1 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2025, how many cases did HDB receive regarding condensation and mould on walls or ceilings arising from neighbours’ continuous air conditioning use; and (b) whether HDB will consider requiring flat owners to undertake wall or ceiling enhancements as part of preventive maintenance obligations.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for National Development): In 2025, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received a total of about 240 cases of feedback regarding condensation and mould on walls or ceilings arising from neighbours' use of air-conditioners.
Upon receiving such feedback, HDB will conduct inspections to determine the cause of the condensation and mould, and provide appropriate advice to the flat owners and neighbours, including how they are using their air-conditioners. We also recommend flat owners to keep rooms well-ventilated to minimise mould growth and consider the use of mould-resistant paint as a preventive measure.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. The reason I am asking this is because I have seen an increasing trend of appeals with regard to these kinds of issues, especially mould caused by continuous use of air-conditioning by neighbours. The challenge for residents is that they cannot do anything because it is coming from the neighbour's unit. I would like to ask if HDB will consider mandating wall or ceiling enhancements for people, if they are going to be continuously using the air-conditioning. If not, then what measures could be taken to ensure accountability or cost-sharing or timely resolution of condensation disputes between neighbours?
My second question would be whether guidelines would be introduced to clarify responsibilities of affected flat owners? Because the damages are quite serious – entire walls or ceilings. The mould has also led to some health issues for many of my residents.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for the questions that she raised. HDB can consider providing an advisory to the neighbours on proper usage of air-conditioners, for instance, when it comes to the length of air-conditioning use or temperature settings. As to her suggestion on wall and ceiling enhancements, HDB has to explore if these enhancements will truly work. And as for whether or not we could stipulate them, I think we will have to take a look the specific circumstances, the specific cases. Where there are egregious uses where it has led to damage in the corresponding neighbour's flat, then based on the case specifics, we will have to see how the compensation can be best shared by the two individuals.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Approved Adoptions following News of Indonesian Ring Trafficking Babies to Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in light of recent news of an Indonesian trafficking ring transferring babies to Singapore (a) how many approved adoptions are being reviewed further; (b) how is the Ministry ensuring that affected families can obtain clarity and resolution expeditiously; and (c) whether the Ministry is considering providing interim assistance to these families, particularly where the adoptees have not obtained Singapore Citizenship.
The Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Investigations by the Indonesian authorities into the alleged trafficking of Indonesian babies are underway. The Singapore Government is currently working closely with our Indonesian counterparts to review these allegations. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is unable to comment on the number of cases currently under review at this stage.
Child trafficking is a serious matter as it exploits children’s vulnerabilities, violates their rights and separates them from their biological families for personal gain or criminal purposes. It also affects the children’s long-term well-being and development.
MSF has been engaging affected families to provide more information on processes and to address their concerns as information becomes available. We are also working closely with the relevant authorities to ensure that cases are reviewed expeditiously, while safeguarding the welfare and best interests of the children involved.
MSF takes these matters seriously and will continue to work with relevant authorities to ensure appropriate safeguards, transparency and support for affected families.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. He mentioned that the investigations by the Indonesians are underway, and I think our Government is cooperating with them, something along those lines. Is he able to give any indication of the timeline as to how long this will take? I have constituents affected by this situation and they have already been caring for these babies for more than a year and this uncertainty is a torture to them. So, would the authorities in Singapore be able to give any indication of how long this is going to take – months or years. This is really quite devastating.
The second question is, there is an issue of, perhaps, public confidence in the adoption process. These parents in Singapore are innocent parties that have done every step in accordance with the law. And I think the MSF officers and their partners have also looked into each adoption case before recommending to the Court whether the case could be supported and, on that basis, the adoption orders were given. So, my question is, was there any possibility that the MSF officers or its partners could have discovered any suspicious circumstances before the orders were made?
And the third question actually concerns expenses in child raising. In the case which I know of, the adoption order has been given but the child's application for citizenship is on hold now because of this investigation. Because of this, the parents will have to incur childcare expenses and so on, based on the foreign nationality of the child. Given this unique situation, where the parents are innocent, really, can the agencies give a special exception to allow these expenses of these affected families to be incurred on a Singapore child basis, to take into account the fact that they have applied for citizenship and it is on hold because of something outside of their control. I would like to ask the Minister of State these questions.
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: I thank the Member for the questions. Let me take the three questions, one by one.
MSF empathises with the parents and we understand that the uncertainty may cause a little bit of anxiety for the affected families. Investigations are still underway and we are trying our very best to work closely because this involves not just within Singapore, but also with the Indonesian authorities. Therefore, we are trying to proceed as expeditiously as possible and to give the families resolution. We are unable to comment on a timeline at this juncture.
In terms of public confidence in the process and especially in terms of whether there are certain things that we are looking into the process or the agencies involved, I think adoptive parents are informed of the process and they proceed with adoption under the framework that has been put out. There are certain processes in place to ensure that agencies abide by certain procedures to ensure the babies are of the correct origin, appropriate sources. But at the same time, agencies which parents approach for such child-matching services, many of them – in fact, all of them – operate on a commercial basis. Therefore, the onus is on adoptive parents to try their best and ensure that children are identified, matched and placed in accordance with the prevailing laws of both Singapore as well as the child's origin country.
For the third question in terms of process, I would just like to explain that we recognise that navigating both the adoption process as well as the citizenship process can be a long process, especially because we understand that the parents would have already made commitment, enduring commitment and it is also an emotional commitment to the child.
I would just like to explain that we keep the adoption process and the citizenship process separate because they are governed by different legal frameworks and policy considerations. Adoption establishes the legal parent-to-child nexus and it is assessed primarily based on the child's welfare and suitability of the adoptive parents. Whereas the citizenship process, on the other hand, establishes the immigration considerations and evaluates based on that.
Without adoption, there will be no legal nexus for the Singapore parent and the foreign child; whereas an adoption is necessary to formally establish that relationship in the eyes of the law before we can proceed with establishing the legal status of the child and applying for citizenship for the child. Not all adoption applications will get approved for citizenship.
All prospective adoptive parents are also informed of this process during the social investigation procedure, MSF will inform them of that – that the adoption and the citizenship processes are actually delinked processes and the granting of citizenship is not automatic following the adoption order. We also inform them that the citizenship process can take up to 12 months. This is to ensure that the families proceed with a clear understanding of the processes and the potential outcomes.
Having said so, MSF recognises the emotional stress and especially the financial strain, like what the Member has highlighted. If the adoptive parents do need financial assistance, they may approach MSF and we will assess every case based on the circumstances.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
\tMs Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Perhaps, one more supplementary question. I am not sure whether I heard the Minister of State correctly. When I asked about whether the agencies could have uncovered the suspicious circumstances earlier, he mentioned something to the effect that the parents engaged the adoption agencies on a commercial basis. So, is he saying that there is nothing more that the agencies can do to try to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? I mean, the parents, really, what can they do?
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: Allow me to clarify. I mentioned that the agencies operate on a commercial basis. However, we do have guidelines telling the agencies what they can and cannot do, and what is due diligence on their part. If we do uncover that agencies are aware that the children they are bringing in are of unknown and suspicious origin and despite so, bring them in, they will be taken to task. We will take the necessary actions against those agencies. We expect the agencies to do due diligence and to bring in children of correct background and origin, having done all the due checks prior to bringing them in.
Having said so, there may still be cases whereby something may have been done in the country of origin, with the agencies in Singapore not knowing of what that background may be. I do not think we should comment further specific to this case. It is under investigation. We should let the investigation run its course, before I comment further.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Monitoring and Enforcement of Noise Threshold Compliance of Construction Noise near Residential Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) in relation to construction noise near residential estates, how is compliance with noise thresholds enforced and how frequently is it monitored; (b) how are prolonged duration and cumulative exposure to such noise factored into enforcement measures; and (c) whether noise thresholds will be reviewed, including the use of psycho-acoustic factors such as sharpness and roughness of sound.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, construction sites within 150 metres of residential premises are required to install noise meters which the National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors. NEA takes strict enforcement action against contractors who exceed the permissible noise levels, with more severe enforcement action typically taken for repeated offences as well as those with a longer duration of time above the permissible noise level.
NEA will continue to review the regulations including the permissible noise levels to ensure that they remain relevant and effective in protecting public health.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Chen.
\tDr Charlene Chen (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. Residents in Tampines living near the long-running Loyang Viaduct construction have reported prolonged stress from construction noise. So, given that sounds of similar decibel levels can differ in perceived loudness and distress, does the Ministry consider the use of psycho-acoustic factors, such as sharpness and roughness, in the review of thresholds?
And another supplementary question would be what are the penalties when construction sites exceed noise thresholds?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Dr Charlene Chen for her questions. When it comes to psycho-acoustic factors, we take reference from the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, which currently do not include psycho-acoustic factors, but this is a part of the science that is under review. We will continue to review our stance as well as take reference from the WHO with respect to what are the factors of sound that we take into account when enforcing the framework.
Dr Chen also asked about the penalties. There are different ways in which we do this. The requirement for monitoring itself is a burden placed on the site operator, potentially requiring closed circuit television (CCTV), continuous real time monitoring. But if they transgress, then we will take further action against them. And if they fail to comply with the regulations, they will be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $40,000. In cases of continuing offences, further fines not exceeding $1,000 a day, or part thereof, during which the offence continues after conviction. Thereafter, there are composition sums, depending on the circumstances of the case and the court findings.
\t
Mr Speaker: Ms Gho Sze Kee.
\tMs Gho Sze Kee (Mountbatten): Similar to the hon Member, Dr Chen, I also receive feedback from residents of RiverEdge, a condominium that is situated in Tanjong Rhu. The lived experience on the ground appears to differ materially from what average equivalent continuous sound level (LEq) measurements suggest, with the Tanjong Rhu Build-To-Order construction site located less than 150 metres of existing residential block, residents have informed me that these repeated short bursts of intense construction noise that are technically compliant when averaged over five minutes – but nonetheless, they are quite disruptive.
So, I have two questions for the Senior Minister of State. In such close proximity situations, how does NEA assess whether the current averaging based approach adequately reflects the actual disturbance experienced by the residents? And will the Ministry consider using Lmax instead in assessing compliance and addressing residents' complaints?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Gho for her questions. Indeed, we will consider and review how to best provide the correct supervision, regulatory framework and enforcement. We need to have a balance between the protection of the public health and allowing necessary work to proceed.
And indeed, we do have an averaging of five minutes, but we also have some of the framework where it is averaging over 12 hours.
So, there is a balance that we need to strike for different types of sound: persistent recurrent, repeated sharp bursts, as Ms Gho has pointed out. The current framework requires an average sound level over five minutes and she has asked us about Lmax, which means, not taking into account the time span for a person to be exposed to that sound, but the absolute level for the sound exposure. It is indeed something that we can study and we will study together with taking reference from the WHO guidelines that I explained earlier, which is the basis on which we have developed our framework. And this is also something that is under study internationally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Enforcement Measures Against Pet Groomers and Proposal for Mandatory CCTV Recordings in Pet Grooming Facilities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development whether the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) will consider (i) mandatory CCTV recordings in areas where pets are handled or housed in pet grooming facilities and (ii) requiring licensed operators to retain such footages for investigation purposes, to support accountability and transparency.
5 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are being taken to strengthen enforcement against pet businesses, including pet grooming facilities, that fail to comply with the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) and Code of Animal Welfare; and (b) whether under the review of the ABA, serious negligence by pet businesses causing animal harm or death may result in enhanced penalties or longer licence suspensions.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 4 and 5 on today's Order Paper together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes. Please proceed.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Mr Speaker, all individuals working in animal-related businesses, including pet groomers, are entrusted with the care of their clients' animals and are expected to uphold high standards of animal welfare. Hence, these individuals face higher maximum penalties under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) for animal cruelty and welfare offences compared to other members of the public. Failure to meet minimum standards stipulated under the Code of Animal Welfare may be used as evidence for enforcement action. Upon conviction for an animal welfare offence, the Court may also issue a disqualification order to an individual to disqualify them from owning an animal or running an animal-related business for up to 12 months.
The National Parks Board (NParks) has investigated 54 cases of feedback alleging harm to pets caused by groomers over the past three years. We are reviewing the regulatory regime for pet sector activities, including pet grooming businesses, under the ongoing review of the ABA. We will consider whether to include requirements for closed circuit television (CCTV) recordings when we amend the legislation. We are also reviewing the appropriate penalties for animal welfare and cruelty offences, including those that apply to animal-related businesses.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I thank the Minister of State for the reply and for the reassurances. I do have a few supplementary questions for both my Parliamentary Questions (PQs). For my first PQ, I would like to ask, are the current standards for supervision of pets during grooming sessions, particularly when they are secured in holding areas or cages, whether the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) would review the protocols for this to prevent prolonged unsupervised confinement that may result in distress or worse, injury or fatality?
And the other supplementary questions for this PQ are: what are the current processes and response time for handling complaints of suspected negligence in pet businesses? And how can AVS improve public reporting channels and investigation process to ensure timely follow-up?
The whole point is really, how to, first of all, report and also, how can pet owners be more aware of businesses that have had complaints and may not have followed protocols. But more importantly, are there going to be tighter protocols, for when they are in confined areas or unsupervised?
For my second PQ, I would also like to ask, apart from penalties – because that is after the fact and when once pet is injured, or I think the distress I have had for my residents and many pet owners who have shared that it can be extremely distressing and so, rather than penalties, which are good deterrents, but really prevention – so, will AVS consider introducing mandatory certification or competency requirements for pet groomers? And more importantly, skills training to ensure proper animal handling, not so much the grooming, but the animal handling and safety protocols, and more importantly emergency response when the pets are injured.
Will the Ministry also review the licensing conditioning for pet grooming businesses to incorporate minimum supervision requirements and emergency preparedness protocols?
\tMr Speaker: That is a lot more than two supplementary questions. Minister of State Alvin Tan.
\tMr Alvin Tan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Clearly, it is a very important topic. First of all, as I mentioned to the Member, we are reviewing the ABA and we are getting feedback from Members, as well as members of the public. We are reviewing under the review of the ABA, the regulatory regime for pet sector activities and this includes pet grooming businesses and the other areas in which the Member has highlighted.
With regard to the Code for Animal Welfare, which I mentioned earlier on, this is for specific to the pet industry. This Code of Animal Welfare specifies minimum standards and best practices for pet businesses and pet groomers. All pet groomers are encouraged to comply with these sets of standards and best practices, and that includes not leaving animals unattended in rooms, unsupervised, as the Member had mentioned.
But where there are breaches to this code, they can be used to support prosecution under the ABA and where unnecessary pain or suffering has been found to be inflicted on the animal, that is section 42 of the ABA, or failure of duty of care is found, section 41 of the ABA, NParks then can take an appropriate enforcement action under ABA. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Minister of State for National Development\", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Correction By Written Statement section.]
So, we are looking at all of these reviews under the review of the ABA. Currently, there are already levers for NParks to take action and we will take all of the feedback into regard.
If members of the public or the Member herself comes across any reports, please feel free to contact AVS. I have gotten the number here – it is 1800 4761 600. And AVS will be prompt and swift.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regulating Owners of Large Rental Car Fleets due to Impact on Private Hire Drivers' Livelihoods After Insolvency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the LTA should consider regulating owners of large rental car fleets, given the impact on private-hire drivers' livelihoods if these car rental companies were to undergo financial distress or insolvency; and (b) how will the LTA work with tripartite partners, including the National Private Hire Vehicles Association, for an orderly transition and to safeguard drivers’ livelihoods in such circumstances.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Acting Minister for Transport): We are deeply sympathetic towards the plight of drivers who are affected by the Autobahn business failure. We recognise the impact large car rental companies have on drivers' livelihoods when such companies become financially distressed or insolvent.
That is why, when the Autobahn situation happened, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) worked swiftly with the National Taxi Association (NTA), the National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA) and the point-to-point (P2P) operators to help affected drivers secure other vehicles and earning opportunities. If drivers wish to seek civil recourse, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) also has a legal clinic to provide legal advice to members, including on contractual issues.
Availing of such support does not require car fleet owners to be regulated. Regulation can result in increased compliance burden and ownership cost for private hire vehicles which could likely be passed through to drivers and passengers.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): Thank you, Speaker. With the growing number of private hire drivers renting their vehicles from third party rental companies, many are actually subjected to non-standardised and often onerous rental contract terms. This includes, for instance, high excesses for vehicle damage and unclear clauses governing termination, as in the Autobahn case, penalties or the withdrawal of driver benefits.
What more can the Ministry or the LTA do, working with NTUC, the NPHVA and the NTA to equip our drivers to better understand and compare rental agreements, so that they can make informed decisions and avoid unfair contractual terms.
The other one too, is whether or not, such contract literacy and consumer protection guidance can actually be incorporated into the curriculum for our vocational licences.
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for raising the questions. LTA will work with the associations to increase drivers' awareness of their rental contract terms so that they are more aware of their contractual rights and obligations.
On her second point, LTA will set up a workgroup to review the vocational licence curriculum and this review of the curriculum will include the recent Platform Workers Act and its relevant protections. We are also open to including in the curriculum, education on contractual matters.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Ng Chee Meng.
\tMr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I declare my role in NTUC as the Secretary-General. In this case, Senior Minister of State, NTUC's affiliated platform workers associations – NTA and NPHVA – stepped in almost immediately together with the tripartite partners to assist the drivers and provided a timely support, especially in arranging new cars to continue with their livelihood.
But even then, I know that even many of the drivers are concerned about losing their deposits, ranging from $500 to $1,000. This is not a small sum to many of my brothers on the ground. Would there be some measures to ensure that owners of large rental fleets, to get them to ring-fence some of the funds, so that in the event of insolvency, these deposits for drivers can be safeguarded?
\tMs Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question and also his suggestion. With regard to ring-fencing, it is quite close to what the earlier Member had shared. It is along the same lines as to whether or not there can be regulations, whether or not the car dealer industry should be regulated. I had shared in my earlier reply that this can lead to increased compliance burden, which can eventually find its way into becoming higher cost for drivers as well as passengers.
That said, I recognise the difficulties that the current set of drivers who are impacted by the Autobahn situation face. The matter is now before the High Court, but because these drivers are unsecured creditors, it is likely that they will face difficulties getting their deposits back.
And that is why, I think moving forward, we need to work closely with the associations to see how to better equip our drivers about what they understand about their rental contracts.
And where these drivers who are currently impacted face financial difficulties, I think we can work together to see and together with community help, see how we can best help these drivers.
I would also like to add that I think most importantly, which is what LTA has done together with NPHVA and NTA, is to quickly secure new earning opportunities for the drivers, which is what has been done together as a tripartite group to quickly work with GrabRentals, CDG Rent-A-Car, to make sure that the affected drivers are able to secure new vehicles at good contractual terms, so they can quickly get back onto the roads and to continue earning an income.
\t
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Can I just suggest to the Senior Minister of State that perhaps, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) short-term financial assistance for those workers that are in need, may possibly be extended to this group as well, since the company is being liquidated or some scheme arrangements being carried out? For consideration.
\tMs Sun Xueling: Thank you for the suggestion. Let me consult with my MOM colleagues.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Implementing CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme to Enable CPF Members an Option for Higher Expected Returns","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Shawn Loh asked the Minister for Manpower what are the considerations to implement the CPF Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, accepted by the Government in 2016, given that a typical investment portfolio of 65% equities and 35% bonds has earned 9.5% returns per annum over the past five years, and delaying the scheme's implementation may deprive CPF members an option to take risks to earn higher expected returns.
\tThe Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is in the final stages of studying how we can provide further support to Central Provident Fund (CPF) members to plan for their retirement through products that would strike the right balance between risk and return. We will provide updates when ready.
In the meantime, members who wish to invest their CPF savings for potentially higher returns can already do so through a number of low-cost funds under the CPF Investment Scheme.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Loh.
\tMr Shawn Loh (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is often said that time in market is more important than timing the market for investments. And so, I am glad to hear the Minister's update that the Ministry is in the final stages of implementing the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme. For too long have Singaporeans been deprived of the simplified investment choices that the scheme had envisaged.
My question to the Minister is this: given the passage of time, would the Ministry also consider investing resources to educate the broad base of CPF members that can eventually benefit from this scheme? Can we invest a lot more resources to increase the level of financial literacy for the broad base of CPF members whose many CPF savings are still stuck in Ordinary Account, savings that are not used for housing and education, and can be better applied to earn a higher investment return on an expected basis?
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The straight answer is, of course, we will do that. When we have finalised the details of the provision of further support, in terms of planning their retirement through products, striking this optimal balance between risk and return, we will contemporaneously roll out publicity initiatives to educate the broad masses of our CPF members, hoping that they will benefit from it.
I wanted to also address the hon Member's point about timing the market and the time in the market. I fully agree with him. But I think we also have to be very mindful of the fact that whatever plan, whatever investment products that we eventually do end up working with the multiple big providers in the market to provide, we have to carefully study the impact of these proposed adjustments to our CPF system. For us, the penultimate objective has always been to safeguard retirement adequacy.
So, the different features, the parameters that strike this optimal balance between risk and return are quite essential for us.
If you look at the last few years, we have experienced significant market turbulence, significant investment headwinds. When we launch a particular product, any investor who had to liquidate his or her investment for retirement needs during a market downturn would have experienced, depending on how long he has been invested for, a significant drop in his asset value and that can impact adversely his retirement adequacy.
Of course, if you look back with the benefit of hindsight, it is always good to be able to time the market properly. But I think, in reality, looking forward is a more difficult endeavour.
But like I said, we are in the final stages. I do beg for the indulgence of the Member that once it is ready, we will be ready to announce the range of products.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for the update, Minister, on this. It might have saved me one cut for this year's Committee of Supply.
In terms of the launch of the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, I just wanted to ask if this is something which is still part of the consideration set, in terms of this final review of the various options that Minister talked about. After all, it was back in 2016 when the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme was being accepted by the Government, and while we may be considering a various range of options when it comes to investing one's CPF, whether the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme still features in it and whether we can still expect an update by this year.
\tDr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I have shared earlier on that we are close to finalising the details. We will announce it at the appropriate time. We have taken guidance from the CPF Advisory Panel and we are in the process of studying how we can incorporate some of the features, because, obviously, a certain time has passed and the markets have also evolved.
As I have said earlier on, I beg for the indulgence and the patience of every Member in the House. When we are ready, we will announce it.
Mr Speaker: Last supplementary question. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker, for your indulgence. A quick follow-up on this. Minister, I do not want to entirely pre-empt what you will eventually announce, but I wonder if in considering the distribution of equities and bonds for the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, whether the CPF Board will also consider the possibility of one that is fully directed toward the local market as an additional means of providing liquidity to our beleaguered Singapore Exchange (SGX).
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for his suggestion. The construct of the product will take into account different weightages on global equities versus bonds. It will also be a glide path, depending on when the member would enter into the particular product that we are looking at.
These are some of the considerations. Like I said, we are not ready to announce it yet because we are finalising the product.
As to which markets and so on, depending on how we work with — when the hon Member talks about the local market being beleaguered, actually, over the last couple of months, I think the SGX returns has been quite impressive. So, I may not necessarily agree with him on that point.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building on Working Relationship with Saudi Authorities to Manage Haj Arrangements and Quotas for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs how Singapore builds on its established working relationship with the Saudi authorities in managing Haj arrangements, including addressing considerations around (i) quota allocation, (ii) queue arrangements and (iii) health requirements for senior pilgrims.
\tThe Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, Singapore enjoys a strong working relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Hajj and Umrah. We have a quota of 900 places for Haj pilgrims from Singapore and have requested for more Haj places. Most recently, I conveyed this request to the Minister of Hajj and Umrah, Dr Taufiq bin Fawzan Al-Rabiah, during my visit to Saudi Arabia in November 2025.
The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) administers our Haj quota through the MyHajSG portal queue system. Places are allocated on a first come, first served basis for fairness and transparency. An exception is made for senior Haj pilgrims, aged 70 years and above, who are given priority consideration.
From 2026, Saudi Arabia will introduce new requirements for Haj pilgrims to produce a valid medical health certificate. MUIS and the Ministry of Health have worked with local healthcare providers to help our pilgrims fulfil these requirements.
Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Punggol): I had constituents meet with me to ask more about the support that can be given to them for their Haj trips and especially those of their senior parents, particularly in the safety and health aspects when they are at Haj. I hope that the Minister could provide us with some examples of how MUIS, as well as the Ministry, is assisting them on this and supporting them through this.
And I am also heartened that there are workings right now to ask for a higher quota. But could I ask: is there anymore that we can do to improve our chances of obtaining a higher quota for Haj?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions, and I thank her for her concern in this area. It is an important area for the Muslim community here in Singapore.
If you look at how the system works today, Saudi Arabia sets the Haj quota for various countries based on a standardised formula, that is 0.1% of each country's Muslim population. So, Singapore was allocated 900 places for Haj 2026.
Having said that, over the years, if you look back and up to today, Singapore has proactively engaged Saudi Arabia to request for additional Haj quota. While I had conveyed this request, as shared in my answer, during my recent meeting with the Saudi Arabia's Minister of Hajj and Umrah, other Singapore leaders have also raised the same request during their meetings with the Saudi Arabia counterparts. So, I assure the Member we will continue to do so.
At the same time, MUIS works closely with the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Hajj and Umrah in demonstrating excellent Haj management and also compliance with regulation. So, this I believe will put us in good stead to request for larger Haj quota.
So, I would like to urge everyone here, as well as whoever can contribute in this, let us continue to work together to help our Muslim community fulfil their aspirations to perform the Haj.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reintegration of Platform Workers to Traditional Employment through Support for Job Redesign Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Support for Job Redesign programme is deployed to incentivise flexible work arrangements that mirror platform autonomy to attract platform workers back to traditional employment; and (b) if so, what results have been achieved through this programme.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Support for Job Redesign programme aims to help employers redesign jobs to drive business objectives, including accommodating Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs), improve workforce effectiveness and help businesses tap on a broader pool of workers. The programme is not targeted at bringing platform workers back to traditional employment, as platform workers operate under different work arrangements from employees on FWAs.
Workforce Singapore (WSG) does not track the number of platform workers who transition to traditional employment through the programme.
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Given the impact on the long-term career progression on workers who remain in platform work longer than intended, will the Ministry consider such a target to track the number of platform workers who transition back into full-time traditional employment every year, so as to better track the success of relevant initiatives and programmes to achieve that?
And secondly, given that platform work is often perceived to offer better pay and time flexibility than equivalent traditional jobs for workers of the same education levels, how is the Ministry of Manpower working with employers to make workplaces more attractive on these two aspects to incentivise platform workers to make the transition? And what measurable results have been achieved to date?
\t
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Platform workers may choose to do platform work for various reasons. For example, greater flexibility or control over when and how their work is being done. In fact, for those who wish to transit out of platform work, the Government does provide much resources to help them plan their careers and strengthen their employability, such as the Employment and Employability Institute's career matching services. There are also other schemes, such as the Career Conversion Programmes as well as the Mid-career Pathway Programme, SkillsFuture Transition Programmes, to improve their employability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Benefits from Strategic Food Partnership with New Zealand for Singaporeans and Local Businesses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what are the (i) benefits for Singaporeans and (ii) opportunities for Singapore businesses as part of the Strategic Food Partnership with New Zealand.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): The Strategic Food Partnership (SFP) with New Zealand, which was launched in October 2025, aims to strengthen food cooperation between Singapore and New Zealand in areas such as agri-food trade and supply chains, regulations and standards, biosecurity, and research and innovation. This complements the Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies, which Singapore has concluded substantive negotiations with New Zealand. Under the agreement, both sides can continue to receive essential supplies, including food items, during supply chain disruptions.
One initiative we are exploring under the SFP is to expand the existing regionalisation arrangement for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza to include other significant animal diseases, such as African Swine Fever and Foot and Mouth Disease. This would minimise trade disruptions during animal disease outbreaks and can help to maintain consistent food supplies from unaffected regions in New Zealand.
We will also look at ways to facilitate greater food trade. These could include facilitating exchanges between both countries' public and private sector stakeholders, such as food and logistics industry players, to identify pain points, and explore solutions and commercialisation and investment opportunities.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.
\tMs Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister and her Ministry for working so hard at food resilience. Singaporeans love food and we import more than 90%, so this is real important work. I have two supplementary questions.
The first is really on global partnerships as the new pillar. Could the Minister elaborate a little bit more about how certain regions, which we are exploring these partnerships with, the strategy behind identifying these regional priorities? And secondly, could the Minister also describe a little bit more about what sort of collaborations are being pursued as part of the partnerships, be it trade in essential supplies, as mentioned with New Zealand, or also co-investments or technology collaboration, long-term offtake agreements, and so forth?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: With regard to the second supplementary question, I think there are many potential areas where we can work with the New Zealand businesses as well as regulators.
As I mentioned, one example we are looking at is how we can better our regulatory framework so as to reduce the chances of disruption in the areas in case of disease outbreak. There are other areas – whether it is in research and innovation, whether it is in investments cooperation, we will do our very best on both sides to facilitate so that we can benefit from more regular exchanges and also trade-facilitated visits between the two countries.
As to the first question on global partnership, it is an important pillar of our Singapore Food Story 2. I think it fully deserves a better presentation and discussion. So, I would encourage the Member to either file a separate Parliamentary Question or to participate fully when we discuss the Singapore Food Story 2 during the Committee of Supply debate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Take-up Rate of Caregiving Respite Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim –
11 To ask the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) what is the average take-up rate of caregiving respite services; (b) whether there are sufficient services being offered to meet the demand from caregivers seeking help to cope with burnout; and (c) what plans does the Ministry have to enhance the quality of and expand these services to meet the varying needs of seniors, disabled individuals and those with special needs.
\t
\tMs Diana Pang Li Yen (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): Question No 11.
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Sir, respite care services tap on the capacity of existing care services for seniors, persons with disabilities (PwDs) and children with developmental needs. Providers are generally able to meet the demand for respite care, with the Agency for Integrated Care and SG Enable working with providers to prioritise clients with urgent care needs, including cases with caregivers seeking help to cope with burnout.
In 2025, caregivers of over 14,600 seniors and over 3,600 PwDs and children with developmental needs utilised subsidised respite care services.
We will continue to review our respite services to ensure they meet the needs of clients and their caregivers. For instance, we will enhance the Home Personal Care service later this year to offer longer service hours and after-hours care, including for respite care. The Take-a-Break home-based respite programme for PwDs and children with developmental needs is also currently being reviewed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Review of Operational Risks with Consolidation of RSAF's Assets in Fewer Airbases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a strategic review of the decision to relocate Paya Lebar Air Base in light of recent global conflicts demonstrating the vulnerability of concentrated air assets to mass drone attacks and long-range munitions; and (b) whether such consolidation of the RSAF’s assets into fewer air bases significantly increases operational risks during a first-strike scenario.
\tThe Coordinating Minister for Public Services and Minister for Defence (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a small island with no strategic depth and hinterland to absorb an attack, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) needs to develop operational concepts and solutions that are uniquely suited to our security needs, while taking into consideration the competing needs for Singapore's limited land and finite human resources.
Broadly speaking, our circumstances require us to have a robust intelligence and effective threat detection and early warning systems at range, so that the SAF can mount timely and decisive responses with a suite of diversified capabilities across multiple layers and distances where necessary.
Even then, we may not be able to prevent all threats from reaching our shores. For this reason, our critical infrastructures and facilities are hardened against potential attacks, and our key assets can be dispersed in peace time and especially during contingencies. We have also factored in reserve capacities to ensure resilience for scenarios where some of our assets may be destroyed or damaged.
The decision to relocate Paya Lebar Air Base to free up land for national development purposes was a carefully considered one, taking into account the factors I have just mentioned, as well as then-emerging and now-evolving threats.
There are certainly trade-offs involved. We have undertaken a series of additional measures to manage the risks and challenges. For example, in terms of available airbases and runways, we have invested significant resources in expanding Tengah Air Base and Changi Air Base, and lengthening the contingency runway at Pulau Sudong. Tengah Air Base and Changi Air Base are also being upgraded with better detection, response and resilience capabilities, including against the emerging threats posed by drones. Enhancements are also being made in other parts of the SAF.
The SAF will continually assess our operational, infrastructure and capability requirements, taking into consideration the threats on the horizon and available technologies, while carefully weighing the costs and risks to Singapore. For good reason which Members will appreciate, many of our efforts are conducted out of the public eye and not disclosed. We will make public announcements at appropriate junctures should there be good operational and deterrence reasons to do so.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker. Eleven days ago, the United States (US) conducted \"Operation Absolute Resolve\" in Venezuela. In two-and-a-half hours, the US forces struck four air bases with Kamikaze drones, destroyed Venezuela's Russian-supplied Buk-M2E air defences and eliminated aircraft on the ground.
By 2030, I believe these sorts of capabilities will become more widely distributed. So, what is the Ministry's assessment of our post-2030 posture's survivability against this type of strike? And does the Ministry believe that there are concentration risks to be mitigated?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make two points in response to the Member's comment.
First, I have said that based on our geography, the risk of any strike on Singapore is always very high because we lack hinterland or depth – which is why our operational concepts are quite unique for our own operational needs. And I think I will not need to go into details on how we execute our operational concepts.
My second comment is in response to, not just Mr Kenneth Tiong's, but I sense many other Members' interest in the latest evolving technologies on the battlefield. Much has been said about drone warfare. It is not something new. It is something that we have been looking at for many years, even since I was an active member of the SAF.
Maybe to illustrate this point, I will just share a little vignette which Members may be aware of. In 2017's National Day Parade (NDP) – I wonder whether Members will remember the 2017 NDP – many people were impressed by the SAF's dynamic display. The most memorable scene from the 2017 National Day Display was the final act towards the end of the parade and ceremony, where we had our fireworks. Members may recall there was a display put up where we had 300 drones in the sky performing and forming a heart shape.
To many, this was a wonderful conclusion to a very nice NDP. To the informed observers who are in this line of business, we already knew what that meant for the nature of warfare.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Subsidies or Financial Support for Senior Households Living in HDB Flats on Fixed or No Incomes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what additional subsidies or financial support such as property tax rebates, maintenance grants, utility rebates can be considered specifically for senior households living in HDB flats on fixed or no incomes, so as to prevent overburdening of long-time HDB owners who may struggle with costs but wish to remain in their flats.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Finance (Mr Jeffrey Siow) (for the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, the Government actively supports seniors in Housing and Development Board (HDB) households who wish to age in place, with more support for those with lesser means.
Seniors can unlock the value of their flat and receive a regular stream of income through the Lease Buyback Scheme. The Government provides a cash bonus of up to $30,000 for eligible Lease Buyback Scheme participants, on top of the proceeds from selling a portion of their flat's remaining lease. To improve seniors' mobility and safety within their flat, in-home senior-friendly fittings and accessibility solutions, such as grab bars and ramps, are also subsidised via the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme.
