Mr Speaker: Order. Oaths and Affirmations of Allegiance. Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Special Select Committee nominated the following nine persons to the President for appointment as Nominated Members of Parliament:
Mr Azhar Bin Othman
Assoc Prof Goh Toh Chuan, Kenneth
Dr Haresh s/o Singaraju
Assoc Prof Terence Ho Wai Luen
Ms Kuah Boon Theng
Mr Mark Lee Kean Phi
Dr Neo Kok Beng
Prof Kenneth Poon Kin Loong
Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari
President Tharman Shanmugaratnam, by Instruments of Appointment dated on the same day, appointed the nine Members as Nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two and a half years, with effect from 8 January 2026.
The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oaths and affirmations of allegiance, and will proceed to the Table to do so, when their names are called.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Administration of Oaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below: (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Azhar Bin Othman (proc text)]
[(proc text) Assoc Prof Goh Toh Chuan, Kenneth (proc text)]
[(proc text) Dr Haresh s/o Singaraju (proc text)]
[(proc text) Assoc Prof Terence Ho Wai Luen (proc text)]
[(proc text) Ms Kuah Boon Theng (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Mark Lee Kean Phi (proc text)]
[(proc text) Dr Neo Kok Beng (proc text)]
[(proc text) Prof Kenneth Poon Kin Loong (proc text)]
[(proc text) Mr Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: I welcome the Nominated Members and look forward to their participation in the proceedings of this House. [Applause.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Managing Healthcare Insurance Premiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the new Integrated Shield Plan rider requirements (a) whether there will be an absolute cap on patients' out-of-pocket costs; (b) whether insurers can retain older policies with higher coverage; and (c) what measures will be implemented to prevent insurers from unilaterally reducing coverage for ageing policyholders on existing plans.
2 Ms Poh Li San asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in view of the Ministry’s move to curb rising healthcare insurance premiums by April 2026, how will families facing hefty medical bills be supported if their out-of-pocket expenses for co-payments become unaffordable.
3 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health regarding the new Integrated Shield Plan rider (a) whether the policy design anticipates that policyholders will continue to access private healthcare despite higher cost-sharing; (b) if so, what is the policy basis; and (c) what contingency measures have been developed to support restructured hospitals should there be increased patient volume due to shifts from private to public healthcare.
4 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given that the Monetary Authority of Singapore primarily regulates solvency, whether the Ministry intends to establish a dual-regulation framework to oversee the (i) healthcare outcomes (ii) panel selection criteria and (iii) loss-ratio efficiency of private insurers to ensure they align with national health goals.
\tThe Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 1 to 4 together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: My response will also address written Parliamentary Questions raised by Dr Hamid Razak in today's Order Paper, and a similar question raised by Ms Mariam Jaafar scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. If the Members are satisfied with the response, they may wish to withdraw their questions after this session.
Let me first try to put everyone on the same page. Over the past few years, patient load has been shifting from private hospitals to public hospitals. In 2010, the split between private and public was 15:85. In 2020, it became 12:88. Now, it is 10:90.
The issue of insurance and insurance riders is not the reason why patient load is shifting from private to public. This has been happening for the last 15 years and there are many reasons. Part of it is that as people get older, some of them prefer public hospitals, where there are more disciplines and more holistic care.
Another key reason is the escalating cost of private healthcare. That is in turn fuelled by Integrated Shield Plan (IP) riders, which provide overly generous health insurance coverage, and that leads to a greater tendency for over-servicing and over-consumption of healthcare services. Higher private healthcare cost is translated into higher private hospital IP rider premiums. IP premiums for private hospital have been growing at an average rate of 17% annually for the past three years – it is double that of IP premiums and even higher compared to MediShield Life premiums.
Hence, every year, about 100,000 policyholders cancel or downgrade their IP rider policies. And I suspect amongst them, many switched from using private to public hospitals.
To Dr Hamid’s question on the indicators that we used as a basis to decide policies, the data and signs have been clear and the situation is not ideal and not sustainable.
We have been actively expanding healthcare infrastructure and expanding manpower in order to cope with rising workload and manage wait times. Our plans are significant, I have made them public before and I will not repeat here.
To Mr Yip’s question, the new requirements for IP riders will only affect policyholders who purchased riders on or after 27 November 2025. Individual IP insurers will decide on their approach for rider policyholders who purchased their plans before 27 November 2025.
As for affected IP riders, and these are the new ones, we should expect the following changes.
First, IP rider premiums under the new design should be lower, on average 30% lower, compared to existing policies with maximum coverage. This is a significant recurrent saving.
Second, the new IP rider policies will not cover the minimum IP deductibles and also require higher co-payment. We share Members’ concerns about patients’ out-of-pocket costs, especially for large medical bills. But this is precisely the main aim of the rider changes: preserve the protection against very large, unexpected medical bills, but disallow coverage of the minimum deductible, which is a fixed sum, which users of private hospitals tend to be able to afford. This would help restore health insurance to its original objective, which is to provide assurance against large, infrequent, often unexpected healthcare bills, rather than the small bills.
For a rider plan designed with the new requirements, there will still be a cap of 5% co-payment up to $6,000 a year, in addition to the deductibles. In reality, these need not be out-of-pocket cash payments because patients can tap on their MediSave. We project that six in 10 rider claimants should not have to pay cash out-of-pocket after MediSave. For the remaining four in 10, majority of those with cash out-of-pocket would pay $1,000 or less, and practically all will pay $3,000 or less.
We should bear in mind that most of the affected claimants that I am talking about pertain to private hospital patients. Their IP rider premiums have been driven up so high that under the new design, many can expect significant premium savings which can more or less offset the higher co-payments.
In short, the current design of IP riders may no longer make financial sense for many policyholders and this change will help redress the situation.
Let me give you an example. A 60-year-old on a private hospital IP and rider with maximum coverage, can now save about $1,600 a year in premiums by switching to the new rider. Over three years, he would have saved $4,800 in cash, which would be more than sufficient to offset the increase in co-payment for a typical procedure – for instance, $3,300 for a knee joint replacement surgery in a private hospital.
Ms Poh asked about support measures for families facing unaffordable out-of-pocket expenses. Patients should consider their financial and healthcare needs when choosing where to seek care, including seeking subsidised care in public hospitals should affordability become an issue.
Third impact, there should be, in the medium to long term, changes in the respective utilisation of private and public care and wait times. As I explained earlier, this change is part of our efforts to mitigate the shift of patients from private to public healthcare that has happened over the last 10 to 15 years, by putting the private healthcare sector and health insurance on a more sustainable path and ensuring private care remains accessible to Singaporeans in the long term.
However, in the short term, as a few Members have expressed concern about, some individuals on the new riders may choose to seek care at public hospitals to reduce their co-payment. We will monitor this closely. Efforts to expand public health capacity – both in terms of hospital beds and outpatient capacity – are already ongoing to support the demands of an ageing population. If need be, we may need to implement surge capacity for selected treatments.
On Mr Kenneth Tiong’s question relating to the regulation of IP insurers, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) work closely together in exercising regulatory oversight of IP insurers, to ensure that policyholders’ interests are protected and the products are sustainable.
MOH’s key role is to oversee the development and operation of the public healthcare system and ensure universal access to healthcare. For individuals who prefer private healthcare and purchase private insurance, we should not micro-manage or prescribe the market practices. Instead, we set requirements pertaining to the key parameters of IPs and riders, such as co-payment and deductible requirements, to ensure that the schemes are sustainable. We only step in when we see a serious market failure emerging, which is why we have intervened in this case, to tighten the design of IP riders.
Doctor panels are an example of cost-management measures put in place by the market, by insurers in response to rising private healthcare bills and claims. MOH has been and will continue working with key stakeholders including insurers, healthcare providers, hospitals, medical professionals and consumer representatives through the Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee on these matters, to strike a balance between the interests of all stakeholders.
To sum up, we must take a long-term and balanced view of this issue so that we can put private healthcare and insurance on a more sustainable path.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, I filed this Parliamentary Question (PQ) because I have received much feedback from many seniors in my constituency who have concerns about the new rider requirements.
\t
I just have one supplementary question. I understand that policyholders may keep existing riders, but insurers may respond by re-pricing or adjusting the benefits that amount to the de facto coverage reduction. What specific safeguards will MOH impose to prevent such indirect erosion of benefits, especially for ageing policyholders with limited options?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The most important safeguard is to make sure that IP rider policies are sustainable. So, while at the point of being sold the policies, the agent probably told them, \"Buy all these for peace of mind – not just peace of mind, but absolute peace of mind, you do not have to worry\".
But that went down a path of unsustainability. So, while you enjoy it for a while, it is obvious, through my answer, that I have explained, it is becoming unsustainable. Because when there is over-coverage, in a private hospital, the bill just goes up. You cannot blame anybody; it is just the way human nature is. Somebody else is paying for most of the bill, so between doctor and patient, somehow, you will oversupply and I will overconsume. And the bill just keeps on going up at an unsustainable pace. And it still comes back to the consumer, to the patient, in terms of higher premiums – which is why, now, the same residents that gave the Member the feedback, is also screaming, \"Why is my IP rider premium going up at 20% a year?\" It is because cost is going up.
We need to tackle the issue at the root and our strong hypothesis is – in fact, there is a lot of literature on this – over-coverage just leads to wastage and cost increases. To redress this, for new riders, we are making the design different, a bit more co-payment, instil discipline in both the supply and demand for healthcare; then, I think we are much more likely to have a more sustainable position.
So, explain to your residents: choose this new rider; tell them they are paying very high premiums, rising premiums now for a tail risk, and it may not be worth it. Do their calculations, talk to their financial advisors. If they choose the new rider design, they save, on average, 30% on premiums every year. For someone in their 70s, that is a lot. That is $3,000 a year! Someone in their 60s saves about $2,000 a year.
That money saved – it differs from case to case – often is more than enough to pay the deductibles and co-payment.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker and Minister. I have one supplementary question. How would MOH prevent adverse selection, that is, those who have existing riders continue to over-consume medical services; or those who actually do not have the means to finance the co-payments and deductibles, then, decide to give up their existing riders and may, possibly, end up delaying their treatment?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: There are a few questions in that question, I think. But if I were to suss out what are the key questions, one is, you want to have continuity of care. So, be assured, even if they find that, today, they cannot afford their IP rider anymore, because it is getting expensive and they give it up, there is always public subsidised healthcare. That is our assurance to all Singaporeans. You can always come back to public healthcare. And we are expanding the system; we are recruiting manpower. While we are very busy, this is our commitment to all Singaporeans.
So, on the healthcare front, be assured that it is always universal healthcare through the public health system.
As for others, who continue to stay on their riders, I think they are also feeling the pinch. As I mentioned to Mr Yip just now, IP rider premiums are going up at a very fast rate because cost is going up at a very fast rate. And why is cost going up? Because there is over-generous coverage, leading to overconsumption, unnecessary treatment. So, many existing rider policyholders are also rethinking. I hope more would do so.
Increasingly, over dinner tables, amongst friends and colleagues, more people are thinking about their rider policies, that they may not be worth it. And more and more people do their calculations and find that it is not worth it. And as it is, 100,000 every year are changing. With these changes, with this signalling, I think more may do so. At some point, insurance companies have to do their calculations. Year to year, they do change their terms and conditions, and we have to see what they intend to do with existing rider policyholders.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
\t\tDr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the reply. The reason I asked the PQ is that there has been lots of sentiments from my colleagues in the restructured hospitals that waiting times for subsidised patients have been increasing. They are worried that with this new rider that is coming up from April that those who are on private riders will then switch to public healthcare because of the higher cost-sharing that is in place.
Will the Ministry and the Minister be able to reassure that there is data in place to say that this new rider principles will, in fact, continue to encourage those with private riders to remain in private healthcare? And also reassure that insurance companies will not make unilateral decisions on premium hikes, for example, which, again, will deter our residents from staying in the private healthcare and this will give rise to a surge capacity in our public institutions as well?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Let me briefly address the comment that Dr Hamid made towards the end of his question, which is to hope that insurers do not unilaterally make premium hikes. But these are private contracts. The Government does not regulate their premiums. And when insurance companies find that cost is going up and they are barely making – most of them are actually making losses on their private hospital insurance portfolio – they will end up raising premiums. This is something we are watching, but this is a commercial arrangement, something that they may do.
I thank the Member for raising the concerns of his colleagues in the public healthcare system. I am totally with them. I am equally concerned as them, which is why we are making this move. Because, as I mentioned earlier, over 10, 15 years, the shift is very discernible, away from private into public and as I mentioned, a key reason is the rising cost in private hospitals.
And why is cost rising? It is because IP riders are fuelling that cost increase, shifting people from private to public. It makes a lot more sense when someone who has the ability to buy private healthcare insurance, including a rider, wants to use private insurance. But half of them, today, switch to public subsidised care, for whatever reasons.
It will help the entire system and in particular, the public healthcare system, if more of them who can afford it, stay with private hospital care. And so, private hospital care has to become more accessible, more affordable. But we cannot do that without this adjustment in IP rider policy.
So, please tell your colleagues that my and my colleagues in MOH's assurance is that we are watching this closely. Wait times are very important to us, capacity adequacy is very important to us and their well-being is very important to us.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
\tMr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. MOH itself notes a trend of escalating cost and premiums alongside tightening claims practices. MAS can act on unfair claims handling, but MAS is primarily a financial regulator. MOH's direct levers seem strongest when policies are MediSave-linked.
So, my question is, what enforceable levers does MOH have to ensure that insurer conduct advances healthcare affordability and access? And where does MOH remain dependent on MAS?
Also, it appears to me that no one is cleanly accountable for insurer behaviour as a health system actor. Does the Minister believe that this is a gap that requires filling?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: The IP rider has become a problem and we are taking action. And I think that shows accountability that when something is not sustainable, not working in the best interest of the patients and people, we will take action.
Between MAS and MOH, I think we have plenty of levers and we will work together to make sure that insurers are operating in a way that is ethical, that is viable but at the same time in the interest of patients and the people we serve. And I think we have more than enough levers to do so.
There is a part of Mr Tiong's question that talks about panel doctors. What we want to make sure is that Government's main responsibility is actually to run the public healthcare system to ensure universal accessibility. But when it comes to private healthcare, we let the market operate. But if the market cannot operate in a laissez-faire manner, we will regulate. Where we regulate is clinical effectiveness, safety, and key parameters that are sensible and make the system sustainable, and there is no market failure.
But we should not be tempted to become micro-managing, because it is the worst thing to do to say that we leave it to the market, but we micro-manage all their actions and behaviour. I think that is the worst of both worlds. Then, you might as well nationalise it. But we already have a huge nationalised system in public healthcare. So, for private healthcare, control the important levers, control the key parameters, but let the market operate.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Fadli Fawzi.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker, Minister. Is there sufficient surge capacity in our healthcare system to deal with more private patients coming in after this policy change, especially for smaller procedures that are under the deductible limit?
\tMr Ong Ye Kung: Again, I will want to remind the Member that because of the ageing population, demand has been going up. There has also been a trend, a secular trend of private hospital patients moving to public. So, whatever problem that the Member is painting now, it has been happening for the last 15, 20 years.
And it is an issue we are most concerned about. We have spoken in this Chamber, many times how we are expanding capacity, ensuring people are healthy, moderating the demand by controlling chronic diseases. But IP riders are an additional fuel to the fire that we are facing, which is, mainly, an ageing population pushing up healthcare demand.
So, we will continue to expand the system and take a multi-prong approach to both increase supply and moderating the demand for healthcare, especially unnecessary treatment and wastage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lower Investment Returns Reported by Temasek Holdings and GIC","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government assesses that Temasek’s and GIC’s risk-adjusted returns relative to appropriate global benchmarks remain competitive; and (b) how their mandates should evolve to balance capital preservation with the need for higher real returns ahead.
6 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the investment returns of GIC and Temasek Holdings have underperformed the Government's expectation; (b) if so, whether there is an impact on the Government's Net Investment Returns Contribution to the Budget; and (c) what steps have been taken to ensure that the investment entities have incentives that are aligned to achieve better performance.
7 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has assessed the merits of a low-cost passive index-tracking investment approach for its investments; (b) whether the Government has compared this to GIC and Temasek Holdings’ active and more costly investment management approaches; and (c) if so, what are the considerations in deciding to give GIC and Temasek Holdings the investment mandates to choose the latter approach.
8 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is satisfied with the long-term investment performances of GIC, Temasek and MAS when measured against the relevant risk-adjusted global benchmarks; and (b) whether the Government sees the need to review the capital allocation and investment risks framework of GIC, Temasek and MAS.
9 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the difference between GIC's investment returns and the interest payments made by the Government to the CPF Board on Special Singapore Government Securities has narrowed in tandem with the underperformance of GIC relative to other major sovereign wealth funds; and (b) if so, how will this impact the Government's fiscal position or rate of reserves accumulation.
10 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is aware if GIC uses risk-adjusted performance metrics such as the Sharpe ratio in assessing portfolio performance relative to its reference portfolio; and (b) if so, whether a description of such metrics can be provided at a high level.
11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) in view of the fragmenting global geopolitical environment and its associated investment risks, whether the Government sees the need to review the current investment mandates of both GIC and Temasek; and (b) whether the emerging investment landscape is assessed to be conducive to sustaining a steady Net Investment Returns Contribution in the next decade.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 5 to 11 in today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you. My reply will also cover Question No 4 for written answer filed by Mr Ng Shi Xuan for today's Sitting.
Mr Speaker, recent media reports have compared the performance of GIC and Temasek with that of other funds, including other sovereign wealth funds. Such comparisons are often done, but they should be interpreted in their proper context because different funds operate under different mandates and risk profiles.
The Government assesses GIC and Temasek's performance primarily against their respective mandates and risk profiles, and not with other funds. Our focus has always been on long-term performance, rather than on short-term or year-to-year fluctuations.
GIC is the Government's fund manager, and its mandate is to preserve and enhance the international purchasing power of the assets under its management. In recent years, GIC took pre-emptive measures to moderate its risk exposure, in anticipation of increased market volatility and heightened valuations. These measures were intended to keep portfolio risks within acceptable limits and to guard against the possibility of significant asset impairment in the event of a sharp market correction. But as equity markets have continued to remain elevated, these prudent de-risking measures resulted in some foregone returns.
Any assessment of returns must, therefore, be considered alongside the risks that are taken to achieve them – a point that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim made, where he referred to the Sharpe ratio in his Parliamentary Question (PQ). GIC monitors a wide range of risk indicators, including and beyond the Sharpe ratio. In fact, GIC publishes both the returns and volatility or the risks associated with its portfolio in its annual report to provide a more complete picture.
Ultimately, what is more important is the longer-term performance that is achieved within acceptable risk limits. On that basis, GIC has achieved a real return of 3.8% per annum over the past 20 years. This outcome reflects, in part, GIC’s active management, which enabled it to consistently add value to portfolio returns, preserve the international purchasing power of the assets under its management and deliver returns above global inflation.
Temasek began as a holding company for the Government’s local assets. While Singapore-based Temasek Portfolio Companies (TPCs) continue to form a core part of its total portfolio, Temasek has progressively expanded its direct equity investments overseas – initially in Asia, and more recently, across global markets.
Temasek operates mainly as an active, bottom-up investor. It does not operate against a conventional reference portfolio. Instead, it invests directly in companies in the geographies and domains where it has built deep capabilities, and where it sees long-term growth potential. Relative to GIC, Temasek therefore operates at the higher end of the risk spectrum.
In recent years, Temasek’s performance was affected by the performance of the Chinese market, though this was mitigated by higher returns from its growing investments in Europe and the United States (US). Nonetheless, over the last 20-year period, Temasek has reported a Total Shareholder Return of 8% per annum in US dollar terms.
Taken as a whole, the Government’s assessment is that the returns generated by GIC and Temasek are reasonable and within expectations, given their mandates and risk profiles. We will continue to review their mandates and performance regularly, in line with changes in the global economic investment landscape.
Some Members asked about the implications of our investment entities’ recent performance on the sustainability of the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) and the Government’s ability to meet our Central Provident Fund (CPF) liabilities. As explained in this House previously, the Net Investment Return framework was designed to ensure a steady and sustainable stream of income for the annual Budget. The NIRC is thus derived from the expected long-term real rate of return which the Reserves can sustain, and not short-term market returns.
The Government is able to meet all debt servicing costs and obligations, including the committed CPF rates through the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS). GIC does not just manage the SSGS or CPF monies on their own, but a combined pool of Government funds, including a significant sum of unencumbered assets. This approach allows GIC to invest for the long term and to secure good long-term returns.
As investment markets are uncertain and volatile, GIC’s returns over shorter periods could be low or even negative. But the Government is able to absorb these short-term market risks, because it has a strong balance sheet. This substantial buffer of net assets enables the Government to meet the obligations on its liabilities and continues to underpin the Government’s strong fiscal position.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
\tMr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. First of all, I would like to declare that I am an employee of a financial institution.
Mr Speaker, the income from the Reserves play an important role in the Government's revenue, but as the Senior Minister of State has mentioned, the environment has become more volatile. Global markets have become more volatile. In the previous PQ, we have actually discussed about expenditure on healthcare and others being more demanding.
So, my two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker: first, how will the Ministry model the impact of a prolonged global resolve cycle on sovereign investment returns and the resulting implications for the Budget stability and social spending sustainability?
My second supplementary question is whether the Government plans to enhance long-term public reporting on portfolio risks? I think the Acting Minister mentioned the Sharpe ratio and others as well. But in terms of public reporting on portfolio risks, volatility and drawdowns for Singapore's foreign investment entities to strengthen public confidence, as reliance on investment income increases?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his supplementary questions. The Government's approach on assessing the returns of our investment entities is to take a long-term view. Market outcomes will inevitably fluctuate from year to year, there will be periods where returns are weak. But the way our system works is that these are not directly linked to our NIRC.
The Government's strong balance sheet, as I explained earlier in my reply, enables it to take investment risks and ride out market cycles that are inherent in investing for the long term. We have a significant buffer on net assets, which enables the Government to guarantee CPF savings and pay fair interest rates on CPF savings despite changes in the financial cycle. And this is also why we are able to have a significant stream of investment income through the NIRC, which is then used to meet important spending priorities, as we discussed earlier.
The Net Investment Returns taken into the Government Budget every year is based on the long-term expected returns of the investment entities, not on the year-to-year returns, which can fluctuate. In addition, the asset base that is used to calculate the NIRC is smoothed over the long term. So, the impact of a single year, or even a few years' worth of lower returns will take time to be passed through to the NIRC due to the smoothing of the asset base.
Notwithstanding all these, we recognise that it is becoming structurally more difficult or more challenging to generate good investment returns in the current global environment and this trend is likely to persist in the longer term. Hence, the Government will indeed have to monitor this and take a prudent approach to ensure that our investment income is able to meet our spending and our long-term obligations.
On the hon Member's question on whether or not the Government intends to enhance long-term public reporting, I think the investment entities already provide quite a good amount of public information on their investment approach and on their returns. This can be found in their annual reports, their regular press releases, and occasionally in their opinion and research pieces which they put out.
GIC discloses their five-, 10- and 20-year returns, but we have spoken in this House before about how we do not disclose their total assets under management, because we do not want to encourage speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar.
Temasek, as a direct investor, releases even more information. They talk about total portfolio value, its investment approach, the domains and the geographical areas where they are investing. And I will encourage Members as well as members of the public to look at the information that they put online.
Over time, GIC and Temasek have disclosed more information, and we will continue to encourage them to review if there are other meaningful disclosures to make. Our principle is that what the entities disclose should be part of an overall system that enables them to maximise their ability to generate long-term returns.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions, one on GIC and the other on Temasek. I understand that GIC has publicly stated that it does not regard its 65/35 Global Equity Bond Reference portfolio as a benchmark, but rather as an expression of risk tolerance. GIC has also publicly stated that it has attained lower returns, but with lower volatility.
For me, taken together, that suggests that GIC has either taken less risk than what its reference portfolio would suggest, or that it has returned less than what might be expected, given its risk profile. So, my question is whether the Ministry plans to undertake any steps to address the lower returns received by GIC relative to its reference portfolio; or if it is indeed satisfied with this more conservative approach, why does it not request GIC to adopt a different reference portfolio with lower risk?
My second question is on Temasek and I note the Minister's response on how its mandate is more to focus on companies rather than indexes. Nevertheless, I wonder if the Minister would be able to share how Temasek has performed on a risk adjusted basis, relative to the other sovereign wealth fund, GIC? And if indeed it is taking on such concentrated risk, I also wonder if there is room to reconsider its geographical diversification strategy adopted in the early 2000s and return to a more domestically oriented mandate.
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I mentioned in my reply earlier, the Government assesses the returns of our investment entities based on their mandates and risk profiles. GIC has achieved a real return of 3.8% per annum over the past 20 years, which is within the Government's expectations, given the risk profile that we have given.
The Member referred to the 65/35 reference portfolio, which is on the GIC website. That is not a returns benchmark, but is an expression of our risk tolerance and the risk profile we would like GIC to take. Ultimately, the Government assesses GIC performance based primarily on whether it has met this mandate. There will be periods where GIC takes less risk than the reference portfolio. And as I mentioned in my earlier reply, GIC did pre-emptively decide to de-risk in periods which had resulted in foregone returns. At the same time, GIC returns were much less volatile in the same timeframe and in fact, have outperformed the reference portfolio on a risk adjusted basis, given that it has achieved higher returns per unit of volatility.
Should GIC not have de-risked and ridden through the drawdowns? I think that is a matter of a judgement. While one can ride through market cycles, there have also been instances where the stocks or the assets are permanently impaired. And because of the mandate of GIC, it has to balance with the need to preserve our capital assets, I think that is a judgement that they have taken. On hindsight, we can always make all sorts of assertions, but they have taken that decision to de-risk and preserve our capital, and still be able to make the returns that we expect of them.
Ultimately, every investment fund must operate according to its own mandate and risk appetite. We expect GIC to construct its portfolio to both safeguard our assets and to also achieve our returns. The approach that they have taken has helped them build a diversified portfolio that is resilient to market cycles and volatility, while achieving good risk adjusted returns.
On the hon Member's second question on how to assess Temasek's performance, as I mentioned earlier, Temasek is different from GIC. It is a bottom-up active investor. It has a history of how it has gotten to where it is today. It started off as a holding company for Singapore Temasek-linked portfolio companies. Over time, it has broadened its coverage to include investments globally. It has, in the process of doing so, tried to give a sense of how it is performing on these areas, and on its website, it has referred to a few international indexes, whether it is the MSCI World Index or the Singapore stock market Index when it comes to measuring performance of the local companies.
I think these are possible ways of seeing how they are performing. We do not intervene in individual investment decisions that are made by Temasek. So, which geographies they choose to go into and which domains they prefer to invest in, these are things we leave to the management. The Government works with the board to make sure that Temasek meets the mandate that we have set out for them and we do not want to have to intervene in these decisions that they make on individual investments.
\t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Shawn Loh.
\tMr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And a Happy New Year to all Parliamentary colleagues, including our Nominated Member of Parliament colleagues.
With regard to the Senior Minister of State's reply, I fully agree and accept that global rankings of investment returns are not helpful because they do not take into account the unique investment mandates and the unique contexts that each country's investment entity invest in.
Our investment entities should have clear benchmarks and should take into account our own unique context, including, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned, that one fifth of our national Budget is from the returns on our investments and the Government has an obligation to pay interest rates on the CPF savings. To that end, I have two questions.
The first question is, when should we worry? I note the Senior Minister of State's reply, but when should we worry? What level of long-term investment returns should be the threshold which triggers a Government review of the NIRC framework to look at its sustainability, based on new structural trends in the global investment climate?
And the second question is in regard to the fact that GIC and Temasek are active managers that have illiquid portfolios. We should expect better returns from active investment managers, as well as a premium from illiquidity. How is the Government convinced that the active investment approach taken by GIC and Temasek is giving the alpha that Singaporeans deserve on the Reserves and on their CPF savings?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon Member for his questions. I agree with the hon Member that we should recognise that it has become more challenging to generate good investment returns in the current global environment and that this trend is likely to persist in the longer term. That is why the Government will continue to take a prudent approach in ensuring that our investment income is able to meet our long-term obligations.
But as I have explained earlier, the basis for why we are able to do the things that we are doing today is not because of year-to-year fluctuations in terms of market performance. In fact, the system is structured such that we are able to ride out some of these year-to-year fluctuations, even periods of sustained global under-performance in markets, because we have a large asset base and because we are able to take a long-term view of our investment returns.
And so, in that sense, I think we have to continue to make sure that the mandates of the investment entities continue to be met, that they understand that they are doing this for the longer term, and they are able to take strategies and to take the right decisions to ensure that the returns over the longer term are indeed sustainable.
As to whether we should be concerned whether the GIC and our investment entities are earning alpha, I think it is quite understandable that we look at how potentially the investment entities performance are benchmarked towards, for example, simple passive global benchmarks. When we do not have investment expertise or do not have time to make investments, the most common investment advice is just leave it to the market. We decide to buy an index fund, let them decide what to do.
But that is not what we are doing, because GIC here is the Government's fund manager. They are the professionals. They have a large pool of assets that range from the passive assets to assets that require them to take a closer monitoring and to make sure that those assets continue to generate high returns and they have to make active decisions to manage them.
Overall, the GIC team has been doing so over the years and their track record, given the mandate they have been given, demonstrates that they are able to do so. They have taken the decision as we talked about, to de-risk during periods of distress, during COVID, for instance, in the recent years. If they had not done so, our asset base could have been permanently impaired, as other funds would have experienced during this period.
So, I think we have to leave the professionals to do the work that they do. The Government works with the GIC board to make sure that the mandate continues to be met, given the risk profile of what we want them to do, to take a more conservative approach, to preserve our capital base. And we think they have met the expectations in this regard.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Thank you, Sir. Let me first declare my interest as I work in an entity significantly owned by Temasek.
There are two questions for the Acting Minister. Firstly, we know that Temasek and GIC do compete with the fast growing global sovereign wealth funds, the global funds, such as the pension funds, the wealth houses and so on – chasing for limited good investment grade targets, which may ultimately impact their returns, because there is competition for all these investments. So, can I ask the Acting Minister, whether the Ministry of Finance sees investing more of our Reserves into the local infrastructures that comes with commercial returns, as another way to deploy our growing Reserves?
My second question is related to what the Acting Minister has said in his reply on Temasek. There are two parts. One portfolio is the local companies that they hold. For strategic reasons, we want to hold these companies. And the other one is the international portfolio, which actually comes with different management investment skills. And as such, we will have to assess for their difference in performance. For example, the holding company for the strategic companies that we hold, like Singapore Airlines or PSA and so on, we would not expect Temasek to actively trade this portfolio or choose levels to buy and sell; whereas the international portfolio, there are some investment decisions to be made there, and how they charge the market, how they perform; we want to assess that.
So, can I ask that Acting Minister, whether in terms of evaluating the performance of Temasek, would the Ministry consider carving out that local portfolio, that we hold for strategic reasons, to measure the performance separately from the portfolio that is invested internationally?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The hon Member asked two questions. Number one, I think is on whether or not, given the competition with global funds, whether Temasek or GIC should take a different focus and to focus on investment in local infrastructure – I think that was the first question. And the second question, was whether or not, given that it has a cluster, in terms of local Singapore companies, whether we should evaluate performance differently. I think in gist, those are the two questions.
On the first question, I think we do not work on the basis of individual investment decisions. I think we want to structure how the relationship between the Government and our investment entities, structure them at the broad level to enable them to fulfil this mandate of achieving sustainable returns, preserving our asset base, while giving them, as commercial entities, the freedom to do the things that they need to do. And so, insofar as requiring them to have a specific investment focus or to invest locally, I think that is something as an entity, they need to decide and in light of the mandate that we have given them, to see whether that it is the most preferred strategy. So, we will not direct it personally or directly, but we would leave them to make those decisions.
As to whether or not we should carve them out separately to have a separate entity and evaluate the performance of the parts of Temasek that looks after our TPCs, I think we have to take this in context of how Temasek has evolved its capabilities over time. As the hon Member said, it started off as a company with deep expertise in managing our local TPCs. Over time, it is moving towards becoming more of a global investor with more geographical diversification and thus, this also requires Temasek to build up its own capabilities – just as it had built up its capabilities managing the portfolio of Temasek companies.
I think it is a matter of judgement for them to do this, as long as they achieve the mandate that we have given to them. Overall, looking at the total portfolio of Temasek's assets, I think as long as it can generate sustainable returns as a portfolio, that will be a good outcome. Bearing in mind also that there are synergies between the different portfolios. In managing the local Temasek-linked companies, there are benefits to having a global outlook on matters, having some global expertise and domain expertise in different areas, which I think Temasek is very focused on trying to generate as a result of their investment disposition.
\tMr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Fadli Fawzi.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, can the Acting Minister clarify whether the difference between GIC's investment returns and the SSGS interest payments made by the Government to the CPF Board, goes directly to the Reserves?
My second question is how does the Government intend to act under a scenario where GIC's returns consistently underperform SSGS interest rates? Would it then be sustainable for the Government to continue maintaining the current SSGS interest rates?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Mr Speaker, I think I will go back to explaining how the basic features of the system work. The Government has a strong balance sheet. This enables us to take investment risks and to ride out the market cycles that are inherent in investing for the longer term. We have a significant buffer of net assets, which enables the Government to guarantee CPF savings and to pay fair interest rates on CPF savings despite market cycles. The way this is done is it insulates the CPF returns and interest rates from the vagaries of the market.
Sir, we have explained this before and I think we do not have to go through the whole process again. I think the Member has asked a question on this previously as well and we can refer to the answer there.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Temasek Holdings' Planned Restructuring and Potential Impact on Investment Performance and Returns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui –
12 To ask the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is aware of the (i) mandates (ii) workforce sizes and (iii) manpower cost benchmarks for each new entity after Temasek’s planned 2026 restructuring; (b) if so, what are they; (c) whether the Ministry conducted assessments on the appropriateness of workforce size and manpower costs vis-à-vis investment performance, risk management and organisational nimbleness; and (d) if so, what are the results.
13 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are circumstances under which Temasek Holdings is expected to accept lower financial returns when pursuing strategic or developmental outcomes under the investment mandates given by the Government; and (b) if so, how are such expectations articulated and governed, given that the Government does not direct or influence individual investment decisions made by Temasek Holdings.
14 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government is aware if Temasek has a reference portfolio; (b) if so, what this is; and (c) if not, how does the fund benchmark its investment performance.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Question No 12.
The Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 12 to 14 on today's Order Paper together?
\tMr Speaker: Please go ahead.
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: My response will also cover Question No 3 for written answer filed for today's Sitting, as well as the question filed by Mr Kenneth Tiong for oral answer at a subsequent Sitting. I would thereafter invite Members who have filed questions for this and future Sittings to seek clarifications if need be. If sufficiently addressed, the Member may wish to withdraw the question filed for a subsequent Sitting.
\t
Mr Speaker, the Government's mandate for Temasek is that it should deliver good, sustainable long-term returns. The Government ensures that Temasek has a competent board to oversee its management but does not otherwise influence or direct Temasek's individual investment decisions.
With regard to Question No 14 on whether Temasek has any performance benchmarks, I had addressed this in the earlier reply; but in short, Temasek does not operate against a specific conventional reference portfolio as it is a direct investor, an investor that is bottom-up. Nonetheless, it does publish some indexes as reference, as I mentioned earlier, including the MSCI and the STI.
The Government expects Temasek to ensure that its overall portfolio of investments, including its Singapore-based Temasek Portfolio Companies (TPCs), achieves good commercial outcomes. Temasek actively and constructively engages its TPCs. From time to time, Temasek will work with the TPCs on strategic reviews and initiatives to strengthen their foundations for future growth. Temasek’s Singapore portfolio has been able to contribute steady returns to Temasek's overall portfolio and to Singapore’s economic growth over the long term.
Beyond exercising the appropriate oversight over its investments, there is no requirement for Temasek to pursue specific strategic or economic development strategies. Efforts to develop industry ecosystems or to enhance the financing for early-stage startups are led by the Government, rather than by Temasek. For example, Enterprise Singapore has a Startup SG Equity scheme, through which the Government co-invests with third-party investors in Singapore-based deep tech startups to catalyse the deep tech ecosystem.
And from time to time, Temasek may participate in the Government's initiatives, but it does so on commercial terms, strictly consistent with its mandate. For example, the Government has co-invested with Temasek in the Local Enterprises Fund, which aims to help large local enterprises transform and scale up; and the Anchor Fund which supports promising high-growth enterprises to raise capital through public listings in Singapore. Both funds are managed on a commercial basis by 65 Equity Partners, a Temasek-owned platform.
As Temasek expands its investment activities across new geographies and sectors, it may need to adjust its organisational structure to sharpen its focus and better achieve its objectives. And in this regard, Temasek has publicly explained the rationale for its latest restructuring. These are matters for the Temasek board to determine and the Government does not intervene in such decisions.
Ultimately, the Government holds the board of Temasek accountable for delivering good long-term returns on its overall portfolio and that is on the basis of net portfolio performance, after deducting all investment fees and expenses.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.
\tMr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): I thank the Acting Minister for his answer. I have three supplementary questions. The first one being, how does Temasek assess Singapore-based companies' performance separately from their national and developmental roles? The second one would be, over the past decade, have unlisted investments outperformed listed assets and what are the factors that can explain any such of these performance differences? The last one would be, I understand that the Government assesses that the long-term performance has been satisfactory, but it is a long-term view – and that is good in the sense that we do not take any knee-jerk reactions. But in the event that it is deemed unsatisfactory, what levers does the Government have to rectify or act on their returns and investment?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Mr Speaker, let me recap the three questions very quickly. Number one is whether or not, again, we should assess the performance of Singapore-based companies differently as part of Temasek's overall performance. Second is the performance of unlisted assets versus listed assets; how do we assess them? And then thirdly, how do we assess their short-term variations in performance and what do we do if that is affected?
So, on the first question, I have answered that as part of the previous Parliamentary Question. I think, first of all, for Temasek, we do assess them overall, looking at their broad mandate, whether or not they have performed to meet the mandate in delivering sustainable long-term returns. At the same time, we do work with them closely to understand the performance of the different groups of companies. Looking at how the Singapore portfolio companies perform, we do work with them closely to understand if they have performed in a certain way and to see how the performance of those companies can be specifically improved, because these are Singaporean companies and they are important to us. So, we do work with them on that basis. But in terms of assessing them overall as part of their mandates, that is not something that we look at more directly, as I have explained earlier.
As for the difference between listed and unlisted assets, well, unlisted assets, by definition, should generate higher returns because they have a risk premium associated with them. But I think the way Temasek values its unlisted assets, they take a conservative approach. What they do is they value them at the book value, less, I think, the impairment that comes with these assets, the potential impairment. And in their annual report, they do indicate a value if they were to mark these unlisted assets to market. And I think the Member can refer to the Temasek annual report on the website to get a sense of the difference in terms of the value of these unlisted assets.
Again, it is a variant of the question which another hon Member asked – which is, when should we worry? When should we worry if Temasek's long-term returns on their assets are not what is desired? I think we have to accept that as an investor with a larger risk profile or rather a bottom-up investor, the way it is an active investor, we should expect some volatility in Temasek's returns over time. But over the long period, these volatilities and these fluctuations should even out. And as long as they make what we require of them, which is something that is sustainable, that is something that is in line with their risk profile, in line with some of the decisions they are taking, including their capability building and investments in new areas, I think we should be able to accept that these are within our expectations and that they are delivering what they have been set out to do.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): My understanding is that Temasek currently holds about half of its portfolio in public assets and the remainder in private exposures. If you take a global benchmark, such as the ACWI IMI over a very long term, say 20 years, the returns are more or less about 7%. And this, as it turns out, matches Temasek's 20-year return of 7%.
That said, however, it appears to me that if we accept the state of affairs, Temasek is not successfully harvesting this illiquidity premium that, according to the Minister, it is trying to maximise according to its mandate. So, I wonder if the Minister would agree that maybe one strategy would be to take, for example, dividends issued by its privately held portfolio assets and then redirect those toward the public-facing exposures.
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: I thank the hon Member for his question. I think we go back to first principles, which is that it is not always appropriate or meaningful to directly compare Temasek's performance with other funds. It really depends on the mandate and the risk profile that Temasek was set up to do.
As I explained in my reply, Temasek is not quite the same as a typical sovereign wealth fund. It is an active bottom-up investor, and it also has a history and development as a holding company for Singapore portfolio companies.
Nonetheless, as a comparison, I think Temasek's performance has, indeed, been commensurate with other sovereign wealth funds with a higher risk profile, such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Just as a comparison, both have achieved 20-year annualised total shareholder returns of about 8%.
So, the Government does expect Temasek to achieve good sustainable returns over the long term. And as an asset holder of major Singapore-based assets, we expect them to exercise appropriate oversights over their investments, no different from any other responsible asset holder. While we do not benchmark them to any specific reference portfolio and nor does it invest to meet the specific index returns, I think the Member can compare available indices to see whether or not it has, on the various aspects, met its expectations.
Inherently, I think Temasek's returns would be more volatile compared to funds with a lower risk profile. I think it has a mix of both listed and unlisted assets, as the hon Member has noted. The investment approach is one that we want them to do, which is to develop and build a diversified portfolio that reduces the volatility and outperforms a broad-based market index. And so, the Government will continue to engage them to do that. Beyond that, we will not go into exactly how the dividends are spent and what proportion of listed or unlisted assets they should manage. That is something for the Temasek management to decide and we will not interfere in those decisions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stepping Up Public Education Efforts in Light of Residential Unit Fires in 2025 and Review of Singapore’s Building, Fire and Construction Safety Codes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many residential unit fires were there in 2025 and how does this compare to 2024; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider stepping up education, enforcement and conduct more regular inspection on buildings especially in older housing estates for compliance to fire safety codes.
16 Mr Alex Yam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent tragic high-rise fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong (a) whether the Government will be reviewing Singapore’s building, fire and construction safety codes to ensure they remain robust for high-density developments; and (b) what further measures are being taken to strengthen compliance, inspection and enforcement so as to reassure residents and building users.
\tThe Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, may I seek your permission to answer Question No 15 filed by Mr Ng Chee Meng and Question No 16 filed by Mr Alex Yam in today’s Order Paper?
\tMr Speaker: Go ahead.
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, my response will also cover the question raised by Mr Lee Hong Chuang1, which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. And I invite Mr Lee to seek clarifications today, if need be. If his question has been addressed, it may not be necessary to proceed with his question subsequently.
In 2025, there were 1,051 residential building fires. This is up from 968 in 2024. This is a slight increase amidst a stable trend of residential building fires over the past five years.
The statistics should also be viewed in the context of Singapore’s housing stock. The percentage of fires vis-à-vis our total dwelling stock has actually decreased, from 0.067% in 2021 to 0.065% in 2025.
However, recent tragic events remind us that we cannot afford to be complacent about fire safety. The Wang Fuk Court fire in Hong Kong last November is a grim example. The Government has started reviewing the early observations from Hong Kong’s ongoing investigations and is studying whether we need to strengthen the relevant regulations for works during the construction and maintenance of residential buildings. This will allow us to better manage fire risks, and the outcome of this ongoing review will be announced in due course.
Allow me to share more about the multi-faceted approach we take towards fire safety in Singapore, namely, good fire safety design, enforcement against fire safety non-compliance, effective firefighting response and public preparedness.
All buildings in Singapore are designed and built in accordance with the prevailing Fire Code, which stipulates fire safety requirements, such as the compartmentalisation of residential units to limit fire spread, prior to Singapore Civil Defence Force’s (SCDF’s) arrival. Other fire safety provisions include adequate staircases to support swift evacuation, fire engine access roads and rising mains to support SCDF’s firefighting operations.
It is important for building owners to fully comply with the Fire Code and ensure that fire safety provisions are kept in good working order. In this regard, Town Councils and Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) are responsible for managing the common areas within Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates and the strata-titled residential developments respectively, including ensuring compliance with SCDF’s fire safety requirements.
They work closely with SCDF to regulate and rectify obstructions at common areas that may be fire hazards. And if fire hazards are detected during SCDF’s checks, SCDF will take enforcement action against the Town Council or MCST.
\t
The SCDF constantly reviews its firefighting tactics and equipment, and the fire safety requirements for high-rise buildings. This includes exploring new technologies and studying international best practices.
To effectively conduct firefighting and rescue operations in high-rise settings, the SCDF has capabilities, such as aerial appliances, that can reach up to 90 metres, as well as surveillance drones.
High-rise buildings are required to have additional fire safety provisions, such as more fire lifts and rising mains, to ensure that SCDF can conduct operations on the upper floors effectively.
In addition, high-rise residential buildings that exceed 40 storeys in height require at least one refuge floor per 20 storeys. The refuge floor is designed to provide evacuees with quick access to a safe holding space in the event of a fire.
Last, SCDF conducts regular outreach through campaigns, such as the Community Resilience Days, to educate residents on fire prevention and fire safety, and provide free hands-on training on the use of fire extinguishers, cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs).
SCDF also collaborates with other Government agencies and stakeholders to promote fire safety awareness, such as through the recent \"Better Awareness, Safer Homes\" programme jointly launched with the People's Association and National Fire and Emergency Preparedness Council, as well as the \"Be-Device-Safe\" programme with the Land Transport Authority.
Fire safety is a collective responsibility. We must work together, each doing our part, if we are to keep our homes safe from fires.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.
\tMr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for his answer. The lines of defence that Minister of State mentioned are, indeed assuring, including the good work by our SCDF. However, in spite of all the different measures, there were three serious fires that resulted in death in Singapore last year; one particular case in Toa Payoh, where the fire spread from the 10th floor to the 11th floor, where then some residents above had some difficulties evacuating. [Please refer to \"Personal Explanation\", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Personal Explanation section.]
In the context that the Minister of State mentioned where we are building higher, with higher density, including now, where we have an ageing society, where there are more elderly with mobility challenges. Fire prevention measures are good, but when it does happen, what may be the new measures that we can take pre-emptively to either educate, maybe even consider fire drills like in many other private buildings? Could we be doing some of these in the public housing estates so that residents get more hands-on education besides head knowledge? Maybe the neighbours can come together to rally in case of such emergencies. I hope that in the review, the Ministry can consider that.
\t
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question and comments. I fully agree with the Member's emphasis on public preparedness and public education. These are important and the SCDF works very, very closely with all the respective agencies, including with the constituencies and the grassroots leaders nationwide, actually, to help raise public awareness. It is important for the public to know what they can do and what they need to do to play their part. And as I mentioned earlier in my reply, a prepared and ready public is actually our best line of defence against fires.
Indeed, with regard to the cases that the Member mentioned, it is regretful and every fire, every death, is one too many, and we deeply regret that. And I think that is the reason why all the more we do need to step up. The SCDF spares no effort in making sure that not only is the SCDF best prepared to fight fires operationally, but in terms of working together with the public.
Let me amplify some of the community engagement efforts. Beyond what I mentioned earlier – Community Resilience Days, \"Be-Device-Safe\" campaigns, the \"Better Awareness, Safer Homes\" campaigns – we have various Responder Plus Programmes that the SCDF does across the country in the various constituencies, to work with and educate our residents in terms of how they can play their part in their homes, how to use fire extinguishers, AEDs, for example. And these are not just initial education programmes, but also refresher training courses to ensure that everyone can play their part.
It is also about raising the overall awareness and sensitivity to danger. It is that sense of awareness that is initially most important. So, the \"Better Awareness, Safer Homes\" campaign is the initial education effort to get people aware. Statistics show that the main primary cause of fires is actually unattended cooking. So, actually, it is about individual responsibility. And if you are able to get everyone aware that these can cause fires, I think that solves a part, a big part of the problem.
I will take the comments from the Member seriously. And if there are any further suggestions, we will be happy to work together with the constituencies.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for his answers earlier.
Could the Minister of State reassure the public the current inspection enforcement regime during construction and renovation works is assessed to be sufficiently robust, given that these time periods where the confluence of hot works, temporary wiring and flammable materials significantly heighten risk, as we saw in in the tragic example in Tai Po?
Building on the point that the hon Member, Mr Ng Chee Meng, mentioned earlier as well, in terms of community efforts, in my constituency, we organise regular block evacuation exercises so that residents are better prepared on evacuation routes and looking out for one another. What we saw from the Tai Po example, from interviews with survivors, as well as some of the experiences of those who were trapped, it is that many did not take the initial evacuation alert seriously enough and that may have contributed to the increased number of fatalities. With a growing number of vulnerable and elderly residents, is there more that the Ministry can do to heighten evacuation awareness, especially with the higher density and taller residential developments that we have today?
\t
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. There are two parts to the question, so let me address the first one first, and this is with regard to precautions for construction.
Any construction and maintenance works done in Singapore must adhere to the safety requirements set out in the Fire Code, and the Workplace Safety and Health Regulations. For example, any hoarding used during construction must be made of non-combustible material and all fire safety systems must remain functional. It is also a requirement to ensure proper supervision that hot works are separated from flammable materials. The use of bamboo as scaffolding is not allowed in Singapore.
At the same time, SCDF also runs programmes and is willing to work with employers in terms of how to best educate their workers to be fire-safe. At the same time, SCDF regularly reviews the Fire Code to ensure that fire safety measures for buildings, including those undergoing construction maintenance, are robust and up-to-date with the best practices.
With regard to the Member's second question, what I mentioned earlier, in terms of the various programmes, are available. I think what is most important is that beyond just having those programmes in place, there is significant take-up which shows constituencies, residents and grassroots leaders take these programmes seriously and participate fully.
I am glad to share with the House that SCDF conducts about 16 Community Resilience Days every year, working closely with People's Association and with the support of various Government agencies. The Responder Plus Programme that I mentioned earlier is actually held both in-person and online, so as to ensure accessibility for all participants. And I am glad to share that from January 2024 to August 2025, we have had more than 60,000 individuals participating in the Responders Plus Programme.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
\tMr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I also want to thank the Minister of State for his answer just now. Here, I have three supplementary questions. I am going to ask two in English and one in Mandarin. I also want to declare that I am staying on a high floor. I am also one of them. Especially, since this question is targeted at those staying in HDB flats.
One, what is the current average response time for SCDF for such incidents, especially fire, on very high floor, and how does SCDF coordinate to reach this floor quickly, especially when the lift has broken down?
My second question: what are the practical operational limits faced by SCDF today when fighting fires at very high floors, such as water pressure constraint, access challenges or evacuation difficulties? And will SCDF work with the Ministry of Defence on this, such as Heli Safe, aerial rescue and any other measure?
My third question will be in Mandarin, please, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We know that in Government and commercial buildings, there are always fire safety exercises. In HDB estates, we have also conducted many public education activities in Community Centres or the first floor of condominiums. However, when it comes to evacuation, especially in high-rise buildings and for the elderly who have mobility issues, how do we educate them in terms of evacuating effectively? In my opinion, we should not only educate the elderly, but also their caregivers and other residents, to give them hands-on experience so that when a fire breaks out, they know how to respond and help their neighbours evacuate.
\t
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his three questions. Let me take them one by one.
First, in terms of the response time for SCDF, the SCDF is able to respond to most fire and rescue incidents within eight minutes, and this includes fire incidents in high-rise buildings. Upon arrival, resources, assets will be deployed to fight fires at the earliest instance.
In accordance with the Fire Code, all high-rise structures above 24 metres, or about eight storeys, are required to have fire lifts which can be switched to manual operations to facilitate the SCDF's firefighting operations for prompt access to the higher floors, and additional fire lifts are required for high-rise residential buildings 40 storeys and above. And as part of the SCDF's high-rise firefighting procedures, the SCDF works very closely with the building management team, which includes having on-site incident management teams and the manning of the fire lifts to support the SCDF officers' operations.
In terms of the second question, practical operational limits faced by SCDF, indeed, I thank the Member for raising this because firefighting operations in high-rise buildings can be dynamic and challenging for SCDF officers. But that said, the SCDF has incorporated specific fire safety requirements into the Fire Code precisely to overcome some of these challenges and to enable them to fight fires more expediently and more safely. This includes ensuring water supply through the provision of the dry or wet rising mains, the provision of the fire lifts I just mentioned to affected floors, requirement of having fire-rated walls or doors to limit the spread to adjacent units – these are to help slow down the fire prior to SCDF's arrival.
