 to $8,000 in 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Framework Against Wildlife Trafficking","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for National Development (a) what obligations do freight forwarders and shipping carriers bear when seized wildlife products are found transiting through Singapore; (b) whether corporate actors in the logistics chain have been prosecuted in the past five years; and (c) how does Singapore's enforcement framework deter repeat use of identical concealment methods across separate seizures.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The National Parks Board (NParks) works closely with Singapore Customs and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to apply a risk assessment framework to screen and identify cargo for further inspection at our borders. Agencies regularly review risk profiles of entities, trade routes and shipment methods to ensure that the framework remains robust.
Local freight forwarders and shipping carriers are required to exercise due diligence in their operations, and must comply with the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) whereby scheduled species transiting in Singapore require valid permits. NParks has taken action against parties who did not comply with the ESA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rationale for 12-month Disqualification Cap of Animals and Birds Act 1965 and Strengthening Disqualification Penalties for Serious Offences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"65 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for the 12-month disqualification cap under section 43B of the Animals and Birds Act 1965 (ABA); (b) whether the Ministry will raise the maximum and introduce lifetime disqualification for the most serious cases; and (c) when the ongoing ABA review will be completed.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The disqualification order regime under section 43B of the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) was introduced via the 2014 amendments to ABA, following the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee's recommendations to strengthen animal welfare enforcement in 2013.
The National Parks Board (NParks) is undertaking a review of the ABA, including the disqualification order regime and penalties, to ensure that our regulatory framework remains effective in deterring animal cruelty. NParks has been engaging stakeholders as part of the review and details of the public consultation on the draft amendments will be shared later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Prevalence of Playground Use Among Children and Efforts to Encourage More Playground Use","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry has plans to (i) collect data on the prevalence of playground use among children and (ii) encourage children to spend more time at playgrounds.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the National Parks Board (NParks) develop playgrounds based on the Play Values Framework and Design Guidelines for Nature Playgardens respectively to provide more engaging and diverse experiences at playgrounds within our housing estates and parks. Agencies also implement measures to enhance the thermal comfort of playground users, such as using materials suited for our tropical climate. Through these measures, HDB and NParks would like to encourage children to spend more time at playgrounds.
HDB tracks data on the usage of estate facilities including playgrounds in the five-yearly Sample Household Survey (SHS). SHS findings in 2018 and 2023 to 2024 show that the satisfaction and overall usage levels of HDB playgrounds among households with young children (aged 12 and below) remain high.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Buildings in Compliance with Code on Accessibility and Strengthening Code Requirements for Changing Rooms in Public Facing Commercial Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for National Development (a) what proportion of buildings have complied with the Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment; and (b) whether BCA will consider requiring the accessible changing room under the Code to (i) include ostomy cleaning sinks and (ii) be mandatory in all public-facing commercial buildings within a defined timeline.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: From 2019 to 2025, more than 80% of new buildings that were completed and existing buildings undergoing addition and alteration works that require plan submission to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) have fully complied with the prevailing Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment (Code). The remaining buildings were exempted from full compliance with the Code through waivers or modifications to the requirements, due to technical constraints that make complying with the full requirements impractical.
Introduced in 2019, the requirement for accessible changing rooms applies to large public-facing building types, such as shopping complexes, sports facilities, community clubs, hospitals, polyclinics and major transport interchanges.
While the provision of ostomy cleaning sinks is currently not mandatory, BCA introduced the Companion Guide to the Code earlier this year. The Guide provides design recommendations and encourages the installation of ostomy facilities in public-facing buildings. BCA will continue to review and update the Code.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conducting Spot Checks and Public Engagements at Active Mobility Device Hotspots to Encourage Safe Night Riding Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"68 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether Active Mobility Enforcement Officers (AMEOs) conduct spot checks and public engagements at active mobility device hotspots to encourage safe riding practices at night, which practices include (i) wearing helmets and (ii) for electric bikes and bicycles to have front white lights and rear red lights for road-use; and (b) if not, whether LTA will consider requiring AMEOs to do so.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Yes, they do.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Direct Individual and Dealers or Authorised Agents COE Bidding Patterns in Past Five Years and Tracking of Unique Bidders Versus Total Bids Submitted","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"69 Mr Victor Lye asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) for each COE category over the past five years, what proportion of bids and successful bids were submitted by (i) individuals directly and (ii) motor dealers or their authorised agents on behalf of customers, respectively; and (b) whether the Ministry tracks the number of unique bidders versus total bids submitted in each exercise.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: From 2021 to 2025, the proportion of all bids and all successful bids submitted by motor dealers for each Certificate of Entitlement category are provided in Table 1.