The Government also provides direct support for living costs through the permanent Goods and Services Tax Voucher scheme, which comprising cash, MediSave, U-Save rebates and rebates for Service and Conservancy Charges. Seniors who earned low income during their working years and thus have low retirement savings may also receive quarterly Silver Support payments in cash. This was recently enhanced in 2025, with eligible seniors receiving up to $1,080 each quarter, up from $900 previously.
The Government has also from time to time provided additional support, such as Assurance Package payments, as well as property tax rebates. Beyond subsidies and financial support, we are also strengthening community support for seniors. For instance, the Silver Generation Office reaches out to all Singaporeans aged 60 and above to inform them about and connect them to care and support services. We are also piloting Age Well Neighbourhoods, which bring senior-friendly infrastructure and services into existing estates so that seniors have better access to such services in familiar surroundings.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Fadli Fawzi.
\tMr Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Mr Speaker, the Senior Minister of State has mentioned that one housing monetisation option – the Lease Buyback Scheme – has been available since 2009, but yet, only about 12,700 households have taken it up, as of June 2024, which is a relatively low take-up rate.
Does the Ministry interpret this as seniors not needing assistance or as seniors rejecting monetisation as a form of assistance? And if it is the latter, would the Ministry consider finding ways to encourage the take-up rate, or maybe implementing further policies to reduce the cost of living for seniors, so they can continue staying in their own homes on top of encouraging them to extract value from their homes?
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Mr Speaker, we do recognise that, first of all, inflation in the past year has come down, but nonetheless, cost of living concerns remain high on the agenda for many Singaporeans, including the group of Singaporeans that the hon Member talks about, seniors who live in HDB flats. We will be looking very closely at the this group and seeing how much more we can support them.
But specific to the Lease Buyback Scheme, the subscription rate has, in fact, been going up. We will continue to do more to encourage seniors, who wish to take this opportunity to monetise their housing asset, to be able to do that, and to age in place at the same time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Beds for Homeless within Shelters and Measures to Support Transition into Long-term Residences","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many beds for the homeless are in shelters run by (i) the Government and (ii) charitable organisations, respectively; (b) what are the measures to move them to longer-term residences; and (c) what is the success rate of such transition measures particularly for homeless youths and young adults under the age of 35.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, there are currently seven Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)-funded Transitional Shelters and 20 Safe Sound Sleeping Places (S3Ps) run by charitable organisations or volunteer groups. The total bed spaces are 730 and 160 respectively.
Transitional Shelters provide onsite social work intervention to residents to help them address underlying issues and work towards stable long-term accommodation options. They also link the residents to community partners and volunteers to provide social support, so that their transition to long-term housing is stable and sustainable.
Youths and young adults aged 35 years may exit the different types of stable long-term accommodation. Some reconcile with their families, while others move to open market rental, or to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) Public Rental Scheme. Based on data in recent years, the average length of stay for youths and young adults in Transitional Shelters was seven months, compared to 10 months for individuals in Transitional Shelters.
I will also invite the Member to refer to the 2025 MSF Street Count report, published recently on 9 January 2026 for more details on how the Government provides support for rough sleepers and the homeless to attain long-term housing stability. MSF will also continue to monitor the situation and address any emerging trends.
Mr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions. The first one, does the Ministry have dedicated outreach teams to proactively check on rough sleepers and follow up on reports from the public, so that timely assistance can be extended to the homeless? Question two, how does the Ministry assess whether there is sufficient shelter bed capacity and what mechanisms are in place to allow expansion when needed? The last question, what measures are in place to ensure that homeless individuals, particularly youth and young adults, are supported not only with housing, but also with employment opportunities, skills training and mental health services to sustain long-term stability?
\tMr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. On the first question, our Social Service Office (SSO) officers do accompany our Partners Engaging and Empowering Rough Sleepers (PEERS) Network community partners on a weekly basis, whenever they conduct the night walks. So, whenever we have night walks, and I join them from time to time in a year, we have SSO officers, often times, HDB officers will also be available on WhatsApp, so that we can provide help to our rough sleeping friends on the streets as readily as we can. So, the answer is yes, we do have teams that are supporting our community partners, on the ground, on a sustained basis.
With regards to capacity and utilisation rates, it is a good practice that we have kept from pandemic days, where we work very closely with our community partners to make sure that there is sufficient surge capacity, should there be a need to exercise them.
With regards to youths and young adults who are in the rough sleeping situation, I think it is a quite a different ball game altogether. The joint Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), as well as MSF's homelessness and rough sleeping study that has been published, and I mentioned in my main reply earlier, we have seen some of the trends, and I think it bears repeating some of the observations.
For instance, the first misconception is that there has been a huge rise in youth homelessness. If you compare numbers, in 2022, where we did our last street count of the 530 rough sleepers that we have observed then, there were about 16 rough sleepers on the streets. Last year, where we did our nationwide street count again in 2025, of the 496 rough sleepers, we had about 30. This represented an increase, in terms of percentage, from 3% then in 2022, to 6%.
Absolute numbers wise, it is not a big increase, but I think if you just look at this statistic, it does not give the situation sufficient justice, because we do need to unpack the nuances. Because rough sleeping on the streets present itself as just one option of several, whenever a youth at-risk faces circumstances like academic stress, family disputes or even relationship issues in their life, and resort to running away from home, to sleeping rough on the streets. And another phenomenon that we have observed is that couch surfing is often times also an option.
So, we do need to unpack this in a more nuanced manner with our youth agencies on the ground. MSF will do that, and in time to come, we can share more with the Member, or with this Chamber, when the time arises. But I think we do not want to detract from the main substance of the rough sleeping and homelessness issue in Singapore, and that is the fact that the predominant profile of the rough sleeper in Singapore is still male, middle-aged to older Chinese individuals, and often times, they still remain in employment. In fact, about a good majority of them remain in employment, and many of them, not all rough sleepers are homeless. Half of them do have homes to go back to, so I think this is a call to action from me to everyone, Members of the Chamber, as well as to all out there – if you see a rough sleeper in your neighbourhood, please contact the SSO or the MSF PEERS office.
\"More Care, Less Stare\". Our rough sleeping friends are going through a rough patch in their life. I think it takes the whole of Singapore to care for these some 500 individuals of them on our streets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Periodic Relocation of Popular Schools to Better Align School Access with Principles of Meritocracy and Social Mixing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider periodically relocating popular schools to neighbourhoods with different housing and socioeconomic status (SES) mixes to better align school access with the principles of meritocracy and social mixing.
\tThe Minister for Education (Mr Desmond Lee): Mr Speaker, in planning for schools across Singapore, the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) main objective is to ensure that national as well as localised demand for school places are met. We take into account several factors, including current and projected school-going populations in each residential area, as well as the supply of places provided by the schools in the vicinity.
When the demand for school places falls or is projected to fall in a particular area, we will consider relocating schools in that area, including popular schools, to areas with higher demand. These are usually areas where significant new housing is being developed and the schools will then serve the new residents moving into those areas.
MOE will continue to review our school admissions policies so that our schools continue to remain accessible to children from all backgrounds.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Hoe.
\tMr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): I thank the Minister for his response and I do agree that the principle of relocation of school is sound.
Most recently, a video circulated on social media featuring an individual sharing her primary school experience. She shared that she was the only one in her class living in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat and the rest were private property dwellers. In such context, there is a need to consider how social mixing can expand world views and develop empathy for others different from ourselves.
Against this backdrop, I have three supplementary questions. First, what is MOE's view on enabling social mixing in our schools? Second, beyond the Outward Bound Singapore (OBS) experience in Secondary 3, where students from different schools get to interact with each other, what other opportunities are there for students to socially mix with one another from different schools? And lastly, I know of parents who shift house because of the Primary 1 application, and Phase 2C of Primary 1 registration can amplify house-based clustering. Would MOE consider tapping on the admin data of primary school intake profile by housing types, as well as identify schools, within two-kilometre radius, have little, or very low, or no public housing, and prioritise social mixing measures for such schools?
\tMr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for his three very thoughtful questions. Indeed, social mixing in our schools creates the environment as well as the opportunity with the diversity of students' backgrounds, to enable holistic development of our children. It helps with the social emotional learning. It also supports our students in terms of picking up important 21st century competencies, for example, compassion, understanding, cross-cultural communication skills, collaboration and so on and so forth, and it prepares them not just for the real world in Singapore, but for the world out there after school.
At the same time, in as much as we want diversity and social mixing to help open up our children's horizons, our schools are also not just mirrors that reflect the state of society or of the neighbourhoods in which our schools are located, but also active platforms to enable inclusion, community building, national identity building and in that regard, nation building as well.
The Member spoke about the, I believe, the MOE-OBS Challenge. So, Secondary 3 students across different schools, living together, coming together over a period of time to explore the outdoors, out of their comfort zone, a great opportunity for them to mix, to mingle, to make friends and to build connections, but also for them to overcome challenges together. And I think that is one opportunity for mixing in the great outdoors.
But there are also other ways in which our schools seek to bring children, from different schools and different backgrounds, together. For instance, we have a combined school co-curricular activities (CCAs). The Member may have heard of BMW. It is not a car. It is a girls' football team. It solves a practical challenge, so we have these three schools, on their own, not able to form a team, but coming together, they form a formidable team. So, Boon Lay Secondary School, Methodist Girls' School, as well as Westwood Secondary School. And so, they come together on a regular basis, and they form a team, same identity, same sports gear, same competitor – and I think that creates opportunities.
We also have other school programmes. For example, Raffles Institution (RI) has a RI boarding programme and I have a list here. It is an opportunity for RI students, together with students from Guangyang Secondary School, Pierce Secondary, Whitley Secondary School, Deyi Secondary School, Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Secondary School, Sengkang Secondary School, Bowen Secondary School, and a few others – students will come together, spend a period of time together, mixing, mingling, learning from one another, doing things together.
And of course, there are other CCAs as well, where you see different schools coming together, forming mixed teams, forming mixed CCAs, not just in sports, but also in the performing arts. You have the Singapore Youth Festival, where students come together to put up their best in terms of the performing arts, and they mix and mingle as a result of that process.
We also have cluster-based CCAs, so not mixed schools, but in a cluster, they come together and they are not school-based, but at the cluster, they come together and pursue their interests together. We have competitions and other opportunities where students mix and mingle.
Of course, the Member spoke about Phase 2C. Schools' admissions, both in the primary and secondary school level are efforts to achieve a number of purposes when it comes to school admissions. So, take primary school, for instance, from practicality, so Phase 1, you have a sibling, so you go in, makes it easier for the family, more practical. Phase 2A, to recognise long-standing ties and links, for an \"old boy\", \"old girl\" to see their own child go into their old school, I think, strengthens school identity and also strengthens parent-child bonding, in terms of saying, \"Well, my child has gone to my old school.\" And I do not just say this for the popular schools, so to speak, but also all schools where there is an affinity and affiliation link.
There is also the element of distance, because when it comes to schools, particularly primary schools, we would like to also support proximity, convenience, easy for the children to go to school and come back home. And so, that is where Phase 2C comes in, where a certain number of places is ring-fenced for children, regardless of whether they have any links or affiliation to the school or not, premise on the basis of proximity.
\t
But I recognise the Member's concern that in some places where the neighbourhood's constitution of housing is of a particular nature, that may not necessarily result in Phase 2C conducing to the diversity that we aspire to in Singapore, in our schools. But we, as I have said, we continue to study our policies and see how we can further improve those policies and improve our processes to enable our children to have that holistic exposure to the diversity of Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Income Computation Method and Considering Caregiving Expenses for Childcare Subsidy Eligibility","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry will consider (i) reviewing the computational method for the gross monthly household income and per capita income to exclude the income of other family members for young parents residing in their parents’ or relatives’ properties and (ii) factoring caregiving expenses for elderly dependents into the eligibility assessments of the applicants of Additional Subsidy for childcare.
\tThe Minister of State for Social and Family Development (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Early Childhood and Development Agency (ECDA) uses the gross monthly household income to assess the amount of means tested additional subsidy that a family qualifies for. This approach looks only at the income of both parents of a child in the family and does not include the income of other family members in the household.
However, we do allow for larger families with five or more household members to be means tested on a per capita basis, which may qualify them for higher subsidies. Their per capita income would be computed using the income of all the family members in the household, divided by the total number of family members in the household. And such families would receive the more favourable means tested result of the two processes.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Muhaimin.
\tMr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions for Minister of State Goh: first, whether the Ministry has engaged social service agencies or family service centres to gather feedback on how current eligibility criteria affect caregiving households. And number question two, whether the Ministry can share a timeline for any planned review of subsidy eligibility frameworks affecting young families.
\t
\tMr Goh Pei Ming: I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Generally, it pertains to feedback and making sure that we stay close to the ground. I would like to reassure the Member that ECDA and MSF are in close contact with the preschools, as well as in close contact with the various family service centres and social service agencies on the ground. We do hear from them in terms of the feedback, whether the means testing processes are streamlined, effective and really serve our residents. We will not shy away from making necessary changes when we do get some feedback.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reducing Migrant Domestic Workers' Upfront Costs for Families with Young Children or Vulnerable Elderly and Enhancing Employer Protections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has any plans to (i) further reduce upfront costs to hire migrant domestic workers (MDW) for families with young children or vulnerable elderly and (ii) enhance protections against misrepresentation from agencies, and MDWs who commit offences or wish to cease work for reasons not due to employer fault, such as homesickness; and (b) if so, what are these plans.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the median upfront recruitment outlay to hire new migrant domestic workers (MDW) is around $4,700, of which half consists of loan to the MDWs that the employer subsequently recovers.
This upfront cost has remained largely stable since 2022, after accounting for inflation. With more than 2,500 employment agencies (EAs) licenced to place MDWs, EAs have to take into account market competition when they are pricing their services. We provide information on Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) online EA directory to enable employers to compare EAs' track record such as customer service ratings, years of service, and retention and transfer rate of MDWs when choosing EAs.
When there is a mismatch of MDWs with employers, MOM requires EAs to refund employers at least 50% of the service fees paid if MDW's contract is terminated within the first six months of employment without a suitable replacement.
Families with young children and elderly enjoy significant subsidies today in the form of concessionary levies at about $60 a month instead of $300. This amounts to about $5,760 in savings over two years. MOM also has measures in place to protect MDWs' employers' legitimate interest. MDWs who commit serious offences, such as stealing, are barred from future employment in Singapore. Prospective employers may use the FDW e-service portal to assess information about MDWs' past work performance, length of each employment and reasons why these MDWs left their past employment before hiring.
We will continue to regularly review and enhance our measures to safeguard the interests of employers and build a system that is fair to both employers and MDWs.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Choo.
\tDr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I have one supplementary question. Would the Ministry consider establishing benchmark ranges for agency fees based on prevailing market practices to prevent excessive charges and ensure affordability for families?
\tMr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. We generally allow agency service fees to be determined by market forces. This competition encourages the EA to differentiate their services and their quality and their price. To note, like what I have mentioned, there are already fee caps on EAs, the amount that they can charge the MDWs, which I mentioned in my reply. And with the data available on the EA directory, such as customer service ratings, years of service, employers can make a more informed decision on pricing. In terms of affordability, there are also other schemes that will provide financial services to families with much heavier caregiving needs. For example, the Caregiving Grant, which provides about $400 of payout, and this will be increased in April 2026 to $600.
I have also mentioned about levy concessions for needy households. Those households who need further assistance can approach social services for additional financial assistance. For families without caregiving needs, they also can consider part time cleaning services under the Household Services Scheme, which may be more affordable.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Shorter COE Renewal Durations As A More Affordable Option","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Ms Poh Li San asked the Acting Minister for Transport in view of the high Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, whether the Minister will reconsider implementing COE renewal for shorter durations such as annually or two-yearly, so that existing car owners can have more affordable options to extend their cars ownership beyond 10 years.
\tThe Acting Minister for Transport (Mr Jeffrey Siow): Mr Speaker, I want to thank Ms Poh for her Parliamentary Question. We understand the concerns of existing car owners who wish to renew their Certificates of Entitlement (COEs). However, we need to balance their interest with those who wish to buy a new car. Today, we already allow existing car owners to renew COEs for five years as a concession. If we allow for shorter renewals, this is likely to amplify the peak and the trough of the COE cycles further. It would mean that more car owners could renew their COEs when prices are high and this would reduce the supply of new COEs for prospective car owners. So, we will not make this move.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Poh.
\tMs Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker and Minister. Many of our small businesses, hawkers, for example, they need their vehicles for their businesses, and because of the high quantum of the COE, it is difficult for them to sustain their business because of a very huge, lumpy sum that is needed to pay for the COE. Hence, the suggestion to consider shorter tenures or shorter terms for the COE.
Will there be any possibilities to consider only for the commercial vehicles, for example, in this case, to have a shorter term for renewals, just to help these smaller businesses tide through?
\t
\tMr Jeffrey Siow: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I fully understand the concerns of small business owners who need to continue to have their vehicles to operate, especially in the environment of high COE prices. We already similarly allow commercial vehicle owners to renew their COEs for five years. And in fact, they can do it until the statutory life of their vehicles. It is something that I think is fair, because you also want to allow for new businesses who wish to have access to vehicles to be able to compete for COEs. I think the better approach is for them to be able to bid in the same market and therefore, for the COE to be priced accordingly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appropriateness of New Zealand's Smoke-free Generation Law for Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health whether the Ministry has reviewed the impact of New Zealand’s smokefree generation law and its potential appropriateness and effectiveness in Singapore’s context.
\tThe Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam) (for the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, New Zealand has withdrawn their plans for a smoke-free generation law. We will continue to monitor international developments and learn from the experiences of other countries in the area of tobacco control.
\tMr Speaker: Ms He.
\tMs He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. While it is true that New Zealand has withdrawn the proposed cohort ban, I understand that there were some figures that were published at the time when this was being debated, which indicated that for example, the impact on the budget books to the ban was in the region of maybe a billion New Zealand dollars, but then there were some estimates as well that is anticipate to save billions of dollars in the long run in terms of healthcare costs.
My supplementary question in this regard is, has Singapore done similar estimates and what are the figures for how much we are expecting if let us say if we were to introduce a similar cohort ban? What would be the impact be, both in terms of our revenue, in terms of taxes, and also in terms of the healthcare costs? That is my first supplementary question.
Then the second supplementary question: New Zealand actually did very extensive polling in relation to the support for the ban. I think most of the results have come out very strongly in favour in the population, not just for non-smokers, but also in smokers. So, my question would be, has Singapore carried out similar studies? And what are the findings and whether the Minister of State can share the findings in Singapore, about whether the public is in favour of such a cohort ban?
And finally, I believe I asked a similar question in January 2022, and this question also came out in the House in 2023, where the Minister of State shared at the time that we remain open to such a cohort ban in Singapore, and that this was being studied. I understand as well that countries like the United Kingdom (UK) have actually introduced legislation. It is being debated in the UK Parliament about, I think the UK they were thinking of banning the purchase of cigarettes for those born in 2009 and later. There was a timeline that was mentioned, I believe in January 2023. Can we have more clarity about what our timeline would be for the studying of this cohort ban possibly to be introduced in Singapore?
\t
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note the Member's concern on this policy, and I also want to acknowledge that there were also many other Members when this matter was raised who were very interested in this tobacco-free generation policy, and for its implementation in Singapore.
I wanted to clarify that when we look at learning from other countries, the main focus is looking at what is it that we want to try and resolve, the issue that we want to solve. In Singapore's context, we are looking at the concerns with regard to smoking. We already have in existence a very robust multi-prong strategy with regard to how we want to curb smoking. This includes having a comprehensive mix of policy measures, public preventive education, as well as cessation programmes, including also our tax prohibitions. These efforts have helped us to see a decline in the smoking prevalence, and at this juncture we have achieved an all-time low of 8.4% in 2024.
As we continue to look as to how we can improve the statistics and how we can help the generations moving forward, we do have to be mindful about what is the problem that we want to solve.
We have looked at how the other countries have rolled this out. As I mentioned, New Zealand has decided to repeal this legislation. Malaysia, also, who had announced it, had also removed it. Yes, UK had announced plans in October 2023 for a generation that will not be legally able to purchase tobacco in their lifetime. We will be continuing to look at how they will implement this.
We have concerns about how the implementation will be carried out, and so we are mindful as to how this would affect the implementation here. We are continuing to be open to this. We will announce if there are any movements in this front. You would be interested to know that we continue to be in engagement with Dr Koong Heng Nung, who was the original advocate of tobacco-free generation and we remain open to see how this can evolve.
We will study and see what the developments are in the other countries.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Personal Explanation. Mr Ng Chee Meng.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Personal Explanation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Ng Chee Meng (Jalan Kayu): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. In my supplementary question at the 12 January Sitting, I said that there were three serious fires that resulted in death in Singapore last year, in one particular case in Toa Payoh where the fire spread from the 10th floor to the 11th floor, some residents above had some difficulties evacuating. [Please refer to \"Public Education Efforts in Light of Residential Unit Fires in 2025 and Review of Singapore’s Building, Fire and Construction Safety Codes\", Official Report, 12 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 12, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
I would like to clarify and correct that in this particular Toa Payoh case, this did not result in a death. For the record, please.
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day and Notice of Motion.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [13 January 2026], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time.\" – [Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a timely modernisation of our sports framework. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on how these expanded powers will translate into everyday outcomes for residents.
Mr, Speaker, Sir, my first clarification concerns everyday access, affordability and the quality of sports facilities.
We often hear that sports participation is at an all-time high, with 74% of residents exercising weekly. However, the Ministry of Health's (MOH's) National Population Health Survey reminds us that the largest contributor to physical activity is commuting, not leisure sports. As we expand Sport Singapore's (SportSG's) functions under clause 6(a), we must be clear that success is measured by active living, not just by walking to the bus stop.
With the broadened mandate under clauses 6(e) and (f) to manage facilities, how will this translate into our estates? Will SportSG prioritise less visible but high-impact infrastructure such as community gyms within a 10-minute walk of neighbourhood blocks over marquee facilities?
Residents also ask a basic question: will they be able to play sports to their heart's content?
Today, securing a court often feels like winning the lottery. We also see rising social friction such as noise disputes involving pickleball. These conflicts indicate that our infrastructure may be struggling to keep pace with trends.
If SportSG is to manage facilities under clause 6(e), how will design standards such as acoustic mitigation and smarter space planning be strengthened so that sports bind the community rather than create tension?
We must also ensure that we are not designing this Bill only for the active majority. Clause 6(a) empowers SportSG to promote fitness, but how will this reach the bottom 20% of neighbourhoods with the lowest activity levels? Without deliberate intervention, expanded powers may simply help the fit get fitter while the inactive remain behind due to cost or constraints.
This leads to the financial powers in clauses 7(b) and (c), allowing grants and loans to individuals. This flexibility is welcomed. However, how will SportSG ensure funds reach small heartland operators? There is a risk that grants flow to large well-resourced organisations while the void deck taekwondo club or the Zumba interest group is deprioritised.
Finally, on this point, the Bill indicates no additional Government expenditure, yet clause 6 significantly expands functions across facilities, accreditation and institutions. If SportSG must do more with the same resources, the Minister must clarify what will be deprioritised. We must ensure that these new regulatory ambitions do not come at the expense of core maintenance and grassroots programmes.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point concerns the new regulatory powers.
Clauses 6(m) and (n) empower SportSG to establish codes of practice and accredit coaches and facilities. Residents want safety, well-maintained equipment and qualified coaches. However, accreditation can become a barrier to entry. Will these powers inadvertently create a \"pay-to-play\" system? If freelance instructors and community groups cannot afford the time or cost to navigate accreditation, they may be priced out. We must avoid over-professionalising the sector to the point where affordable community-level coaching disappears. We must also avoid homogenising sports.
Codes under clause 6(m) work for mainstream sports but may stifle organic activities like parkour, street dance or informal seniors' exercises. I ask the Minister to assure the House that we will not regulate these activities out of existence simply because they do not fit into an accreditation box.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my third point concerns the formal recognition of mind sports and e-sports under clause 2. This is a progressive step that validates the aspirations of our youths. However, as a member of the People's Action Party (PAP) Mental Health Group, I sound a note of caution.
Recognition gives credibility to a dream, but it can also become an excuse. Parents already grapple with excessive screen time, only to be told by their children, \"I am not addicted, I am training to go pro.\" The glamour of professional e-sports masks the truth that only a tiny fraction make it while many risk addiction, sleep disruption and neglected studies.
If we legitimise e-sports, we must legitimise the safety framework around it. Will SportSG, exercising powers under clause 6(d), work with MOH and the Ministry of Education (MOE) to establish evidence-based guidelines on screen time and mental well-being? Furthermore, given that e-sports ecosystems are tied to betting and aggressive sponsorship, why does the Bill not include explicit safeguards for minors alongside the expanded accreditation powers?
We must also address the \"cliff edge\" of an e-sports career. Clause 6(h) enables training institutions. Is there a plan for youths who do not reach the top tier? Career and education support must be core, not peripheral. Will there be plans for aspiring e-sports athletes to be admitted into our Sports School so that academic development progresses in tandem with sporting development? If we recognise the sport, we must protect the athlete.
Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point concerns inclusion for seniors and persons with disabilities. I welcome clause 6(b), which names the Singapore National Paralympic Council as a key partner. But naming a partner is not legislating outcomes. Significant barriers remain in transport and facility access. Will facilities managed under clause 6(e) be subject to accessibility standards beyond basic building codes? Can we commit to participation targets for seniors and persons with disabilities? To do this, we need disaggregated data by disability type, age and town. We can only fix what we measure.
Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 6(h) empowers SportSG to establish institutions to train sportspersons and oversee academic curricula. This strengthens elite development but raises questions about equity. Without clear criteria and financial safeguards, will these institutions favour families who can afford intensive training?
Many national athletes currently juggle fulltime studies or work while competing against fulltime international rivals. We must not build systems that assume athletes can absorb personal financial strain indefinitely.
This brings me to remuneration. If we expect high performance, we must be honest about whether current support is adequate. For many athletes, particularly those who return with medals after years of sacrifice, financial recognition remains limited. I ask the Minister if it is timely to review the incentive framework to better reflect the realities of training at an international level. Beyond money, we must measure success beyond medals.
As SportSG expands its institutional role, we should track graduation rates, post-sport employment and long-term health. If we expect international excellence, we must ensure athletes are supported to go full-time without financial insecurity and that those who do not reach the podium are equipped for life beyond sports.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me end where our residents begin, with the questions they ask in their daily lives. Can I book a court without fighting for it? Can my child learn safely without paying a premium? Can my parents stay active with dignity, not obstacles? Can a young person chase a sporting dream on a track or on a screen without falling off a cliff when the dream ends?
These questions run through the points I have raised today: access to neighbourhood facilities, fair funding for heartland groups, safety without excessive cost, responsible recognition of e-sports, meaningful inclusion for seniors and persons with disabilities, and training pathways that support athletes not just to compete, but to live well beyond sports.
I say this as someone shaped by sports. As a former competitive gymnast, canoeist and dragon boater, I learnt that sports does not just train the body, it trains the spirit. It teaches us how to fall and how to stand up again. It teaches us that progress is never an individual act. It is a relay and we run our leg so the next person can run theirs.
This Bill gives Sport Singapore new powers. But powers are not the point. People are.
The purpose of this House is not to pass laws that look good in print, but to pass laws that work – in parks, in void decks, in schools, in community clubs and in the homes where parents are raising resilient children. We saw this clearly in the recently concluded Southeast Asian Games (SEA Games).
We rightly celebrate our athletes' achievements and medal haul. Once again, we also saw the immense sacrifices made by Singaporeans who train while studying, working and supporting families, often competing against fulltime athletes from other countries. Their performances should make us proud but should also prompt us to reflect on whether our systems are truly designed to support sustained excellence.
So, let us be ambitious but also be honest. Let us build the flagship facilities, yes, but also the quiet corners of fitness that keep a nation healthy. Let us professionalise where needed but never price out the heartland. Let us pursue excellence, but refuse to leave behind the inactive, the vulnerable, the senior, the person with disability or the young person who does not make it to the top.
Mr Speaker, Sir, if we implement this Bill with clear key performance indicators, real inclusion and strong pathways for life beyond sports, we will not just create champions on the field. We will build a stronger Singapore in everyday life. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.
Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The amendments before us expand SportSG's remit in ways that reflect how Singaporeans actually engage with sport today. Chess, bridge and e-sports are no longer just recreational pastimes but are competitive disciplines that demand mental rigour, fill stadiums and attract global audiences in the millions. This Bill's inclusion of mind sports and e-sports in our definition of sports signals that Singapore recognises competitive excellence wherever it emerges.
The Bill also empowers SportSG to establish institutions for elite athlete development, to accredit coaches and facilities, and to support athletes beyond their competitive years. These are practical expansions that will strengthen our sporting ecosystem from grassroots to podium.
But as we broaden SportSG's mandate, we must also sharpen our oversight. Expansion without accountability risks diluting impact and eroding public trust. So, I raise four areas for greater clarity.
Firstly, on governance and protection in new training institutions.
The Bill grants SportSG authority to establish institutions for developing and training sportspersons. This formalises what already exists in practice. Entities like the Singapore Sports School and the Singapore Sport Institute have been nurturing athletes for years. The consolidation of these institutions, announced earlier this year, is happening alongside this legislative change. Building on the Auditor-General's Office's constructive observations in its recent report regarding procurement, grant management and revenue contracting, we have an opportunity to establish clear governance frameworks that will serve SportSG well as it takes on new responsibilities. Strong institutional safeguards now will protect both athletes and public trust as the organisation evolves.
When we task institutions with the holistic development of young athletes, overseeing not just their training but also their academic curricula and well-being, we are asking them to act in loco parentis. The Safe Sport framework exists and the Safe Sport Commission has made progress since its launch.
I would like to ask the Minister: what governance structures will be put in place to ensure these new or consolidated institutions are accountable not just to SportSG, but to the Parliament and to the public? Will their performance indicators, safeguarding records and funding utilisation be reported to this House annually?
Second, on eligibility and support for e-sports and mind sports athletes. The Bill expands the definition of sports to include mind sports and e-sports. This is welcome. But definitions alone do not open doors. What matters is whether athletes in these disciplines will have the same access to funding, facilities and national representation pathways as their counterparts in athletics or football.
The Singapore Esports Association has announced plans for a national training centre. Chess participation has grown by 20% since 2022. These are encouraging signs. Just over the weekend, we launched an e-sports hub in Bishan Community Centre that is purpose-built for seniors. Perhaps one day we might field an inter-generational team to represent Singapore in our community in e-sports competitions!
Are there plans for e-sports and mind sports athletes to be eligible for Scholarships or the High Performance Sport system grants? Are there long-term plans for mind sports and e-sports associations to receive the same level of institutional support as National Sports Associations (NSAs) in traditional sports?
Thirdly, in transparency in accreditation and certification. The Bill grants SportSG new powers to establish codes of practice for coaching, training, equipment and facilities – and to accredit or certify compliance with those standards. This is a regulatory function, not just a developmental one.
What mechanisms will ensure transparency and accountability in the issuance of coaching accreditations, facility certifications and training programme approvals under the amended Act? Will there be independent review panels for contested decisions? Will accreditation criteria and outcomes be published annually?
Lastly, this Bill also expands SportsSG's remit with regard to planning and promoting physical fitness activities alongside sports, fostering research into physical fitness and establishing codes of practice, guidelines and standards for wider coaching, training and equipment. How will SportSG coordinate with MOE and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to avoid duplication or conflicts in physical fitness education, coaching standards and public wellness initiatives? Are there plans to dovetail initiatives or align longer-term policy changes where there are overlaps in governmental remit?
Mr Speaker, I support this Bill because it reflects a step forward for our sports sector. Competitive sport forges excellence and resilience in our athletes while anchoring Singapore's global reputation; we cannot be a thriving nation without champions. Recently, I the privilege of meeting our SEA Games medalist Isaiah Tang, who started karate lessons in Bishan Community Centre (CC) when he was just seven years old. In his debut at last year's SEA Games Isaiah came back with a bronze medal. I was greatly touched when he asked about what young athletes like him needed. He did not share immediately about funding or recognition but shared instead about opportunities and exposure to competitions. He is the archetype of a home-grown champion that we as a nation should be proud of.
All the same, support is instrumental for the growth, maturity and further development of home-grown talents like Isaiah. He shared that his family flew up to Thailand to cheer him on at the most recent SEA Games. More than just family support, however, our talent requires the resources and opportunities that institutional support brings. This Bill is a large step in the right direction, to further build up the kampung of support around our natural home-grown athletes and champions; but there is still space to grow.
Mr Speaker, I envision a sports scene for Singapore where all people of all talent are given the resources and opportunity to thrive and excel on the regional and world stage regardless of their upbringing, privilege and family background. Where even those of less privilege, or rather, especially those of less privilege, see a clear path of opportunities to grow, excel, thrive and shine.
The athletes we seek to support are giving the best they have to give; whether they compete on a track, a chessboard, or in an arena; therefore, they also deserve nothing less than the best our country can give.
A nation that invests in sport is investing in more than medals – it is investing in discipline, character and shared pride. As we recognise new forms of competitive excellence, our duty is to ensure that every athlete we support is backed by strong institutions and clear accountability. When we invest in sport, we invest in the kind of country we want to be. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, I rise to support Singapore Sports Council (Amendment) Bill. Mr Speaker, there is a saying \"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together in a team\". But today, I want just to add on \"If you want to go even further, go together in a bigger team\". That is exactly how the Prime Minister described for the \"we first\" society – we need a village to raise an athlete.
Mr Speaker, before I begin my speech in Mandarin, I would like to declare that I am currently the Vice President of the Singapore Wushu, Dragon and Lion Dance Federation, and also a former national gymnast, coach, judge and managing NSAs.
In my time as a gymnast in 1980s, we had no professional coaches, no professional facilities, needless to say no specialised equipment like today. As schoolmates, we trained one another, learning from books and sheer determination.
I vividly remember my first SEA Games in 1985. We were required to compete in six apparatus, one of the apparatuses is Roman Rings, yet we did not even have the proper equipment to train on. We practised on metal rings instead of the laminated wood. We set up the rings under the blazing sun to train because we did not have a high ceiling hall. Sometimes, the metal rings were so hot causing our palms to burn. And we resorted to training in the night and bear in mind, not much light. Needless to say, when there is rain, we cannot even train. Many of such things happened. Even the training hours, without scientific, we have to train every day from 2.00 pm to 11.00 pm after school. Saturday, Sunday, we train from 8.00 am to 2.00 pm.
That was the reality of being an athlete 40 years ago, driven not by comfort or resources but by passion, resilience and an unwavering commitment to represent Singapore with pride. Mr Speaker, with that, I will now continue my speech in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Singapore Sports Council (Amendment )Bill.