And of course, in the event that these firefighting provisions are not in a serviceable condition, this is where SCDF will face some challenges in firefighting operations and these challenges may slow the firefighters down. But there will be other additional manual firefighting processes that the firefighters will then have to adopt to fight the fire. But this can take a little bit more time and requires other additional steps.
In terms of public education programmes to better prepare our residents, and especially with regard to our ageing population, I thank the Member for raising this because, indeed, our ageing population has brought about new challenges. We see an increasing number of households comprising seniors, especially some of them living independently. Our elderly may also have mobility challenges and in times of emergency, they could be vulnerable. We have strengthened our levers to support the elderly households in being better prepared for some of these fires.
First, Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs). We have encouraged HFADs to be installed in the homes of our seniors. This is subsidised under the Enhancement for Active Seniors Programme. Having these fire alarm devices will allow for our seniors to have earlier notice of fires and give them more time to evacuate safely.
\t
We have also worked very closely with the community to better support seniors in need. For example, in the Jalan Besar Group Representation Constituency, I understand that there is a Fire Safety Kakis initiative that has been launched, where a network of neighbours is involved to assist with the evacuation of the elderly and the vulnerable in the event of a fire in their home and block. And I think this is a very good example of how the community can work very closely with the SCDF to especially reach out to those in need.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent high-rise fire incident in Hong Kong (a) how is the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) prepared to respond to fires occurring at very high floors in Singapore’s high-rise buildings especially HDB blocks, including its operational capabilities and limitations; and (b) whether there are any planned enhancements to SCDF's firefighting tactics, equipment or building safety standards."],"footNoteQuestions":["15","16"],"questionNo":"15-16"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons from Hong Kong's High-rise Fire for Singapore's Review of Building (Strata Management) Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government's review of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 will incorporate learnings from the Wang Fuk Court fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong; and (b) if not, why not.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for National Development): The Hong Kong authorities are still investigating the Wang Fuk Court fire incident. Notwithstanding, the Government has been reviewing the learning points based on the early observations.
Where relevant, the Ministry of National Development will incorporate findings from the review into our legislative and policy framework, including the Building (Strata Management) Act.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Given that one of the potential causes of the fire that the Hong Kong government is looking into was the corruption by the management of the Wang Fuk Court, will the Ministry or the Building and Construction Authority be looking into how to strengthen oversight over management councils that are conducting large-scale infrastructure repairs, whether by the Government or by the subsidiary proprietors themselves?
\t
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. When reviewing the Building (Strata Management) Act, we will be looking at the powers of the Management Corporation Strata Title. I will be sharing more information in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Animal Welfare Groups' Involvement in Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry or Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) works with Animal Welfare Groups (AWGs) on the operations of the Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage programme; and (b) if so, whether consultations take place between the AWGs and AVS before every trapping operation.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, my answer will also address related questions for written answer by Ms Diana Pang and Mr Kenneth Tiong, scheduled for subsequent Sittings.
Sir, since 2018, the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) has worked with its partners on the Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage (TNRM) programme to manage the free-roaming dog population in Singapore.
Our TNRM partners play key roles, including conducting trapping and sterilisation operations. Upon identification of an unsterilised free-roaming dog, AVS will work with the TNRM partner responsible for the designated area to commence trapping operations.
In situations that present risk to public safety, AVS will intervene swiftly. For instance, in the case of the recent trapping operation at Seletar West Farmway 8 on 14 November 2025, AVS' animal management contractor was activated to trap and remove three free-roaming dogs, which were confirmed by several victims to have been involved in multiple chasing and biting incidents. The operation was carried out safely under the supervision of AVS staff and is in line with existing protocols under TNRM. This includes complying with the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) standards on Stray Dog Population Control to ensure that uncovered wire loops or ropes were not used during the trapping process and also giving due consideration to personnel and animal safety in determining the restraint procedures.
AVS will continue to work closely with TNRM partners in the management of free-roaming dogs to safeguard both public safety and well-being of the dogs. AVS colleagues and I visited our partners last week to discuss ways we can better collaborate moving forward. For instance, we intend to review joint protocols and further improve communication and coordination. These build on existing collaboration channels, such as TNRM rehoming efforts, outreach and AVS-led adoption drives.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying. We are almost at the end of Question Time, so keep your supplementary question short.
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions.
First, what is the nature of such discussions with the different Animal Welfare Groups (AWGs) prior to, perhaps, trapping operations? Behind every animal held is a human and an AWG where they celebrate every rescue, recovery and adoption and feeling the grief when an animal suffers. The work is built on care, and it has not been easy. At the same time, I have also personally interacted with so many dedicated AVS and National Parks Board (NParks) officers, so I wanted to do a special thanks for their commitment for this constant work with the AWGs to rehome animals and balance the competing needs with care and professionalism.
The second question really is then: can the Minister of State provide an assessment on the effectiveness of the TNRM programme so far? I am heartened to know that a review is due. So, what will this review entail and how will it be done? I hope and I urge AVS and NParks to continue working closely with the AWGs to further improve the TNRM methods.
\t
\tMr Alvin Tan: Sir, I thank the Member for her continued support for our TNRM efforts and also working very closely with the AWGs.
Indeed, there is a lot of discussion and collaboration between AVS and the AWGs, and that is why we are also refining the TNRM protocols. That includes the management of free-roaming dogs, the review of various trapping measures and also, how to further improve coordination and collaboration between AVS and our TNRM partners. That also includes streamlining feedback channels and conducting regular stakeholder engagements and workshops. In fact, when I visited them on Friday, I encouraged them to join our TNRM workshop that is scheduled for 15 January, which is Thursday. I am very happy that many of our partners will be joining this TNRM workshop for us to continue to refine these processes.
On the effectiveness of the TNRM programme, while Members might know that it started in 2018, we have thus far trapped 4,470 dogs, rehomed 2,048 dogs and sterilised 80% of the free-roaming dog population. That is above our target of 70% and that has resulted in a reduction of 80% of feedback cases. So, we will continue to continue to work with our TNRM partners to further refine these processes for the well-being of our dogs.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Clarification by Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs.
[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":"Clarification by Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a clarification in relation to a written answer that my Ministry made on 26 September last year. That was in response to a Parliamentary Question filed by Mr Saktiandi Supaat on the SGSecure movement.
The answer cites the SGSecure Public Perception Survey of 2024 as having found that 77% of respondents said they were alert enough to look out for a suspicious behaviour or items. The correct figure ought to be 74%. Thank you, Sir. [Please refer to \"Measuring Success of SGSecure Movement\", Official Report, 26 September 2025, Vol 96, Issue 6, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
Mr Speaker: Order. Introduction of Government Bills. Acting Minister for Transport.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Land Transport and Related Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Active Mobility Act 2017, the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act 1995, the Parking Places Act 1974, the Road Traffic Act 1961, the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) Act 1960, and the Small Motorised Vehicles Safety Act 2020, and certain other related Acts\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Sector (Governance) (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister of State for Digital Development and Information (Ms Jasmin Lau) (for the Minister of State for Digital Development and Information): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Digital Development and Information, I move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”
Sir, the Public Sector (Governance) Act (or PSGA) was introduced in 2018. It helped to enable, among other objectives, public agencies to share data safely and purposefully, so that we can serve Singaporeans better.
The vision was simple but powerful: a whole-of-Government approach, where agencies can work together using data responsibly, instead of asking citizens to provide the same information repeatedly or navigate multiple agencies on their own.
Many Members in this House today were present back when the PSGA Bill was discussed in 2018. Thank you to all Members who supported the Bill back then. With your support, today, we have more integrated delivery of public services. About 99% of Government transactions with citizens and businesses are now completed digitally from start to end, enabled by data.
Here are some examples.
Singaporean households automatically qualify for and receive support like U-Save rebates, our favourite Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and Child LifeSG credits.
Lower-income workers automatically receive salary top-ups from the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme.
Children from lower-income families receive educational bursaries.
And for our seniors, the Majulah package supports their healthcare and retirement, and the Senior Employment Credit supports their employment at the workplace.
Data sharing was also critical during national crises such as COVID-19. When support had to be rolled out quickly and at scale, for example through the Jobs Growth Incentive, the Government could calculate and disburse assistance more efficiently, without placing additional burden on Singaporeans and businesses during this difficult period.
At the same time, the PSGA was never only about enabling data sharing. The data sharing framework included strong safeguards. When the PSGA was debated here in 2018, Members asked for clear rules on data use. These have been put in place. There are clear permitted purposes, controlled access on a need-to-know basis, additional protection for sensitive data and serious consequences for misuse.
We have used the PSGA for eight years. Effectively and safely. When the PSGA Bill was debated in Parliament in 2018, some Members of Parliament (MPs) saw the potential for PSGA to do more. They asked about data sharing with trusted partners, like our social service agencies (SSAs). Back then, we had promised to review this later. And now, we are ready for the next step.
Over time, our public agencies have increasingly partnered trusted organisations outside of the public sector to deliver programmes and reach Singaporeans effectively – especially vulnerable groups where last-mile engagement matters. These include SSAs, community partners and our self-help groups. They have deep networks, cultural understanding and operational presence on the ground. When we work together with them, support can be more targeted, timely and coordinated.
For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) works with self-help groups, like the Chinese Development Assistance Council, MENDAKI, SINDA and the Eurasian Association. These self-help groups understand their communities well. With access to appropriate student data, they can identify and provide targeted support to specific students in their respective ethnic communities. The data will also help these partners to assess and improve their programmes.
Similarly, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) works with SG Enable and SSAs to provide an integrated ecosystem of support for persons with disabilities. But for our partnerships to work well, they need relevant data.
The current PSGA does not cover them. Today, public agencies rely on individual consent, common law public interest grounds, or sector-specific legislation. These avenues are not ideal in many real-world situations.
First, external partners cannot identify who to help if we cannot share that information with them. Getting consent means we must first find the people who need help and then ask them for permission. This does not work when external partners should be the first point of contact for hard-to-reach groups.
Second, contact details may be outdated and vulnerable individuals may not respond in time.
Third, in urgent or large-scale situations, we cannot afford delays caused by seeking consent case-by-case.
And lastly, when multiple datasets and partners are involved in coordinated support, the consent route becomes onerous and fragmented.
In all of these situations, relying on consent means that people in need may fall through the cracks and fail to receive timely support. Common law public interest grounds can also be difficult to apply consistently because boundaries are not clearly set out and each case needs extensive assessment.
Take MSF's partnership with SG Enable and SSAs in supporting persons with disabilities as an example. In order for SG Enable and SSAs to support persons with disabilities in areas like employment assistance, training opportunities and referrals to relevant services, they need the relevant data on persons with disabilities from MSF. But MSF found it challenging to establish the legal basis for sharing. So, they went through many rounds of discussions with multiple teams to see if common law public interest applied. To reduce legal uncertainty, these SSAs could only get the addresses of persons with disabilities. They received no other information about disability conditions, needs or demographics.
Without this other information, our partners end up spending extra time and effort re-establishing details during visits to our persons with disabilities and their families. Members in this House may have heard of these realities on the ground. Families in need end up having to repeat their stories and details to many parties who are actually trying to support them.
So, this Bill addresses that gap. It provides a clear legal basis with guardrails for data sharing with our trusted external partners, where it serves legitimate public purposes. Mr Speaker, let me emphasise what this Bill does.
Under the amended PSGA, public agencies are allowed to share data with trusted external partners only when three safeguards are met. These are: (a) having a legitimate purpose for sharing; (b) the arrangement is specifically authorised by a Minister or the Minister's delegate; and (c) the external partner is bound by clear contractual terms of use, including data protection and security requirements.
Let me also emphasise what this Bill does not do. This Bill does not create a free-for-all. It does not override other written law, legal privilege or existing contractual restrictions. It does not authorise data sharing for commercial exploitation, marketing or unrelated purposes. And it does not remove the option for public agencies to rely on consent or other legal avenues where these remain appropriate.
Let me now elaborate on the three safeguards for data sharing.
First, the Bill retains the existing discipline of the PSGA. Clause 3 ensures there is a legitimate purpose for sharing data. Public agencies can only share data for the same public purposes that govern inter-agency sharing today. If a use case does not serve these public objectives, public agencies cannot share the data with external partners under the PSGA. So, for the MSF example I mentioned earlier, the relevant purpose under the PSGA would be well aligned with MSF's mandate to provide support for persons with disabilities. The shared data would help disability SSAs to provide more efficient and targeted support.
Second, each data sharing arrangement with an external partner needs specific authorisation by a Minister or his or her delegate. This is the second safeguard under clause 3. The authorisation must clearly specify what data can be shared, which partner receives it and for what purpose it may be used. This ensures high-level oversight for each and every arrangement. It is not a broad, open-ended permission.
The public agency must assess the partner's ability to fulfil its role and handle data responsibly with proper security protections. Where the partner is unable to meet the required safeguards, the sharing will not proceed.
The third safeguard is ensuring that all external partners are bound by clear Terms of Use that set out how the data is protected and used.
I spoke earlier about the Government's existing internal rules for data protection and security. Currently, public agencies already need to make sure external partners whom they share data with are able to meet these requirements, and are contractually bound to do so.
While public agencies already hold external partners to such requirements, we will provide more specific guidance to ensure consistency across different partnerships. These will include data protection and security requirements, and they will be calibrated to risk.
In other words, this will not be a one-size-fits-all approach. The more sensitive or confidential the data, the higher the safeguards required. This will include tighter access controls and stronger encryption and logging. This ensures that all external partners understand and uphold their responsibility to protect the data and are contractually bound to maintain the necessary safeguards. Where partners, especially smaller organisations, need to strengthen capabilities to meet these requirements, we will work with them so that safeguards are consistently applied.
Mr Speaker, expanded data sharing will mean expanded accountability too. So, this Bill introduces criminal offences for individuals in external organisations.
Today, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) already criminalises individuals' misuse of personal data held by private organisations or public agencies. The PDPA sets out offences for the unauthorised use and disclosure of personal data, and unauthorised re-identification of anonymised information. Clause 8 of this Bill introduces related amendments to the PDPA to ensure that these offences can apply to misuse of shared data by individuals from external partners.
For non-personal data, the Bill introduces new offences for the unauthorised use or disclosure of shared data by individuals within the external partners. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for this. With these expanded PSGA offences, individuals in external organisations face the same level of penalties that public officers are currently subject to for misusing shared data.
Together, the PDPA and the PSGA will provide for complementary offences for stronger deterrence against abuse.
Beyond criminal offences, the Government also retains strong and practical levers, such as: (a) enforcement of contractual Terms of Use; (b) tightening of requirements if an incident reveals additional safeguards are necessary; and (c) where appropriate, revoking authorisation and ceasing the data sharing arrangement.
Mr Speaker, the Bill also makes an amendment to the PSGA to clarify and make clear that the current set of public sector purposes specified in the PSGA apply for both data sharing with other public agencies as well as for the public agency's own use. As the latter is not explicitly stated today, this amendment will clarify, to avoid any doubt, that public agencies are permitted to use their own data to work more effectively. This removes unnecessary uncertainty and administrative delay, while maintaining the same discipline. For example, in 2023, MOE had planned a new survey called Parents' Voices. This was to understand parents' views on education policies. MOE already had parents' contact information from student data collected during school admission. As the PSGA was not explicit that the data MOE had could be used for other purposes, MOE spent an extra month checking if this new use met the threshold for public interest or consent exclusions. This was counterintuitive since MOE could already share such data with other public agencies under PSGA purposes.
So, this amendment we are making is aligned with the PSGA's original intent to enable the public sector to use data both across and within public agencies to fulfil their functions.
To be clear, this amendment does not apply to external partners. Each of our use cases with external partners must be specifically authorised by the relevant Minister.
Let me turn to health information specifically. The Government will also be introducing a Health Information Bill (HIB), which will set out a framework governing information contributed to and accessed from the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR). This is particularly for healthcare delivery purposes across the ecosystem of providers.
Both the PSGA and the HIB are complementary Bills. Where public agencies need NEHR data for healthcare purposes, the HIB governs this use. This applies when a public agency performs a healthcare service, such as medical consultations or laboratory tests.
The PSGA will continue to govern data in general, including health information for broader public purposes outside healthcare delivery – for example, de-identified data for policy analysis by other public agencies. The safeguards that I spoke about earlier will apply to such information shared under PSGA. Cybersecurity and data security safeguards matching those under the HIB will be required through the Terms of Use for external partners.
There is one exception relating to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). MHA conducts job fitness and medical examinations to ensure that individuals are suitable for various deployments. Many of these examinations by MHA will access NEHR data under the HIB because they are statutory medical examinations. But some job fitness assessments fall outside the HIB's statutory framework. These include fitness assessments for regular uniformed officers to bear arms or take on more demanding deployments.
NEHR information for such assessments would be shared under the PSGA for public safety reasons. MHA will seek consent from personnel and conduct personal data protection impact assessments. Both requirements cannot be waived without consulting the Ministry of Health (MOH) first.
MOH will be going through the HIB in greater detail later.
Mr Speaker, in my maiden speech in Parliament, I emphasised that digital services must be efficient, inclusive and trusted. Technology must serve people, and not the other way around. The same principle applies to data. We share data because it enables us to serve Singaporeans better. And in doing so, we aim to strike the right balance – making data sharing not just more effective, but safer.
This Bill represents a careful evolution of the PSGA. It extends our data sharing and governance framework that has enabled better services within Government to trusted partnerships beyond Government, all while keeping clear what our purpose is, ensuring that there is high-level oversight, strong safeguards and strong accountability.
The enactment of PSGA in 2018 was a watershed moment. It enabled data across Government to serve citizens under strong governance. With the proposed amendments, we maintain our commitment to protect data, while addressing the reality that effective service delivery requires trusted partnerships beyond public agencies. These amendments will enable vulnerable Singaporeans to receive faster, targeted and more coordinated support, when they need it most. The amendments will create clearer legal pathways for responsible partnerships while maintaining rigorous oversight and accountability.
With Members' support to enhance our data sharing regime, this Bill ensures that data serves citizens more effectively and responsibly. And by working closely with our trusted partners for more responsive and integrated service delivery, we can further improve citizens' lives and uplift those who need help. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Changi): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, when the PSGA was debated in this House in 2018, Members raised thoughtful and legitimate concerns. Much of that debate centred on how to strike the right balance between central oversight and the operational autonomy of Statutory Boards; how to enable effective whole-of-Government coordination; how to provide a clear legal basis for data sharing across agencies; and how to apply governance standards consistently across public bodies.
Members also raised deeper questions that remain relevant today: where accountability sits in an increasingly digital state; how we build a data-driven, yet citizen-centric public service; how we break down agency silos; and how governance frameworks can enable, rather than constrain, our Smart Nation ambitions. At its core, the 2018 debate was about governance and boundaries: managing risk, clarifying authority and ensuring accountability as the public sector transformed.
Eight years on, we can see clearly how the PSGA has enabled many of the milestones set out in the Digital Government Blueprint. Whole-of-Government services, integrated digital platforms and the \"once-only\" principle are no longer abstract policy aspirations. They are lived realities for our residents and businesses.
We see this in the seamless sharing of information at the backend: whether in the delivery of the Goods and Services Tax Vouchers (GSTV) and Workfare Income Supplement, or in businesses applying for schemes such as the Enabling Employment Credit and Senior Employment Credit to support vulnerable workers, and many more examples shared by Minister of State earlier. These are not just efficiency gains; they translate directly into people receiving help more quickly and with less friction.
For those of us who regularly assist residents with appeals, we also see both how far we have come and where more can still be done. Even today, we sometimes wish for deeper integration, so that residents in need do not have to navigate multiple applications or repeatedly submit the same information. And we can no longer imagine a Public Service where backend systems are fragmented, because we know the administrative inefficiencies this would create and, more importantly, how easily people could fall through the cracks simply because the system was too complex or too burdensome to access.
Singaporeans intuitively understand the value of data sharing when it is used to meet real public needs, whether to deliver services more smoothly or to reduce administrative burden on businesses. But as we scale these capabilities, the central issue before us today is no longer just governance efficiency or administrative accountability. It is about trust.
Trust that data is used responsibly and only for its intended purpose. Trust that it is protected, not misused or manipulated to the disadvantage of individuals or businesses. And critically, trust that can be sustained as data sharing extends beyond direct Government agencies to external partners and ecosystems; introducing, inevitably, more points of vulnerability that must be carefully managed.
This debate marks an important evolution: from managing boundaries within Government, to how we build, safeguard and scale trust in a digital state that increasingly operates beyond its traditional reach.
Mr Speaker, the MPs of the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) stand in support of this important Bill.
Singaporeans recognise the significant benefits that the PSGA has delivered within Government. This Bill seeks to extend those benefits by enabling trusted data sharing with external partners. As we do so, it is essential that we scale securely, protect the data of Singaporeans and hold external partners to the same high standards that Singaporeans rightly expect of the Government.
It is against this backdrop that the MDDI GPC and fellow People's Action Party (PAP) MPs seek clarifications across several key themes. These clarifications are not raised to slow progress, but to ensure that as we extend data sharing beyond direct government control and unlock further benefits for our people and businesses, we continue to uphold the trust that underpins public confidence in our digital systems.
Allow me to briefly outline these themes before elaborating on my own. Firstly, how does the Government determine what data may be shared, and under what circumstances, with external partners? What thresholds, what principles and public-interest considerations must be met before data move beyond the public sector? GPC and PAP MPs Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Henry Kwek will elaborate on this.
Second, the scope of data sharing, particularly in relation to healthcare data. This Bill is being debated ahead of the HIB, which focuses on safeguarding health data for healthcare delivery. The interaction between these two Bills raises important questions on scope, safeguards, accountability and how the amended PSGA interfaces with other legislation governing data use. My fellow GPC Member Ms Choo Pei Ling will address this.
Third, once data-sharing is deemed appropriate, how do we appoint and assess external partners? What capabilities must partners possess before data is entrusted to them and how do we ensure compliance is robust, yet not overly onerous?
In our deliberations, the GPC recognises that there are many types of data; ranging from anonymised and aggregated data, to business and economic, and sensitive data relating to personal data and critical infrastructure. How do we adopt a tiered, risk-based approach that balances control with efficiency? Mr Henry Kwek, Ms Jessica Tan and I will speak further on this.
At the core of this Bill is the objective of delivering public goods better and doing so safely. There could also be a group of partners who have demonstrated a strong track record of delivering positive public outcomes but may need assistance in strengthening their data infrastructure. The GPC will propose supporting such external partners to mature their digital system so that they can continue to serve residents better.
Fourth, governance and oversight. Who approves data sharing arrangements and what safeguards are in place? When data is shared with external partners, how do we ensure transparency on what is shared and the processes it goes through? Mr Yip Hon Weng will share views on this, including proposing possible oversight mechanisms such as reporting or periodic reviews.
Fifth, ongoing cybersecurity assurance once data exchange is operational and protection against cyberattacks. Mr Cai Yinzhou and I will touch on this.
Finally, accountability when things go wrong. As the cybersecurity community often reminds us, it is not a question of if a breach occurs, but when. How are external partners held accountable should a breach occur on their end, particularly in the context of PSGA and PDPA? Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Henry Kwek will address this. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] There have been many benefits brought by the Public Sector (Governance) Act in strengthening the Government's service delivery. This Bill seeks to extend those benefits through data sharing with external partners, namely organisations outside the public sector.
In this endeavour, it is important for us to enhance our capability to share data securely, protect the data of Singaporeans and ensure that the selected external partners comply with the same high standards that citizens expect from the Government.
In this regard, the MDDI Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), together with the People's Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament, seek several important clarifications. These clarifications are not intended to slow progress, but to ensure that when data sharing is extended beyond direct Government control, we continue to uphold public trust in our digital systems, while further enhancing its benefits to citizens and businesses.
The core of this discussion is not merely about data or systems, but about people's lives. It is about how data is used to facilitate transactions for Singaporeans, expedite assistance to those in need and ensure no one is left behind – while at the same time, allowing us to safeguard the security, privacy and trust that citizens have placed upon us.
(In English): Mr Speaker, allow me to elaborate on my own clarifications. First, on assessing the readiness and capability of external partners entrusted with public data.
Within Government, agencies are required to meet established standards such as Instruction Manual 8 (IM8) compliance, secure hosting environments, robust incident-response capabilities and many others and these are regularly audited. As we extend data sharing to external partners, what equivalent standards will be required of them?
In particular, I seek clarification on the standards that will be imposed; the audit rights Government will retain and the intended audit regime or frequency; whether partners will be assessed through self-declaration, pre-project assessments, or ongoing assurance; on how risks arising from subcontractors engaged by these partners will be managed; and how liability and breach accountability will be clearly structured in contractual terms.
Which brings me to my second point: data classification and proportionality. Information technology (IT) practitioners will recognise that the safest way to manage risk in this scenario is, in theory, not to allow data sharing at all. But the clear benefits of responsible data sharing; seen in schemes such as GSTV, Workfare and employment credits, and all the examples cited by Minister of State Jasmin Lau earlier, show that this is not a tenable position today.
Avoiding risk entirely comes at a real cost to citizens. Our residents have asked for greater integration across Government services, and our lived experience in assisting with appeals shows both how far we have come and how much more we can still do to make lives better for our people and businesses.
That said, not all data carries the same level of risk. Some data may be aggregated or anonymised; some may involve businesses or economic information; and other data may involve personal information or touch on critical infrastructure. Can there be differentiated standards based on the classification and sensitivity of data shared?
A risk-based, tiered approach; matching partner requirements to the nature of the data, could reduce unnecessary burden on partners while maintaining strong safeguards, and allow our data sharing ecosystem to remain nimble and responsive. At the same time, while standards, audits and controls are necessary when data is shared with external partners, they must be implemented in a way that is administratively efficient and not overly onerous, while still meeting the intent of safeguarding data. And most importantly, this framework must be operationally resourced. Assurance cannot rest solely on self-declaration, especially when dealing with sensitive data. It must be supported by credible, enforceable oversight that keeps pace with the scale and the sensitivity of data sharing.
Third, on partners that deliver strong public outcomes but may lack the digital maturity. We must not lose sight that the ultimate objective of this Bill is to deliver strong public outcomes. Some social service organisations, for example, are exceptionally effective at engaging vulnerable seniors or families in need; yet, may not have the resource or technical capability to immediately meet stringent digital standards. Their digital limitations should not diminish their ability to deliver public good, nor risk unintentionally excluding those who need help most.
In this regard, I seek clarification on whether the Government would consider providing support through targeted funding or capability-building programmes to help such partners strengthen their digital resilience. As we approach the Budget period, this may be a timely area for consideration, ensuring that trust and inclusion advance together.
Fourth, on data retention and disposal. I seek clarification on how long external partners may retain this data shared, how proper care, retention and eventual secure deletion of data would be enforced, whether responsibility for ensuring data wiping rests with the individual Ministries or centrally and whether Ministries are adequately resourced to manage these audit trails over time.
Mr Speaker, in the context of extending data sharing beyond direct government control, the key policy question is not whether standards exist. They clearly do. The question before us is how equivalence is assured, how compliance is enforced and how accountability is maintained when trust is delegated. These clarifications are intended to ensure that we scale data sharing not just efficiently, but responsibly – delivering the best public good while safeguarding the data, privacy and trust of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, today, public services are delivered by community partners, SSAs and even private contractors. And we agree that it is important that data is available, where needed, to ensure that public services are allowed to reach as wide an audience as possible and to enable agencies to get assistance to vulnerable groups.
Ultimately, data empowers policy-making that is more responsive to the needs of a diverse population. Thus, we do agree that data must be accessible to entities and partners in order to achieve this, and that data be used to enable better delivery of public services.
However, the question before us today is not simply whether data should be shared or used. It is also about how power over the sharing and use of data is governed and what guardrails are in place where such power is exercised. We also would benefit from having express channels of recourse known and accessible widely that would come into play, if and when mistakes occur from misuse or abuse of data.
The Bill before us today moves us from a framework that, on the whole, allowed data to be shared between public agencies and subject to rules and regulations about such sharing and use, to one which expands the sharing of data expressly authorising: one, the use of data; two, the sharing of data with non-public sector persons; and three, even the re-identification of previously anonymised information – all through Ministerial directions and further authorisations, that is, data sharing and use directions given by a Minister.
Such a shift from a more rule-based model of data governance to one that relies more heavily on executive decision and ultimately, discretion, should be founded in necessity. While we do not automatically disagree with this shift in principle, the public should understand why this change is being proposed and why now.
In this regard, I understand that there will be grounds and limited instances in which data will be shared. However, for a full understanding of the difficulties faced, could the Minister clarify, in the last five years, how many times have agencies run into difficulties in providing necessary services to the community? And from these examples, can the Minister articulate the common characteristics that would indicate when Ministerial discretion was warranted? And will these characterisations be codified as guidance for future authorisations?
Had the agencies previously attempted other approaches, such as, for example, for persons with disabilities and their families attempting to gain consent upfront from affected individuals to share the full suite of data to community partners, which are not public agencies, in order to better provide services?
As I said earlier, allowing sharing to be made subject to a Minister's discretion is not automatically wrong. In a complex system with many moving parts, it is probably often necessary. But as with all our governance institutions, executive discretion has to be bounded, reviewable and transparent, especially when it concerns citizens' data. This is even more so when that data is highly sensitive. I need not remind everyone that data is king, given that we live in a world of scams, impersonation, data theft and identity theft, now enhanced by generative and exponentially improving artificial intelligence.
Under the proposed amendments to this Bill, Ministers will be able to issue data sharing and use directions, and be allowed to further authorise sharing of data with non-public sector persons. While it is provided for in the Bill that directions must not be inconsistent with written law or to impede independently statutory functions, it is not clear to me how these limits will operate in practice under the expanded scope proposed by the Bill. It is not about ascribing nefarious intentions to current officeholders. It is about the institutional design and guardrails that need to be built around such powers to be granted.
Could the Minister thus clarify, what would be the oversight mechanisms to be applied in ensuring that a direction is not overly broad nor made erroneously? What recourse exists if a decision is later found to be erroneous or disproportionate? It is also foreseeable that the proposed amendments could have implications beyond personal data. Any number of businesses now exist that attempt to commercialise personal data that is collected before attempting to monetise these data, whether through outright sale of such datasets, targeted advertising or using it to craft more commercially competitive strategies.
Additionally, public or agencies also often hold commercially sensitive information, proprietary business data or intellectual property belonging to firms that engage with the public sector. It is not inconceivable that personal data, especially when aggregated is, by its nature, valuable, especially when dealing in instances, such as the people sector.
While the Bill criminalises unauthorised disclosure or misuse of disclosed data by employees of external parties, this does not fully address the risk of legitimate but unintended commercial or anti-competitive effects. This could take the form of an external contractor gaining access to sensitive data about a competitor when data is shared legitimately under a broad authorisation to do so.
Could the Minister thus clarify about whether and how the proposed data sharing and use directions will explicitly require consideration and evaluation of data that could be commercially sensitive? Would there be clear expectations to exclude, anonymise or otherwise protect such information by default? Could the Minister also clarify when issuing a data sharing direction, what specific factors must be evaluated? For instance, must the Minister assess the sensitivity classification of the data, the proportionality between privacy, intrusion and public benefit, whether less intrusive alternatives exist and the data recipients' security posture, and are these factors documented in writing for each authorisation?
For example, Saudi Arabia recently issued rules for secondary use of data, which establishes a framework for sharing data beyond its original collection for public interest, research and innovation. Those rules explicitly state, for instance, that the data sharing entity reserves the right to incorporate provisions concerning intellectual property rights and commercial confidentiality within the usage licence.
I would like to turn to the provisions giving express power to re-identify anonymise information. While the Bill emphasises that PDPA obligations continue to apply and that criminal penalties extend to non-public sector recipients, citizens may wonder what are the explicit safeguards or channels of recourse they have to protect their privacy. This is especially in the instance where the data is highly sensitive, such as personal or family medical records. Can the Minister thus clarify: one, what instances would lead to re-identification; two, what avenues exists to raise concerns; three, how will breaches by non-public sector persons be communicated, particularly to affected citizens; and four, how can individuals seek redress in this system that has an increasing number of third-party partners or contractors?
Redress should not only be about fines or punishment. Clear, accessible pathways for recourse are essential to maintaining public trust as data flows become more complex. Once sensitive personal data is leaked, it could potentially compromise a person's financial situation, access to key services and those of their family as well. It could affect the financial, commercial and competitive position of a firm. Should serious data breaches occur and recourse be difficult, that could undermine that very public trust that the Bill rests upon and which the Singapore system has painstakingly built up over decades.
Mr Speaker, to conclude, I am not arguing against using data to govern better nor against using data to strengthen partnerships with the community or private sector. However, I hope that as we expand the executive's discretion about the use of our data out of necessity, we strengthen rather than dilute the governance framework around these increased powers.
Thus, could the Minister consider, first, how Parliament can be kept updated and meaningfully informed about the use of these powers. Second, how Singaporeans can have clearer avenues for recourse. And finally, how can commercial and personal sensitive information be more explicitly safeguarded, even if the use and sharing of such data is subject to Ministerial discretion. This could take the form of including data sharing, breaches, remedies and vulnerabilities, and efforts to strengthen procedures.
We must also have clearer rules and principles that must be applied when Ministerial directions are made for the sharing of data with information about the avenues available to the public to seek redress should their sensitive personal data be misused or even leaked. While we improve our data systems to better communicate and implement policies to better serve Singaporeans, let us ensure that we continue to have measures in place to protect and safeguard sensitive data in order for them to have trust in the institutions that are ultimately meant to be there to serve and support them.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Public Sector Governance (Amendment) Bill. Since its introduction in 2018, the PSGA has strengthened the way Government agencies work together, especially in how they share and use data. This makes a real and meaningful difference to Singaporeans. When agencies can exchange information safely and responsibly, families in need can receive help more quickly, agencies can plan interventions and reduce duplications, eligibility checks for support schemes do not require applications, for example, the GSTV, healthcare subsidies and the Silver Support Scheme, and businesses experience smoother, more coordinated support. The Act also makes clear that data is shared only for genuine public interest purposes and always with strong safeguards.
The Public Sector Governance (Amendment) Bill we are debating today seeks to update PSGA so that the Government agencies can share data with trusted external partners, with the right safeguards in place. This will help deliver services to the public more effectively and seamlessly.
But as we discuss the Public Sector Governance (Amendment) Bill, I want to focus on a set of practical questions that matter to Singaporeans: how will the Government agency decide when data can be shared with external partners? What documentation is required? How will approvals be managed? And how do we ensure that every external partner entrusted with public sector data is truly capable of protecting it?
These questions are at the core of public trust. Singaporeans expect that when their information is shared across agencies or with external partners who help deliver public services, that it is done with care, transparently and only when it genuinely serves the public interest.
So, how will the Government agency decide when data can be shared with external partners?
Under the amendment Bill, any sharing of data with external partners must still be tied to the same seven public interest purposes set out in PSGA. What this means is that data cannot be shared just because it is convenient or efficient for agencies. It must clearly support a real public need – whether that is helping residents receive services more smoothly, ensuring essential functions continue during disruptions or strengthening the stewardship of public funds, or enabling agencies to work together to solve complex problems.
At its heart, the principle is simple: data should only be shared when it genuinely benefits people, is appropriate for the situation and is backed by a strong public interest reason.
But purpose alone is not enough. We also need strong documentation because every decision to share data ultimately affects real people.
Under the amendment Bill, any sharing with external partners must be backed by a Ministerial direction. If the partner is outside the public sector, an additional layer of authorisation is required. This two-tier structure ensures that agencies spell out clearly why the data is needed, what exactly will be shared, what safeguards must be in place and who is accountable.
This is important and I am glad that the Bill specifies this because it creates a transparent audit trail that shows not just what is to be shared but why, with whom and under what conditions? Most importantly, it ensures that these decisions are not made quietly or casually at an operational level. They are reviewed and approved at the right level of leadership, with clear responsibility for protecting the trust Singaporeans have placed with the Government.
Finally, we must ask a simple but important question – how do we know that an external partner can be trusted to handle public sector data with the same care and responsibility that Singaporeans expect from Government agencies?
The public sector operates under stricter rules for managing government data while external partners are governed by the PDPA. The amendment Bill addresses the gap without adding unnecessary compliance burdens for partners, requiring external partners who receive public sector data to be held to the same criminal penalties as public officers if they misuse it, whether through unauthorised disclosure, improper use or re-identifying anonymised information without approval.
These offences carry the same penalties already set out in the PSGA, which are fines of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to two years, or both. This ensures that anyone who is entrusted with public data is held to the same legal standard of responsibility and protection.
But I must stress that penalties alone do not remove risks. We need assurance that partners have the right systems, training and safeguards in place before any data is shared. As more public services are delivered through digital platforms, vendor systems and community partners, one thing has become very clear – data protection cannot rely on the good intentions of individuals alone. Most incidents do not just happen because someone acted maliciously. They can happen because a system was not designed well, a process was unclear or an organisation did not invest in the right safeguards. In other words, the risks today are increasingly systemic, not just personal.
So, the question for every agency that intends to share data is – how is an external partner assessed beyond just checking for compliance on paper?
I am glad to hear the Minister of State say in her speech that before sharing data, agencies are responsible for assessing whether each partner has the systems, processes and competencies to handle Government data securely. I would suggest and would like to ask if the agencies are also required to conduct regular audits to confirm that the obligations in the Ministerial directions are being met in practice throughout the partnership.
It means understanding their partners' technical safeguards, their governance structure, their staff training, their incident response processes and their ability to meet the conditions set out in the Ministerial direction. It means ensuring that they can protect data not just in theory, but in practice, day to day, across their systems and across their teams. Ultimately, this is about protecting the trust that Singaporeans place in our public institutions.
This is not about duplicating the PDPA, which already governs private sector data practice. What I am suggesting is not imposing additional burdens. But I suggest that perhaps we consider not imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all data security burden – I believe the Minister of State did touch on this point – but perhaps that agencies could adopt a risk‑based approach that looks at higher‑risk data flows, undergoing deeper technical assessments, and at lower‑risk or time‑limited projects with a lighter touch.
What matters is that every partner can show that their system works in practice, not just on paper. Where appropriate, agencies can also recognise independent certifications or existing audits rather than duplicating effort. I want to stress again that the intent is not to add burden to our partners because we want their services to be delivered. But we have to find that balance of how to ensure that this is done securely.
At the end of the day, the intent of the PSGA is not to prevent the use of data but how to use it securely. With all these measures, I think we can also recognise that it is not going to take risk away completely. What it is, is to look at how we can minimise or prevent data breaches. Because once a data breach happens, the damage is already done.
We must remember that at the heart of the Bill is a simple promise – that when Singaporeans share their information, that their trust will be honoured. To make this real, public agencies and partners must treat data as a shared, ongoing responsibility. This means building a culture where leaders set clear expectations, staff are trained and supported, and systems are regularly tested and improved. It means learning from incidents, not hiding them. It means working closely with partners to close gaps early rather than waiting for problems to surface.
When agencies and external organisations take that proactive approach and put the safeguards in place, the safeguards in the PSGA then become safeguards in practice rather than just on paper, serving Singaporeans effectively and giving Singaporeans confidence that their information is protected every day. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I support the PSGA. But I would like to place some significant concerns on the record.
Let me begin with a story this House knows well. In January 2021, Singaporeans learned that Police had access to TraceTogether data under the Criminal Procedure Code. This contradicted earlier assurances that the data was \"purely for contact tracing, period\".
The then-Minister in-charge of the Smart Nation acknowledged he had been blindsided. He had not considered existing laws when making those assurances.
The backlash was significant not because Singaporeans opposed law enforcement but because they felt misled about how their data would be used. The backlash led to the expedited passage in February 2021 of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill restricting access to seven serious offence categories.
The lesson is that trust must be built through demonstrably robust processes. Once faith in a data sharing framework is broken, it is expensive to rebuild.
I raise this because the Bill before us creates a new framework for sharing citizen data, this time, with private entities. The question is whether we have learnt from the TraceTogether episode.
The original PSGA passed in 2018 allowed Government agencies to share data with one another under Ministerial direction. This amendment expands that framework significantly. Data can now flow to private companies, contractors and vendors, and introduces a power to re-identify anonymised information.
Mr Speaker, of course, data sharing creates value. Examples abound, like the Social Service Net. When MSF shares client data with family service centres and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), we see coordinated assistance and faster assessments.
But this Bill creates a fundamental asymmetry. The Government gains the capability to share any data with any private entity. Private entities gain access to Government health data. And what do citizens gain?
Under this Bill, a citizen has no right to know when their data is shared with a private company, no mechanism to find out which companies hold their data and no way to ensure they benefit from the value that data creates.
TraceTogether failed on transparency. Citizens did not know Police could access their data. Why risk the same failure mode again with this Bill on a larger scale, with more actors, including those outside the Government, and less visibility?
If this Bill expands what the Government can do with citizen data, should it not also expand what citizens can do to track, to benefit from and to govern that sharing?
Mr Speaker, I ask for three commitments that would complete this framework.
One, a public register. All data sharing directions issued to private entities should be published – the categories of data shared, the recipient, the purpose, the duration. This is not a per transaction notification. It is the disclosure of Ministerial directions made in small numbers.
Australia's Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 includes such a register. It creates accountability without undue operational burden.
TraceTogether's problem was that citizens could not know how their data was used – and a register solves this. So, question one: would the Government commit to publishing a register of all data sharing directions issued to private entities?
Secondly, citizen benefits. When data flows from the Government to the private sector, it creates value for those two players. Agencies gain efficiency. Private entities gain data access and improve their services.
What is the mechanism ensuring citizens share in that value? I mean concrete improvements: service quality guarantees, cost reductions passed to users, transparency about outcomes and also something I believe in, which is benefit sharing from any future possible monetisation of their data. So, question two: what benefits will Singaporean citizens see from this framework? How would these be tracked and reported? And will there be any part of the Government that advocates directly for citizens gaining a share of these data benefits?
Thirdly, public review. The original PSGA allowed sharing between Government agencies. This amendment opens the door to the private sector powers of a different order.
Australia's framework includes a review that \"must start by and be completed within 12 months or a longer period agreed by the Minister of the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act\". This is a sound legislative principle. The grant of novel powers should have built-in moments for reassessment.
The backlash to TraceTogether led to emergency legislation limiting Police access. Would it not be better to commit to a review now, than to legislate in the possible crisis of confidence later? So, question three: would the Minister commit to a formal public review within five years, including the directions issued, the data shared and whether the safeguards have been adequate?
Mr Speaker, beyond these three asks, I wish to flag two concerns about organisational accountability.
Firstly, a data governance gap. The public consultation promised robust safeguards through data governance requirements on external partners – I quote, \"requirements similar to what public sector agencies have to meet\".
What does the Bill deliver? Individual criminal liability for employees who misuse data.
What does the Bill not deliver? Any organisational requirements. No security certification, no audit trails, no breach notification duties.
So, question four: where are the data governance requirements promised in the consultation? And if they are to come by regulation or procurement contract terms, will the Ministry commit to that today?
Secondly, a liability gap for non-personal data. Under PDPA, for data breaches involving personal data, organisations face financial penalties of up to 10% of their annual turnover. Individuals also face liability.
Under this Bill, for non-personal data shared with private entities, only individual employees can be prosecuted. If an organisation systematically exploits non-personal Government data beyond its authorised purpose, the entity that designed the business model and profited, faces no direct liability.
Accountability must reach the benefiting entity. If organisations can profit from misuse while only individuals bear risk, the incentive structure is incorrect. So, question five: will the Government commit to organisational accountability mechanisms, especially for non-personal data which is not covered by PDPA? And why has it not chosen to hold organisations accountable here?
Mr Speaker, I am on the whole supportive of the Bills enabling data sharing with private sector actors. In any case, deeper public-private collaboration is inevitable. Data will flow to where it creates value.
But we should learn the lessons of TraceTogether. TraceTogether taught us that non-transparency about data sharing has costs. This Bill should learn that lesson. Transparency is what makes data sharing sustainable in the long term. So, we will continue to ask for three commitments: a public register, a mechanism to track and report citizen benefit, and a formal review within five years. And I have flagged two gaps in organisational accountability that should be addressed. I trust that the points collectively raised today will spare us a future blindsiding. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Public Sector (Governance) (Amendment) Bill, with particular focus on its interaction with the forthcoming HIB, and the implications of health data being used by public sector agencies and external partners for non-health purposes.
The PSGA establishes the overarching framework for data governance across public agencies, including provisions for sharing health data beyond clinical care – for policy planning, service delivery and community outreach. In contrast, the HIB is designed to safeguard health data primarily for healthcare delivery. The intersection of these two regimes raises important questions about scope, safeguards and accountability.
The foremost concern among Singaporeans is the extent to which sensitive health data will be shared under the PSGA and whether safeguards are sufficiently robust to prevent misuse. Residents want assurance that their most personal information – medical histories, disabilities, mental health records – will not be casually accessed or repurposed.
The Government has rightly identified legitimate scenarios. For instance MSF may share health risk indicators and demographic data with SG Enable and SSAs to proactively reach out to people with disabilities for job-matching and to our seniors for caregiver support. Such proactive outreach is commendable – it improves lives, strengthens preventive care and ensures that vulnerable groups are not left behind.
Yet, these examples also underscore the sensitivity of health data being used for social policy, community outreach and service coordination. The line between beneficial use and overreach must be carefully guarded.
The Bill provides three layers of safeguards for data sharing with external partners – Ministerial authorisation, terms of use which impose data protection requirements and criminal penalties for misuse. The general concern is execution – how usage and safeguards are implemented on the ground. Safeguards on paper must translate into practice. Are agencies sufficiently resourced with trained personnel, secure infrastructure and modern cybersecurity tools to enforce these safeguards? We seek the Government’s assurance that appropriate funding and resources are allocated for talent, hardware and software.
A particularly sensitive area involves requests for health information by public sector agencies for employment or insurance purposes. It is comforting to know that when public sector agencies request health information from MOH for employment or insurance purposes under PSGA, they must first seek consent from individuals and conduct a Personal Data Protection Impact Assessment. These requirements cannot be waived without consulting MOH. This is essential.
The HIB prohibits NEHR access for employment or insurance purposes to prevent discrimination. It would undermine public trust if agencies could bypass this by requesting the same information under PSGA.
I note that the Bill requires individual consent and a Personal Data Protection Impact Assessment for such requests, with MOH oversight. These are critical backstops. But I urge the Government to go further – commit that such requests will be rare and exceptional, subject them to close scrutiny and independent review, and publish annual reports detailing the number and nature of such requests to ensure transparency and accountability.
To further enhance trust, I propose that the Government jointly maintain a public register of all use cases where health data has been shared under PSGA for non-health purposes. The register should specify the authorising Minister, the external partner, the general purpose and the categories of data shared, without disclosing sensitive operational details. Such a register, updated regularly, would reassure Singaporeans that health data sharing beyond healthcare delivery is tightly controlled, exceptional and subject to public oversight.
On future-proofing safeguards, could Singapore explore privacy-preserving technologies, such as anonymisation, differential privacy or federated learning, to enable data-driven insights without exposing raw health records? These technologies are increasingly adopted worldwide to balance innovation with privacy.
The PSGA amendments empower the Government to partner effectively with community organisations for public benefit. With robust safeguards – Ministerial authorisation, cybersecurity requirements, criminal penalties and mandatory consent for sensitive uses – health data can, indeed, be shared responsibly where genuine public interest exists. But transparency, accountability and public trust must remain at the heart of this framework. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.
Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. At its core, this Bill strengthens the Government’s ability to deliver help that is effective, timely and dignified. In practice, the Government does not serve Singaporeans alone. It works with social service agencies and community partners to deliver care with empathy. It also works with the private sector to deliver services efficiently and at scale. And to do this well, it often needs to pull together the right facts from different sources, so that those who need help most can receive the right support quickly and in a coordinated way.
But we also know the challenge. Information does not always flow smoothly sometimes across agencies and often between Government and trusted partners.
Many of us in Parliament see the consequences when we help our residents in their appeals. Some residents must submit the same documents multiple times. Some must repeat the same details again. Some must recount painful parts of their story more than once before support can be put together. Not everybody can navigate the system with ease. And some do fall through the cracks, not because officers or partners do not care, but because the right information needs time to gather for the right persons to act. And that is why I support this Bill and its direction.
It is a practical step forward from the status quo and it aims to strike a better balance between service delivery, privacy and security. And it recognises a simple truth – data sharing must not be driven by convenience. It must be controlled, accountable and safe, especially when we share data with external partners.
Because this Bill will has wide impact, I have three questions.
First, can the Minister of State share a range of concrete examples across the Government of how this Bill will improve outcomes for Singaporeans beyond what she has shared earlier? Examples that show better support for those who need social and financial assistance, better coordination across services and stronger outreach, especially for seniors, preventive care and active ageing. Some examples may be immediate, others longer-term, but it will help us understand and have a clearer sense of the early priorities and aspirations and how the Government fully intends to tap this Bill to better our people’s lives.
Second, the Government works with many partners of different sizes and capabilities. What are the key principles for deciding what to share, with whom and how much? How will the Government ensure purpose limitation and data minimisation is done, so that we share what is needed and not more than what is needed, and not longer than what is needed? And where strategic partners need this information to serve residents well but lack capability, how will the Government help level them up?
Therefore, I call for the Government to provide common frameworks, grants, training, shared platforms and secure ways for partners to plug in, so that all partners, even the smaller ones, can meet the requirements without being overwhelmed.
Third, on cybersecurity. Singaporeans expect data to be safeguarded well and we also expect strong consequences for misuse. At the same time, threats are becoming more sophisticated and even well-run organisations can be targeted by persistent attacks or malware.
While we must keep the bar high and always learn from past mistakes, we must also avoid swinging to the other extreme, setting requirements or consequences so onerous that capable partners hesitate to work with the Government. We must also guard against the Public Service getting excessively risk averse that they do not even want to share even with this expanded framework and therefore, lose the chance to serve our people better.
With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister of State the Government’s approach to setting cybersecurity expectations that are robust but also clear and workable across different partners? For example, what is the baseline standard for all partners and what higher standards must apply for more sensitive data and what support will be given to help partners meet these standards?
And the next point, and an important point, if a serious incident happens despite reasonable safeguards by these partners, given how widespread cybersecurity breaches are globally, how will the Government assess responsibility in a way that is fair, firm and predictable so that our partners have clarity and confidence to work with us?
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill reduces friction for our residents, strengthens trust and helps our ecosystem of partners serve Singaporeans more seamlessly, while keeping safeguards. I also hope the Government will take this chance to engage partners closely as implementation begins, so that the safeguards are not just strong on paper but also workable in practice. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.
Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support for the amendments to the Public Sector (Governance) (Amendment) Bill.
As Minister of State Jasmin Lau shared, I note that in tandem with the HIB, the Public Service (Governance) Bill complements and allows the Government to deliver better social services to Singaporeans nationwide, by permitting public agencies to share and use data across agencies, as well as with non-public sector partners. With the appropriate safeguards to prevent misuse, this amendment Bill will enable targeted and effective delivery of social services to those who need it the most.
My Toa Payoh Central residents, with a significant elderly population, is supported by various social service providers, such as Care Corner, TOUCH, Dementia Singapore, NTUC Health, People’s Association, as well as many other local community healthcare services and organisations. Non-public social service providers would benefit from greater collaboration and information-sharing with the public sector agencies serving the same community needs.
Similar to how schemes like the Housing and Development Board Flat Eligibility process and ComCare financial assistance require pulling of data from various sources, I agree that the enhancements will allow for timely access in delivering support and ensuring that no one is left behind.
In order to better enable the delivery of social services to our communities, I have two points of clarifications for the Minister’s consideration.
First, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that data shared with non-public sector organisations is safe from malicious third-party cyberattacks and data breaches.
We live in a day and age where no organisation is safe from cyberattacks, including our social service providers and charitable organisations. For example, in May 2019, more than 4,000 individuals had their personal information leaked after part of the reputable blood donation organisation’s website was hacked. Personal names, contact numbers, email addresses, declared blood types, preferred appointment dates and times and preferred locations for blood donations were compromised.