The Land Transport Authority does not track the number of unique bidders in each exercise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of New Car Purchases under Guaranteed COE Packages in Past Five Years and Average Number of Dealer Bidding Rounds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"70 Mr Victor Lye asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) in each of the past five years, what proportion of new car purchases were transacted under guaranteed COE packages; and (b) whether the Ministry has data on the average number of bidding rounds required for dealers to fulfil such guaranteed COE commitments.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Vehicle sales, including car sales packages with Certificate of Entitlement, are private commercial arrangements between buyers and sellers. The Ministry of Transport does not have the information requested by the Member.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COE Bid Revision Patterns During Bidding Window in COE Exercises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"71 Mr Victor Lye asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what proportion of bids in each COE exercise are revised upwards during the bidding window; and (b) whether such bid revisions are predominantly associated with dealer-linked bids or individual bidders.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In 2025, 28% of all bids were revised during the bidding window, of which the vast majority were bids submitted by motor dealers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tracking Concentration of COE Bids Among Major Motor Dealers and Proportion of Total Bids by Top 10 Dealers by Category","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"72 Mr Victor Lye asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry tracks the concentration of COE bids among major motor dealers; and (b) if so, what proportion of total bids is accounted for by the top 10 dealer groups in each category.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In 2025, the proportion of total bids submitted by the top 10 dealers across all exercises for each Certificate of Entitlement category is provided in Table 1.
73 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has plans to improve public transport connectivity for estates located further away from public transport nodes, such as the Joo Seng estate, where narrow local roads limit the deployment of regular public bus services; and (b) whether LTA will ensure that when considering alternative shuttle services, such as autonomous vehicle options, these options will remain affordable.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Bus stops are generally provided within 400 metres of the Housing and Development Board estates to provide connectivity to transport nodes and amenities. Joo Seng residents can access Services 100, 135 and 155 from bus stops along Upper Aljunied Road, to connect to Mass Rapid Transit stations and amenities. The Land Transport Authority will study options to improve connectivity for residents who live more than 400 metres away from their nearest bus stop, including future autonomous vehicle services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Indonesia's Proposed Overflight Access for US Military Aircraft on Singapore-Jakarta FIR Agreement and Civilian Air Traffic Management","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"74 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has assessed the potential impact of Indonesia's proposed overflight access for US military aircraft on the 2022 Agreement on the Realignment of the Boundary between the Jakarta and Singapore Flight Information Regions (FIR); and (b) how the Ministry will ensure that such military transit arrangements do not disrupt civilian air traffic management within the Singapore FIR.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This is a bilateral matter between Indonesia and the United States.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Traffic-Related Reports Submitted via OneMotoring Website under Report Offences Function from 2025 to 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"75 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how many traffic-related reports were submitted via the OneMotoring Website under the Report Offences function from January 2025 to April 2026; (b) what categories of offences were most commonly reported; and (c) what percentage of reports resulted in enforcement actions, including penalties or prosecutions.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority received about 59,000 traffic-related reports via OneMotoring Website under Report Vehicle-Related Offences from January 2025 to March 2026. Illegal parking and bus lane offences were most commonly reported. About half of the reports resulted in the issuance of traffic offence notices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standards to Measure and Verify Accuracy of EV Charging to Enhance EV Consumer Protection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"76 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether Singapore has established standards for measuring and verifying the accuracy of electric vehicle (EV) charging, similar to those applied to fuel pump meter flow; and (b) if not, whether there are plans to introduce such standards to enhance consumer protection for EV users.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: International standards for measuring and verifying the accuracy of electric vehicle charging are currently under development, which we will study when they are ready.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Leveraging ERP 2.0 to Monitor and Enhance Vehicular Compliance with Speed Limits in Silver and School Zones","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"77 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry is considering leveraging ERP 2.0 to monitor and enforce vehicular compliance with speed limits in Silver Zones and School Zones; and (b) if so, how such capabilities will be implemented.