This amendment makes our sports policy framework more comprehensive and better able to address Singapore's future sporting needs. It not only updates the system, but also better reflects how Singaporeans participate in sports, responding to the lifestyle habits and needs of different age groups.
When I was young, I was a national gymnast. On the gymnastics floor, I learnt not just techniques, but focus, discipline and sportsmanship and these values have stayed with me to this day, benefiting me for life. I still remember the moments of falling down again and again during training, then getting back up and the encouragement and interaction between teammates. The unwavering strength to \"take a step forward\" is what sports gave me.
Today, when I see residents of different generations exercising at community clubs, neighbourhood parks and schools, I am reminded of the values that sports bring us. Sports make communities more vibrant and the spirit that sports convey transcends time, age and background.
This amendment is to ensure this lifestyle receives better support, a safer environment and a more sustainable direction for development.
First, the amendment updates the definition of \"sport\" to include mind sports and e-sports within the statutory scope. In our communities, elderly people play chess, young people are passionate about e-sports and children try new physical activities. The forms are different, but they all require strategy, focus and endurance and can also cultivate team spirit. Including these activities in the definition of \"sport\" allows the Sports Council to more systematically and purposefully support and manage these developments, ensuring they grow on a healthy and safe trajectory. This also reminds us that the value of sports should not be measured only in traditional ways. As long as the direction is right, mind sports and e-sports can, like traditional sports, help participants build confidence, discipline and team spirit.
Second, the amendment expands the Sports Council's functions to formally include physical activities within its scope. More residents are participating in physical activities such as yoga, strength training, fitness classes and running. These activities improve physical and mental health and also create more interaction between neighbours. Including physical activities in the Council's responsibilities means the Government recognises the public value of these activities and provides a clearer framework for promoting community fitness programmes in the future. This will further promote a culture of \"Active together\", making exercise a lifestyle that more residents can easily and sustainably participate in.
Third, the amendment empowers the Council to establish standards for coaches, facilities and equipment, improving the safety and quality of sporting environments. Regardless of which sport they participate in, residents should be active in safe and reliable environments. Establishing standards can ensure coaches have the necessary capabilities, equipment meets safety requirements and facilities are properly maintained.
But whilst raising standards, we must also ensure we don't inadvertently increase burdens, especially for small sports organisations, community clubs and grassroots coaches. They are often important entry points for children, elderly people and beginners to access sports, and are an indispensable part of the sports ecosystem. True team spirit means giving everyone opportunities, not leaving people behind. When establishing standards, listening widely to opinions and ensuring standards are appropriate can promote the healthy development of the entire sports ecosystem.
Fourth, the amendment further strengthens the institutional foundation for athlete development. Athlete development requires systematic cultivation and stable support, including connections between school, community and national-level training systems. The revision allows the Council to more clearly support training institutions, and makes different training pathways smoother, giving more young people with potential opportunities for continued development.
Fifth, we must also face the resource allocation challenges we may encounter. As sporting forms continue to increase, demand for facilities, programmes and coaching resources will also rise accordingly. Facing these potential challenges, I propose three suggestions:
First, establish a clear outcome-oriented resource framework, prioritising resources in areas that can bring the greatest social benefits. When resources are limited, we must ensure every investment produces maximum public value.
Second, strengthen inter-agency cooperation. Schools, community clubs, sports institutions and businesses have different resources and venues. If we can better share and coordinate, we can benefit more residents without significantly increasing budgets. When resources can be shared, sports can go further and reach more people.
Third, conduct \"precision expansion\" for programmes that show obvious growth and have long-term benefits for public health. For example, family fitness activities, mind sports and some rapidly growing new programmes can start with small-scale pilots, then gradually expand based on effectiveness.
Resource expansion cannot be blind, but requires precise and detailed planning, ensuring every new investment truly benefits more Singaporeans. At the same time, I would like to propose three considerations for the Government in long-term sports resource planning:
First, as programmes continue to increase, how should resource allocation be based on a national outcomes framework to avoid weakening support for existing community sports? Second, if sporting demand continues to rise, will the Government appropriately expand resources based on long-term public health goals, rather than just redistributing within existing resources? Third, when establishing new standards, how can we ensure standards are reasonable and would not burden small organisations excessively, excluding them from the sports ecosystem?
Mr Speaker, this amendment not only improves the system, but also establishes a more solid foundation for our country's sports ecosystem. Gymnastics training taught me that step by step, with continuous effort, we can create real change. This amendment may not immediately produce champions, but it can help more Singaporeans become healthier, happier and more confident in the sporting ecosystem we are building.
(In English): Mr Speaker, this Bill strengthens our national sports framework, making it more comprehensive and future-ready. It better reflects our Singaporeans of all ages' participation in sports and physical activity today.
As a former national gymnast, I experienced firsthand how sports build not just physical skill, but discipline, focus, resiliency and sportsmanship. These values stayed with me for life and continue to shape who I am today. Sports connects generations and communities. Whether in community clubs, parks or schools, sport builds energy, inclusion and a shared sense of purpose across age and background.
Key enhancements in the Bill: one, updating the definition of \"sports\". The Bill formally includes mind sports and e-sports. These activities, like traditional sports, require strategy, focus, endurance and teamwork. Including them allows for better governance and support, ensuring healthy and responsible development while recognising changing participation patterns.
Two, expanding the Council's role to include physical activity. Activities, such as yoga, fitness training, aerobics and running, are increasingly popular and contribute significantly to physical and mental well-being. Including these activities affirms their public value and provides a clearer framework to promote active lifestyles across communities.
Three, raising safety and quality through standards. The Bill empowers the Council to set standards for coaches, facilities and equipment, improving safety and quality. At the same time, standards must be proportionate and inclusive, so that small sports organisations, community clubs and grassroots coaches are not overburdened or, worse, excluded.
Four, strengthening athlete development pathways. Athlete development requires coordinated and sustained support, from schools to community, then to national systems. The amendments provide clearer institutional support for training providers and smoother pathways for young athletes to develop their potential.
Managing some of our future challenges. As sports and activities diversify, demand for facilities, programmes and coaches will increase. Thus, I propose: one, a clear, outcomes-based resource framework to maximise social impact; two, stronger cross-sector collaboration among schools, community clubs, sports bodies and even private partners to share resources effectively; three, targeted and phased expansion of high-growth activities with strong public health benefits, starting with pilots and scaling based on outcome.
There are also some long-term considerations that we need to take note. One, how resource allocation can expand without weakening existing community sports. Two, whether resources should grow in line with long-term public health goals or not just reallocated. Three, how new standards can be set without imposing excessive burdens on smaller organisations.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, this Bill does not just update legislation; it lays a stronger foundation for Singapore's sports ecosystem. As in any sports, progress comes step by step, through consistent effort. This Bill may not immediately produce champions tomorrow, but it will help more Singaporeans become healthier, happier and more confident. For these reasons, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments in this Bill will help Singaporeans from all walks of life lead a more active lifestyle for better mental and physical health. The Bill will also enhance our current system and framework to support and boost the performance standards for our athletes.
I will focus on four aspects: first, supporting active ageing through mind sports; second, engaging youths through e-sports; third, professionalising sport as a career; and last, expanding flexible sports spaces while managing residents' needs.
First, engaging our seniors through active ageing and mind sports. Singapore's rapidly ageing population requires innovative approaches to keep our seniors active, engaged and cognitively healthy. As SportSG continues to expand physical fitness activities under ActiveSG programming, how will the Ministry ensure that the needs and aspirations of our increasing number of seniors are sufficiently catered for?
I commend the great work on offering free workout classes in the community, including many senior-friendly classes, such as \"Gold\" Zumba or the \"Lite\" version of KpopX, which are very well-received by my residents. I hope that the funding for this will continue in the long term as it has gotten many seniors to remain active and form social bonds.
I would like to ask if there would be specific funding allocations, training and recruitment of coaches with better understanding of the physical needs and constraints of older men and women to continually deliver on fitness programmes suitable for our seniors?
This Bill recognises mind sports, such as chess, bridge, weiqi and xiangqi, which are very much enjoyed by both our young and our seniors. Mind sports provide participants with intellectual stimulation and social interaction. They are activities that all can enjoy and have fun playing, regardless of age or physical abilities. This accessibility is transformative as it allows for greater inclusivity. Unlike many physical sports that require certain fitness levels or mobility, mind sports can engage seniors competitively while delivering measurable cognitive, mental and social benefits.
For seniors, the benefits of mind sports extend beyond recreation. Research consistently shows that cognitively engaging activities, like chess, reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease and cognitive decline. Mind sports foster social connection, reduce isolation and provide structured competitive outlets that build community.
Could the Ministry consider making it a goal to tap on mind sports to support active ageing objectives, by providing more avenues and opportunities for our seniors to remain mentally active as well? How will SportSG leverage mind sports to engage seniors and foster inter-generational bonding? Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For seniors, the benefits of mind sports extend beyond recreation. Research shows that cognitively engaging activities like chess reduce the risk of cognitive decline. Mind sports foster social connection, reduce isolation, and provide competitive outlets that build community. Could the Ministry consider making it a goal to tap on mind sports to support active ageing objectives, by providing more opportunities for our seniors to remain mentally active as well? How will SportSG leverage mind sports to engage seniors and foster inter-generational bonding?
(In English): Second, engaging our youths through an evolving sports scene. Our youths are active in an ever-evolving sports scene. E-sports represents a particularly significant opportunity. It is a growing sector that commands massive audiences.
Formal recognition matters deeply to young Singaporeans, including those who excel in e-sports. It signals that their passions are valued, that pathways exist for excellence and that representing Singapore at the SEA Games and Asian Games, where e-sports has been a medal event since 2019 and 2023 respectively, is a legitimate national aspiration and not simply a hobby.
The much-needed formal acknowledgment will pave the way for funding their training and participation at regional and international competitions, enabling them to hone their skills. The attractive prize rewards will make their pursuits a viable sporting career, like other more traditional sports.
Third, uplifting professionalism by making sport a viable career. One of the most important component of this Bill is to uplift the professionalism of sport and make it a viable, long-term career option for Singaporeans. Official recognition provides athletes with support and development pathways. For Singapore to build a vibrant sports ecosystem, we must signal clearly that sports, in all its forms, can be a credible, sustainable career.
Our talented athletes need more financial and institutional support to attain excellence in order to pursue sports professionally. I am heartened that this Bill aims to addresses that gap through three key mechanisms. However, I seek some clarifications, too.
First, the Bill empowers SportSG to establish and maintain quality standards and codes of practice for coaching, equipment and facilities, supported by accreditation systems. I would like to ask, what is the Ministry's strategy to attract talented coaches to Singapore?
Second, the consolidation of Singapore Sports School and the High Performance Sport Institute into a single entity enhances end-to-end service delivery across the youth and senior athlete spectrum. The new model signals holistic support through education, career transitions and life after sport. Would the Minister share in greater detail the measures to support athletes in their lives after their sports career end?
Third, recognition of e-sports and mind sports creates entirely new career paths. The e-sports sector generates jobs for software developers, graphic designers, event managers, marketing specialists, casters and production crews. Would the Government be able to consider introducing training schemes to develop talents in this sector?
Fourth, expanding flexible sports facilities while managing disamenities. Last, infrastructure. Under the Sports Facilities Master Plan, SportSG aims to provide most Singaporeans with affordable sport facilities within a 10-minute walk of their homes by around 2030. This is not merely about convenience, it is about removing barriers to participation and embedding sports into the daily community life.
However, expanding access must be balanced with residents' quality of life. For example, the rise of pickleball illustrates the tension vividly. There were many complaints about pickleball noise in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates. Residents, especially night shift workers, have reported being disturbed by the distinctive sound of pickleball. There have also been complaints by residents living in the proximity of other sports facilities, such as basketball courts.
Our town councils have responded pragmatically. Besides closing the courts and switching lights off earlier, signs remind players to be considerate and keep noise down, and town councils encourage the use of quieter sports equipment.
While these ground-up responses are commendable, as we expand facilities under the Sports Facilities Master Plan, we must proactively design for noise mitigation and considerate use. This means incorporating acoustic buffers and scheduling guidelines into design and fostering a culture of mutual respect between players and residents. SportSG's new mandate to establish codes of practice for equipment and facilities must ensure that embedded noise management standards into facility design and operation are included from the outset.
I would also like to use this opportunity to call out the urgency for other important sports facilities, like an Olympic-sized ice rink, which Singapore has not had for a number of years. Our ice hockey and ice-skating athletes have had to go for their trainings in neighbouring countries. Not only that, such a facility will encourage more young people to explore their talents in ice sports and provide a fun place for families to enjoy and stay active. I would like to call upon our Government to prioritise the provision of such a facility.
In conclusion, this Bill embodies a balanced, inclusive vision for sport in Singapore. It recognises that sport serves multiple purposes: first, keeping seniors cognitively engaged; second, connecting with youth through formats they find meaningful; third, creating viable career pathways for athletes and coaches; and fourth, providing accessible, flexible facilities in every neighbourhood. This will encourage all residents, young and old, to participate meaningfully in our sporting culture. I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Acting Minister David Neo.
The Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr David Neo): Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Members for their support of the Bill, as well as their comments and suggestions.
Several Members in the House spoke about how we can support our athletes better, during and after their careers. Mr Alex Yam, Ms Gho Sze Kee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Joan Pereira spoke about support for athletes' transition to life after sport.
Our athletes have similar aspirations to many Singaporeans – they want to pursue higher educational qualifications, start and grow their careers and work towards financial stability. And we agree with Members that we should support them to pursue these aspirations. Let me cite a few recent enhancements.
First, support for education. We launched the spexEducation Undergraduate Scholarships and we awarded them to our inaugural batch last year.
Ms Valerie Lee asked about the selection criteria. We focus our resources on supporting our full-time spexScholars who are best able to benefit from this scholarship, including the daily training environment that their Institute of Higher Learning provides if they are studying and competing at the same time. Or if they intend to study only after they retire from competitive sports, then we consider the course that they are pursuing and the potential future contributions to the sports sector.
One such example is Jessica Tan, our mixed doubles badminton Olympian and 2022 Commonwealth champion. After a very successful career, Jessica retired last year and she is now pursuing a degree in sport management and coaching. After her graduation, she will return back to contribute to our sports sector.
Second, support for career transitions. Through our spexBusiness initiative, we partner a network of supportive companies from diverse industries to provide athletes with career support, flexible workplace practices and development opportunities for their career after sport.
And third, support for finances. We regularly review and have recently increased our spexScholars' monthly stipends. On top of that, they now receive Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups, bolstering their finances to better meet their housing, medical and retirement needs.
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked about support for former national athletes, including healthcare. We support our athletes' transition into retirement from their competitive sporting careers by helping them find good employment. Active and retired athletes can also tap on various programmes, including spexBusiness and spexEducation, which I mentioned, and we have recently enhanced.
In addition, there are national schemes to support healthcare and other needs of Singaporeans. For example, our public healthcare financing system, the S+3Ms – namely subsidies, MediShield Life, MediSave and MediFund – help keeps healthcare affordable for all Singaporeans.
Dr Charlene Chen spoke about supporting our athletes' mental well-being. The High Performance Sport Institute proactively monitors our athletes' mental health and provides them with support throughout their sporting career. With a dedicated Athlete Life Management team, the High Performance Sport Institute equips our athletes for life, helping them develop the skills and mental resilience needed to deal with life's challenges, including after retirement from sport.
And we will do more. We are deepening our capabilities in sports science and sports medicine as well as athlete life management, so that we support our athletes holistically, for both their sporting and non-sporting needs and across their life stages.
And that is also why we are also amending this Bill to allow us to organise ourselves better to serve our athletes, bringing together and streamlining expertise through consolidating the High Performance Sport Institute and Singapore Sports School into a single entity. Through this entity, we will strengthen our partnerships with key stakeholders in the High Performance Sport ecosystem, bringing together different specialists in their fields, for example, coaches, psychologists, athlete-life managers and sport administrators, in a clear, comprehensive way to provide wrap-around support for our athletes, helping them stay in competitive sports for as long as they can.
I agree with Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim on the benefits of integration, and their support for us to bring the Singapore Sports School to Kallang and integrate all elements of the High Performance Sport ecosystem under one roof in the new home of Team Singapore.
To Ms Elysa Chan's question on accountability, I would like to assure the Member that the entity will still be funded by the Government and be accountable to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) and Parliament.
I thank Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik for his question.
With the consolidation, the Singapore Sports School remains a specialised independent school and will continue receiving support from both MOE and MCCY. The Singapore Sports School will continue to provide education to national and aspiring athletes. Besides serving the academic needs of student-athletes, the Singapore Sports School will expand its role to provide career guidance support to other national athletes.
The excellent track record of our Team Singapore athletes gives us confidence that our sporting ecosystem is developing in the right direction. Let me cite some examples.
At the recent SEA Games, our Singapore Sports School students and alumni accounted for almost half of our total Gold medal tally. Shuttler and Singapore Sports School alumnus, Loh Kean Yew, became Singapore's first-ever badminton world champion at the 2021 BWF World Championships. Our most decorated Paralympian, Yip Pin Xiu, is a seven-time Paralympic gold medallist and eight-time World Champion, with two world records to her name. Our kite foiling sensation, Max Maeder, is a double world champion, and won Bronze at his Olympic debut in Paris 2024. His other accolades include winning Gold thrice at the Trofeo Princesa Sofia Regatta, two Golds and a Silver at the Formula Kite World Championships, and an Asian Games Gold at Hangzhou 2022. Amanda Yap become Singapore's first-ever gymnast to reach a World Championships Final and placed sixth at the 2025 Artistic Gymnastics World Championship. In bowling, Singapore Sports School alumni, Darren Ong, made history as the first male Singaporean bowler to claim the Men's Singles title at the 2023 IBF World Championships since 2006. And at the same championships, sisters Cherie and Daphne Tan shared a special moment, winning the women's doubles gold medal. In silat, we have Sheik Farhan Sheik Alau'ddin, our five-time world champion who secured multiple world titles at events, such as the World Pencak Silat Championships. In wushu, Singapore Sports School student-athlete Zeanne Law was crowned World Champion twice in Women's Taijiquan in 2023 and 2024. And at the 2023 World Wushu Championships, Singapore Sports School alumnus Jowen Lim won his first world championship title in \"gunshu\".
I cite all these achievements because I do not want us to be mistaken that we think the system is working well just because we had a record medal haul in the SEA Games. The system is working well because our athletes have done us proud at all the different world level competitions.
We all have a part to play in growing sports excellence in Singapore. As a small nation with a small talent base, we are competing with nations who are multiple times larger than us, and with budgets that are significant and increasing. Our approach has always been one to partner with all stakeholders and complement each other's strengths, as Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh pointed out, so that we can maximise our investments. The amendment to section 8(d) of the Act reflects this, where we are shifting from consultation to working in partnership with stakeholders to bring about better outcomes.
The National Sport Associations (NSAs) play an important role in promoting and uplifting their respective sports, and many NSAs have done good work with their grassroots and through their developmental programmes. The consolidation of the High Performance Sport Institute and Singapore Sports School into a single entity will also deepen our partnerships with NSAs and provide synergistic and holistic support to our athletes.
Coaches play a pivotal role in shaping both athletic performance and the broader sporting environment. Ms Joan Pereira made several sound suggestions on recruiting and developing coaches.
MCCY and SportSG continually review our coach education and development programmes under CoachSG, with a view to building a deep and sustainable pipeline of coaching talents to support our athletes to achieve our High Performance Sport ambition, as well as to provide clear development and progression pathways, from grassroots to high performance coaches for elite athletes. This is in line with our tiered coaching pathways as guided by a competency framework. Through initiatives, such as the Coach Development Grant, our coaches also receive subsidies in course fees to pursue specialised training, including to develop suitable skills and expertise to help our ageing citizens stay physically active and healthy.
Various Members also spoke about the importance of having good access to sports facilities and the challenges that some residents face in booking public courts.
Today, through the Sport Facilities Master Plan, Singaporeans can access public sports facilities near to where they live. And we will continue to improve this. We provide a mix of larger sport centres in towns and smaller facilities in our neighbourhoods for easy access, particularly for seniors and young families.
The roughly 50% increase in the number of Singaporeans who participate in sport and fitness activities weekly, over the past decade, simply means it will be a little bit harder for our residents to book courts at the time and place that they want. We understand this and we plan to increase the provision of courts. We will share more details when ready.
Given the scarcity of land in Singapore, we have been innovative by activating underutilised spaces. For example, the CTE viaduct in Jalan Bukit Merah has been transformed into a touch tennis court, while the space under the Gali Batu Flyover will be used for futsal, pickleball courts and a fitness corner. Rooftops of multi storey carparks are also being repurposed as recreational spaces, such as the upcoming facility in Dover Crescent. We will also continue to explore and partner others to open up more spaces for play and tapping on existing collaborations, like the Dual-Use Scheme with schools.
I agree with Ms Valerie Lee that our sports facilities should serve the needs of a broad range of entities, in addition to our national sports associations. So, for example, our ActiveSG facilities and facilities at The Kallang are used by community sports groups, grassroots organisations, schools and corporates to host events and activities, such as the National School Games, Sport Days, community carnivals, festivals, sports competitions and charity events, like Football with a Heart.
Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested having a code of practice for sports facilities in HDB estates.
Well, our approach is not to be overly prescriptive and allow flexibility to accommodate residents' preferences, given that each precinct in Singapore is a little bit different. At the same time, SportSG will work with all the relevant stakeholders, including the NSAs and, where possible, consider other solutions in terms of facility design or choice of equipment. We will work within our land constraints and we will continue to find innovative ways of providing public access to a diverse mix of sports.
Ms Joan Pereira asked whether there will be a new ice rink. SportSG and other agencies have been working closely with the ice sport NSAs on this matter. The Singapore Ice Skating Association has since launched a request for a proposal to develop and operate an ice rink and is reviewing the proposals received. In the same spirit, we will continue to partner with respective NSAs to support our athletes' short- and long-term training needs.
I am glad to hear Members’ support for recognising a more diverse group of sports. Recognition can help them increase membership, develop talent and secure funding or sponsorship. Some of these newer sports will also catalyse the supporting industries. For example, in the area of e-sports, create more demand for software developers and graphic designers.
I would like to assure Members that our intent is not to be overly prescriptive about what constitutes or not constitute a mind sport or e-sport. Instead, our focus is on supporting the diverse interests of Singaporeans, so that we can promote and develop sports in Singapore and as Ms Poh Li San said – to uplift and bond our nation through sports. We welcome suggestions to make this clearer to interested stakeholders and will continue to engage the sector closely.
And to Mr David Hoe, I have to say that for something to be considered a mind sport, it needs to be affiliated to an NSA, who is in turn affiliated to an International Federation. So, I do not think Toto will make the list anytime soon.
I would also like to assure Mr Fadli Fawzi that SportSG will continue to work with commercial entities to support a more vibrant and diverse sporting ecosystem. For example, SportSG partnered with close to 20 commercial partners for last year’s Singapore Urban Sports and Fitness Festival, and over 50 commercial partners for the inaugural Olympic Esports Week in 2023.
The recognition of more sports also offers an opportunity to engage various segments of population in different ways as Ms Joan Pereira has pointed out. Seniors can be engaged through mind sports to keep them mentally and socially active, which will complement today’s physical activity programmes offered by Government agencies and community partners. Indeed, as Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr David Hoe pointed out too, there is also an opportunity to engage youths through e-sports, given its popularity.
I agree with Dr Charlene Chen, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr David Hoe that we should do so while addressing all the possible risks, such as potential issues with regard to gaming addiction. We will work with industry and community partners such as the Singapore Cybersports and Online Gaming Association and the Singapore Esports Association, as well as Government agencies like MOE and MOH to do so.
I thank Members for understanding that an expanded definition of sport does not mean that we will support all sports equally given the need for us to use public funds wisely. I agree with Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim, Mr David Hoe and Dr Hamid Razak that the development of new sports, including e-sports should complement rather than crowd out existing sporting pathways, especially those that promote physical activity and broad-based participation.
As Dr Charlene Chen pointed out, one such pathway is the Direct School Admission (DSA). MOE schools have the autonomy to offer programmes that suit their students' needs and interests. MOE prioritises physical sports in the National School Games as movement and regular physical activity are fundamental to students' holistic development and health. For other types of sports, there are competition platforms organised by various organisations for students to represent their schools.
Members including Mr Alex Yam, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Dr Kenneth Goh, Mr David Hoe, Ms Elysa Chan also talked about our funding principles. Broadly, we calibrate the amount of support for sports based on their specific needs, governance standards and contribution to our national sporting objectives, which includes the ability of the sport and its competition to inspire the Singapore spirit. We regularly review our support for sports and will continue to engage with the NSAs and other partners, like Singapore National Olympic Council and Singapore National Paralympic Council, so that we can collectively move in the same direction to uplift Singapore sports.
Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Mr Fadli Fawzi asked how we would ensure fiscal sustainability. Within our land, manpower and funding constraints, we have found ways to support non-traditional sports, whether through support for athletes, such as the Athletes’ Inspire Fund, which defrays the costs for athletes in emerging sports participating in regional competitions, or working with NSAs to strengthen governance, obtain charity status and gain access to donations and matching grants to help grow their sports, such as the One Team Singapore Fund, or providing event and facility support, such as to host events like the 2023 World Youth Tchoukball Championship in Singapore.
To complement Government funding, we encourage corporates to come in to support our TeamSG athletes. We have seen some good examples, including Yeo Hiap Seng sponsorship to Max Maeder in 2022 to support his journey towards the 2024 Paris Olympics, and subsequent extension of their sponsorship deal by another four years from 2025 to 2028.
And we will make sport more accessible and inclusive for everyone. I would like to thank Mr Alex Yam, Dr Kenneth Goh, Ms Valerie Lee, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim who have spoken up on the importance of disability sport as a driver for inclusivity.
That is why we refreshed the Disability Sports Master Plan (DSMP) in 2024 to raise sport participation for persons with disabilities, focusing on three key strategic themes: First, to increase accessibility to disability sports programmes and activities; second, to enhance awareness of disability sports and inclusive sports activities, and; third, fulfil aspirations of persons with disabilities who desire and have the potential to do sports at the high performance level.
One of the strategic moves in the DSMP seeks to enhance the competencies of coaches in disability sports. We target to more than double the number of registered coaches under the National Registry of Coaches who can coach persons with disabilities, from 120 to 300 by 2030. This will complement other moves to increase the number of regular participants in disability sports programmes from 3,200 today to about 5,400 by 2030. We will work closely with various partners like schools, sports associations and community partners to implement the various strategic moves as laid out in the DSMP.
Ms Gho Sze Kee suggested the merging of the Singapore National Olympic Council and the Singapore National Paralympic Council. Both councils are independent and have their respective missions of developing and promoting the Olympic and Paralympic movements respectively, and amongst others, preparing our athletes for major games. I am sure they will take to heart the suggestion. There will be benefits with the current arrangement and there will be other possible benefits with a merger. And it comes down to which structure will allow them to meet their mandate and mission better and which structure serves Singapore and Team Singapore better. Both councils have done great work in uplifting sports and athletes in their sectors and MCCY and SportSG will continue working closely with them.
I would also like to thank Ms Poh Li San, Dr Hamid Razak and Dr Charlene Chen for their suggestions on ensuring a wider representation of professionals or experts in sports education, disability sports, sports psychology, sports tourism, community sports and senior sports on the Board of SportSG. This is in line with our plans to diversify SportSG Board’s expertise to enable it to lead the sport sector well.
The maximum of 25 members on the Board of SportSG provides us the scope to bring on board more diverse expertise and perspectives, and is in line with the size of other Statutory Boards. This is a maximum number, it is not a target, and we will continue to ensure that the Board runs effectively and efficiently.
Our society is aging rapidly. It is imperative that we work together to keep our seniors active and healthy through sports and physical fitness activities. Members Mr Alex Yam, Dr Charlene Chen and Mr David Hoe as well as Ms Joan Pereira have raised this. One key initiative is the Frailty Prevention Programme (FPP) that we have been progressively introducing to our Active Ageing Centres (AACs).
There are two key components to the FPP. First, the Combat Age-Related Loss of Muscle programme (CALM), which is an eight-week programme targeted at seniors to help them understand muscle health through assessment, guided strength training, and health coaching. Since September 2024, over 1,200 seniors from 54 AACs have completed the programme. After going through CALM, almost all seniors reported an improvement in at least one of five measurements, with at least 85% of them improving in at least three of these measurements. We will continue to run more runs of CALM and consider expanding them to the Residents Network as well should there be interest.
Second, introducing adaptive sports to seniors in AACs. This allows them to continue to reap the benefit of sport, while calibrating the level of physical exertion. This culminated in the inaugural Seniors National Games last year, where 4,500 seniors representing 110 AACs competed across five adaptive sports.
Some Members also asked about helping children and youth from disadvantaged backgrounds access sports. Sport can provide a safe and structured environment for them to build confidence, resilience and stronger connection to friends and society. SportSG provides a SportCares Bursary for children and youths from low-income families to participate in ActiveSG Academies and Clubs. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders and community partners to identify suitable children and youths for our initiatives and ensure that more can benefit.
SportSG will also continue to design and administer grants and programmes that can benefit different segments of the population, to strengthen our ecosystem or increase access to sport. For example, the Communities of Care Grant. This has played a vital role in supporting smaller organisations like Amplify, enabling them to create meaningful change in the lives of vulnerable communities. Through their functional fitness program, Amplify empowers youth at risk, seniors, and persons with disabilities by promoting holistic wellness and fostering a sense of community. Beneficiaries develop physical strength, resilience, and leadership skills, while gaining valuable industry knowledge for future employment opportunities.
We are also working to ensure that our people engage in physical fitness activities safely. I am encouraged by the Members’ support towards SportSG’s calibrated approach. As Mr Alex Yam, Dr Hamid Razak, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Lee Hong Chuang and Dr Charlene Chen pointed out, over-regulation would deter smaller players or grassroots groups.
Our current focus is to ensure baseline standards and eventually uplift the sector. For example, Registered Exercise Professionals under the National Registry of Exercise Professionals hold relevant fitness or exercise certifications and are also certified in Standard First Aid. These are not intended to be onerous but are simple and essential requirements for a more developed industry for Singaporeans’ benefit. We will continue to review our approach and engage the sector.
Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about a potential conflict of interest SportSG’s expanded function to manufacture and supply sport and physical equipment, as well as to set standards for such equipment in clause 6(m) and 6(l) of the Bill. To clarify, SportSG typically does not manufacture sports or physical fitness equipment for sale. Items provided are usually meant to provide a service to Singaporeans, such as gym towels or water-bottles for children. SportSG also periodically provides sport-related items such as sport-resistance bands or TeamSG premiums, as part of its role to promote an active lifestyle or to strengthen public support for Team Singapore athletes.
Ms Elysa Chen asked about the accountability of standards set and approvals given. The criteria for being registered on the National Registry of Coaches and National Registry of Exercise Professionals and the names of coaches and exercise professionals is listed on the respective registries and publicly available. The requirements for accreditation are also objective, such as first aid certification. SportSG will continue to be objective and transparent as it seeks to uplift industry standards in partnership with our stakeholders.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we have achieved much progress in developing a vibrant sports culture in Singapore over the last five decades. We have significantly raised sports participation for Singaporeans from all walks of life – from one in two just a decade ago, to three in four today. We have made a significant leap in our regional performance, returning from the recent SEA Games in Bangkok with a record haul of medals.
We are on the right track to scale the next bound of sports in Singapore.
First, we are making “hardware” investments in Kallang to integrate the Singapore Sports School with our High Performance Sport Institute and build a new home for Team Singapore.
Second, we are transforming our “software” to support our youth and senior athletes holistically with deeper investments in sports science and sports medicine and stronger partnerships with our NSAs.
Third, we have set out a masterplan and we are running programmes and initiatives to be more inclusive through sport by empowering persons with disabilities, outreaching to vulnerable youths and supporting students of all abilities to provide good access sports in schools and to nurture a love for sport from young.
Last but not least, we are setting standards to ensure our people engage in physical activities safely, so that Singaporeans can lead active and healthy lifestyles.
I thank all Members for supporting this Bill. At this juncture, I also want to thank Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Lee Hong Chuang, Ms Poh Li San and Dr Kenneth Goh for reminding us that sport at any level is not just about winning and doing well. It is also about inculcating values, building character and giving ourselves a sense of who we are as a nation. It is about how we respond when our team needs us.
Dr Kenneth Goh gave us the examples of Josh Chua, Koen Pang, Izaac Quek and Victoria Lim putting team before self and nation before self. And there were many more examples that we witnessed at the many sporting events, in our schools and communities as well.
It is about how we respond in defeat.
While we had a record medal haul at the SEA Games, we had our share of disappointments as well. Our netball team, who are Asian youth champions, suffered an agonising three-point loss in the finals. But that is sport. There will be good days and there will be bad days. What matters is we always come back, stronger.
That is how our support for our athletes should be. We support them when they are doing well and we support them even more if they are not doing well. That is how sport bonds and uplifts us as a nation – not because we win all the time, but because we know how difficult it is to win and we always come back, stronger.
Sir, the impact of this Bill will depend on what we do from here. From providing more support for our athletes beyond sports, participating actively in our lineup of programmes, stepping forward to contribute to a vibrant and inclusive sporting ecosystem, there is a role for everyone.
There is much to look forward to for Singapore's sports. We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to implement this Bill effectively and ensure that our national sport ecosystem remains inclusive, dynamic and future-ready. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Minister? Looks like it is a very comprehensive round-up. No clarifications?
[(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 David Neo]. (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 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of The Opposition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. Before we commence the debate on the Motion, I wish to draw hon Members' attention to certain provisions in our Standing Orders.
First of all, Standing Order No 50(1) states that the Member shall confine his observations to the subject under discussion and may not introduce matters irrelevant thereto.
The main subject matters under discussion are the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and his suitability to continue as the Leader of the Opposition. Hon Members are reminded that they should confine their observations to the subject matter of the Motion and not to shift the debate to other unrelated incidents or political issues.
Furthermore, as this Motion is about the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and other persons named in the Motion, and only to such extent, Members should refrain from raising and discussing the conduct of other Members as it is not directly relevant to the Motion. If any Member wishes to widen the debate to discuss general political matters or party issues or the conduct of another Member, he can and he should do so by filing a separate Motion for debate by the House.
Secondly, Parliament is not re-litigating the case. While reference can be made to the judgment of the Court to set the context for the debate on today's Motion, the intent of this Motion is not to reopen the case, to dispute the findings of the Court or to question its decisions or to discuss the conduct of the trial.
Hon Members are to abide by the rules and other provisions of the Standing Orders. I will disallow any remarks which infringe the rules. Members are urged to exercise judgement in their speeches and clarifications and to be prepared to substantiate any factual point that they make.