According to the Singapore Cybersecurity Health Report in 2023, which surveyed more than 2,000 small, medium and large organisations in Singapore, over eight in 10 organisations encountered a cybersecurity incident that year.
As hackers use sophisticated techniques to evade detection, they lurk in networks to spy over the long term, to steal sensitive information or disrupt essential services, among other objectives. Therefore, my question is, how will external partners be expected to keep up and maintain safeguards, before they can receive shared data from public agencies?
Whether in the form of encryption standards or increased incident response capabilities, how regularly would these safeguards be reviewed? Risk profiles and ownership may change over time as organisations change systems, employees or subcontractors. Regular audits and reviews of the cybersecurity capabilities of external partners would ensure a safe and secure transfer of data between the public and non-public sectors. And I am sure what many SSAs will also want to know is the details of the terms of funding, which will be allocated specifically for beefing up of their IT infrastructure.
Secondly, I would like to ask whether the Ministry will consider introducing financial penalties against non-public sector organisations which have misused data shared under this Act. The amendment currently states that it is an offence for organisations to carry out improper disclosure or use of data/information by individual employees or officers of non-public sector organisations.
Individual accountability is important, especially in cases where a single individual or a small group of individuals may be directly responsible for the misuse of shared data. However, in other data incidents, responsibility is unable to be traced back to one single employee. The failure may be organisational, for example, due to weak internal controls, poor access governance or inadequate training.
In those cases, it is especially important for a strong framework of organisational liability to exist, to ensure that liability can be correctly attributed to a wider variety of situations. For example, under the PDPA, the Personal Data Protection Commission can impose financial penalties against an organisation for intentional or negligent contraventions of PDPA.
I would like to clarify whether the Ministry intends to look into imposing similar financial penalties on organisations who have contravened data sharing and use directions issued under PSGA. This may be necessary considering the sensitivity of the information shared by the Government with non-public entities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I strongly support this amendment's efforts in further facilitating information sharing in a protected manner, ensuring that our Government's efforts will be better able to support Singaporeans nationwide. These additional measures will ensure that the public continues entrusting personal data to the Government and, by extension, its external partners, upholding its commitment to data security. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support this amendment Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, data is often described as the new oil. Today, I want to frame it differently. I want to speak of data as eyesight, the visibility that allows the Government to see what is happening in people's lives, especially at the margins.
When the Government holds data but cannot share it effectively with trusted partners on the ground, it becomes partially blind. When the system cannot see clearly, it is not policy that fails first. It is people, especially the vulnerable, who fall through the cracks. This Bill seeks to address that blind spot by enabling responsible data sharing beyond the public sector. While I support this move, it raises fundamental questions about agency, accountability, safeguards, transparency and trust. I have several clarifications.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my first concern is individual agency, viewed from the lived experience of a resident.
Under the amended sections 4(5) to 4(8), a public agency may share information with non-public sector persons only with further authorisation from the Minister. Even after sharing, the public agency remains the controller under PDPA. These are sound legal constructs. But for residents, these are invisible. Legal control does not always translate into felt control.
I acknowledge that consent is often not practicable, especially when data is needed urgently to identify those in need. However, urgency is not a licence for opacity. While agencies may not know every future downstream collaborator, the Bill rightly requires them to specify the external partners, purpose and scope. If an agency does not know who it is sharing with, it should not share at all.
From a resident's perspective, consent is not merely a checkbox. It is a signal of dignity. When consent cannot be the default, what replaces it as a reassurance? When a resident walks into a Family Service Centre, they experience the system as one whole. They do not distinguish between a Ministry, a charity or a contractor. Yet under this Bill, their data may flow across all these actors.
Will residents be told clearly, plainly and at the right time, that their information is being shared? When something goes wrong, will they know whom to turn to first, instead of being bounced between agencies? Furthermore, not all data sharing is life critical, some are for administrative convenience. In such cases, will residents have a practical way to express discomfort? The Bill provides no opt-out, so reassurance must come from transparency and restraint, not silence. Efficiency matters, but it must never eclipse agency.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second concern is the explicit authorisation to re-identify anonymised data under amended sections 4(5)(d) and 6(1)(d).
For many residents, \"anonymisation\" is understood as a permanent promise. The idea that it can be reversed, even lawfully, feels unsettling. Re-identification is a powerful tool. Used well, it can help agencies identify unmet needs. Used poorly, it erodes trust.
I ask four questions. First, on communication. How will the Government explain that anonymisation is not an absolute state, but one that may be reversed under tightly authorised circumstances? Residents must understand this is not casual.
Second, on ethical boundaries. Will there be clearly articulated \"no-go zones\"? Can the Minister assure us that re-identified data will never be used for predictive scoring affecting access to housing, insurance, loans or employment?
Third, on oversight. Ministerial approval is a high bar, but for large cohorts or sensitive data, should there be independent ethical review, similar to health research purposes? Fourth, on purpose limitation. Re-identification must exist to help people, to connect dots for protection, never to label or stigmatise.
I also note that data should be retained only for as long as needed. Purpose completion should trigger deletion, not secondary utility. Why should anonymised datasets continue to be held by external partners once the authorised purpose is complete?
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third concern is accountability. Under the Bill, sharing with non-public sector persons requires Ministerial authorisation, which may be delegated. This use case specific model supports agility, but delegation raises a simple question: where does the buck stop?
First, who may be a delegate? How many layers of delegation are envisaged? Transparency matters because delegation should not dilute responsibility. Second, would it be more robust to have high-risk or large-scale decisions reviewed by a small standing board rather than a single official? Third, could the Government consider maintaining an auditable register of future authorisations, with anonymised statistics published annually? Trust grows when systems can be verified, not merely asserted.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth concern regards to safeguards as data flows beyond the public sector.
The Bill introduces offences for unauthorised disclosure of non-personal data by employees of external partners, with penalties of up to $5,000 or two years' imprisonment. Personal data misuse remains governed by PDPA.
First, on proportionality. Where large datasets are mishandled, will these penalties sufficiently deter negligence? Second, on coherence. To residents, a breach is a breach. Are we confident the PSGA and PDPA framework leaves no gaps where technical classification determines liability rather than real harm? Third, on prevention. Sanctions act after damage is done. I understand external partners will be subject to Terms of Use requiring strict security standards. How will compliance be validated? Will audits be regular, risk-based and independent? A breach at the weakest partner compromises the entire ecosystem. Smaller charities acting in good faith must be supported, while large vendors must be held to higher standards befitting their capabilities.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my final concern is the lived experience of this Bill. While data sharing directions are internal instruments, the stated aim is enhanced transparency. Will residents receive plain-language explanations of how and why their data is shared? Could MDDI commit to an annual public report summarising data sharing directions and authorisations? How will this information be accessible to seniors and those with limited English proficiency? Transparency cannot live only in legal texts. Finally, does the Government plan to measure public trust in this sharing ecosystem and course-correct if it erodes?
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me close by returning to where I began. Data is eyesight.
Four-year-old Megan Khung did not die because no one cared. She died because the signals that might have protected her never came together. A preschool saw injuries; a social worker identified risks; family members raised concerns. Each saw a part of the picture, but the system never saw clearly, early enough or as one.
No law can guarantee that such tragedies will never happen again. But Parliament has a responsibility to ask whether we can build systems that can see better, respond earlier and act together.
If data is eyesight, then sharing must help the system see, not blur its vision. If data is eyesight, then re-identification must protect the vulnerable, not label them. If data is eyesight, then accountability must be visible, not lost in layers of delegation. And if consent cannot always be practicable, then we owe residents something just as important in return: clarity about what is done with their data, dignity in how decisions are made and confidence that responsibility is clearly held.
Many PAP MPs today have rightly stressed that when data leaves the public sector, external partners must meet the same high standards as the Government. With clear public interest tests, stronger oversight and firm accountability, including how this Bill aligns with the HIB that is upcoming. This Bill gives us tools, but tools alone do not guarantee wisdom. What matters is how we choose to use them.
So, let us be clear about our commitment. We will use data to protect, not to stigmatise. We will share data to connect, not to surveil. We will govern data so the system can see clearly, so that people can live with dignity. That is the work before us, not to just to pass this Bill, but to exercise its powers with restraint, care and moral clarity; not just to enable data sharing, but to earn and keep the trust of the people we serve.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let us act with that responsibility firmly in mind. Let us ensure that when the system sees, it sees together and when it acts, it acts in time. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Jasmin Lau.
Ms Jasmin Lau: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their support and their questions. Several Members raised questions on the scope and the safeguards for data sharing with external partners.
Expanding PSGA is like building more bridges to help more people cross safely and access support earlier. Every bridge must be built with a clear public purpose. Not for curiosity, not for convenience and not for commercial gains, but to connect our people to something essential. Likewise, data will only be shared when there is a clear public service objective.
Access to the bridges must also be properly authorised. Not everyone can direct traffic across the bridge or change its structure. And likewise, data access will be tightly governed, with clear and defined approval processes, roles and responsibilities.
As the usage of these bridges grow, we must ensure that those who operate and maintain the bridges are capable and ready. This means that we will assess and uplift both the public sector and our trusted partners' capabilities so that they can be trusted custodians of the data that they receive.
Trust is sustained through accountability and transparency – through regular inspections, monitoring and audits. And when something goes wrong, a responsible system responds decisively. We close, we fix, we make the bridge safe again. That is why we have clear incident management processes. We do not give up on building the bridges altogether.
This is how we help more people while strengthening trust. Because trust is not meant to be a brake that holds us back. Trust is what makes progress possible.
I will now address specific points that Members raised.
Mr Henry Kwek asked for concrete examples of how the Bill will improve outcomes – particularly for those around us who need social and financial assistance, especially for our seniors and our children. I shared a few examples in my opening speech on how the PSGA framework has enabled more integrated delivery of support within Government. With this Bill, we can extend this approach to partnerships with SSAs, community partners and self-help groups – organisations with deep networks, cultural understanding and presence on the ground.
Mr Cai Yinzhou mentioned many social service providers that support his Toa Payoh Central residents – Care Corner, TOUCH, Dementia Singapore, NTUC Health and others. These partners can benefit from data sharing with public agencies, serving the same community needs. Our seniors can receive more coordinated care. Families in difficulty need not repeat their circumstances to multiple parties. And the staff working in these social service providers can focus their time and their energies on providing tangible help, rather than collect duplicative information again.
Mr Kwek, Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the public can be assured that their data would be used appropriately. And central to all of this is our focus on building and safeguarding trust, as noted by Mr Sharael Taha. Let me explain the three safeguards that must be met before data is shared with external partners.
First, there must be a valid purpose. Data sharing must serve public purposes as provided for under the PSGA. To borrow Ms Tan's words, data is not shared just because it is convenient or efficient for public agencies, but it must clearly support a real public need. The two main categories where Government will share and use data for remain unchanged. That is, data will be used for better delivery of services to the individual and for policy analysis and formulation.
Ms He Ting Ru claimed that we are shifting from a rule-based framework to executive discretion in data sharing. Let me be clear, there is no such shift. Again, there is no such shift. The existing PSGA stipulates seven purposes under which a Ministerial direction may be made for data sharing these clear purposes, as well as all existing data governance rules remain fully in place. These purposes make it clear that citizens must benefit before data can be shared. So, Mr Kenneth Tiong may have misunderstood, but there will be no situation where we share data with partners for their commercial benefit.
What we are adding is a second layer of checks referred to as the \"further authorisation\" in the Bill for cases of sharing with external partners. This authorisation by the Minister is not a replacement for rules, but an additional safeguard.
There must be proper authorisation. Before data is shared with external partners, it must go through careful deliberation within the Public Service, culminating in a sign off by the Minister or his or her delegate. Each authorisation must clearly state the purpose for sharing the scope of data to be shared and the specific external parties receiving the data.
To Mr Yip's question on the delegation of Minister's authorisation, delegation if done, will only be to the senior leadership level of the Public Service. Any delegation will be made public as provided for under the Interpretation Act.
The third safeguard is that our partners must comply with Terms of Use. Even if there is a valid purpose and proper authorisation, public agencies must assess the external partner's ability to meet the requirements in the Terms of Use and impose these terms on them. Let me elaborate on these requirements, which Members have asked about.
These Terms of Use will include data security and protection safeguards, such as using anti-malware software with up-to-date signatures and performing regular vulnerability assessments. Retention periods for the data will be specified and requirements to purge data when the retention period has ended will be mandated. External partners will also have to provide yearly declarations of compliance with the Terms of Use. Non-compliance needs to be rectified. Failing which, data access may be revoked.
On top of these, there will also be higher requirements for more sensitive data. For instance, periodic audit checks at a higher frequency when more sensitive data is involved. These checks will be conducted by the agency or qualified third parties appointed by the agency. Highly sensitive data will also require reviewing of privileged accounts monthly for access rights.
Before any data sharing is established, such terms, of course, will be discussed with the external partner to ensure that they are able to comply. As our trusted external partners may face liability under the contractual terms, both the public agency and the external partner must be confident that the requirements can be complied with.
Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Yip asked about our principles for data protection and sharing. The starting point is this: where identifiable personal data is not needed, anonymised data will be provided to external partners instead. As Dr Choo noted, public agencies also use privacy-preserving technologies to limit unnecessary exposure of data.
Where personal data is concerned, public agencies must continue to exercise judgement even if the statutory requirements allow for sharing with external partners should this Bill be passed. In the instance of health information, which Dr Choo had asked about, for health information that is used for employment and insurance purposes in particular, there will be additional requirements under the Public Service's rules to seek consent and to conduct a personal data protection impact assessment under the PSGA. In cases like this where the data use is highly sensitive, an additional impact assessment may be made and consent sought, even though, it is not statutorily required. This is another example where more safeguards are put in place in proportion to the risk.
To Mr Yip and Ms He's questions about re-identification of anonymised data, this was already debated in 2018. Re-identification of anonymised data can be allowed only when it meets public sector objectives. For example, when certain datasets are corrupted or destroyed and re-identification is needed to continue delivering services to citizens. Unauthorised re-identification remains an offence.
Several Members also suggested providing a list of external partners authorised under the PSGA. We will consider what is practical. Today, public agencies work with many partners on diverse purposes, often on an ad hoc basis, and it could be challenging to share, in detail, a list of external partners or notify citizens for every use, given the dynamic nature of these partnerships. But we thank Members for the suggestion and we will review this at a later date once we have sufficient experience with the Bill.
Individuals with concerns about how their personal data is being used can approach the relevant public agencies or the external partner. They can also report suspected misuse of their personal data or report data incidents through the Government Data Incident Reporting Platform.
Mr Cai and Mr Kwek asked about cybersecurity expectations for our external partners. And Mr Cai also rightly noted that no organisation is immune to cyberattacks. As I shared, our approach is to set standards proportionate to risk. We have baseline standards that all partners must meet, with more stringent requirements when sensitive data is involved. When the data security space evolves and new requirements are needed, public agencies will also update the Terms of Use so that our external partners are well-positioned to protect data.
Mr Kwek and Mr Yip asked about smaller partners who may lack resources. And Mr Cai similarly asked about how external partners would be expected to maintain safeguards against sophisticated attacks. While well-intentioned, tiering cybersecurity requirements so that smaller entities face less stringent standards is not advisable. A smaller entity may handle data sets that are as sensitive as larger partners and hence lowering the requirements simply due to them being smaller entities will not be proportional to the level of data risk.
Instead, our public agencies will work with our external partners to build the capabilities where necessary for the proper and responsible management of data shared with them. This was a point raised by Mr Sharael. As Ms Tan had suggested, this may involve ensuring robust systems, strong training and proper controls. Mr Kwek also suggested for MDDI and the Government Technology Agency of Singapore, to provide common tools or shared platforms to help smaller organisations and partners meet the requirements. We will consider this.
Mr Cai asked whether the Ministry will consider financial penalties against organisations that misuse data. Mr Tiong also asked about organisational accountability. This is an important question. And Mr Cai is right that not all data incidents can be traced to a single employee. Failures may be organisational in nature, arising from weak internal controls, poor access governance or inadequate training. And in such cases, organisational liability matters.
Let me assure Members that such a framework already exists. First, organisational liability under the PDPA. External partners must comply with the obligations under the PDPA, such as maintaining reasonable security requirements preventing unauthorised access. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) can impose financial penalties on organisations for intentional or negligent contraventions. This also applies to personal data shared under the PSGA framework. So, the organisational penalties that Mr Cai asked about are already available under existing law.
Second, contractual liability. I earlier mentioned many times the Terms of Use that public agencies will impose on external partners. Organisations receiving Government's data must comply with the data protection and security safeguards in the Terms of Use and may face liability under these contractual terms for breaches.
Third, individual criminal liability. The Bill amends the PDPA to make clear that offences relating to personal data under the PDPA will still apply so that individuals that intentionally carry out unauthorised actions can be taken to task.
Fourth, coverage of non-personal data. The new PSGA offences cover non-personal data. And this means that all data shared by Government, be it personal or non-personal data, is covered either by PDPA or PSGA in terms of penalties for misuse.
Mr Yip also asked if the severity of offences is large enough to deter bad actors. The penalties are aligned with current PDPA offences for external partners and PSGA offences for public officials. The possibility of imprisonment for misusing data is a significant deterrent.
Mr Kwek and Mr Yip have raised concerns about data incidents. We take these very seriously. All data incidents reported to Government will be properly looked into. When significant data incidents occur, we have strict requirements for public agencies to be accountable to the public and to affected individuals. And when incidents are likely to result in significant harm or impact on individuals or entities, affected individuals will be notified, except where it would adversely impact public interest.
Public agencies will take remedial actions to limit the impact of an incident, investigate and address vulnerabilities, and also to recover equipment and data. The Government will also continue to report on data incidents. External partners are obligated to report to the public agency or to PDPC when significant data incidents occur.
Mr Kwek asked how Government will assess responsibility in a way that is firm, fair and predictable, if a serious incident happens despite reasonable safeguards. Liability is assessed in context: we look at all of the facts and the circumstances, and we consider the nature of the incident, whether reasonable safeguards were in place, and the actions of the parties involved, including their response to the incident. Partners who act in good faith and made reasonable efforts to implement proper safeguards will be treated fairly. Those who are reckless or negligent will be held to account.
Mr Tiong raised TraceTogether as a cautionary tale. Let me address this directly. First, on the facts. When the issue arose, the Government came to Parliament, explained the position and clarified the legal framework. That is accountability. We did not hide from scrutiny, we addressed it openly in this House. Parliament subsequently passed the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment) Bill to restrict the use of TraceTogether data to serious offences. So, the system worked as it should.
Second, TraceTogether did not undermine public trust in the way Mr Tiong suggests. Singaporeans continued to use TraceTogether. They understood the Government's explanation and the safeguards that were put in place. To characterise it as a fiasco that broke public trust is not borne out by how Singaporeans actually responded. The lesson from TraceTogether is not that Government cannot be trusted with data. It is that when questions arise, the Government must be accountable and transparent – and we were.
Mr Yip asked whether citizens can be permitted to opt out of data sharing with our external partners. This is not feasible. The data sharing serves broad public sector policy, planning and service delivery objectives. Allowing individuals to opt out would lead to incomplete data, which will fundamentally undermine our ability to plan, formulate policies and deliver services.
Take planning for social services as an example. If individuals opt out, the data that public agencies and external partners have will be incomplete. This could mean under-provisioning services for groups with specific needs simply because public agencies and partners are unaware of those needs. Partners will also find it more difficult to optimise their resources for more targeted outreach or service delivery.
Complete data is needed for more informed planning and decisions. And this is why the Bill builds in oversight of each data sharing arrangement. The Bill restricts sharing to public sector objectives under the PSGA and provides for criminal offences to ensure that external partners take their duty to protect the information seriously.
Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their thoughtful speeches. The concerns raised – about purpose, authorisation, partner readiness, accountability and incident response – are precisely the questions we must ask when we expand data sharing. This Bill enables public agencies to better use data to serve Singaporeans and this goes to the heart of the public sector's core mandate, which Ms Tan has noted, has made real and meaningful differences to Singaporeans.
When more people rely on a bridge, we do not slow down progress. We build and we strengthen the foundations, we tighten the controls and we inspect the bridges more rigorously. That is the approach we are taking, with this Bill. This is how we serve more Singaporeans while safeguarding trust. Progress that lasts is progress that is built on trust. Keeping data safe is an ongoing and shared responsibility. We are committed to this responsibility, as we strive to serve all Singaporeans better. I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications for Minister of State Lau. Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I thank the Minister of State for her clarifications and her response. I just want to clarify, because I think she may have misunderstood what was my fifth question. I was saying that there is no organisational statutory liability for those handling non-personal data, and I think she made some references to contractual obligations as well as something about personal — so, I just want to clarify that it is organisational statutory liability for non-personal data, does it exist or not?
Another thing I would like to bring up, which I do not think she has answered, is my request for a public register of all these Ministerial directions. Australia does it. I do not see why it would be very difficult to do it. It will certainly not be operationally difficult to, because it is just publicising the type of data that is going to be shared. As well, I think, the five-year review period – I do not see why not. Australia does it, and I think it is quite a sound legislative principle. so, these are my supplementary questions for now.
Ms Jasmin Lau: I thank Mr Tiong for his clarifications. I spent quite a bit of time just now explaining how organisations will be liable if they misuse data: there is an existing PDPA, as well as Terms of Use.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Is PDPA not for personal data?
Ms Jasmin Lau: So, in the same explanation in the speech, I went on to say that there are also contractual Terms of Use that public agencies must impose on external partners for the receiving and use of all data. Those Terms of Use will hold our external partners liable, should they misuse the data.
On the point about public register, I think I mentioned in my speech, that we will consider what is possible, what is feasible, as we get more experience with the Bill. The reason why I said that the Member may have misunderstood was that the point raised earlier was about whether our citizens will benefit from the data sharing. I needed to clarify that the PSGA only allows for data sharing for Public Service objectives. There is no sharing for commercial gains and therefore, there is no need for citizens to check whether or not private companies or organisations are gaining from this.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for Minister of State Lau? Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Sorry, not to belabour the point. Is it contractual liability or statutory liability? And second of all, could the Minister of State respond on my five-year review period point, please. Thank you.
Ms Jasmin Lau: On the first question, contractual liabilities. And I think on the second question, we have said that we will review what is feasible as we gain more experience with this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for Minister of State Lau? No.
[(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. – [Ms Jasmin Lau]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The Chairman: The citation year \"2025\" will be changed to \"2026\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendment. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question for Third Reading put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.43 pm until 4.05 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Xie Yao Quan) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Information Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I move that, \"The Bill be now read a Second time.\"
I will first set out the context of the Health Information Bill (HIB) and its role in supporting the transformation of our healthcare delivery model. I will then outline how the HIB will help Ministry of Health (MOH) achieve the goal of \"One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey\", and bring Members of the House through the key provisions of the Bill, before finally covering our plans to commence the Bill from early 2027.
Sir, Singapore is rapidly ageing. By 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. This substantial demographic shift brings with it a higher burden of chronic diseases and a higher proportion of patients with multiple co-morbidities. These patients will need well-coordinated, sustained care.
This is why we are transforming our healthcare delivery, from being hospital-centric to delivering care in the community. We are implementing national programmes like Healthier SG and Age Well SG, as well as initiatives, such as the Home Personal Care and Mobile Inpatient Care @ Home.
Sir, this effort will enable patients to benefit from timely and more holistic care. Patients will receive care from a wider range of healthcare providers, not just at public hospitals and polyclinics, but also at home or in the community, including at general practitioner (GP) clinics, dialysis centres and via home medical or rehabilitation services.
The sharing of a patient's key health information across settings and service providers is therefore essential. Such sharing of health information will also benefit younger patients who visit new healthcare providers or encounter medical emergencies.
Today's situation is not ideal. Currently, when patients move between healthcare providers, such as from private specialist clinics to their GPs, their key health records are often not accessible across providers. Such gaps can risk medication errors, delayed treatment and duplicate tests and procedures.
This is why many jurisdictions, such as Australia, Estonia, Finland and Norway, have developed robust governance frameworks to govern the sharing of health information across healthcare providers. This sharing regime has led to better patient outcomes, reduced costs and more effective and efficient healthcare delivery. We have studied these jurisdictions carefully and adopted key features suited to our local context.
But, Sir, in practice, we are not starting from scratch. Singapore started sharing health information across providers since 2011, with the implementation of the National Electronic Health Record system (NEHR). Today, all public hospitals and polyclinics are already contributing key health information to NEHR. Public hospitals contribute about 80% of total beds in Singapore and account for approximately 90% of hospital stays. And with Healthier SG, most GP clinics are already onboarded to NEHR. This has been of tremendous benefit for GPs and their patients. Most private hospitals have also onboarded to NEHR, while the remaining are in the process of doing so.
Hence, the vast bulk of key healthcare services are already on NEHR, or coming onboard soon, leaving a small group that have not done so, such as specialist clinics, clinical and radiological laboratories and dental clinics.
Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout on the key elements of the HIB.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Thank you, Sir. Members may also access the handout through the MP@SGPARL App. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Sir, the HIB will help us realise the vision of \"One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey\" in two important ways.
First, the HIB will close the remaining gap by requiring all licensed healthcare providers to contribute to the NEHR and providing for their NEHR access. This will allow patients' key health information to be accessible by their healthcare providers when they move across healthcare settings. Patients will benefit from better coordinated care, enhanced quality of care and lower costs.
Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example of 50-year-old Ms Kamala, as covered in the infographic. Ms Kamala regularly visits her nearby GP to manage her chronic health conditions. She recently moved to a new estate. When she visits a different GP near her new home, the doctor there can make informed care decisions based on Ms Kamala's health information in NEHR.
Her new doctor can see which tests have been done and the medications that have been prescribed. He need not repeat the tests, saving Ms Kamala time and money.
Appropriate tests and medications can also be ordered to better manage Ms Kamala's health requirements. Patients moving between private and public healthcare providers, or acute and community settings will similarly benefit.
Actually, I think many Members in the House can relate to these examples. We often see our residents, especially our seniors, sitting in front of a GP clinic, carrying a big plastic bag of medicine. I once joked with an Ah Gong, saying, \"Most people go and see doctor to collect medicine. How come you see doctor, bring medicine to see doctor?\" So, he laughed and said, \"Doctor asked me what medicine do I take. How can I remember? So, I brought everything there.\" And I am pretty sure, if I looked into his plastic bag, there would be medicine that has been issued by another doctor many months or even some time ago, and probably had expired. So, this situation is not ideal.
Second, the HIB will enable the sharing of non-NEHR health information to facilitate community-based care. Today, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) under MOH shares data with community health partners to enable them to engage and provide befriending services or care to seniors. The HIB will provide an additional channel for the sharing of non-NEHR health information to better support national health programmes and initiatives.
Let me illustrate this using another hypothetical example also covered in the infographic: 72-year-old Mr Lim has Type 2 diabetes and has rarely left home since his wife passed away. Mr Lim has been skipping his polyclinic appointments and struggles to manage his diabetes.
Without the opportunity to see Mr Lim, the polyclinic cannot seek his consent to share his contact and relevant health information with community health partners for follow-up. However, if our community healthcare providers and their partners are aware of Mr Lim's conditions, they can better support him.
With the HIB, when Mr Lim's polyclinic assesses that he would benefit from community support, the polyclinic can potentially share his contact information and an indicator of his level of health risk, such as whether he has a chronic condition, with AIC. AIC can then prioritise engaging Mr Lim, encourage him to check on his well-being and link him up with necessary support if needed.
AIC's early engagement of seniors like Mr Lim allows them to benefit from healthcare providers and community-based services before their isolation sets in, leading to more serious health consequences. And again, this is a scenario that I am sure many Members in the House see when we do our house visits, meeting our seniors in the community, especially seniors living alone, isolated. And these provisions under the HIB will help to enable better care for our seniors.
To ensure that the Bill addresses Singapore's healthcare needs as well as considers stakeholders' views, MOH has been engaging the public and stakeholders since 2022.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the public and patient advocacy groups for their support for the Bill and their invaluable inputs, such as providing patients with greater control over their access to NEHR. I would also like to thank the professional bodies and healthcare professionals for their feedback, particularly regarding the cyber and data security requirements and the support that their members and colleagues may require as part of the transition. MOH has taken these viewpoints onboard.
Sir, now allow me to go through the Bill's key provisions and safeguards for the sharing of health information under the Bill.
In the example of Ms Kamala shared earlier, NEHR would only be able to support her new doctor if key health information from her previous healthcare providers were contributed to NEHR.
The HIB will require all healthcare providers licensed under the Healthcare Services Act 2020 and retail pharmacies licensed under the Health Products Act 2007 to contribute key health information about patients into NEHR. The key health information are those crucial for continuity of care such as allergies, vaccinations, diagnoses, medications, laboratory test results, radiological images and discharge summaries.
As certain public agencies such as the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) also provide patient care, the Bill enables these agencies to be gazetted under the Act to contribute key health information to NEHR.
Key health information of Singapore Citizens, permanent residents and patients with long-term immigration passes will need to be contributed as these groups are more likely to seek care in Singapore over time. Health information of transient visitors such as tourists need not be contributed.
Clauses 10 to 15 set out the provisions relating to the contribution of key health information to NEHR. The First Schedule lists the key health information that each licensee category needs to contribute, based on the patient care functions they provide.
NEHR access will be provided to the healthcare providers that are contributing key health information to NEHR. The Bill will also enable NEHR access for community health partners providing clinical or care planning services. This is in recognition of their increasingly important role in supporting patients' continuity of care.
To enable the provision of timely and effective care, there will not be a need for every healthcare professional to seek consent each time they access their patients' NEHR.
At the same time, we are mindful that patients expect their NEHR information to be kept confidential. The Bill provides for robust legislative safeguards to address these concerns. We also have in place technical controls to ensure that access to NEHR is tightly regulated.
Let me first speak about the legislative safeguards.
NEHR access for patient care purposes will be limited to licensed healthcare providers and their authorised individuals. Healthcare providers must only authorise NEHR access for healthcare professionals who require it for patient care purposes. Such professionals include doctors, nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals. Individuals who only perform an administrative or corporate role, even if they are healthcare professionals, will not be given NEHR access. Authorised individuals must access NEHR only for patients whom they are providing patient care to.
Healthcare providers must also implement appropriate practices to ensure their healthcare professionals access NEHR appropriately. This will include regular training on the appropriate use of NEHR and conducting audits on NEHR access.
In short, access to NEHR is restricted to healthcare professionals for the purpose of providing care to their patients. Accessing NEHR for purposes relating to employment or insurance will be strictly prohibited. This means healthcare professionals will not be allowed to access NEHR for purposes such as filling out medical reports required for insurance claims or pre-employment medical screening forms. This will address the concerns expressed during the public consultation that health information could be used in a discriminatory manner by employers or insurance companies.
However, there are medical examinations set out in statutes which serve to protect the public and safeguard the health of the individual and those around him. Examples include examinations of persons who are at risk of an infectious disease and the medical examinations to assess fitness for service in the SAF, SCDF and Singapore Police Force as required under the Enlistment Act. NEHR access will therefore be allowed for these statutory medical examinations.
Clauses 16 to 23 set out the provisions relating to NEHR access, including the legislative safeguards. The Second Schedule sets out the categories of authorised individuals who may access NEHR for different categories of healthcare providers. The specified statutory medical examinations for which NEHR may be accessed is listed in the Third Schedule.
That is the set of legislative safeguards. Let me turn to the technical controls that MOH will put in place to tightly regulate access to NEHR.
First, authorised individuals will only be granted access to the data types required for their patient care duties. For example, nurses in general will not have access to radiological images as they do not require this information for their patient care duties.
System-level controls to limit unauthorised access, such as limiting the number of patient records that can be accessed within a stipulated timeframe and conducting regular audits to flag unauthorised NEHR access, have already been implemented. We will be progressively rolling out additional technical measures and processes to limit and detect unauthorised access to NEHR information of patients.
Patients themselves can monitor access of their NEHR information through their HealthHub account and can report suspicious activities to MOH for investigations.
Sir, by default, patients' key health information will be contributed to NEHR and will be accessible by healthcare providers to support the continuity of care across healthcare settings. For those who continue to have privacy concerns, they may restrict access to their NEHR information so that only select healthcare providers may have this access. This Access Restriction feature is like the approach adopted by countries like Australia, Estonia and Hong Kong.
Today, such an Access Restriction regime is already in place. Patients can submit their request to place an Access Restriction at public healthcare institutions (PHIs). From the second half of this year, patients can do so through the HealthHub app.
For patient safety, when patients visit their healthcare providers, the provider will still be able to view a subset of records in the patients' NEHR even if there is an Access Restriction in place. This subset of records comprises critical allergies and vaccination information that helps reduce the risk of inappropriate prescriptions or immunisations when patients visit new healthcare providers.
Further, a patient's NEHR information may be accessed during medical emergencies despite an Access Restriction. This feature, known as \"break-glass\", is like Australia's approach. Access in such extenuating situations will be subject to strict controls.
First, only doctors will be allowed to \"break glass\". Second, before \"breaking glass\", the doctor must re-verify their credentials and declare a medical emergency has happened. Third, every instance where a doctor \"breaks glass\" will be subject to audits. Confirmed cases of inappropriate \"break-glass\" will be investigated as potential breaches under the HIB and may also be referred to the Singapore Medical Council for disciplinary action.
To ensure there are no gaps in patients' records even during emergencies, health information will continue to be contributed to NEHR even when an Access Restriction is placed.
While Access Restriction is an option, we do not encourage its use as it would adversely affect the quality of care we receive as patients. It is only when healthcare providers – our doctors and our frontline healthcare staff – have access to our key health information that they can deliver holistic and effective care in a timely manner.
Next, let me turn to clauses 29 to 33, which deal with Access Restrictions. Details relating to these Access Restrictions will be set out in subsidiary legislation.
As the national repository of key health information, NEHR information can be used to inform national policies and research to improve population health outcomes for Singaporeans. The HIB will provide for the sharing of identifiable NEHR information for public health purposes and anonymised NEHR information for broader public interest purposes.
Let me give a few examples. For example, in the event of a major drug contamination incident, MOH may share necessary information from NEHR, such as the identity of patients prescribed with the drug, with relevant healthcare institutions and direct them to promptly contact the affected individuals and advise them to stop taking the drug and seek medical care. The HIB will not impede the sharing of NEHR information as required or permitted under other laws.
For example, NEHR information may be required under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 to facilitate criminal investigations by the Police or by the Communicable Diseases Agency under the Infectious Diseases Act 1976 for outbreak investigations and contact tracing of potentially exposed individuals.
But for all requests, MOH will assess whether the NEHR information is appropriate and necessary for the purpose of the request, taking into consideration factors such as whether alternative information is suitable and whether anonymised or aggregated data would suffice.
The sharing of NEHR information under other laws, as well as for public health and public interest purposes, are provided for in clause 5 and clauses 20 to 28 respectively.
Sir, let me now turn to the provisions for the sharing of non-NEHR health information to facilitate community-based care.
As mentioned earlier, the HIB will provide an additional channel for data sharing to support the goal of \"One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey\". We will enable the scoped sharing of non-NEHR health information without an individual's consent only if three key criteria are met.
First, data sharing must be between specified entities. For a start, this will cover key public healthcare stakeholders such as PHIs, AIC and public agencies.
Second, information must only be shared for specified use cases to support continuity of care and population health outreach under national programmes such as Healthier SG and Age Well SG. For example, PHIs may share contact information and the addresses of seniors with AIC for AIC to contact and engage these seniors to connect them to relevant community-based care services and activities based on their needs.
Third, we will restrict the data types that can be shared to those relevant to each use case. The data shared will generally be limited to basic identification and contact information and if necessary, broad health risk indicators, such as the presence of frailty or chronic conditions, but not the actual medical conditions.
The scope and key requirements for the sharing of non-NEHR health information are provided for under clauses 45 to 60 while the use cases and specified entities are set out in the Fourth Schedule. The list of data types allowed for each use case will be set out in subsidiary legislation.
Let me now turn to the measures in the HIB to secure and protect health information.
Healthcare providers that contribute to and access NEHR as well as entities allowed to share and receive non-NEHR health information will need to meet cybersecurity and data security requirements. They will also be responsible for assessing whether a notifiable cybersecurity incident or data breach has occurred. Once confirmed, MOH will need to be notified. Where a data breach has resulted in, or is likely to result in, significant harm to individuals, the affected individuals will also need to be notified. These security requirements are covered in clauses 61 to 82.
To be clear, today, licensed healthcare providers and practitioners already have obligations to safeguard the personal data of their patients under existing laws. The security requirements under the HIB are based on existing standards and legal requirements. What the HIB does is to consolidate these requirements in relation to health information.
Additionally, the Bill will empower the Minister for Health to take emergency measures in critical events where the threat to health information or relevant health information systems could result in health information being lost or compromised. Such powers are not unique to this Bill and can be found in the Infectious Diseases Act 1976 and the Cybersecurity Act 2018.
These powers are necessary. We have seen how incidents, whether cyber or physical in nature, can lead to major and prolonged disruptions of essential services around the world, including healthcare services. Physical incidents, such as fires, can take out information systems and result in data loss, just as faulty information technology (IT) updates or cyberattacks can lead to the same outcome. Hence, these powers are scoped towards enabling responses to protect health information regardless of the form of the threat.
Should an outage involving health information or the systems that host or process such information occur in Singapore and threaten a major disruption of healthcare services, clauses 83 to 85 will allow the Minister to direct relevant healthcare providers to take mitigating or recovery measures.
Sir, as I have earlier mentioned, we intend for the Bill to take effect from early 2027. This would give healthcare providers sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the Bill’s requirements and strengthen their cybersecurity and data security postures. MOH is working closely with healthcare providers on the implementation timelines and will announce further details soon.
Sir, during our consultations, some healthcare providers shared concerns about the burden of implementing the HIB’s security requirements. MOH has been engaging the associations and providers. I wish to reassure them that MOH is committed to supporting them through this transition.
We will inform healthcare providers of NEHR-compatible systems that meet the Bill’s cybersecurity requirements and automate the contribution of key health information. With the use of such NEHR-compatible systems, healthcare providers will then only need to ensure their data security measures are in place, such as training staff involved in patient care to access and use NEHR appropriately. Training resources and programmes, as well as funding support, will be made available to support healthcare providers and healthcare professionals.
We are aware that some healthcare professionals are concerned about increased liability from accessing and using NEHR. MOH is working towards publishing guidelines on the appropriate access and use of NEHR information that healthcare professionals, including nurses and allied health professionals, may use as a resource.
I will now touch on the key offences and the penalties. Under the HIB, non-compliance with contribution requirements is not an offence in the first instance, as we recognise that there could be genuine challenges onboarding to NEHR. If non-contribution arises from technical difficulties, for instance, we will work with healthcare providers to rectify the underlying issue. However, in the event of deliberate or reckless non-compliance or breaches, directions may then be issued to the healthcare provider to comply. It is only when the healthcare provider fails to comply with a direction that the provider could be liable for an offence punishable by up to $20,000, one year’s imprisonment or both, upon conviction. And I reinforce, it is really in the event of deliberate or reckless non-compliance or breaches.
For breaches that are likely to have a greater impact on patients, maximum penalties are higher. For instance, a person convicted of an offence relating to unauthorised access of NEHR information under clause 38 faces a fine of up to $50,000, two years’ imprisonment or both, for a first offence. This maximum penalty is doubled for a repeat offence or if the unauthorised access was for employment or insurance purposes. The penalty for this offence is comparable to other relevant laws. For instance, the maximum fine of $50,000 is aligned with serious breaches involving unauthorised access to computer material in the Computer Misuse Act 1993.
Breaches involving systemic failures are dealt with most severely. For instance, healthcare providers that fail to put in place the cybersecurity or data security measures required under the HIB may face a fine of up to $1 million, as the health information of many patients could be compromised. A failure would likely be committed by a healthcare provider or other organisation. Hence, the maximum fine must be high enough to serve as an effective deterrent to such organisations.
Nevertheless, these are maximum penalties, which are aimed at addressing the most egregious of breaches. We would like to reassure healthcare providers and healthcare professionals as well as Singaporeans that should potential breaches occur, MOH will look at the facts of each case carefully. The Bill also allows for a range of enforcement actions besides prosecution, including composition of offences, directions to rectify breaches and letters of warning.
Sir, the HIB will play a critical role in supporting the transformation of our healthcare delivery services and model. Through “One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey”, Singaporeans will benefit from better coordinated care, enhanced quality of care and lower costs. I urge Members of the House to support the Bill. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Sir, I first declare my interest as managing director and senior partner of a management consulting firm that does work in the healthcare space.
Over the last several years, healthcare in Singapore has been on a profound journey of transformation – from hospital to community, from treating sickness to preventing it. This Bill marks a decisive step on that journey. At its heart, the HIB is not about technology. It is about enabling a healthcare system that is more connected, more proactive and more centred on the patients, not on institutions. As MOH puts it: “One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey”.
This Bill establishes a statutory framework governing how selected health information is collected, accessed, used and shared – not just for medical treatment but also for community health, preventive care and population well-being.
The Health Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) supports this Bill. Over the course of this debate, my colleagues will examine it from the perspectives of patients, general practitioners (GPs), allied health professionals, workers, legal safeguards and cybersecurity. We are united by one conviction – this Bill must deliver safer, more continuous and more trusted care. I will focus on what the Health GPC regards as most critical – continuity of care, especially as care shifts into the community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our residents do not experience healthcare as a single episode or a single institution. They experience it as a journey – often a long one – across GP clinics, polyclinics, hospitals, community hospitals, community health posts, home care teams and social services. Yet, too often, our systems still treats each encounter as if it were disconnected. For many of them, especially seniors and those managing chronic conditions, the biggest challenge is not access to care but continuity of care.
My Woodlands residents tell me: “I have to repeat my story every time”; or “My GP didn’t know what the hospital had done or that my medication had changed”; or “My mother was discharged, but no one seems to have the full picture.” One of my “Ah Mas\" in Woodlands carried a plastic bag stuffed with her medical records – and yes, medications, just like the Senior Minister of State’s resident “Ah Gong” – wherever she went, just in case. That is not integrated care.
And this is not only about the very old. Woodlands Hospital is already seeing residents in their 40s and 50s at the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E), presenting with diabetes and complications. They bounce between providers, miss follow-ups, have poor disease control and ultimately, fall out of the system. That is exactly why longitudinal, joined up information matters. If we wait until people are frail, we have already failed them.
Continuity of care is directly linked to public health and early intervention. When middle-aged residents presenting with advanced diabetes, it tells us we did not see them early enough, support them consistently enough or connect the dots across years of care. A health information system that allows us to identify patterns – not to police individuals, but to detect communities at risk – gives us the ability to intervene before preventable diseases derail lives. This is responsible public health planning.
Continuity of care is not an abstract principle. It is about whether a doctor sees the whole patient, not just the part that walks into their clinic that day. It is the difference between safe medicine and risky medicine, between early prevention and avoidable deterioration. It is foundational to patient safety, quality of care, system efficiency and dignity.
The HIB strengthens this foundation by ensuring that essential health information – medications, allergies, diagnoses – can follow the patient, not remain trapped in institutions. It enables care teams across settings to work from a shared understanding and make better clinical decisions. It also enables the sharing of health information outside the NEHR to support critical programmes, such as Healthier SG and Age Well SG. This is particularly important in the community setting, where healthcare and social care must operate in close coordination.
In Woodlands, the Health Promotion Board and the National Healthcare Group have embarked on the Improving Health in Woodlands Town Project, and it has my full support. It integrates health, social and community services using shared data dashboards to guide proactive care, from identifying at-risk residents or residents with chronic diseases and connecting them to health and social services to smoothening transitions from hospital to community and home care, to promoting healthy living and to partnering with grassroots organisations and communities to curate health-related activities and link up residents to relevant interventions, supported by Community Health Dashboards for local planning and progress monitoring. This Woodlands project could show what becomes possible when care is joined up, data works for the people and communities lead the way – a model that could inspire the rest of Singapore.
But none of this works if information does not move. If the GP does not know what medications were changed, if the community nurse does not see the discharge summary, if the social worker is unaware of the medical risks at home, care becomes fragmented. Residents repeat their histories, tests and procedures may be duplicated, caregivers are left uncertain and opportunities for early intervention are missed. Conversely, when information is shared, care becomes coordinated and outcomes improve. Residents feel assured, caregivers feel supported and the system functions more effectively.
The Bill also enables a learning healthcare system. With longitudinal data, we can anticipate disease, manage chronic illness better, support public health planning and evidence-based policy-making and accelerate medical research breakthroughs, from early cancer detection to precision or personalised medicine. For public health planners, this data allows us to understand which neighbourhoods are ageing faster, where chronic disease is poorly controlled and where caregivers are under strain, so we can deploy resources where they are needed most, not where the voices are loudest.
But none of this can succeed without public trust. And trust, Sir, is not built by aspiration. It is built by rules, limits and accountability. And that is why the Health GPC will be watching five critical issues closely.
First, access controls. The Bill allows broad categories of “authorised users” to access NEHR data for healthcare and care coordination. My residents’ greatest anxieties relate to sensitive data including mental health, reproductive health and social vulnerabilities.
This fear is real, but the solution to fear is not fragmented care. The solution is stronger rules on who can see what.
Access must be purposeful, proportionate and auditable. Sensitive information, for instance, mental health records should require higher-level authorisation or additional justification. Member Alex Yeo, a lawyer, will address this from a legal and governance standpoint while Member David Hoe will bring his characteristic moral framing and empathy for the most vulnerable in our community, that I have come to admire so much in a short time in this House.
And earlier, in the PSGA debate, Member Cai Yinzhou made the case that when Government agencies and external parties want to use health data for non-healthcare purposes, there must be clear use cases, justifications and safeguards.
Second, employment and insurance use. The Bill rightly prohibits the use of NEHR data for employment and insurance eligibility. This is crucial. But prohibition on paper is not enough. Indirect access or inference – for example, where doctors are asked for medical reports or insurers rely on clinical documentation – must be tightly controlled. We must have clear guidelines for clinicians. Doctors must not be placed in ambiguous positions of having to decide what can or cannot be disclosed, and patients must not be pressured to consent to disclosures that undermine the spirit of the law.
Our labour Member Dr Wan Rizal will speak from the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) perspective on safeguarding workers' rights – particularly for those with mental health conditions, this is his passion.
Third, support for smaller providers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have heard people say that older GPs might be a problem when it comes to implementing this Bill. Let me be clear: in the transformation our healthcare journey is on, GPs are not the problem; they are the solution.
Many Woodlands residents have seen the same GP for decades. Some of these GPs cared for my residents when they were young and are now caring for their children. That is longitudinal data in action.
Smaller providers often have limited manpower and IT resources. If onboarding, cybersecurity and reporting requirements are too costly or complex, smaller GPs could struggle. Older GPs could decide to close shop. We then risk widening the gap between large institutions and community care – exactly the opposite of what this Bill intends.
Financial support, shared services models and practical implementation timelines must be clearly set out. MPs Yip Hon Weng, Joan Pereira and Choo Pei Ling will speak on how to support these GP clinics and community partners.
Fourth, protection for doctors and allied health professionals. NEHR must support, not replace, professional judgement. Clinical protocols, medico-legal guidance and professional standards must be clear so that healthcare workers are not unfairly exposed.
A doctor himself, Member Dr Hamid Razak, will speak on medico-legal clarity for doctors, while Member Choo Pei Ling together and Member Dr Wan Rizal will speak up for allied healthcare professionals – community nurses, therapists, social workers – who play a critical role in community care and must also have clarity and protection when using NEHR data.
Fifth, cybersecurity and accountability. Public trust requires resilience. Audit logs, breach detection, structured response and transparent communication to citizens are essential. Past breaches have left long shadows. Member Yip Hon Weng will address resilience and cybersecurity measures, drawing on perspectives of the Defence GPC. Members Choo Pei Ling and David Hoe will speak on breach response, transparency and recourse.
Mr Deputy Speaker, some have asked: \"Why not make this system opt in? Why can't I opt out fully?\" We should be honest. There are many things in life one can opt out of, but you cannot opt out of safe care. In an emergency, your doctor must know your allergies. That makes safeguards even more important, not less. Access to sensitive data must be carefully designed. Prohibitions on employment and insurance use must be real in practice, not just in statute. Smaller clinics and community partners must be properly supported, not overwhelmed. And the rate of people opting to activate access restrictions should be tracked, as a barometer of public trust.
Sir, the Health GPC supports the direction of this Bill because the status quo – fragmented information and disjointed care – is not good enough for our citizens. But our support comes with a. responsibility to ensure continuity of care is delivered in practice, that safeguards are real, professional guidance is clear and that community-based providers are not left behind. If we get this right, my Woodlands Ah Ma would no longer need to carry her medical history in her plastic bag. Her integrated care team will already have it, working together across settings to give her the best possible care and ensure she enjoys a good quality of life well into her old age. This is the system this Bill must deliver. With these expectations clearly in mind, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the HIB is transformative in a way. It will set the legal framework for the mandatory contribution, collection, storage and disclosure of health information across the entire healthcare ecosystem of Singapore. When passed, fragmented and often paper-based health records held by individual healthcare providers will be a thing of the past, morphing into a unified interoperable NEHR.
This is not merely a technological upgrade. The Bill promises smoother, safer, more efficient healthcare for all patients under our country's health system. Given Singapore's rapidly ageing population, successful implementation of NEHR is critical to ensuring seamless care and continuity across different healthcare institutions.
Trade-offs may test people's trust. However, these benefits come with trade-offs, which, if not properly addressed, will affect the people's trust in this national Smart Nation effort. After all, nothing could be more sensitive and personal than one's health information records over the years. The thought of such intimate human data being viewed by viewed by nameless, faceless persons, other than your own doctors, or even worse, falling to the hands of hackers, must be very real to some of us when we contemplate the HIB.
Thus, while I support the Bill, I wish to raise a few concerns posed by the HIB, and I will be speaking on the challenges for smaller healthcare operators, such as single or dual-doctor practitioner clinics that many of my residents rely on for their daily medical needs.
Sir, we must recognise that the centralisation of health data across all healthcare providers, from the very small to the very large, introduces significant privacy and cybersecurity risks across the entire ecosystem. Even with strict regulations and legal governance frameworks, there has been cases of unauthorised access as well as outright hacks. It is public knowledge that some of the most egregious data breaches in the past 10 years have happened within healthcare. Chief among them was the 2018 hack of the SingHealth system that led to a Committee of Inquiry, and also the delay of the NEHR roll-out by more than five years. The personal particulars of 1.5 million SingHealth patients, including the then Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong and the records of outpatient dispensed medicines belonging to 160,000 patients were stolen. Till today, the identified hostile state actors behind the attack remain unaccounted for.
More recently, there have been at least two reported cases of unauthorised access by healthcare professionals. For instance, a neurosurgeon at SingHealth was dismissed in 2022 for inappropriately assessing the medical records of over 70 patients not under his care. More recently, in 2025, a customer service associate at the NUH was found to have unlawfully accessed the records of 11 individuals, including family members and former colleagues via NUHS' internal Epic system, reportedly driven by personal motives to reconnect with one of them.
While the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals uphold ethical and legal standards, the ease of access to such records will severely undermine public trust.
Many of us may be asking how can I be sure that the GP clinic at the next block to mine with only one and half doctors, and one to two doctors and two clinic staff on shifts be able to comply with the HIB and also be self-protected against cyber and data risk created by either human or system errors.
The NEHR is only as secure as the smallest operators are. While the HIB's stringent requirements are essential for safeguarding patient data and access, they place a significant burden on smaller healthcare providers who may no longer opt out of contribution to NEHR. Under Part 2, Division 2, failing to comply will lead to a fine not exceeding $20,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both. In the case of continuing offence after conviction, a daily fine of $1,000 applies.
Large institutions like SingHealth and National Health Group may mobilise their dedicated IT teams. Small practices, however, will find themselves in unfamiliar territory and will have to rely on costly external consultants to comply, creating a significant operational burden.