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The ERP 2.0 system is designed primarily for payment and charges. The On-Board Unit also supports road safety by providing real-time traffic updates and situational alerts, including notifications for School Zones and Silver Zones. ERP 2.0 can also be used for enforcement, including for traffic offences like speeding, but further enhancements will be needed. The Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Home Affairs are studying the implementation details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing Singapore Standards SS 722 for Safer and Smarter EV Charging Systems in New Housing Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"78 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport following the introduction of Singapore Standard SS 722 for electric vehicle (EV) charging systems, how will the Government translate these stronger safety, cybersecurity and smart-charging standards into faster and more reliable rollout of EV charging systems in new housing estates.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Singapore Standard SS 722 took effect on 1 April 2026 to support the continued expansion of Singapore's electric vehicle (EV) charging network. It sets out safety and cybersecurity requirements for charging technologies. Approval processes for charging technologies can therefore be streamlined, and the design and installation of EV chargers can be sped up. These requirements also improve the reliability of EV chargers and reduce maintenance downtime. A transition period of two and a half years is in place ahead of mandatory compliance for new chargers from 1 October 2028, including for new estates.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Affordable Public EV Charging at HDB Carparks Through Energy Cost Monitoring and Safeguards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"79 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport in relation to EV chargers installed at HDB carparks (a) whether the Ministry monitors pass-through energy costs to public charging tariffs; and (b) what safeguards exist beyond competition and initial tender evaluation to keep HDB charging affordable.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: While the Government does not intervene in pricing set by electric vehicle (EV) Charging Operators (EVCOs), we ensure users have multiple options from a range of EVCOs, where feasible. For instance, TD116, the first large-scale tender for the supply of EV chargers in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) carparks, selects two EVCOs to deploy and operate EV chargers in HDB carparks in each region. After the award of tenders, we expect EVCOs to be transparent in publishing prices as a means of keeping charging competitive.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on HDB Carparks Without EV Chargers and Access to Alternative Chargers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"80 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how many HDB carparks remain without EV chargers as at end of the first quarter of 2026; (b) whether LTA has assessed if residents in these carparks have convenient access to alternative nearby chargers; and (c) what milestone and Parliamentary update mechanism governs completion.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: As of March 2026, 139 Housing and Development Board (HDB) carparks (7% of the total) lack electric vehicle (EV) chargers due to technical constraints, like insufficient power or community requests to delay installation. EV owners who use these carparks can transfer their season parking to nearby HDB carparks with EV chargers at the same season parking rate.
We have deployed around 30,500 charging points and are on track to meet our target of 60,000 charging points by 2030. The public can track the rollout of EV chargers online through the Land Transport Authority's DataMall, which is updated every month.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Framework for Sports Classification and Role of Sports Without Major International Games in Broader Sporting Ecosystem","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"81 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether \"mainstream sports\", \"alternative sports\" and \"emerging sports\" are official classifiers in the Ministry's sports policies; and (b) if not, (i) how are sports classified in its policies and (ii) on what principles is such classification based.
82 Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the Government's position on the role of sports without current pathways to major international Games; and (b) what are the policy objectives for the inclusion of such sports within Singapore's broader sporting ecosystem.
Mr David Neo: In answering this question, it is important for us to remind ourselves of what sport is and what sports stands for. Sports has the ability to bring people together, imbues character and promotes teamwork. And that is why we constantly promote wider participation in sports among our youths – because it is intrinsically valuable for youth development. It nurtures better Singaporeans.
Broad-based sport participation and high-performance sport are mutually reinforcing and support one another. Developing a wider interest and love for sports through a diverse range of sports expands the pipeline for high-performance sport, and means stronger community and national support for our national athletes. When Team Singapore athletes excel on the world stage, it in turn inspires our youth to take up sports and strive for excellence.
The Government's approach to promoting sports programmes and competitions in schools goes well beyond those in the Major Games. Because sport serves a broader purpose for our youths – fostering interactions and social mixing among students and developing physical fitness and values, such as resilience and teamwork.
In selecting sports for the National School Games (NSG), the Ministry of Education (MOE) therefore incorporates factors such as its value to student development, interest levels, school participation patterns, and the ecosystem's capacity – including facilities, qualified coaches and officials, and the National Sport Association's (NSA's) ability to support competitions. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and MOE will work with ready, willing and able NSAs to introduce more sports into the NSG to reflect the diverse interests of our youths.