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 Minister's Speech","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Indranee's speeches for this Motion?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Deputy Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Indranee'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":"Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of The Opposition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I wish to move the Motion standing in my name in today's Order Paper.
Mr Speaker, we are here today because a lie was told in this Chamber four and a half years ago. That lie led to another, and another, and yet another, and then to an inquiry by the Committee of Privileges (COP) where more lies were told – this time, under oath. This resulted in a referral to the Public Prosecutor (PP) and eventually to charges in Court for offences under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1962 (or PPIPA).
Last month, on 4 December 2025, the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh's conviction by the District Court on two counts of lying before the COP. The District Court also found that Mr Singh had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to maintain her lie to Parliament, confirming the COP's findings.
Now, the matter has come full circle back to Parliament.
Mr Speaker, this is a serious matter. The misconduct in question is not trivial. It involves multiple lies to different persons at different times, guiding a junior Member of Parliament (MP) to do the wrong thing and a failure of leadership.
In Singapore's Parliamentary democracy, honesty and integrity are not abstract ideals. They are not optional virtues. They are the foundation of public trust.
The authority of this House does not rest on law alone. It rests on the confidence and trust that Singaporeans have in Parliament – in its processes and its Members. This confidence and trust can be lost. This is why Parliament must insist that its Members always speak truthfully and act with integrity, even when it is politically inconvenient to do so.
When an MP lies to Parliament or before its committees, it is not just a personal lapse or a tactical misjudgement. It strikes at the trust Singaporeans place in us as well as the solemn duty we owe to the people we serve. It undermines the high standards of integrity and incorruptibility which make the Singaporean system work and for which Singapore is known.
That is why I have brought this Motion before Parliament today.
The Motion asks the House to:
1. Affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's parliamentary and political system;
2. Note the findings of the High Court and the COP;
3. Express regret at Mr Singh's conduct, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament;
4. Consider that such conduct renders him unsuitable to continue to hold the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position with important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system;
5. Note that the High Court's judgment and COP findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap which have to be considered separately; and
6. Call on all Members of Parliament to uphold our solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in us by Singaporeans.
So, to be clear, and for avoidance of doubt, in the third limb of the Motion, the one that asks us to express regret, the House is not being asked to impose any penalties or sanctions on Mr Pritam Singh under the PPIPA. What is being asked is for this House to express a view of his conduct and, if the House agrees that such conduct is not acceptable, to express its regret at such conduct.
Also, the fourth limb of the Motion does not operate to remove the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is designated by the Prime Minister and the decision whether Mr Singh should continue with that designation rests with the Prime Minister, not Parliament. However, Members are entitled to and, I would argue, have an obligation to express a view on Mr Singh's suitability to continue in that role. It will then be for the Prime Minister to decide what to do after that.
The fifth limb asks the House to note that the Court judgments have implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, as I will explain in my speech. However, as the extent and degree of their conduct differ from Mr Singh's, the fifth limb proposes that their matters be considered separately on another occasion.
Mr Speaker, let me briefly set out the facts.
On 3 August 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan, then a Workers' Party (WP) MP, spoke during the WP Motion titled \"Empowering Women\". She alleged that three years earlier, she had accompanied a sexual assault survivor to make a police report on a rape committed against the survivor. She claimed to have witnessed the survivor come out crying and alleged that the police officer commented about the survivor's dressing and the fact that she had been drinking.
Ms Khan repeated this allegation at a later Sitting of Parliament on 4 October 2021. However, on 1 November 2021, she admitted to Parliament that she had lied and had not in fact accompanied a survivor to the police station. I will refer to this lie as the \"Untruth\" as the Court did.
Following Ms Khan's admission, I raised a complaint against her under Standing Order 100(7)(b) for breach of privilege. The complaint was referred to the COP, which was convened and began its inquiry on 29 November 2021. Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – then the three senior-most leaders in the WP – gave evidence before the COP to assist in its investigations into the circumstances that led to Ms Khan's Untruth.
Ms Khan told the inquiry that the three WP leaders had advised her to continue with the Untruth after she first uttered it in Parliament on 3 August 2021. However, the three WP leaders denied this before the COP. The COP found each of the three to have lied under oath.
On 15 February 2022, Parliament debated and adopted the COP's Report. This House fined Ms Khan and resolved to refer Mr Singh to the PP to be investigated for lying to the COP. Mr Singh was later charged in Court on 19 March 2024 for lying to a Parliamentary committee, which is an offence under the PPIPA. Mr Faisal was referred to the PP for refusing to answer the COP's questions. For this, he was subsequently issued a Police Advisory.
Parliament postponed making a decision on: Mr Singh's, Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's involvement in guiding Ms Khan to continue with the Untruth; and Ms Lim's and Mr Faisal's lying to the COP; pending the outcome of Mr Singh's case. Mr Singh's court case has recently concluded. Parliament now has to decide what to do in the light of the Courts' findings. And that is the reason for the Motion today.
Mr Speaker, before I go into the Courts' findings, I should mention that normally under the Standing Orders, they do not allow reflecting upon the character and conduct of an MP or making a charge of a personal character, but there are exceptions. This is when it pertains to his conduct in his capacity as an MP and if there is a substantive Motion on the matter. In this case, we do have a substantive Motion, the terms of which require us to consider the character and conduct of Mr Singh, and at times Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, in light of the High Court judgment and the COP Report, and to make certain decisions after doing so. It is therefore necessary for us not to skirt around the conduct with euphemisms but to name it squarely, so that everyone understands the issues clearly and can debate them properly.
Let me now deal with the Court judgments. In February 2025, the District Court convicted Mr Singh for lying before the COP. He appealed his conviction. Last month, the High Court dismissed Mr Singh's appeal and upheld the findings of guilt on his charges. Mr Singh has stated that he accepts the High Court's judgment \"fully and without reservation\".
The Court findings established many disturbing facts about Mr Singh's conduct.
First, in relation to Ms Khan's Untruth, Mr Singh told her to \"take it to the grave\", essentially instructing her to hide the Untruth.
Second, he later guided her to continue with the Untruth.
Third, he recommended to the WP Central Executive Committee (CEC) that Ms Khan be expelled from WP if she did not resign, but crucially failed to disclose to the CEC his own prior knowledge of Ms Khan's Untruth and his own involvement guiding her to continue with the Untruth.
Fourth, he lied to Singaporeans when he publicly rejected Ms Khan's accounts of the matter, and accused her of lying.
Fifth, he lied twice to the COP about his own involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. Once when he denied telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave, and again, when he claimed that he had wanted Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth.
And sixth, Mr Singh stuck to these untruths when giving evidence at trial. The Court disbelieved and rejected his evidence. That means he lied to the Courts too.
In gist, this was not a single lapse. Mr Singh not only lied, but lied repeatedly – to the COP, to the public and to the Courts, doubling down each time. He was also not upfront with his own party.
Mr Speaker, allow me to set out salient facts from the Court judgments which substantiate these points.
The 8 August 2021 meeting. Taking the Untruth to the grave. On 7 August 2021, a few days after Ms Khan told the Untruth in Parliament, she confessed this to Mr Singh over the phone. The next day, she met him, along with Ms Lim and Mr Faisal. Ms Khan told them about the Untruth as well.
At this meeting, Mr Singh told Ms Khan to take the Untruth to the grave. This was the Courts' finding. There is contemporaneous evidence showing this. In particular, Ms Khan sent a WhatsApp message to two of her close WP colleagues immediately after the meeting. The message recorded that the three WP leaders had \"agreed that the best thing to do is to take the information to the grave\". That is a quote.
The Courts also found that at this 8 August meeting, Ms Lim had said that \"probably the issue won't come up again\", and Mr Singh did not contradict her view. However, before the COP, Mr Singh vehemently denied Ms Khan's account that she had been asked to take the Untruth to the grave. He said, and I quote, \"[This] would be highly inaccurate. It is a complete lie.\" The other two WP leaders denied it before the COP too.
All three claimed instead that they did not discuss with Ms Khan what should be done about the Untruth at this 8 August meeting. Mr Singh said that she had to speak to her parents first. Mr Singh continued to say this during his Court trial.
With the benefit of the Court judgments, we now know that it was in fact Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders who had lied about what was said at this meeting. The Court found that their attitude had been clear and simple: they believed that there was no need to tell the truth because they did not think that the matter would surface again – they thought it would be buried forever.
For the next two months until October 2021, Mr Singh did not discuss the Untruth with Ms Khan, nor do anything to get her to correct it. This was despite him actively monitoring her other Parliamentary work during this time.
The 3 October 2021 meeting. On 3 October 2021, one day before Parliament sat on 4 October 2021, Mr Singh visited Ms Khan at her home. He told Ms Khan he had a feeling that the issue of the Untruth might be raised the next day. He wanted to discuss what should be done if the topic came up.
The District Court found that during this meeting, Mr Singh guided Ms Khan to continue her Untruth in Parliament. This is consistent with the finding of the COP. So, when Mr Singh denied this before the COP and the Court, he was again lying.
The next day, when Minister Shanmugam asked Ms Khan for further details of her anecdote in Parliament, Ms Khan doubled down on the Untruth. Both Mr Singh and Ms Lim were present in the House. When Ms Khan reiterated the Untruth, they did nothing to correct her. They allowed Parliament to be misled again. Mr Faisal also learnt about the exchange in Parliament later that day.
The 11 October 2021 meeting with Mr Low Thia Khiang. The Police emailed Ms Khan on 7 October 2021, requesting to interview her to obtain more details for the investigation. She forwarded this email to Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders.
On 11 October 2021, Mr Singh and Ms Lim consulted Mr Low Thia Khiang, the WP's former Secretary-General, on what steps to take in relation to the Untruth. Even as they sought Mr Low's advice, they were not honest with him. Critically, they did not reveal that they had known about Ms Khan's Untruth since 8 August 2021. Mr Low said he only learned this two years later, in 2023.
At that point, Mr Singh and Ms Lim were also still hopeful that the Government might not discover the Untruth. Ms Lim told Mr Low that discovering the Untruth was not easy because \"there are so many Police stations in Singapore\". Again, Mr Singh did not disagree with her. It was Mr Low who impressed upon Mr Singh and Ms Lim that Ms Khan had to clarify the Untruth and apologise to Parliament, regardless of whether it might be discovered by the Government.
This was the turning point in the WP's response to the Untruth. Following this meeting with Mr Low, arrangements were finally made for Ms Khan to clarify the Untruth. She eventually did so via a personal statement in Parliament on 1 November 2021. In short, Mr Singh and the other two WP leaders hid the truth for months. They only decided to come clean after Mr Low, their former Secretary-General, advised them to do so.
The Disciplinary Panel (DP) proceedings and the press conference. What happened next was not edifying. The day after Ms Khan clarified the Untruth, the WP announced that it had formed a DP to look into her admissions in Parliament.
The DP comprised Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal – the very persons to whom she had confessed her Untruth in August 2021, from whom she had sought advice, who had agreed to guide her to take the truth to the grave, and – in the case of Mr Singh – who had said he would not judge her.
Well, he did proceed to sit in judgement upon her, personally.
In the course of the DP proceedings, when Ms Khan requested a second interview with the DP, Mr Singh replied: \"Dear Raeesah – I hope you can see that it is precisely your character and behaviour that is under review here, in view of your actions in Parliament and your decision to stick to the untruthful anecdote when asked again in October\".
On 30 November 2021, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that for lying to Parliament, Ms Khan should be expelled from the party within 24 hours if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted their recommendation. Ms Khan resigned from the WP that same day.
What is most troubling about this episode is that Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal failed to declare to the WP CEC or their own party members, let alone the public, that all three of them had actually known about the Untruth since August 2021, and all three had been involved in guiding Ms Khan to maintain her Untruth. One does not need to be a lawyer or a Parliamentarian to know that this is improper and wrong, legally and morally.
As the District Court observed: \"there would have been a real concern that the three WP leaders may not be seen to be able to act fairly or impartially when enquiring into Ms Khan's behaviour, as their own conduct in the affair would also come under scrutiny\", and they had in fact acted \"to conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021\".
Mr Singh claimed that this information was not provided because it was \"irrelevant\". Yet, on 2 December 2021, hours before the COP hearing was due to begin, Mr Singh held a press conference and admitted, for the very first time, that the three WP leaders had known of Ms Khan's Untruth shortly after she had said it on 3 August 2021.
Mr Singh described this timing as a pure, complete coincidence. This was unbelievable. And here is what the District Court found, and I quote:
\"497. Notably, [Mr Singh] only publicly disclosed his own prior knowledge of the Untruth when holding a press conference on 2 December 2021, the very day that the COP was to hear evidence from Ms Loh [Pei Ying] and Ms Khan. Before this, even the WP CEC was kept in the dark.
498. [Mr Singh] only made his public disclosure after Ms Loh had told Mr Mike Lim to let [Mr Singh] know that no matter what happened [Ms Loh] would be going into the COP to tell the truth or what [she] knew of it and [she] wanted to give [Mr Singh] an opportunity to clarify or make a plan where he could put out the party's position or his position first.
499. In [the Court's] view, [Mr Singh's] action in holding the press conference on 2 December 2021 clearly suggested that he was trying to do damage control by pre-emptively disclosing his knowledge and involvement before it was publicly revealed by [Ms] Loh or Ms Khan.\"
When Mr Singh appeared before the COP, he continued to lie and to distance himself from Ms Khan's conduct. He denied making the statement about taking the Untruth to the grave – that was a lie. He said that he had wanted Ms Khan to tell the truth in October 2021 – that was another lie.
These were even graver than other lies, because he was giving them in evidence before a Parliament committee and he was speaking under oath. For wilfully giving these false answers, Mr Singh was charged and eventually convicted by the District Court. His appeal was dismissed.
Mr Speaker, I have set out the brief facts of the case. They are findings of the Courts and Mr Singh has said he accepts the Court's judgment fully and without reservation.
So, as we can see: Mr Singh guided Ms Khan, twice, to maintain her Untruth to Parliament; he then lied twice before the COP; he lied before the Court; he lied to the public; and he concealed material information from his own party.
Mr Speaker, there are simply too many lies – they pile up, one on top of another, each to cover up a previous lie. And that, is a problem as Mr Singh is also the Leader of the Opposition.
This case shows a failure of leadership on the part of Mr Singh.
First, if Mr Singh had told Ms Khan to come clean when she first confessed her Untruth to him in August 2021, the entire matter would have taken a very different course. Yes, it would have been inconvenient and uncomfortable to disclose the truth then. The WP had just won their second group representation constituency (GRC) in Sengkang in the 2020 General Election and Ms Khan was a member of WP's Sengkang team.
But the consequences would have been nowhere as grave as what followed Mr Singh's telling Ms Khan to take the Untruth \"to the grave\". It is precisely at such moments where leaders are tested, and where leadership matters. And we have seen the contrast between Mr Singh's approach and Mr Low Thia Khiang's leadership.
Second, there was a failure to take responsibility. After Ms Khan told the Untruth, she knew she was in trouble. She asked Mr Singh for advice, as her party leader and because she regarded him as her mentor. Mr Singh told her to hide the Untruth. He guided her to continue with the Untruth. Yet when the truth came to light, he did not admit his complicity. Instead, he disowned her actions and later sat in judgment of her conduct – while concealing his own role.
Third, Mr Singh refused to acknowledge the impact of the original Untruth on the Police. He said no wrong had been done to the Police by reason of the false claim and questioned the amount of work the Police had done to investigate the false claim. He dismissed the work the Police had to put in and the diversion of public resources with the comment that the Police is not a \"broken-back organisation\".
The Police had to comb through more than 1,400 sexual assault and related cases from 2018 to 2021 to investigate the false claims. This led to delays in handling other matters and cases. Mr Singh could easily have prevented all this by urging Ms Khan to tell the truth the moment she confessed to him.
Mr Speaker, some may ask: the Court has already imposed a fine. Is that not the end of the matter? Why must Parliament act?
Sir, the answer is that the Court has dealt with the criminal offences. We are not asking to impose further penalties for those offences or his other misconduct under PPIPA. But the matters in the Court judgment and the outstanding matters in the COP Report still affect Parliament and Parliament must take a view.
The Untruth, which gave rise to the offence, occurred in Parliament. The lies were told to a Committee of Parliament. The conduct and conviction of Mr Singh reflect directly on Parliament.
Parliament must decide whether such conduct is acceptable for an MP – and in this case the Leader of the Opposition.
Following the High Court decision, Mr Singh has not shown any remorse, accountability or acceptance of responsibility. Nor has the WP expressed its view on the matter. It has announced some proceedings that are still in progress, but its dilatory response contrasts sharply with its swift actions in previous cases.
In the case of Ms Khan, after she confessed her Untruth to Parliament on 1 November 2021, a DP was formed within 24 hours to look into her admission. Recommendations were made and accepted by the CEC within the month. In the case of Mr Leon Perera, after video evidence of his extra-marital affair emerged on 17 July 2023, Mr Singh met with him that same afternoon and the WP’s CEC met that same evening to discuss the matter. Two days later, on 19 July 2023, Mr Perera resigned. It was made known that had he not done so, he would have been expelled.
In contrast, in Mr Singh's own case, the High Court issued its decision on 4 December 2025. The WP responded that it was studying the verdict and grounds of decision.
I then issued two statements, on 17 and 22 December, saying that this matter would be raised in Parliament in January.
On 28 December 2025, the WP confirmed that some of its members had requested for a Special Cadre Members' Conference (CMC). On 3 January 2026, one whole month after the High Court judgment, the WP announced that a DP would be formed to determine if Mr Singh had contravened the party constitution. The DP would conclude within three months and the Special CMC would only be convened after the DP completed its work.
It is strange that the WP could act so decisively in the cases of Ms Khan and Mr Perera – where there were no Court findings on their conduct. Yet now, in a far graver case of dishonesty and lying, it needs four months to figure out the import of the Court's clear judgment of Mr Singh.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, do you want to raise a Point of Order?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes. Earlier, you had advised all Members to stick to the matters involved in the resolutions. I wonder, what the Leader has been saying, what has it got to do with the resolutions?
Mr Speaker: First, I want to say that indeed, I had made those remarks. And I had said that we are not questioning the decisions of the Court, but with respect to setting out the context, those can be cited.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, my point is that the Leader is now touching on what the WP is doing to follow up on the judgment. So, I wonder what has that got to do with the resolutions?
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Ms Lim for her clarification. My point is timing. And the point is what I was getting to, which is that, while I understand that this is what the WP is doing, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations —
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): Point of Order.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Mr Speaker, I rise on the Point of Order under Standing Order 50(6).
The Leader has stated that Mr Singh has lied to the Courts and lied to Singaporeans. The Court conviction was specifically for lying to the COP under oath, no perjury charge was brought. These characterisations impute improper motives beyond the Court's actual findings. I ask that the Leader confine her remarks to what the Court actually found.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Tiong for his clarification. Maybe I should explain to him step by step.
If a statement is made to the Court and the Court finds that that is not true or rejects it, it must follow, as a matter of logic, that what was told to the Court, is not the truth. The Court can decide whether or not it wishes to proceed with perjury, but the Court does not have to do so.
The point I am making is that: what was told to the Court, if untrue, it must follow that it is a lie. It is just a matter of logic.
If I may be permitted to continue, Mr Speaker.
As I was saying, Parliament cannot wait on the WP nor should our view depend on the WP's internal deliberations, or on whether Mr Singh's actions contravene the WP constitution. This House must decide on the matter without unnecessary delay, as it reflects on the standing and integrity of Parliament.
Sir, I have also moved that Parliament considers that Mr Singh's conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Singh was first designated the Leader of the Opposition by then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after the 2020 General Election. After the 2025 General Election, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong again designated Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition.
The office of the Leader of the Opposition was formally established in 2020 to recognise Singaporeans' strong desire for a greater diversity of views in our politics and to enable our political system to evolve in a way that maintains our sense of national purpose. That objective remains valid.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not an ordinary MP. He has greater responsibilities and privileges than other backbenchers. To recap, the duties of the Leader of the Opposition include leading the Opposition in presenting alternative views in Parliamentary debates on policies, Bills and Motions; scrutinising the Government's positions and actions in Parliament; and nominating opposition Members for appointment to Select Committees.
In addition, the Leader of the Opposition may be asked to take on other duties, such as attending official state functions, and taking part in visits and meetings alongside members of the Government and the Public Service. When he does so, he goes as a representative of Parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition also receives specific privileges. He will, from time to time, receive confidential briefings by the Government on important national issues, such as security and external relations, especially during a national crisis or emergency. In debates, he gets the right of first response and more time for his speeches, equal to a Minister's speech time. He is provided an office in Parliament; additional staff support and resources and double the allowance of an elected MP.
Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition position carries important duties and privileges. Whoever holds this designation must be respected and trusted as a competent representative of the people. When the Office of the Leader of the Opposition was first introduced, there were high hopes for the role and how it would enhance the functioning and standing of Parliament. But now Mr Singh has done all the things that I have set out and been convicted in Court for lying to a Committee of Parliament.
Under these circumstances, the conclusion is clear and beyond doubt: Mr Singh's conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP; and he has fallen short of the requirements and standards expected of the Leader of the Opposition.
If Members agree with this conclusion, they should vote in favour of the Motion. If they disagree and wish to vote against, they should justify to this House and to Singaporeans why Singapore should accept such lowered standards of honesty and integrity from their political leaders.
The WP MPs have often made speeches in this House about the importance of accountability. They have declared it their mission to hold the Government to account. The question is whether they believe that their own members – including their leader – should also be held to account for doing something wrong, especially after the Court has convicted them of a crime.
The WP and Mr Singh himself have expressed strong views against lying and dishonesty. After Ms Khan lied to Parliament and after the cover-up failed, Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Faisal recommended to the WP CEC that she be expelled from the party if she did not resign. The WP CEC accepted the recommendation.
When Mr Leon Perera was discovered to have lied to the WP leadership about his extramarital affair, Mr Singh said, \"The Constitution of the Workers' Party requires candidates to be honest and frank in their dealings with the party and the people of Singapore… Leon's conduct and not being truthful when asked by the party leadership about the allegation fell short of the standards expected of WP MPs. This is unacceptable. Had he not offered his resignation, I would have recommended to the CEC that he be expelled from the party.\"
Notably, swift justice was meted out just for lying to the WP leadership. Ms Khan and Mr Perera had not lied to a Committee of Parliament or under oath; and Mr Perera had not been charged for a crime, let alone found guilty by the Court.
I am sure the WP will agree with me that the same standards and rigour must apply, whether to backbenchers or party leaders.
Of course, the same standards apply also to People's Action Party (PAP) MPs. If a PAP MP or Political Office Holder is found guilty of lying or dishonesty, nobody doubts that serious consequences will follow. It would be untenable for them to continue as if nothing happened. In serious cases, they will have to relinquish their positions.
Members may recall that in 1999, PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang was charged for cheating. He resigned before pleading guilty. In 2024, Mr S Iswaran resigned as soon as he was charged, even before conviction. Mr Tan Chuan-Jin resigned on account of his personal conduct, even though there was no criminal offence.
In all of these cases, the MPs resigned their seats as matter of party discipline, and to express remorse and accountability, but most of all to maintain the high standards expected of those in public office. These standards underpin our system of Government and are crucial to providing Singaporeans with the quality of leaders and Government that they deserve.
Mr Speaker, this matter goes beyond party politics. Honesty and integrity are non-negotiable. They form the foundation of our political system and of good governance in Singapore. If Parliament allows these standards to slip, distrust will gradually take root, and the public confidence in our institutions will be eroded, inevitably and irreversibly. The damage would be profound and exceedingly difficult to recover from.
By supporting this Motion, Members will show that this generation of MPs are determined never to allow that to happen and that we will continue to uphold and enforce the rigorous standards that have served Singapore well and will continue to do so for many years to come.
I therefore ask all Members to support the Motion. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Point of Order.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: The Leader of the House characterised it as a cover-up. That was not found in the Court filings. So, under Standing Order 50(6), I do not believe that is permissible.
Mr Speaker: Could you repeat what you just said?
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: The Leader of the House characterised it as a cover-up, which was not found in the legal judgment. So, I do not believe this is permissible under Standing Order 50(6), which involves imputing improper motives.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: One moment, Mr Speaker, so that I can be very clear. Mr Tiong has just raised a Point of Order. He says that the Court did not use the word or did not find there was a cover-up.
The District Court judgment at paragraph 489 stated that the three WP leaders had acted to \"conceal their involvement in guiding Ms Khan to maintain the Untruth since 8 August 2021\". \"Conceal\", if one looks in the general meaning of the dictionary usually means cover-up.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, before I begin, I wish to state that when it comes to the vote on this Motion, I have communicated with the WP MPs that the party whip is lifted. They are free to vote as they consider fit.
On my submissions and response to what the Leader has said, including going through aspects of the judgment, my submissions to the Court and my defence are found online. I have posted all my defence submissions online. They can be read.
Sir, after any Magistrate Court has given its judgment, the decision can only be appealed to the High Court and no further. There is no further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. One has to accept the verdict fully and without reservation.
I will explain why I was disappointed with the judgment, a public comment which I did not hear from the Leader's opening. I will explain why I was disappointed with the judgment and therefore do not agree with it. To this end, I will make some general points first and address all the resolutions of the Motion in the course of my speech. I will use the word \"resolutions\" in my speech. Leader used the word \"limbs\".
The defence's position, amongst other things, was straightforward. Raeesah Khan was not told to take her lie to the grave on 8 August 2021. The Courts have ruled that her SMS message of 8 August of having been told to take her lie to the grave was the anchoring piece of documentary evidence and, along with other circumstantial evidence, led to the trial judge's conclusion that such a statement was made by myself. My conscience remains clear, as it will forever, that this was not said by me to Khan at any point in time.
As for the other circumstantial evidence used to sustain my conviction, the legal opinion of the defence at trial was that enough evidence was canvassed to Court to render a conviction on both charges, unsafe in law, with reasonable doubt, duly established. This explains why the defence's considered view was that there was no necessity for me to call Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap up as witnesses.
This is all I will say on this point, in concert with Speaker's earlier ruling, as I do not intend to use my speech to review matters the Court has deliberated and ruled upon. To that end, the law has run its course – and I accept and respect that.
On Resolution 1 of the Motion, as an Opposition MP, my colleagues and I play a role in upholding our Organs of State. This disposition explains why I have no difficulty agreeing with Resolution 1 of the Motion.
On Resolution 2, it is worthwhile to recall that the COP's findings went much further than the charges that were preferred against me. It is a fact that the subject of guiding Khan to continue to lie, which is found in the Leader of the House's Motion, was not framed as a charge that was preferred against me.
Parliament would recall that it had referred my matter to the Police and the PP to review all evidence afresh. It follows that the PP would have no trouble framing a charge to this effect if indeed there was sufficient evidence that I had guided Khan to lie. My position is Khan was not told to lie, let alone guided to lie. I reject Resolution 2.
To this end, Sir, let me refer to some reports that were published in The Straits Times as the appeal was heard: \"3.40 pm, 4 November last year – Justice Chong says the Prosecution's point that Mr Singh did not stand up to clarify on 4 October 2021 when Ms Khan doubled down on her lie in Parliament is not remarkable. It is not realistic to expect him to immediately react to what she said was a lie, he says. This can cut both ways as events subsequently demonstrate, he adds.
The Judge notes that it is unrealistic to say that just because Singh did not stand up that day to clarify, it does not mean that doubling down is something he told her to do.\"
I also refer to the notes of evidence of 4 November on appeal. This is at page 51.
Court to my lawyer: \"But you are pitching your case to say that Mr Singh never told her to lie, but that might be right.\"
My lawyer: \"I am not pitching it. I mean, factually, as Your Honour has recognised, that is right. Nobody is saying that.\"
Court: \"Correct.\"
On Resolution 2, I disagree that my conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, as I disagree with the finding of guilt by the Courts and the COP.
Owing to relatively recent developments to the criminal law, the prosecution today must hand over witness statements in its possession that are favourable to my case before the trial begins. This is a legal obligation under what I refer to as the Kadar disclosure rules.
As per law, I was given portions of Loh Pei Ying's statements that she made to the Police. However, such statements are inadmissible in court, subject to the criteria in section 259 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and subject to the usual rules of evidence. In addition, under section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code, permission must be given by the PP to use the undisclosed statements outside trial proceedings.
I wrote to the PP seeking permission to refer to these undisclosed statements for the purposes of today's Parliamentary Motion. However, my request was rejected by the PP.
Nonetheless, Parliament is sovereign, which means it is supreme above all other Government institutions, including the executive and judicial bodies. And for Parliamentary purposes, Police statements under oath must be official documents and the reply to one question goes to the heart of my position in rejecting Resolution 3 of the Motion.
Members would remember that these Police statements arose out of Parliament's referral of Mr Faisal and myself to the PP. As Parliament is sovereign, I would like to pass up a copy to Speaker for his consideration before permission is given to me to read out one question and its corresponding answer.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you may hand the document over to the Clerk. [A copy of the document was handed to Mr Speaker.]
Mr Speaker: Leader, you have a Point of Order?
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I just wish to enquire. The statements that Mr Singh is referring to, is he referring to statements that the PP had provided him for purposes of the trial?
Mr Pritam Singh: Correct.
Ms Indranee Rajah: And Mr Singh's answer was, \"That is correct\". And Mr Singh's position was that he had asked — So, that was provided during the trial?
Mr Pritam Singh: Before the trial.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Before the trial. So, Mr Singh is now asking, or he says that he had asked the PP for permission to use them for today's Motion. Is that correct?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, that is correct.
Ms Indranee Rajah: And the PP had said no?
Mr Pritam Singh: That is correct.
Ms Indranee Rajah: And Mr Singh is asking Mr Speaker to rule to allow the Prosecution's statement for this Motion?
Mr Pritam Singh: Not the Prosecution's statement. The Police statement.
Ms Indranee Rajah: The Police statement.
Mr Pritam Singh: That is correct.
Ms Indranee Rajah: So, basically, PP had said no.
Mr Pritam Singh: That is right.
Ms Indranee Rajah: And Mr Singh is asking the Speaker to rule —
Mr Pritam Singh: For the reason that Parliament is sovereign.
Mr Speaker: As I stated from the onset, Parliament today, we are not re-litigating the case. What you have provided to me, Mr Singh, is something which you had stated the PP or rather the Police have refused to release to you. Is that correct?
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am not re-litigating the case. I want to stress that.
The statement that I have handed over to Speaker was not admissible in Court. But it remains a Police statement made under oath and my application, if I can call it that, is to allow me to recite the question and answer to that statement, because it is of relevance to Resolution 3 in the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Minister, you have a Point of Order? Yes.
The Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): I have a clarification. I have not looked at the provisions myself, but perhaps Mr Singh can clarify.
He has asked the Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC), and AGC has said no. Is there a legal provision that governs the use of such documents and does that give AGC the power to say yes or no?
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: The relevant provision is section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code and I have a copy of it here. So, perhaps I can read out from that. And the answer would be in the affirmative.
But because I have the provision, let me just read it out.
\"Restrictions on use of materials disclosed by the prosecution, section 225A.
(1) Where the prosecution discloses (whether before, on or after 17 September 2018) any material to the accused or the accused’s advocate (if any) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings —
(a)\tthat material may be disclosed, for the purposes of those criminal proceedings, to any co‑accused in those criminal proceedings, or to the advocate (if any) of any such co‑accused, by any of the following persons:
(i)\tthe accused;
(ii)\tthe accused’s advocate (if any);
(iii)\tany other co‑accused or advocate to whom that material was disclosed under this paragraph.
(b) on and after 17 September 2018, each of the following persons is deemed to give an undertaking to the court not to use that material for any purpose (other than the purposes of those criminal proceedings) without the permission of the Public Prosecutor\".
So, to answer the Minister's question, these are the relevant provisions. And the PP has to be informed, or permission has to be granted from him to use those statements outside of criminal proceedings.
Mr K Shanmugam: So, it is as I thought, Sir, I have not read it recently, but as a point of clarification, and I am sure Speaker can get advice, but it would appear that it is set out in a legislative provision that such information can only be released within the framework set out in that legislation. And maybe, I am not sure that I have ever come across a situation where Parliament can ignore the legal position set out in law. But it is a matter of clarification.
Mr Speaker: I will make a ruling on this later. Indeed, it is true that the Judiciary is one organ of state and likewise, the Parliament is another organ of state. So, Mr Singh, if I may request you to continue with your speech, I will study this further and I will make a ruling on your request at a later stage.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will continue.
There are those who believe that whatever our Courts decide, a convicted person is unable to retain their belief that they are innocent insofar as a conviction is concerned.
In 1994, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam was convicted for a different criminal offence. The President, who opened this very session of Parliament only some months back, was asked about this in an interview with the online news channel, Mothership, just prior to his election victory in the 2023 Presidential Elections. He said in response to his conviction that, I quote, \"They got the wrong man.\"
A criminal conviction does not negate one's right to assert innocence. A finding of guilt by the Courts did not undermine the President's personal view of his conviction.
In my case, my conscience will always be clear insofar as my conviction on both charges is concerned. However, as I iterated in my public remarks after the judgment was given, I take full responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct Khan's lie in her speech on women's empowerment in Parliament on 3 August 2021.
In fact, this was not the first time that I had taken responsibility to this effect. I had done so in similar terms publicly three times before: first at the COP itself, next at the debate on the COP Report and finally, at the trial Court. I did not have close to three years to deal with a sensitive matter involving one of my MPs. My timeframe was far shorter and I tried to do what I deemed was best for the MP in question and for Parliament, with a view to work towards an outcome where the MP took ownership and responsibility for her actions.
I certainly did not expect the MP to double down on her lie when asked about it, so I reject Resolution 3 of the Motion. That said, I reiterate, I should have done better in balancing the need to be sensitive to Khan for the reason she gave for lying to Parliament on the one hand and resolving the matter of a lie in Parliament as soon as possible.
Resolution 4 asserts that my continuation in the Leader of the Opposition role would undermine public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system, amongst other things. To this, I make one point. On the matter of the Leader of the Opposition appointment, I refer to a question that was asked of me by Daryl Lim, a Lianhe Zaobao reporter, on 4 May 2025, one day after Polling Day.
He asked, \"In the next Parliament, it looks like the PAP and the Workers' Party. As Leader of the Opposition, what does it look like for the future of the opposition in Singapore?\" I answered, \"I don't know whether I'm going to be Leader of the Opposition. This is something the government of the day has to decide. So, let's see what happens there.\"
In Singapore, the Leader of the Opposition appointment is not a constitutional or statutory one. I have never operated on the assumption that the Leader of the Opposition appointment is a given, nor have I hankered for it. I have done my best to work with my colleagues to advance the interests of Singaporeans with the WP as a responsible Opposition through the office. I reject Resolution 4, which flows from Resolutions 2 and 3.