On an ongoing basis, the challenge is particularly acute when it comes to warding off attacks and data breaches. Under the law, healthcare providers of all sizes share legal liability for data breaches caused by health data intermediary failure, placing a disproportionate burden on clinics that lack control over these risks.
Although the GP IT Enablement Grant offers one-time subsidies for adopting NEHR compatible system, as I understand, they do not cover the ongoing cost of maintaining cyber security compliance. Small healthcare operators may be out pocket for purposes of upgrading and maintaining their clinic management systems to meet strict security standards, audit trails and data portability. Even with this grant, GPs are simply not trained to assess whether their providers use genuine end-to-end encryption, secure server configurations, or follow basic cyber security best practices.
How can we help clinics to use appropriately secure yet affordable compliance systems? How can we ensure the essential cyber hygiene practices like staff training and regular software updates are undertaken without imposing disproportionate cost burden and/or adding to the existing pressures of running their small practices?
We should also be concerned whether this leads to GPs passing the cost down to patients and reducing affordability in primary care. How will MOH ensure that such cost will not be passed down to patients? How will it affect our mom-and-pop clinics and family doctors?
Mr Deputy Speaker, many family doctors are people who are located near to our homes convenient for us to visit when trouble hits and who have known us and our family members for years, if not decades. They are an important part of keeping us safe and healthy. With the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) and Healthier SG schemes, they have become more integrated into the overall health delivery infrastructure nationwide – at least some of them. However, they are often by nature very small, akin to mom-and-pop clinics, often fronted by one doctor with, say, possibly another on a locum basis, or not even without another locum, they open only part of the day. Some may not even have air conditioning and some may still use paper records. Furthermore, the doctors are older, serving their patients past their official retirement age, which makes them well loved and trusted.
I do wonder whether the passing of the HIB with punitive costs for non-participation and compliance may be the straw that breaks this group and push them to give up their practices for good. I certainly hope not, even if they are in a minority. We should be concerned about conveniently located medical services disappearing from our neighbourhoods at exactly the point when Singapore is becoming a super-aged society that needs more care, not less.
A volunteer shared with me recently her worries for her 87-year-old mother who lives in her own flat and is under the trusted care of her family doctor a few blocks away. This doctor runs a solo practice in a void deck shop without air-conditioning. He only opens a few hours a day, but this suits the elderly patients that he mostly serves.
If this doctor is forced to close due to implementation of the HIB, my volunteer is worried that her mother will no longer have convenient access to care. It will be stressful for this volunteer as a daughter living away from her mother whenever her mother falls ill, needs to top up her medicines or take a vaccination, whereas currently, she trusts her mom to visit this doctor and her troubles will usually be sorted.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope MOH will provide the necessary assistance to all small clinics and practises, so that the burden of the HIB and NEHR may not be so overwhelming for these doctors, such that they will prefer to close their practices instead.
Next, extend financial support beyond GP IT Enablement Grant and set up an IT Shared Services Office. Given the challenges I have highlighted above, will the Minister consider giving a grant for small clinics or practices with say, fewer than three full-time practitioners to assist the clinic or doctors in their ongoing compliance, with the HIB's cyber and data standards and practices?
This may be an extension of the GP IT Enablement Grant, but targeted towards the smaller operators rather than the chain clinics. Going beyond financial support is also important. They need Institute of Technical Education technicians to help them directly when issues arise. They also need a dedicated help desk.
To address this, could the Minister consider setting up an IT Shared Services Office within the Ministry that may provide small clinics with not a one-off, but a continuing out-sourced, cost effective and compliant IT support, acting in lieu of the dedicated IT department of large healthcare institutions?
Besides my suggestion above, I would also urge MOH to consider setting up a similar initiative to support all clinics and practices, like the shared services initiative for charities. The Commissioner of Charities has partnered with various organisations to set up shared services to strengthen charities, regulatory compliance and efficiency of their backend operations, especially helpful to smaller charities. These are not nice to have. They are imperative.
This Bill changes the rules of the game. It mandates that every private clinic from the specialist in Orchard Road to the void deck GP in the heartlands must contribute their data. They have no choice if they wish to stay open. But if MOH were to demand institution-grade security against risk and breaches on a solo operator's budget, it may not just be unfair, it may even be unsustainable for some.
Compliance with the HIB cannot be a one-size-fits-all assignment. More must be done to help onboard small clinics and family doctors at the same level of standards and readiness as large institutions. Let us not make the small clinics the weakest link of the system. They should also be the trusted mission-critical partners, worthy of a Smart Nation.
Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the final part of my speech, I will touch on the penalty regime under the HIB. I have spoken about the SingHealth data breach of 2018. The Personal Data Protection Commission fined SingHealth $250,000 and its IT vendor, Integrated Health Information System (IHiS), $750,000, totalling $1 million for failing to protect 1.5 million patients' data.
Section 66 of the HIB states a fine not exceeding $1 million for organisations that fail in data security in handling of health and relevant information. While the figure of $1,000,000 appears substantial in isolation, it pales when contextualised against the scale of modern healthcare data breaches, such as the SingHealth one in 2018. Let us do the math: 1.5 million SingHealth records were leaked in 2018. A total fine of $1 million – $750,000 plus $250,000 – equates to an effective fine per record of 66 Singapore cents.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we may wish to review whether this is the value we wish to place on the privacy of our citizens, as such. Furthermore, for a large healthcare conglomerate with annual revenues in the hundreds of million, a $1 million fine is a relatively lesser or even trivial operating expenses. Relatively speaking, it is roughly equivalent to the cost of a few high-end medical devices. It is hardly a pain point to some, even less of a serious business risk to the large hospital groups. Instead, the $1 million cap effectively puts a ceiling on the value of the collective privacy of the nation, regardless of the number of persons attached or affected.
Let us compare this with global standards that have successfully shifted corporate behaviour. First, the European Union's (EU's) General Data Protection regulation imposes administrative fines of up to $20 million euros, or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. The 4% turnover clause is the main deterrent. For a tech giant or a global hospital chain, this could amount to hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. This scales the penalty to the size of the entity, ensuring that the fine is never just a cost of doing business.
Another is the California Consumer Privacy Act, which allows for a private right of class action lawsuits with statutory damages between US$100 and US$750 per consumer per incident. This directly monetises the harm to the individual. It creates a mathematical certainty of catastrophe for negligence. If this is applied to the SingHealth case of 1.5 million victims, we will be looking at a payout of between $200 million and $1.5 billion. The penalty, in a sense, may better match the pain of the victims. More importantly, it will make organisations take the message much more seriously.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would surely understand, on one hand, some of us may think that the penalty regimes in EU and California may be a bit too high, and some will argue that they will be eventual cost impact on consumers. On the other hand, some may argue that they can better match the pain of the victims. We can, and perhaps we should, review and decide where the balance may better lie for Singapore.
But it is important that our regime must ultimately make all organisations take the message more seriously. By way of example, if you were to introduce say, a per person fine, similar to the approach in California – and of course, we must discuss this robustly before any decision is reached, how much this fine should be and the premises for arriving at the quantum – say, for illustrative purposes, we peg the fine per person's records to what we have to pay to acquire people's personal information from, say, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's BizFile, where per report or certificate is charged at $33 or $50. This is purely for illustration. This method would scale automatically a small clinic losing 50 records pay $ 1,650 to $2,500, painful but survivable. This shaves the calculus. It forces senior management and boards director to view cybersecurity not as an IT cost, but as an existential business risk.
It signals that the state values each individual's privacy. It moves away from the abstract notion of system security to the concrete value of personal data. This is how we can build a system that is robust at the outset. There is the trust of every contributor. We can start looking numerically at what would be a good balance for Singapore, or at least a better balance than what we have now, and which pertinently will make all organisations take the message more seriously, while being fair and equitable for bigger medical organisations, as well as smaller clinics and practices. Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, notwithstanding my concerns, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.
Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, when Singaporeans hear about greater use and sharing of health data, their first reaction is rarely about system architecture or data flows. Their concern is much simpler, it is much more human, and they ask: can this information be used against me? Will it affect my job? Will it affect how I am treated? I hear this from workers, from our seniors and from caregivers alike.
Many residents, especially older residents managing long-term conditions, worry about who can see their information, whether consent is meaningful and what happens if something goes wrong. These are legitimate concerns and I know that other Members will raise them in detail, particularly on system safeguards and patient protections.
As a labour Member, I rise today to focus on a pillar of this Bill that is essential to public confidence: worker trust, and in particular, the safeguard that disallows health data from being accessed or used for employment purposes.
Sir, for workers, health data does not exist in isolation. It intersects very directly with their livelihoods, with hiring decisions, job retention, access to work opportunities and sometimes, continued participation in the workforce. This applies not only to traditional employees, but also to self-employed persons and platform workers, whose access to work can be more fragile and more easily withdrawn.
In these contexts, the imbalance of power is real. When income and job security are at stake, workers often feel they have little room to refuse disclosure, even when they are uncomfortable. And that is why legal safeguards matter, not just in theory, but in how workers experience the system.
This is why I want to state clearly and on record that I strongly support the safeguard in this Bill that disallows health data from being accessed or used for employment purposes. This safeguard is not peripheral. It is central to whether workers trust the system at all.
So, why is this system so important? Some may ask why this needs emphasis, since the safeguard is already existing in the Bill. The reason is not legal, it is behavioural. Even the perception that health data could affect employment decisions can discourage workers from seeking timely care, disclosing relevant information to healthcare professionals or participating fully in national health initiatives like Healthier SG. This would undermine the very objectives of this Bill.
Workers should never have to weigh their health against their livelihood. If this Bill is to succeed in improving continuity of care and public health outcomes, workers must feel safe engaging with the healthcare system, without fear of downstream consequences at work.
This concern is especially relevant for protected characteristics and disabilities, including mental health conditions. I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that any one type of health condition is more important than another, but from a workplace fairness perspective, some types of information are more likely to be misunderstood, stigmatised or misinterpreted in employment contexts.
Mental health conditions, for example, are often less visible, episodic and poorly understood in workplaces, despite progress over the years. The issue is not the data itself. It is the risk of unfair treatment if such information is misused or even informally taken into account. This is precisely why the employment-use safeguard is so important.
The Labour Movement has long stood for the principle that workers should not be discriminated against, on the basis of protected characteristics, including disabilities and mental health conditions. The safeguards in this Bill include specific prohibitions on NEHR access for insurance and employment purposes. It reinforces, in the context of health data, the same values we have already affirmed as a society: that personal characteristics and health conditions should not become barriers to fair treatment at work. Seen in this light, this safeguard is not an additional demand. It is a logical extension of principles that Parliament has already endorsed.
Workers are also concerned about indirect or \"backdoor\" use of health information. Not necessarily through access to records, but through fitness-for-work assessments, third-party requirements or other channels that could influence employment outcomes.
I note that the Bill identifies specific Statutory Medical Examinations where NEHR access is permitted, such as pre-enlistment checkups or assessments for vocational driving licenses. These are strictly defined to prevent harm to the individual or to public interest. I seek the Minister's assurance that this list of exceptions will remain tightly scoped and will not be expanded to general pre-employment screenings without rigorous oversight.
Furthermore, while healthcare providers can override an individual's \"Access Restriction\" during a medical emergency, the law must remain clear, that data can still never be used for employment purposes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I also want to speak briefly about healthcare workers, including members represented by the Healthcare Services Employees' Union. Healthcare workers occupy a unique position in this Bill. They are entrusted to access and handle sensitive health data, they are required to do so as part of patient care, and often times, under pressure and subject to, of course, significant penalties if things go wrong.
From a labour perspective, safeguards must protect not only patients, but also the workers tasked with implementing the system. I hear you. Accountability is important and wilful misuse of data must be dealt with firmly. But accountability must be fair and also proportionate.
We must distinguish clearly between intentional wrongdoing, and inadvertent errors arising from system design, workflow complexity, or even operational constraints. And this means we need to have clear role-based access, proper training and guidance, and supportive implementation, especially during transition periods. Protecting patient data and treating our healthcare workers fairly are not competing objectives. They must go hand in hand if the system is to function well.
Sir, if I may briefly return to the concerns of my residents, especially those who are seniors and caregivers. Many seniors manage multiple conditions and interact frequently within the healthcare system. They worry about privacy, they worry about consent and they worry about whether their personal information is respected.
While I have focused today on worker trust, I want to assure residents that their concerns are also heard. Trust is the common thread, whether one is a worker, a patient, or a caregiver or a senior managing long-term care.
When Singaporeans trust that their health information is handled with care, strong safeguards and clear boundaries, they are more willing to seek care, share information honestly, and participate fully in our healthcare system. Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill must be able to establish public trust. Health data is intended to safeguard health, not to jeopardise livelihoods. Therefore, safeguards that prohibit the use of health data for employment purposes are extremely important, for workers, the self-employed, and platform workers.
No worker should fear that seeking medical care could be held against them at work.
These safeguards align with principles of fairness and dignity in the workplace, including for individuals with disabilities or mental health conditions. When trust is maintained, workers and senior citizens will feel more confident in seeking treatment and sharing health information honestly.
A robust healthcare system begins with trust, and trust only exists when clear boundaries and robust safeguards are implemented.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, with the right safeguards in place, this Bill can strengthen healthcare delivery and public health outcomes. The safeguard disallowing the use of health data for employment purposes is a critical part of our trust framework. It reassures our workers that seeking care will not put their livelihoods at risk. It aligns with long-standing principles against discrimination and it supports, rather than undermines the objectives of this Bill.
At the end of the day, a healthcare system can only be as strong as the confidence people. When workers, patients and seniors trust that their health data will not be misused, at work or elsewhere, they are more likely to engage, participate and benefit. For these reasons, I support this Bill and the safeguards it contains.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, one's medical information is more than just a set of datapoints on a server. It is the deeply personal and sensitive, and a digital diary of our physical and mental lives.
Therefore, the public's trust is sacrosanct to the implementation of the NEHR. We must ensure that the Government and healthcare stakeholders do their utmost to safeguard the privacy of this data.
While I broadly agree with the principles of the HIB, which delineates the responsibilities of our healthcare ecosystem and mandates data contribution, I believe it is also important that we continue to strengthen areas of data privacy, transparency and individual agency.
As we move towards Smart Nation, we must ensure that our progress does not leave Singaporeans feeling as to the power asymmetry between themselves and the state is growing, and that they are losing control of their own data and privacy, and that public education measures would be stepped up to foster a deeper understanding of the NEHR's and one's rights as patients.
One crucial aspect of this Bill is that patients of opt in or out of the NEHR by way of an Access Restriction, which blocks medical practitioners from viewing all of the patient's NEHR's records, save important details, such as one's critical allergies and personal information. Patients may also select the medical institutions to the impose and access restriction on.
Notably, clause 30(7) reveals that even if a restriction is in place, a patient's information continues to be uploaded to the NEHR in the background. This, according to MOH, is in the interest of ensuring the expeditious provision of care should the patient wish to opt-in to the NEHR in the future or during an emergency situation. But Mr Deputy Speaker, if a citizen says \"no\" to the NEHR today, should the state then be allowed to say, \"Okay, but trust me\" and collect their data anyway?
In a 2017 letter to MOH, the then President of the Singapore Medical Association highlighted that this might compromise the patients' right to privacy. This is because patients might not wish for their medical records to be uploaded to the NEHR at all.
I urge the Government to reconsider this continuous background uploading and if other additional options can also be considered. For example, we should consider offering a total opt out or a so-called \"no means no\" option, provided the patient is thoroughly briefed on the dangers and risks of doing so and is counselled on the implications of such an option.
Second, patients might prefer to block access to certain documents and records only, instead of imposing a wholesale access restriction on their records. I understand that one sensitive health information that could potentially lead to stigmatisation and discrimination will be secured by additional measures, such as double lock-in feature.
Nevertheless, what is sensitive to one might not be sensitive to another. Hence, patients might wish for additional flexibility when protecting their health records rather than just give a blanket nod.
Part 3 of the Bill also allows for the sharing of both administrative and clinical information, to facilitate the continuity of care and outreach efforts for national health programmes through data sharing arrangements. Notably, patient consent is also not required for the sharing of such data between healthcare providers and public agencies as established under clause 50.
Therefore, I hope that patients will be recorded some flexibility and control over the types of health information they wish to disclose and how they would like that information to be used.
While I appreciate that we can already check out any NEHR access history in HealthHub, patient consent should also be sought for data sharing between healthcare providers and public agencies. On that note, Part 2, Division 4 of the Bill also sets out the requirements for the usage of any NEHR data for secondary purposes or derived information. After all, a national health record database provides a valuable snapshot of our population's health condition, which could then be used by researchers for developing solutions to public health issues faced by our society.
The Bill separates such derived information into two categories. Type 1, which is information that is individually identifiable, as well as Type 2, data that is aggregated and anonymised.
And it is worth noting that clause 30(5) paragraph (a) states that \"The imposition of an access restriction does not preclude one's NEHR records, be it individually identifiable or anonymised from being disclosed as derived information, if an approval is granted by the Minister.
I agree with clause 25(2) that the Minister may approve an application to obtain Type 2 derived information, if the Minister is satisfied, having regard to the purpose for which the application is made. That is in the public interest to do so.
However, what are the instances in which subsection (1) will apply where individually identifiable health information is required in the name of promoting public Health?
This is another case where even if an individual exercises his right to impose an access restriction, it can be again overruled with a Ministerial approval for his individually identifiable information to be shared on public healthcare grounds.
Although the cost to the patient's privacy may be outweighed by the benefits such research brings to society at large, that should not preclude the Government from giving patients more agency over secondary usage of the health information, especially for research purposes. This is a principle that is adopted by other healthcare systems worldwide as well. For instance, both Taiwan and the EU have enacted regulations empowering patients to restrict the use of their identifiable health data for secondary purposes. Therefore, I hope that the Government would consider allowing patients to exercise greater control over the secondary usage of their health data.
To follow on the Ministerial approval requirement under clause 25, according to MOH's Trusted Research and Real World-Data Utilisation and Sharing Tech (TRUST) platform, which provides anonymised healthcare-related data for secondary usage, the Data Access Committee reviews the social value and public interests of each data request.
I agree that access to any NEHR data unlocks research and development (R&D) potential and supports long-term public health outcomes. When it comes to commercial-linked entities, however, while such parties might use the data for generating public health reasons and research, it raises ethical concerns surrounding transparency and privacy, especially if access to data is excessive, insufficiently justified or beyond stated that be used.
Back in 2015, in the United Kingdom, the Royal Free and HS Foundation Trust in London signed an agreement with Google DeepMind. This allowed the British AI firm to analyse sensitive information on 1.6 million patients who uses the TRUST hospitals each year. The access was used for monitoring software for mobile devices called Streams which promises to improve clinicians' ability to support patients with acute kidney injury. But according to the study's authors, the publicist dated in the agreement were far less specific and made more open-ended references to using data to improve services.
In the last few years, there has been a significant drive and race across providers to train AI models using the largest and most diverse datasets available in order to achieve better performance. However, this trend also raises important concerns about data privacy, particularly, in regard to sensitive records, such as medical information – NEHR data.
For this reason, we should exercise caution before granting third parties, especially if they are commercially-linked organisations, with excessive or unconstrained access to NEHR data, especially when longitudinal studies examining individuals' health records over prolonged periods are involved and be mindful of scope creep, given commercial incentives.
Besides R&D applications, I do believe that Government should capitalise on the NEHR's capabilities to boost the efficiency of healthcare delivery and financial assistance to all Singaporeans.
With allied health professionals, such as medical social workers having access to the patient's NEHR record, I hope that the possibility of financial assistance being further streamlined via enhanced data sharing procedures with the likes of the Social Services Office can be explored – with the patient's approval, of course. This would be most helpful in cases, such as long-term assistance to those permanently unable to work due to illness or disability. And in turn, this could also help to alleviate the workload of our medical social workers while easing the experience of those seeking financial and social support.
Finally, an extensive public education effort on the NEHR should also be implemented, should this Bill be passed. A 2018 Singapore Medical Association survey revealed that only 50% of respondents heard about the NEHR and 14.9% fully understood what the NEHR was back then. As shared in the Feedback Report on the Public Consultation for the Health Information Bill, during the public consultation exercise, MOH received feedback requesting for a greater clarity and clearer communication of the policy positions under the Bill. Will the MOH be conducting and updated public awareness survey upon implementation of the Bill to measure how public understanding of the NEHR has evolved, particularly regarding access restrictions and the use of individually identifiable data?
It is nonetheless critical that the Government ramp up its patient's education efforts regarding the purposes of the NEHR and how it might benefit them as well as to explain the rights of each patient pertaining to their medical data.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the NEHR represents a significant milestone in our Smart Nation journey but its success rests entirely on the foundation of trust. Medical information is among the most intimate forms of data one can share and the success of the NEHR ultimately depends, not on compulsion, but on trust.
To ensure this trust is not eroded by a perceived power asymmetry between the state and the individual, we must move beyond a \"collect first, tell later\" approach. And throughout my speech, I have highlighted three recurring themes: agency, transparency and proportionality.
I hope Singaporeans can be granted more meaningful control and disclosure over how their health information is accessed, shared and used. More importantly, we cannot have a well-functioning healthcare system if only 15% of people fully understood what the NEHR is. We must ramp up public education to ensure every Singaporean knows their rights and how their data is used to serve the common good, in order to foster the trust that turns our national database into a national asset. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are becoming a super-aged society. Despite Healthier SG, care is not yet delivered in one place or coordinated by one healthcare team. It moves across clinics, hospitals and community settings. In such a system, information is not just paperwork. It is safety. It is continuity. It is dignity.
Because health information accompanies us through our most vulnerable moments, the success of this Bill will not be judged only by how efficiently data flows. It will be judged by something far more human – whether residents continue to trust the system enough to seek care early, speak honestly and return when they need help. That trust is fragile and once lost, it is hard to restore.
Today, I would like to focus my clarifications on three areas which residents have consistently raised with me: access control, support for smaller GP clinics and cybersecurity.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I begin with access control. The Bill introduces Access Restrictions under clause 29, with exceptions in clause 30, and the process for managing them in clause 31. These are important safeguards. But residents ask a practical question – will this protect me in real life?
My first question relates to the default setting. If Access Restrictions require residents to take proactive steps, does this mean their information is broadly accessible by default? How will seniors, especially those who are not digitally confident, know what to do? If privacy depends on digital literacy, then privacy is no longer equal.
My second question concerns granularity and role-based access. Clause 29 allows Class 2 Access Restrictions to be prescribed by information type, user class, purpose and time period. This is a powerful provision, but power lies in how it is used. Will this flexibility translate into true \"need-to-know\" access or will residents experience it as broad visibility once someone is authorised? Access should follow purpose and visibility should follow necessity.
My third question concerns sensitive health information. Yio Chu Kang residents tell me plainly that they want help, but fear being labelled. They worry not only about what is written, but about who might see it. This concern extends beyond mental health to other sensitive data such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, sexually transmitted infections, reproductive health history, genetic conditions and substance use treatments. These are conditions where fear of exposure can deter people from seeking care altogether.
Residents also raise a related fear that goes beyond stigma. They worry about where boundaries are drawn beyond direct care, such as access by insurers, employers, ancillary service providers or the downstream use of data for research, analytics or artificial intelligence (AI) training. Even where data is described as de-identified, residents worry about re-identification risks and inference. If these boundaries are not clear and credible, residents may hold back information or delay care.
How will MOH use the flexibility in clause 29 to ensure such sensitive categories are treated with particular care? Furthermore, under clause 30, where exceptions allow information to remain accessible, how will MOH ensure these exceptions are narrow and clearly defined rather than quietly eroding the intent of the restriction?
Sensitive care must feel safe or people will stay away. Healthcare for stigmatised conditions must be a sanctuary, not a spotlight.
My fourth question concerns privacy signals. Even when information is restricted, residents worry that the very presence of a \"sealed\" marker invites speculation. How will MOH prevent the fact of restriction itself from becoming a source of stigma or inference?
Finally, on transparency. Residents can view access logs on HealthHub, which is a good start. But do they merely see that an organisation has accessed their data or do they understand why? Will logs be presented in plain language?
Beyond investigation timelines, what happens if misuse occurs? Will residents be notified promptly, given a clear explanation and told what corrective or remedial actions have been taken? Transparency without recourse does not build trust. It only documents its absence.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I turn to the second area – support for smaller GP clinics. In estates like Yio Chu Kang, the neighbourhood GP clinic is not just a provider, it is a relationship where trust has been built over years. While the Bill places necessary obligations on institutions, the compliance costs land hardest on these small practices. Has MOH assessed the full financial and operational impact on solo GPs, from onboarding to ongoing cybersecurity obligations?
We hear feedback that NEHR can be cluttered and time consuming for less digitally savvy, elderly GPs. If clinicians spend more time searching and less time caring, have we truly improved care? Will MOH commit to measurable usability improvements, such as time-to-find critical information, structured clinical summaries and clinician user experience testing so that \"less clutter\" becomes a performance obligation rather than an aspiration?
There is a real last-mile reality. Cybersecurity and data requirements designed for large institutions can overwhelm small practices where the doctor is also the administrator and IT troubleshooter. Some GPs have shared a quiet concern that if requirements become too complex or costly, retirement may be the only option. When small clinics close, residents, especially seniors, lose convenient access and familiar doctors.
Has MOH weighed this risk against the Bill's policy objectives? If we ask neighbourhood clinics to operate like large corporations, we should not be surprised if they struggle. Residents will feel this quickly through higher fees and longer waits.
In that context, I ask whether support will be predictable and sustained. Will there be grace periods, phased onboarding and a genuine \"no wrong door\" approach so small clinics are guided rather than penalised as they come on board?
How will MOH prevent digital medical records vendors from engaging in fearmongering and profiteering, pushing small clinics into expensive contracts out of fear of non-compliance? Will responsibility for implementation be clear rather than fragmented? Where alternative contribution pathways are provided for pen-and-paper clinics, how will MOH ensure these are feasible and not a second-class solution? Compliance should not become a hidden healthcare tax on the heartlands.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I turn to the third area – cybersecurity. For residents, a breach is not a statistic, it is personal. The 2018 SingHealth cyberattack was a stark reminder that even well-resourced systems are vulnerable.
As the Chair of the GPC for Defence, I approach this with particular care. In defence, we learn that systems rarely fail at the centre. They fail at the edges, where resources are thin and the smallest gap becomes the point of entry. Healthcare systems are no different.
The Bill rightly imposes duties under clause 68 for reasonable safeguards and clause 70 for incident management. But residents ask two fundamental questions: will it be secure and will it be doable?
How will reasonable safeguards under clause 68 be defined in a tiered, risk-based way? Will small clinics have a clear, achievable baseline while larger institutions shoulder proportionately greater responsibility? How will MOH support small clinics in meeting incident management requirements under clause 70 without turning doctors into cybersecurity managers? Will there be shared services, templates, guided exercises and clear escalation pathways so bureaucratic demands do not take doctors away from patients?
Residents also care deeply about what happens when things go wrong. If a breach occurs, when will residents be notified, what information will they receive and what practical support will be provided to help them protect themselves and restore trust? Where cybersecurity failures arise from vendors or intermediaries, how will accountability follow control so that small clinics are not unfairly blamed or penalised for failures beyond their technical reach?
Availability also matters. When systems are down, patients are at risk. What resilience standards will apply to NEHR access? A system is only as strong as its weakest link and in healthcare, patients bear the cost of weakness.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we began with a simple reality. In a super-aged society, care no longer sits in one place, with one doctor, at one time. It moves across settings. Where care moves, trust must move with it. This Bill is about data, but more importantly, it is about people. It is about whether access controls feel like protection or complexity. It is about whether neighbourhood clinics are strengthened or quietly strained. It is about whether cybersecurity inspires confidence or quiet fear.
At its heart, this Bill asks a deeper question of us as a society. Can we build a system that is effective without being intrusive, secure without being crushing and connected without losing compassion? Trust is not a technical feature. Trust is the infrastructure that makes every other system work.
I call on the Government to ensure that as this Bill moves forward, implementation is anchored in three clear commitments: access controls that residents can understand and use; support that keeps heartland clinics viable and affordable; and cybersecurity that is strong, proportionate and shared across the system.
If we get this right, we will not only improve care, we will preserve dignity, we will strengthen trust, and we will send a clear message to every resident – seeking care will never mean surrendering control.
That is the healthcare system Singaporeans deserve. That is the standard we should hold ourselves to. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill advances necessary and timely updates to our healthcare ecosystem and I am supportive of the Bill's intentions.
The Bill establishes a statutory framework to consolidate key medical data into an integrated, longitudinal view of an individual's health record. This is in line with the vision of \"One Patient, One Health Record\", when the NEHR commenced a decade ago.
I understand that patient records from our public healthcare institutions are already in the NEHR. Let us say that you sought treatment in the Singapore General Hospital (SGH), information about your visit, such as your admission and discharge records, your laboratory test results, the procedures you did, the medication you were prescribed, are already in the NEHR. Following that, if you were to visit the Changi General Hospital (CGH), perhaps to see a specialist for a different medical issue, the CGH doctor will be able to use the NEHR to view the medical summary information of your SGH visit.
However, with this Bill, private healthcare providers will now also be mandated to contribute to the NEHR. This is significant since one of the reasons why patients opt for private healthcare is so that their health information is not included in the NEHR. This is especially concerning for patients dealing with sensitive medical issues, including those related to mental health, sexual health or addiction.
Sir, it is a given that a national electronic healthcare database will clearly help to optimise patient care and continuity of care. However, the success of the NEHR hinges on fostering trust that the Government can collect and consolidate our health information safely and responsibly. The trust can only exist if we keep patient privacy and patient autonomy at the forefront.
By patient privacy, I mean that patients must have the assurance that their confidential health data remains private and secure, with access granted only to particular persons for what is medically necessary or for public health purposes. Patient autonomy, on the other hand, means that patients should be able to meaningfully determine who has access to their data and how their data is used. In general, patients should be able to know when and why their data is accessed and by whom.
I believe the Government can agree with me that the NEHR must leave patients feeling empowered, not exposed. For that to happen, we cannot compromise on either patient privacy or patient autonomy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill defines a person's clinical information to include both the physical and mental health of the individual, and the diagnosis, treatment or care of the individual, while part one of the first schedule outlines the different types of health information to be contributed by specific healthcare providers. Altogether, there are 13 different types of health information, though only the providers of acute hospital service need to contribute to all 13.
However, I want to focus on the category of visit diagnosis, reasons for visit, or patient problem list, which many healthcare providers are mandated to contribute. I would like to ask the Minister about this category of health information. How lengthy or extensive should the contribution pertaining to diagnosis, reasons for visit or patient problem list be for the purposes of the NEHR?
I also want to note that, as of 8 January, the \"Frequently Asked Questions\" (FAQ) on Synapxe's website – Synapxe being our national HealthTech agency responsible for running the NEHR – states that the NEHR is meant to receive and consolidate key health summary information, but \"not doctor's notes\".
Here is a hypothetical example. Let us say a person were to meet a private psychiatrist and discuss their recent psychological difficulties, due to a recent breakdown in his or her marriage. The psychiatrist then records these details in their own doctor's notes. My first question: when contributing health information to the NEHR about the visit, is the psychiatrist mandated to include those personal and private details of the patient's life under the category of \"visit diagnoses, reasons for visit or patient problem list\"? My second question: if the private psychiatrist was not mandated to share their doctor's notes, can such information still be contributed to the NEHR, including without the patient's knowledge?
I believe that the public will benefit from an assurance from the Ministry that the scope of health information contained in the NEHR will only relate to key health summary data and will not include \"doctor’s notes\", especially intimate and confidential details about a patient's personal life, even if that information were in some way medically relevant to the provision of care.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill also explicitly identifies certain \"excluded purposes\". I am sure that all patients appreciate the assurance that their healthcare information cannot be used for employment and insurance purposes.
However, I want to ask the Minister whether the Police and other law enforcement agencies will be similarly barred from using information from the NEHR? For instance, if a substance abuser sought treatment on his own to battle his addiction, would law enforcement be able to use the NEHR records to arrest and charge him? I ask this because patients seek treatment and care with some expectation of confidentiality, that their sensitive health information will be kept private. We need to ensure that patients continue to feel comfortable to seek treatment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, other than safeguarding their privacy, we need to ensure that patients are able to retain autonomy over their health information. Clauses 29 and 30 allow for access restrictions, which patients can use either to restrict all access to their information in the NEHR or to restrict access for specific users or purposes.
And if I understand clause 30(7) correctly, these Class 1 and Class 2 access restrictions do not prevent or restrict the contribution of healthcare information by a medical provider. In other words, healthcare information about every medical visit and treatment in Singapore will be recorded in the NEHR, but patients can block other healthcare providers from having access to that information.
Sir, these access restrictions will only work if these options can be exercised easily and in a patient-friendly manner. Currently, there is an option to opt out of the NEHR, but this involves a slightly elaborate and tedious process of making an appointment at one of the polyclinics and restructured hospitals to obtain and submit an opt-out form. Patients wishing to opt out will also be – and here I quote directly from the Synapse FAQ – they will be \"counselled, to ensure that they fully understand the implications of this decision to their care as their providers will not have access to their records.\"
Even then, opting out does not mean your healthcare information gets deleted from the NEHR. What happens is that healthcare providers do not get to view them. Moreover, these Access Restrictions can be, understandably, overridden in a medical emergency.
I thus want to ask how the Ministry intends to implement the Access Restriction mechanisms under the Bill. Firstly, will the Ministry continue to counsel those who wish to invoke access restrictions and can we have further details about the content and duration of that counselling process? Secondly, is the Ministry considering the possibility of allowing patients to invoke or revoke these access restrictions online through HealthHub? Thirdly, is the Ministry planning to conduct regular public campaigns to educate patients about their access restriction rights?
Mr Deputy Speaker, another important dimension to patient autonomy is being transparent about the who, when and why of access to our healthcare information. I understand that patients can view which healthcare providers have accessed their health records through the NEHR Access History section in HealthHub. I want to clarify with the Minister about how granular this data would be. Would the patient only be able to see which healthcare institutions have accessed their records or will it also list out the specific healthcare professionals who were accessing their records? Moreover, at GP clinics, how can patients be sure that only their doctor is able to view the health information on the NEHR and not their non-clinical staff?
This relates to another question about unauthorised access to the NEHR. Clause 77 identifies what is a \"notifiable data breach\", namely, a breach which \"(a) results in, or is likely to result in, significant harm to an affected individual; or (b) is, or is likely to be, of a significant scale\".
Can I then ask the Minister to clarify how the Ministry intends to define \"significant harm\" and \"significant scale” and why it has settled on such a standard? Would it not be more reasonable, not to mention the right thing to do, to notify affected individuals in any and all cases of unauthorised access to their health information?
Looking ahead, the national electronic healthcare system, once it is fully up and running, our citizen's pooled health data will be a valuable goldmine for clinical researchers and pharmaceutical companies. While this can accelerate drug development and spur medical innovation, the public needs assurance that their personal health data will not be monetised for profit.
Here, my question is whether the Government intends to make healthcare information in the NEHR available to the private, academic or any other sectors and whether the current Bill makes provisions to regulate such a possibility? While I am in principle not opposed to such collaborations, I hope that it can be explicitly legislated that any dataset from the NEHR must be anonymised, if this has not been done already.
Moreover, if the data is used for commercial research, the Government should consider a \"Social Dividend\" which ensures that the benefits return to the people. Any revenue or benefits derived should be reinvested directly into patient subsidies or national health funds, ensuring that the value generated by the people's health data is returned back to the people.
I would also suggest exploring the model of data cooperatives. One example of this model is non-profit Swiss cooperative MIDATA where citizens control their data and can choose to contribute it to specific research projects that they believe in. This has enabled research and tailored care plans for diseases, such as multiple sclerosis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my foregoing questions and suggestions are intended to safeguard the integrity of the NEHR to strengthen public confidence in the system. To this end, we continue to emphasise patients' privacy and patients' autonomy to ensure Singaporeans are empowered, not exposed.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yeo.
Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Before I start, I wish to declare that as a legal practitioner in private practice, I have and do act for insurers and insureds in a variety of disputes. I make this declaration, as I will be addressing certain points relating to the \"excluded purposes\" contained in clause 6 of the Bill.
This Bill will govern the framework of our NEHR to: one, enable more effective clinical care; two, improve coordination; and three, consolidate care across different healthcare settings. In many urgent and emergency medical situations, this could certainly save lives.
On the other hand, the Bill also incorporates safeguards, a reflection that in this tech pervasive information age, personal healthcare information, in the wrong hands, used for inappropriate and insidious purposes, can potentially destroy lives. I would like to cover three areas of the Bill briefly: access, consent and excluded purposes.
Let us start with access. As we expand the NEHR to include all healthcare providers in Singapore, invariably, the number of access points to the NEHR will increase significantly. Any digital online system with many access points is particularly vulnerable to unauthorised access, inappropriate use and/or a cyber threat.
The Bill incorporates stringent access rules and restrictions, with deterrent penalties for breaches. Individuals are also at liberty to place access restrictions and view instances of NEHR access to their medical records via the HealthHub App. The Bill therefore provides safeguards while giving individuals with privacy concerns to decide on who should have access rights.
I am therefore glad to hear from the Senior Minister of State that MOH will conduct regular audits to flag inappropriate access to the NEHR. This is vital as it will provide healthcare providers regular and crucial information and feedback on the strength of their protocols and processes and allow them to act in a timely manner to adjust and tighten as required.
Given the large number of healthcare providers in Singapore, I would like to invite the Senior Minister of State to share with the House, the Ministry's plans on how these audits would be conducted, including the frequency and parameters of what would be studied, to ensure that the safeguards remain robust and amply protect the personal healthcare information of Singaporeans.
I now move on to the point on consent. The notion of patient consent is fundamental in medical practice – serving as a cornerstone in both legal and ethical obligations. Doctors regularly seek patient agreement in instances, such as treatment/interventions or to share medical information with a third party, including family members and so on. Even in the case where a patient has lost mental capacity, legal documents, such as a Lasting Power of Attorney or the legal appointment of a deputy, authorises another to, in effect, \"consent\" on the patient’s behalf.
In the context of healthcare, patient involvement in decisions about their care is an intuitive concept. Set against this background, the Bill however, does not require patient agreement to upload the key health information onto the NEHR. In fact, it makes it compulsory for healthcare providers to do so.
This can be a cause for concern for Singaporeans who may legitimately have privacy concerns with uploading their personal healthcare records onto the NEHR. One may ask, why can I not choose not to upload my healthcare information onto the NEHR? This is especially so since the harm or detriment suffered would likely be largely to the individual in the event of a leak or misuse.
We have also appeared to have taken a slightly different approach from jurisdictions, such as Australia, which allows patients to choose whether or what medical records to upload onto their system which is called \"My Health Record\" or to even have a record at all. As I believe, this would be an issue of interest to many Singaporeans, I invite the Senior Minister of State to share the policy and practical considerations behind why the framework governing the NEHR has been set up in this manner.
Finally, I would like to share some thoughts about the excluded purposes set out in the Bill. Clause 6 of the Bill sets out excluded purposes. In other words, these are purposes for which healthcare providers are not allowed to access the NEHR.
As things stand, these are when accessing the NEHR for: one, employment; or two, insurance purposes which include when an employer decides to employ, promote or terminate an employee and when an insurer decides whether to insure, continue or renew a policy and during the processing of claims.
This is a welcomed clause. Speaking from professional experience, it is important to have a clear demarcation of what relevant medical information of individuals should be provided in the context of these employer/employee and insurer/insured relationships, and what is sensitive confidential medical information that could be misinterpreted or inappropriately applied.
The Bill also goes one step further. The excluded clauses are, in fact, what I would describe as blanket exclusions, in that, even if an individual consents or agrees to allow access for these excluded purposes, healthcare providers are not permitted to do so. I appreciate the intent. Individuals should not be compelled to allow access for such purposes. For example, if all insurers in Singapore require NEHR access consent before agreeing to cover an individual under a health-related policy, then the individual is left with no real choice but to agree if he or she wants to be covered by the insurance.
However, I believe that there is a case to be made to allow for some relevant healthcare information to be accessed. Let us take the example of a health-related insurance policy. Generally, an insurer decides on whether to extend cover and if so, set the premium payable based on actuarial calculations. These calculations take into account a number of factors, including pre-existing medical conditions and medical history. If individuals can consent to a limited scope of relevant information that is agreed between the patient and in this instance, the insurer, then access can be permitted for that limited scope of relevant information via the healthcare provider. For example, this could be for medical histories of heart conditions or cancers.
However, as the Bill currently stands, there is no such option. Even if an individual wishes to consent, the healthcare provider is not permitted to access NEHR for the excluded purposes. It may be useful to understand whether this would impact insurance premium setting and/or insurance cover in the future, if and when the Bill comes into effect.
There is also, an instance in which the blanket exclusion can be lifted. If a legal dispute arises in the Courts between an insurer and insured, say, on issues relating to the non-declaration of relevant medical history, the Court can order access to a party’s NEHR records as part of the discovery of evidence process.
Before I conclude, I just want to make one observation of Mr Dennis Tan’s suggestion to increase the penalties for a breach. I can appreciate the intent. The balance, however, in such matters is between taking a punitive approach or supportive approach, where we work with healthcare providers to strengthen their protocols and processes in order to prevent breaches to re-occur. Mr Tan makes the point that large organisations may take financial penalties as a cost of business. In some cases, this may very well be true.
However, in the case of a healthcare provider, the people within – clinicians, nurses, administrators and so on – are well intentioned and want to build a system that better serves patients. When such a breach incident happens, I believe, it impacts not only the organisation but also the personal professional reputations of the people involved. Viewed from this context, a punitive approach may not be the best option. Perhaps we could start with the current approach and review this as the ecosystem takes shape after implementation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the principles underlying this Bill. A population-scale set of longitudinal medical records is the \"means of production\" for more timely interventions, accurate diagnoses and preventive health at large. The contribution of data to the NEHR will create a valuable dataset and that value should flow to all Singaporeans.
But before I move on to the question of value, my belief is that a Bill that compels contribution must also come with robust ecosystem safeguards. From my conversations with practitioners and from my reading of the Bill, I have three sets of concerns: (a) the disproportionate cybersecurity burden on small providers; (b) the uploading of sensitive medical information despite patient objections; and (c) possible insurance loopholes that may render our privacy protections ineffective.
I will then speak to a broader question: if we are building a national health asset, who benefits and how do we continue to ensure it catalyses a dynamic ecosystem rather than becoming captured by a single monopoly provider?
First, to the cybersecurity obligations imposed on healthcare providers. The Bill designates all Healthcare Services Act licensees – from tertiary hospitals employing thousands to single-doctor GP clinics in HDB heartlands – as \"relevant persons\" under section 64. All face the same statutory obligations: to implement reasonable controls for secure processing, reasonable safeguards against unauthorised access and cybersecurity protections under sections 66 and 68. The penalties for non-compliance are severe; fines up to $200,000 or two years' imprisonment for individuals, and up to $1 million for other entities.
The Bill does use the word \"reasonable\", which implies proportionality. But I have spoken with doctors who run small operations. They worry that when a breach occurs – and breaches are a matter of \"when\" and not \"if\" – the enforcement spotlight will fall on them. Did they have sufficient firewalls? Was their anti-virus updated? Were their staff trained adequately? They fear being \"hung out to dry”.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
I also wish to speak for some of my constituents who are senior GPs still practising in the heartlands. Many are approaching retirement and are not tech-savvy. They will struggle with the digitalisation requirements that this Bill will impose. If the transition is too abrupt, many of these senior GPs may feel forced to retire early or sell their independent clinics to large corporate chains, accelerating consolidation in the primary care sector. The end state of a modern, integrated health information system is desirable. But the transition must be managed carefully.
So, I ask: one, would the Ministry issue clear, tiered guidance on what constitutes \"reasonable\" safeguards for practices of different sizes? A safe harbour framework, if you will.
Two, will the Ministry consider providing or subsidising cybersecurity insurance for small providers so that they need not fear shouldering the entire financial risk of a breach?
Three, will there be a transition period with educational enforcement, rather than immediate punitive action, to allow smaller providers to build up cybersecurity capabilities?
Four, could the Ministry offer transitional support for senior practitioners nearing retirement, perhaps something as simple as sending personnel to help digitalise their records monthly?
Second, to the question of sensitive medical conditions that patients wish to keep private. There is a group of patients today who pay cash, wanting to keep their records, perhaps with sexually transmitted infections, mental health conditions or abortion records, off the system. Many foreigners also do not want to be on NEHR.
Under this Bill, that option will no longer exist. The Bill provides for \"access restrictions\" – Class 1 that prevents all access and Class 2 that restricts access for specific purposes or persons. But as section 30(7) states: \"To avoid doubt, an access restriction does not prevent or restrict the contribution of health information.\" So, the data is uploaded and stored centrally. Any access restriction is a viewing control. It masks who can see the data. It does not exclude the data from NEHR.
If the burden of proof is on the custodian of NEHR to have a robust privacy model, let us examine the custodian.
Synapxe, the custodian of NEHR, was rebranded from IHIS, which was responsible for allowing the 2018 compromise of 1.5 million SingHealth patient records. The Committee of Inquiry found that IHiS staff lacked adequate cybersecurity awareness, that key staff failed to take appropriate action even when there were clear signs of an ongoing attack, and that the Chief Information Security Officer's response was, and I quote, \"clearly lacking and displayed an alarming lack of concern”. This has led many doctors to mistrust Synapxe in these matters. Given the history here, I believe our health authorities also need to take steps towards rebuilding that trust.
So, I ask: one, how is MOH going to police unjustified access of NEHR, where rogue elements read medical histories of unrelated people? What assurance can MOH give us that our health data is safe with Synapxe?
Two, if such unauthorised access occurs, does proactive monitoring exist or will the system rely solely on whistle-blowers and complaints?
Three, what is the technical architecture for access-restricted data? Is it encrypted separately? Is it stored in a segregated environment? Or is it simply flagged in the same database, such that a breach would expose it alongside unrestricted records?
Four, what is the access model for NEHR data? In Taiwan, the National Health Insurance system uses a dual-card approach – the patient must present their Health IC smart card, the doctor uses their professional IC card, and both are required for access, with written patient consent. This dual authorisation prevents rogue access because no single party can retrieve records alone. Will Singapore's NEHR access model include such safeguards?
And five, what is MOH’s position on specific carve-outs for defined sensitive conditions, where patients can opt out of contribution entirely?
Moving on to insurance. Mr Speaker, I commend the drafters of this Bill for their attention to the concern regarding the use of medical information for insurance underwriting.
Section 6 defines \"excluded purposes\" to include deciding whether to insure an individual, continuing or renewing insurance, or processing insurance claims. So, section 19(2) prohibits specified users from accessing NEHR for any excluded purpose and section 38(5) imposes enhanced penalties for accessing records for excluded purposes.
Insurers cannot access NEHR directly. Healthcare providers cannot access NEHR on behalf of insurers, and a patient's consent cannot be used to circumvent these protections. Is it watertight? Let me offer two possible scenarios.
Scenario one. According to section 3.1.2.2 of the Draft Guidelines on Appropriate Use and Access to NEHR, released by MOH in 2023: \"In the event that such information was previously transcribed from NEHR into the patient's clinical notes, it would be treated as part and parcel of the medical record belonging to the healthcare institution.\"
Meanwhile, Integrated Plan insurers are increasingly requiring doctors to sign contracts containing \"Inspection and Right to Audit\" clauses. These clauses grant insurers the right to inspect full medical records to verify claims. The result is that doctors check NEHR for relevant history – past abortions, in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, mental health conditions, sexually transmitted infections – and note it in their files for clinical safety. Because of these audit clauses, insurers then gain access to this sensitive, transcribed NEHR data, even if it is irrelevant to the current claim. A patient going in for gallbladder surgery may find their insurer reviewing their psychiatric history.
Scenario two. Section 17(1) provides that an individual may access and collect their own accessible health information. A Singaporean applies for insurance. The insurer's application form may include a new requirement: \"Please attach a complete printout of your National Electronic Health Record.\" No printout, no policy. Once the data leaves the system through legitimate patient access, it seems beyond the Bill's reach.
Even if insurers do not require a NEHR printout directly, they already have a right to refuse payouts if a pre-existing condition was not previously disclosed. If an applicant fails to disclose a condition, one that now sits permanently in NEHR, the insurers can void the policy at claim time when they discover the non-disclosure through other means.
The existence of NEHR with its comprehensive longitudinal record makes non-disclosure almost impossible to sustain.
So, I ask: one, does MOH agree that a transcription pathway where NEHR-derived information entering clinical notes and becomes accessible to insurers through audit clauses defeats the legislative intent of section 6?
Two, what if there is a data breach? Can insurers use the now public information?
Three, will the Government work with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to prohibit insurers from requiring NEHR payouts or NEHR-derived information as a condition of coverage, claim processing or policy renewal?
Four, will the Government review the inspection and right to audit clauses in Integrated Plan contracts to ensure that they did not circumvent the excluded purposes provisions?
And five, if an insurer is found to utilise either pathway, what enforcement mechanisms will exist? Will this be a matter for MAS, MOH or both?
Deputy Speaker, I now wish to speak to a broader question. This Bill will create, for the first time, a comprehensive national database. Social determinants, such as postal code, education, marital status; clinical outcomes, such as blood pressure readings over decades, medications prescribed; and soon, perhaps, genomic data from the SG100K project.
It is a formidable dataset. It is a \"means of production\"; not just of population health outcomes, but of significant economic value. So, how do we ensure that value from this national health data infrastructure, and its possible monetisation of any form, flows to citizens?
Globally, startups are experimenting with patient-centric data models, where individuals can choose to share their data for research and receive compensation. I believe a monopoly, such as Synapxe, may not experiment with such models. But a contestable market will. Some players may try patient-centric approaches and the best models will emerge.
To create the conditions for competition to discover it, that requires open APIs, interoperability standards like the opt-in mechanisms of the sort that my hon colleague Mr Fadli Fawzi mentioned, and a contestable application layer.
Mr Speaker, let me turn to the system operator. Section 8 provides that the Minister may designate a system operator to operate, administer and maintain the national electronic record system. In practice, that will be Synapxe.
Synapxe, formerly known as IHiS, today employs about 3,500 people. It serves as a technology backbone for our entire public healthcare system.
When IHiS was set up in 2008, I believe the original vision was that it will operate on contestable principles. MOH will issue tenders, IHiS will compete, win some, lose some, it would have enough work to survive, but will need to compete elsewhere to thrive. In doing so, it will face enough competition to stay efficient.
This model was the original plan for the Ministry of Defence and ST Engineering. Dr Goh Keng Swee, speaking in 1977, said, \"We do not own or run enterprises on ideological grounds. We expect Government-owned enterprises to be efficient, to make money and to expand whenever feasible. If a Government-owned enterprise loses money, it is allowed to go bankrupt, and this has happened, fortunately, in very few instances.\"
This was and is the discipline of contestability. Government-owned enterprises were to be subject to market forces.
But the current model for Synapxe has drifted from this vision. Today, MOH relies almost exclusively on Synapxe to implement its technology integrations. There is capture and cost inflation. An engineer is hired at $5,000 a month. That engineer's services are sold to public healthcare clusters at significantly higher rates. If the mark-ups are excessive – and they can become excessive in the absence of competition – it can crowd out innovation and make the ecosystem weaker than it should be.
I believe a different model is possible and necessary. My vision for Synapxe is different. It would return to the original contestable principles surrounding IHiS' creation.
First, I would seek to separate Synapxe into two entities.
The first entity would be a core infrastructure company. It would handle standard setting, data exchange protocols, security baselines and the NEHR plumbing. This stays Government-owned and lean – perhaps a few hundred people. It runs the pipes and sets the protocols but does not compete at the application layer.
The second entity would be a commercial services company. It would handle system integration, consulting and vendor management. This gets spun off – maybe privatised, maybe converted to a Government-linked company that must compete commercially, both domestically and internationally.
Second, MOH must reacquire the in-house capacity to be an intelligent buyer of technology services. Before or concurrent with any Synapxe structuring, MOH needs a technical unit of about 50 to 100 people – not administrators but engineers, data architects, security specialists – people who can evaluate bids, write specifications and challenge cost claims. Without this capacity, the Ministry will find it hard to escape capture.