For high-performance sport, the Government places great importance on identifying and developing athletes and has been increasing investments to help athletes compete better and longer. Developing a strong pipeline of youths in sports included in the Major Games is key to our high-performance strategy. We do this through structured youth pathways, deepening of coaching and specialist expertise and close partnerships with NSAs to identify and nurture talent early. Just last week, we announced our largest-ever cohort of 247 spexScholars and spexPotential recipients across 41 sports.
As a nation with a small population base and finite resources, we tier our support based on each sport's needs, readiness and potential contributions, with a focus on the Major Games as these are multi-sports and have the largest contingent of Team Singapore athletes, are most watched by and followed by Singaporeans, and most able to rally our nation and inspire the Singapore spirit.
The Government has also been investing in emerging sports. Through the Athletes' Inspire Fund, we have supported athletes in sports, such as pickleball, powerlifting, dodgeball and kickboxing. We have supported NSAs in hosting international competitions, such as the 2023 World Youth Tchoukball Championship. With the Government's support, the Tchoukball Association of Singapore attained Charity status in 2024, unlocking access to the One Team Singapore Fund where the Government matches donations dollar-for-dollar. With the formation of SpexSG last month, we will work more closely with and empower NSAs to be strong stewards of their sports.
The sporting landscape is always evolving, and the decision on which sports feature in future Major Games rests with international and regional multi-sport governing bodies. Against such a backdrop, we take a practical and long-term view to partner with our stakeholders and invest in sports that show potential, building pathways and community participation, because we value sport and the positive benefits it brings to Singaporeans in and of itself, in addition to being ready should opportunities arise. Emerging sports today can be part of Major Games tomorrow. Floorball is one such example – through sustained effort, community interest and a committed NSA, it was included as an official medal sport at the Southeast Asian Games since 2015.
The Government will continue to invest in sports that Singaporeans care about as these are sports with the power to unite us and bring us together as a nation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Excluding Direct UN Agency Donations from Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"83 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in relation to the Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme, why are tax deductions permitted for overseas humanitarian donations routed through designated Singapore entities but not for donations made directly to established United Nations agencies, given Singapore's membership in the United Nations and these agencies’ international governance and audit frameworks.
Mr David Neo: The Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS) is a pilot program where individual and corporate donors can receive 100% tax deductions for qualifying overseas cash donations made through a designated charity from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2028.
Designated charities are charities that substantially benefit the community in Singapore, with enhanced governance and controls against illicit fund flows, and whose charitable objectives also support overseas emergency humanitarian causes. Entities that are not registered charities, such as the United Nations agencies, are not eligible.
The Government will assess the OHAS at the end of its four-year pilot. The OHAS pilot will be evaluated based on various metrics, including uptake, its impact on giving to both local and overseas causes from Singaporeans and qualitative feedback from designated charities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Partnering Private Sports Academies Run by Former National Athletes for Youth Sports and National Talent Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"84 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry has information on the number of private sports academies currently run by former national athletes; (b) whether SportSG has a framework for partnering with these academies to identify and develop young sporting talent for national representation; and (c) what support is available to retired national athletes who wish to contribute to youth sports development through their own academies.
Mr David Neo: We encourage former national athletes to contribute back to the sport ecosystem and groom the next generation of athletes. There are many ways to do so – from serving as coaches, sport administrators, sport scientists and doctors, to managing sports academies.
The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and SportSG do not track the number of private sport academies run by former national athletes. Private academies form part of the larger sporting ecosystem – including schools, grassroots, ActiveSG Academies and Clubs, National Sport Associations (NSAs) and private sport academies operated by individuals and businesses. Collectively, they contribute to increased community participation and talent pipeline and pathway towards our national teams.
SportSG works with NSAs, private academies and clubs to expand opportunities for children and youth in our communities to play and compete. For example, under the Associate Partner Scheme, SportSG engages qualified private academies to conduct quality and affordable programmes at ActiveSG and the Ministry of Education schools' Dual-Use Scheme facilities.
For both active and retired athletes who are interested in setting up private academies and clubs, Sport Excellence Singapore (SpexSG) has programmes to support their ambitions. Athlete life management consultations help athletes better understand the support they need, and where to get them, to prepare themselves for post-sporting careers. The spexEntrepreneurship programme – a collaboration with the Action Community for Entrepreneurship – provides mentorship opportunities, access to essential resources and networking opportunities with entrepreneurial individuals and communities. Athletes can also tap on the spexBusiness Network's partners to seek entrepreneurship advice and practical assistance to set up their businesses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[],"onlinePDFFileName":""}