On Resolution 5, I take the view that no action should be taken against my colleagues, Sylvia Lim and Faisal Manap, as I do not agree with the judgement and the findings of the COP.
In the course of her speech, Leader of the House made a tangential point about the other duties of the Leader of the Opposition, including following Government on overseas trips and receiving classified briefings. Perhaps, for good order, the Leader can share how many of such briefings were extended to me and how many trips I went with the Government to various places for.
To conclude, Mr Speaker, my colleagues and I see a better future for Singapore and Singaporeans, with a more balanced Parliament and a democratic society based on justice and equality. The future we envisage for Singapore does not call for the destruction of the stable and sensible politics Singaporeans seek to uphold in Singapore. And that makes Resolution 6 of the Motion unobjectionable.
In fact, my predecessor, Mr Low Thia Khiang, after giving evidence at my trial, said to the media, I quote: \"The voters can make a distinction between who is a good politician and who is not a good politician, and I believe Pritam Singh is a good politician. He is a capable, competent leader with a heart for Singapore and Singaporeans.\"
To be clear, I do not undertake my political work for such testimonies. I am grateful for the support of Singapore and Singaporeans, and like my colleagues and leaders before me, all of us endeavour to do our best for Singapore. In my case, whatever Parliament decides and as long as I am an MP, I will continue my work as a MP on the ground in Aljunied GRC, and I will continue to advocate for Singaporeans in Parliament to the best of my abilities, as I have for the last 15 years.
For the WP and to my fellow Singaporeans, we press on and we continue working for Singapore. Thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak on this Motion? Ms Kuah Boon Theng.
Ms Kuah Boon Theng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the Motion as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) and a non-partisan Member of this House. I do not personally know the Leader of the Opposition. This being only my third day in Parliament, I have so far not had the opportunity to meet Mr Pritam Singh and make his acquaintance. Indeed, I have not had the chance to meet with most of my Parliamentary colleagues, so with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to briefly explain my own background.
I am an advocate and solicitor who has been in practice for over 30 years. My profession – the legal profession – is an honourable one, and its members are held to high ethical standards to act with integrity and honesty, to uphold justice and to preserve the public's trust.
I am one of the Senior Counsel who sit on the Panel of Disciplinary Tribunal Presidents on the Law Society of Singapore disciplinary cases. This means that when a complaint is made against a practising lawyer alleging professional misconduct and the matter is deemed serious enough to warrant investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal, I have from time to time been appointed to preside over such cases.
In considering these cases, the Disciplinary Tribunal must first be satisfied that the charges of professional misconduct are proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal must then consider if due cause has been shown that would warrant referring the lawyer to the Court of Three Judges, for consideration of disciplinary action.
Just to explain to Members that findings that would justify such a referral for disciplinary action include cases where the advocate and solicitor: one, has been convicted of a criminal offence, implying a defect of character which makes him or her unfit for the profession; two, has been found guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his or her professional duty, or guilty of certain breaches that amount to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor; and three, has been guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession.
That list is not intended to be exhaustive.
I should also mention that as legal counsel, I advise the medical profession, which is another profession that is held to high standards of ethical conduct. Doctors, dentists, nurses and allied health professionals are also subjected to self-regulation in the form of a complaints and disciplinary process. If allegations of professional misconduct are proven and due cause is shown, a doctor's privileges to practice could be suspended or revoked. And like lawyers, doctors can be disciplined by their own professional body, even if the doctor has already been separately held accountable in a Court of law and convicted for a criminal offence. One is accountable to the law, in a criminal Court, but must also be accountable to one's own profession.
Indeed, the professions of law and medicine have much in common. In July 2017, the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon delivered the 23rd Gordon Arthur Ransome Oration entitled, “Law and Medicine: Professions of Honour, Service and Excellence”, in which he referenced lawyers and doctors as the “sibling professions of law and medicine”, who serve critical functions in contemporary society. He called on members of both professions to, among other things, “appreciate and commit to their shared calling to public service”, and “to serve with excellence in ethics as well as competence, so as not to betray the trust of the laypersons who rely on professionals to safeguard their interests and welfare”.
In another important speech he would go on to deliver in March 2018 entitled, “Medicine and Law: Comparative Perspectives on Professional Conduct and Discipline”, our Chief Justice will go on to say, and again, I quote, \"It is for the sake of the protection of the public, therefore, that the professions have always sought to regulate themselves and to punish those of their number who are guilty of misconduct. In this regard, formal disciplinary proceedings provide not only a means for a profession to enforce its standards, but also an avenue for it to communicate to the public, as well as to underscore to its members, the values and ethos which undergird its work.\"
The point I wish to make is this – anyone who has taken the Hippocratic Oath and been conferred the privileges of medical practice, and anyone who has been brought up in the best traditions of the bar, and that includes the Leader of the Opposition, will know very well that we are called by our profession to act with honour and integrity. The special privileges that we receive as lawyers and doctors can be taken away, if we do not live up to the standards of honesty and probity that is expected from us.
So, I ask this. What more, if one is an MP in service of the public? What more, if one is the Leader of the Opposition, who has been specially conferred with the privileges and respect that comes with that special position? Surely, the standards of conduct for the profession of Parliamentarians cannot be lower than that which is expected from the legal or medical professional.
And what the Chief Justice has alluded to about professional bodies always seeking to regulate themselves and having processes to enforce standards is, to me, what this Motion is all about. It is not enough for any profession to simply claim to have standards of conduct and declare itself an honourable profession. To retain the trust and confidence of the public, we must be prepared to call out behaviour and conduct that has fallen short of those standards, hold people to account and consider appropriate sanction or measures that must be taken.
In considering this Motion, we look to the decision of Justice of the Court of Appeal, Steven Chong, who dismissed the appeal lodged by the Leader of the Opposition and upheld the conviction on two charges of wilfully giving false answers to a Parliamentary Committee of Privileges. Upholding the rule of law means we must accept the finality and authority of our Court judgments. The District Judge rendered his decision only after weighing all the evidence, hearing the parties’ submissions and applying the law without fear or favour. His decision was in turn scrutinised closely by a very senior appellate judge, who was satisfied that the conviction must be upheld. Whether we like the outcome or find it disappointing, the integrity of our legal system depends on our commitment to honour the result.
And I am glad that following the unsuccessful appeal, Mr Pritam Singh had publicly stated that he accepts the Court’s judgment fully and without reservation, although it now seems that he has clarified he accepts the Court’s decision only because there is no other avenue of appeal, not because he actually agrees that the decision was correct.
To wilfully give false answers must mean that the conduct leading to conviction involved dishonesty. The first paragraph of the Motion asks that we affirm that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system. To this, I say that there should be no question in the minds of any reasonable right-thinking person, that that must be the case. If the public that we serve are to have trust and confidence in our systems, they have every right to demand that honesty and integrity be the fundamental pillars by which we conduct ourselves and Parliament’s business, and there should be no hesitation on our part to support paragraph 1 of the Motion, as well as paragraph 6 of the Motion, which calls upon all MPs to uphold their solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans.
I would go so far as to say that if we were to vote on each paragraph of the Motion separately, if anyone were to vote “no” to paragraph 1 and paragraph 6, that would automatically raise serious questions about their fitness to serve.
The other paragraphs of the Motion that relate to Mr Pritam Singh’s conduct calls on each of us to indicate if we agree with the characterisation of that conduct as dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and whether Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition, on grounds that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system.
As I have explained, the need to characterise misconduct and consider if it is serious enough to potentially warrant the curtailment or stripping away of certain special privileges is certainly not a decision that is new to me, when I preside over a Disciplinary Tribunal. What I can say is this – when we make our deliberations and vote on the Motion, it must never be based on personal factors but purely on the objective standards of conduct that we are called to uphold and in circumstances where an authoritative finding of guilt has already been made. I trust that all of us will approach the Motion in the same way and make our judgment based on these unassailable principles and sound objective considerations.
Finally, I want to say this. We are all human and we all make mistakes. We may commit errors of judgement, maybe even serious ones. The true test of our character lies not in our failings or what we may have done on our worst day. It is in how we respond, whether we are able to openly acknowledge our wrongdoings, show genuine remorse and contrition, not seeking to lay blame elsewhere.
In this Motion, Members are asked if we agree that Mr Pritam Singh’s conduct was indeed dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and that his continuation as Leader of the Opposition will undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of our political system.
I invite Mr Pritam Singh to reflect on his own conduct and indicate if he would be the first to agree that he has, indeed, fallen below the standards that should rightly be expected of him, and whether he would respond appropriately by voluntarily agreeing to give up the position of Leader of the Opposition. It would be the clearest sign he could offer this House that he has indeed learned the error of his ways, and he acknowledges that the trust and respect that comes with the position of Leader of the Opposition is one that he now has to work hard to earn back. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I otherwise support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights): In Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, as the saying goes, \"To err is human.\" But there is also an adage that states, \"To recognise one's mistakes and to correct them is a great virtue.\" Indeed, everyone makes mistakes in life. Learning from those mistakes is part of growth. Therefore, making mistakes is not to be feared; what truly matters is how we respond to and handle those mistakes.
Today's Motion, unfortunately, arose because of MPs who repeatedly mishandled their error in Parliament.
Parliament is a sacred hall. MPs carry the trust and mandate of the people. Here, we debate and legislate on international issues, governance policies and issues affecting the livelihoods of citizens. This is not only about the future of our nation, it directly impacts the lives of our people.
Moreover, the quality of our Parliament not only reflects our democracy and governance capabilities but also embodies the values and aspirations of Singaporeans. When the international community observes our Parliament, they do not only focus on the legislative process and policy formulation; they are also assessing Singapore's performance as a modern nation in terms of our integrity and transparency. This responsibility falls not just on the Cabinet but also on all MPs. Therefore, a high-quality Parliament can enhance Singapore's image on the global stage, strengthening the trust and willingness of other countries to cooperate with us. MPs being responsible in Parliament is therefore also being responsible to Singaporeans and Singapore.
We are now in the 15th Parliament. Under the leadership of several generations of leaders and through the collective efforts of our people, Singapore has overcome numerous challenges, rising from a third world country to a first world nation today. As Singapore develops, the needs of our people have become increasingly diverse, and the challenges we face have grown more complex. In this context, we must ensure that our Parliament is inclusive and adaptive. While diverse voices and opinions are welcomed, there must be a shared consensus: our Parliament must uphold and demonstrate the principles of honesty, integrity, and accountability, thereby maintaining its credibility and ensuring its effective operation. This is how we defend democracy.
Many of you may be familiar with the Chinese proverb, \"Three men make a tiger,\" which originated from the \"Strategies of the Warring States.\" In ancient times, before Pang Gong was sent to country Zhao, he told the King of Wei, \"If someone in the market says there is a tiger, you won't believe it; if two people say it, you will begin to doubt; if three people say it, you will believe it.\" Thus, a lie that is repeated three times will become indistinguishable from the truth. Therefore, when the first lie is discovered, it must be stopped to prevent a second or even a third from occurring. Otherwise, this illusion of truth can mislead the public, which is extremely dangerous. Once a crack is formed, the hole will only grow larger. We may hold differing opinions and debate them, but this must be based on facts.
Given that Parliament is the pillar of our democratic system and the significant role of the Leader of the Opposition, we now face a situation that is deeply disappointing and saddening. The Court has ruled twice that the Leader of the Opposition lied before the Committee of Privileges and guided a junior MP to continue lying in Parliament, resulting in today's Motion for debate.
Our Parliament has witnessed several outstanding, responsible and respected Opposition leaders. From our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, before the PAP formed the government, to Mr Chiam See Tong of Singapore People's Party and Mr Low Thia Kiang of WP, our Parliament has never lacked in respectable opposition figures. Therefore, after the 2020 General Election, a formal role for the Leader of the Opposition was established, since held by WP's Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Low championed honesty, transparency and accountability in his leadership of the WP, something that many have witnessed. Despite our political differences and party affiliations, Mr Low is indeed a respected political leader. Therefore, witnessing the current situation where the Leader of the Opposition has been ruled by the Court as dishonest towards Parliament and having guided his junior party member Raeesah Khan to continue covering lies in Parliament is disheartening.
Today's Motion carries great significance. We must reach a conclusion and move forward as soon as possible. There are still issues regarding the livelihoods of the people and of national imperative that we must address, so we need to redirect the attention and energy of Parliament back to these crucial matters. However, to achieve this goal, ensuring that Parliament maintains a high level of credibility is paramount. Thus, as we consider the Motion before us, it is necessary for all MPs to take a stand. I hereby support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.
Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise with some hesitation. I did not come into Parliament to speak on matters of political conduct or party leadership. My instinct and my focus, as an NMP, has always been on the practical challenges facing our economy – on business competitiveness, jobs, costs and how Singapore continues to thrive in an increasingly uncertain world.
I want to state clearly at the outset: I have respect for the Leader of the Opposition. From my study of his speeches and my limited personal interactions, I believe that his heart, like that of many Members in this House, is for Singapore. Differing views, even strong disagreement, are not a weakness in a political system. They are often a source of renewal, correction and long-term resilience.
Mr Speaker, as I thought through this Motion, two considerations weighed most heavily on me. Let me address them in turn.
Singapore has no natural resources. What we have and what we have always relied upon is trust. Trust in our institutions. Trust in the rule of law. Trust that truth matters, especially when it is uncomfortable.
At the apex of these institutions stands Parliament. History is unambiguous on this point. The historian Arnold Toynbee, in his extensive study of civilisations, observed that civilisations rarely collapse because of external attack; they collapse because of internal failure. As he put it succinctly, \"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.\"
This lesson is sobering. Nations unravel not when they face challenges, but when their core institutions fail to respond with honesty, discipline and moral clarity. When standards are bent, when truth becomes negotiable, truth erodes quietly at first, and then decisively.
As former NMP Ms Janet Ang, once observed in this House, institutional credibility is hard won but easily lost, and once lost, extremely difficult to restore. In a small, open economy like Singapore, trust is not just a moral value – it is a strategic asset.
From the perspective of business and investment, this is not theoretical. Investors assess not only tax regimes or incentives, but whether a country's institutions are reliable, predictable and principled. Trust lowers risk. Distrust raises it. Where trust falls, political risks rise. Investors and businesses price in uncertainty and growth slows.
This reinforces a simple reality: trust is not an abstract ideal. It is a foundational economic asset. Singapore's attractiveness as an investment hub, and as a hub for trade and innovation, rests on the confidence that our institutions are fair, reliable and accountable. It is because of this centrality of trust that I feel compelled to speak today, even though this matter lies outside my usual substantive terrain.
At the same time, Mr Speaker, I approach this Motion with care. This debate arises from a matter that has been tested through due process and adjudicated by the Courts. The conviction and the findings of the COP now form part of the public and legal record, and they must be respected. The question before this House is therefore not to revisit the facts, but to reflect on what these findings mean for a Parliamentary leadership position that carries distinct responsibilities and expectations.
I affirm, without reservation, the principle that no Member of this House stands above the law and that honesty before Parliament and its Committees is non-negotiable. As my fellow former NMP, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas, has observed in past debates, truthfulness is not a mere procedural requirement; it is what gives legitimacy to our laws and moral authority to our decisions.
At this point, Mr Speaker, I reflected on a simple litmus test – not as a lawyer, but drawing on leadership experience, institutional stewardship and my role as an NMP.
NMPs are appointed, not elected. We serve without party affiliation and without an electoral mandate. Our legitimacy rests entirely on the trust and confidence of those who appointed us, and of this House. If an NMP were to lie to Parliament, be tried in a Court of law, and be convicted, the first question he or she must confront is not a legal one, but an institutional one: do I still hold the trust and confidence of those who appointed me?
I believe the answer, in such circumstances, would almost invariably be \"no\". The proper course would be to step aside from any position of responsibility within this House – not as a matter of punishment, but as a matter of integrity. That duty is amplified when the offence itself is dishonesty directed at the very institution one serves. Trust cannot be compartmentalised; it is either present, or it is not.
Applying that same standard consistently, I find it difficult to argue that lesser expectations should apply where the office in question is a Parliamentarian leadership position, carrying defined responsibilities, duties and privileges. This is, of course, a matter of judgement. And I state my judgement unreservedly as an NMP, exercising the responsibility entrusted to me by this House – to bring an independent, non-partisan perspective grounded in the national interest.
For that reason, Mr Speaker, having considered both the principle at stake and the responsibilities attached to Parliamentary leadership, I support the Motion. It reflects fidelity to the role I was appointed to play and to the responsibility this House bears – to uphold the integrity and standing of Parliament.
Mr Speaker, when I was sworn in just three days ago, my son was watching from the gallery above. That moment reminded me that what we do in this House must stand not only for today, but for the next generation of Singaporeans who will inherit these institutions. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Speaker, in mid-December, media reports quoted the Leader of the House announcing that Parliament would be discussing what should follow after the High Court judgment in Mr Pritam Singh's case.
I was waiting to see what resolutions the Leader would ask Parliament to pass. After three weeks of anticipation, the Motion we are debating today is entitled \"Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of his Suitability to Continue as Leader of the Opposition.\"
Sir, I wish to offer my personal views on some of the key resolutions. As I am an interested party in the matter, I stress that these views are my own and I am not speaking for the WP in this regard.
First, on Resolutions 2 to 4, touching on Mr Pritam Singh. Parliament had, in 2022, referred Mr Singh and Mr Faisal Manap to the PP, who proceeded to prosecute Mr Singh. After a trial, Mr Singh was convicted and his appeal was dismissed. He has paid the fine of $14,000.
It bears highlighting the differences between the present case involving Mr Singh and previous instances, when MPs have misconduct themselves and had resigned. Mr Singh's case is unlike the other instances where the MPs themselves admitted their wrongdoings. Mr Singh has maintained his innocence, contested the charges and appealed against his conviction. The Court has, however, found him guilty and his conviction has been upheld on appeal.
Sir, the Motion proposed by the Leader of the House does not just ask this House to express its disapproval, but also seeks to initiate a removal of Mr Singh as the Leader of the Opposition.
Given the different circumstances of Mr Singh, the question that arises is whether Parliament should subject Mr Singh to a further punishment, by initiating a removal of him from his position as the Leader of the Opposition.
Is this necessary? Or is this a political exercise?
Sir, earlier some Members spoke about how Parliament will be judged. Indeed, when Parliament reopened last September, I spoke about the importance of Parliament as an institution. I pointed out that under the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index rankings, the Singapore Parliament was not faring well in its fundamental task of being an effective check on the Executive Government's powers. I urged that all of us in this House see each other as fellow Singaporeans who are not enemies, but competitors who had common cause in serving fellow citizens through this House. I emphasised our duty to ensure that this House served the interests of citizens outside the House.
Sir, I believe this Motion today does not serve Singaporeans, but it is a party-political exercise, and I can foresee that our Parliament will slip further down the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index rankings, on the factor of being able to effectively check government power. This is unhealthy and not in the national interest.
Sir, next, I move on to Resolution 5 of the Motion, which mentions me specifically. Resolution five states that the High Court judgment and the COP's findings have implications on Mr Faisal Manap and myself, which have to be considered separately. I must disagree with a linkage between the High Court judgment and my position.
Earlier in statements to the media, the Leader of the House had stated that the COP had found that Mr Singh, Mr Faisal and I had lied to the Committee by denying that we had told Ms Raeesah Khan to hide her Untruth in an August 2021 meeting.
The Leader then asserted that, and I quote, \"the COP's findings have been borne out by the Court's judgments.\"
Sir, Mr Singh was prosecuted and convicted. On appeal, the Court upheld Mr Singh's conviction. Neither Mr Faisal nor I participated in the trial. I was interviewed by the Police several times in late 2022 and so was Mr Faisal. My impression was that I might be called as a prosecution witness. Following my interviews with the Police and the submission of my written statement to them, I was not called as a witness by the Prosecution.
The COP in its conclusions had noted that I had voluntarily tended evidence that was damaging to Mr Singh. I had spoken about this matter in Parliament on 15 February 2022, when I had explained that the COP had omitted to refer to parts of my evidence given at the COP. I had said that my evidence, if considered as a whole, would not support the COP's conclusions. That was roughly eight months before I was interviewed by the Police.
Sir, having read the appeal judgment, I note that there are several references to me, but these are based on the evidence that was placed before the Court by the Prosecution. As the Prosecution was solely against Mr Singh, and Mr Faisal and I were not called as witnesses by either party, we had no opportunity to present our side of the story to the Court.
The Court's findings cannot be held against us. The Leader, a Senior Counsel with decades of litigation experience, will no doubt be aware of what I had just said.
Sir, now I move on to the next steps. Parliament had already decided to refer Mr Singh and Mr Faisal to the PP. The matter was, no doubt, fully and thoroughly investigated. Mr Singh was prosecuted and eventually convicted, while the Prosecution decided not to charge Mr Faisal, but to issue him with an Advisory.
The advisory was to advise Mr Faisal to familiarise himself with the conduct expected of MPs under PPIPA and advising him to refrain from any act that may be in breach of it. Thus, the referral to the PP had reached its conclusion.
For the reasons that I have just explained, if there are any further steps that Parliament wishes to take against me, it must be based solely on the COP's conclusions and in accordance with PPIPA. I state once again that I disagree with the COP's conclusions.
Resolution 5 states that the matters regarding Mr Faisal and myself have to be considered separately.
I must say that this is very vague. Would the Leader be so kind as to elaborate on what is meant and how long we will need to wait for this to be addressed? If Parliament wishes to take any further steps against me and Mr Faisal, would we be given an opportunity to address Parliament before it proceeds to do so?
Sir, before I end, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Singaporeans for the support that they have given to the WP, especially in the past few weeks. We have received emails and letters of encouragement. Many Singaporeans have also approached us individually in hawker centres and malls to voice their concerns over this debate. They have advised us to take good care of ourselves and at the same time, emphasised how important it was for us to continue our work.
Sir, we in the WP are truly humbled by this outpouring of support from the public. We will continue our work and strive to do even better for them. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, this is the first major Motion brought before this House in 2026. It comes at a time when many Singaporeans are highlighting pressing issues that have a direct impact on their daily lives. They are also navigating the most challenging geopolitical landscape in recent memory.
Be that as it may, the Motion is before us and it is our duty as Parliamentarians to treat it with the utmost seriousness.
The Leader of the Opposition and WP's Whip, Mr Pritam Singh, has lifted the whip on this debate, allowing each WP MP to speak and vote freely, according to their own conscience and their assessment of the facts before them. It is in this spirit that I wish to state my considered position on the Motion.
I do not disagree with the principles in paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Motion. Honesty and integrity are indeed the fundamental pillars of our Parliamentary and political system. Every MP has a solemn duty to respect the law and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans. There is no dispute on these principles.
Regarding paragraph 5 on Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Faisal Manap, it is difficult for me to see how the findings in a judgment against the Leader of the Opposition can be held against Ms Lim or Mr Faisal, considering neither of them participated in the trial, nor presented their own evidence in Court.
Regardless of the differing views in this House on Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, it is important that Parliament does not allow this to drag on for too long. The Leader has said that Parliament will separately consider the matter on another occasion. I trust that it is not the intention of the Government to let this matter persist over the next few years as having the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads would be unfair to them.
Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 pertain to Mr Pritam Singh.
As Mr Pritam Singh has stated today, he maintains that he disagrees with the judgment of the Court and the findings of the COP. I note that in 2022, Parliament chose to refer Mr Singh to the PP. After a lengthy investigation, a trial and an appeal, the legal process has concluded. Mr Singh has been sentenced and has paid his fines.
By seeking to remove his position as the Leader of the Opposition, this Motion appears to be imposing a further political penalty on top of a legal one. We must also remember that the position of the Leader of the Opposition remains a role constituted at the Prime Minister's prerogative. If the Prime Minister now deems the appointment untenable, he has the authority to rescind it. The Leader said MPs are entitled to express their view on Mr Singh's suitability for that role. Is the Prime Minister seeking the views of Parliament to make his executive decision?
The WP is vastly outnumbered in this House. There are 12 WP MPs in this Parliament, compared to 87 PAP MPs. The outcome of this Motion may be a foregone conclusion due to the mathematical reality of this House, but the moral weight of the decision rests on every Member.
Regardless of Parliament's decision, the WP will continue our work on the ground. We will let our commitment and our service to our constituents speak for themselves. Ultimately, it is for the voters to decide on the representatives they want serving them.
In recent weeks, I have been heartened by the many residents I have met during house visits and at neighbourhood coffee shops. Many have offered words of encouragement and concern and have reaffirmed their support for us through this episode. They have urged us to stay focused on the issues that matter to their families and their livelihoods. I express my heartfelt thanks to our residents and supporters. Their trust is a reminder of why we are here and why we must press on with our responsibilities to our residents and the nation.
Once this Motion is settled, I hope this House can move on to the crucial matters that affect the lives of all Singaporeans. Sir, I strongly oppose the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Dr Neo Kok Beng.
Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk on this Motion.
I am new here. I am an engineer, so, I will be very short and sharp. I am also a fellow and a former vice president of the Institution of Engineers. We are trained to analyse systematically and logically. Interestingly, I am also a layperson of the investigation and disciplinary panel of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants. We take our roles very seriously as they have impact on a person's reputation and also his livelihood. We rely on objective evidence and less on emotions or personal opinions.
I am going to ask three questions to myself in order to resolve or understand how I react to this Motion: principle, facts and action.
So, what are the principles? This Motion is all about honesty and integrity so that we have built trust in this august Chamber.
What are the facts? We have to rely on evidence of factual things that are indisputable. In my work, whether it is professional opinion or judgement, we rely more on the Court's findings. So, these are factual stuff and not disputable.
What is the action then? We address Members in this Chamber as hon Members. The public does expect us and, in particular, office holders, to have the highest integrity and honesty.
It is, thus, not really tenable for the Leader of the Opposition to carry on in this role as it is.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret that we have to face this issue, but I believe Singaporeans hold us and Members in this Chamber to the highest standards of honesty and integrity. I rise to support this Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Cassandra Lee.
Ms Cassandra Lee (West Coast-Jurong West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek a point of clarification from the Leader of the House.
First of all, I thank NMP and Senior Counsel Ms Kuah Boon Theng for sharing her experience sitting on disciplinary tribunals pursuant to the Legal Profession Act (LPA). She elaborated on the requirements for a disciplinary tribunal to find cause for disciplinary actions set out in section 83 of the LPA.
Arising from Nominated MP Ms Kuah's speech, I have a point of clarification to the Leader of the House. Would the Leader please clarify, in general terms, how would sections 83 and/or 98 of the LPA operate where a member of the legal profession has been convicted of an offence arising from proceedings in Parliament?
Mr Speaker: Leader, you can do this in your rounding up speech. Mr Kenneth Tiong.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Thank you, Speaker. Mr Speaker, a question for the Leader of the House since she has brought up the matter of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin.
In July 2023, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin resigned as Speaker over an affair with a sitting MP. The Prime Minister had known since late 2020 – nearly three years. For nearly three years, the Speaker presided over this House, ruling on Members' conduct, maintaining order, while in an affair with a Member they presided over.
Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong, as I recounted earlier, we can discuss about others, but you should do it with a separate Motion on another day.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: It will be relevant, Speaker, if I can just finish.
Mr Speaker: Okay. Alright.
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: Both Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition are Parliamentary leadership positions. Both situations raise questions about fitness for office. Arguably, the Speaker is more important than the Leader of Opposition since the Speaker is in the line of succession for President.
Yet, Parliament was never asked to judge Mr Tan Chuan-Jin. No Motion. Not in 2020, not in 2021, not in 2022, not before his resignation, not after. Nearly three years of silence and then a quiet exit, but not before calling my hon colleague an \"f–ing populist\".
Mr Pritam Singh faced the Courts. He was convicted. He paid his fine. The legal process is complete. Now, Parliament wants its turn.
Mr Tan faced nothing. No Court, no conviction, no fine, and certainly, no Motion. So, the Member who faced nothing gets a quiet exit and the Member who already faced the Courts must now face Parliament as well.
So, if this Motion represents the proper standard for addressing misconduct by Parliamentary leaders, why was Parliament never asked in those three years to judge Mr Tan Chuan-Jin? Which is the higher standard of accountability? What justifies a Motion for Mr Pritam Singh of the WP, but not Mr Tan Chuan-Jin of the PAP?
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, just a clarification because Mr Tiong said \"no fine\". Is it Mr Tiong's position that you should have fines for extramarital affairs? That those are criminal offences?
Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: The question is about fitness for Parliamentary office and that is what this Motion is about. So, I believe in – let me just read the Motion again – in the third limb, you express regret that \"the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament\". So, what conditions of this situation do not obtain for Mr Tan Chuan-Jin?
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you wanted to raise a point of clarification.
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Mr Speaker, but not pertaining to what my colleague Mr Kenneth Tiong was saying. Prior to this, I understand you said the Leader would be rounding up. I just wanted to know whether there is a ruling on my —
Mr Speaker: I will come to that shortly. I wanted to hear the rest of the speeches. I will come to my ruling very soon.
Mr Pritam Singh: Much obliged.
Mr Speaker: I saw a hand. Yes, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun Alhabsyi.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for National Development (Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi): Mr Speaker, I enter this debate with a consternation and dismay over how events concerning the Leader of the Opposition have unfolded. It is regrettable that we have come to this, that the House has to discuss a Motion to express its regret at his conduct and reconsider his suitability as Leader of the Opposition.
I offer three points for Members' consideration.
First, let there be no doubt that the responsibility and duty of the Leader of the Opposition sit at a high bar and rightly so. With the privileges accorded to the office, we consider him as the foremost representative of the Opposition.
He sits directly opposite the Prime Minister in this House, symbolising his role as a principal counterbalance to the Government of the day. He is accorded the right of first response in Parliament, allowing him to pose lead questions to Ministers and to speak at greater length than any other MP. He is also given an office in Parliament, additional staff support and resources and an allowance beyond other parliamentarians, Opposition or otherwise.
Mr Speaker, these are not mere ceremonial honours. These are privileges to enable the Leader of the Opposition to effectively lend his scrutiny to Government policy to present alternative viewpoints and to contribute meaningfully to parliamentary debate. And at times of crises or national emergencies, as mentioned earlier, he may also receive confidential briefings by the Government.
I think both sides of the House would agree that the office of the Leader of the Opposition comes with great responsibility, which arises out of a position of trust, trust that he would be truthful at all times, trust that he will act honourably and with integrity, and trust that when tested the strength of his character will hold firm. From the office of the Leader of the Opposition, Singaporeans rightly demand the highest standards to lead by example and to define the tone and tenor of how the opposition conducts itself in Parliament.
How the Leader of the Opposition conducts himself also directly influences public's perception of our entire Parliamentary system. Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is imperative that the Leader of the Opposition conducts himself with honour and integrity and adheres to the highest ethical standards, not only for himself, but also for the office he holds, for the Parliament he is a part of and for the people this Parliament serves.
Some may argue that this is an inordinately high bar, but it is a necessary one. Necessary to preserve the sanctity of the proceedings in this House – Singapore's Parliament. As far as honesty and integrity are concerned, we must continue to be resolutely firm that there, that there is no inch at all to give and let slip in our Parliamentary and political system, regardless of which side of the House we represent.
Second, Mr Speaker, the matter before us is no longer one of doubt or conjecture. Mr Singh has been given ample opportunity to clear the air and to defend the charges against him through due process. This House has devoted significant time and attention to this matter, which has been examined thoroughly over two terms of Parliament. The matter has been ventilated fully before the Courts and it has been conclusively determined. The honourable High Court judge said that, \"From the time he, Mr Singh, learnt about the Untruth on 7 August 2021, till the time when it was decided that Ms Khan should clarify the Untruth on 11 October 2021, the appellant was hoping that he would not have to deal with it.\"
The judgment also noted that the WP leaders were trying to manage risks of admitting to the Untruth, considering whether the Untruth would be raised again, and would the Government be able to discover the Untruth. It also concluded that Mr Pritam Singh did not intend, and I quote: \"did not intend that Ms Khan should clarify the Untruth, and that he had given false testimony to the COP by claiming that he did.\"
Though he maintains his assertion of innocence, Mr Singh has said previously he accepted the Court judgment fully and without reservation. The facts have been determined and these are not matters of minor or technical significance. An MP had lied in this Chamber when that falsehood became known. The Leader of the Opposition and party leader to the said MP engaged in an exercise of risk assessment or damage control, rather than opting to come clean at the first opportunity.
Mr Speaker, in the Chamber, we, the MPs, make decisions that inform, that affect and that impact the lives of our Singaporeans very directly. We have a solemn duty to respect and abide by all laws of our land, act with integrity at all times and honour the trust that Singaporeans have placed in us. To lie, to protect or conceal untruth, to even consider weighing whether an untruth would be found out fundamentally breaches the trust Singaporeans expect of us. Such conduct, Sir, I submit respectfully, is unbecoming and brings disrepute to this House.
Third, Mr Speaker, I am deeply concerned about what this episode means for the integrity of our institutions and the example we set for future generations. Younger parliamentarians and, indeed, younger Singaporeans, look to and observe the conduct of our leaders. They look to leaders for ethical guidance and council, for standards of accountability and for direction on how integrity is upheld. We all falter from time to time as humans inevitably do, but leadership demands prompt and honest accountability when mistakes occur.
In this case, Mr Singh's actions fell short. First in failing to guide his young Parliamentary colleague to do the right thing when she first erred; second, in not taking responsibility for his own actions; and third, in not respecting the institution of Parliament and the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It therefore falls to this House to record its regret and dismay over Mr Pritam's actions, to draw a line in the sand that this is unacceptable and unbecoming, and that this cannot be what we allow within the walls of our Chamber. Let future generations remember that this Parliament did not look away from such dishonourable conduct. Instead, we address this matter squarely and decisively, and that we did so without hesitation. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I wish to place on record regret at the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which has been found to be severely wanting when measured against the standards of integrity and honesty demanded of all Members of Parliament, and particularly given his position as Leader of the Opposition. Allow me to offer three points for Parliament's consideration.
First, the Leader of the Opposition is a role that carries significant responsibilities and duties and represents a trust that is held in high regard. The office is the foremost representative of the opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition is given privileges in our parliamentary system, in terms of priority in responding to Ministers, extended time limits for his speeches, and is provided with staff support, resources and additional allowances to fulfil these responsibilities. The Leader of the Opposition sits directly opposite the Prime Minister in this House, symbolising the role of Leader of the Opposition as the principal counterbalance to the Government.
Indeed, the position of Leader of the Opposition arises out of a position of high trust specifically vested in him, including trust that he will be truthful at all times, trust that he will always act with complete honesty and integrity, and trust that in any situation, even when tested, his moral convictions, principles and personal integrity remain firm.