Third, we should legislate interoperability standards and open API requirements for all health data intermediaries, including any entity that emerges from Synapxe. The goal is to ensure that the application layer – the layer where innovation happens – is open and contestable.
I happen to think all this can be done within four to five years.
Mr Speaker, with such contestability and with an opening for opt-in mechanisms where citizens can choose to share their data for specific purposes and receive compensation, I believe the NEHR can be a means of production for three outcomes: (a) better population scale outcomes. This is the primary purpose and I support it fully; (b) a fair stake in data monetisation for every citizen. If value is going to be extracted from the data, we should create conditions where citizens can likely share in it, not just bear the risk; and (c) an ecosystem catalyst for health-based startups.
With open APIs and interoperability, Singapore can become a place for health tech innovation. Startups can build on the NEHR platform, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can compete for contracts. We can export health tech capabilities regionally. The NEHR can become a flywheel for a more dynamic health tech ecosystem, one that benefits the Government, citizens and entrepreneurs alike, not merely a Government-only benefit and asset.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I support this principle of a unified national health record. It can improve care, reduce waste and enable the precision medicine of tomorrow.
But a Bill that compels contribution must also come with robust ecosystem safeguards. Those compelled to contribute must be protected from disproportionate burden or liability.
Privacy controls must be real. Since access controls do not exclude data from NEHR, a breach potentially exposes everything, regardless of restrictions. Possible loopholes must be closed.
Today, insurers cannot access NEHR, but perhaps through transcription and audit clauses, they can access NEHR-derived information sitting in clinical notes. In locking the front door, we must also lock the back door. If we are to build a national data asset, we must ensure that it is governed by contestable principles, not captured by a monopoly provider. The original vision for IHiS was discipline through competition. We should return to it.
I look forward to the Ministry's reply. Thank you, Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, the HIB is necessary for Singapore to transition to an integrated, community-based healthcare ecosystem. There are two aspects which I find essential for successful implementation that I wish to spotlight.
First, there is to be comprehensive onboarding support for GPs, including innovative shared staffing arrangements for small clinics; and second, I would like to call for strengthened support for community partners to ensure seamless continuity of care across our healthcare ecosystem.
To achieve \"One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey\", our GPs, particularly those operating small, independent practices, need adequate support to participate sustainably. While most primary care clinics are already contributing to the NEHR, this figure masks significant challenges faced by small practitioners.
Stakeholder feedback had indicated that GP clinics and smaller healthcare organisations are worried about meeting cybersecurity and data security requirements as they have limited resources and administrative capacity. This is a valid concern as the burden falls on them to maintain cyber and data security. This is an ongoing challenge, even for well-resourced organisations globally.
Unlike large hospital groups with dedicated IT departments and compliance teams, small GP clinics often operate with minimal administrative staff, tight margins and practitioners who are clinicians first, not IT specialists. The clinics' concerns are understandable. Hence, I would like to seek three clarifications from the Minister.
First, would the Ministry elaborate on the scope and quantum of funding support? It would be helpful for the GPs to have more details. What is the maximum funding quantum per clinic? Does it cover hardware, software, training and ongoing maintenance? Will funding be provided upfront or reimbursed retrospectively? Small practices operate on tight cash flow and cannot afford to frontload substantial IT investments without certainty of reimbursement. Would MOH publish clear funding guidelines, eligibility criteria and the application timeline before the Bill takes effect from early 2027?
Second, would MOH extend implementation support beyond technology to operational capacity? While NEHR-compatible systems address the technical dimension, the administrative burden of data entry, staff training and compliance monitoring remains substantial. Small GP clinics often lack administrative staff dedicated solely to data management. I propose that MOH explore small clinics jointly hiring and sharing data entry staff through collaborative arrangements or tapping on some form of shared resources.
For example, MOH could facilitate or fund shared service models where three to five GP clinics in the same geographical cluster jointly employ a trained data coordinator who rotates between clinics, ensuring accurate and timely NEHR contribution, conducting staff training and maintaining compliance with cybersecurity protocols.
Third, would MOH consider a calibrated enforcement framework that accounts for clinic size and capacity? The Bill appropriately provides that MOH work with healthcare providers to resolve non-compliance, such as technical challenges leading to non-contribution, before issuing formal directions or penalties. However, enforcement must be differentiated. I hope that there could be special considerations given, for example, cases where it is a single-doctor clinic with two nurses should not be held to the same compliance timeline as a multi-site group practice with dedicated IT infrastructure.
The second aspect for a successful implementation calls for strengthened support for community partners to ensure seamless continuity of care across our healthcare ecosystem. We must ensure that data sharing between healthcare providers and community partners supports smooth continuity of care, particularly as patients transition from acute hospital settings to community care options.
Implementation requires operational readiness and active Ministry support for community partners. Would MOH share what technical and operational support will be provided to community partners? Community care organisations – Active Ageing Centres, voluntary welfare organisations, befriending services – often lack the IT infrastructure and data governance expertise to receive, safely store and use health information securely. Would MOH extend support packages beyond healthcare providers to include community partners, funding secure data systems, staff training and compliance with data security requirements? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Would MOH share what technical and operational support will be provided to community partners? Community care organisations – Active Ageing Centres, volunteer welfare organisations, befriending services – often lack the IT infrastructure and data governance expertise to receive, safely store and use health information securely. Would MOH extend support packages beyond healthcare providers to include community partners, funding secure data systems, staff training and compliance with data security requirements?
(In English): Next, I would like to ask if MOH has a timeline for the sharing of non-NEHR health information with the private and community healthcare partners. This is necessary for seamless care continuity.
The Bill currently limits data sharing to public sector entities – AIC, healthcare clusters and public agencies. Over time, private community healthcare partners, nursing homes and home care providers should be included, subject to governance and data protection safeguards.
Sir, to meet the objectives of this Bill – \"One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey\" and \"A Community of Health” – small practices need support to participate meaningfully. Equally, community partners need active Ministry support to fulfil their role in continuity of care.
I look forward to the Minister's response. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader, Zaqy Mohamad.
","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 Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Health Information Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Ms Kuah Boon Theng.
Ms Kuah Boon Theng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, within the healthcare industry, the HIB has been much discussed and long anticipated. This vision of achieving nationwide contribution of health information into a central repository is a truly ambitious and challenging goal. But as with all things new, it has not come without its fair share of fear and trepidation from the ground.
For years, our public sector healthcare institutions have been contributing to the NEHR. However, there are still private clinics and other healthcare establishments that have yet to modernise and digitise their patient records. And I agree with Members who have spoken so far that for those who struggle with new technology, it is particularly daunting to navigate the journey of digital transformation.
In this respect, I know that Ministry officers have been making the necessary preparations for a long time. Through various stakeholder consultations, the Ministry came to realise that many medical practitioners had concerns about the potential increase in medico-legal liabilities arising from the mandatory contribution of health information and the wider accessibility of that information to other healthcare providers.
And so, in late 2022/early 2023, the Ministry appointed the National Electronic Health Record Guidelines Workgroup and tasked the Workgroup to come up with a set of guidelines that would provide clarity on the professional responsibilities and obligations of healthcare professionals in terms of their contribution to, access and use of our national health records. The Workgroup, which I co-chaired, has since completed its work and issued a set of guidelines setting out the core ethical principles relating to our national health records, and proposing reasonable professional standards to be observed by all contributors and users. The draft guidelines have been made available, and I understand it will be published at such time when the HIB makes its successful passage through this House.
To formulate these guidelines, there were numerous engagement sessions arranged by the Ministry involving various stakeholders, for example, the Academy of Medicine, the Singapore Medical Association and the Singapore Dental Association, as well as nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals. As co-chair of the Workgroup, I was present at most, if not all, of these engagement sessions to hear and address the concerns from the ground and to obtain constructive feedback.
We also took into account the interests of patients, the need to respect their autonomy in terms of who they would grant access to their national health records and the sensitivities associated with certain types of health information, for example, conditions that are stigmatising or affect employment opportunities or one's insurability. I am heartened to see that these issues have been specifically addressed in the Bill, which provides for access restrictions and makes it clear that access to our national health records should not be for employment or insurance purposes.
Some have mentioned that patients do not like to be asked repeatedly about their medical histories. But there is a need to emphasise that the primary source of health information remains with the patient. National health records can provide a back-up source of essential health data when patients are poor historians or are otherwise unable to provide information to their doctors, but it is not a replacement for the traditional way in which doctors interact with their patients through direct communication, which is so important if we are to build a strong doctor-patient partnership, one that is based on trust.
Integrated care also does not mean that we should expect doctors to routinely have to trawl through and read NEHR records before they even exchanged the first word with the patient. We do need to ensure that the healthcare professionals who are users of the system see it as an asset, rather than a potential quagmire where missteps will engender swift punishment and legal liability. As for patients, they need to have trust in the National Health Records System and believe that it is there to serve their needs and safeguard their interests, and not at the expense of their privacy or autonomy.
Many concerns from the ground remain, for example, that time is needed for their practices to be compliance-ready, that they need technical support to deal with cybersecurity threats or simply to familiarise themselves with recommended practice guidelines and the statutory obligations that will be put in place once the Health Information Act comes into force.
I can attest to the fact that senior Ministry officers who were present to hear these concerns from the ground have been extremely understanding and reassuring. They have signalled that flexibility will be exercised and allowances given in the event of non-compliance due to teething problems during the initial stages, and these problems could include delays in implementing adequate systemic safeguards. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if he can confirm that, indeed, contributors and users of the National Electronic Records System will be given some latitude, especially in the initial period, as they adapt to the new changes and expectations?
In addition, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if the Ministry intends to continue focusing on patient education efforts that will, in my view, be essential if we want patients to feel secure and have faith in how their sensitive health information will be handled. We are unlikely to gain all the benefits from this ambitious initiative if too many of our patients resort to setting controls on access due to fear or misconceptions. Patient education, therefore, needs to continue to be a priority and we must continue to listen to and address their concerns and build their trust.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.
Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a registered member of the Allied Health Professions Council, and my work involves accessing, treating and educating on disability.
The HIB before us is a landmark piece of legislation. It establishes a robust legal framework for secure health information sharing across our healthcare ecosystem and this will shape the way Singapore delivers care for decades to come.
This Bill is not just about technology or compliance. It is about trust – trust between patients and providers, between Government and citizens, and between institutions and the professionals who serve in them. It is essential for our transition from hospital-centric care to community-based care, particularly as we confront the twin challenges of an ageing population and the rising burden of chronic disease.
Today, I would like to focus on these four areas: one, supporting community healthcare practitioners and GPs in onboarding to the NEHR system; two, improving data transition between Government hospitals and the community sector; three, strengthening support for allied health professionals (AHPs); and four, addressing patients' concerns about data protection thresholds and breach safeguards.
The vision of \"One Patient, One Health Record, One Care Journey\" is compelling. But to realise it, we must ensure that practitioners outside hospital settings, especially GPs in smaller, independent practices, have adequate support to participate meaningfully.
Today, most primary care clinics already contribute to NEHR. This is commendable progress. This is driven by Healthier SG's integration requirements. Yet we must acknowledge the realities. Many GPs operate with lean teams, limited administrative bandwidth and modest technical capacity. For them, NEHR integration can feel like a burden, even if its clinical value is clear.
The Bill rightly provides support mechanisms: whitelisted NEHR-compatible systems and funding packages to defray onboarding and cybersecurity costs. These are welcome. However, as we move towards mandatory participation, we must ensure that implementation timelines are realistic. The Bill takes effect from 2027, providing healthcare providers time to adopt support measures and comply with requirements. But for some GPs and smaller practices, this may still be a tight timeline for them.
I urge MOH to adopt a calibrated enforcement approach, working collaboratively with GPs to resolve technical challenges rather than defaulting to penalties. This is crucial for building a genuine partnership with community practitioners. May I ask how MOH will ensure it has sufficient technical professionals and resources on the ground to assist clinics in implementing these changes on time?
The Bill rightly seeks to enable seamless data transition between Government hospitals and community healthcare partners. This is vital for the continuity of care as patients move from acute to community settings.
This framework is sound. However, we must ensure that the data transition process is not merely technically compliant, but genuinely supportive of community-based practitioners. When a patient is discharged from a Government hospital, the community GP or AHP taking over care should receive comprehensive, timely, clinically relevant information.
Further, as private community healthcare organisations mature in governance and systems, they should be progressively included in the Fourth Schedule of the Bill. This would extend data sharing arrangements beyond public institutions, strengthening care continuity across the entire healthcare ecosystem.
AHPs – physiotherapists, radiographers, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and radiation therapists – play indispensable roles in patient care and should have access to relevant NEHR information. In particular, AHPs are crucial in managing chronic conditions, rehabilitation and preventive care in the community and outpatient settings. They need access to medication histories, adverse drug reactions, recent investigations and relevant diagnoses to deliver safe and effective care.
For them, access to relevant NEHR information is not optional. It is essential. Yet, the stakeholder feedback indicates concerns about whether all AHPs will have equal access rights and whether sufficient safeguards exist to ensure they access only clinically relevant information for their specific roles.
The Bill provides role-based access controls, ensuring AHPs can only access data relevant to their duties. This is appropriate. But I urge MOH to go further.
First, establish clear practice guidelines for each AHP profession, specifying what NEHR data is relevant and when access is clinically justified. This removes ambiguity and supports professional judgement. Second, ensure that AHP associations are active partners in training and upskilling of their members on NEHR use, medico-legal responsibilities and safeguards. The MOH will publish guidelines on appropriate use of NEHR to address medico-legal concerns, but professional bodies should help manage implementation through their own continuing education programmes. If we want integrated care, we must empower every professional who contributes to it.
Finally, Mr Speaker, let me turn to the issue of data protection. Trust is the currency of healthcare. Patients must feel confident that their most sensitive information is safeguarded. Healthcare providers must report data breaches to MOH and affected individuals if the breaches result in significant harm. This is sensible for large-scale incidents. But what of smaller breaches, affecting 50, 100 or 200 people?
May I seek the Minister's assurance on four points.
First, all breaches, regardless of scale, must be assessed and remedied. The MOH's enforcement will take seriously even breaches affecting small numbers of people. Two, patients should be notified of significant breaches affecting any number of individuals. Three, repeated smaller breaches that reveal systemic vulnerabilities must trigger decisive corrective action. Four, patients should be able to view access logs for their records and flag suspicious activity to MOH. Citizen monitoring can be a powerful supplement to regulatory oversight.
Mr Speaker, the HIB is a decisive step towards integrated, secure, patient-centric digital healthcare. With targeted support for community practitioners, robust data transition frameworks, enhanced support for AHPs and clear safeguards for smaller data breaches, this Bill can deliver genuine benefits while protecting patient privacy and maintaining trust.
If we succeed, this Bill will not only strengthen our healthcare system but also deepen the confidence of Singaporeans in it. I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Haresh Singaraju.
Dr Haresh Singaraju (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I wish to declare that I am a family physician with the National University Polyclinics. I am a father of young children. Growing up in the heartland and now serving in public healthcare, I have lived and worked among Singaporeans across generations, across every walk of life.
Every day, I sit across the table from patients: the uncle in his 60s managing six chronic conditions; the young mother bringing her newborn for a jaundice review, hoping the hospital's records have already reached me; the elderly auntie who cannot remember which medicines to take; and the caregivers, trying to make sense of it all for loved ones who cannot.
They come because they trust we will help them make sense of a system that can feel overwhelming. And I work alongside nurses, care coordinators, allied health staff, administrators and fellow doctors. People who entered healthcare to help, doing their best under difficult conditions. I speak today for both: for patients and families who depend on the system and for healthcare workers who make it work.
Mr Speaker, the vision behind this Bill is right. One patient, one health summary, one care journey. Information that follows the patient. Fewer duplicated tests. Fewer medication errors. Better patient safety. Better clinical decisions.
The Bill sets clear boundaries. Clause 6 – excluded purposes: employment and insurance related matters. Clause 38 makes it an offence to access the NEHR, for these purposes. Penalties are serious.
Patients must trust that their health information will not be used against them. These protections matter. But the Bill is only as good as the trust it builds, from patients and from providers. I have three observations.
First, the boundaries are clear, the grey zone is not. The Bill tells us what we must not do, but not what we must do, or how much is enough. A patient comes to see me. Cough for two weeks. No clinical red flag features. I take a history, examine her and I am satisfied. Likely a viral or post-viral cough. I treat her symptomatically. I do not access the NEHR. Three months later, it turns out she had early lung cancer. A CT scan done elsewhere six months ago showed a lung nodule. It was in NEHR. I did not see it. Was I wrong? I had no reason to suspect cancer. My clinical assessment was adequate. But the information was there.
Consider the reverse. I access NEHR. Years of records. Hundreds of entries. How deep must I go? How wide? If I click \"Result A\" but not the adjacent \"Result B\" because it seems unrelated to the current consult, is that reasonable? Or will I be asked, later, why I did not check?
Clause 99 protects those who act in good faith and with reasonable care, but it does not define what reasonable care looks like. In practice, clinicians exercise professional judgement every day. But what does reasonable care and professional judgement look like with 10 minutes of consultation time and 10 years of records?
I am not asking for immunity from accountability. I am asking for clarity. Clarity on what reasonable access looks like. What constitutes adequate review. How we should document the choices we make, against the ever-increasing complexity and demands of clinical care.
And this guidance must be sustained. Not a one-time circular, but updated as systems and practice evolve. Without this, clinicians will practise hesitantly. Some will over-access, lost in screens. Others will under-access, afraid of what they might find. Neither serves patients.
I ask the Minister: will the Ministry commit to facilitating and supporting the development of clear, practical guidance, in consultation with the profession, on what constitutes reasonable access and review?
Next, governance is central, enablement must be central too. NEHR is centrally governed. Standards are set by the Ministry, but implementation is local and the burden falls unevenly.
Public institutions have the resources to maintain systems, keep them updated and respond when things go wrong. We cannot say the same for private practice. I still speak to friends from medical school, former colleagues now in private practice. The solo GP in Bedok, the small group practice in Jurong: they face the same data security and breach reporting standards under Parts 4 and 5, with far fewer resources. I know senior doctors, still sharp, still caring, who are thinking of hanging up their white coats early. Not because they cannot practise medicine, but because they cannot keep up with the infrastructural demands.
Clinicians should be caring for patients, not managing systems. I do not argue for lower standards. Patient data must be protected, but enablement must match governance. Central standards require central support and this support must be sustained, not just during roll-out. If we expect doctor-patient relationships to last decades, the support must last too.
I ask the Minister: will there be dedicated, sustained support for smaller practices? This could take many forms: shared IT services, pooled cybersecurity monitoring, simplified compliance pathways. Existing structures like Primary Care Networks could be leveraged. These need not be free, but they must be accessible and sustained; not tapering off after implementation, but continuing for as long as the obligations continue.
Third, portability must align with continuity. Part 7 provides for portability of health information. Patients can request their records be transferred. This is right. Patients should control their own information. But there is a tension. Healthier SG encourages patients to build long-term relationships with one family doctor. Continuity improves outcomes. Trust takes time and NEHR supports this, giving access to specialist and hospital records, enabling coordinated care. Yet, seamless portability makes it easier to move between private providers. If records follow effortlessly, why stay with one doctor?
I am not suggesting we restrict portability. There are valid reasons to change primary providers: relocation, a breakdown in relationship perhaps. But if portability inadvertently undermines continuity, NEHR risks enabling fragmentation. Episodic care from whichever provider is nearest, cheapest or most convenient, leading to wasted resources.
The technology is neutral. The outcomes depend on policy coherence. I ask the Minister: what measures will ensure that portability reinforces, rather than weakens, the care relationships Healthier SG seeks to build?
In closing, Mr Speaker, this Bill matters. It matters to the patient hoping the next doctor knows what the last one did. It matters to the clinician wanting to do the right thing but uncertain of the rules. It matters to the small practice owner worried about compliance. Legislation alone does not build trust. Trust is built through clarity, through support, through coherence between policies meant to work together. While I support this Bill, I urge the Minister to address these concerns, please.
Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am speaking in support of the HIB. At the very core, the Bill addresses a very real and familiar problem in the healthcare today: information does not follow the patient always. You see, as care becomes more complex, with more providers, more settings and more chronic conditions, patients often carry their own medical history across the system.
For many Singaporeans, the most stressful part of a health episode is not just the illness alone, but it is the friction that comes along with it. They have to repeat their story with every medical visit. They struggle to recall the medication names – sometimes I do – past dosages, or test results that sit in different institutions. For those caring for ageing parents, they become our human bridge as they juggle between appointment letters, WhatsApp photos of prescriptions and fragmented notes of different providers.
Therefore, having a well-governed national health record reduces this burden. It supports safer handover between stakeholders in the healthcare systems, such as our GPs, specialists, hospitals and community partners. It also lowers the risk of missed allergies, drug interactions and also unnecessary repeated tests that cost time, money and anxiety.
This Bill puts the NEHR system on a clearer legal footing, including governance of access, use and safeguards. For these reasons, I support the intent and direction of this Bill.
That said, Mr Speaker, I would like to raise three broad points which I hope will be used to strengthen trust and confidence in implementation.
My first point pertains to individual regarding sensitive health data and access restrictions. Mr Speaker, not all health information feels the same to all citizens. Sharing information about a cough, a vaccination, a fracture, is usually straightforward.
But many Singaporeans will understandably feel unease when information relates to areas where stigma still exists, such as mental health conditions, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV status, substance abuse, self-harm or records that may expose abuse. The fear is not only about embarrassment, but it is about the consequences that will come along too. Specifically, how would such information affect their employability.
This is why the Bill's safeguards matters, because access is purpose-limited, it is role-based, logged, restrictions are auditable and misuse attracts serious consequences. It gives individuals the ability to impose access restrictions. The ability to impose access restrictions provides individuals with the peace of mind. In essence, it gives that reassurance to say that, \"Hey, I can see my records. I can understand my records, and if I wish, I can limit the information the other party can see\", which is important because this is how we build trust.
In addition, it is important to reassure Singaporeans clearly by proactively communicating the following, that MOH has stated that NEHR's information is for clinical care and is not accessible by employers or insurers. The message should remain consistent and prominent as the Bill is being implemented.
And against this backdrop, I have two clarifications on this. Firstly, let us agree that not all Singaporeans are digitally competent or confident. As we have seen in the recent Community Development Council (CDC) January vouchers, where even after multiple rounds of education, some seniors still do not feel confident in claiming their vouchers digitally. They still come to our Community Centres to collect hardcopy vouchers.
Against this backdrop, I wonder what assisted pathways will be available for residents who wish to understand and also know how they can manage their access restrictions? Could this include in-person support at polyclinics, hospitals or even trusted community touchpoints, so that the right to impose, to understand access restrictions, it is not only for those who are digitally confident, but for every single Singaporean?
Second, I wonder, will citizens also be able to view their access history in a way that is simple and meaningful; and will MOH also clearly explain what the access history does and does not capture? For example, a resident showed me that if you go to our HealthHub's FAQ page, it says: \"Your healthcare professionals may be accessing your records from their own Electronic Medical Records (EMR) systems. Accesses made to your records in their own EMR systems are not included in the National Electronic Health Record Access History.\" In plain English, what it means is that sometimes doctors and nurses, they see your records through their own systems rather than the NEHR. And what this means is that it would not be captured in the access history, because they are looking for information through their own system. If we want to build trust, then we must be clear what the access history can capture and cannot capture.
Beyond these two questions, that got me thinking about the issue of data completeness. As clinicians document care in their own clinic and hospital systems, the NEHR depends on what is contributed through integration. Other systems abroad also show that governance alone is not enough. Some jurisdictions mandate provider contributions through law, while others rely on technical readiness or voluntary participation.
Regardless, the NEHR will only reach its fullest potential if data contributions are consistent and timely. In our case, beyond reporting required by law, how would MOH encourage strong compliance in the everyday operations, that is required in the core data that is reflected in our Bill, such as medication list, vaccinations administered and also dental notes, and so on.
We need to ensure that this contribution is consistent, prompt, with good quality, across providers. Would there be positive levers such as integration support, performance feedback, recognition of good practices and contributors to be considered for the rest to learn from.
Mr Speaker, my second point pertains to smaller providers, reflecting the unevenness in readiness to implement. Cybersecurity audit and reporting obligations are necessary, but they are operationally demanding. Smaller clinics and some community providers may need more time and practical support to meet new requirements properly.
From my own experience in procuring cyber security services in different roles, significant time and effort goes into spelling out the requirements, finding the right provider, implementing and ensuring user adoption, all that to say, it requires time.
I therefore hope that the implementation of this Bill will be accompanied by the reassurance that: one, transition timelines will take into account of capacity of smaller providers; two, implementation support will be sustained and ongoing beyond simply the launch period. In practical terms, what this could look like means standard templates, shared tools, training resources, a clear helpdesk and escalation pathway and where necessary, support to uplift baseline cyber security since the system is only as strong as its weakest link.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to raise a practical continuity of care issues brought up by some Singaporeans that I have had conversations with. In these interactions, a Singaporean shared with me, and I also understand so, because I have experienced that through my friends who are young parents as well. They shared that some of them would prefer to go overseas for screenings or procedures, because they perceive it to be cheaper and/or faster. For instance, with the initiative such as the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone and the MOU on Corporation in Health signed in December 2025, I think we are likely to see closer health linkages and maybe more Singaporeans might go up north for medical screening and treatments in the near future.
However, information generated overseas will not automatically be captured in our national health record system, so I would like to seek the Ministry's view on information generated overseas. In particular, would the Ministry consider capturing reliable and credible health information data from abroad in our system? Because in my experience when I spoke with some parents, when they have newly-born, they are quite excited to search for and know the gender of the child. They would go overseas to do a quick test so that they will know whether it is a boy or a girl.
Is there even a possibility for Singapore residents to share the clinically relevant overseas finding with Singapore providers in a way that clinicians can validate and incorporate safely? Of course, this should be considered with the intent that any integration of overseas health information should be done to strengthen our continuity of care and not compromise data quality and clinical safety.
Mr Speaker, in sum, the HIB is a necessary step for our modern healthcare system. If implemented with clear communication, assisted access pathways, and credible transparency, this Bill can help Singapore build a health data ecosystem that is both enabling and trusted. With this point, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Dr Hamid Razak.
Dr Hamid Razak (West Coast-Jurong West): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the HIB. Before that, I declare my interest as an orthopaedic surgeon currently in private practice.
Drawing from both my clinical experience and ground feedback that I have gathered, I will focus my remarks on two areas that have surfaced repeatedly: one, the practical realities faced by clinicians, particularly in smaller healthcare settings; and two, the importance of patient trust, supported by robust access and privacy safeguards.
Mr Speaker, as clinicians, we do see every day how fragmented information can compromise care: duplicated tests; missed drug allergies or interactions; incomplete histories, especially for seniors with multiple medical problems. At the same time, many doctors, particularly those in smaller GP practices, specialist clinics and dental clinics, have raised practical questions about how this Bill affects their medico-legal responsibilities. I think this was alluded to earlier by Dr Haresh as well.
First, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the intended role of the NEHR in daily clinical practice. Can the Minister confirm that the NEHR is positioned as a supplementary clinical tool, and not a mandatory step that must be accessed in every single consultation?
Such clarity is important. Good medicine still begins with history-taking, physical examination, and the doctor's professional judgment, based on the presentation of the patient at that material point in time. Digital tools should enhance clinical decision-making, not replace it. Clear articulation of this principle will help address concerns that clinicians could be exposed to liability simply for not accessing NEHR in every encounter.
Second, clarity in guidance will be essential. As clinicians are required to contribute to and access NEHR responsibly, clear, practical guidelines on appropriate use will help healthcare professionals act with confidence: firstly, knowing when access is appropriate; next, how to document decisions made on the access of NEHR data; and then, how to meet their obligations without fear of inadvertent non-compliance. I therefore welcome the Ministry's intention to provide guidance and training to all healthcare professionals.
Third, I wish to speak for smaller providers who are concerned about cybersecurity and data protection requirements. Unlike large institutions, many smaller clinics operate with limited manpower and resources, as already alluded to by previous speakers. In this regard, I do welcome the funding support and the use of whitelisted systems to help smaller providers comply safely and securely. A calibrated enforcement posture, coupled with practical assistance, will be key to ensuring that compliance strengthens care rather than becoming an administrative burden.
Ultimately, Mr Speaker, clinicians want to do the right thing for their patients and for the healthcare system. This Bill works best when it enables clinicians, rather than paralyse them.
Mr Speaker, the second area I wish to address is patient trust. Trust is the bedrock of healthcare. Patients share deeply personal information because they trust it will be used solely for their care and not to disadvantage them in any way.
Unfortunately, on the ground, I personally have seen instances that undermine this trust. There have been cases where insurers have written to multiple clinics in the vicinity of a patient's residence, seeking information about the patient's medical history in the context of an insurance claim. These broad and often non-specific requests are deeply troubling because they go back in years. They ask about someone presenting with a particular symptom, 10 to 15 years before the current claim is being made. This places our clinicians in a very difficult position and risk compromising confidentiality between providers who may actually have no direct care relationship with the patient. These practices underscore why clear legal boundaries around access and use of health information are essential.
In this regard, I strongly support the safeguards embedded in this Bill. I understand that access to the NEHR will be both role based and purpose specific. Healthcare professionals may only access records for patients under their own care and only for direct patient care purposes. Crucially, the Bill explicitly prohibits access for employment and insurance purposes, except in narrowly defined statutory medical examinations. This clarity sends a strong and necessary signal and directly addresses public concerns about misuse.
I also welcome the transparency features enabled through HealthHub. Patients will be able to see who has accessed their records, restrict access where appropriate, and flag potential misuse. These features reinforce accountability and uphold public confidence.
Importantly, this Bill maintains a careful balance. Even when patients apply restrictions, a core set of critical health information, and full access in genuine medical emergencies, will remain available. This ensures that patient autonomy does not inadvertently compromise patient safety.
I was glad to hear fellow Member Mr Fadli prioritise patient autonomy in his speech earlier. This is why I believe a restricted access approach, rather than a complete opt-out approach would be more beneficial to patients, clearly demonstrating that in medical emergencies in the case of an opt-out system, critical information more not be available to the attending physicians.
Mr Speaker, related to this, I would like to seek clarification on how the Bill considers continuity of health information for vulnerable populations who receive care outside the conventional healthcare system. This includes inmates under the care of the Singapore Prison Service.
As we aspire to have inmates eventually transition back into the community or require care in our public healthcare institutions, timely access to critical medical information can be important for their safety and continuity of care. I seek the Minister's clarification on how such health information is treated within the broader framework of the NEHR and how safeguards are applied in these contexts.
Finally, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on how the Bill safeguards particularly sensitive health information, including mental health data, and the penalties in place to deter misuse. Such safeguards are critical in protecting dignity and sustaining trust, especially for patients who already feel vulnerable at the point of care.
Mr Speaker, this Bill is not ultimately about data or systems. It is about ensuring that clinicians have the right information at the right time, that patients retain dignity, privacy and autonomy, and that trust remains the foundation of our healthcare system. When trust is preserved, seamless care becomes possible. For any healthcare system to function well, healthcare providers must trust the system, patients must trust the system and the healthcare system must be worthy of that trust.
With the safeguards for patients, clarity for providers, and support for implementation, I support this Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 7.25 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 7.13 pm until 7.25 pm.
Sitting resumed at 7.25 pm.
[Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Mr Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken, for supporting the Bill, especially our new Nominated Members, Ms Kuah and Dr Haresh, contributing to the debate on the first day they are sworn in.
Sir, only by enabling data sharing and a unified health summary for each patient, can we support continuity of care when patients move between different healthcare settings and receive care from multiple healthcare providers.
The Members have raised a number of thoughtful views and constructive comments which I will address in four broad themes.
But before I do that, I would like to address the points made by the Member Mr Kenneth Tiong around the organisation of and his views on Synapxe, the health tech agency that implements many of the IT projects in MOH. As that topic does not pertain to the specifics of the HIB, I encourage Mr Tiong to raise a separate Parliamentary Question or raise the issue separately from today's debate. But suffice to say that Synapxe is not a commercial entity. Its fundamental role is to support MOH in delivering digital health and IT services to benefit the healthcare clusters to deliver better healthcare services to our Singaporeans.
Let me now turn to the substance of the Bill. There are four broad themes of comments that came in. First, it is around the safeguards for patients. Second, the obligations and support measures for healthcare providers. Third, the support measures for healthcare professionals. And fourthly, the sharing of non-NEHR health information. Let me start with the safeguards for patients.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr David Hoe, Dr Wan Rizal, Dr Hamid Razak and Mr Fadili Fawzi highlighted the importance of safeguarding access to and the use of patients' NEHR information. And this has been a focus for us when we carried out the public consultation and prepared this Bill. There are broadly two sets of concerns that we hear from individuals.
The first is how a patient's NEHR information will be adequately safeguarded and accessed only as needed by healthcare professionals and providers. Of special concern is the access to health information that may be deemed more sensitive. There were also related questions about the Access Restriction feature. So, that is the first set of concerns. The second is around whether their NEHR information would be used beyond healthcare, such as for employment and insurance purposes.
Let me touch on the first set of concerns. Sir, we are not starting from scratch. We have been operating the NEHR for 15 years. Importantly, the vast majority of healthcare providers are already onboard – all public healthcare institutions, most private hospitals and the bulk of the GP clinics. So, this is a system that has been operating for many years. And we have built in various ex-ante safeguards into the design of the NEHR. This includes role-based access, such that authorised healthcare professionals can only access the types of health information required for their specific patient care roles. We also have technical controls and regular ex-post audits to flag unauthorised accesses to the NEHR.
With the HIB, we are enhancing the legislative safeguards and stiffening penalties for unauthorised access.
First-time offences of unauthorised access of NEHR are punishable with a maximum fine of $50,000 and/or up to two years' imprisonment upon conviction. And the penalty is doubled for repeat offenders. Healthcare professionals who access NEHR in an unauthorised manner could also be referred to the relevant Professional Boards or Councils for further action.
Mr Dennis Tan spoke about offences and whether the $1 million maximum fine was sufficient. Sir, the regimes he compared with as well as PDPA that he referred to, do not have criminal prosecution. The breaches to the HIB are serious and we take this seriously. For example, a conviction involves not just fines, it is imprisonment as well. But more basically, we take an approach that is more supportive, working together with our healthcare providers, the healthcare professionals. These are people – nurses, clinicians and administrators, who want to do well, who want to serve the patients, who want to take care of the patients. And we want to take a supportive role and approach to uplift data security and cybersecurity postures, not a punitive approach.
Mr Alex Yeo asked about audits on unauthorised accesses of the NEHR and Mr Tiong asked if Synapxe would proactively monitor against unauthorised access. Synapxe, the NEHR system operator, conducts regular audits and ongoing monitoring to detect suspicious behaviour or atypical patterns, including in response to patient alerts. For example, accessing the NEHR information of a patient who has not recently visited any healthcare provider is a flag. Synapxe will conduct investigations to determine whether an unauthorised access has occurred. Synapxe will regularly review its audit plans, including frequency, best practices and the use of new tools like artificial intelligence to ensure that the regime is robust.
In addition, instances when a patient's NEHR information is accessed over the preceding 12 months will be made known to him through the \"NEHR Access History\" feature in the HealthHub application. This provides an additional layer of transparency. Patients can monitor which healthcare providers have accessed their NEHR information and flag any unauthorised access to the authorities for investigation.
The logs will show access at the healthcare institution level to keep the function simple, useable and practical. In a multi-disciplinary team, healthcare professionals across different roles may access the patient's NEHR information at different times of the patient's care journey. Depending on the patient's condition, it is also not uncommon for nurses, pharmacists or allied health professionals to need access. In our healthcare system, the institution is ultimately responsible for care to its patient.
I would like to take the opportunity to clarify the comment made by Mr David Hoe. HealthHub access logs will show all accesses to NEHR, regardless of whether the access is through EMR or the portal. So, just to clarify on his point earlier.
Sir, I would like to assure Mr Hoe, Mr Fadli and Mr Yip that we will seek users' feedback when reviewing the interface to ensure it is simple and user-friendly.
Mr Speaker, we understand that some patients are particularly concerned about access to health information that may be deemed more sensitive. Mr Louis Chua, Mr Yip, Dr Hamid, Mr Hoe and Mr Tiong have commented on the need for safeguards for such information. Such health information includes sexually transmitted infections, delusional disorders and schizophrenia. The diagnoses and test results that confirm the condition are subject to additional safeguards.
First, there are restrictions on who can access this information. Only a select group of healthcare professionals are allowed to access this information, based on their role in caring for the patient diagnosed with the health condition. For example, a nurse who is working in a psychiatric ward will have access to the psychiatric condition of the patient he or she is caring for. So, that is the first control.
Second, before an authorised healthcare professional can access these types of health information, they will be subject to a double log-in, which requires the authorised healthcare professional to re-verify their credentials before access. This ensures that such information is only accessed when needed and avoids accidental access. Accesses to such health information are more closely audited by Synapxe and cases of unauthorised access to NEHR information will be investigated and penalties imposed.
Sir, we appreciate that despite all these safeguards, some patients may still have privacy concerns. To assuage the concerns of these patients, the HIB will allow patients to restrict healthcare providers from accessing their NEHR information or we call this \"Access Restrictions\" in the Bill. As I mentioned earlier in my opening speech, we do not encourage this, as it could lead to adverse impact on care delivery for the patient.
To address the queries raised by Members, the Access Restrictions have been designed to balance the impact to patient care; considering the welfare and interest of the patient, while taking into consideration their concerns around privacy.
So, patients may restrict access to their NEHR information at the healthcare institution level, but not at an individual healthcare professional level. As I have mentioned earlier, care delivery is team-based and increasingly multi-disciplinary. It is not operationally feasible to restrict access to specific healthcare professionals but not others, when they all work in a team, in the same healthcare institution. This is aligned with good practices we observed elsewhere, like in Australia.
Health information will be contributed to NEHR even if Access Restrictions are in place. As pointed out by Dr Hamid, who brings in a practitioner's perspective, an incomplete record, including if individuals opt not to contribute select healthcare information deemed to be more sensitive, will significantly reduce the utility of NEHR in supporting healthcare professionals to provide quality care and could pose a safety risk.
In certain situations, access to such records in a timely manner could save lives, as I mentioned earlier in my opening speech. One example would be when a doctor or pharmacist needs to have the ability to access drug interactions and his job is hindered due to incomplete medication information, the patient could suffer unintended consequences, especially in emergency situations when the patient may not be able to respond.
It also ensures that if patients change their mind in future, for instance, when they are older and remove such Access Restrictions, there would be no gap in NEHR information and this was a valuable learning point when MOH colleagues engaged other jurisdictions. The approach we are adopting aims to achieve a balance between patient choice and ensuring that patients receive better and more coordinated patient care.
Sir, in summary, healthcare providers would be granted access to NEHR to support patients' continuity of care across healthcare settings by default. Patients may, however, restrict access to all healthcare providers, or from the second half of 2026, limit access so that only select healthcare providers, such as their own Healthier SG clinic, may access their NEHR information. Whilst in place, restricted healthcare providers will not be able to, unless required by other written law, access the patient's NEHR information, except for the essential subset of records that cover allergies and vaccination records.
Next, I would like to also thank Members like Mr Yip, Mr Hoe, Mr Chua, Mr Fadli and Ms Kuah Boon Theng for highlighting the importance of educating the public on the implications of placing Access Restrictions and supporting patients who are less digitally savvy. We are likewise mindful of this point.
MOH will work with the healthcare institutions to set-up physical touchpoints for those who require help with placing Access Restrictions and help them understand the implications of doing so. Alternatively, patients may seek the help of trusted individuals, like their family members and caregivers to place Access Restrictions on their behalf.
Mr Yip raised the concern that the act of placing an Access Restriction may itself become a source of stigma or adverse inference. This Access Restriction will be known only to the healthcare providers managing the patient and all healthcare professionals are bound by their respective professional bodies' ethical codes and ethical guidelines to treat all patients fairly and without prejudice.
Let me now move to queries around NEHR access by insurers and employers. We understand Singaporeans' concerns about the potential discrimination or stigmatisation they may face if their health information is revealed to their employer or insurer. On this, I would like to reiterate three points that I have made earlier in my opening speech.
First, insurers and employers do not and will not have access to NEHR. Second, healthcare professionals are also prohibited from accessing NEHR for employment or insurance purposes, except for prescribed statutory medical examinations, which I will talk on later, or where authorised by other written law or Order of the Court. Third, the HIB imposes strict penalties for any unauthorised access to NEHR, with higher penalties for prohibited employment or insurance purposes.
Dr Wan Rizal asked whether statutory medical examinations may provide a backdoor for employers to gain access to NEHR information. The list of statutory medical examinations that is in the Bill is tightly scoped to those where NEHR access is necessary to protect the public and safeguard the health of the individual. This is the key principle.
We have no plans to expand this list to include employment-related screenings that are not necessary to protect the public and the individual. The current practice for employment-related screenings will remain – where doctors rely on their history-taking, clinical assessment and their own existing medical records for the individual, if any, without access to NEHR.
On Mr Yeo's query, on whether MOH would consider allowing individuals to give consent for their NEHR information to be accessed for insurance purposes for some situations, I would like to reiterate that NEHR is primarily for patient care purposes. When insurers request for health information, the current practice is for healthcare providers and professionals to rely on their medical records and patient interactions, which include history-taking, as well as physical examinations, to prepare the necessary reports for the insurer. This will continue to be the case after the HIB is enacted. NEHR must not be accessed for such insurance- and employment-related checks.
To Mr Tiong's query, healthcare providers and professionals should prepare separate medical reports, memos or clinical summaries for the insurer, instead of providing their raw medical records, such as printouts from their clinical medical records. This is because raw medical records contain extensive information, including potentially irrelevant information.
Where NEHR information is referred to during a medical examination, information relevant to the episode would be validated or confirmed with the patient during history taking and may be captured in the provider's own medical records, together with the doctor's clinical assessment. Such information would then be treated as part of the provider's own medical records. Healthcare providers and professionals will need to carefully assess what information in their own medical records is relevant and necessary to include in the report provided to an insurer.
MOH has issued a circular to healthcare providers and a guidance note to insurers to clearly state these positions. Healthcare providers may inform MOH if there are any inappropriate requests for NEHR information for insurance purposes.
Sir, let me now address questions about the contribution requirements in the Bill. Dr Haresh asked if mandatory contributions, coupled with access will encourage episodic care affecting initiatives, such as Healthier SG, which encourages building a trusted relationship between patients and their family doctors. Mr Hoe asked about the requirement to contribute information in a timely and accurate manner and the treatment of overseas medical records. Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about the level of details of key health information to be contributed to NEHR.
The Bill requires healthcare providers to contribute accurate and complete health information in a timely manner. This ultimately benefits patients by enabling their healthcare providers to access all relevant health information to provide the best care. Take a Healthier SG family doctor as an example. The bill will allow the doctor to deliver better patient care, taking account of the patient's medical history across different settings, including private specialist clinics.
This enables the doctor to build a trusted, and hopefully lifelong relationship towards better health outcomes. And to help healthcare providers comply with the contribution requirements in the Bill, we have whitelisted health information management systems (HIMS) that have the requisite technical features and encourage all healthcare providers to subscribe to these HIMS.
On overseas medical records, the HIB only applies within Singapore. Nevertheless, patients can bring their overseas health records to their local healthcare providers, who may then incorporate relevant information into their own medical records and once incorporated, these records will be contributed to NEHR.
To Dr Hamid's query on whether populations who receive care outside the conventional system, such as prison inmates, would benefit from the Bill, I would like to assure the Member that all Singaporeans key health information, including those under the care of the Singapore Prison Service, will be contributed to NEHR.
To Mr Fadli's query, NEHR is designed to be a \"One Health Summary\". We will only require the contribution of health information prescribed in the First Schedule of the Bill and not the doctor's detailed clinical notes. The design of the system and the data pipes take in only the prescribed data types.
For example, if a patient has diabetes and is prescribed with insulin, the doctor will only contribute \"diabetes\" as a diagnosis and \"insulin\" as the medication. So, only information that is needed for continuity of care.
Sir, let me now turn to Dr Choo Pei Ling's suggestion to extend NEHR access to other users, such as allied health professionals working outside of licensed institutions. I would like to thank Dr Choo for her suggestion to extend the access to other users. However, I would like to reiterate that the primary purpose of the NEHR is to support and enhance the continuity of care for patients. Hence, the HIB provides for NEHR access for licensed healthcare institutions. Within these institutions, NEHR access is only provided for healthcare professionals with clinical or care planning roles. This is the core principle governing NEHR access.
However, we recognise that as care models develop and evolve, we may need to grant new providers or services access to NEHR. In doing so, we will consider factors such as whether NEHR information is required for that role and whether the provider or service is able to comply with the HIB's requirements. Prior to changing the scope of providers that may access NEHR, we will consult relevant stakeholders and publicly communicate the changes through the MOH website.
Sir, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Yip and Mr Fadli Fawzi also asked about the sharing of NEHR information for non-patient care purposes under the HIB or other written laws such as the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.
NEHR was set up to facilitate patient care and the information within NEHR is primarily intended to be shared across healthcare providers for that purpose. This is a consistent principle adopted by other jurisdictions that we have studied.
MOH is of the view that identifiable health information should generally be interpreted and managed by qualified healthcare professionals. Parties from outside the healthcare sector generally do not require identifiable health information for non-healthcare-related purposes. Therefore, when parties seek MOH's views on this, MOH will suggest that such parties consider alternative data sources or ways of achieving its policy intent instead of using NEHR information or involve qualified healthcare professionals to partner parties in meeting the intent.
For public health purposes under the HIB, NEHR information may be needed in certain situations, for example, to quickly identify and enable healthcare providers to contact affected patients in the event of a major drug contamination incident. Another example is in the event of an outbreak of a serious infectious disease, there may not be sufficient time nor would it be feasible to seek consent from individuals to use their NEHR information to contain the outbreak. De-identified NEHR information may also be needed for public policy analysis and planning purposes, such as to review healthcare utilisation trends or to analyse the cost effectiveness of medicines.
I have given some examples to the queries raised by Members on the scenarios in which those clauses apply.
As a general rule, MOH will ensure requests for NEHR information have sound basis before supporting it. For all supported requests, whether from private entities such as academic institutions and health-related organisations or from public agencies under other written laws, MOH will share only the necessary data required to fulfil the intent.
Let me give another example to illustrate my point. For example, for requests from the Police to locate missing persons, we only provide administrative information about visits to healthcare providers without details of the patient's medical condition. This enables the Police to confirm if missing persons have been warded in an emergency and in turn alert worried family members. Requesting parties will also be required to protect the data against loss and against unauthorised access, use, modification, disclosure or other misuse.
Mr Chua and Mr Fadli asked specifically about the use of NEHR for research. De-identified NEHR health information may be shared through established platforms such as TRUST under the National Research Foundation for research purposes. This could include training for artificial intelligence models.
Where requests are received from commercial parties, possibly for commercial purposes, we are extremely cautious in assessing such requests, including whether the sharing of such data is helpful in contributing to better healthcare and better health outcomes. Primarily, NEHR is for continuity of care and for public health purposes, not for commercial purposes.
Mr Chua suggested allowing Access Restrictions to be applied to the sharing of NEHR information for broader public health interest purposes such as policy planning and analysis. This is not advisable as it could lead to incomplete analysis and would undermine the utility of NEHR informing national policies and planning.
Sir, now, let me turn to the third topic on resilience and security of the system.
A number of Members, including Mr Yip and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the resilience and security standards for NEHR, particularly in light of the SingHealth data breach in 2018. I would like to reassure Members that MOH has taken in the recommendations under the Public Sector Data Security Review Committee conducted in 2019. And NEHR is complying with the relevant resilience and security requirements for Government systems recommended by this committee. NEHR is subject to security and resilience audits, with vulnerability scans, penetration tests and exercises carried out regularly to ensure that systems are secure and backup systems are operational in the event of a downtime.
I must add that, really, the lesson from the SingHealth data breach is that we were open and transparent about the issue, convened a Committee of Inquiry, learned our lessons, applied them and made sure we work very hard to prevent such breaches from recurring. We took those lessons to heart as we built up our cybersecurity and data security standards. We have done so over the years.
Additionally, there are several lines of defence before the NEHR database, with intrusion detection at various parts of the network. Timely hardware, software and application upgrades are implemented, which include security patches as well as security controls to detect and block suspicious traffic from external sources.
MOH and Synapxe will continue to work with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, GovTech and independent auditing firms to conduct regular cybersecurity reviews and security assessments.
I would also like to thank Mr Yip for his feedback on the need to make NEHR more user-friendly. I assure him we will continue to invest in the improvement of NEHR's technology and features to help healthcare providers quickly identify the most relevant information for their patients.
Relatedly, Mr Yip, Dr Choo, Mr Hoe, Ms Joan Pereira and a number of Members like Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Tiong and Mr Dennis Tan asked for further details on the cybersecurity and incident management requirements, including their feasibility and the availability of MOH support.
Sir, I would like to clarify that today, healthcare providers are already required to make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal health information. This is an existing requirement in laws such as the Personal Data Protection Act and Healthcare Services Act 2020.
The Bill's cybersecurity and data security requirements are based on these existing standards and legal requirements, but contextualised for the healthcare sector. These include frameworks such as the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore's Cyber Essentials Mark and the Infocomm Media Development Authority's Data Protection Essentials, which were designed to be accessible and implementable by smaller organisations.
Examples of these requirements include the use of anti-malware solutions and firewalls in computers, the backing up of essential business information and data storage practices. Healthcare providers will also need to train their staff on cyber-hygiene and data governance practices to ensure safe and secure access to health information.
On the incident management framework, healthcare providers and their HIMS providers must put in place a framework to identify, resolve and mitigate cybersecurity and data breaches. This includes notifying MOH of prescribed security incidents and implementing mechanisms and processes to detect and respond to incidents such as ransomware attacks or unauthorised access to NEHR.
But even with the best preventive measures, a data breach may still occur. Healthcare providers will be required to notify MOH and affected individuals of significant data breaches. Once notified, MOH will work with the healthcare providers to understand the root cause of the breach, the extent of the data exposed, the potential harm to patients, and the containment and mitigation measures that need to be implemented.
In the event of any data breach, healthcare providers are expected to take necessary measures to remediate the situation and prevent such incidents from occurring again. Where MOH is of the view that the mitigation or preventive measures are inadequate, we will work with the healthcare providers on implementing the appropriate measures.
To Mr Fadli Fawzi's query on how significant harm will be defined, if a data breach causes or is likely to cause significant harm to an individual, for example, if it involves disclosure of health information that may be deemed more sensitive, healthcare providers must notify the affected individuals on or after notifying MOH.
Additionally, MOH will only require significant breaches to be notified in alignment with the approach under existing legal frameworks such as the PDPA. These details will be set out in subsidiary legislation.
Let me now turn to the support measures for healthcare providers. I appreciate the concerns that Members have raised about the support needed for smaller providers, especially smaller GP clinics. I mentioned earlier that with Healthier SG, most GP clinics have already onboarded to NEHR, with the support of MOH.
MOH recognises the importance of providing healthcare providers with reasonable time to comply with the HIB requirements and will offer the necessary support for healthcare providers to prepare and adapt their systems and processes. We see them as a valuable partner in supporting the continuity of care in the community.
Our support package will include measures to defray costs of subscription to whitelisted HIB-compliant HIMS to digitalise their clinical records and to contribute data to NEHR more seamlessly. There are also other support packages to engage professional services from whitelisted service providers to implement cyber and data security requirements.
Additionally, resources, guidance materials and training programmes will be available to help healthcare providers, including our community health partners, to meet the HIB cybersecurity and data protection requirements on an ongoing basis.
We would like to reassure providers that with this support in place, healthcare providers will be better enabled and supported to implement the relevant requirements.
We acknowledge the concerns raised by Mr Yip about potential fear-mongering tactics by some vendors. To address this, MOH is developing basic service packages specifically tailored to the needs of solo practitioners and small and medium enterprises so that they can self-help and prevent overselling of unnecessary services. We are also establishing clear guidelines for whitelisted service providers on appropriate engagement practices and transparent pricing. Healthcare providers that encounter unethical practices by whitelisted service providers can report them to MOH.
Additionally, we recognise that there is a small group of what Members call the pen-and-paper clinics that may face challenges in digitalising their clinics and meeting the Bill's requirements. As Members highlighted, these clinics may require additional implementation support.
Sir, digitalisation is becoming key to the provision of healthcare. It is critical for clinical documentation, transmission of information between providers and laboratories, and supports timely coordination with other providers.
Today, most clinics already have some form of IT system for clinic management, accounting and billing. Going forward, digital tools will increasingly become important, enabling clinics to rely on clinical decision support systems to close care gaps and deliver safer care. Therefore, in recent years, we have strengthened the digitalisation in the private primary care sector to support Healthier SG and other national initiatives.
Today, about 1,100 Healthier SG clinics are onboard suitable Clinic Management Systems and contribute to NEHR. Across the GP sector, more than 80% of them are on Clinic Management Systems. So, there are a large number of clinics, a vast number of them, already embarking on the digitalisation efforts. And we are supporting the remaining clinics to digitalise and onboard suitable systems to enable better delivery of care.
To Ms Joan Pereira's query if smaller clinics could collaborate on shared resources, this is a good idea for smaller clinics to explore. Currently, clinics can already join the Primary Care Networks (PCNs). PCNs not only provide peer leadership and support to small or solo GP practices, they also offer administrative assistance through the PCN headquarters. The PCNs will continue to offer advice and support to member clinics, share resources to smoothen the clinics' journey in digitalisation and fulfilling NEHR contribution. We will further consider Mr Dennis Tan's and Ms Pereira's suggestions on shared IT support services as part of the roll-out.
I would like to assure Members that MOH is mindful of the administrative effort required to contribute information to NEHR. And this is why we encourage all healthcare providers to adopt a whitelisted HIMS, which automates the process of contributing relevant health information to NEHR. That said, for smaller clinics that may require more time to digitalise, we will make available an alternative contribution channel so that these clinics will be able to start contributing data when required, while MOH continues to work with them on their digitalisation plans.
Ms Kuah reflected concerns from the ground about time and effort needed for compliance, and if MOH will take these considerations in event of non-compliance, especially in the initial period. MOH has worked closely with healthcare providers and professionals and have been engaging them over the last few years. We have taken their feedback on board.
First, the Bill will commence in early 2027 to allow sufficient time for healthcare providers and professionals to familiarise themselves with the Bill's requirements. Second, to support their transition, guidance materials and dedicated support channels will be made available from the second quarter of this year to help providers and professionals understand their options and navigate the process. Third, should there be challenges complying with the Bill by the required timelines, MOH will consider the facts of each case carefully and assist where appropriate.
Sir, now let me turn to the comments and suggestions for support for healthcare professionals.
Dr Hamid Razak and Dr Choo Pei Ling enquired about how MOH intends to support healthcare professionals, noting that they have concerns about increased liability arising from the HIB. I think Dr Haresh also pointed out concerns from healthcare professionals on medical and legal liabilities and how they should think about it.
We have been engaging the professional bodies and speaking to them over a period of time, and have taken their suggestions, ideas and feedback on board. MOH will publish a set of guidelines to support healthcare professionals' appropriate access and use of NEHR information. These guidelines will apply not only to doctors but also to other healthcare professionals accessing NEHR, such as dentists, nurses and allied health professionals. Let me share some examples of the guidance that will be provided.
Sir, healthcare professionals have asked whether they will be required to access NEHR for each consultation and whether they need to review each record in NEHR when they do access it.
Accessing patients' NEHR information is not compulsory under the HIB. NEHR supports and complements existing clinical practices, including good history-taking and physical examinations. The HIB does not change existing standards and practices. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to consider a range of factors before deciding whether NEHR access is required for a particular consultation, such as whether more information is required based on the information gleaned from the history-taking and physical examinations or whether health records in NEHR would be relevant to the particular consultation.
Sir, we will continue to work with respective professional bodies to disseminate these guidelines to all healthcare professionals. We will also support professional bodies in ensuring their members' compliance with the Bill. Sir, on this note, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank Ms Kuah for co-chairing the NEHR Guidelines Workgroup Committee.
Sir, let me now turn to health information that sits outside of NEHR and the clauses in the HIB that will enable the sharing of such information. Ms Pereira enquired about the timeline for enabling community health partners' sharing of such health information to be covered under the HIB. Mr Louis Chua asked why the HIB enables the sharing of non-NEHR health information without consent.
Today, AIC shares data with community partners to enable them to engage and provide befriending services or care to seniors. However, on the ground, there are difficulties with obtaining consent for data-sharing. Referencing my earlier example of Mr Lim, the 72-year-old gentlemen who is managing his diabetes condition. He stopped visiting his local polyclinic and his polyclinic has faced difficulties in contacting him to obtain consent. The HIB will address this by providing an additional channel for the sharing of health information.
With the HIB, Mr Lim's polyclinic can potentially share his contact information and broad health risk indicators, such as an indication of the presence of frailty or chronic conditions with AIC, without the details of specific medical conditions. AIC can then prioritise engaging Mr Lim to check on his well-being and link him with the necessary support as needed.
On whether to include other community health partners, like Active Ageing Centres and use cases in the future, MOH will carefully assess whether these other entities and use cases facilitate quality care and care continuity for patients. We will consider their readiness to meet the various responsibilities that come with sharing health information, such as cybersecurity and data security requirements under the Bill and we will consult key stakeholders.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Tan, if I could just ask you to hold on for a minute, because you have reached your time limit. So, Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Senior Minister of State'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 proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted on the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How'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 the Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted on the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State 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":"Health Information Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, you may resume.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, we will consider their readiness to meet the various responsibilities that come with sharing health information, such as the various requirements under the Bill. Any community health partners which are added will be publicly communicated, including through MOH's website.
Sir, to conclude, the HIB will help us achieve the goal of \"One Patient, One Health Summary, One Care Journey\". We will work with and support healthcare providers and healthcare professionals in achieving this goal. Through our collective efforts, Singaporeans can benefit from better coordinated care, enhanced quality of care and lower costs.
Sir, I believe I have addressed the questions raised by all the Members and I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Are there clarifications for Senior Minister of State Tan? Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the clarifications. I also thank the Senior Minister of State. So, I mentioned the possibility of insurance. The Senior Minister of State mentioned that there will be cost support. But is there a reason why insurance is not offered, rather than general cost support? That is the first clarification.
Two, I thank the Senior Minister of State for saying there will be flexibility for IT-incapable practices, such as the senior GPs who are my constituents. Can the Senior Minister of State just double click and explain a bit what this flexibility for IT-incapable practices might entail?
Three, I think I did not hear an answer to what if there is a data breach. Can the insurers now use the now-public information in the data breach?
And I thank him for his response to my concerns about the inspection and right to audit clauses. The Senior Minister of State's response is that doctors should carefully assess what is relevant. I think that this may not be a great solution because I think the doctor is caught in the middle between the insurer and the patient, and they have to bear liability for the judgement calls as to what they put in the notes. So, I think what is probably going to happen is that there is going to be a chilling effect, where doctors will start avoiding documenting any sensitive data, both in their own medical records but also perhaps in NEHR as well. And so, if it percolates up to the NEHR, would the NEHR utility not be undermined if they cannot trust what to input?
So, I mentioned in my speech that it might be better to just go downstream and just say that we \"work with MAS to prohibit insurers from requiring NEHR-derived information as a condition of coverage, claim processing and policy renewal.\" And if I may, that is a significant part of why I posed the Parliamentary Question to Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier today about needing a dual regulation framework by MAS and MOH for insurers, so that someone is cleanly accountable for insurer behaviour as a health system actor.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications. I believe there are four clarifications and I will take them in turn. One about offering cyber insurance to GP clinics. Can I just get the Member to confirm that this is what he is asking about? Okay.
Sir, in my speech, I did outline a few measures that we are putting in place and will continue to put in place to support GPs, especially smaller GPs, to comply with the HIB requirements, including data security and cybersecurity. And there are a number of support packages we are discussing with them. These details we will make known in due course. So, that is one.
We are supporting them, and we want them to travel the journey together with us. And there is broad support among the doctors, including those smaller GPs who see the value of contributing to and assessing NEHR, and most of the GPs are already onboard. They understand the need for the cybersecurity and data security requirements under the Bill to protect the data, and we are working with them to look at the various whitelisted services and management systems they can adopt to meet the requirements.
In terms of cybersecurity insurance, this is something we certainly will consider, but today, unfortunately, there is not a very mature market for cybersecurity insurance, specifically for GPs. So, if this is something useful, we will certainly consider as part of the support packages and discussions with the relevant stakeholders.
Second, about flexibility for senior GPs or smaller GPs. I mentioned the support packages. We do intend to provide for them, including funding support, whitelisting service providers and the different mentioned systems. But I think what we want to avoid is having different standards of cybersecurity and data security requirements for different clinics based on the size.
I think that is not the sensible and practical way to do it, as mentioned by different Members earlier. It is about making sure that different clinics and different touch points to the NEHR system meet the appropriate level of cybersecurity and data security requirements and finding ways of uplifting the different GPs and we will certainly do so in the coming months and years.
If the Member could clarify on third question for me, please?
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Data breaches. If there is a data breach.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Okay. Sir, it is quite clear that the insurance companies cannot assess NEHR for insurance or employment purposes. But in data breaches, I think it all boils down to the ethical considerations or how they access those data breaches in the first place, and that is something we have to work together with MAS, as the regulator, together with insurance companies, on understanding how they are using that information. And that is something we frown upon – using NEHR data for purpose of insurance. But it is a hypothetical scenario, something we have to think through.
On a dedicated regulation around insurance, whether they should just be prohibited, to avoid putting the healthcare providers or professionals in a very difficult situation – this is something we are working through with the healthcare providers, the industry associations as well as together with MAS with the insurance industry.
In fact, I had mentioned earlier in my closing speech that MOH has issued guidelines to the insurers and doctors on how we should think about the HIB when it is enacted. We will certainly work closely with MAS as the regulator for the insurance industry.
But I think, it is quite clear, the principle and approach under the HIB is that we prohibit the use and access of NEHR information for employment and insurance purposes. And we have to work through the insurance associations, the MAS, the professional bodies, including the healthcare professional bodies for how it is implemented on the ground. But our assurance to the public and to those Members who spoke about it, is that our approach and position is quite clear.
Did I answer all the Member's questions? Okay.
Mr Speaker: Mr David Hoe.
Mr David Hoe: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response and the reassurance. I would like to clarify a comment that I made earlier. I wonder if I heard clearly that the access to information to electronic medical records by healthcare professionals will be captured in the NEHR access history. I ask this because the Singaporean who was particularly concerned about this Bill sent me the URL to the FAQ in HealthHub that reads, \"Your healthcare professionals may be accessing your records from their own electronic medical records (EMR) systems. Access made to your records in their EMR systems are not included in the NEHR access history.\" I would be happy to share the URL. I just wanted to clarify whether what I heard was correct.
Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, just to clarify. Access to NEHR, even through the EMR, will be logged as an access to NEHR. But accessing a patient's records on the healthcare institutions' own EMR system is separate. It is an internal operations system for the hospitals, for the polyclinics or for the private healthcare clinics. So, it is quite different. But if you use EMR to log to NEHR, the logs will be recorded and tracked.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications from Members for the Senior Minister of State? No?
[(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 Tan Kiat How]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
The Chairman: The citation year \"2025\" will be changed to \"2026\" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The First to Fourth Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
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":"Fire Safety in Our Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, today I wish to speak on the topic of fire safety in our homes. When I read about the Wang Fuk Court tragedy in Hong Kong, Grenfell Tower in London, or even the Le Constellation bar fire in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago, I think: these are world-class cities, cities with resources, cities with regulations, and yet, fire found a way.
To me, a fire feels different from other disasters. Earthquakes feel distant. Typhoons feel abstract. But a smoke-filled corridor feels immediate. It feels like it could actually happen to me. I would venture that many other Singaporeans feel the same.
Fire fatalities rose from three in 2023 to five in 2024. And by August 2025, we had already recorded at least eight fire deaths. While this may be a statistical blip, given the small numbers, it is a sobering reminder that fire remains an ever-present danger in our lives.
To be clear, I believe that Singapore has strong fire safety standards. Our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are designed as fire compartments to delay the spread of fire until help arrives. Our Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is well-trained and effective, and our fire codes and building codes are well thought out and comprehensive.
But our good standards make continued vigilance all the more important. I am glad to hear that the Government has started a review of existing fire safety regulations governing building construction and maintenance work. But we must not limit ourselves to just the lessons from Wang Fuk Court, tragic as it was. We must also be cognisant of other hidden dangers, whether they are established practices that have become collective blind spots or new emerging risks that require novel approaches.
So, today, I want to address three areas where I think we can close important gaps. First is barriers to egress; second, battery fires we invite into our homes and third, the widening gap in fire safety standards across different generations of flats and estates. So, let me take each in turn.
Mr Speaker, there is an anomaly in our Fire Code that I think is worth examining. Clause 2.3.9(a) of the SCDF Fire Code stipulates that exit doors must be openable \"without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge\" from the inside. This is very sound policy. In a panic, people fumble and seconds matter. But this clause specifically exempts residential units. So, the standard we apply to shopping centres and offices is deemed optional for our own homes. This is, of course, a deliberate policy choice. But the question is whether we should revisit it.
For decades, our HDB flats came standard with a wrought iron gate secured by a double cylinder lock. So, that is sometimes known as a \"key-to-key\" lock, that is a lock that requires a key to open from either side. In 2019, HDB transitioned new Build-To-Order (BTO) projects to mild-steel gates with a single cylinder lock with an interior thumb turn that allows for easier egress in an emergency. So, residents in these their flats do not need to fumble for a key to get out. These gates are designed such that it is not easy for a prospective intruder to reach around the bars and operate the thumb turn from the outside.
Of course, I think this is a very positive development, but it also means that millions of our flats still have legacy double cylinder locks. For decades, concerns about intruders overrode the need for fire safety. I understand the logic. But this sometimes comes at a heavy cost.
In August last year, a fire broke out in Jalan Bukit Merah. A couple in their 30s were seen at the kitchen window shouting for help. Their neighbours crawled through smoke to reach them but were stopped by a locked entrance gate. Unfortunately, this couple were found unconscious in the kitchen and later died in hospital. We will never know if the locked gate might have been the decisive factor in this case.
There is an additional compounding factor. We often install big, chunky padlocks on our HDB gates. This is featured on many entrances. So, now, you have two locks, two keys and two points of failure. In a smoke-filled flat, fumbling for one key is difficult enough.
There are also window grilles. Many households install these keyed grilles to prevent falls from height. But over time, keys get lost, or the grilles are not even designed to be opened, to begin with, which means when firefighters arrive with a ladder, another potential exit is sealed shut.
So, what is slightly confounding to me is that we are hyper-cognisant of the threats to egress that are faced by new technologies. We now require digital locks that are installed on fire-rated main doors to be certified, recognising that they pose a potential egress risk. Yet, for established practices like keyed gates, window grilles and other risks, we have normalised a clear safety deviance.
So, I would also like to touch briefly on the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). Right now, as part of the HIP, residents have the option to replace their old gates with a mild steel gate with an interior thumb-turn, so much like those that are installed on new BTOs. Critically, this is a paid, optional improvement, and is not part of the \"essential improvements\" package. But more worryingly, I believe that HDB continues to offer and subsidise the option of installing an old-fashioned wrought-iron gate with a double cylinder lock as an alternative option. That is, we offer residents the option to replace an old gate that is a fire risk with a new gate that is also a fire risk!
We are subsidising the installation of new fire hazards in 2026. This is not legacy infrastructure we are dealing with and managing, but a new risk that we are actively creating. It would seem, to me, that there is an easy path to addressing this risk. Here are my suggestions.
One, we should make the installation of new entrance gates with an interior thumb turn an \"essential improvement\" under the HIP scheme, fully subsidised and not optional. Wrought iron gates with double cylinder locks should also be eliminated as an option.
Secondly, we should encourage or even mandate that the pre-installation by developers of gates with single cylinder thumb-turn locks. Easy egress should be the default option and residents that prefer double cylinder locks for whatever reasons will have to make the choice to install it themselves.
We should also develop a phased replacement plan for legacy gates with double cylinder locks for estates that are not set to have an HIP exercise in the near future, prioritising older estates.
And finally, we should incorporate the risks of keyed gates, additional padlocks and sealed window grilles into public education campaigns on fire safety.
The second part of my speech will address battery fires. Active mobility device (AMD) fires rose 21.8% in 2024 to 67 cases while personal mobility aid (PMA) fires saw a dramatic 120% spike. When we banned personal mobility devices (PMDs) from footpaths, many users simply migrated to modified mobility scooters instead. The risk was just transferred.
The new year has just begun and AMD fires are already making headlines. Just last Friday, four people were hospitalised in Tampines after a PMA fire. As for the fatal Bukit Merah fire I mentioned earlier, the SCDF findings indicate the blaze likely originated from a non-compliant PMD battery pack in the living room.
Lithium-ion battery fires are different. Thermal runaway, which is a self-sustaining chemical reaction that releases toxic fumes and jet-like flames that breach fire compartments make them extra deadly. The intensity builds in seconds, giving residents little time to react, or fumble for a key. Standard residential fire extinguishers are often useless as well.
We tell residents not to fight these fires themselves. Yet, we expect them to store, charge and manage these devices within their homes.
On my estate walks, I have had several residents share their fear that their neighbours' AMDs being charged right by their front door, a ticking time bomb that might one day trap them within their own homes. Not much can be done to assuage their fears, as today, as it stands, such charging practices are by and large permitted.
The reality is this. Trying to enforce \"compliant batteries\" is futile when e-commerce makes cheap imports trivial. The upcoming Land Transport and Related Matters Bill that was tabled today double styled on regulation but is unlikely to solve the enforcement gap.
Our current approach relies on compliance when it is fundamentally an infrastructure problem. So, these are my proposals.
Firstly, I think we should push for battery swapping systems to be commonplace, like the model that is made popular by Taiwanese firm Gogoro. Batteries charged in controlled, outdoor environments – this serves both safety and sustainability.
Secondly, I propose that we build public charging hubs for AMDs, perhaps co-located with electric vehicle (EV) chargers in HDB car parks. Equip them with fire suppression, thermal monitoring and make them faster and cheaper than home-charging. Create the incentive for residents to charge AMDs outside of the home.
And thirdly, I would suggest that we implement periodic inspections of AMDs, especially batteries, with enforced replacement timelines as batteries degrade and age.
I think once sufficient infrastructure is built out and residents learn new habits, we might even consider that it would be viable to outlaw the charging of PMDs and PABs within homes, eliminating the risk entirely.
Mr Speaker, I now move onto my final point. Fire safety in Singapore varies by when your block was built. Newer BTOs have fire-rated doors, thumb-turn gates and multiple redundant evacuation routes. Older blocks sometimes have single-staircase designs, enclosed corridors that trap smoke and densely packed flats.
In July of last year, a fire broke out in Toa Payoh Lorong 8. The fire was so intensed that it shattered windows and spread vertically to the floor above. Flames breached the very compartments that our flats are designed around.
When firefighters arrived, they discovered that the dry riser was not in proper working condition. Water could not be charged up to the affected floors. Firefighters had to manually haul hoses up 10 storeys via the staircase. This represents a maintenance challenge. Infrastructure does not just age, it degrades and testing regimes may not catch all failure modes between annual checks.
Let me address the issue of single staircases. Block 229, the block in question, is a 25-storey point block with only a single staircase. Residents trapped above the burning unit had to flee upwards to the 24th floor, because the single staircase near the fire became impassable. Elderly residents had limited options. Some sheltered in place whilst black smoke seeped into their homes and others relied on neighbours for assistance. Seven people were hospitalised, including a firefighter and a child.
This is not an isolated pattern. Several fires in the last years were in blocks with similar single-staircase configurations, where the most direct escape route was compromised.
And here is the equity dimension: we have most of our elderly, least mobile residents living in buildings with older infrastructure and design standards from an earlier era. Those least able to move quickly in an emergency are those most likely to be living in such housing.
Income can also be a factor. Many rental blocks feature densely packed flats and enclosed corridors as well. We can do more to protect these residents and so here is what I propose.
Firstly, we should consider \"Fire Escape Viability\" – presence of single-point egress or enclosed corridors – as one factor in Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme selection for flat redevelopment.
Secondly, I propose that we further expand the installation of the Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFAD) to all older flats. We prioritise older estates and those with more elderly residents.
Thirdly, we should roll out sprinkler systems in common areas of older blocks systematically, and not just as pilots. Prioritise blocks with enclosed corridors and densely packed units.
Fourthly, we should implement more rigorous inspection regimes for fire-fighting infrastructure – wet risers, dry risers, booster pumps – with published compliance rates and mandatory remediation timelines.
And finally, we should support our Town Councils with clearer enforcement mandates, and more monetary resources and support to maintain the safety standards and keep fire safety infrastructure in good working order.
Mr Speaker, let me bring this together. I have discussed three areas where we can do better: barriers to egress, battery fires and widening gaps across generations of flats. Safety should not depend on when your block was built, whether you can afford an upgrade or which estate you call home. Singapore has built a strong fire safety system. Our HDB flats are well-designed. Our SCDF is world-class and our fire codes are comprehensive. We continue to improve with each new development.
Our task now is to ensure that excellence reaches every home and that we continue the commitment, regardless of age or estate maturity. Let us make fire safety non-negotiable, not optional, not estate-dependent and not income-dependent. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Goh.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his Adjournment Motion. I think that today, we have touched quite a bit on the topic of fire safety in our homes earlier in Question Time, as well as now during the Adjournment Motion.
I agree that fire safety in our homes is an important topic, it is one that Singaporeans care deeply about and therefore, I thank the Member for his Adjournment Motion.
I agree with the central theme of his Adjournment Motion, that we must continue to be vigilant with risks, especially as our living environments, technologies, lifestyles and our demographics change.
Allow me to address his concerns in three parts. First, the overall residential fire situation I mentioned earlier and approach towards fire safety. Second, risks relating to AMDs; and third, our community efforts.
I shared earlier during Question Time that the residential fire situation in Singapore is stable over the past five years. The number of fatalities has also remained low, fewer than six on average per year in the past five years. I raise a correction – the Member mentioned that there were eight fatalities in 2025, by August 2025. That is inaccurate. We had six in the whole of 2025.
In terms of Singapore's overall fire fatality rate, it remains one of the lowest internationally. It is something that we watch very carefully and this statistic is provided by a 2025 report by the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services. Over the past five years, I would like to share that the top three causes of residential fires in Singapore have been unattended cooking fires, which account for about a third of cases, fires of electrical origin and those arising from naked flames, such as candles.
This means that the majority of fire incidents stem from human behaviour and practices, and are preventable.
Of course, we know every fire is one too many, and every death is one too many. Fires escalate very quickly, place lives at risk and can have devastating and long-lasting consequences to both the individual, their families and even their neighbours, and we must do our utmost to stay vigilant and minimise the risks – so in those regard, I agree with the Member.
The SCDF adopts a risk-based and pragmatic approach towards fire safety. Fire safety in residential buildings begin with good fire safety design, supported by enforcement, early detection, early warning of fires, effective firefighting response and public preparedness. We need all the different layers to come together, working in concert to be able to effectively reduce the overall risk of fires.
All residential buildings in Singapore are designed and built in accordance with the prevailing Fire Code. I thank the Member for agreeing that the existing Fire Code is robust. The Fire Code stipulates requirements, and in particular, I would like to highlight that a key principle is how every unit is a standalone fire compartment to limit fire spread prior to SCDF's arrival.
On this, our view is that we want to contain and keep the fire within the unit and that is how we mitigate risk at a systemic level. Based on statistics, based on what we have observed, based on the fires that have taken place in recent years, this fire compartmentalisation principle is effective. The Member cited a few examples – the cases in Toa Payoh and Bukit Merah – the fires were indeed intense, but it was relatively contained within either that unit or within that floor or one floor above. It did not spread as extensively and this is, in large regard, because of the compartmentalisation principle.
The Member also mentioned locks, windows and these are important considerations, but I think the principle here that I would like to highlight is we often have to trade off practicality as well. In this regard, security is also something that I think Singaporeans will prioritise and value. At the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), we often say low crime does not mean no crime, and I think it is important for us to also ensure that we afford residents, Singaporeans, their choice, in terms of what kinds of locks for their doors and windows will be. And I think from SCDF's perspective, from MHA's perspective, the fire compartmentalisation principle is good enough for us to proceed.
In addition, we believe residents probably know how to exit their house in the quickest manner because it is an environment that they are very familiar with, and they get out every single day, multiple times a day.
Having said so, the Fire Code is periodically updated. We continuously make sure that it is updated with the latest advances in building design, technologies, and also an evolving understanding of fire risks. Additional provisions have been introduced over the years, such as adequate exit staircases to support swift evacuation, as well as fire engine access roads and rising mains to support SCDF's firefighting operations.
I would like to highlight that the introduction of more recent Fire Code provisions does not mean that older flats are unsafe. I think it is something that is very important to emphasise. We recognise that fire safety regulations must strike a balance, once again, between risk reduction, practicality and cost. Fire Code provisions are most effectively implemented in new developments at the design stage. It will be practically difficult to retrofit older buildings with newer building design requirements, such as widening the width of corridors, and I think the Member can appreciate why. Even if feasible, it will cause significant disruption and cost to both taxpayers and residents, and therefore, we apply the Fire Code to developments at the point of approval.
Existing flats will be subjected to SCDF's strict regulatory oversight and inspections. Where feasible, we upgrade older HDB flats with the latest and practical fire safety measures where we can. And we have done so, such as the installation of dry risers and the replacement of main entrance doors with fire-rated doors. We believe that is a much better way to keep units as well as the overall corridors and floors safe.
This approach has served us well and allows us to strike a balance between providing a robust fire safety regime and practicality.
I would like to reiterate that the introduction of more recent Fire Code safety provisions does not mean older flats are unsafe, and based on what I shared in terms of the most likely causes of fires, human behaviours and human practices tend to be the leading cause, and not infrastructure.
The Member also touched on fire safety in older point blocks. Specifically on older point blocks, which is where I grew up in, so I feel for the point, especially acutely. However, under the Fire Code, most residential buildings currently require two exit staircases to provide means of escape in case of evacuation – and that is valid for today's Fire Code for new projects. The older point blocks require a single exit staircase as stipulated by the Fire Code then, and based on the risk analysis, we believe that is wearable because there are only a few units per floor, so the number of evacuees are much reduced.
Also, from a practical perspective, adding a second staircase in many of these are simply not practical because of the layout.
I think more importantly, over the years, what HDB has also done is to carry out various programmes to improve fire safety in some of these older point blocks to bring them up to date with the Fire Code requirements at the point of upgrade, and we will keep doing that as a principle, where we can practically.
Effective enforcement is also a necessary complement to a robust Fire Code. SCDF works very closely with the Town Councils and MCSTs to keep up with the inspection and enforcement regimes in our housing estates.
The Member mentioned about the fire in Toa Payoh, where it was perceived, it was observed, that the dry risers may not be working as intended. This is something that we are looking into, but the key here is, it is not that the Fire Code is not working, but that the testing and inspection regime may be something that the Member is suggesting we increase the frequency of. Currently, we do have a regular annual inspection regime for these dry risers to make sure they are functional, but again, it is the practicality of striking a balance between how frequent we want to do it and making sure that it is operationally ready. Of course, our objective is to make sure that it is ready every time, all the time, but we do need to strike a balance because of the number of flats around the island, and we do believe the current frequency of the inspection regime is adequate.
I have touched on strong fire safety design and on enforcement. In addition to that, what is useful is early detection and response measures. Since 2018, HFADs have been mandatory in all new homes. For existing homes, we have adopted a risk-calibrated, practical approach, and we have mandated it for homes which are carrying out fire safety related addition and alteration works.
Nonetheless, we strongly encourage all homeowners to install HFADs and homeowners can actually tap on the HIP and the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme to install HFADs at heavily subsidised rates.
HFADs are fully funded for public rental flats.
I would like to inform the House that as of June last year, close to 200,000 HDB flats already have HFADs installed across Singapore through our subsidised schemes.
Through the years, SCDF has continuously enhanced its firefighting capabilities. Technologies, such as aerial appliances and surveillance drones, are a key enabler when deployed to tackle high-rise fires.
However, I would like to highlight that residents can also play a part in firefighting response, prior to SCDF's arrival. To this end, we have improved access to firefighting equipment so that residents can better tackle minor fires.
Singaporeans would notice that we have fire extinguishers and AEDs installed in almost every other HDB block. Hose reels and fire extinguishers are also available in common spaces such as coffee shops, car parks and roof gardens, as required under the Fire Code.
Let me move on to AMDs. While we continue to strengthen our collective response, we also regularly review the overall landscape for emerging risks of which one area of concern is indeed AMDs. AMDs have improved mobility and independence for many residents. However, their lithium-ion batteries pose fire risks and hazards that can result in AMD fires burning hotter and spreading more rapidly.
Even though AMDs accounted for less than 5% of residential fires over the past five years, they accounted for more than 10% of fire-related injuries and 25% of fatalities. This disproportionate impact is concerning.
The risks are even higher with devices that do not comply with the relevant safety standards. Between 2022 and 2025, of all AMD-related residential fires, more than 70% involved devices that were either not certified or tested to the relevant standards or had been illegally modified.
That is why the Government takes a strict enforcement approach towards the import, sale and use of non-compliant AMDs. Since June 2021, local retailers must seek the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) approval for the import of Personal Mobility Devices and Power Assisted Bicycles, and these devices must be compliant with safety standards. LTA also conducts regular enforcement operations against non-compliant AMDs on public footpaths, as well as retailers selling non-compliant AMDs. In the last five years, LTA detected over 5,000 cases of non-compliant AMDs and took action against offenders including riders, owners and retailers.
To keep non-compliant AMDs away from our homes, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) earlier today, introduced the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill for the First Reading. This Bill makes it an offence to keep unsafe devices, such as non-UL2272 certified e-scooters. MOT is also looking to strengthen regulations on the online sale of AMDs and targets to make the necessary legislative amendments later this year. I believe this graduated scaling-up in terms of our measures against AMDs is adequate at this juncture.
At the same time, enforcement must be complemented by public awareness and education. In this regard, the Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce, co-chaired by LTA and SCDF, will continue to outreach to AMD owners under the Be Device-Safe programme, especially on safe charging practices and the dangers of non-compliant AMDs.
While the Government continues to review our policies, programmes and regulations constantly, the best defence against home fires is an informed and prepared public. SCDF continues to work with Government agencies, as well as Town Councils and various community partners, to strengthen public education and outreach on public fire safety and emergency preparedness.
Ultimately, fire safety is a collective responsibility. Only when everyone comes together and remains vigilant, will we be able to further bring down the incidence of fires. We will continue to work hand in hand with Singaporeans, with residents, to make our homes safe.
[(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 12.00 pm. Order. Order.
Adjourned accordingly at 8.50 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":"Review of Major Games Award Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Government is aware of when was the last review of the Major Games Award Programme; (b) if so, when was it; and (c) whether the Ministry will work with the Singapore National Olympic Council to update cash incentives under the Programme given inflation, and to provide incentives for SEA Games Silver and Bronze medallists.
Mr David Neo: The Government directly invests in the development of our athletes in a few areas.
First, we give direct support to our athletes through the Sport Excellence initiatives, commonly known as \"spex\". This includes our spexCarding, spexPotential and spexScholarship programmes, where athletes receive holistic and individualised support encompassing sport science, sport medicine and athlete life support, as well as grants to offset training costs and loss of wages. The spexPotential and spexScholarship programmes provide monthly stipends to athletes, recognising their commitment to an increased training and competition load.
Second, we invest in building up support services needed by our athletes, such as providing dedicated funding for sport science and sport medicine, coaches, athlete life services and sporting infrastructure.
We are committed to sustained investment in developing athletes to their full potential and such support is not conditional only on winning medals. Recognition and rewards play a complementary role in incentivising our athletes. The Government recognises this.
SportSG administers the Singapore Sport Hall of Fame, which celebrates the exceptional achievements and contributions of Singapore's sporting heroes. The Singapore Sport Hall of Fame now includes a new category for sport leaders and recognises the achievements of athletes beyond medals, including contributions back to sport and the community. But it takes a whole Singapore village to journey with, support and develop our athletes. We greatly appreciate efforts by the community to step forward to recognise and support our athletes in all forms.
With regard to the Major Games Award Programme (MAP), it is a private award scheme managed by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and funded by their sponsors.
SNOC reviews the scheme periodically and decides on the categories of awarded medallists and the monetary rewards offered to each of them, in consultation with sponsors. The MAP award structure takes into account the level of competition and the frequency of the Major Games. The Olympic, Commonwealth and Asian Games have more competitive fields and take place every four years, compared to the Southeast Asian Games that takes place every two years.
We encourage more corporates and sponsors to come forward to support our athletes and contribute to MAP. Beyond MAP, the SNOC and the National Sports Associations (NSAs) recognise our athletes' achievements in other ways, such as SNOC's annual Singapore Sports Awards and NSAs' awards nights and dinners.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Total Disbursements through Sports Excellence Schemes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth for each of the last three years (a) what was the sum total of direct payments to athletes, including CPF top-ups, under the spexScholarship, spexPotential, spexTAG, spexGLOW and spexEducation schemes; (b) how many athletes received these payments; and (c) what was the median annual cash payment received by each athlete.
Mr David Neo: Our athletes have done well, as seen in the last few editions of the Olympics, Paralympics, Asian Games, Asian Para Games and most recently at the Southeast Asian Games in Thailand.
The Government invests in various areas to build up a strong High Performance Sport (HPS) system in order to develop our athletes to their fullest potential.
First, direct financial and programme support to athletes through our suite of Sport Excellence (spex) programmes. We design such support to be bespoke and holistic, based on our athletes' needs during different stages of their sporting career. Today, we support more than 1,500 carded athletes across 55 sports, compared to 272 athletes across 14 sports when we first started SPEX in 1993. This is a 450% increase in the number of athletes we support and a 300% increase in the number of sports.
We have enhanced our spex programmes in recent years. We introduced the spexPotential programme in 2024, enhancing support for younger athletes making the transition to higher levels of sporting success. Last year, we awarded our inaugural batch of spexEducation Undergraduate Scholarships, providing greater assurance for our athletes' academic aspirations. We also introduced Central Provident Fund top-ups for spexScholars, bolstering their finances as they focus single-mindedly on sports.
Second, systemic investment in our HPS ecosystem. We invest in coaching development, sport science and sport medicine, and athlete life management to give our National Sports Associations (NSAs), coaches and athletes the competitive edge. Our NSA leaders and administrators play a key role, and we partner them to provide our athletes, coaches and officials the training and competition exposure they need.
The support that each athlete or sport receives is calibrated according to their needs, performance and potential to do well. This support is also reviewed annually to ensure adequacy and accountability. Therefore, we do not encourage focusing only on our financial payments to athletes or on comparisons across sports and across time without understanding the context specific to each athlete or sport.
Third, we will continue to invest in the hardware, through the new home of Team Singapore, which will bring the Singapore Sports School (SSP) to Kallang and integrate all elements of the HPS ecosystem under one roof – sports science and sports medicine support, national training centres and sports administration.
The Government will continue to review our policies and programmes for our athletes and for the HPS ecosystem. But we cannot achieve our ambitions alone. Alongside the Government's efforts and commitment, we encourage corporate partners and Singaporeans to come together and support our athletes, whether through donations to the One Team Singapore Fund or other means.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Help for Farms Given Switch from \"30 by 30\" Goal to New Targets for Fibre and Protein Productions by 2035","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how will the Singapore Food Agency support and transition farms that had invested heavily in technology to meet the original broad \"30 by 30\" food sustainability target, but whose produce is less aligned with the new, specific protein and fibre targets for 2035; and (b) what enhanced grants or offtake schemes are available to assist such farms.
27 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment why some types of vegetables have been excluded from the updated definition of \"fibre\" under the new targets for local fibre and protein production, which replaced the original \"30 by 30\" farming goals.
28 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment given that the \"30 by 30\" has been revised to a new target for fibre and protein by 2035 (a) whether there are any food types that have been excluded in the new 2035 target; (b) if so, why; and (c) whether the new targets are intended to be aspirational or realistically achievable.\n \n
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: This will be addressed in the next Sitting on 13 January 2026, together with similar Parliamentary Questions for a more holistic reply. [Please refer to \"Update on Food Security Strategy with Revised 2035 Fibre and Protein Production Targets\", Official Report, 13 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 13, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
31 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider implementing an outpatient primary care insurance scheme for migrant domestic workers, similar to the Primary Care Plan (PCP) for construction, marine and process workers, to strengthen timely access to primary care whilst providing employers with greater cost predictability.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Primary Care Plan (PCP) was implemented in 2022 by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to provide migrant workers (MWs) with accessible primary healthcare, including setting up MW medical centres near dormitories, to strengthen public health resilience. There are currently no plans to extend PCP to migrant domestic workers (MDWs).
Employers of MDWs who prefer cost predictability for primary care may consider purchasing more comprehensive insurance plans with outpatient coverage, on a voluntary basis.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Supporting SMEs to Adapt to Global Emphasis on Sustainability and Green Technologies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what further measures, if any, will the Ministry be taking to support small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) adapt to the growing global emphasis on sustainability and green technologies; and (b) what further plans does the Ministry have, if any, to help these SMEs remain competitive in international markets while meeting environmental standards.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government is committed to supporting our businesses, including the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to prepare for a low-carbon economy and address the opportunities from rising demand in green technologies, products and services.
In May last year, EnterpriseSG launched the SME Sustainability Hub, a one-stop digital platform to help SMEs access relevant support and resources as they navigate their sustainability journey. The key resources available for SMEs include: a) assistance to meet the environmental requirements and standards of financial institutions and corporate customers. For example, the SME Sustainability Reporting Programme and Sustainability Reporting Grant are schemes that help SMEs build foundational sustainability reporting capabilities; b) training and capability-building programmes – under the Enterprise Sustainability Programme, SMEs can access a series of sustainability playbooks and training courses on key topics, including decarbonisation and sustainable finance; and c) funding support, for example, the Enterprise Development Grant supports SMEs in developing sustainability strategies, products and services, and adopting green technologies to grow their businesses.
The Government is working closely with the trade associations and chambers and the industry to continually review our suite of support measures and schemes for SMEs, to enable Singapore businesses and workers to thrive in a low-carbon future.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocols when Suspected Money Mule Activities are Flagged, and Incidence in Recent Years of Unauthorised Access to Phone Lines, Bank Accounts and Singpass","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how quickly are suspected mule activities flagged once suspicious transactions occur; (b) how do Government agencies, banks and telecommunications companies coordinate responses; and (c) whether real-time alerts of such activities or automated freezes are being expanded.\n
34 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the past two years, how many individuals suspected of money mule activities have had access to phone lines, bank accounts or Singpass restricted; (b) how effective have these restrictions been in preventing reoffending; and (c) how long do such restrictions typically remain in place.
Mr K Shanmugam: When a scam is reported, the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) coordinates closely with banks to quickly trace where the monies have been transferred to and freeze those bank accounts, to prevent the monies from being siphoned out of Singapore. Staff from seven major banks are co-located with ASC, enabling real-time coordination and response. Typically, ASC is able to freeze accounts within a day and, in some cases, hours. The ASC also works closely with telecommunication companies (telcos) to terminate scam-tainted phone lines, and with GovTech to investigate and stem the misuse of Singpass accounts for scams.
Suspending such facilities only after they have been used for scams is not enough. The Police work with industry partners to use fraud analytics to proactively detect mule activities. For example, the major retail banks deploy fraud analytic tools to identify and freeze potential mule accounts, and the telcos proactively block local phone lines suspected to be misused for scams.
The Member asked if facility restrictions have been effective to prevent re-offending. We see positive early results but will need more time to assess given that the framework was only implemented from October 2025. To date, about 1,200 individuals and 50 corporate entities have been placed under these restrictions. Persons under investigation for mule-related offences and assessed to be at risk of further facilitating scams, as well as those prosecuted for such offences, will be subject to facility restrictions until the case outcome is determined. Mules who have been warned, issued composition sums or convicted, will be subject to restrictions for one year, or three years for repeat offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training Nurses to Provide Care Beyond Inpatient Settings Given Push for Community Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the push for community care (a) whether the Ministry will incorporate cross-disciplinary allied health modules into the nursing curriculum to support nurses' roles beyond inpatient settings; and (b) whether similar holistic care perspectives can be included in the training of family and rehabilitation physicians to enhance upstream inter-professional collaboration.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health (MOH) is working with the Institutes of Higher Learning, healthcare institutions and Agency for Integrated Care to incorporate relevant cross-disciplinary competencies into nursing education to support community care. For example, topics on nutrition intervention have been incorporated into general nursing curricula to provide guidance on appropriate dietary choices for patients with chronic health conditions. Community nurses are also trained to detect patients with functional problems early, such as impaired mobility or vision, for prompt escalation.
Similarly, residency training for family and rehabilitation physicians includes supporting care in the community, such as identifying available community rehabilitation and support services to refer patients to. This facilitates inter-professional collaboration to deliver holistic care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Amount of Opportunity Fund Grants Disbursed to Schools in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Education (a) what was the total amount of Opportunity Fund grants disbursed to schools in the last three years; (b) what percentage of eligible students from lower-income households have utilised this fund to participate in enrichment programmes and overseas trips; and (c) what specific measures are in place to ensure that all eligible students are aware of and can apply for the fund.
Mr Desmond Lee: For the last three years, on average, $10 million per annum has been disbursed from the Opportunity Fund to the General Education schools.
Students on the Ministry of Education Financial Assistance Scheme (MOE FAS) and School-based Financial Assistance Scheme (SBFAS) are automatically provided with the Opportunity Fund grants. They do not need to apply. For students not on MOE FAS and SBFAS, schools will inform the parents to approach the schools for assessment if they need financial assistance.
On average, about 50,000 students benefit from the Opportunity Fund each year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Green and Blue Recycling Bins Given Rising Rate of Packaging Waste","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in view of rising rate of packaging waste, how does NEA structure its Public Waste Collector tenders to ensure sufficient green and blue recycling bins are provided within each service area; and (b) whether there are built-in mechanisms for Town Councils to request for additional bins to better match the locality's needs.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) works closely with the appointed Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) to ensure the timely collection of refuse and recyclables.
For Housing and Development Board (HDB) housing estates, this includes daily refuse collection from bin centres and providing at least one recycling bin per HDB block. The NEA can further direct PWCs to increase the frequency of waste and recyclable collection or increase the number of recycling bins provided to meet demand. This has been routinely done during peak waste generation periods, for example, during festive seasons.
The NEA works closely with Town Councils on the collection of refuse and recyclables in housing estates by PWCs. Some Town Councils have requested for additional recycling bins or collections in their locality to serve the needs of the residents and NEA has correspondingly required the appointed PWC to do so. Town Councils provide green refuse bins located in the common areas of housing estates and they can procure more, if needed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on SME Tenants following Major Acquisitions of Heartland Malls","subTitle":"Proposal for safeguards to protect SME tenants from possible abuse of dominant position in lease renewals","sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr David Hoe asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether EnterpriseSG tracks the churn and displacement of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in heartland malls after major acquisitions, such as The Clementi Mall; (b) what indicators are used to monitor SMEs' sustainability in such malls; and (c) what targeted interventions are available where there is significant turnover of SMEs due to higher rents or longer lease terms following such acquisition.
40 Mr David Hoe asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the acquisition of The Clementi Mall by a property firm which also owns Grantral Mall@Clementi (a) whether the Ministry has assessed how a concentrated tenant mix from one overseas market in heartland malls may affect inclusion and social cohesion; and (b) what levers are available to engage owners to support a diverse mix and local small and medium enterprises.
41 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore is evaluating the reported potential CapitaLand–Mapletree merger and will mandate a formal Phase 1 or Phase 2 review; (b) if so, how will the relevant market be defined to ensure accurate assessment; and (c) whether additional safeguards to protect SME tenants from possible abuse of dominant position in lease renewals will be considered.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Tenancy mix and turnover in commercial developments are the result of commercial decisions made by both property owners and tenants. These decisions are influenced by market factors, such as consumer demand preferences and prevailing economic conditions.
With regard to competition concerns arising from mergers and acquisitions, Singapore adopts a voluntary merger notification regime. Under this regime, merger parties are not required to notify the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) of their merger transactions under the Competition Act to balance between effective regulatory oversight and keeping compliance costs low. Instead, merger parties are expected to self-assess whether their transaction may give rise to potential competition concerns. Nevertheless, CCS is empowered to step in if it obtains information suggesting that a merger may result in potential competition issues. Merger parties may approach CCS for pre-notification discussions or seek guidance on whether their merger may be anti-competitive. To support businesses in this process, CCS has published detailed guidance on the circumstances under which mergers may raise competition concerns.
In the cases of the acquisition of The Clementi Mall and the reported potential CapitaLand-Mapletree merger, the parties concerned have not formally notified CCS for a merger assessment. The CCS will continue to monitor both developments.
Separately, apart from competition oversight under the Competition Act, the Government has put in place measures to support fair and balanced lease negotiations between property owners and tenants. The Government worked with the Fair Tenancy Industry Committee (FTIC) to publish a Code of Conduct for Leasing of Retail Premises in Singapore. Since February 2024, all qualifying retail lease agreements must comply with the Code of Conduct under the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Act. The Code sets out leasing principles to prevent the inclusion of unreasonable clauses in lease agreements, such as prohibiting landlords from charging a markup on electricity costs. In the event of disagreements over the lease negotiations or terms, the parties may bring their cases to the Singapore Mediation Centre for mediation or adjudication.
More broadly, the retail scene in Singapore remains competitive and vibrant, offering a wide range of options to consumers. The Government continues to support local retailers and SMEs in strengthening their capabilities.
Enterprise Singapore supports local retailers through schemes that help SMEs enhance productivity, transform their businesses and expand overseas. These include the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Enterprise Development Grant and the Market Readiness Assistance Grant.
The Government also supports targeted programmes that encourage local retailers to innovate and provide differentiated offerings. These include the Retail Maverick Challenge, which enables local retailers to pilot innovative and experiential retail concepts; as well as Design Orchard Retail Singapore (DORS), which showcases over 80 local design brands.
The Government will continue to partner with industry stakeholders and key trade associations, such as the Singapore Retailers Association (SRA), to explore additional ways to support local retailers and maintain the vibrancy of Singapore's retail sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tapping SkillsFuture Credits for Alternative Uses for Persons with Special Needs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Education (a) whether an assessment has been made of how persons with special needs utilise SkillsFuture credits, including the proportion who are unable to do so due to cognitive, physical or accessibility barriers; and (b) whether alternative uses or conversions will be considered for such persons unable to access or utilise approved training programmes.
Mr Desmond Lee: From 2022 to 2024, around 500 persons with disabilities benefitted each year from a range of training support offered by SG Enable and SkillsFuture Singapore. These measures include course fee subsidies of up to 95%, training allowance for placement programmes, and the SkillsFuture credits for Singaporeans to further defray their out-of-pocket fees after training subsidies are applied.
In addition, SG Enable's Capability Development Grant supports training providers in adapting their training programmes to meet varied disability needs, using assistive devices and software.
SG Enable and SkillsFuture Singapore will work with more training providers and actively reach out to more persons with disabilities, so that more can benefit from training. Training providers can submit their courses, including those designed to be more accessible to persons with disabilities, for consideration to be eligible for the SkillsFuture credit, which will increase the range of SkillsFuture Credit-eligible options for persons with disabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding Eligibility Criteria for SEP Bonus under COMPASS for Employment Pass Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider expanding the eligibility criteria for the Strategic Economic Priorities (SEP) bonus under the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) for employment pass applications, by granting bonus points to multi-national companies who demonstrate strong investment in local professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) by expanding access to overseas work stints and grooming local PMEs to take on management positions.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) awards bonus points to companies that undertake ambitious investments, innovation and internationalisation activities or work with the Labour Movement on company and workforce transformation activities.
To earn Strategic Economic Priorities (SEP) bonus points, companies must participate in one or more eligible programmes supported by Government agencies or the Labour Movement. These include programmes, such as EnterpriseSG's Singapore Global Executive Programme, which supports the deployment of local executives on overseas work stints; or the Singapore Tourism Board's Training Industry Professionals in Tourism – Leadership Development Grant, which supports leadership development of local executives. Companies working with the National Trades Unions Congress to form Company Training Committees to strengthen local workforce development are also eligible for the SEP bonus points.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Short-form Reel-style Mini Movies and Series on Social Media Platforms are Suitable for General Audience","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether (a) film classification and censorship measures apply to short-form reel-style mini movies and series, such as those popular on social media platforms; and (b) if not, what measures will the Ministry take to ensure the suitability and safety of such short-form reel-style mini movies and series for a general audience.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Singapore's film classification framework does not apply to content on social media services, including short-form reel-style videos hosted on such platforms. However, the Government has implemented other measures to enhance online safety for Singapore users on such platforms.
Under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority can direct social media services to disable access to egregious content. Such content includes those in videos advocating or instructing on sexual violence, suicide and terrorism.
Under the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services, designated social media services are required to have in place systems and processes to mitigate the risk of Singapore users' exposure to harmful content. Such harmful content includes those in videos. Additionally, the Code requires platforms to ensure that children must not be targeted to receive content that is detrimental to their physical and mental well-being, and to put in place more restrictive account settings. The designated social media services covered under the Code are Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X and HardwareZone.
Beyond laws and regulations, the Government has put in place public education efforts to help Singaporeans navigate the digital space and safeguard against digital risks, including harmful content in short-form videos. For example, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information recently introduced the Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media. Singaporeans can use this resource as a guide to the healthy and positive use of technology and social media.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Protection for Consumers who Purchase High Value Packages from Businesses with Knowledge of Their Insolvency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the recent closure of a health product and foot reflexology business (a) whether the Ministry has plans to strengthen consumer protection measures for consumers who purchase high value packages from businesses that have knowledge that they are or will become insolvent; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider taking further action against the executives or directors of such companies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 (CPFTA), it is an unfair practice for a supplier to exert undue pressure or influence on a consumer to enter into a transaction or to accept payment for goods or services when the business knows that it will not be able to supply the goods or services. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore can take enforcement action against such egregious suppliers. Consumers who encounter these unfair practices may approach the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to seek redress.
The Government also works with CASE to empower consumers and help them make informed purchase decisions. In addition, CASE has a scheme that accredits businesses committed to fair trading practices and claims on unused prepayments in the event of business closure. Consumers are encouraged to engage CaseTrust-accredited businesses where applicable, especially when transactions involve significant prepayments.
In March 2025, the Government convened an independent Consumer Protection Review Panel led by CASE President Melvin Yong and former judicial commissioner Ms Foo Tuat Yien to review key consumer concerns, including the adequacy of existing protections for high-value package purchases. The Panel, comprising industry stakeholders, legal representatives and academics, is expected to publish its findings and recommendations later this year. The Government will study the Panel's recommendations and consider the necessary additional measures.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals Received for Silver Support Scheme and Publicity Effort to Raise Awareness for Scheme's Intentions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each of the last three years, what is the number of appeals on Silver Support Scheme that have been received by the Ministry; (b) what are the common appeal requests; and (c) whether there is a need to initiate a publicity effort to explain the intention and rationale for this scheme.
Dr Tan See Leng: From 2023 to 2025, we received an average of 11,300 appeals each year on the Silver Support Scheme, representing an average of around 4% of all recipients.
Silver Support is designed such that seniors automatically qualify if they pass the annual eligibility assessment. The most common appeals come from seniors following changes in their circumstances, such as a change in residence or per capita household income. Seniors who inform the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board of their updated circumstances will have their eligibility reassessed.