In terms of honesty and integrity, we must be clear that there is absolutely no room for compromise in our parliamentary and political system, regardless of which side we represent. Therefore, for anyone holding the position of Leader of the Opposition, Singaporeans rightly demand the highest standards of integrity and conduct to lead by example and define the tone and tenor that should be mirrored by the other opposition Members in Parliament.
Every action and the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition also directly influence public perception of our entire parliamentary system. Therefore, it is imperative that the Leader of the Opposition conduct himself with absolute honour, not only for himself, but also to respond to the call for the integrity of the office he holds, to respect his membership in Parliament and to uphold the profound trust given by fellow citizens.
While we may disagree in articulating policies and ideas, this must surely be based firstly on integrity and honesty. This is necessary in order to protect this Chamber from all falsehoods and tainted words, thereby ensuring that the sanctity and dignity of our parliamentary and political processes are preserved in the eyes of the people.
Second, there is now no longer any doubt or uncertainty that Mr Pritam Singh has given false testimony, even though at that time he was under oath when appearing before the Committee of Privileges.
Following the court process, including the unsuccessful appeal at the High Court, Mr Pritam Singh has been given ample opportunity to clear the air and defend himself against the charges about his conduct. However, the High Court has ruled that Mr Pritam Singh did not tell the truth to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr Speaker, this is regretful, because this is not a matter of minor significance. A Member of Parliament was initially found to have lied in this Chamber, and with this knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition and party leader of the said Member of Parliament opted not to come clean expeditiously and immediately after the first untruth. Instead, he was found to have jeopardised integrity and honour through hesitation, and at that time engaged in an exercise of risk assessment or damage control on whether or not to reveal that untruth.
Mr Speaker, in this Chamber, we as the Members of Parliament, make key decisions that inform, that influence, that affect and that impact the lives of Singaporeans directly.
We have the duty, Mr Speaker, to abide by all laws of our land, to act with integrity and honesty at all times and to honour the trust that Singaporeans have placed in us. To lie, to delay or conceal untruth, to even consider weighing whether an untruth would be found out or not, fundamentally breaches the trust that Singaporeans expect of us. Such conduct and actions bring disrepute to the dignity, integrity and honour of this Chamber.
Third, Mr Speaker, I express concern about how this episode could affect the dignity of our institutions and the example we set for the younger generation. Younger Members of Parliament, and indeed, youth in general, closely observe and take cues from the conduct of our leaders. They look to our leaders for ethical guidance, decisions of integrity as well as counsel, and see them as beacons in fostering a culture that underscores the importance of honesty and honour.
Although leaders may falter as humans inevitably do, it is incumbent upon leaders to take responsibility for all their actions, shortcomings and mistakes. In this case, Mr Pritam's actions fall short.
First, in guiding a young Member of Parliament to do the right thing when that Member of Parliament first erred. Second, in accepting responsibility for his actions honestly, and third, in not respecting the institution of Parliament and the office of Leader of the Opposition.
It falls to Parliament to voice its strong regret over Mr Pritam's actions and conduct, to draw a line in the sand that this is unacceptable and has crossed that line, and that it does not reflect the conduct and character that is fundamentally demanded of Members of Parliament. Let us be remembered by future generations as a Parliament that did not look away, and did not shirk from our responsibility to correct misconduct and dishonesty. Instead, we chose to address it squarely, decisively, without any hesitation.
If we allow transgressions against the fundamental values of society and the pillars of our institutions, such as honesty, integrity, and honour, there is worry that over time, this will erode, taint and even destroy everything we have built together as one people in our parliamentary and political system.
We must address this together so that elements that go against the identity and sacred values of Singaporeans are not allowed to even take root. There is a worry that a pot of milk could spoil because of a drop of indigo (Malay idiom that carries meaning similar to \"one bad apple spoils the whole bunch\").
(In English): Mr Speaker, I conclude by drawing Members' attention to the fourth limb of the Motion, relating to the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore's political system.
I urge Members to reflect and consider carefully on the weight of this Motion, not only on the integrity of this House as an institution, but also on the signal that we send about where we as a Parliament and as a society stand on honesty and truth telling by our MPs and by all who hold positions of leadership.
That this Motion must come before the House today is regrettable. But integrity is not something we can compromise on nor waver upon even in the slightest. With that, Mr Speaker, I lend my full support for the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have some clarifications?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, Mr Speaker, I like to ask a clarification of the Member who just spoke, Dr Syed Harun.
So, for the last few minutes he has been pontificating about integrity and institutions in English and Malay, in flowery language. I would like to respectfully ask him how he sees his own position. If I recall correctly, in 2023, you know, he came in as an NMP and that was on the basis that he was a non-partisan person and supposed to fulfil his term as such, but he resigned prematurely and now it turns out that he was in preparation for the General Election to run as a party candidate.
So, I mean, does he see any issue with that in terms of integrity and institutions?
Mr Speaker: I will allow for this. But going forward, we should not be discussing this. This matter is not relevant actually. But Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun, you may choose to reply.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, I note that it has been decided that there is no relevance with regard to this particular Motion. And I would also mention that it is a matter of public record in terms of the circumstances of what happened, with reference to what Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, you are free to table a separation Motion to discuss this if you wish, but not at this time.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, it is not my intention. It is just in response to his lecture on integrity.
Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Syed Harun.
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi: Mr Speaker, I continue to maintain that the issue has been on public record. And I disagree unequivocally with regard to any questions on my integrity about what has happened in the past. At the time when I was an NMP, very clearly, I was non-partisan. And at this point of time, I am quite clear in terms of my thoughts about integrity and I stand by what I have just said.
Mr Speaker: Let me remind Members we should not be casting aspersions on any fellow MP.
Mr Singh, I refer to your earlier request. I have given it careful consideration. I would just like to inform you of my considerations in reaching my decision.
I note that under section 225A of the Criminal Procedure Code, you are deemed to have given an undertaking to the Court not to use that material for any purpose other than the purpose of the criminal proceedings without the permission of the PP. You had earlier informed the House that the PP has not given you permission to do so.
Although Members enjoy certain Parliamentary privileges, we should not impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance maintained between this House and the Judiciary. This convention has been repeatedly upheld by this House, by me and my predecessors. If I were to allow for this request, it would impinge on the mutual respect and forbearance between our two institutions. We will respect the undertaking you are deemed to have given to the Court, and therefore I will not allow that document to be used.
Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am disappointed with that ruling, but I can accept and respect it.
Mr Speaker: Order. We have been in this House for over five hours. I certainly need a break. So, I propose to take a break. I suspend the Sitting and will assume the Chair at 5.55 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 5.35 pm until 5.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.55 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
EXPRESSION OF REGRET AT THE CONDUCT OF MR PRITAM SINGH AND CONSIDERATION OF HIS SUITABILITY TO CONTINUE AS THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
[(proc text) Debate Resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. Are there any other Members who wish to speak on the Motion? None. Okay. Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I wish to thank all MPs who have spoken on the Motion on both sides of the House.
This is an important debate because it is about matters that affect the standing and the integrity of our Parliament.
I thank the MPs who have spoken and supported the Motion. They have correctly pointed out that this Motion is about principles and values that we uphold. As Dr Syed Harun and Ms Kuah Boon Theng said, the public rightfully holds high expectations of trust in our Parliament and this is even more so for the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms Tin Pei Ling also highlighted that the quality of our Parliament embodies the values and aspirations of Singaporeans and this in turn affects how we are regarded on the global stage. And as Mr Mark Lee pointed out, trust in our Parliament is a foundational asset for Singapore underpinning the confidence in our institutions.
Let me turn to the WP's position and I note that all Members of the WP who spoke on the substantive speeches made it a point to thank their supporters and their constituents and all the people who have faith in you, who have shown you support and who have basically cheered you on.
It is good that the Opposition in Singapore has such support. But the flip side is also true.
If people give you such unstinting warm support, you should not let them down. You should when in Parliament uphold principles of integrity and values because Singaporeans deserve a good opposition. Singaporeans deserve an opposition who will uphold the rule of law, who will observe due process and who will respect the integrity of our institutions.
But have the WP served their supporters well in the positions that you have taken today? I, very respectfully, say the answer is no.
The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the WP Members who have spoken is disappointing. The sum total of their position today has really been that, you know, the rules do not apply to us and let us make a little point here. Let us have a little jab there. But let us not deal with the real issue. Let us not engage with the real fundamental point that we are talking about – which is, what kind of Parliament ought we to be.
And here let me come to the Motion. By and large, although the Leader of the Opposition has said that he has lifted the whip, actually, the positions do appear to be aligned across the board. I do not think there is any real difference in the position that the WP Members have taken.
So, they are able to agree to paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Motion. Paragraph 1 affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore's Parliamentary and political system. So, they accept that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of our Parliamentary and political system. And they agree with paragraph 6, which means that they agree to call on all Members to uphold our solemn duty to respect and abide by the law and act with integrity at all times and honour the trust placed in us by Singaporeans.
At the same time, however, they seem to have difficulty with the other limbs. So, the first thing is paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 calls on us to note the judgment where the High Court upheld Mr Singh's conviction for lying to the COP. I do not understand the difficulty in noting the High Court judgment, which basically means that we have taken due note of what the Court has found. What is the difficulty with noting that?
Secondly, the findings of the COP – that he had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament. Today, they have all had a problem noting the findings of the COP. But I think they may have forgotten that when the COP Report was actually presented to Parliament several years ago, Parliament actually did resolve to note the COP Report. So, this does not do anything more than call on Parliament to do something it has already done.
But then, apart from that, having agreed that honesty and integrity are fundamental, having agreed that we must act with integrity at all times and respect and abide by the law, they are somehow unable to agree that lying to the COP and guiding an MP to continue with her Untruth to Parliament is dishonourable conduct and unbecoming of an MP or to express any regret about it. That is really very puzzling.
They are also unable to consider, or they find themselves unable to consider, that an MP who has been convicted by the Court for lying and for misconducting himself in the manner described is unsuitable for the role of the Leader of the Opposition. It is troubling that WP cannot see what must surely be apparent to everyone, the inherent contradictions in their position and how much of a credibility gap there is. You cannot, on the one hand, say \"I uphold the highest standards\", then, on the other hand, say that \"I have a problem saying that conduct like this is dishonourable.\"
It is just inconsistent.
But anyway, let us examine the reasons that the WP Members have put forward for their position, and I will go through them one by one.
So, the first point is Mr Singh basically is saying that he disagrees with the High Court decision over the Court decisions. We know that the Courts have found Mr Singh guilty on two counts of lying to the COP and they made other findings, which I referred to in my earlier speech. After the High Court decision, Mr Singh said, \"I respect and accept the judgment fully and without reservation\".
On the face of it, accepting the judgment should mean that he accepts the verdict but, of course, Mr Singh now tells us that that is not the case. In fact, he had an issue because he said that I did not highlight what he said earlier about the judgment also, because at that same interview, he had said that the verdict was disappointing.
That is true. I looked very carefully at the media statement. He said it was disappointing, and then he went on to say – let me just look at that. He went on to say that, \"I have always had deep respect for the independence, rigour and professionalism of the Courts.\"
He said that while he was disappointed with the verdict, he respected and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation. Actually, at that time, he never said that he disagreed with the verdict. He just said it was disappointing and there is a big difference between saying that something is disappointing and saying that you disagree with it. But on record, he had said it was disappointing. Then he went on to say that he respected and accepted the judgment fully and without reservation.
But today, he comes to Parliament to say that, actually, what he really means is that he just accepts that the Courts are there, but he does not agree that they are correct.
And earlier, of course, you will notice when Mr Speaker made his ruling, Mr Singh also said that it was disappointing, but he accepted it fully and without reservation.
So, I think we all know today that when Mr Singh tells you that he accepts what you say fully and without reservation, he means you are wrong. Words matter.
Mr Pritam Singh: Indeed they do.
Ms Indranee Rajah: They do.
And when Mr Singh says something, the question is, what are we to understand of it? And we have seen what the Courts understood of it, and we have seen what the Courts ruled that Ms Khan understood of it. We have also seen what the COP understood of it. So, fundamentally, despite the fact that he has had the full opportunity to canvass his case, he is basically saying that he does not accept the Court judgment.
And this is really strange. Do you know why? It is strange because when the COP Report was brought to Parliament, Mr Singh vehemently disputed it at that time – and do not forget that this is a COP that has sat on it – and Mr Singh has come to this Parliament, today, to say, as he has said many times, Parliament is supreme. When you have a Select Committee of Parliament that makes a finding, it should be supreme. But no. If the finding affects Mr Singh, it is not supreme. It is wrong.
And at that time, we agreed to refer it to the PP, basically to allow him the benefit of canvassing his case in full, and so that we would have the benefit of a full finding so that it could not be said that this Parliament somehow, unilaterally made a decision based purely on the findings of the COP.
And Mr Singh had the opportunity to – well, firstly, the PP looked at it, took an independent view and found that on the face of it, charges were made out. It went to the District Court. The District Court had the benefit of seeing witnesses, hearing evidence, Mr Singh had the benefit of counsel. He had the right and the ability to cross-examine the witnesses, to show whether their evidence was really right or wrong. And the Courts listened to that, and the District Court could not accept what he said and found that he had lied to the COP.
Mr Singh was dissatisfied with that. He went to the High Court. The High Court heard, again, the points which he wished to canvass, and he had the fullest opportunity to argue his case before the Courts; and the High Court, too, reached the same conclusion. Basically, what Mr Singh is saying today is that \"Despite all of this, despite the fact that I had the fullest opportunity, every opportunity, to contest this and bring evidence, they are wrong.\"
I accept that Mr Singh may not agree with it, but the point is this. In every society, there will be disputes. And when there are disputes, somebody has to decide, because if one person says A and another person says B, who do you believe? And that is the reason why you have Courts. That is the reason why you have Courts as a neutral and independent arbiter, with the opportunity for parties to bring the evidence and set out their case, and then the Court decides.
And so, here we are today, with a Court judgment basically having found Mr Singh guilty of lying and we are being asked to note this. And in the light of this, how do we say that such conduct is acceptable? So, when each of us go internationally and we are asked, \"Oh, your Leader of the Opposition, he has been convicted for lying twice. How come? Is that okay?\" And our answer should be, \"Oh yes, it is okay, because he says he is right. A Court judgment does not matter.\"
How would people regard Singapore in that situation? This is not about Mr Singh per se. It is about the fact that his conduct has been adjudicated on by the Courts. The Courts have made a finding, and we are now left with a situation where, as a Parliament, we have a Leader of the Opposition who has been found guilty of two counts of lying on oath. There is the District Court finding that he had guided Ms Khan to lie, and we have the COP Report – do not forget, Parliament is supreme – which has found that he had lied. So, what are we to do in those circumstances?
So, I have to say that the first point that Mr Singh has made is not really persuasive, and it does not answer the Motion.
I come now to the second part of what he said. Mr Singh said that what he does accept is that he was guilty of taking too long to respond to Ms Khan's lie in Parliament. That, he takes responsibility for. He had mentioned that in his media interview. He repeated it again today.
But that actually is not the crux of the Court finding because the Court did not find that he was liable because he took too long. In fact, the reasons that he gave for taking too long, in other words, allowing Ms Khan to go and speak to her parents and so on, the Court actually did not accept. And let me read what the Court had said.
The High Court essentially did not accept Mr Singh's account of that. He said, \"A person's reaction or inaction to significant events is usually revealing of his or her understanding of the events. In this case, I find that the appellant's complete failure to follow up with Ms Khan or the other WP leaders on the Untruth for around two months after the 8 August meeting up unitl the 3 October Meeting is probative of the making of the Grave Statement during the 8 August Meeting and the appellant's prevailing understanding that there was no need to proactively clarify the Untruth in Parliament.
If indeed, if it was the appellant's view that Ms Khan should, at some point, clarify the untruth, one would expect that steps would have been taken to decide what, when and how such clarification should be made. The telling of the Untruth was a significant event for the WP, given the potentially serious political fallout if it were not properly managed.
Yet, it is common ground that between the 8 August meeting and the 3 October Meeting, nothing was said between the appellant and Ms Khan or among the WP leaders about making preparations for a clarification of the Untruth. The complete absence of any discussion during this period is entirely consistent with Ms Khan's evidence, that at the 8 August Meeting, the appellant had told her to take the Untruth to the grave, where the upshot of the Grave Statement was that nothing further needed to be done about the Untruth.
The appellant's complete inaction between the 8 August Meeting and the 3 October Meeting stands in stark contrast with the appellant's involvement in drafting Ms Khan's personal statement between 15 and 30 October 2021, following the meeting with Mr Low on 11 October\", and so on.
So, the point is this. The Court did not say that it was a matter of just \"delay\". The Court found that the explanation for \"delay\" was not believable and rejected it. That was what led the Court to believe, amongst other things, that the statement had, in fact, been made.
Then, I come to Ms Lim's point, where Ms Lim argues that basically she has not been charged in Court; this does not really affect her and is not relevant to her.
I go back to the terms of the Motion. All I am asking here is to ask the House to note that the High Court judgment and the Committee's findings have implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal, which have to be considered separately.
I had actually in my earlier speech explained the linkage. It would have been clear from my reading of the Court judgment but let me just connect the dots for everyone.
When the COP Report came out, there were two things in relation to Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.
Let me deal with Ms Lim first. One was that she had lied to the COP that the statement to \"take it to the grave\" was never said, that that did not happen. So, one count was for lying to the COP. The other was for her involvement in guiding Ms Raeesah Khan to hide the Untruth. Because if you tell somebody or if you agree with \"taking it to the grave\", you are basically guiding somebody to keep it quiet.
For those two points, Parliament said, we would defer a decision on that until the outcome of Mr Singh's case. In other words, there are two outstanding things. Of course, Ms Lim had disputed the COP findings.
Ms Lim is correct. She was not a witness, she was not a party to the Court proceedings. But the point is that the Court had found that the statement was made and that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were present when it was made. Therefore, it must follow from there that the Court findings are actually consistent with the COP Report. That is why it has implications. Because what is before Parliament – which had been deferred – is the COP Report, which found that she lied and had been involved in guiding Ms Khan. And we said, wait until the outcome of the case. Then, you look at the case and the Court has looked at it. The Court says, yes, the meeting took place, they were both there, that Statement was made.
So, it must follow, logically. That is why the Court judgment has implications.
As to what we should do with regard to Ms Lim, that is something that should be dealt with separately. The Speaker has already indicated that if you are making assertions or if you are dealing with a particular Member, that should be the subject matter of a separate Motion. But I just wanted to make sure that in this Motion, that we note that and we will come back. We will not take too long. Mr Giam had asked whether this would take a very long time. It should not take a long time. But today, we wanted to deal with a specific topic.
I hope that addresses the issues with regard to the limb. Because it has implications for Ms Lim and Mr Faisal.
With respect to Mr Faisal, there was a bit of an attempt to muddy the waters here, because it was said that the Police have already issued an Advisory to Mr Faisal and therefore, the matter should be considered close.
But Mr Faisal was referred to the PP for a different matter. With Mr Faisal, there were three things.
One, when he was before the COP, he had flat out refused to answer some of their queries. That is actually an offence. For that, he was referred to the PP.
Then, there were two other remaining outstanding issues with respect to Mr Faisal. These are similar to the ones for Ms Lim: one, for lying to the COP that the statement \"take it to the grave\" was not made; and secondly, for his involvement in guiding Ms Khan to hide the Untruth.
The first one, that is dealt with. That is not the subject matter here. But the second two we agreed to defer, pending the outcome of Mr Singh's case. And for the same reasons as for Ms Lim, it has implications, because Mr Faisal was present at that meeting too. In the COP hearing, he had denied that such a statement was made.
So, that deals with that.
Ms Lim and I think Mr Giam have attempted to suggest that this is political punishment, that Mr Singh is being punished twice.
Actually, that is not the case. It is a very simple point. When you have a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a company and, let us say, he has been charged and convicted of a matter of a crime of dishonesty, how many companies actually say, \"Yes, it is okay, Mr CEO, please continue\"? How many? Not very many. Why? In fact, probably not at all.
Why? Because those companies value their reputation. They know that every time they go out and do business, people look at them and wonder, \"You are a company and your CEO has been convicted for lying and dishonesty, what sort of company are you?\"
That is the issue that is being discussed here. We have a Parliament where you have the Leader of the Opposition, which is a significant position and role, who has been convicted of two counts of lying before a Committee of Parliament. How does that look to other people outside? How can we then say that for someone to whom this has happened, is suitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition?
For the PAP side of the House, we say it is very difficult. But somehow, the WP does not seem to have a difficulty with this, which tells us something about the WP's values.
Then, Mr Kenneth Tiong raised the question of Mr Tan Chuan-Jin and asked, oh, nothing happened there; why is that the case that it was alright there and not here?
I am frankly very disappointed in that stance. But it also shows that Mr Tiong does not quite understand the issue.
In Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's case, he was asked to step down. As a matter of party discipline, he was told to resign his seat. Initially, if you read the Hansard carefully, then Prime Minister has said it was clear in his mind he would have had to step down as Speaker. He wanted to give him some time to settle constituency matters, settle family matters, but it was clear that as Speaker, he would have had to step down. Whether they should resign their seats, initially, that was something to be thought about. But when it became clear that the conduct had not stopped, then Prime Minister said, you must step down, and Ms Cheng had to step down too. So, they resigned their seats. Mr Tan took responsibility. I believe he had apologised to Singaporeans that it had happened.
Here, Mr Singh is not even being asked to resign his seat – at least, not by us. And he does not seem to think that there is a problem with continuing as the Leader of the Opposition.
There is no equivalence at all in those examples.
I think Ms Cassandra Lee had a question about the Legal Profession Act. I think the short answer to that is that under the Legal Profession Act, section 94 does provide that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, but that is a matter not for us but for the Law Society, for the AGC and for the Courts. So, that is with respect to section 94 of the Legal Profession Act. [Please refer to \"Clarification by Leader of the House\", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Correction By Written Statement section.]
That brings me back to today's Motion. We have to ask ourselves about the reasons that have been put forward by the WP. And having examined them, they do not hold water.
We really do have to look at how the WP had dealt with Ms Raeesah Khan before and Mr Leon Perera. In the case of Ms Khan, she was told she had to resign within 24 hours, otherwise she would be expelled. Or rather, she would be expelled within 24 hours if she did not resign. Somehow, in Ms Khan's case, lying was suddenly a very serious offence for the WP. In Mr Leon Perera's case, he also had to step down because he had lied to the WP leadership, so it was very serious there.
But somehow, for the WP, when you have a case of their leader lying to the COP – and under oath at that – they seem to regard it differently. And that is very odd.
The only possible conclusion when you compare this and the previous cases with Ms Khan and Mr Perera is that in those cases, the WP has made a political calculation as to whether those Members should be kept or not. Ms Khan was a liability. Mr Perera was dropped like a hot potato. But they have made or appear to have made a political calculation with respect to Mr Singh and then, hope maybe over time, people will forget – instead of taking a principled stance on their party leaders' conduct, which could be politically costly.
So, Ms Khan and Mr Perera were expendable. Mr Singh, it would appear, not.
That is why in today's Motion, we have been hearing the equivocating and the temporising and the avoiding, of doing what they must know in their heart of hearts is the right thing to do. But that is not leadership, nor is it responsibility. That is not what Singaporeans expect of political leaders and parties. That is not the way to build a First World Parliament or even a two-party system. That is not the way to build a party that aspires to offer an alternative government to Singaporeans one day.
The WP MPs must surely know this, but they are all going along with the party line. It is not good for the WP. It is not good for the Opposition cause. And it is not good for Singapore.
At the end of the day, we have a scenario where Mr Singh says he respects and accepts the judgment, but does not agree with it. The WP talks about the rule of law, but they set themselves above it. The WP calls for accountability, but they will not call their own member to account.
I hope the WP will remember that every time they stand up in Parliament, from this day onwards and speak about accountability, they will be reminded of their standard of accountability. And every time they stand in Parliament and tell us about the rule of law and how we must abide by it, we will remind them how they have abided by the rule of law today.
We now have a much clearer idea of what the WP stands for, which is simply that the rules and the law apply to everyone else but not to them. But Mr Speaker, this cannot be the standard that we set for our Parliament. We have a duty to Singaporeans and to Singapore to ensure that the high standards are maintained. We cannot endorse dishonourable conduct or ignore the Court judgment. And we cannot talk about a First World Parliament and effective checks and balances when fundamental values of honesty, integrity and accountability are not upheld. As MPs, we have a solemn duty to make sure that politics in Singapore remains upright and honourable.
This Motion goes beyond an individual or party or their actions. This Motion is about upholding the integrity and standing of Parliament, upholding the standard of conduct of our MPs and how it reflects on our Parliament, and upholding our responsibilities as elected Members of this House to honour the trust of our people and always do the right thing by them, even if it is politically inconvenient to do so.
If Members care about this, then I urge Members to support the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of The Opposition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications for the Leader? Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I took some notes as the Leader was speaking. If I got some of her representations wrong, please let me know. I will correct them.
The Leader said that the WP's position seems to be that the rules do not apply to us. I do not believe this was the position anyone made. The rules certainly apply to us.
But in the course of her speech, she also mentioned somebody has to decide. There is a judge. The judge makes a decision. I fully accept the authority and the finality of the Court's decision. I disagree with the findings. A judgment determines legal responsibility. It does not require a person to abandon their honest belief about their motivations and their values.
I have not disappeared and avoided scrutiny.
It has been one month since the judgment. I have done my work. I have continued to do my work. And I will continue to do my work faithfully, as I have done for the last 15 years.
On the point that the Leader made, I think towards the end of her round up speech, where she gave us advice on what is good for the WP and good for the Opposition. I think we can be the judge of that, with due respect. We continue to serve faithfully. We have always championed the importance of a rational, responsible, respectable Opposition in the House and will continue to do so.
In terms of this point, the Opposition exists not because it is infallible, but because democratic systems, particularly one-party dominant systems, require challenge, require balance and genuine alternative voices.
And as long as this role is performed lawfully, respectfully, it remains legitimate and important. And the WP will continue serving in this role.
That is all I have to say, Mr Speaker, with regard to clarifications.
I had a clarification for the Leader, which she has not replied, about the number of briefings that were given to me, the number of trips I went to, which was a point she made. So, I think she should close the loop on that.
Ms Indranee Rajah: With respect to the last point, I do not have the number of briefings, but it was not a matter of quantity. The point about the Leader of the Opposition role is that it gets certain specific privileges, and that was one of them. And that was the point I was making. Not about the quantity of them.
Then, the other point that Mr Singh had made about the WP being a judge of their own cause. I think that is exactly what we have seen today. He has been a judge in his own cause. And the other point that he made was that the Opposition was not infallible. That I understand —
Mr Pritam Singh: Point of Order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: I did not say I was a judge in my own cause. As I mentioned, the respected President who opened this House takes a view about a criminal conviction. His view, his honest, sincere view. I take my view as well. But that does not mean I disrespect the Courts.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Sir. The President who opened this House was not convicted of any offence of dishonesty. With respect to him, it was a matter of negligence.
And the point really is, that in this case, you have a Court judgment. Mr Singh has said that he disagrees with it. He may do so, but that does not mean that the Court findings should not be noted. That does not mean that the conduct that was found in the Court judgments should not be regarded as dishonourable or unbecoming. And it does not mean that we cannot express a view on his suitability. And when you have a conviction for lying, before a COP and guiding a junior MP to lie, or to maintain an Untruth – that brings into question suitability for the position of a Leader of the Opposition.
And Mr Singh is right. We are not infallible. All of us are not infallible. And the PAP is certainly not infallible.
But the question is when something goes wrong, what do you do? And at that crossroads of doing right and wrong, if you take one direction, it goes a certain path, and if you take another direction, it goes another path. And as I mentioned earlier, in the case of Ms Khan, she was led along a certain path, with the consequences that we see today.
And the other point he made was that what is important is that we perform our role lawfully. And that is the point, is it not? Because lying before the COP cannot be said to be performing that role lawfully.
Mr Speaker: Ms Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to make two clarifications arising from the Leader's round-up speech. The first is that she mentioned more than once that the WP was somehow being inconsistent, in the sense that in Ms Raeesah Khan's case and also Mr Leon Perera's case, we seem to have acted very swiftly. Whereas in Mr Singh's case, we seem to be acting \"politically\", or some words to that effect.
So, actually, in my speech I had attempted to address this by saying that the difference there is that, in Ms Raeesah's case and as well as Mr Leon Perera's case, they admitted their wrongdoings. But in this case, Mr Singh has contested the charges and still maintains his innocence today.
So, WP is acting on the judgment, as she noted, we have formed a DP to look into whether Mr Singh has contravened the constitution. And although she says that she cannot wait for us – that is fine. But the fact is that we have our processes and the processes will take their course.
The other clarification which I wish to make was in relation to Resolution 5. She mentioned that the Court has found that certain statements were made in the August 2021 meeting, and that is a fact. But as I had said earlier, neither Mr Faisal nor myself were involved in the trial, we did not give evidence. So, in that sense, of course, the Court made its finding based on the evidence before it. But the fact is that we did not have the opportunity to give our recollection to the Court. So, I am still going to maintain that those findings cannot be held against me, and perhaps, at the next phase, or whenever it is, I will take this up again.
Mr Speaker: Leader, do you wish to respond?
Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank Ms Lim for her clarifications. It is correct that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal did not appear in the Court proceedings. But Ms Lim and Mr Faisal did appear and give evidence before the COP, and they gave evidence under oath. And the COP found that, in respect of the making of the Grave Statement, in other words, the telling of Ms Khan \"to take it to the grave\", the COP found that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal had lied about what had happened there.
So, you have a COP Report where that finding is there. What today's Motion does is it refers to the Court finding, because you see, the point is simply this: did the meeting happen and were the words said? The COP found that meeting happened. Those words were said, found all three of them were present. The COP Report is a report which, according to Mr Singh, should be a supreme document. This is Parliament.
Mr Pritam Singh: Point of Order.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Let me just clarify. Mr Singh did not say that the document is supreme. He said Parliament is supreme, and I am talking —
Mr Pritam Singh: Parliament is sovereign.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Parliament is sovereign. And this sovereign Parliament has a Select Committee that has made a report from a Committee of Privileges, finding that Mr Singh had made the statement, that Ms Lim and Mr Faisal were there, and that they had lied to the COP.
The question on everybody's minds is: \"Well, Mr Singh's case is going to Court. Let the Court make its findings, then we have the benefit of that. And we find that the Court findings are pretty much the same as the COP's findings —
Mr Pritam Singh: Point of Order.
Ms Indranee Rajah: On the point of that meeting occurred and the statement having been made.
So, that being the case, it has implications because we could have proceeded back when the original Report was made, we could have proceeded at the time. We did not need the Court findings. But what you have is where the Court findings have confirmed that the meeting took place and the statement was made. That is why it has implications. That is all. That is all that this Motion does: to note that it has implications.
But Ms Lim may want to take that up the next time when the next Motion comes.
And with respect to the point about the difference between Ms Khan's and Mr Perera's case, Ms Lim said that the difference was that, in their case, they admitted their wrongdoing. That is a really interesting point, because that means that everybody who goes to Court and who basically, puts up a defence and is found guilty, so long as they did not admit, it means that they are not guilty.
But what kind of rule of law is that? And what kind of system is that? You cannot go simply on the basis of, \"Has the person admitted or not?\" Here you have a system, where you have a society, you have a Court system. The Court makes an adjudication, and as Parliament, we have to take note of that and act accordingly.
Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you wanted to clarify something?
Mr Pritam Singh: No, Mr Speaker. I raised my hand for Point of Order and the Leader corrected herself.
Mr Speaker: Alright, thank you. Ms Lim, did you raise your hand?
Ms Sylvia Lim: Yes, I did, Speaker. Just to follow up on the Leader's point that as I mentioned in my clarification, the WP is looking into whether Mr Singh has contravened the constitution.
Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a point of clarification for the Leader of the House. In her round-up speech, she made the assertion, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the voting patterns of the WP's MPs will, in some way indicate that we find ourselves above the rule of law, that we do not agree with the rule of law, or we find ourselves above the law.
I respectfully disagree with this assertion. The rule of law implies that we respect the independence of the Courts and their role as an independent arbiter in disputes. And once an adjudication is made and a ruling is passed, we respect it and we abide by it. This is in the interest of order; and if not, we will have anarchy.
That does not preclude us from disagreeing with their verdicts and that does not mean that if we disagree, we are above the rule of law. This is clarification that I have.
Ms Indranee Rajah: I have noted Mr Low's statements. I just wondered how he was able to disagree with it, when he was not a witness or a party to the Court proceedings.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: I did not make the point that I personally disagree with the ruling. We have not formed an opinion. As Ms Lim mentioned, the WP has our own processes. It is in progress.
My point is that the Leader has made the assertion that, based on the way we are going to vote on this Motion, that that would imply that the WP sees themselves as above the law.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Perhaps Mr Low could just clarify what his position is on all six limbs of the Motion?
Mr Speaker: Mr Low.
Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: My position on all six limbs of the Motion is: I will I agree with limbs one and six of the Motion; and I do not agree with limbs two to five.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, that pretty much speaks for itself.
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for the Leader of the House?
The question is, \"That this Parliament —
1. Affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system;
2. Notes the judgment in Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 242 where the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges, and the findings of the Committee of Privileges that he had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament;
3. Expresses regret at the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament;
4. Considers that Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position carrying important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system;
5. Notes that the High Court judgment and the Committee’s findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, which have to be considered separately; and
6. Calls upon all Members of Parliament to uphold their solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times, and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans.\"
Those who agree, say \"Aye\".
[(proc text) Hon Members say \"Aye\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Those — Mr Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Can I request that whichever WP MP wishes, they may have their dissent recorded?
Mr Speaker: To record their dissent?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes.
Mr Speaker: Okay. Those who disagree say \"No\".
[(proc text) Some hon Members say \"No\". (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Can I request that those who would like their dissent to be recorded, to kindly stand?
[(proc text) Hon Members Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik, Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Fadli Fawzi, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Wu Yang Andre, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong and Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat stood at their seats for their dissent to be recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We will have it recorded. Thank you. You may sit down.
I think the \"Ayes\" have it, the \"Ayes\" have it.
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this Parliament – (proc text)]
[(proc text) 1. Affirms that honesty and integrity are fundamental pillars of Singapore’s parliamentary and political system; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 2. Notes the judgment in Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 242 where the High Court upheld Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction for lying to the Committee of Privileges, and the findings of the Committee of Privileges that he had guided Ms Raeesah Khan to continue with her lie to Parliament; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 3. Expresses regret at the conduct of Mr Pritam Singh, which was dishonourable and unbecoming of a Member of Parliament; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 4. Considers that Mr Pritam Singh’s conviction and conduct render him unsuitable to continue as the Leader of the Opposition, a Parliamentary leadership position carrying important responsibilities, duties and privileges, and that his continuation in this role would undermine the standing of Parliament and public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system; (proc text)]
[(proc text) 5. Notes that the High Court judgment and the Committee’s findings have implications for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, which have to be considered separately; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) 6. Calls upon all Members of Parliament to uphold their solemn duty to respect and abide by the law, act with integrity at all times, and honour the trust placed in them by Singaporeans.\" (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [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":"Rethinking Redevelopment and Green Preservation","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 Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, I speak today on a matter of increasing urgency and public concern. The need to fundamentally rethink how we assess and justify the trade-offs between essential development and the preservation of our existing green spaces. The question is how we move our planning calculus from measuring gross inputs to ensuring net positive outcomes for our environment and our people.