All eligible seniors receive a letter every December from the CPF Board and Ministry of Manpower in English and vernacular languages. To raise public awareness of the scheme, we also disseminate information on the Silver Support Scheme through Community Centres and Silver Generation Ambassadors. Seniors who need further assistance, such as to check their eligibility status or payouts, or to access scheme information, may also visit the CPF Board's webpage on the Silver Support Scheme, call the CPF Board hotline or visit a CPF service centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Robustness of Trials Where Nets Were Placed in 35 Flats in Punggol and Toa Payoh to Prevent Pigeon Nesting Behaviour","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry has assessed if the trial to place netting on air-conditioner ledges on only 35 flats in Punggol and Toa Payoh can yield robust findings on pigeon nesting behaviour; (b) what criteria was used when selecting these estates; (c) whether other estates with persistent pigeon issues were offered to participate in the trial; and (d) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is conducting a study to evaluate the effectiveness of half-height netting solutions in preventing pigeon nesting at the air-conditioner ledges of HDB blocks. The study will complement the National Parks Board's islandwide pigeon management efforts.
HDB is carrying out a trial on 35 units with two typical types of air-conditioner ledges. This would allow HDB to assess the effectiveness and robustness of the solution, before deciding if it can be scaled up to other parts of Singapore. HDB had selected the flats in Punggol and Toa Payoh for the trial after considering feedback from the Town Councils and residents regarding pigeon nesting at air-conditioner ledges.
After the trial is completed, HDB will share its findings with all Town Councils.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provisions Made in Public and Private Hospitals to Detect and Deal With Transmission of Infectious Airborne Diseases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Government has information on (a) the provisions made in public and private hospitals to (i) detect the transmission of infectious airborne diseases within the hospital and (ii) ensure that infected patients are warded separately; and (b) the sufficiency of beds to account for sudden spikes in contagious diseases, especially among the elderly.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Public and private hospitals in Singapore maintain infection prevention and control (IPC) systems to detect and manage infectious diseases, in accordance with the National Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines and Standards. Patients are triaged for presence of respiratory symptoms and relevant risk factors at admission points. Hospitals monitor for airborne infectious diseases as part of routine clinical care and conduct testing based on clinical assessment.
Patients suspected or confirmed to have airborne infectious diseases are isolated in single or cohort rooms as appropriate. Public hospitals have contingency plans to respond to surges in infectious diseases, and transitional care facilities can be adapted as isolation facilities to augment capacity, where required.
Notifiable infectious diseases and clusters of hospital-acquired infections are reported to the Communicable Diseases Agency (CDA). The CDA works closely with hospitals to ensure timely implementation of response measures.
Members of the public can also play their part in protecting patients by avoiding visits to healthcare facilities when unwell, and by practising good hand hygiene and wearing masks when visiting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals Mechanism for Incoming Travellers with ICA's Upcoming No-Boarding Directives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Ms Hany Soh asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the new No-Boarding Directives to commence from 30 January 2026 (a) whether any appeal mechanism will be made available to travellers who wish to enter Singapore; and (b) whether ICA has any plans to implement adapted schemes at our sea and land checkpoints.
Mr K Shanmugam: Travellers who are issued with No-Boarding Directives (NBD) but wish to enter Singapore nevertheless may appeal to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) by writing to the ICA feedback channel on its website. If the appeal for entry is approved in due course, the travellers may then re-book their flight to Singapore. There is no mechanism for immediate appeals.
The NBD will be implemented at our air and sea checkpoints from 30 January 2026 and by end-2028 respectively. The ICA has no plan to implement NBD at the land checkpoints for now. This is because while we can conduct screening for air and sea travellers before they board the craft at the country of departure, this does not work for the land checkpoints where most of the travellers turn up at the checkpoints in their own vehicle or on public transport.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards for Employees whose Organisations Enforce Work-in-office Arrangements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Manpower how are employees whose organisations enforce work in office arrangements safeguarded under fair and progressive employment practices, particularly in relation to Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs).
Dr Tan See Leng: Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) include flexi-place, flexi-time and flexi-load arrangements. Under the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (TG-FWAR) implemented in December 2024, employees may formally request for FWAs, and employers should consider such requests based on business needs. This also applies to employees in firms where the default work arrangement is to be on-site.
Employees who feel that their FWA requests are not properly considered may approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for assistance, and TAFEP will assess the case. If employers are found not to have assessed the FWA request properly, TAFEP will guide the employer to comply with the TG-FWAR.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recouping Losses Suffered by State Investment Entities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Government has any information or data on whether suing for damages is a common approach to recoup losses suffered by state investment entities; and (b) if so, what (i) criteria (ii) loss quantum and (iii) time period determines whether and when to commence lawsuits.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: GIC and Temasek are commercial entities. As part of their fiduciary duties, the Government expects the investment entities to reserve all necessary legal rights to safeguard the value of their investments and take legal action where appropriate. Any legal action undertaken should take into account the relevant facts, the legal merits, the applicable laws and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions and the potential costs and benefits of the available dispute resolution options, amongst other commercial considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Non-financial Barriers to Regular Preschool Attendance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of reports that preschool absenteeism remains persistent among children from lower-income families despite existing subsidies (a) what has been identified by the Ministry as the key non-financial barriers to regular preschool attendance; and (b) how is the Ministry addressing these barriers to ensure children are not disadvantaged from the start of their educational journey.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I take the question for oral answer filed by Member Dr Wan Rizal and the question filed for written answer filed by Member Ms Elysa Chen in today's Order Paper together, as they both pertain to preschool attendance issues faced by lower-income families.
Lower-income families face multiple challenges, which may make it harder for them to sustain regular school attendance. For example, parents may face competing priorities, such as employment at irregular hours, caregiving as well as medical issues.
The Government is committed to ensuring that every child has a good start in life. Beyond broad-based moves to ensure preschool accessibility and affordability, ComLink+ families receive targeted support from family coaches. Family coaches explain the importance of preschool attendance, monitor children's preschool attendance and work with families to address barriers. For example, family coaches may work with parents to secure employment with regular working hours or more flexible schedules, or guide families in implementing structured routines and good health practices.
Ultimately, the parents must recognise the value and importance of preschool education for their children's future. Family coaches work on awareness and motivation of the parents. To recognise the effort of those who have put in the effort, so that their children attend preschool regularly, the ComLink+ Progress Package (Preschool) will provide additional payouts to the children's Child Development Account. We also work closely with grassroots organisations and self-help groups, such as MENDAKI, the Chinese Development Assistance Council and SINDA, to reinforce the norm and expectation to send one's child to preschool. The Early Childhood Development Agency is also working with selected anchor operator preschool centres to provide additional attendance and learning support to children from lower-income families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Masjid Al-Firdaus Closure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the rationale for not retaining the existing Masjid Al-Firdaus in Choa Chu Kang alongside the new mosque in Tengah; and (b) how does MUIS intend to work with relevant agencies to ensure that SAF and Home Team servicemen and foreign workers will be able to access the new mosque in Tengah easily to meet their prayer needs.\n\n
62 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what considerations led to the decision to close and demolish Masjid Al-Firdaus after 63 years of service; (b) whether the Ministry had assessed alternatives to redevelopment plans in the area; and (c) how will the mosque's heritage and its role in the community be meaningfully preserved beyond retaining its name.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: My response will cover the questions raised by Mr Fadli Fawzi and Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik in today's Order Paper together. As mentioned in the response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) submitted in February 2025 by then-Member Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Masjid Al-Firdaus has been operating on a Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) issued by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). The land parcel on which the mosque is sited is intended for future development and further plans will be shared when ready.
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) continues to plan and develop mosques to adequately meet the prayer needs of the community. The new mosque in Tengah will have a larger capacity and enhanced facilities to meet future needs. It will also be sited in a more central location with better transport links to better serve Muslims in the area as well as Bukit Batok and Choa Chu Kang. To ensure that the community has sufficient prayer spaces, Masjid Al-Firdaus will continue to operate on its current site until the new mosque is completed in the early 2030s.
MUIS will work with the mosque committee on potential plans to preserve Masjid Al-Firdaus's heritage, such as documenting its history and continuing its traditions in the new mosque. We will continue to work with relevant agencies and local stakeholders to meet the religious needs of the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Housing Options in Future Development of Pulau Brani","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any plans to include public housing options in the future development of Pulau Brani.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Under the Sentosa Development Corporation's Greater Sentosa Master Plan, Pulau Brani will be developed into a leisure and tourism destination. There are currently no plans for public housing on Pulau Brani.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Similarities between Roles of Recently Retrenched Staff and Graduate Trainees of Digital Bank","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether Workforce Singapore (WSG) has conducted checks on digital bank GXS' recent retrenchment activities to ensure that the GRaduate Industry Traineeships (GRIT) programme roles are not similar to those of impacted workers; and (b) whether WSG will consider GXS’ suitability as a host organisation for the GRIT programme arising from these checks, if any.
Dr Tan See Leng: The roles impacted in GXS's recent retrenchment exercise were technical roles supporting completed IT projects, which differed from the intended GRIT roles. Even though GXS' retrenchment exercise does not automatically disqualify it from the GRIT programme, GXS has withdrawn from the GRIT programme. The Workforce Singapore remains committed to work with leading companies to provide meaningful opportunities to trainees.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"More Measures to Reduce Teachers' Non-teaching Workload","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Education what extra steps is the Ministry taking to reduce non-teaching workload for teachers, including administrative duties, co-curricular commitments, lesson planning and parent-communications, so that teachers may devote a greater portion of their time to direct teaching and student interaction.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed in my response on the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 findings and management of teachers' workload and well-being at the Parliamentary Sitting on 4 November 2025, which is available on MOE's website. [Please refer to \"Addressing Teachers' Stress Levels and Supporting Their Mental Well-being\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, 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":"Support to Create National Service-friendly Workplace Environments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether the Advisory Council on Community Relations in Defence (ACCORD) has any plans to provide further support to employers in creating National Service-friendly workplace environments, particularly for small and medium enterprises (SME); and (b) whether there are any plans to expand other recognition programs to encourage more SME businesses to actively support National Servicemen and their families.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) deeply appreciate the vital role that employers play in supporting our National Servicemen (NSmen). The Advisory Council on Community Relations in Defence (ACCORD) serves as an important platform for us to engage and gather feedback and suggestions from employers, so that we can refine our policies and develop initiatives to better support them and their NSmen employees.
Let me cite a few examples. To enable employers to plan ahead for alternative staff coverage or adjustments to their operations during their NSmen employees' absence from the workplace, we provide notice six months in advance for high-key In-Camp Training (ICT) or three months in advance for shorter, low-key ICT. This arrangement arose from suggestions from ACCORD. Another ACCORD initiative that supports employers with NSmen is the Supportive Employers Networking Session. Such sessions bring together businesses to share best practices and exchange ideas, as well as to provide feedback and suggestions to MINDEF, on NS-related matters. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which have more limited manpower resources and human resource (HR) units, have benefitted, in particular, from these initiatives.
Various schemes and awards have also been developed under ACCORD to recognise supportive employers. The NS Mark is a national accreditation scheme that recognises employers which have put in place policies and HR practices that support their NSmen employees, while the Total Defence Award recognises employers that have demonstrated exemplary support towards NS. Special efforts are made to identify and recognise SME awardees.
MINDEF and SAF will continue to work closely with ACCORD to better support our employers, including SMEs, as well as NSmen in fulfilling their roles in National Service, the cornerstone of Singapore's defence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Centralised SGVoucher Digital Wallet to Improve Accessibility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether there are any plans for a centralised SGVoucher digital wallet, such as the GovWallet feature on the LifeSG app, for future disbursements of Government vouchers to improve ease of accessibility, instead of having different links to the vouchers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Today, the Government disburses support through various platforms. Beyond our policy objectives, we recognise that different groups of citizens have varying needs and comfort levels with technology, and we take these considerations into account when determining the most effective way to deliver benefits to them.
RedeemSG is a general voucher system that serves various Government schemes, including Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers and SG60 vouchers. It is designed to be inclusive and convenient, offering a seamless experience where citizens do not need to download an app, and digital and paper vouchers can be spent in the same way. Each tranche of RedeemSG vouchers can also be accessed through its own unique link, making it easy for citizens to share vouchers with household members.
We recognise that it may be challenging for citizens to manage multiple links as more schemes are disbursed through RedeemSG. I thank the Member for his suggestion for a centralised SGVoucher digital wallet and we will consider this as we refine our digital disbursement strategies for future Government schemes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Considerations for Declassification Policy to Include Mechanism for Researchers to Nominate Documents for Review","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information following the declassification of the Albatross Files, what consideration has the Ministry given to future declassification policy, including the possible introduction of a formal mechanism by which historians and other researchers may nominate documents for review for declassification.
Mrs Josephine Teo: As Members are aware, my Ministry recently declassified and released the contents of Dr Goh Keng Swee's Albatross File, together with the excerpts of the oral histories of many of our founding leaders pertaining to the Separation of Singapore from Malaysia. The extensive release was unprecedented. Singaporeans got an intimate look into how our pioneer leaders felt, thought and did in the lead up to our Independence. My Ministry is committed to making as much of our recent history as possible available to the wider public. A deeper appreciation of our history and how we got here will strengthen our national identity.
Today, under the National Library Board Act, any person may, for \"the purpose of reference or research\" request to access public archives – that is, Government records of national or historical significance that have been transferred to the National Archives of Singapore (NAS) and are more than 25 years old. The Government agency from which the public archives were transferred decides whether to allow access, taking into account considerations, such as supporting research into our collective past, while safeguarding sensitive information and complying with relevant confidentiality and other obligations.
The NAS also facilitates the process by which anyone can ask a relevant Government agency to review public records for declassification. This provides a formal channel for historians and other researchers to nominate documents for review. Upon request, the relevant Government agency will assess the public record based on its content and whether there are any concerns in disclosure of the content, such as those pertaining to national security, confidentiality obligations and personal privacy.
My Ministry will continue to work with NAS and relevant agencies to facilitate such reviews and to make more records available over time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Increase Licensed Allied Health Professionals Beyond Current Growth Trend","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether there are plans to further increase the number of licensed allied health professionals (AHPs) regulated by the Allied Health Professions Council beyond the current growth trend; (b) if so, what are the projected numbers for the next five years; and (c) whether there are plans to expand the categories of AHPs regulated by the Council.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The total number of registered allied health professionals (AHPs) regulated by the Allied Health Professions Council (AHPC) has been growing by about 6% every year, from 6,000 in 2019 to 8,000 in 2024. We expect the numbers to continue to increase at about the same rate, to meet the needs of an ageing population.
Currently, the registered AHPs comprise diagnostic radiographers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiation therapists and speech-language therapists. Ministry periodically evaluates the risk profiles of other allied health professions to determine if it is necessary to expand the number of professions. We are working towards requiring psychologists to be registered, focusing on those providing direct care that involves higher-risk assessments and interventions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Foreigners with Valid In-Principle Approvals Who Were Denied Entry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many foreigners with valid In-Principle Approvals (IPA) were denied entry in 2025; (b) what were the primary reasons for these denials; and (c) with the implementation of the No-Boarding Directive in 2026, what measures will be in place to inform prospective employers of these denials and facilitate appeals.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not track the number of foreigners who were holding In-Principle Approval (IPA) letters issued by the Ministry of Manpower but were subsequently denied entry into Singapore by ICA. An IPA letter is issued in relation to a work pass application and does not guarantee entry into Singapore. Upon arriving in Singapore, holders of an IPA letter will still have to be assessed by ICA on their immigration and security risks and whether they should be allowed into Singapore, like every other foreigner. A foreigner's entry into Singapore is neither automatic nor a right.
When the No-Boarding Directive is implemented later this month, there may indeed be instances where foreigners issued with IPA letters are prevented from boarding flights bound for Singapore. They should then inform their prospective employers. In effect, the outcome is no different from today, where they will be denied entry upon arrival at our checkpoints. If they still wish to travel to Singapore to work, they will have to appeal to ICA via the ICA feedback channel, before arranging a new flight to Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for New Ministry to Coordinate Singapore's Energy Needs, Decarbonisation Pathways, Grid Resilience and International Negotiations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"72 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance given Singapore's rapid energy transition efforts and rising electricity demand from AI adoption, data centres, advanced semiconductor and high-performance computing activities, as well as growing EV consumer demand, whether the Government will consider establishing a Ministry for Energy to coordinate long-term and operational energy needs, decarbonisation pathways, grid resilience and international energy negotiations.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Striking the right balance between security, affordability and sustainability in our energy system is a key priority for the Government. Today, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), with its statutory board the Energy Market Authority, directly oversees energy matters and works closely with the rest of the Government to manage our energy transition.
To better organise the Government to accelerate Singapore's transition to cleaner energies, the Prime Minister designated Minister Dr Tan See Leng as the Minister-in-charge of Energy last year. MTI has also appointed a Permanent Secretary and a Deputy Secretary to oversee policies relating to energy and decarbonisation. MTI set up a new Energy and Carbon cluster in April 2024 to co-ordinate efforts across the whole-of-Government and build the requisite capabilities. Currently, the Government has no plan to set up a separate Ministry of Energy, but we will continue to make refinements to how this work is organised, as its scale and complexity grow in the years ahead.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Investigation into Accident Involving Two Public Buses along Jurong West Ave 1","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"73 Mr Xie Yao Quan asked the Acting Minister for Transport regarding the accident involving two public buses along Jurong West Avenue 1 on 14 December 2025 (a) whether all persons injured and hospitalised have been discharged; (b) what financial support will be provided to them; and (c) when do the authorities and operators expect to complete their investigation into the accident.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: All persons injured and hospitalised due to the incident have been discharged from hospital. The two bus operators involved are assisting injured passengers with their medical claims. Investigations are ongoing and the Land Transport Authority will share more information when there are further developments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safety Lapses in Two Recent Fall-from-height Deaths for Construction of Jurong Region Line","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Minister for Manpower in relation to the two fatal fall-from-height incidents reported during the construction of the Jurong Region Line (a) what safety lapses or non-compliance were identified; and (b) whether the Government has further measures planned to strengthen fall-prevention controls and supervision for work at height to prevent similar incidents across the Jurong Region Line.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) shares the Member's concern over the two fatal fall-from-height incidents during the construction of the Jurong Region Line. As investigations are ongoing, we are currently unable to provide further details on both incidents.
Work-at-height activities, including those for the Jurong Region Line construction, are subjected to the Workplace Safety and Health (Work at Heights) Regulations, which have in place provisions for control measures. They include physical measures, such as proper guardrails, decking and safe access and egress. Other measures include implementing a fall prevention plan, a permit-to-work system and adequate supervision for work-at-height activities. Contractors are required to comply with these requirements. They may refer to the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for Working Safely at Heights for practical guidance on how to comply with the Regulations.
MOM will continue to learn from past construction safety incidents, including from the recent Jurong Regional Line incidents and put in place additional safety measures where required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Platform Workers Opting In for CPF Contributions and Top Reasons for Not Opting In","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in 2025, how many platform workers born before 1 January 1995 have opted in to make CPF contributions; (b) whether the reasons for not opting in are recorded; and (c) if so, what are the top three reasons.
Dr Tan See Leng: After the Platform Workers Act came into effect on 1 January 2025, platform workers born before 1 January 1995 may opt to increase their Central Provident Fund contributions beyond their mandatory MediSave contributions. About 26,500, or 27%, of such platform workers have opted in as of September 2025. Among platform workers who rely on platform work as their primary or sole source of income, the opt-in rate is higher at 32%. Ministry of Manpower does not collect information on the reasons for not opting in.
We will continue to work with platform operators and platform work associations to reach out to platform workers to encourage more to opt in.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions against Companies that Do Not Abide by Competition Commission's Directions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"77 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore has recourse against companies that do not abide by its directions for mergers that are deemed to be anti-competitive and the maximum penalties that may be imposed in such cases.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Under the Competition Act 2004, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) can issue legally binding directions to prohibit, dissolve or modify anti-competitive mergers and impose a financial penalty on the merger parties where warranted.
In the event of non-compliance with a merger direction issued by CCS, CCS may apply to register the direction with the Courts. Any person who fails to comply with a registered direction may be in contempt of court. The Court will apply the usual sanctions for contempt of Court and may impose a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Linkage of Singpass Accounts to Valid Mobile Phone Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what measures are in place to ensure Singpass accounts are linked to valid mobile phone numbers; and (b) whether the Government will consider setting up a platform for telecommunication providers to update deregistered phone numbers for organisations to verify against.\n \n
Mrs Josephine Teo: Today, Singpass provides a convenient and secure platform for users to transact with Government agencies and private sector organisations. To facilitate the linking of mobile numbers to Singpass accounts, users are required to verify their mobile number through one-time passwords (OTPs) during registration and when making changes to their account details. This verification confirms that the user has access to the mobile number at the point of verification.
For high-risk transactions or when anomalies are detected on an account, Singpass implements additional safeguards, such as facial verification, to provide stronger assurance of the user's identity. This helps mitigate the risk of unauthorised access, including situations in which a malicious actor gains access to a user's OTP, such as by successfully changing the user's registered Singpass mobile number to their own or by phishing the OTP from the user.
The Government will continue to work with relevant agencies and industry partners to assess whether additional measures are needed to strengthen the validation of mobile phone numbers. Individuals should remain responsible for updating their personal data they have provided to the organisations they transact with.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average Waiting Times for Appointments with Radiographers and Therapists at Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"80 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health in the past year, what are the average durations that patients have to wait for an appointment with (i) diagnostic radiographers (ii) occupational therapists (iii) physiotherapists (iv) radiation therapists and (v) speech-language therapists in public hospitals, respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Waiting times vary depending on the severity and urgency of patients' conditions. The Ministry of Health does not track the waiting times for allied health services at the national level. Nonetheless, public healthcare institutions have reported a median waiting time of within a day to up to two months, depending on the conditions of the patients, for the five different allied health services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Probe into Charities that Fail to Comply with Requirements under Code of Governance for Charities and Institutions of Public Character","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"81 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in the past three years (a) how many complaints has the office of the Commissioner of Charities received of charities that have failed to comply with governance requirements under the Code of Governance for Charities and Institutions of the Public Character; and (b) of these charities, how many were taken to task.
Mr David Neo: The Charities Act provides the legal framework for the registration of charities, administration and regulation of charities and Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs) and the regulation of fund-raising activities carried on or in connection with charities and other institutions. It seeks to ensure sound administration of charities and IPCs through regulatory oversight and mandatory annual submissions. This is also to ensure that charitable assets are managed properly and that fundraising appeals are conducted with accountability and transparency.
The Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs, on the other hand, serves as a best practices guide covering key areas of governance and management. It consists of tiered guidelines that apply to registered charities based on their IPC status and financial size.
The Code operates on the basis of \"comply or explain\". While it is not mandatory for charities to adopt and comply with all the guidelines, they are encouraged to do so as a matter of good governance. Where charities are unable to comply with certain guidelines, they should explain the reasons for the non-compliance in their annual submissions to the Commissioner of Charities (COC), which are published on the Charity Portal (www.charities.gov.sg) to promote transparency.
Over the past three years, the Office of the COC received an average of 80 feedback each year relating to fund-raising conduct and charities' governance and internal controls. For context, there are approximately 2,400 charities registered with Ministry of Culture, Community & Youth. The COC will investigate such feedback. In most cases, the breaches or gaps are due to unfamiliarity with the legislative requirements or good governance practices, or due to differences in views amongst members within the charities. The COC works with these charities and fund-raisers to tighten their governance and processes, including issuing advisories and guidance if needed.
Most of our charities operate with integrity and sound governance. For the minority of cases, where there is gross misconduct or mismanagement of a charity, or where improper fund-raising activities are conducted, firmer action is taken. These include the issuance of Orders. For example, the COC issued two Orders in 2025, prohibiting certain individuals from conducting fund-raising appeals as they were either unfit to administer or had failed to ensure proper accountability of the appeals.
The COC will continue to support the development of the charity sector while upholding high standards of governance that preserve trust and accountability across the sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Determining Preschools' Operational Status after Reports of Child Mismanagement or Abuse","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"82 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what are the Early Childhood Development Agency's considerations to determine whether a preschool remains operational if there have been reports of child mismanagement or abuse within the preschool.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: In cases of regulatory breaches, including child mismanagement incidents, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) will impose a penalty that is proportionate to the circumstances. This may include financial penalties, shortening or revocation of the preschool's licence.
ECDA will consider all the facts of the case to determine the appropriate penalty. These include the severity of the breach, whether the breaches were systemic in nature and, most importantly, if the preschool can continue providing services in a manner that is safe for children. Revocation of a preschool's licence is not a decision that ECDA takes lightly, given the impact to parents' care arrangements and operators' and educators' livelihoods.
Child safety in preschools is a fundamental priority to the Ministry of Social and Family Development. ECDA will continue to work with preschool operators to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements to safeguard children's well-being in preschools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Legal Profession Act 1966 Given Law Society's Recent Extraordinary General Meeting Resolutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law in view of the resolutions passed at the recent Law Society's extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on 22 December 2025, whether the Ministry considers any amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1966 necessary.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) provides for the establishment of the Law Society of Singapore, including the composition of its Council and the election of office‑bearers.
We have noted the recent extraordinary general meeting (EGM). The Ministry will give due consideration to the points made at the EGM, as well as at other fora, as part of its regular review of the LPA to ensure its continued relevance and application.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possible Revisions to History and Social Studies Syllabuses in light of Declassification of Albatross Files","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education in light of the declassification of the Albatross Files (a) what amendments are expected to be made to the history and social studies syllabuses in schools; and (b) how the Government's decision-making process on declassifying the Albatross Files will be explained in the curricula, including its choice to declassify them only 60 years after the event.
Mr Desmond Lee: Part (a) of this question has been answered as part of Ministry of Education's written reply to Parliamentary Question No 44 and part (b) as part of Ministry of Digital Development and Information's oral reply to Parliamentary Question No 68 on 12 January 2026. Members may refer to the transcripts for the reply. [Please refer to \"Possible Revisions to History and Social Studies Syllabuses in light of Declassification of Albatross Files\", Official Report, 12 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 12, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section; and \"Incorporating Declassified Albatross File Materials into Educational Curricula, Its Timeline and Teachers' Training\", Official Report, 12 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 12, Written 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":"Employers Sanctioned for Submitting Fictitious Recruitment Records for Employment Pass Applications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past three years, how many employers were sanctioned for submitting fictitious recruitment records to justify Employment Pass applications; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider revoking the work passes of foreign hiring managers found complicit in such fraudulent practices.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) adopts a firm position against employers who attempt to circumvent our work pass framework and do not fairly consider local candidates, such as by advertising job vacancies on MyCareersFuture as a token measure or providing false information in their work pass applications.\t
Between 2023 and 2025, MOM took enforcement action against an average of 140 employers each year for not fairly considering local candidates. This includes incidents where employers had submitted fictitious advertisements or provided false information to MOM. Our enforcement actions range from written warnings to debarment from hiring foreign workers for up to 24 months. If foreign hiring managers are found to be complicit in such fraudulent activities, we will also take enforcement action against them. Such actions may include renovation of work passes and debarment from employment in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of New Measures for Social Service Workforce in Improving Service and Support to Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of recent announcements to expand and strengthen Singapore's social service workforce, including enhanced study awards and training pathways, how will the Ministry assess whether these measures are translating into improved service capacity and accessibility on the ground, particularly for mental health and family support services.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The recent initiatives announced aim to attract more fresh entrants into the sector and better support the professional growth and development of our social service professionals, which include social workers, counsellors and psychologists in mental health and family support services. They include, firstly, enhancements to the Social Service Tribe Study Award to support individuals pursuing associate-level qualifications; secondly, enhancements to the Professional Development Sponsorship to provide full funding up from the current 75% funding, to provide greater support for existing social service professionals to gain professional qualifications; and thirdly, expanded funding support for the Foundational Leadership grants to include first-time and senior leaders to build their leadership competencies.
The Ministry of Social and Family Development tracks the manpower needs of key services in the social service sector, along with manpower outcomes, such as salaries, inflow, retention and shortfalls of key professions. We will work closely with our social service agencies and partners to monitor the uptake of the enhanced schemes and programme capacity to ensure that our social services, including those for mental health and family support, are adequately resourced and accessible to those who need them.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Crediting of HDB Flat Sale Proceeds into Relevant CPF Account for Older Divorcees","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for Manpower whether targeted policy exceptions can be introduced for older divorcees whose HDB sale proceeds are credited into CPF Retirement Accounts, leaving insufficient Ordinary Account funds to buy another home, following a Court-ordered sale of their matrimonial flat, particularly where the divorce has not been initiated by them.
Dr Tan See Leng: When a Central Provident Fund (CPF) member sells a property purchased with CPF savings, the net proceeds will be used to return the withdrawn CPF amount, plus accrued interest, back to their CPF accounts. For CPF members aged 55 and above, housing refunds to their CPF accounts will first be used to top up their Retirement Accounts (RA) to meet their Full Retirement Sum. Any remaining balance is credited to their Ordinary Accounts (OA) and can be used for subsequent housing purchases.
The different CPF accounts ensure that members' CPF savings are spread out to meet their retirement, housing and healthcare needs. The RA savings are primarily intended to provide members with monthly payouts during their retirement. However, CPF members, including divorcees, can use housing refunds credited to their RA that exceed their Basic Retirement Sum to purchase a 3-room or smaller HDB flat, if qualifying conditions are met. Members can check the amount available for use via their home ownership dashboard on the CPF website.
The CPF Board considers appeals, on a case-by-case basis, by members to use more of their RA savings for flat purchases or to buy larger flats, taking into account their financial and household circumstances. When the Board encounters cases with genuine needs, we would work with other relevant agencies to provide tailored assistance. This approach balances housing needs with safeguarding retirement adequacy.
Divorcing couples can explore post-divorce housing options through the Housing Options Explorer on the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Family Assist Portal or by approaching the Housing Development Board for advice and assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Follow-up from Feedback on Disamenities from Bus Depot Construction Site at Forested Area between Tampines Road and Buangkok East Drive","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"88 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport regarding residents' feedback on disamenities arising from the current bus depot construction site at the forested area between Tampines Road and Buangkok East Drive since the beginning of work (a) what specific measures have been taken to address the concerns raised, including requests to relocate the bus depot; and (b) what further measures will be taken to eliminate or mitigate these amenities.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Government agencies, including the Land Transport Authority (LTA), have received feedback on the location and the construction of the bus depot. While the bus depot cannot be relocated, LTA is implementing a number of mitigating measures that will address residents' feedback. A 12-metre-high temporary noise barrier will be built to provide sound insulation from construction activities, even though the nearest residents are more than 200 metres from the work site. Noise monitoring systems have also been installed to continuously measure and record noise levels from construction. To minimise dust during construction, measures, such as spraying exposed surfaces with water and cleaning vehicles before they leave the site, will be implemented.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Maintenance, Performance Optimisation and Control Deactivations of Electric Public Bus Fleets in Absence of \"Over-the-air\" Updates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Acting Minister for Transport regarding the electric public bus fleets from a Chinese manufacturer (a) how does the Land Transport Authority (LTA) independently ensure that (i) the remote controls have been deactivated and (ii) vehicle maintenance and performance is optimised in the absence of over-the-air updates; and (b) what measures and resources have been allocated to boost the cybersecurity of such buses.
90 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Acting Minister for Transport in view of the growing adoption of electric vehicles in Singapore, including the transition to electric buses, what safeguards, if any, are put in place before any over-the-air updates by the various manufacturers are sent to these electric vehicles.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) adopts a risk-tiered approach in dealing with cybersecurity for private and public connected vehicles.
For all passengers and goods vehicles, in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, motor dealers have to declare if there are Over-The-Air (OTA) capabilities during the vehicle approval process. When Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) want to deploy significant OTA modifications to vehicles that impact a registered vehicle's safe operations or alter its specifications, such as changes to adaptive cruise control features, they need prior approval from LTA.
Public electric buses are an essential public transport service. Hence, cybersecurity vulnerabilities carry higher risk and impact on public safety and service continuity. In addition to the requirements stipulated under the Road Traffic Act, LTA requires all electric buses in its fleet to comply with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation Nos 155 and 156 (R155 and R156). These international standards require OEMs to implement certified cybersecurity controls to prevent, detect and respond to cyber threats across the vehicle lifecycle and ensure OTA updates are secure, authenticated, traceable and recoverable.
LTA has also conducted technical reviews with OEMs of public buses, who have provided assurance that they do not possess remote command capabilities. LTA will conduct additional independent technical assessments to verify this. Any software updates or changes needed today are executed by authorised personnel, on-site at the bus depot using a wired connection, only after LTA has verified the purpose of the updates and given approval.
OTA updates for electric public buses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and they are necessary to patch vehicle software vulnerabilities promptly. LTA is collaborating closely with Government cybersecurity agencies to study how to transit from wired to OTA updates safely for these buses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Holding Preschool Operators Accountable for Deployment of Staff Not Qualified for Child-minding Duties and Adequacy of Current Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"91 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how are preschool operators held accountable when child abuse incidents arise from deployment of staff who is unqualified for child-minding duties; (b) what penalties or corrective actions will apply for such cases; (c) whether the Ministry will review the adequacy of current safeguards in preschools; and (d) if so, when will findings of such a review be published.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Preschools are responsible for ensuring the safety of children under their care and must comply with requirements under the Early Childhood Development Centre Act and Regulations and other prevailing legislation. Operators must seek the Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) approval for all staff whom they wish to deploy to work in a preschool. They must also establish the necessary systems and processes to ensure child safety, including appropriate deployment and supervision of all staff.
ECDA will take action against errant operators, considering the facts of each case. This may include imposing financial penalties, directing the operator to submit and implement a corrective action plan, shortening or revocation of the preschool’s licence. For errant staff, ECDA can impose administrative actions like stern reminders, coupled with a requirement to undergo retraining or cancel approval for the individual to be deployed in the preschool.
Child safety and well-being is a key priority for the Ministry for Social and Family Development and ECDA and have been strengthening safeguards for child safety in preschools over the years. We will continue to review and enhance our safeguards and enforcement measures as necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Background Checks on Educators and Non-teaching Staff in Government Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education what types of background safeguarding checks are done for all educators and non-teaching staff who work in all Government schools including primary, secondary and post-secondary schools.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of the hiring process, the Ministry of Education (MOE) conducts pre-employment background checks on all prospective employees being considered for teaching and non-teaching positions to ensure student safety and uphold the professional conduct expected of MOE staff. These checks include screening applicants for past criminal records with the Police, conducting reference checks with their previous employers or referees and performing credit screening for those applying for finance-related positions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Early Tenancy Termination of Timbre at One Punggol Hawker Centre","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"95 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the early termination of Timbre's tenancy for One Punggol Hawker Centre (a) what were the reasons for the early termination of tenancy; and (b) whether NEA will consider directly managing the Hawker Centre.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Timbre and the National Environment Agency (NEA) mutually agreed to terminate Timbre's tenancy at One Punggol Hawker Centre (OPHC) on 14 August 2026 due to Timbre's operational challenges. This date would allow NEA sufficient time to appoint a new operator and ensure an orderly transition with minimal disruption to stallholders and patrons.
There are no plans for NEA to directly manage OPHC, which will continue to be a Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centre.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Children Who Did Not Secure Placement in 2025 Primary 1 Registration Exercise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
96 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education how many children have not successfully secured a placement for their Primary 1 education in 2026 and what are the reasons so.
Mr Desmond Lee: All Singaporean children who participated in the 2025 Primary 1 (P1) Registration Exercise have secured a place in a national primary school for P1 in 2026.
There are about 2,880 Singaporean children who did not participate in the 2025 P1 Registration Exercise. Most of these children are either residing overseas, seeking exemption from compulsory education or are in the process of applying for or have received placement in special education schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Piloting Installation of Fire-rated Outdoor Charging Cabinets within Communal Facilities for PMDs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development given the rising incidence of Personal Mobility Device battery fires in residential settings, whether the Government will consider piloting fire-rated outdoor charging cabinets in HDB void decks or multi-storey carparks, similar to facilities deployed in New York City and Taiwan, with subsidised electricity rates to incentivise residents to charge devices in these safer communal facilities.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Agencies, such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore Civil Defence Force and Housing and Development Board (HDB), work closely to monitor Active Mobility Device (AMD) ownership, charging and usage patterns in Singapore. We also study new operating models and regulatory developments on AMD charging and parking in other jurisdictions.
As different jurisdictions have different contexts and circumstances, we should carefully assess if the overseas practices are applicable here in Singapore. Taking the example of AMD charging facilities in public areas, there will be trade-offs for residents, such as having less space for other uses in HDB multi-storey car parks and void decks.
The key factor to improving safety is to prevent AMD-related fires in the first place, instead of where the device is charged. It is more effective to ensure AMDs in Singapore meet prescribed technical and safety requirements. If the devices are non-compliant, shifting the charging and parking to public areas would still lead to fire incidents that pose safety risks to residents.
AMD users should only purchase compliant devices, refrain from modifying their devices and adopt safe-charging practices. This is the main safeguard against fire risks from AMDs. The Ministry of Transport and LTA thus take a strict enforcement approach towards the import, sale and use of non-compliant AMDs and are looking to strengthen regulations on the online sale of AMDs later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection for Employees and Whistle-blowers during Workplace Bullying Investigations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether more needs to be done to protect employees and whistle-blowers during workplace bullying investigations within organisations; and (b) if so, what additional measures are being considered.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment encourages employers to implement practices to prevent and deal with harassment cases, including bullying, at the workplace while ensuring that whistle-blowers will not be penalised. Workers who experience retaliation can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices for assistance. When the new Workplace Fairness Act comes into force in end-2027, employers will be required to put in place grievance handling processes for workplace harassment and discrimination and must protect the confidentiality of employees who report grievances to the extent possible. Employers will be prohibited from retaliating against employees and whistle-blowers with genuine grievances and financial penalties can be imposed on those who do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of \"Ghost Jobs\" on Job Mobility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has assessed or intends to assess if \"ghost jobs\", referring to job postings that do not exist or that companies do not intend to fill immediately, is a contributing factor in lowering job mobility.
Dr Tan See Leng: The lower job mobility in recent years, as reflected by the lower rate of job switching reported in the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Labour Force in Singapore 2025 report, is mainly associated with reduced labour turnover. This could be attributed to a decline in resignation rates since 2022 as labour market tightness moderated from its post-pandemic peak and greater worker caution amid external economic uncertainties in 2025. With fewer workers leaving their jobs, fewer replacement vacancies arose, leading to lower recruitment activity and fewer opportunities for job switching.
Hiring and job search processes are inherently dynamic and job postings may close without a hire or remain unfilled due to legitimate reasons, such as unexpected changes in business plans or inability to find suitable candidates. There may be a small number of instances where employers post vacancies as a token measure to meet the rules on fair consideration for locals. MOM will investigate such cases upon receiving feedback and take enforcement action against errant employers if the allegations are found to be true to safeguard fair hiring.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Training for Teachers to Deal With Disclosures of Mental Health Challenges by Students Who Also Refuse Parental or Counsellor Involvement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the protocols for teachers when students disclose mental health challenges but refuse parental or counsellor involvement, particularly regarding how to balance a student's right to confidentiality with safety obligations; and (b) what specific training or legal protection is provided to teachers to help them navigate these ethical dilemmas without damaging student-teacher trust.
Mr Desmond Lee: All teachers are equipped with basic counselling skills as part of teacher preparation. This includes conducting supportive conversations with students as well as understanding confidentiality limits and escalation processes.
When students disclose social-emotional or mental health challenges to their teachers, teachers will attend to their needs and emotions and refer them for further support where necessary. Teachers will explain to the students, the rationale if additional support is required and confidentiality limits. Where there are safety concerns, such as abuse, self-harm or harm to others, teachers are obligated to inform their school leaders, who will activate additional support, such as the school counsellor, community mental health services or parents, as appropriate.
The Ministry of Health has also convened an expert group to study the issue of parental consent and will release guidelines for the youth services sector in due course. Where the guidelines could be relevant and applicable to our schools, the Ministry of Education will study them accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Background Checks on Educators and Non-teaching Staff of Kindergartens, Preschools and Early Childhood Education Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what kinds of background safeguarding checks are done by the Ministry or its agencies for all school educators and non-teaching staff who work in kindergartens, preschools and other early childhood education centres.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Preschool operators have to apply to the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to obtain approval for all staff, including non-teaching staff, whom they wish to deploy to work in a preschool. As part of our review of such applications, ECDA will conduct checks to assess that the individual does not pose a risk to children's safety or has been barred from working in a preschool. Individuals must also complete a self-declaration form on any prior offences committed and warnings issued by ECDA or the Police.
Individuals seeking employment in preschools must also submit a pre-employment medical report that certifies them to be fit for work in a preschool. This includes a compulsory declaration of whether they have a history of psychiatric conditions. If so declared, the individual must obtain certification from a medical practitioner that he or she is suitable to work with young children.
As employers, preschools have their own procedures to recruit suitable staff to work with or around children, such as interviews and reference checks.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics for Incidents and Accidents Involving PMDs and PABs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Acting Minister for Transport from 2023 to 2025, what is the number of personal mobility aids (PMA), personal mobility devices (PMD) or power-assisted bicycles (PAB) related incidents on (i) pedestrian walkways (ii) shared pathways and (iii) the roads that caused grievous injuries.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: There were around 710 reported accidents involving personal mobility aids, personal mobility devices or power-assisted bicycles that resulted in injuries from 2023 to Q3 2025. Approximately 590 were on the roads. About 120 were off-road, inclusive of public paths.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of PayNow Bank Account Linking Procedures for Recycled Mobile Numbers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the Government's assessment as to whether enhancements to the process for linking and delinking recycled mobile phone numbers to bank accounts for PayNow purposes are needed.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Please refer to the reply given in this House on 16 October 2024. [Please refer to \"Wrongful PayNow Transfers to Phone Numbers Belonging to Previous Subscriber\", Official Report, 16 October 2024, Vol 95, Issue 144, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
The Monetary Authority of Singapore's assessment remains the same. Current processes to change the registered telephone number for PayNow are sufficient.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Political Office Holders' Salaries Following 2023 Deferral","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Alex Yam asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether political office holders' salaries will be reviewed soon, since the last scheduled review in 2023 was deferred.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The current salary framework was established by a review committee in 2012, and the Government agreed with its recommendation that the framework would be reviewed by an independent committee every five years.
A subsequent committee was formed in 2017 to review the 2012 framework, and it concluded that the framework remained sound, and that political salaries should be adjusted annually in line with the movement of the benchmark salaries. Nevertheless, the Government decided not to make any changes to political salaries then. In 2023, the Government decided to defer the scheduled review, given the uncertain external environment and the downside risks in the global economy at that time.
The salary structure and benchmark have not been updated since they were introduced in 2012. It is therefore timely to undertake a review. The Government has convened an independent committee, chaired by Mr Gan Seow Kee, to conduct this review. The composition of the Committee is set out in the Table below.
The Committee has been asked to recommend the appropriate salary levels based on the current salary framework, and where necessary, to propose refinements so that the implementation of the framework will remain relevant and able to meet its intended purpose. The Committee has just been formed and will submit its report to the Government when ready, after which the Government will consider its findings and provide an update to Parliament.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Benchmarks for Restructured Temasek Entities and Regular Disclosure of Investment Returns and Costs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with the recent restructuring of Temasek Holdings (a) what are the specific mandates and returns targets or benchmarks for the new entities; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider publishing data on relative investment returns and investment costs regularly.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This question has been answered in the oral reply to Parliamentary Questions No 12 to 14 filed in today's Order Paper.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of GIC's Reference Portfolio Strategies and Framework to Evaluate Investment Performance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the Governments assessment as to whether GIC's Reference Portfolio remains appropriate in reflecting its long-term risk posture and mandate; and (b) what other metrics does the Government consider when evaluating GIC's investment performance, apart from the primary metric of the rolling 20-year real rate of return.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This question has been answered in the oral reply to Parliamentary Questions 5 to 11 filed in today's Order Paper.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Aligning Senior Management Incentive Structures at Temasek Holdings and GIC with Government Investment Mandates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Government has information on how senior management incentives at Temasek Holdings and GIC are structured to balance (i) long-term value creation, (ii) prudent risk-taking and (iii) capital preservation in accordance with the investment mandates given by the Government.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: GIC and Temasek are commercial entities. Therefore, senior management incentives are decided by their respective boards. The Government does not interfere in their operational decisions, including for their senior management remuneration.
Both GIC and Temasek have said that they adopt remuneration frameworks for their senior management which are market competitive and promote good performance. The Government will continue to assess entities' performance in meeting their mandates net of fees and expenses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Tobacco Tax Revenue Collection Trends over Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there has been an annual tax collected on tobacco product sales over the last three years; and (b) if so, what is the rate of increase over the years.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Information on tobacco duties collections are published on the Singapore Customs website (https://www.customs.gov.sg/news-and-media/publications/statistics). The annual revenue collections from tobacco duties over the past three financial years are tabulated below.
7 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the Government's assessment of trade and tourism opportunities for Singapore in Timor Leste, following its accession to ASEAN in October 2025; and (b) what are the Government's plans to boost Singapore's trade and tourism with Timor Leste.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Timor-Leste acceded to ASEAN on 26 October 2025 and is in the process of implementing the Roadmap for Timor-Leste's Full Membership in ASEAN. This will take time as Timor-Leste will need to accede to all ASEAN treaties, conventions, agreements and instruments under the three ASEAN Community pillars1, in parallel with undertaking the necessary domestic reforms towards a more accessible, transparent and predictable economic environment.
Timor-Leste is a nascent market for Singapore companies. In 2024, Singapore's total trade with Timor-Leste amounted to $89.9 million. Direct flights between Singapore and Timor-Leste commenced in 2024 and Singapore welcomed 3,668 visitors from Timor-Leste in the same year. With Timor-Leste's economic integration into ASEAN, we will work with interested companies to explore opportunities in Timor-Leste.
Singapore remains committed to support Timor-Leste's integration into ASEAN through the eSTARS (Enhanced Singapore-Timor-Leste ASEAN Readiness Support) package, which offers a customised slate of programmes. This includes supporting Timor-Leste on the workings of ASEAN across the three Community pillars and ASEAN's growing network of external partners, as well as tailored assistance for ASEAN economic agreements, leadership and customised capacity building programmes, and postgraduate scholarships which are aligned with Timor-Leste's development priorities. These efforts will contribute to the development of the Timor-Leste economy, including trade and tourism cooperation with Singapore and other ASEAN countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The three pillars are Political-Security, Economic and Socio-Cultural."],"footNoteQuestions":["7"],"questionNo":"7"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Developments towards Singapore's Digital Warehouse Receipt Systems and Metal Warrant Financing Framework","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) why digital Singapore-based warehouse receipts remain underutilised for financing critical minerals despite the 2021 Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) amendments; (b) whether the Ministry will operationalise section 16Q of the ETA to accredit trusted issuers; and (c) how does Singapore's framework for metal warrant financing compare to systems already operational in Dubai and the UK.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Most critical minerals traded by Singapore-based companies are stored and financed through the London Metal Exchange (LME) ecosystem, including LME-approved warehouses in Singapore and overseas. Banks which are LME members recognise and accept LME's digital warehouse receipts as collateral in trade financing.
We understand that some companies may store metals in non-LME warehouses in Singapore, due to lower storage costs or to hold the metals for end-use rather than trading. These warehouses typically issue physical receipts, as they and the banks do not have the economies of scale and hence, the commercial incentive to adopt separate local digital receipt platforms.
Metal warrant financing in Dubai and the United Kingdom similarly relies on internationally recognised exchange-based systems, such as the LME. EnterpriseSG engages the industry regularly and will review the need to accredit trusted issuers if and when there is sufficient market interest.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Court Applications Filed against Suppliers for Unfair Practices over Past Two Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry how many Court applications under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act has the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore filed against suppliers for engaging in unfair practices over the last two years.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: From 2024 to 2025, 11 cases of unfair practices by suppliers under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 were resolved by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) without the need for action by the Court.
In the same period, CCS filed one application for Court orders against two immigration consultancy businesses that had engaged in unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003. More details on the case can be found at https://www.ccs.gov.sg/media-and-events/newsroom/announcements-and-media-releases/cccs-secures-court-orders-against-immigration-consultancy-businesses-for-misleading-practices/.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Support Local Businesses against Competition from Overseas Chains","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Ministry can provide statistics on the country of origin of retail shops operating in Singapore; and (b) what measures are in place to support local businesses competing against overseas chains with significant financial backing that may drive up rents and associated costs.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The breakdown of registered retail business entities operating in Singapore by ownership, as of 8 January 2026, is in Table 1.
Enterprise Singapore supports local retailers through schemes that help small and medium enterprises enhance their productivity, transform their business and expand overseas. These include the Productivity Solutions Grant, the Enterprise Development Grant and the Market Readiness Assistance Grant.
The Government also supports more targeted programmes that encourage local retailers to innovate and provide differentiated offerings. These include the Retail Maverick Challenge, which is a platform launched by Enterprise Singapore and CapitaLand for local retailers to pilot innovative and experiential retail concepts. Another example is Design Orchard Retail Singapore (DORS), managed by the Singapore Fashion Council with help from the Singapore Tourism Board and Enterprise Singapore. DORS showcases over 80 local design brands, providing them with premium retail exposure and cost savings through shared facilities and services.
The Government will continue to work with industry stakeholders and key trade associations, such as the Singapore Retailers Association (SRA), to explore how else we can support our local retailers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Establishment of Psychological Aid and Counselling Support Unit for HDB Fire-Affected Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Ministry will establish a Fire Victim Support Unit to provide immediate psychological first aid and long-term counselling for affected residents of HDB fires suffering psychological trauma; and (b) whether the Ministry will collaborate to host community engagement sessions in fire-affected precincts to strengthen psychological resilience and overcome shared trauma.
Mr K Shanmugam: In the event of a residential fire, immediate medical assistance will be provided to residents who have suffered injuries, including psychological first aid for those who are in mental distress. Where necessary, People's Association grassroots organisations will coordinate the provision of essential items like food and daily necessities, and the Housing and Development Board will provide temporary accommodation. Those who require long-term psychological support should seek professional help from the healthcare system.
We assess that there is no need to establish a Fire Victim Support Unit. The Singapore Civil Defence Force usually conducts a \"Post Fire Blitz\" following a residential fire to engage residents in the vicinity on fire safety and promote good fire safety habits.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation of Existing Fire Safety Measures on Repair and Renovations for High-Rise Buildings' External Walls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in light of the recent tragic fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong (a) whether the Government will be reviewing existing fire safety measures and industry practices in the repair and renovations of external walls of high-rise buildings; and (b) whether there are continual inspection regimes to assess the fire safety risks of external features and materials erected or attached to high-rise building.\n\n
Mr K Shanmugam: As part of its efforts to ensure fire safety, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) conducts regular enforcement checks on worksites to ensure that building owners fully comply with the relevant fire safety requirements, including the use of only features or materials attached to building facades which had been approved by SCDF.
The Ministry of Manpower also conducts worksite inspections to ensure compliance with the Workplace Safety and Health Regulations, including measures to address work-related fire risks.
The Government has started reviewing the early observations from ongoing investigations into the fire at Wang Fuk Court in Hong Kong and is studying whether we need to strengthen the relevant regulations for works during the construction and maintenance of residential buildings in order to better manage fire safety risks. The outcome of this ongoing review will be announced in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Existing Limits and Proposed Standards for Regulation of Emergency Vehicle Siren Noise Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the existing regulations or limits governing siren noise levels for emergency vehicles; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider setting or reviewing such limits to ensure that sirens are calibrated solely to effectively alert other road users while minimising noise impact, especially in residential areas.
Mr K Shanmugam: Emergency vehicles, such as ambulances, fire engines and Police vehicles, are equipped with sirens that meet the SAE J1849 international standard, which sets the minimum sound level required to ensure that they are audible enough to be effective as warning devices.
These sirens are necessary to ensure that emergency services are able to respond promptly to situations where there may be a threat to life or property. They are only activated when necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fire Safety Safeguards and Statutory Intervention Measures in Severe Public Housing Hoarding Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what fire safety safeguards are in place for cases of severe hoarding in high-rise public housing; (b) whether such cases pose heightened evacuation or firefighting risks to neighbouring residents; and (c) whether clear statutory thresholds exist or will be introduced for compulsory clearance by the authorities or the Town Council where fire or public safety risks arise.