Part one: context and scarcity trap as a policy decision. Mr Speaker, Singaporeans broadly understand and accept the real constraints we face: land scarcity, the need for new housing, infrastructure, renewal and climate adaptation. We support the need for development, but Singaporeans also care deeply about the quality of life, the neighbourhood liveability, the mental well-being afforded by nature and the preservation of mature landscapes.
A tension we observe on the ground arises not because of development and preservation are inherently incompatible, but because in practice these two commitments are not weighted equally in our decision making. For too long, the default notion used to justify redeveloping green spaces we need to develop in land scarce Singapore has been used as a thought terminating cliche. It is factually correct, but it serves to end deliberation rather than begin it.
This position was clearly articulated by the then Minister for National Development, Mr Desmond Lee, when addressing similar development trade-offs. In his reply to my written Parliamentary Question on the development of Clementi Forest on 4 January 2021, and I quote: \"after weighing the alternatives and trade-offs, there will be areas that we cannot avoid developing. Nonetheless, for these sites, possible environmental impacts will still be carefully managed, and natural elements will be integrated within developments where possible.\"
While the intent to manage impacts is welcome, my Motion questions the starting premise, whether this insistence on development is truly unavoidable, or if our current framework has a structural tilt that forces the conclusion of no choice. No choice too early in the process, sometimes before assessment can be done for a fully informed deliberation. Likewise, once a land is zoned B2 Industrial, rightly or wrongly, should the Ministry of National Development (MND) or the Urban Redevelopment Authority accept that it will always be irreversible, even if there is rich biodiversity from 10 to 20 years, 25 years or more of forestation, including the existence of vulnerable birds?
Mr Speaker, land scarcity in Singapore is real, but it is not neutral and it is not value free. It is shaped not only by geography, but by a series of long-standing planning assumptions that I would urge the Government to revisit. When green spaces, whether greenfield or brownfield sites are presented as inevitable sacrifices, we must ask, have we genuinely exhausted all options to better rationalise existing cleared land? Have we truly intensified underutilised spaces, gone underground or rethink land intensive systems before concluding that forest must once again bear the cost?
The issue, therefore, is not whether Singapore should develop, but whether our decision frameworks adequately account for what we lose. We must ask whether our structures truly account for the cumulative long-term and irreversible losses. They are the inevitable consequence of endless densification.
Part two: the Serangoon River Forest, a case study of policy failure. Mr Speaker, this structural tilt is vividly illustrated by the ongoing works at the Serangoon River Forest, a mature ecological space officially named by some of my residents, which has been earmarked for a B2 industrial estate. Works to develop a bus depot in the middle of the part of the forest between Tampines Road and Buangkok East Drive began a few months ago to the chagrin of my residents living less than 200 metres away, including residents at Kingsford Waterbay Condominium. I have been engaged by my residents and many others in Hougang, who highlight this area's role as a last green lung in their vicinity, indeed in the east of Singapore.
Their concerns have also been reflected in media coverage. The most striking policy issue here is the lack of transparency in the process of assessing the site's current value and whether the process can be further enhanced. It is clear from the response to my Parliamentary Question in November 2025 by MND, that no environmental impact assessment (EIA) or baseline biodiversity study was required before the Government decided on and commence the bus depot construction. The justification given for this exemption is that the site is classified as a brownfield site, comprising primarily young regrowth scrubland. This classification appears to rest on the historical use of the surrounding area stretching up to Lorong Halus, which included two kampungs, agricultural, sewage and landfill activities before the land naturally reforested over the last 10 to 25 years between Tampines Road and Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1.
Mr Speaker, this is where the structural tilt becomes a structural failure of imagination. A brownfield destination prioritises the past commercial zoning over the present ecological function. It allows the Government to look at a 10- to 25-year forest and call it scrubland, simply because it was historically a developed site. Thus, the mere fact that the site was once developed, stripped a current mature forest of its ecological and social worth. Thus, the label \"brownfield\" gave us a permanent exemption from the duty to conduct an EIA or a baseline biodiversity study, regardless of the vegetation's age and density.
If we are committed to regreening Singapore, we must acknowledge that natural rewilding is a success story, not a planning inconvenience. When we encounter brownfield sites where natural rewilding has occurred, could we assess them not solely by what they were, or even what they are at this moment, but by what they are demonstrably becoming? By proceeding without an EIA, we lose the opportunity to gather essential objective data on the exact species, including vulnerable birds cited by residents and groups like the Nature Society of Singapore, the actual maturity and cooling capacity, and the critical ecological connectivity at the site.
This absence of data means the decision to clear is made in an information vacuum, relying on decades old zoning, rather than current, verifiable ecological reality. The question is not whether such sites meet a narrow threshold of environmental significance today, but whether they are on a clear ecological trajectory that, if allowed to continue, will support meaningful biodiversity over the next 10, 15 or 20 years or more.
A second policy question is whether all planning assumptions have been revisited to site the bus depot on existing developments in the area instead of the developing on new space. This is not an issue pertinent to Lorong Halus Bus Depot alone, but for all pending development on green spaces. Are there unpopular but critical planning choices we could make to preserve the little greenery we have left? For example, Singapore's road network occupies 12% of our total land area today, remaining at the same percentage for the past decade, even though car ownership per household has declined and is estimated to serve 481,000 households.
At the same time, public housing occupies only 8% of land take per data from a 2019 Parliamentary response, yet serves more households, and nearly 80% of the 1.46 million resident household in Singapore. Is there a symmetry in our planning outcomes where some land users consume a disproportionate share of land relative to the households they serve, yet are rarely subjected to scrutiny with green spaces bearing the cost?
These figures are not cited to argue against roads or transport or any form of infrastructure development, which are clearly essential. Rather, they illustrate an asymmetry in how land use trade-offs are examined. When housing, transport or other established systems require land, their footprints are often treated as given. When green spaces are involved, however, the conclusion that I must give away is often treated as the more convenient choice.
The policy question I urge the Government to review is, are we prepared to more aggressively review and make difficult decisions for land hungry systems, either by reducing usage or going underground or above ground, rather than repeatedly clearing the remaining greenery?
Mr Speaker, there is also a profound inter-generational dimension to this issue that we cannot ignore. When we defer the hard task of rationalising land hungry systems today, we effectively pass the burden of rationalisation to future generations, while simultaneously depriving them of the very green spaces that could have provided environmental resilience, cooling and liveability. So, in other words, future Singaporeans will inherit the same land intensive system, but with even less natural capital left to work with.
When we clear a mature green space and replace it with hard permanent infrastructure, we lock in a particular development pathway, often for decades, sometimes permanently. Built infrastructure can be more easily and quickly adapted, intensified or removed as needs change. Green spaces are not like that. When we clear an established forest or green corridor, the loss is immediate, but recovery is slow. The cooling effect, ecological function and the biodiversity that took decades to develop cannot simply be reconstructed on demand. Even with replanting, it may take many years of equivalent functional value to return. The clearing of green spaces should be subjected to a higher justification threshold than land uses that can be undone for as long as alternatives exist, whether through co-location, going underground, intensifying existing sites, or reconfiguring underutilised land.
As we face rising temperatures, more intense rainfall and increased urban stress, the ability to redeploy land for cooling, absorption or ecological buffering becomes more valuable, not less. Decisions that permanently eliminate these possibilities should therefore be subject to especially careful scrutiny. A more balanced decision framework would explicitly ask, does the development lock us into a path that cannot easily be undone? If so, is that loss of flexibility justified by truly exceptional public benefit?
Part three: the true cost of loss, functional value and irreversibility. Mr Speaker, our current metric of success often stops at gross numbers. We will plant one million more trees. But this target, while laudable, obscures the net loss when mature greenery is cleared, especially when the decision is not informed by an EIA.
Loss of functional value, cooling and ecology. The Serangoon River Forest is not just a collection of trees. It is a vital part of the climate control system for this part of the northeast of Singapore.
Heat mitigation. Studies showed a pronounced urban island effect in densely built areas. Mature-dense canopies provide the most effective passive solution to shade and cooling through evapotranspiration. By removing this forest, we are imposing an immediate permanent environmental cost on the surrounding Hougang, Sengkang, Punggol, Tampines and Pasir Ris residents. Higher ambient temperatures reduce shade and degraded thermal comfort.
Ecological and social value. Ecological science tells us that green spaces function as systems, not isolated plots. Clearing these mature land risks fragmentations of a key corridor. This is a bigger stretch of green spaces on the eastern half of Singapore, from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1. Yet all zone industrial B2.
Beyond nature, further development would result in residents in Hougang, Sengkang, Punggol and elsewhere in north-east losing a space that provides a unique sense of wellbeing and community life, an intangible asset that no number on a balance sheet can capture. The building and a bus depot are sadly the first step in that direction.
Water absorption studies conducted by the Nanyang Technological University in 2021 showed that forested areas provide a critical sponge effect, intercepting rainfall and regulating run-off. Given the increasing unpredictability of rainfall and the greater incidence of ponding, removing this function, especially near a river, is a decision that must be weighed with the utmost care against potential flood risk.
Finally, exercising along a natural forest offers far greater mental health benefits than walking along a sterile concrete canal. Economic valuation confirms that preserving the Serangoon Forest provides superior welfare for residents using the park connector all the way to Punggol.
The cost of time and interim conditions.
Mr Speaker, if the replacement benefit takes decades to materialise, are those years of increased heat, reduced air quality and the degraded surroundings treated as real cost in the project balance sheet? When we evaluate mitigation, we must factor in time and irreversibility. If a functional loss is permanent or requires a recovery period of say, five, 10 or 20 years, it must face a substantially higher justification threshold than a minor reversible inconvenience.
Next, part four: a new framework – net outcomes and functional value. To address this structural tilt and prevent further decisions based on historical zoning instead of current functional value, we need a balanced decision framework that explicitly values what we preserve. I propose the following elements for a revised planning and assessment framework.
One, net outcomes over gross inputs. We must measure the net change in unfragmented canopy cover, cooling effect and ecological function. We must factor in the time to replacement when evaluating mitigation, acknowledging the ecological premium of mature established greenery.
Two, mandatory functional assessment. The brownfield classification must no longer provide an automatic exemption from environmental studies before development. Any vegetated site above a certain maturity or size must undergo a mandatory functional assessment, regardless of its zoning history to determine its current role in heat mitigation, flood absorption and ecological connectivity and preservation.
Three, functional value and strategic green belts. We must prioritise green spaces by what they do in a regional context. As the Government plans the massive new Housing and Development Board (HDB) town at the Paya Lebar Air Base site, it must recognise that large parts of the limited existing green spaces within and on the eastern fringe of the air base will be developed or severely affected by the construction. These air base green spaces may be smaller or have less ecological merit than the current Serangoon River Forest, stretching from Tampines Road to Serangoon East Dam and Coney Island. It would make far greater ecological and planning sense to preserve and utilise the current well developed Serangoon River Forest as an established green belt to mitigate against the heat impact from the future big new town. This is strategically superior to relying on artificially-created neighbourhood parks or park connectors at the air base site.
Four, alternative first approach in justification. Agencies must clearly demonstrate that avoidance and minimisation were explored before mitigation is proposed, specifically when my residents appealed to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) or MND for the bus depot site to be shifted to the current heavy vehicle park along Tampines Road. Other than mitigation measures, no reason has yet been given for not agreeing to the shift, nor was there any reason given to justify why the bus depot had to be sited in the middle of the forested area between Buangkok East Drive and Tampines Road.
Five, irreversibility and time horizons. Apply a higher justification threshold to any decision that results in an irreversible loss or requires a recovery period.
Six, cumulative and area level impact. We must evaluate impacts in the neighbourhood or corridor level, not project by project. Multiple compliant decisions when accumulated over time in a small area can still lead to a degraded, less liveable environment.
Seven, transparency in communication. When trade-offs are made, we must clearly state what is gained and what is lost in clean terms, ensuring that the environmental cost do not disproportionately fall on the immediate neighbours, while the benefits are distributed citywide. They should also be actively communicated to stakeholders early on, rather than leaving it to consultation exercise.
Eight, symmetrical scrutiny of land intensive system. We must hold planning decisions across all existing land uses to the same level of scrutiny as green spaces. When development is proposed on vegetated land, we must ask whether existing land hungry system have been reviewed, intensified, co-located or rationalised to avoid further loss of natural capital.
Mr Speaker, our success as a mature city depends not just on our ability to overcome physical land scarcity, but on our wisdom in how we manage the scarcity of natural capital. If we allow the label of brownfield to exempt us from doing a basic baseline biodiversity study on EIA on a mature self-reforested site, and if we fail to see the strategic value of this established green lung in the face of major future regional development, like the Paya Lebar Air Base Town, we risk making decisions that are blind to current ecological reality and future climate needs.
I urge MND and all planning agencies to review their decision framework to ensure that our decisions are based on net outcomes, functional value and long-term resilience. What we choose to preserve today is what will define Singapore's livability tomorrow.
Finally, I plead with the Government to fully consider the interest of the residents living near the Serangoon River Forest. Please review and consider relocating the bus depot to the heavy vehicle park at Tampines Road, and please consider retaining as much as possible of this vital green lung of the north east, which is home to one of the largest collection of birds, including conservation status birds in Singapore, stretching from Tampines Road to Pasir Ris Industrial Drive 1, for the benefit of residents living in the north east and all Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member Dennis Tan for his Adjournment Motion.
I wanted to say that our objectives are the same. Our objectives to balance different land use are the same, but we have different views on this, and I disagree with how he has characterised the approach we have been taking all these years, and it is fine to have these different views.
But let me architect and let me frame how we look at land use planning.
The Government takes a long-term and very careful approach when planning how we use our limited land to support the diverse needs and aspirations of generations of Singaporeans, and we are balancing many competing needs, including the need for green spaces, education, transport, defence, recreation and many more that the Member has outlined.
In recent years, for example, as Members of this House know, and we have debated. Singaporeans' demand for housing has grown and the Government has, therefore, ramped up public and private housing supply in the past few years, and we will continue keeping up a steady housing supply if demand remains strong. And to meet Singaporeans needs, we must maximise how we use our limited land. Let me explain how we already are doing so.
First, we are redeveloping brownfield sites, such as golf courses, industrial areas, and also activating underused spaces, such as via ducts and carpark rooftops. We are also building higher where possible, and the relaxation of aviation height limits near airports will open new possibilities for future intensification while maintaining liveable spaces.
As the Member alluded to, we are also exploring the use of more underground spaces to free up surface land for more liveable uses, including at Gali Batu and this builds on earlier efforts, such as the Jurong Rock Caverns and the deep tunnel sewerage system. So, we are already looking down, we are already looking up. And through our North-South corridor project, we are also diverting vehicular traffic underground to free up more ground level space for cycling, walking, green spaces and other spaces that Singaporeans enjoy.
At the same time, we are also co-locating suitable uses within integrated developments to optimise our land use, while also bringing convenience to Singaporeans. This includes our Tampines Hub and Bukit Canberra as well as upcoming integrated community hubs in Siglap and Toa Payoh. These hubs will bring together sports facilities, healthcare, community spaces in one convenient location – all things which Singaporeans want.
But even as we do our best to optimise existing build up areas, we will still need to strike that balance between development and conserving and preserving our green spaces. Today, we have safeguarded more than 7,800 hectares of green spaces for our nature reserves, nature parks and other green spaces, such as parks and park connectors, and these include our four nature reserves, which contain some of our most sensitive and biodiverse habitats.
We have also identified key ecological corridors between core habitats. We have established nature park networks and nature corridors along these corridors, such as the Labrador Nature Park Network and the Clementi Nature Corridor, that is alongside them. And the National Parks Board's ecological profiling exercise also guides our conservation strategies, including to sensitively integrate nature into our urban landscape upfront within our land use plans. We also ensure our green spaces are accessible and near homes. By 2030, every household will be within a 10-minute walk of a park.
Because of these efforts, in fact, we are recognised. Singapore today is recognised as one of the world's greenest cities. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Green View Index shows that we are in fact ahead of most cities in our provision of urban tree coverage, including those with lower population densities.
And we will do more. We have in place supporting efforts that allow us to contribute more effectively to enhance green cover, biodiversity and ecological connectivity. By 2030, we aim to restore and enhance 80 hectares of forest, marine and coastal habitats as well as to establish 300 kilometres of nature ways.
But to achieve all this, we adopt a robust systematic and science-based framework to balance developmental needs and conserving our green spaces. We rigorously study the trade-offs and alternatives and consult stakeholders where relevant.
Under our EIA Framework, we start by consulting technical agencies on the sites' potential ecological and biodiversity value. And if there is potentially significant environmental impact from the development, we require an EIA study to assess in greater detail – the nature and the magnitude of the impact and to develop more mitigating measures. And based on the EIA findings, agencies will then carefully consider the extent of the potential impact and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures in consultation with nature groups and community stakeholders.
These stakeholders' expertise and feedback inform the mitigation recommendations in the EIA. We then make the environmental study reports publicly available online so that the public can provide feedback, and this is our default practice unless there are national security concerns where confidentiality is required. So, I wanted to correct the mischaracterisation of the Member when he said that no EIA is needed as it is brownfield and zone B2.
In fact, I just mentioned that it is not true that brownfield sites automatically do not require EIA. We make those assessments.
On his specific point about Serangoon Forest, he spoke about the east of Sungai Serangoon and Serangoon Forest, and I previously explained in Parliament in November that this area has been zoned for industrial use since 1998.
In fact, the Members of Parliament were briefed in February 2018. And on 1 December 2023, a Gazette Notice was published for rezoning to B2 to transport facilities for this bus depot. Member Gerald Giam was informed of the rezoning and gave no comments.
The site is intended to be progressively developed to help us to achieve a few objectives.
First, it is to bring economic development and jobs for residents in the area closer to them, to their homes in nearby towns such as Hougang and Sengkang, and to future residents of the upcoming new town at Defu and Paya Lebar Air Base.
The planned bus depot, which the Member raised, at the southern part of this area is intended to improve public transport services for residents. So, there is value and benefit to residents living in the area.
The area was previously a municipal waste landfill known as the Tampines Tipping Ground. Technical agencies have assessed that this site is not a sensitive nature area and the environmental impact of the bus depot is limited. Hence, an environmental study was not required.
The vegetation on the site is a result of regeneration of the last 10 to 15 years, comprising young exotic dominated secondary forests, scrubland, grassland and ponds. These habitats are commonly found in cleared or disturbed areas and generally have lower ecological value than more mature forest habitats such as native dominated secondary forests.
So, this is a considered decision. We will not revisit the matter.
Nevertheless, to mitigate any environmental impact and disamenities to residents, LTA has agreed to put in place necessary measures during the construction. This includes hoarding the work site, which also serves to prevent wildlife vehicular collisions, and conducting checks for birds' nests and other wildlife before site clearance.
Mr Speaker: Minister of State, you have about a minute left.
Mr Alvin Tan: Sir, beyond the bus depot, agencies are reviewing potential development plans for the remaining areas along the eastern bank of Sungei Serangoon. Agencies will continue to carefully plan for the provision of greenery and recreational spaces in the area.
In conclusion, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for raising the matter, to grassroots advisor Marshall Lim for engaging residents and agencies, to Tony O'Dempsey and our friends at Nature Society Singapore for advocating to protect their surrounding environment and to the residents themselves for sharing their views.
I know it matters to all of you. And it does matter. It matters because we all want our green spaces, we all want our homes, our hospitals, our schools, our jobs, our workspaces and transport facilities to get us around. I wish we have an abundance of land and space to do all that without trade-offs. But the reality is that we are a city state. Unique.
And unlike other countries where choices are less stark, Singapore has always been about making the best of what we have and not what we wish we had.
Our survival and present quality of life are the result of deliberate, often difficult, trade-offs. We build upwards and downwards and constantly repurpose our land for evolving uses. At the same time, it is our responsibility to be upfront about we can do and what we cannot do. We must mitigate impact where we can and make adjustments where possible. But ultimately, we must take a view and make a decision. And that is on us.
These decisions will continue to confront us as we build our city in nature and provide homes and jobs to Singaporeans – just as it has confronted our predecessors.
Mr Speaker and to all who are concerned about this matter, I ask for your support and your understanding. I thank you for partnering us in this collective effort to build Singapore into a home that we are all proud of, for our generation and generations to come. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.18 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Social Media Platforms' Algorithmic Content Recommendation Systems on Distribution of Scam Content to Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the Government has conducted assessments on how social media platforms' algorithmic recommendation systems for organic and paid content amplify the distribution of scam content to users; and (b) whether the Government is considering to mandate that social media platforms default to display only content that individuals explicitly follow or search for.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Police impose ex ante anti-scam requirements on online platforms. This includes measures that reduce or remove the circulation of scam content on the platforms, such as advertiser verification and user reporting. We think that this approach is more productive, compared to trying to directly assess and require changes to the platforms' content distribution algorithms. The latter is not easy to do and platforms must be responsible to adjust their algorithms, systems or processes as necessary and as they deem appropriate, to comply with the Government's anti-scam requirements.
We intend to further tighten the anti-scam requirements on platforms and will announce the details in due course. We do not think it is reasonable to stipulate that platforms only display content that individuals explicitly follow or request for. This could prevent legitimate advertising activity and, in any case, may not stop the circulation of scam ads if the ads feature content that the user had requested for.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Affordability of Utility Bills for Singaporeans Given Rising Energy Costs and Push Towards Green Energy Alternatives","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of rising energy costs and the national push towards greener energy alternatives, what measures are being taken to ensure the continued affordability of utility bills for Singaporeans.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Singapore depends on energy imports to meet almost all our energy needs. Therefore, our electricity prices generally reflect movements in imported fuel costs. Nonetheless, the Government remains committed to work with Singaporeans to strike the right balance between sustainability, energy security and affordability.
Households can reduce their utility bills by switching to more energy-efficient appliances to reduce their energy consumption. Eligible households can use their Climate Vouchers under the enhanced Climate Friendly Household Programme to defray the costs of switching to such appliances. Households can also adopt energy-saving habits, such as switching off unused appliances and setting indoor air-conditioning temperature at 25 degrees Celsius.
To defray the monthly costs of utilities, the majority of Singaporean households living in Housing Development Board flats receive U-Save rebates. In 2025, eligible households would have received up to $760 of U-Save rebates. Such measures complement other schemes to support Singaporeans' daily expenses, like the Community Development Council Vouchers.
Businesses can also do their part to invest in energy efficiency. The Government will continue providing grants to support businesses to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adequacy of ATMs for Withdrawing and Depositing Cash within Existing and New HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the current number of automated teller machines (ATMs) in each HDB town; and (b) whether HDB works with banks and other Government agencies to ensure adequate provision of cash withdrawal and deposit facilities within walking distance for existing and new HDB BTO estates.
24 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the number of (i) off-premise automated teller machines (ATMs) and (ii) bank branches in each of the last 10 years; (b) how does MAS ensure adequate provision of ATMs and banking services through physical bank branches and ATMs; and (c) what are the operational requirements that are prescribed, if any, to banks.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): There are currently more than 1,600 off-premise automated teller machines (ATMs) and over 150 retail branches operated by the three local banks across Singapore. More than 1,200 of the off-premise ATMs are located within Housing and Development Board towns. Over the past decade, both the number of off-premise ATMs and bank branches have decreased gradually by an average of around 2% annually, as banks rationalise their ATMs and branch network due to customers increasingly adopting online banking and cashless payments. Banks have also deployed more multi-function ATMs, so customers do not necessarily need to visit branches.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore tracks the number of ATMs and engages banks to ensure they carefully consider customers' ease of access to banking services. Banks consider various factors when siting ATMs and bank branches, including footfall, transaction volume, population density and proximity to public transport nodes. They prioritise locations that are central to residents' daily activities, such as heartland malls and food centres, to enhance convenience for customers. Banks also monitor the Urban Redevelopment Authority masterplan and Government tenders to identify where to site new bank branches and ATMs.
ATMs and bank branches are not the only places where consumers can withdraw cash. Banks also partner retail outlets such as 7-Eleven, Giant and Sheng Siong to enable customers to withdraw cash from their bank accounts when they make purchases at these locations. These outlets are present in mature and non-mature estates.
MAS will continue to work with banks to ensure there are enough ATMs and bank branches for the convenience of customers and also encourage customers to use digital banking services as an alternative to cash transactions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reported Complaints on Free-range Chickens or Junglefowl within Residential Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for National Development (a) in each of the past five years, how many reports or complaints on free-ranging chickens or junglefowl were received in residential estates; and (b) whether NParks will consider piloting the relocation of chickens from residential precincts to suitable non-residential habitats, such as Jurong Island, Botanic Gardens and green spaces within industrial parks to address early-morning noise and health-related complaints.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Over each of the past five years, there was an average of about 2,000 instances of feedback related to free-ranging chickens in residential estates.
The National Parks Board (NParks) adopts a community- and science-based approach to manage the free-ranging chicken population. This includes working with Town Councils and grassroots organisations on population control measures, habitat modification to prevent chickens from roosting close to residential units and public education efforts to discourage releasing and feeding of free-ranging chickens. NParks does not have plans to relocate chickens to other spaces.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Local Jobseekers without Updates from Potential Employers Beyond 45 Days After Interviews","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has data on the proportion of local jobseekers not receiving potential employers' updates beyond 45 days after their interviews; (b) if so, what is the proportion in the last two years; and (c) what new initiatives, if any, are being considered to encourage more timely and constructive feedback from employers to jobseekers where practical.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower does not collect data on jobseekers receiving updates from potential employers after their interviews.
We recognise that jobseekers can benefit from timely and constructive feedback from employers. The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices has published a Fair Recruitment and Selection Handbook which encourages employers to inform candidates during the interview on how the interview results will be communicated and to subsequently notify candidates of their interview results within a reasonable timeframe.
As conveyed in a reply to a Parliamentary Question in September 2025, we also encourage employers and jobseekers to exchange constructive feedback where practical. The tripartite partners will continue to monitor how to support workers in the job search process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Increasing Healthy Food Options at Hawker Centres and Food Courts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) how will the Health Promotion Board work with other stakeholders to review and increase healthy food options at hawker centres and food courts; and (b) what new financial incentives will be considered for businesses that provide food options with high nutritional standards.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: We believe that hawker food can be both tasty and healthier. A key initiative to achieve this is Health Promotion Board's Healthier Dining Programme. As of September 2025, there are more than 9,200 hawker stalls, food court stalls, restaurants and food kiosks participating in the Programme. These eateries offer at least one healthier option on their menu, which may be either a lower-calorie meal, or prepared using healthier ingredients, such as wholegrain staples, healthier oils or lower-sodium salt, sauces and seasonings.
There is also the Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme, which supports the use of healthier ingredients, such as lower sodium salt, by enabling Food and Beverage operators to obtain them at prices comparable to regular products. We also encourage consumers to directly request for healthier options when they eat out. This can help to create demand for healthier options and encourage more stall owners to adjust their menus.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of AI Translation Tools on Tour Guide Services in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) can assess the market impact of letting tour guides self-declare their language proficiency without formal testing, given the availability of AI translation tools; and (b) whether STB has studied the adverse impact of such AI translation tools on (i) consumers and (ii) guides who are actually proficient in the respective languages.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) removed the Multi-Language Proficiency Test requirement for tourist guides in June 2024. Since then, tourist guides have been able to self-declare their language proficiency and guide in additional languages without formal testing. The change was motivated by a desire to streamline licensing and regulatory requirements, given that tourist guides remain accountable to their hirers, including travel agencies, tour operators and tourists and will need to demonstrate their language competencies to avoid complaints or implications on their commercial contracts.
Thus far, STB has not received any complaints or negative feedback from visitors, while travel agents and tour operators appreciated the change as it enables them to more easily secure guides who speak foreign languages to meet market demand.
While the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) translation tools enables more tourists to independently discover destinations, the human touch remains a critical element in the tourism sector. Tourist guides offer much more than translation services, providing unique and meaningful experiences over and above what AI can provide. STB remains committed to advancing the tourist guide profession to enable guides to leverage technologies, such as AI, to enhance the experiences they bring to tourists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adding Congenital Conditions into List for Chronic Disease Management Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider listing additional congenital conditions, such as hypogonadism, as chronic conditions under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP); (b) if not, why not; and (c) what is the rationale for extending Community Health Assist Scheme subsidies to patients under CDMP, but not other publicly-supported subsidies, such as MediFund.
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, potential benefits of early interventions to patient outcomes, the cumulative cost to the patient from long-term treatment and the availability of evidence-based clinical guidelines for appropriate care of the condition.
The management of congenital conditions, such as hypogonadism, are largely specialist-led, involves complex therapies and is not routinely managed in primary care. They are also less prevalent in the general population. As such, they are not suitable for inclusion under the CDMP.
Subsidies and MediSave use for chronic disease management are available at both polyclinics and private general practitioner (GP) clinics. At GP clinics, the subsidies are available under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS).
MediFund is an additional financial assistance available to needy patients, over and above regular subsidies. It is extended only to institutions which the Ministry of Health has greater financial governance oversight and more stringent controls over. It is therefore available for management of chronic conditions only in the polyclinics and public hospitals. CHAS patients who need additional financial assistance, such as MediFund, can be managed at polyclinics for their chronic diseases.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Extend Subsides for Shingles Vaccination to Those Aged 50-59 as Dementia Prevention Measure","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given findings that shingles vaccination reduces dementia, including the May 2025 Nature study showing Zostavax causally reduces diagnoses by 20% and the July 2024 Nature Medicine study showing Shingrix is associated with 164 added dementia-free days, whether the Ministry will (i) include dementia prevention savings into cost-benefit analyses for shingles vaccines and (ii) consider extending shingles vaccine subsidies to persons aged 50-59.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The two cited studies are based on observational data that suggest a potential association between shingles vaccination and reduced risk of dementia. Additional research is required to establish causality and the underlying biological mechanisms, to determine the vaccine's effect on dementia risk. The Ministry of Health will continue to monitor the emergence of such scientific evidence. In the meantime, we will maintain the age criterion for Shingles vaccination subsidies, on the basis that the incidence of shingles rises steeply after age 60, approximately three to four times that of individuals aged 50 to 59 years.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Enforcement Applications Filed in Respect of Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal Orders Issued between 2020 and 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Law (a) how many enforcement applications were filed in respect of the 233 Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal orders issued between 2020 and 2024; (b) what percentage of these applications resulted in an enforcement order; and (c) whether the Ministry will introduce a mechanism for the court to direct agencies to verify and monitor compliance with non-monetary orders on-site.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Between 2020 and 2024, 69 applications for Special Directions and 13 applications for Exclusion Orders were filed.
Of these applications filed, 24 Special Directions and two Exclusion Orders were made. This means that around 30% of enforcement applications resulted in an enforcement order. Due to the small number of applications involved, caution should be exercised in interpreting these percentages which are subject to wide statistical fluctuations.
Orders made by the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) are Court orders that must be complied with. The breach of a CDRT order constitutes contempt of Court. The breach of a Special Direction or Exclusion Order is also an offence punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to three months.
CDRT proceedings are private actions between private parties. As such, the claimants in private actions would typically monitor compliance with Court orders issued in their favour and decide how to proceed. If a CDRT Order has been breached, a claimant can apply for a Special Direction to enforce the CDRT Order. If a Special Direction has been breached, a claimant can further apply for an Exclusion Order to exclude the respondent from his or her residence. In severe noise nuisance and hoarding cases in the pilot town of Tampines, the Community Relations Unit can assist by using its investigation powers to verify the breach of a CDRT Order or a Special Direction.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Submission of National Adaptation Plan to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether Singapore plans to submit a National Adaptation Plan to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and (b) if so, when, noting that Singapore has previously published an Adaptation Communication and included an adaptation component in its Nationally Determined Contribution.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As I had announced at Committee of Supply 2025, we are developing Singapore's inaugural National Adaptation Plan (NAP), which will serve as our long-term living strategy for Singapore to continue thriving in the face of climate change.
We plan to publish our first NAP in 2027, which will also be submitted as a standalone document to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This builds on our Adaptation Communication and updated Nationally Determined Contributions which were submitted to the UNFCCC in 2022 and 2025 respectively. This will take into account domestic efforts and international developments, such as the framework for indicators1, to track progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation which was recently adopted at COP30. We will share more details on the NAP at COS 2026.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Officially termed the Belém Adaptation Indicators."],"footNoteQuestions":["32"],"questionNo":"32"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Efficacy of Masks and Spit Guards Leading to Removal from Food Handlers' Requirement from 1 January 2026","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what data regarding the efficacy of masks and spit guards prompted their removal as a requirement for food handlers from 1 January 2026; (b) how will the risk of aerosolised pathogen transmission be managed without physical barriers while preparing and handling food; and (c) whether food handlers with respiratory symptoms are legally required to wear masks or spit guards.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) introduced the requirement for food handlers to wear masks and spit guards as part of the public hygiene measures in response to COVID-19. We continued to maintain it in line with other public hygiene initiatives.
SFA conducts regular reviews of its requirements to ensure they remain relevant in addressing key food safety risks. SFA's recent analysis of foodborne outbreaks found that the key risk factors for food contamination are inadequate sanitation, improper temperature management and contact between raw and cooked food. Food handlers not wearing masks or spit guards pose a low food safety risk.
Nonetheless, food businesses should continue adopting food hygiene best practices. We encourage food handlers to wear masks or spit guards and to do so properly to avoid them becoming potential sources of cross-contamination.
We discourage food handlers from handling food if they are unwell.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Those Living In One- to Two-Persons Households At Risk of Social Isolation Or Who Need Post-hospitalisation Home Care","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the growing share of seniors living alone or in one- or two-person HDB households, what expansion to existing schemes will be considered to address the higher number of those who over time will be at risk of social isolation and mental health, in need of emergency support in event of falls and other medical emergencies and post-hospitalisation home care.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: This is a key concern that the Government has been working on for many years, given our ageing population. To build a strong support network for seniors, the Ministry of Health established the Agency for Integrated Care, recruited Silver Generation Ambassadors to reach out to seniors and established many Senior Activity Centres. Under Age Well SG, these have evolved into a comprehensive support network of Active Ageing Centres, which engage seniors with needs or at risk of social isolation. Age Well SG also includes enhanced support for those in need of care, such as the Home Personal Care service.