Mr K Shanmugam: All Housing and Development Board (HDB) units are designed and built in accordance with the prevailing Fire Code. Each unit functions as a fire compartment to limit the spread of fire. Fire escape routes and exit staircases in HDB buildings are also designed to be well-ventilated to disperse smoke for safe evacuation.
Dealing with hoarding behaviour is a complex matter and the management of severe hoarding cases is coordinated through the inter-agency Hoarding Management Core Group and the New Environment Action Team (NEAT). Agencies partner with community groups to support the hoarders and their families in decluttering.
While there have been, on average, fewer than six fires annually involving hoarding over the past five years, the key fire safety risk to both the occupants and for neighbouring units is the obstruction of escape routes during emergencies. When hoarding extends into the common areas of HDB estates, Town Councils are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Singapore Civil Defence's (SCDF's) fire safety requirements, and they work closely with the SCDF to rectify fire hazards in common areas, such as blocked corridors. If fire hazards are found during enforcement checks, SCDF will take action against the relevant Town Council.
Within the unit, the occupant generally has a right to store what household items he or she wishes. Where the threshold for public health and safety risks has not been crossed, agencies need to obtain the cooperation of the hoarder to agree to the decluttering process, and they do this with the assistance of community support groups. However, if the hoarding is of such severity that it impedes the escape of the occupant in the event of a fire, SCDF may direct the occupant to clear and maintain a path of escape within the unit for safety reasons. Failure to comply is an offence which carries a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. As a measure of last resort, the Director-General of the Community Relations Unit can apply to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) to declutter the hoarded unit, if an earlier CDRT order to the unit to declutter has not been complied with and there is public interest to do so.
The Government will continue to monitor the fire situation in relation to hoarding behaviour and introduce further legislative or regulatory levers if necessary.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Codification of \"Agony of the Moment\" Defence in Penal Code 1871 for Negligent Driving Prosecutions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the common law principle of the \"agony of the moment\" defence will be codified in the Penal Code 1871 for negligent driving prosecutions of motorists who have little or no time to react to sudden and unforeseeable pedestrian or cyclist actions.
Mr K Shanmugam: The standard of care required under the relevant offences in the Road Traffic Act and the Penal Code is that of a reasonable and prudent driver. This already includes an assessment of whether the driver was reacting reasonably to a circumstance for which he or she was not responsible. Where the driver acted reasonably, no offence of negligent driving would be disclosed.
There is therefore no need to codify the common law concept of \"agony of the moment\" as a defence to negligent driving.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ten-Year Trend Analysis of Mental Health Condition Diagnosis Detection among National Servicemen","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) what percentage of National Servicemen currently diagnosed with mental health conditions received their first diagnosis (i) before enlistment and (ii) during their National Service; and (b) how do these percentages compare to those from 10 years ago.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Minister of State for Defence, Mr Desmond Choo, had provided the latest figures on the proportion of full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) who sought help for mental health related issues in his response to a Parliamentary Question from Ms Gho Sze Kee on 4 November 2025. [Please refer to \"Full-time NSFs Declaring Psychological or Mental Health Conditions Prior to Enlistment and Support Provided\", Official Report, 4 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 9, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
While the figures vary year to year, there has been a general upward trend of NSFs seeking mental health support over time. This is consistent with our national youth mental health trend.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Policy Review of Cardiovascular Health Prevention, Treatments and Expansion of Community-based Rehabilitation Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) over the past five years, whether the Ministry has assessed out-of-pocket costs faced by heart patients on lifelong medication; (b) how do cost pressures affect long-term treatment compliance; and (c) whether additional subsidies or financing support are being considered.
18 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) over the past five years, what structured follow-up care has been provided to patients after hospitalisation for heart attacks; (b) how adherence to medication and lifestyle changes is monitored post-discharge; and (c) whether community-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes will be expanded.
19 Mr Gabriel Lam asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) over the past five years, whether the Ministry has identified gaps in early detection of heart disease among working-age adults; (b) how cardiovascular screening uptake differs by income and occupation; and (c) whether targeted or subsidised screening will be expanded for higher-risk groups.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Comprehensive cardiovascular care entails prevention, treatment and long-term management.
Beyond health promotion efforts to encourage healthy lifestyles, Healthier SG screening provides subsidised screening for diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia, which are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Eligible Singapore Citizens who are enrolled with Healthier SG enjoy fully subsidised cardiovascular risk factor screening at their enrolled Healthier SG clinic. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has also extended subsidies to eligible individuals and their family members to undergo genetic testing for Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH), as those with FH are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Patients may also consult their doctor on targeted screenings which are clinically appropriate for them based on their risk profile.
Based on the National Population Health Survey (NPHS) 2024, cardiovascular risk factor screening rates among residents have returned to pre-COVID-19 levels, with higher screening participation from residents with post-secondary education than residents with primary or secondary education.
For patients with cardiovascular conditions, such as heart attacks, structured follow-up care following hospitalisation is provided at Specialist Outpatient Clinics (SOCs) and primary care settings. This includes regular reviews to optimise control of risk factors and lifestyle interventions, such as smoking cessation and dietary modifications. Suitable patients may also be referred to cardiac rehabilitation programmes provided by Public Healthcare Institutions (PHIs) or social service agencies, such as the Singapore Heart Foundation. Patients may also receive support from primary care doctors under Healthier SG and at Community Health Posts to stay on track with their care plans.
Cardiovascular patients may benefit from subsidies of up to 75% for drugs on the Standard Drug List and the Medication Assistance Fund list, including lifelong drugs used to manage cardiovascular conditions. They may also make annual MediSave withdrawals of up to $700 for the management of cardiovascular conditions on the Chronic Disease Management Programme in SOCs and primary care settings, depending on the complexity of their condition. Additionally, seniors aged 60 and above may tap on an additional $400 per year from the Flexi-MediSave scheme. We regularly review these schemes to ensure that patients' treatments are kept affordable at our PHIs. Patients in our PHIs who face affordability challenges after subsidy and MediSave may apply for additional financial assistance, such as MediFund.
MOH is committed to providing comprehensive cardiovascular care and ensuring that essential cardiovascular treatments remain accessible and affordable through our healthcare system.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sustainable Indicators for Changes under New Integrated Shield Plan Rider Design Requirements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health what specific indicators of sustainability in private health insurance premiums and claim levels were used in formulating the new design requirements for Integrated Shield Plan riders that take effect on 1 April 2026.
21 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry has modelled changes in out-of-pocket spending for typical hospital cases under the new Integrated Shield Plan rider design as compared to the current design; and (b) if so, what are the projected figures.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Questions No 20 and 21 have been addressed in the oral reply to Questions No 1 to 4 at the 12 January 2026 Parliament Sitting.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of HPB and MOE's Canteen Vendor Compliance Audits for Healthy Meals in School Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr David Hoe asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Health Promotion Board (HPB), together with MOE, conducts periodic audits of canteen vendor compliance with the Healthy Meals in Schools Programme guidelines; (b) if so, what is the (i) audit frequency and coverage (ii) 2020 to 2024 compliance rates and (iii) common breaches and enforcement actions; and (c) if not, whether HPB will consider instituting regular audits and corrective timelines.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Health Promotion Board (HPB) regularly assesses compliance with the Healthy Meals in Schools Programme (HMSP) guidelines. From 2020 to 2024, on average, more than half of school canteen stalls fully meet the HMSP guidelines. Common areas of non-compliances include the usage of non-Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) sauces, meat-based products or noodles.
HPB shares assessment results with schools and canteen vendors and provides recommendations to canteen stalls on areas for improvement. To help canteen vendors meet the HMSP guidelines, HPB provides resources, such as the HMSP Toolkit for Schools, which includes sample recipes using healthier ingredients and cooking methods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expanding CDMP Coverage to Include High-Burden Autoimmune or Multisystem Conditions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what clinical, epidemiological or cost-effectiveness considerations have precluded autoimmune or multisystem conditions such as lupus, Crohn's disease and small fibre neuropathy from the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP); and (b) whether less prevalent conditions that impose high care burden on the individual and show clear benefits from early intervention can be considered for future inclusion to the CDMP.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) are regularly reviewed by a Clinical Advisory Committee (CAC), comprising family physicians and specialists from the public and private sectors. In assessing the inclusion of conditions onto the CDMP, the CAC consults clinical experts in various healthcare settings and considers factors, such as disease burden, suitability of primary care in managing these conditions, availability of evidence-based clinical guidelines for appropriate care of the condition and cumulative cost to the patient from long-term treatment.
Lupus, Crohn's Disease and Small Fibre Neuropathy are conditions that are less prevalent in our population compared to the conditions listed under CDMP and are primarily managed by specialists in the hospital. Their management involves complex therapies that are not routinely managed in primary care through the CDMP.
Even though these conditions are currently not on the CDMP, eligible patients already receive subsidies of up to 75% at Specialist Outpatient Clinics for their treatment and medications. Patients aged 60 years and above can also tap on Flexi-MediSave to pay for treatments and medications, up to the prevailing withdrawal limit.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Healthcare Support for Young Adults with Chronic Conditions outside CDMP Coverage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether existing outpatient subsidies are adequate for younger adults who require specialist care for chronic conditions that remain outside the Chronic Disease Management Programme list; and (b) whether the Ministry can allow such patients greater flexibility to use MediSave for outpatient treatments and services for diagnostic scans and screenings given the elevated risk of additional complications for such conditions.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In general, subsidies at public Specialist Outpatient Clinics are differentiated by per capita household income, rather than age, so that more help can go to lower income families. For lower income patients who have more complex conditions with higher outlay, they can access additional Government support such as MediFund.
MediSave can be used to pay for certain costly outpatient treatments, such as outpatient scans to diagnose and treat medical conditions, including those not listed on the Chronic Disease Management Programme. We will be raising the annual MediSave limit for scans from $300 to $600 from 1 January 2026. MediSave is also extended to cover screenings that are clinically and cost-effective for the population.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Market Share and Pricing Safeguards for Private Equity-backed Nursing Homes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health following the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore's clearance of the recent merger between Singapore's two largest private nursing home operators, (a) what is the combined market share of private equity-backed nursing home operators; (b) what percentage of the Ministry's Build-Own-Lease operating subventions currently flow to such operators versus Voluntary Welfare Organisations; and (c) what safeguards exist against future price increases in an increasingly consolidated market.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The two merging private nursing home operators will account for around 10% of the total nursing home market. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore has assessed that the merger does not result in a substantial loss of competition in the provision of nursing home services.
One of the key reasons is that under the Build-Own-Lease model, Government fully funds the capital costs of development and appoints both private and non-private operators for the facility through competitive tenders, which lowers the barrier to entry for nursing home operators and supports the diversity of options. The distribution of Government operating subvention to private operators is generally proportionate to their subsidised market share.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Breast Cancer Screening Age Limit for Early Detection and Subsidies for Women under 50","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) for breast cancer screening under Healthier SG, whether the Ministry will consider lowering the age limit to women aged 45 years and above for early detection as the risk of breast cancer increases with age; and (b) what are the subsidies available for women aged 50 and below seeking breast cancer screening.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Currently, under Healthier SG Screening, eligible women aged 50 to 69 years old can undergo fully subsidised breast cancer screening every two years. Women aged 40 to 49 years old can do so too, if their doctor deems it to be clinically appropriate.
The incidence of breast cancer has steadily increased over the last few decades across age groups, including younger women in their 40s, and the Ministry of Health will continue to review the evidence and screening recommendations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Omission of Hearing Loss Data in National Population Health Survey and Auditory Tests under Healthier SG for Early Intervention","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) why is hearing loss data omitted from the 2024 National Population Health Survey; (b) whether objective hearing assessments will be reintroduced into national surveys; and (c) whether there are plans to train healthcare professionals to recognise hearing loss as a systemic risk factor and include auditory tests in Healthier SG for early detection and intervention.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The National Population Health Survey (NPHS) focuses on monitoring key population health indicators on the prevalence of chronic diseases and lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking and alcohol consumption. Data collection on self-reported hearing loss from the NPHS is conducted on a rotational basis. The latest available NPHS data on prevalence of self-reported hearing loss in residents is from 2023.
Today, healthcare professionals who encounter individuals with suspected hearing loss will conduct the necessary investigation and management, including specialist referrals as appropriate. Based on the Screening Test Review Committee (STRC) 2019 recommendations, screening for hearing loss via audiometry is currently recommended for high-risk groups, such as individuals with exposure to excessive noise, and there is no recommendation for population-level screening for hearing loss.
To support early detection of hearing issues among seniors, the Ministry of Health launched Project Silver Screen (PSS) in 2018, a nationwide community functional screening programme that screens seniors aged 60 and above in their vision, hearing and oral health. Seniors identified with abnormalities are referred to services like community hearing clinics for further checks and to obtain assistive devices like hearing aids where required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Loneliness and Psychological Distress among Seniors Living Alone","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what trends the Government is observing regarding seniors living alone and associated mental health risks; (b) how community-based detection and early intervention for loneliness and psychological distress among seniors are being strengthened; and (c) how these efforts align with Singapore's broader preventive health strategy.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, the number of one-person households for those aged 65 and above has more than doubled from 2014 to 2024, rising from 42,100 to 87,200 households. Based on a local study published by the Duke-NUS Centre for Ageing Research and Education (CARE) in 2018, older adults aged 60 and above and who lived alone were twice as likely to report depressive symptoms as those who did not live alone.
Under Age Well SG, the Ministry of Health is stepping up efforts to address social isolation by drawing seniors out of their homes and encouraging them to participate in active ageing programmes. The Silver Generation Office conducts outreach to identify at-risk seniors and connect them to community resources, such as Active Ageing Centres, for buddying and befriending services. Seniors with psychological needs will be referred to the community mental health teams for assessment and support.
","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 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination by Gender and Age Groups for Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the current Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination take-up rates for Singaporeans aged 9 to 26, broken down by (i) males and (ii) females, respectively, over the past five years; and (b) whether there are plans to review access to school-based HPV vaccination for males.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the National Childhood and Adult Immunisation schedules, the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is recommended for females aged nine to 26 years for prevention of cervical cancer. To increase vaccination coverage among the young females, a school-based vaccination programme was launched in April 2019.
The HPV vaccination rates for females aged 15 years may be found in the Reports on Communicable Diseases Surveillance in Singapore and the Department of Statistics Singapore website. As there is currently no vaccination recommendation for males, the coverage is not tracked.
While HPV vaccination also confers protection against HPV-related cancers in males, the incidence among males is many times lower than cervical cancer among females, hence vaccination is not a national recommendation for young males. Nevertheless, males who feel that they are at high risk of getting HPV may consult their doctor on HPV vaccination.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Furthering Singapore's Foreign Policy Objectives through Foreign Disaster Assistance and Rescue Missions and Plans to Expand Contingent Sizes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) how do foreign disaster assistance and rescue missions further Singapore's foreign policy objectives as a responsible global citizen; (b) what are the current size and standby capacities of these teams; and (c) whether there are plans to significantly expand contingent sizes during major regional disasters by incorporating trained volunteers, full-time national servicemen, or operationally ready national servicemen.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore contributes to foreign disaster assistance and rescue missions as a responsible and constructive member of the international community. These contributions help to support people in times of need, demonstrate solidarity with affected countries and promote broader bilateral ties.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) maintains a 24/7 operationally ready contingent capable of rapid mobilisation and deployment for overseas humanitarian missions. Operating under the codename \"Operation Lionheart\" (OLH), the primary capability of this contingent is to provide Urban Search and Rescue assistance to disaster-affected countries. SCDF's OLH contingent comprises 80 personnel and four search dogs.
Aside from SCDF regular officers, the OLH contingent incorporates both full-time National Servicemen, for example, NSF Medical Doctors, and Operationally Ready National Servicemen (in roles such as Deputy Team Leader, Rescue Technician, and so on). The OLH was recently deployed to Myanmar in March 2025 after a devastating earthquake to assist in search and rescue efforts, including the successful extrication of a live casualty from a partially collapsed building, the recovery of disaster victims from quake-affected structures, as well as the establishment of a medical outpost for the provision of medical aid.
For major regional disasters, SCDF maintains established protocols for activating additional standby personnel, and additional OLH teams can be deployed in support of the humanitarian efforts, if required.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Comparison of Unit Costs and Energy Intensity of Singapore's Water Sources over Past Five Years and Balancing Water Security with Affordability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) over the past five years, how does the unit cost and energy intensity of desalinated water compare with NEWater and imported water; (b) how are these costs expected to evolve with a sixth desalinated water plant; and (c) how will the Government balance water security with long-term affordability.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Desalinated water is more energy-intensive and costly than NEWater and imported water but is necessary as a weather-resilient source and one of our Four National Taps.
As with all of its new plants, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) will introduce the latest proven technologies in the sixth desalination plant. Some of these will reduce the cost of producing desalinated water. For instance, PUB is exploring technologies, such as ultra-permeable membranes and ceramic membranes, to bring down the energy intensity of desalination.
PUB will need to make the necessary investments in water infrastructure so that it can continue to meet Singapore's growing water demand. Our water conservation efforts help to moderate the demand growth and reduce the need for additional water infrastructure and its associated costs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Traffic Noise Exposure in Residential Areas and Plans to Mitigate Long-Term Impacts of Environmental Noise on Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how is cumulative traffic noise exposure in residential areas near expressways and viaducts assessed; and (b) whether environmental noise mitigation criteria will be reviewed to better account for long-term impacts on residents' sleep, mental wellbeing and health.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) works with other agencies to ensure that Traffic Noise Impact Assessments are conducted for new residential developments located in close proximity to existing land traffic noise sources, such as expressways, as well as new land traffic noise sources located in close proximity to existing residential developments.
The assessments entail projecting future noise levels at residential areas from existing or new land traffic noise sources, and recommending noise mitigation measures for either the new residential development or new road infrastructure to meet the noise limits specified in the Technical Guidelines for Land Traffic Noise Impact Assessment developed by NEA.
NEA will work with other agencies to periodically review the Technical Guidelines to ensure that they remain relevant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Resource Allocation for Rising Domestic Violence Tier 1 Cases in Community Agencies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of the inaugural Domestic Violence Trends Report 2024 showing upward trends in Tier 1 cases (a) what additional resources have been allocated to community agencies managing the increased caseload; and (b) whether there are updates to the average caseload per social worker at Protection Specialist Centres.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This question has been raised in this House on 5 November 2025 by a number of Members and answered jointly by the Minister-in-charge of Social Services Integration. [Please refer to \"Lessons Learnt and New Processes following Review into Megan Khung Case\", Official Report, 5 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 10, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
We have no further updates at this time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Low Attendance Rate Among ComLink+ Children in Anchor Operator Preschools and Intervention Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development given that only 26% of the ComLink+ children enrolled in anchor operator preschools achieve regular attendance of 75% or above (a) what are the primary barriers to attendance; and (b) what interventions are being planned or implemented.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: This question has been addressed in the reply to Parliamentary Question No 60 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 12 January 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandatory Psychological Assessments and Background Checks for All Preschool Staff Including Non-teaching Personnel","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Ms Gho Sze Kee asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of a recent case involving a former preschool cook who has pleaded guilty to three counts of molestation of minors, whether the Ministry will (a) reconsider introducing mandatory psychological assessments for all preschool staff, including non-teaching personnel; and (b) consider extending background checks to non-teaching personnel as well.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Preschool operators have to apply to the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to obtain approval for all staff, including non-teaching staff, whom operators wish to deploy to work in a preschool. As part of our review of such applications, ECDA will conduct checks to assess that the individual does not pose a risk to children's safety or whether the individual has been barred from working in a preschool. Individuals must also complete a self-declaration form on any prior offences committed and warnings issued by ECDA or the police.
ECDA does not impose mandatory psychological screening for preschool staff seeking employment in the sector. Instead, staff must complete a pre-employment medical check and be certified fit to work with children by a medical practitioner before they can be approved for deployment. This includes a compulsory declaration of whether they have a history of psychiatric conditions. If so declared, the individual must obtain certification from a medical practitioner that he or she is suitable to work with young children.
Individuals who furnish false information to ECDA can be found guilty of having committed an offence under the Early Childhood Development Centres Act and can face a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both, if convicted. ECDA may also cancel the approval for such persons to be deployed to work in preschools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ministry's Support for Family Resilience and Initiatives to Navigate Challenges while Promoting Work-Life Balance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how is the Ministry enhancing support for families in strengthening family resilience and promoting work-life harmony, particularly for families with young children; and (b) what programmes or initiatives have been most effective in helping families navigate challenges while fostering strong family bonds.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Families are the bedrock of our society. Based on the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) survey on families in 2023, 85.9% of families reported moderate to high family resilience scores. MSF actively works with our community and corporate partners to journey with families through every stage of life.
The Families For Life (FFL) movement supports families through a wide range of evidence-based or evidence-informed programmes and resources. These include marriage preparation programmes which equip couples with essential skills and build strong foundations for their marriage, the Journey with You (JoY) marriage initiative that provides mentoring to couples in their first year of marriage, and parenting programmes that provide parents with strategies to foster positive parent-child relationships. Couples and parents have generally found these programmes to be effective. In 2025, the roll-out of Families for Life@Community across all 24 towns was completed. Couples and parents now have greater access to these programmes and support groups.
MSF also works with the FFL Council to promote family bonding through partnerships with community and corporate partners. National initiatives, such as the National Family Festival, provide opportunities for families to spend time together. FFL Council also supports employers to foster family-friendly workplaces, such as organising lunchtime talks on parenting topics and corporate family days. Together, these efforts reinforce the importance of family time and work-life harmony.
We encourage employers to provide a family-friendly work environment to help employees manage both their work and caregiving responsibilities. This includes availing Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) to those who require it. The Tripartite Guidelines on FWA Requests are intended to facilitate this by setting out how employees should request for and use FWAs responsibly and how employers should respond to these requests.
In addition, we have progressively enhanced parental leave provisions to support working parents, including recent enhancements to Government-Paid Paternity Leave and the introduction of the new Shared Parental Leave scheme. When fully implemented from 1 April 2026, eligible couples will be entitled to 30 weeks of paid parental leave in the child's first year.
For couples and families facing stress in their marital or family relationships, there are online resources on the Family Assist portal, as well as professional family counselling provided via the Strengthening Families Programme (FAM). Families can seek help and gain the support and skills to handle their relationship challenges and build family resilience.
There is no single policy or programme that is most effective in strengthening family resilience. Our approach is to holistically support families at every stage of life, from upstream programmes that foster strong relationships to additional support for those facing challenges and stresses. Building a family-friendly Singapore is a whole-of-society endeavour. Besides the Government's efforts, strong social and community networks created by community partners, businesses and individuals also contribute to strong and resilient families.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Elderly Recipients Aged 65 and above Receiving ComCare Long-Term Assistance and Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for the three latest reporting years, what are the (i) total number of beneficiaries aged 65 and above receiving ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) and Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA) respectively and (ii) percentage these seniors represent within the total pool of ComCare recipients for each scheme; and (b) what percentage of current Silver Support Scheme recipients are concurrently receiving ComCare LTA or SMTA.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Based on the ComCare Trends Report FY2018 to FY2022, the number and proportion of ComCare Long-Term Assistance (LTA) beneficiaries aged 65 and above were 3,400 (81% of all LTA beneficiaries) in FY2020, 3,300 (81%) in FY2021, and 3,200 (82%) in FY2022. For ComCare Short-to-Medium-Term Assistance (SMTA), the respective figures were 7,500 (9% of all SMTA beneficiaries) in FY2020, 7,300 (10%) in FY2021, and 5,500 (9%) in FY2022. The Ministry of Social and Family Development stopped computing the number and proportion from FY2023, as the figures have remained stable and are of limited analytical use.
Data on the proportion of Silver Support Scheme recipients that concurrently receive ComCare LTA or SMTA are not available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Upstream Preventive Support Enhancements for Vulnerable Households under ComLink+ Towards Better Social Mobility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what indicators are used under ComLink+ to assess whether families have achieved stability and upward social mobility; (b) what proportion of ComLink+ families continue to face persistent challenges relating to family functioning and child well-being; and (c) how are insights from recent ComLink+ outcomes informing enhancements to upstream preventive support, particularly for children and caregivers in vulnerable households.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The indicators used to track families' progress towards stability, self-reliance and social mobility, and families' outcomes in the domains of family functioning and children's development and education, are available in the Ministry of Social and Family Development's Supporting Lower-Income Households Trends Report 2025 at https://go.gov.sg/msflowerincometrendsreport2025.
Under ComLink+, family coaches and Family Service Centre (FSC) case workers identify families with greater needs and work with relevant agencies to address them. This includes programmes and services providing upstream support for children and caregivers, such as preschool enrolment and KidSTART.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lasting Powers of Attorney Amendments and Revocations by Family Justice Courts and Donee Age Group in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Social and Family Development based on Government records over the past five years, how many Lasting Powers of Attorney have been (i) amended, (ii) revoked by the donee and (iii) revoked by court order issued by the Family Justice Courts, respectively, each as broken down by donee age group.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Under the Mental Capacity Act, no amendments can be made to a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) once it is executed. To make changes to an LPA, a Donor must revoke his or her LPA and make a new LPA to replace the one that has been cancelled. An LPA can only be revoked by the Donor and not the Donee.
In the past five years (2021 to 2025), 4,379 LPAs were revoked and replaced with a new LPA by the Donor. Of these, 3,799 Donors were aged 50 and above. Within the same period, four LPAs were revoked by a Court order.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Trust and Content Standards for State-Supported Digital Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information whether the Government is concerned about the potential impact that STOMP might cause on public trust and the standards expected of state-supported platforms, given its content that often resembles tabloid-style coverage.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government does not intervene in the editorial positioning of individual newspapers or media outlets. Nevertheless, we expect all media outlets to uphold responsible journalism standards by ensuring their news reporting is accurate, fair and complies with the law.
Additionally, STOMP is individually licensed under the Online News Licensing Scheme. Licensees have to comply with content standards to safeguard racial and religious harmony, public order, as well as good taste and decency.
The Member may wish to write in to STOMP if she has specific concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Address Verification under Primary School Registration Proximity Policy and Action Taken on Fraudulent Declarations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the Ministry’s process to verify addresses declared under the Primary school registration proximity policy, and how are fraudulent declarations detected; (b) what is the policy for schools on reporting fraudulent declarations to the Police; and (c) what is the Ministry’s standard protocol if fraud is discovered after enrolment and what consequences could be faced.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view towards parents who intentionally falsify address information for the purpose of Primary 1 (P1) registration, as this undermines the integrity of the P1 Registration Framework.
The address used for P1 registration should be the official address of the registering parent as reflected in his or her NRIC at the time of registration and declared by the parent to be true and correct. The parent and child are expected to reside at the declared address. Parents are also allowed to use the address of a yet-to-be completed property where the family must move in within two years of the child's entry into P1, resale property where the family must reside from the start of the child's P1 school term or the address of a caregiver. Parents have to declare these addresses accordingly during P1 registration.
Cases of false address information are detected through regular school checks on addresses, and also reports from members of the public. MOE will investigate such cases rigorously. We are also continually strengthening our detection and investigation capabilities.
Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, MOE will transfer the child to another school with available vacancies based on the family's actual residential address. Our schools will help the child to settle into the receiving school.
Giving false information to a public servant is a criminal offence punishable under the Penal Code. Where there is reason to believe that false information has been given, MOE will refer the case to the Police for their investigation and action.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Unutilised SkillsFuture Credits and Transfer Options to Immediate Family Members","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"42 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the average amount of unutilised SkillsFuture credit for each eligible Singaporean; and (b) whether the Ministry will reconsider its position regarding transfers of SkillsFuture credits to immediate family members, particularly if the donor member is elderly, or suffering from debilitating illnesses or disabilities.
Mr Desmond Lee: The SkillsFuture Credit encourages Singaporeans to take individual ownership of their lifelong learning and skills development, to support their learning needs across different stages of their career and life. From January 2016, Singaporeans aged 25 and above are provided with the opening SkillsFuture Credit of $500 to pursue skills-related training. Since May 2024, we have provided a $4,000 SkillsFuture Credit (Mid-Career) top-up to Singaporeans aged 40 and above to support substantive training.
As of December 2024, more than one in three eligible Singaporeans have utilised their SkillsFuture Credit. The average utilised amount in the base tier is approximately $330. The average utilised amount in the mid-career tier is approximately $420. Data for December 2025 will be available in February 2026.
As the SkillsFuture Credit is intended to support Singaporeans to take ownership of their own lifelong learning journey, unused credits are not transferable between individuals, including immediate family members. Those who have used up their SkillsFuture Credit can continue to benefit from the generous course fee subsidies of up to 90% for SSG-supported programmes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Addressing Social Media Harms and Strengthening Student Cyber Resilience","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"43 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education in light of forthcoming restrictions on the use of smartphones by secondary school students during school hours (a) whether the Ministry has plans to study the negative harms posed by the prevalent use of social media applications by young teenagers; and (b) how does the Ministry intend to further enhance cyber resilience among students.
Mr Desmond Lee: The potential harms of social media on youth have been studied by many researchers. For example, researchers have identified that excessive use and unhealthy or developmentally inappropriate content on social media can affect one's mental well-being.
Through Cyber Wellness lessons in primary and secondary schools, students are taught to maintain a healthy balance of online and offline activities, including managing the use of social media. Students also learn skills to recognise risks in the digital space, identify and discern negative influences, and to be a positive peer influence. In addition, the Positive Use Guide on Technology and Social Media, which was recently released by the Government, provides youths with practical tips on building healthy and balanced relationships with technology, and relevant portions have been incorporated in Cyber Wellness lessons.
Beyond the classroom, parents play a key role in guiding and monitoring their child's online activities. Schools will continue to work with parents by sharing resources, expert insights and strategies through relevant platforms, including Parents Gateway, to help parents guide their child in the use of technology and devices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incorporating Declassified Albatross File Materials into Educational Curricula, Its Timeline and Teachers' Training","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education in respect of the declassified materials in The Albatross File on Singapore's Independence, (a) how will the Ministry incorporate these materials into social studies, history and national education curricula; (b) what are the timelines for updates to textbooks and digital resources; and (c) what guidance and training will be provided to teachers to handle these primary sources and differing interpretations.
Mr Desmond Lee: Students learn about Singapore's separation from Malaysia in Social Studies and History. In primary Social Studies, students learn about key developments in Singapore's history, including Singapore's merger with Malaysia, and the separation. In lower secondary History, students build on this foundation with a more detailed study of Singapore’s road to independence from 1945 to 1965.
Updates to the history curriculum and textbooks occur periodically as new evidence-based historical interpretations or accounts emerge and as more historians reach a consensus. The Ministry of Education works with academics, public agencies and organisations to develop the syllabuses, textbooks and resources for History, Social Studies and Character and Citizenship Education as part of our regular reviews. Even before the declassification of the Albatross File, the release of new sources and academic works since the late 1990s had already led to the incorporation of the negotiated separation into the history textbooks. Hence, our students have already been learning that leaders from both Singapore and Malaysia played a part in making the separation happen.
As part of the learning of history, our teachers help students understand that valid historical interpretations require substantiation by sound reasoning and evidence and may be updated in the light of newly discovered historical sources. The perspectives and source materials of the recently declassified Albatross File will be incorporated into our syllabuses and teaching resources in an age-appropriate manner. This will enrich students' inquiry, enhance their understanding of different perspectives, and enable them to reach a more nuanced conclusion about Singapore's separation from Malaysia.
To support appropriate pedagogical use of these materials, teachers will receive guidance through two channels: updated teaching guides for the respective subjects and workshops focusing on deepening teachers' understanding and competency in handling historical sources, evidence and interpretations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Three-Year Suspension of Primary 1 Student Intake Imposed on Madrasahs Given Consistent Successful PSLE Performance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"45 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education in view that the four madrasahs have met the PSLE benchmark since 2021 (a) whether failure to meet the PSLE benchmark will result in a three-year prohibition on the intake of Primary 1 students; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will review such a requirement.
Mr Desmond Lee: The four madrasahs are designated schools under the Compulsory Education Act. They are required to meet the PSLE benchmark at least twice within each three-year assessment period. This requirement, which remains relevant, ensures that children in madrasahs have a firm academic foundation.
Since 2011, the four madrasahs have met this requirement.
46 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Education following the expiry of the one-off SkillsFuture Credit top-up on 31 December 2025 (a) what are the numbers of eligible Singaporeans that have (i) not utilised the credit and (ii) partially or fully utilised the credit, respectively; (b) what is the total amount that remains unutilised; and (c) how will the unutilised sum of monies be redeployed by the Ministry.
Mr Desmond Lee: The SkillsFuture Credit utilisation data for end-2025 will be available in February 2026.
47 Dr Hamid Razak asked the Minister for Manpower how are employers' obligations to provide acceptable accommodation and adequate food to Work Permit holders enforced during periods when workers have pending Employment Claims Tribunal cases or Work Injury Compensation claims.
Dr Tan See Leng: This question for written answer has been addressed by written reply to Question No 28 for written answer in the Order Paper for 6 November 2025. [Please refer to \"Publication of Provisional Guidelines for Adequate Support Towards Workers in Pending Cases and/or Claims\", Official Report, 6 November 2025, Vol 96, Issue 11, Written 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":"Publication of Quarterly Statistics on AI-related Retrenchment and Redeployment of Affected Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"48 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will publish quarterly statistics on (i) retrenchments citing AI being one of the reasons for redundancy (ii) the redeployment rates of such affected workers and (iii) the average time for these affected workers to re-enter employment; and (b) if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) surveys businesses on the reasons for carrying out retrenchments, with business restructuring being one of the categories. The proportion of retrenchments due to business restructuring has generally ranged from 60% to 70% since 2024. Business restructuring may stem from productivity improvements or work efficiency gains arising from the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) or other technological advances.
The Government will continue to study the impact of technological adoption, including AI, on employment trends.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Monthly Salary for Singaporeans Aged 60 and above in Full-time Employment as of December 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"49 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower as of December 2025, what is the breakdown of Singaporeans aged 60 years and over working full-time who earn a gross monthly salary, with and without employer CPF, of (i) below $2,000, (ii) $2,000 to $4,000 and (iii) above $4,000, respectively.
Dr Tan See Leng: A breakdown of the number of full-time employed residents by gross monthly income is published on the Ministry of Manpower’s website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Unsafe Workplace Practices Complaints Made via SnapSAFE and Enforcement Actions Taken against Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"50 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of unsafe workplace practice complaints reported via SnapSAFE in 2025; and (b) of all reports made via SnapSAFE in 2024 and 2025, what is the number of valid reports resulting in companies being issued a warning or enforcement action.
Dr Tan See Leng: Following the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) annual “Reporting Saves Lives” campaign launched in 2023, we have seen greater willingness to report unsafe workplace practices. In 2025, there were approximately 1,700 reports of unsafe workplace practices received via SnapSAFE.
About 70% of the reports made across 2024 and 2025 led to enforcement actions including the issuance of warnings. The remaining reports either did not contain sufficient information for MOM's follow-up or did not result in the identification of work-related lapses.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Policies on Managing Heat Stress and Driving Fatigue in WSH Guidelines for Migrant Workers and Commercial Drivers for High-risk Outdoor and Transport Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"51 Mr Cai Yinzhou asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry studied and incorporated lessons from the Ministry of Defence’s operational policies on managing heat stress and driving fatigue into the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) guidelines for migrant workers and commercial drivers; and (b) if so, what policy or procedural lessons have been adopted or adapted to enhance the WSH framework for high-risk outdoor and transport sectors.
Dr Tan See Leng: Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) guidelines are developed by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the WSH Council in consultation with key stakeholders, which include relevant Government agencies. We have also involved the Ministry of Defence, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and their related entities in our reviews of guidelines on heat stress and fatigue management. As the training and operating conditions in the military are unique, MOM and the WSH Council incorporated lessons and practices where relevant to other workplace settings.
On heat stress, the SAF's practices have informed enhancements to the guidelines on measures to address heat stress, such as acclimatisation programmes and rest breaks, and recognition of heat illness symptoms.
On driving fatigue, the WSH Guidelines on Fatigue Management have incorporated feedback from DSO National Laboratories. The guidelines are applicable to commercial drivers and set out recommended measures, such as fatigue reporting mechanism for employees, sufficient rest periods in the work schedule and identification of fatigue symptoms.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of New Employment Pass Applications in Financial Services Sector and Non-financial Services Sectors in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"52 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each year over the last five years, what is the 10th percentile, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and 90th percentile salary for new Employment Pass (EP) applications for (i) the financial services sector and (ii) sectors outside financial services; and (b) whether EPs have been granted to persons who did not meet the minimum qualifying salary for their relevant application periods.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) regularly reviews the Employment Pass (EP) qualifying salary to keep pace with local PMET1 wages and ensure that EP holders are of good calibre. From 2021 to 2025, the EP minimum qualifying salary increased from $5,000 to $6,200 for the financial services sector and from $4,500 to $5,600 for all sectors other than financial services.
Over the same period, the median fixed monthly salary of new EP applications2 increased from $13,300 to $15,000 for those in the financial services sector and from $8,000 to $9,200 for those in all sectors excluding financial services. Tables 1 and 2 provide the values for different quartiles.
The EP qualifying salary applies to the vast majority of EP holders. MOM works with sector agencies to provide targeted flexibilities in areas that support our economic priorities. Any such flexibility is granted carefully, taking into account a range of factors.
53 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in 2025 (a) what is the average processing time for work injury compensation claims by platform workers to receive payout compensation; (b) whether the Ministry tracks the reasons for the rejection of such claims; and (c) if so, what are the top three reasons.
Dr Tan See Leng: On average, work injury compensation claims by platform workers are processed within six months from the date of incident report submitted to the Ministry. Under the Work Injury Compensation Regulations, upon the processing of the claim and assuming there are no outstanding notices of objection, the designated insurer must pay out any compensation within 21 days.
The main reason for rejection of claims in 2025 was that the injury or disease did not arise out of and in the course of platform work. For example, if the worker was injured while running personal errands in between platform work tasks, this would not be deemed a work injury and would hence be ineligible for claims.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Construction of Wildlife Exclusion Fences between Central Catchment Nature Reserve and Lorong Asrama Forest in View of Enhancing Ecological Connectivity","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"54 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government can share the rationale for constructing wildlife exclusion fences between Central Catchment Nature Reserve and Lorong Asrama forest, given the commitment to enhancing ecological connectivity in the North West Region; and (b) whether the implementation of alternative connectivity measures, such as rope bridges and culverts, can be considered for this site.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: To mitigate vehicular-wildlife collisions, the National Parks Board has announced earlier this year that it would extend exclusion fences to nine additional locations in Singapore, including major roads along areas such as the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. These locations were identified to be higher-risk areas based on past incidents.
Developed in consultation with wildlife groups and academic experts, the exclusion fences also serve to guide wildlife towards alternative crossings, such as the Eco-Link @ BKE and existing culverts. This makes it safer for wildlife to move between green spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care for Property Agents to Declare Use of AI-edited Images and Videos of Property Listings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"55 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development whether the Council for Estate Agencies has any plans to update the Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care to specifically require property agents to declare images and videos portrayed on property listings that have been edited by artificial intelligence.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care requires property agents to ensure that all materials that advertise or promote a property accurately describe the property. In line with this, agents should provide sufficient disclaimers to inform consumers of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to alter or enhance images or videos, to avoid misleading them.
CEA is reviewing its regulatory guidelines to provide clarity to the real estate agency industry on the use of AI in property advertisements. This review aims to balance consumer protection with support for industry innovation and development.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conversion of Excess Multi-storey Carpark Levels into Community Sports Facilities in Jalan Kayu-Fernvale","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"56 Mr Ng Chee Meng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider converting excess multi-storey carpark levels, especially the often \nunder-utilised upper decks, to provide more community sports facilities for the Jalan Kayu-Fernvale community.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board is working with Sport Singapore (SportSG) to consider the conversion of under-utilised capacity in multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) into community sports facilities and will keep the Member's request in mind, as SportSG progressively develops the Sport-in-Precinct facilities in various communities.
As the MSCPs are specifically built for vehicle parking, conversion into sports facilities is subject to detailed evaluation, such as demand for parking spaces over time, potential disamenities to residents and safety considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Bird Species Tracked and Conservation Status of Bird Species in Forested Area East of Sungei Serangoon","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"57 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry tracks the (i) total number of bird species and (ii) number of migratory bird species, in the forested area east of Sungei Serangoon between Tampines Road and Serangoon East Dam; (b) if so, what are they; (c) whether the Ministry tracks the conservation status of all bird species in the area; and (d) how many are classified threatened according to Nature Society Singapore.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The National Parks Board keeps track of the conservation status of bird species, including locations of verified sightings, via expert contributions through the Singapore Red Data Book and data submitted by the public.
Based on the 2024 edition of the Singapore Red Data Book, Nature Society Singapore reported sightings of 52 threatened bird species in the area between Buangkok East Drive and Lorong Halus Wetland, which is north of where plans have been announced to site a bus depot to improve public transport services for residents.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring of and Investigations into Illegal Short-term Rental Listings on Online Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"58 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry conducts active monitoring of illegal short-term rental listings on online platforms; and (b) how many public reports were received and investigated by the Ministry regarding suspected illegal short-term rentals since 2017; and (c) how many of these cases have led to prosecution.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) actively monitors rental listings on online platforms. Depending on the severity of the case, URA takes a range of enforcement actions against illegal short-term rentals in private residential properties, including Court prosecution for egregious cases.
Since 2017, URA has investigated about 3,600 cases of illegal short-term rentals and prosecuted 35 offenders in Court.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implications of 15-month Cooling Period for High-Value HDB Flat Sellers versus Private Property Sellers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"59 Ms Diana Pang Li Yen asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the 15-month cooling period policy is equitable when sellers of high-value HDB flats who realise substantial capital gains may immediately purchase another HDB flat, while private property sellers with lower gains are subject to the restriction; and (b) whether this policy needs to be recalibrated based on realised housing gains rather than property type.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The 15-month wait-out period for private property owners was introduced as a temporary measure to moderate the demand for Housing and Development Board (HDB) resale flats and help prioritise access to affordable public housing for Singaporeans with more urgent housing needs, such as first-time home buyers.
Prior to the implementation of the 15-month wait-out period in September 2022, the number of private residential property owners buying HDB resale flats had doubled in 2021 and the first three quarters of 2022, as compared to 2019 and 2020. Compared to other resale buyers, a higher proportion of buyers who were current and former private residential property owners paid Cash-Over-Valuation (COV) and incurred higher COV amounts.
Seniors purchasing 4-room or smaller flats are exempted from the 15-month wait-out period today. HDB also considers appeals from households facing extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Since 2022, HDB has acceded to about one in four of such appeals.
We will continue to monitor the resale market and when conditions allow, we intend to remove the 15-month wait-out period requirement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Subletting of HDB Shops Purchased by Foreign Buyers and Proposal to Impose ABSD on Foreign Buyers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"60 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB shops purchased by foreign buyers have been sublet; (b) whether the Ministry will consider imposing Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) on foreign buyers of HDB shop units, including shops where there is no residential component; and (c) if not, why not.\n\n
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Of the 8,500 privately-owned Housing and Development Board (HDB) shops, less than 1% are owned by foreign individuals. There is no requirement for owners, whether they are locals or foreigners, to inform HDB when they sublet their shops.
The objective of the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) is to moderate demand for residential property. There are currently no plans to impose ABSD on commercial properties, including non-residential HDB shop units.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Population Planning Criteria to Determine Construction of New Mosques","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"61 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the population planning parameter used to determine whether a new mosque will be built; and (b) whether such a parameter includes the (i) daytime working population and (ii) foreign workers.
Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) plans ahead for the religious needs of the Muslim community. It takes a prudent and sustainable approach in building new mosques, which are funded by the community via the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund (MBMF). MUIS takes into consideration key factors that contribute to the future utilisation of facilities, such as projected population changes as well as land development plans, including the building of new housing estates.
MUIS also monitors worship patterns on the ground, which includes Muslim residents as well as local and foreign workers, to ensure adequate supply of prayer spaces. Where necessary, MUIS works with the mosques and relevant agencies to provide additional prayer spaces, such as dual worship sessions for Friday prayers, and the provision of prayer spaces at dormitories. MUIS will continue to support the Muslim community in fulfilling its religious obligations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Detection of Tunnel Squatting along CTE, MCE and KPE Road Tunnels and Enhancement of Road and Subway Tunnel Safety Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"62 Mr Victor Lye asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has detected tunnel squatting, in which tunnel linings are deformed from compression, along road tunnels such as the CTE, MCE and KPE; (b) whether current coordination protocols and monitoring of construction activities near MRT and road tunnels are sufficient; and (c) how does Singapore's road and subway tunnel safety standards compare with those of other countries that experience tunnel squatting.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Squatting is more likely to occur in circular bored tunnels running through softer ground. Road tunnels in Singapore are rectangular and constructed using the cut-and-cover method and are thus less susceptible to tunnel deformation. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has not detected any significant deformation of our road tunnels.
Singapore's standards for the construction and monitoring of rail and road tunnels are aligned with international best practices and are comparable to the standards of other cities with extensive tunnel networks, such as Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo.
Comprehensive protocols are in place to protect our rail and road infrastructure from nearby construction activities. Developers must obtain LTA's prior approval for works. Where such works are in close proximity to tunnels, developers must deploy monitoring instruments and carry out regular inspections. Additionally, LTA audits developers to ensure that such monitoring and inspections are properly implemented.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enhancing Public Transport Network Connectivity for Bukit Batok West Residents Travelling to Jurong East, Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"63 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Acting Minister for Transport how is the Ministry enhancing Singapore's public transport network to improve connectivity, efficiency and commuter experience, especially for residents staying in Bukit Batok West who need to travel to Jurong East, Choa Chu Kang, and Bukit Panjang estates.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Bus services in Bukit Batok West were recently enhanced under the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. We improved the frequency of service 991, shortening wait times for residents travelling to Choa Chu Kang. Service 984 was introduced in October 2025 and provides an additional direct bus for residents travelling to Jurong East. These complement existing services, such as 180 and 993, which bring residents to Bukit Panjang and Jurong East respectively. In the future, Bukit Batok West will also be served by the Jurong Region Line, which will give residents another option for travelling to Jurong East, Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Evaluation of Major Train Delay on North-South Line and Frequency of Similar Train Faults in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"64 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) what are the root causes identified for the major delay on the North-South Line between Ang Mo Kio and Woodlands on 26 December 2025 due to a train fault; (b) how often have similar faults occurred on the North-South Line in the past three years; and (c) how are incident responses evaluated for improvement.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Preliminary investigations indicate that the delay was caused by a fault in the backup power system that supports critical systems on the affected train. For safety reasons, the train is designed to stop if there is a loss of power to its critical systems.
This was the first occurrence of such a fault. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and SMRT are working with the train's original equipment manufacturer to identify the root cause and measures to prevent a recurrence.
LTA and the rail operator will review the overall incident response to identify areas for improvement, including in terms of service recovery, commuter management and public communications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Lack of Lift Installation Plans for Pedestrian Overhead Bridge near Block 301D Anchorvale Road","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"65 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the relative density of seniors living in a nearby precinct, rather than at the town level, is considered when prioritising lift installations for pedestrian overhead bridges; and (b) whether such considerations were applied in the decision to not retrofit the pedestrian overhead bridge near Block 301D Anchorvale Road with an elevator.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority considers the number of seniors living in the vicinity when prioritising the retrofitting of lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges. Block 301D is not at Anchorvale Road but Anchorvale Drive. The pedestrian overhead bridge near Block 301D Anchorvale Drive meets this criterion and will be retrofitted with a lift within the next few years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementation of Long-term Maintenance and Renewal Strategies to Enhance MRT Resilience over Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"66 Mr Jackson Lam asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) over the past five years, what long-term maintenance and renewal strategies have been implemented to enhance MRT resilience as the network ages; (b) how often are rolling stock and signalling systems replaced or upgraded; and (c) whether the current asset management practices are benchmarked against global best practices to reduce systemic faults.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Major systems on our rail network, such as rolling stock, signalling and power systems, are scheduled for replacement based on the original equipment manufacturers' recommended service life, historical performance and whether components continue to be supported by the original equipment manufacturers.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and rail operators also perform periodic technology upgrades on these systems to ensure reliable operation throughout their service life. Additionally, they install condition monitoring tools on these systems to enable predictive maintenance and early detection of potential faults.
LTA and the rail operators' practices meet the international ISO 55000 standard, which sets out what is required to establish and maintain an effective asset management system. The standard requires processes and systems to regularly evaluate the performance of assets, and to institutionalise clear risk assessment and decision-making frameworks to guide asset maintenance and replacement. Metro operators in cities, such as Hong Kong and London, also benchmark their rail asset management practices to this standard.
The Rail Reliability Taskforce has also submitted its report, which includes recommendations to further improve management of rail assets. This includes how renewal of core rail systems can be prioritised and carried out in a shorter time, and more comprehensive use of condition monitoring to strengthen maintenance. The Ministry of Transport is reviewing the Taskforce's recommendations and will provide a response by the first quarter of this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strengthening Enforcement Actions Taken against Illegal Exhaust Modifications or Breaches of Noise Emission Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"67 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) in the past two years, how many vehicles were penalised for illegal exhaust modifications or breaches of noise emission standards; and (b) whether enforcement, penalties or detection methods will be strengthened given the disproportionate impact of such noise on residents' sleep and mental wellbeing.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: In the last two years, approximately 1,600 and 350 vehicle owners were penalised for illegal exhaust modifications and breaches of noise emission standards respectively.
The Land Transport and Related Matters Bill, to be introduced in the January Parliamentary Sitting, will include heavier penalties for the illegal modification of exhaust systems.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Awareness and Take-up Rate of Frontline Referrals and Community Development and Welfare Fund among Low-income Households","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"68 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the current level of awareness and take-up of the Community Development and Welfare Fund (CDWF) among low-income households and frontline referrers such as school counsellors and social workers; and (b) if awareness is below target, what measures will be taken to strengthen outreach.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA).
The PA's mission is to promote social cohesion and act as a bridge between the Government and the people. It is a Statutory Board that supports the elected Government of the day in implementing its policies and programmes. This includes providing social assistance and welfare support to residents in need.
The Community Development Welfare Fund (CDWF) serves as one of the mechanisms to deliver such support. The CDWF is a Grassroots Organisation (GRO)-administered fund that supports local community and welfare programmes. Examples of such activities are grocery distributions, educational bursaries and scholarships, and direct welfare assistance for needy residents.
GROs facilitate CDWF awareness and access through multiple channels. Publicity at local estates include posters, banners and social media outreach highlighting available programmes. In some Divisions, partners, such as schools and Social Service Agencies, lean forward to work with the GROs through referrals to the CDWF programmes and publicity/ outreach efforts. We encourage all local partners to work with PA to support residents in need.
Through PA’s networks, we are also aware of residents who require assistance. PA has many touchpoints on the ground, including our many Community Clubs and digital channels, such as neighbourhood chatgroups. Grassroots Leaders (GRLs), as familiar faces residing in the neighbourhood, are also well-positioned to identify residents in need through regular interactions such as community activities and house visits, and through their own neighbour networks. For example, when house fires occur, PA and GRLs are alerted of households that require interim housing and essential supplies through chatgroups or neighbours. Residents may also approach GRLs directly for assistance.
PA will continue to strengthen our outreach and work with our partners to connect residents in need to the appropriate assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6835,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lee Hong Chuang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260112/vernacular-Lee Hong Chuan PQ 12Jan2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Hong Chuan PQ 12Jan2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6837,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Wan Rizal","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260112/vernacular-12 Jan 2026 - Dr Wan Rizal - Health Information.pdf","fileName":"12 Jan 2026 - Dr Wan Rizal - Health Information.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6838,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260112/vernacular-Joan Pereira HIB 12Jan2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira HIB 12Jan2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6839,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Sharael Taha","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260112/vernacular-12 Jan 2026 - Mr Sharael Taha - Public Sector (Governance).pdf","fileName":"12 Jan 2026 - Mr Sharael Taha - Public Sector (Governance).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}