We will continue to strengthen our outreach efforts by working with volunteer groups and community organisations to engage, befriend and support vulnerable and isolated seniors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Foreign Taxis from Offering Point-to-point Trips and Allowing Singapore Taxis to Access Subsidised Fuel with New Cross-border Taxi Agreement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) based on the new cross-border taxi rules, what enforcement measures will prevent foreign taxis from conducting local point-to-point trips; (b) how will fair competition be maintained when local taxis face higher operating costs; and (c) whether the Ministry will negotiate with Malaysia to allow Singaporean taxis offering taxi services in Malaysia access to subsidised fuel.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: This question was addressed in the written reply issued for Question No 22 for Oral Answer for the 13 January 2026 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Addressing Cost Concerns of Singapore Taxi and Private Hire Drivers Given New Cross-border Arrangements for Ride-hailing Services\", Official Report, 13 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 13, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on HDB Blocks That Did Not Garner 75% Votes for Home Improvement Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last 10 years, how many HDB blocks did not garner more than 75% of eligible Singapore Citizen household votes for the Home Improvement Programme; (b) of these, how many blocks were allowed to revote; and (c) what was the outcome of each revote.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) aims to address safety and common maintenance issues that arise due to wear and tear in older flats. For HIP to proceed, majority consent of 75% of eligible Singaporean households in the block is required.
In the last 10 years, six residential Housing Development Board (HDB) blocks did not garner more than 75% of votes from eligible Singapore Citizen households for the HIP. These include one block at Serangoon Ave 2 in 2017 and three blocks at Lengkong Tiga in 2023. More recently, two blocks in Tiong Bahru polled unsuccessfully in November 2025.
For the four blocks at Serangoon and Lengkong Tiga, HDB received appeals from the flat owners and Advisers for a re-poll. After careful review, HDB allowed these blocks to re-poll after about one year from the first poll. All four blocks re-polled successfully for the HIP.
We understand that under the current voting process, blocks with fewer eligible units may face greater risks of not reaching 75% of votes to proceed with HIP. We will review the voting process for such blocks to balance between helping older estates to benefit from the HIP, while respecting the decision of flat owners. One option we are studying is to group the blocks with fewer units to vote together as one cluster, so that there are sufficient number of households taking part in the voting process.
Outside of HIP, HDB supports flat owners who require assistance with ceiling leaks and spalling concrete issues through the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme. Households with seniors who meet the eligibility criteria may also apply directly to HDB for the installation of senior-friendly fittings and accessibility solutions via the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme. For both assistance schemes, HDB will co-pay part of the repair or installation costs for eligible households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of MediSave Withdrawal Limits to Pay for Private Medical Insurance in Light of Premium Increases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health given the sustained medical inflation over the past decade and in light of recent MediShield Life benefit enhancements and premium increases (a) when will the MediSave withdrawal limits for private medical insurance premiums be reviewed to ensure adequate coverage; and (b) what indicators will be used to assess their adequacy.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MediSave is a national savings scheme designed to support basic healthcare needs. As such, premiums of our national health insurance scheme, such as MediShield Life, are fully payable by MediSave. As Integrated Shield Plans (IP) are optional, commercial products that provide additional coverage for unsubsidised care, MediSave use for IP premiums are capped by the Additional Withdrawal Limits (AWLs).
In considering enhancements to the AWLs, we would need to strike a balance between allowing Singaporeans to use more of their MediSave for private insurance while ensuring that they preserve adequate MediSave for other basic healthcare needs in the future.
Should individuals face challenges with the rising private insurance premiums, they are encouraged to consult their financial advisors to review their private health insurance coverage, taking into account their healthcare needs, care preferences and financial affordability.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjusting Peak Hours for Bus Services in Light of Increased Flexible and Hybrid Work Arrangements","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry has considered adjusting the stipulated peak hours for bus services in light of increased flexible and hybrid work arrangements; and (b) what steps are being taken to encourage public transport operators to increase service frequency beyond the traditional peak periods to better reflect current travel demands and commuting patterns.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority and bus operators adjust the provision of bus services based on ridership and evolving commuter travel patterns. This includes increasing service frequencies during off-peak periods, if there is sufficient demand.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Critical Services Boards Comprising Members with Professional Experience in ICT Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Dr Choo Pei Ling asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information regarding the boards of the operators of critical services in Singapore (a) on average, what percentage of each board comprises members with careers and professional experience in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector; and (b) how will the Ministry improve ICT sector representation on these boards.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government does not have data on the Member's question.
It is the responsibility of each board to ensure they have the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience for their company's sector and operational context. This includes determining whether and what type of information and communications technology knowledge is required for their business and is no different from how boards assess the needs for other types of expertise, including legal and finance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Standardised Framework for Schools to Ensure Consistent Implementation of Expanded Digital Device Restrictions during School Hours","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education in view of the expansion of smartphone and smartwatch restrictions to cover all school hours including recess and co-curricular activities from January 2026, what specific enforcement mechanisms, guidelines or standardised disciplinary framework have been provided to schools to ensure consistent implementation.
Mr Desmond Lee: This question has been addressed as part of the Ministry of Education's oral reply to Question No 13 on 13 January 2026. [Please refer to \"Emergency Communications between Parents and their Children given Smartphone Ban in Secondary Schools\", Official Report, 13 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 13, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
41 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the progress of HDB's study to utilise microwave scanning technology to detect and trace sources of water seepage within HDB units; and (b) if the study is successful, what are the Ministry's plans to roll out the technology, especially in ageing estates.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Between 2024 and 2025, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has trialed the use of microwave scanning technology at 68 HDB flats which encountered water seepage issues. The technology helps detect and trace sources of water seepage in more complex cases.
HDB is currently assessing the trial results, including whether the technology can be scaled up for wider use in a cost-effective manner and how its use can complement other methods.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Negotiations with Malaysian Agencies on Cross-border Industrial Pollution from Johor","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"42 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether Singapore is negotiating any memorandum of understanding or protocol with Malaysian agencies regarding cross-border industrial pollution from Johor; and (b) whether these discussions include real-time sharing of hazardous air pollutant data and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) concentrations, and mutual assistance protocols during industrial emergencies.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Member's queries have been addressed in the combined written reply to Parliamentary Question No 69 at the 13 January 2026 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Detection of Toxic Air Pollutants Exceeding International Safety Limits in Jalan Kayu, Punggol or Seletar\", Official Report, 13 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 13, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Funding for Teachers to Purchase Work-related Mobile Phones for Parent-teacher Communications","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Education in view of teachers not needing to give personal mobile numbers to parents (a) whether funding is available for teachers to purchase work-related mobile phones or separate mobile lines for parent-teacher communications; and (b) if so, what is the take-up rate of such funding across schools over the past three years.
Mr Desmond Lee: Schools have official channels that adequately support parent-teacher communication. These include Parents Gateway, which is a mobile app for communications between schools and parents, school email and designated school phone lines during office hours. Teachers are not expected to communicate with parents outside of school hours.
In situations where teachers need to contact parents urgently during school activities conducted outside school premises, schools put in place practical arrangements, including providing school-owned mobile phones, especially for overseas trips, or facilitating communication through the school general office. In the event of an emergency where other channels are not immediately available, teachers may use their personal mobile phones. Hence, there is no need for teachers to purchase work-related mobile phones or mobile phone lines for parent-teacher communication.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accelerating Deployment of Additional EV Chargers at HDB Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry can accelerate the deployment of additional electric vehicle chargers for HDB carparks with higher utilisation rates; and (b) if not, why not.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: There are electric vehicle (EV) chargers installed in all Housing and Development Board (HDB) towns. We are scaling up EV charger deployment in tandem with EV adoption, especially in carparks with high charging demand, subject to electrical capacity.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recurring Complaints about Night-time Noise from Delivery Trucks in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"45 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there are recurring complaints about night-time noise from delivery trucks in HDB estates; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will consider introducing clearer and enforceable guidelines for quiet night deliveries that cover vehicle idling, unloading practices and equipment use while balancing logistics needs, enforcement practicality and residents' right to undisturbed sleep.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The National Environment Agency (NEA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) receive several cases of feedback on night-time noise from delivery vehicles in HDB estates each year. Upon receiving such feedback, NEA takes enforcement action on the drivers under the Environmental Protection and Management (Vehicular Emissions) regulations, if they are found to have left the engine idling unnecessarily. HDB also engages HDB shop owners and tenants on measures to reduce noise from delivery activities at night, such as adjusting the delivery schedules where possible.
Agencies will continue to monitor and respond to noise feedback received to safeguard public health and well-being.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Making A Declaration when ICA Applications for Visas, Permanent Residence or Citizenship Are Prepared by Third Party","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry has considered requiring applicants who had their ICA application documentation for visas, permanent residence or citizenship prepared by a third party to indicate this via a declaration.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not support or endorse services offered by commercial entities or consultants who claim that they are able to help applicants improve their success in obtaining long-term immigration facilities, such as Permanent Residence or Singapore Citizenship.
Applicants who choose to engage the services of any third party in the preparation of their immigration application are advised to exercise caution. The onus is always on the applicant to ensure that the information submitted in the application is true, accurate and complete. If the application contains false declaration(s), the applicant will be held responsible, regardless of whether a third party had helped prepare the application. The applicant is required to confirm that the facts stated in the application are true and will have to take personal responsibility for it.
Thus, from ICA's perspective, it is not relevant whether an application has been prepared by a third party. In law the responsibility for the application remains with the applicant. To deviate from that principle will lead to endless possibilities of applicants raising spurious defences to try and avoid responsibility for false statements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Fire Escape Routes for Corner HDB Units and Implementation of Regular Fire Drills","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"47 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will (i) review fire escape routes for corner HDB units which may be blocked if their neighbouring units are caught on fire and (ii) consider mandating regular fire drill exercises for HDB estates.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks are designed and built to comply with the prevailing Fire Code. For example, fire escape routes, such as common corridors and staircases, need to be well-ventilated to aid smoke dispersal during a fire. Exit staircases are also located to provide residents with safe escape routes.
If a fire escape route becomes temporarily inaccessible, residents should remain in an unaffected room within their unit, staying as far away from the fire as possible, close the main door which is a fire-proof door and call 995 for assistance. While awaiting rescue, residents should stay low, seal gaps beneath the door with wet towels or fabric to prevent smoke from entering.
Fire drill exercises in HDB estates are not mandated under the Fire Safety Act. Nevertheless, the Singapore Civil Defence Force and the People's Association’s Community Emergency and Engagement Committees conduct HDB block-level fire evacuation exercises from time to time to help residents familiarise themselves with the escape routes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Possible Amendment of Prevention of Corruption Act to Prevent Liability Evasion by Senior Management of Large Corporations","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether, following Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group, the Government will amend the Prevention of Corruption Act to (i) broaden the legal test for corporate attribution beyond the \"directing mind and will\" doctrine in common law or (ii) introduce a \"failure to prevent\" offence similar to the UK Bribery Act, ensuring large corporations cannot evade liability for corruption by senior management.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): The Prevention of Corruption Act is a key instrument in our fight against corruption. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) regularly and proactively reviews the Act. This is to ensure that our laws remain robust and effective against the ever-evolving corruption threat.
CPIB is looking into potential legislative gaps associated to the case cited by the Member in his query. If there is a need to come back to Parliament, we will do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Informing Foreign Vehicle Drivers of Singapore's Traffic, Parking, Safety and Emission Rules Prior to Entry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Dr Charlene Chen asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) how does the Ministry ensure that foreign vehicle drivers are informed of Singapore's traffic, parking, safety and emission rules prior to entry; and (b) whether there are plans to (i) improve post-incident resolution processes, such as claims and summons payments and (ii) strengthen deterrence measures like better detection or higher penalties.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Foreign motorists entering Singapore are responsible for familiarising themselves with our laws and regulations. All foreign-registered cars and motorcycles entering Singapore must obtain the necessary permits for entry. Foreign-registered vehicles with multiple outstanding vehicular-related fines are denied entry into Singapore. These composition sums or Court fines will have to be paid before the foreign-registered vehicles are allowed entry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Recently-announced Plans to Upgrade of SMRT Trains on Train Capacity and Service Frequency","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"50 Ms Poh Li San asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry is aware if the recently announced plan to upgrade 92 SMRT trains will (i) impact train capacity or service frequency in the next decade and (ii) increase the service lifespan of the affected trains; and (b) if so, what is the impact and/or increase.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The upgrading of the 92 SMRT trains on the North-South and East-West Lines is a planned mid-life upgrade to improve passenger experience, energy efficiency and reliability, and not to extend service life. The upgrades include improving air-conditioning and ventilation systems, and the addition of new condition-monitoring sensors.
There are enough trains in the fleet for the upgrade to be implemented without affecting service capacity or frequency.
51 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower whether the ongoing review of the Employment Act will specifically consider increasing the statutory minimum starting annual leave entitlement of seven days to a norm closer to the OECD average of 20 days, instead of benchmarking to Hong Kong and Taiwan, which are on the lower end of the global distribution.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Act stipulates that employees are entitled to a statutory minimum of seven days of annual leave in their first year of service. With each year of service, an employee's statutory annual leave entitlement increases by one day, up to an entitlement of 14 days.
As mentioned in an earlier reply to a Parliamentary Question on 6 November 2025, the majority of resident employees already receive more annual leave days than statutorily required. In 2024, over 90% of full-time resident employees aged 25 to 64 were entitled to more than seven days of annual leave and 68.2% were entitled to more than 14 days of annual leave.
Annual leave entitlements can be supplemented by other entitlements and practices that support employees in balancing their work and personal needs, such as parental and childcare leave. We also take reference from the practices of other economies within our region. This allows us to support workers while enabling businesses to continue generating good job prospects for Singaporeans.
The tripartite partners will review our employment provisions holistically based on what works best for Singapore's context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cooperation between SNOC and NSAs to Achieve Sporting Excellence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"53 Mr Lee Hong Chuang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth how does the Ministry encourage the Singapore National Olympic Council to actively assist National Sport Associations (NSAs), which are mainly run by volunteers, in achieving excellence beyond administrative, funding and policy-making support but also in areas, such as strengthening NSAs' capabilities in athlete development, coaching and community engagement.
Mr David Neo: The Government recognises the vital role that National Sport Associations (NSAs) play in Singapore's sporting ecosystem.
SportSG and the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) collaborate through several key initiatives to develop NSAs' capabilities.
First, in governance and professionalisation. Since 2021, SNOC's affiliation criteria require NSAs to adopt governance principles recommended by SportSG. SportSG and SNOC have also worked arrangements with select NSAs, whereby both agencies second personnel to these NSAs to support capability building in governance and administration.
Second, in athlete development. SportSG offers NSAs access to the High Performance Sport Institute's expertise, such as sport science support, and world-class training facilities. SNOC complements this with their Major Games preparation programmes, setting qualifying standards and coordinating specialised training to further enhance our athletes’ sporting performance. Through the SNOC Athletes' Commission, NSAs are encouraged to appoint athlete representatives to help NSAs create more athlete-centric policies.
Third, in coaching excellence. CoachSG, set up by SportSG, conducts coach development programmes, such as SG-Coach, and administers the National Registry of Coaches to raise coaching standards and professionalism. With funding from the International Olympic Committee (IOC), SNOC complements SportSG's efforts by running Olympic Solidarity Programmes to provide annual training and upgrading seminars for coaches and officials.
Fourth, in community engagement. SNOC runs the Singapore Olympic Academy which delivers Olympic education programmes to schools, helping NSAs connect with youth and educational institutions. SNOC also organises the annual Singapore Sports Awards to recognise outstanding NSA athletes, coaches and officials, raising the profile of sports within the community.
I encourage NSAs to tap on these avenues of support offered by SportSG and SNOC. Together, we can build a stronger, professional sporting ecosystem where NSAs have the capabilities to develop athletes, engage communities and achieve sporting excellence.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Hit-and-run Cases where Offenders were Cyclists or AMD Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"54 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each of the last three years, what was the number of reported hit-and-run accidents where the offending party was a cyclist or active mobility device user; (b) how many of these cases resulted in injuries to pedestrians; and (c) what percentage of these cases were solved.
Mr K Shanmugam: There were 12 hit-and-run accidents between 2023 and November 2025 on the roads, where the alleged offending party was a cyclist or an active mobility device (AMD) user. Of these, eight resulted in injuries to pedestrians. In one of the cases, a suspect has been identified. Investigations into hit-and-run cases involving cyclists or AMD users can be more complex, as there may not be registration numbers which the Police can use as investigation leads, and the accidents may occur in locations with limited camera coverage.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Designating Areas for Busking without a Licence","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"55 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether certain areas can be designated in localities, such as Chinatown, for community groups to perform in public without a busking licence; and (b) if not (i) why not and (ii) whether such groups can be granted a busking licence.
Mr David Neo: The Public Entertainments Act provides the regulatory frameworks for public entertainment and arts entertainment. These frameworks ensure that the performances and works staged uphold public interest and, at the same time, that public safety, public order and community norms are preserved.
In the case of busking, the Public Entertainments (Exemptions) Order requires prospective buskers to apply for a Letter of Endorsement (LOE) from the National Arts Council (NAC), in place of a Public Entertainment License or Arts Entertainment License.
Through the LOE regime, NAC maintains oversight of the quality of busking activities and manages the use of designated busking spaces in land-scarce Singapore. NAC works with venue owners and authorities to designate locations suitable for busking activities, so as to enhance vibrancy without causing local disamenities. This framework has worked well in helping to prevent and pre-empt disagreements among buskers, as well as between buskers and different community groups, over the use of space.
Community groups who are interested in busking at NAC-designated busking locations may apply for an LOE through auditions with NAC. NAC will continue to work with venue owners to review the list of designated busking locations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging Solar Panel Installation in Private and Landed Properties","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"56 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in light of the ongoing efforts to expand solar panel installations in public residential areas, whether similar initiatives or requirements will be extended to private developments and landed properties.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Government has taken the lead in accelerating rooftop solar deployment on public properties, through programmes, such as the SolarNova programme, because we own the properties. For private developments, the Government will nudge them to do the same by simplifying regulations to facilitate solar deployment. For example, the Energy Market Authority's (EMA's) Simplified Credit Treatment Scheme or Enhanced Central Intermediary Scheme allows private property owners to register their solar installations with SP Group and be paid directly through their monthly bill.
With the declining cost of solar panels, the current payback period for a residential solar power system could be as short as five years. We are making good progress towards meeting the target of 2 gigawatt-peak (GWp) of solar deployment by 2030, having achieved over 1.7 GWp of installed solar capacity as at June 2025. We will continue to explore ways to facilitate increased adoption of solar on public and private developments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data of Median Net Monthly Income of Residents Engaged as Direct Selling Distributors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry tracks the median net monthly income of residents engaged as distributors for entities in the direct selling industry and those utilising multi-level compensation structures; (b) if so, what is the most recent median income figure; and (c) if not, whether the Ministry will consider requiring such entities to report earnings data to ensure income transparency.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not track the median net monthly income of own account workers based on their business models. This is because the labour market income statistics collected by MOM follows standard international classifications of industry that are not based on business models.
For income data on own account workers, the Member may refer to statistical tabulations published on MOM's website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeal Avenues for Bankrupt against Decisions Managed by Official Assignee Under Private Trustees in Bankruptcy Regime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Law what are the available platforms for a bankrupt to appeal against the decisions managed by his or her official assignee under the Private Trustees in Bankruptcy regime.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Let me first clarify that when making a bankruptcy order, the High Court appoints a person to be the trustee of the bankrupt's estate. This trustee can be either a licensed insolvency practitioner from the private sector (private trustee) or the Official Assignee (OA), a person appointed by the Minister for Law. Private trustees are distinct from the OA and are not part of the Ministry of Law's Insolvency Office, which supports the work of the OA.
A bankrupt whose estate is administered by a private trustee may apply to the High Court to review any act, omission or decision of the private trustee. The bankrupt may also make a complaint to the OA in relation to the private trustee's conduct in the administration of the estate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parking of Personal Mobility Devices and Personal Mobility Aids at HDB Multi-storey Car Parks for Safety","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider (i) allowing personal mobility devices (PMD) and personal mobility aids (PMA) to be parked at HDB multi-storey carparks (MSCP) as a safer option, in light of multiple fires that have occurred in residential dwellings where they are parked or (ii) building fire-resistant charging infrastructure in MSCPs for users to charge their PMD and PMA batteries.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in MND's reply to the question asked by Mr Kenneth Tiong on 12 January 2026. [Please refer to \"Piloting Installation of Fire-rated Outdoor Charging Cabinets within Communal Facilities for PMDs\", Official Report, 12 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 12, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Other Uses of HDB Multi-storey Car Parks Aside from Rooftop Gardening","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Minister for National Development what are the flexible uses of HDB multi-storey car parks that the Ministry has considered other than rooftop gardening.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: Where suitable, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has converted the upper levels of HDB multi-storey car parks (MSCPs) to greenery and community gardens. HDB has also repurposed spaces at several multi-storey car park (MSCPs) into courier hubs under the Courier Hub Scheme, where delivery companies can sort and handle parcels.
HDB will consider requests to repurpose MSCPs to other uses that benefit the community, subject to site-specific assessments on technical feasibility and safety considerations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HDB Design Improvements for Enhanced Privacy Amid Declining Satisfaction Levels on Noise and Cleanliness","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for National Development in view of the findings from the recent HDB Sample Household Survey (a) what design improvements will be implemented in new HDB estates to enhance privacy within flats, optimise flat sizes and mitigate traffic noise; and (b) what measures will be taken to address declining satisfaction levels regarding noise and cleanliness in existing HDB estates.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Sample Household Survey is conducted every five years, to better understand residents' changing needs and improve the public housing experience. Over 7,000 households across Singapore participated in the 2023/2024 survey. Based on the survey, more than nine in 10 households were satisfied with their flat, neighbourhood and estate facilities.
On flat sizes and privacy within flat, around nine in 10 households expressed satisfaction. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) will continue to offer various flat types from 2-room Flexi to 3-Generation flats to meet the different needs of flat buyers. To enhance privacy, HDB ensures adequate spacing between blocks, designs flats with windows facing external landscapes rather than corridors and incorporates features, such as frosted glass panels for toilets and visual screens along common corridors.
For noise and cleanliness, three in four households expressed satisfaction, similar to the 2018 survey. Blocks near major roads and mass rapid transit tracks are orientated away from noise sources where possible. Town Councils are responsible for the cleanliness of their estates and the Ministry of National Development (MND) publishes an annual report on their performance.
MND and HDB will continue to improve the living environment for our residents, to maintain a high satisfaction level in public housing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Discouraging Teenagers from Cycling in Groups without Wearing Helmets","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"62 Ms Poh Li San asked the Acting Minister for Transport what measures is the Ministry taking to educate and discourage teenagers from cycling in groups without wearing helmets on main roads, if any.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Cyclists are required to wear helmets and comply with group size and riding formation requirements when cycling on roads. The Land Transport Authority and Traffic Police (TP) regularly conduct school talks to emphasise safe cycling practices. Under the Active Mobility Community Ambassadors scheme, volunteers engage their communities to promote safe and gracious sharing of paths. Joint enforcement operations are also conducted with TP to deter offenders.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Home Equity Loan, TDSR Exemptions and Mitigating Delinquency Risks from Overseas Property Investments Speculation","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what regulations govern the taking out of home equity loans (HEL) to prevent over-leveraging besides loan-to-value limits and Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) set by MAS; (b) whether MAS will review the exemptions that exclude some HELs from TDSR; and (c) what measures are in place to mitigate delinquency risks arising from using HELs for speculative overseas property investments.
Mr Gan Kim Yong (for the Prime Minister): Home equity loans, also termed Mortgage Equity Withdrawal Loans (MEWLs), are subject to the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS') residential property loan rules. Financial institutions (FIs) must ensure that total outstanding loans on a property, including the MEWL loan amount and any Central Provident Fund monies used for the initial property purchase, does not exceed the applicable loan-to-value (LTV) limit.
MEWLs are also generally subject to the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR), which caps borrowing based on income. In some cases, however, borrowers are exempt from TDSR if their total debt secured by the property, including any MEWLs, does not exceed 50% of the property's current market value. This exemption provides flexibility to homeowners who have substantially paid down their mortgage to take out loans to meet cash flow needs, while mitigating over-indebtedness.
In addition to complying with MAS' LTV and TDSR requirements, MAS expects FIs to perform a holistic credit assessment for loan applications. As part of their internal credit assessment, FIs must assess borrowers' ability to repay their loans, taking into account factors such as their income, financial assets and other loan obligations, to determine the appropriate loan amount and tenor for each borrower. FIs will also consider the strength and risks of the underlying collateral when determining the appropriate loan quantum. These safeguards encourage financial prudence amongst MEWL borrowers, even if these loans are used for more speculative investments.
We encourage consumers to exercise prudence in managing their finances, particularly when making major decisions, such as taking on MEWLs and purchasing overseas properties.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Political Salaries Review Postponed from 2023","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for an update on when he will conduct a review of political salaries which was deferred in 2023.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): This question has been addressed by the written reply to Question 2 on the Order Paper for the 12 January 2026 Parliamentary Sitting. [Please refer to \"Review of Political Office Holders' Salaries Following 2023 Deferral\", 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":"Status Changes of Tax Residency among Singapore Citizens and Breakdown of Retention Rates by Age and Gender from 2014 to 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance for each year over the past decade (a) how many Singapore citizens have transitioned from being tax residents to non-residents and vice versa; (b) what is the breakdown (i) by gender and (ii) by five-year age groups; and (c) what proportion of Singapore citizen tax residents in 2014 have remained so in 2024, as broken down by gender and age.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: Singapore Citizens who reside in Singapore, except for temporary absences, are assessed as tax residents. We do not have data on Singapore Citizens who have transitioned from being tax residents to non-residents and vice versa.
There were about 1.6 million Singapore Citizens with tax filing records in the Year of Assessment (YA) 2020. Of these, about 1.4 million had tax filing records in YA2024. Those who dropped out could have done so due to a variety of reasons, such as death, retirement, unemployment or relocation overseas. Of the 1.4 million, about 55% were male and 45% were female. The breakdown by age group is as follows:
4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Consumer Product Safety Office has tested coloured play sand products in Singapore for asbestos following recalls in Australia and New Zealand; (b) whether investigations into local supply chains originating from affected manufacturers of such items are underway; and (c) if so, whether the Ministry will issue interim safety guidelines to preschools and indoor playgrounds pending these findings.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Consumer Product Safety Office (CPSO) under the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) oversees the safety of general consumer goods, including children's toys such as coloured play sand. Under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Goods Safety Requirements) Regulations, children's toys must comply with relevant requirements on physical safety and harmful substances such as heavy metals.
Specifically for asbestos, the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) Environmental Protection and Management Act regulates its import, manufacture and sale.
Following the overseas product recalls of coloured play sand containing asbestos, CPSO and NEA have conducted checks and found that none of the affected products are sold by major physical retailers locally. Two e-commerce platforms that were found to be selling the affected products have been informed by NEA to take down the product listings. NEA has also conducted selective testing of other coloured play sand products in the local market and no asbestos content was detected.
As there are no significant safety risks posed by coloured play sand products locally, there is no need to issue interim safety guidelines to local preschools and indoor playgrounds. The Government will continue to monitor the situation and engage retailers and relevant stakeholders should there be potential product safety concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Deployment of AI, Augmented Reality or Extended Reality-based Multilingual Narration at Tourist Spots while Safeguarding Tourist Guides Position","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) is deploying artificial intelligence, augmented reality or extended reality based multilingual narration at tourist spots; (b) if so, whether such deployment is intended to supplement or substitute licensed tourist guides; and (c) how will the STB ensure that its licensing framework for tourist guides remains meaningful in light of such technologies.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) encourages the adoption of new and innovative technologies in the tourism sector. For example, in 2024, STB piloted “Merli's Immersive Adventure” on Google Maps, an augmented reality (AR) tour to iconic spots, such as the Victoria Theatre and Concert Hall and Maxwell Food Centre. STB is also piloting solutions involving artificial intelligence (AI) and Generative AI that enhance visitor experience, such as through chatbots and multilingual translators.
STB also provides grants to businesses seeking to adopt innovative technologies via the Experience Step-Up Fund. For instance, STB supported Woopa Travel's initiative to launch an AR feature within their application for walking tours. The feature facilitates interactions between tourists and key points of interests and allows tourist guides to create enhanced guiding experiences with the AR technology.
We expect technological advancements to play an increasing role in shaping visitor experiences. STB is committed to advancing the tourist guide profession through capability building, so that they can leverage these technologies to adapt to market needs. For example, STB upskills tourist guides through live workshops at the annual Travel Agents and Tourist Guides Industry Forum, including how to enhance their profiles and create unique itineraries with AI.
An updated tourist guide licence renewal framework, termed “Learn + Do”, will take effect from 1 March 2026. The updated framework encourages tourist guides to take ownership of their learning, including in technology adoption and digitalisation, to deliver unique and meaningful experiences to tourists.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Building Sustainability Reporting Capabilities for SGX-listed Small and Mid-size Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the delayed implementation of climate reporting requirements for small and mid-sized companies listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX), what measures will be put in place to ensure that companies can continue to build capability for and commit to sustainability reporting during the extended timeline.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Enterprise Singapore and the Economic Development Board support companies, including small and mid-sized listed companies, through the Sustainability Reporting Grant (SRG), to help them develop sustainability reports that are aligned with the International Sustainability Standards. The availability of SRG was extended in tandem with the delayed implementation of climate reporting requirements.
In addition, companies can tap on the SME Sustainability Hub, which is a one-stop digital platform that organises relevant support and resources to build sustainability capabilities including sustainability reporting. The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority has also issued the Sustainability Reporting Body of Knowledge to guide training providers in the development of courses on sustainability reporting.
The Government will continually review our support measures to help companies build the capabilities to prepare for 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":"Sharing of Criminal Records to Screen Prospective Employees Applying for Positions with Access to Vulnerable Groups","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether relevant records in the register of criminals are shared with other Government agencies such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Education to screen prospective employees applying for positions that involve access to vulnerable groups.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs shares relevant criminal records with various Government agencies, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Education, when they conduct pre-employment screening for positions that involve access to vulnerable groups.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Regional Coordination Strategy for Monitoring Emergence of New Psychoactive Substances","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether Singapore has tabled proposals within ASEAN or the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs to schedule etomidate analogues; (b) how does the Government coordinate with international bodies to monitor the emergence of new psychoactive substances in the region; and (c) what is Singapore's strategy in ensuring that regional scheduling keeps pace with the rapid proliferation of such analogues.
Mr K Shanmugam: Etomidate is not listed in any international drug convention. Under international drug control conventions, a substance may be listed only after scientific assessment by the World Health Organization Expert Committee on Drug Dependence finds sufficient evidence of abuse liability, health harms and international public-health concern, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) has voted on it. That process has not taken place for etomidate internationally. The Institute of Mental Health is currently collating and studying the evidence relating to the full negative impact and consequences arising from etomidate abuse, as well as its legitimate medical uses. At this stage, therefore, Singapore has not tabled a proposal to schedule etomidate or its analogues under any international drug convention.
Singapore's listing of etomidate under the Misuse of Drugs Act is a temporary arrangement, as explained in our reply to Mr Vikram Nair published on 26 September 2025. Singapore works with international partners to monitor emerging drug threats. Singapore is an active member of the CND, which is the policymaking body at the United Nations (UN) for global drug control. Global trends on new psychoactive substances are discussed at the CND platform, and members decide on the scheduling of substances under the UN drug conventions.
Singapore also works with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Its Global SMART Programme plays a role in identifying emerging psychoactive substances and provides an early warning mechanism for countries to share data and information in a timely manner to support international monitoring and responses.
At the regional level, Singapore engages ASEAN counterparts on drug matters regularly at the ministerial and senior officials' levels. These platforms facilitate the exchange of intelligence, enforcement experiences and best practices.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Enhance Existing Security Measures at Places of Worship with Installation of Police Cameras","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry plans to install Police Cameras to the surrounding vicinities of all places of worship to supplement the existing security measure in such places.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police plan to deploy over 200,000 police cameras (PolCams) islandwide by the mid-2030s. PolCams will be located at and focused on public areas, including at all public housing blocks and multi-storey carparks, public areas in the neighbourhood and town centres, and selected entertainment and commercial districts. More focus will be given to areas with high footfall and crowd congregation. In these plans, the vicinity of some places of worship will be covered.
Efforts to improve the security of places of worship go beyond the deployment of PolCams. The Government has put in place various measures and programmes to ensure that places of worship are safe and secure. The Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force work with building owners and managers across Singapore via the Safety and Security Watch Group, which includes religious organisations, to conduct security audits, share best practices and deliver training on building safety and security awareness. Exercises are regularly conducted to test contingency response plans and ground readiness in the event of emergencies. As part of the SGSecure movement, religious organisations are provided additional support, such as assistance with security self-assessments and to develop contingency plans, access to counter-terrorism seminars and training for their employees and volunteers in skills, such as psychological first aid through the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's Crisis Preparedness for Religious Organisations programme.
Beyond these efforts, building up public vigilance is key. To that end, the SGSecure movement engages members of the public on how to spot and report suspicious activity, and how to respond to a terrorist attack at touchpoints, such as roadshows and grassroot events.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Caning Sentences Including Age and Gender Exemptions from 2015 to 2025","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) annually from 2015 to 2025, how many accused persons were sentenced to an offence which attracted caning; and (b) of these persons, how many were (i) administered at least one stroke of the cane, (ii) not given caning as they were above the age of 50 years and (iii) how many were women.
Mr K Shanmugam: The data for the entire time period and breadth of offences as requested by the Member is not readily available.
Based on available data, in 2024, 279 individuals were convicted of a serious sexual or serious violent offence that attract either mandatory or discretionary caning. These offences include, rape, sexual assault, sexual penetration of minors, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, fatal abuse of vulnerable victims and culpable homicide, which are among the most severe offences that attract caning.
Of this number, 76 were males below the age of 50 who were sentenced to at least one stroke of the cane, 53 were males aged 50 or above at the time of sentencing, and 13 were females.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Immigration Status Granted for Individuals Aged 65 and above Since June 2024","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs since June 2024, how many individuals aged 65 and above were granted (i) Singapore Citizenship, (ii) Permanent Residency, (iii) Employment Pass, (iv) S Pass and (v) Dependant's Pass.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of Citizenships and Permanent Residency granted, as well as Employment Passes, S Passes and Dependant's Passes issued to individuals aged 65 and above for the period June 2024 to December 2024 is reflected in the table below. The figures for 2025 are not yet available.
12 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the $615,000 lost to concert ticket scams from January to October 2025, (a) what percentage of these losses has been successfully recovered; and (b) how many individuals have been prosecuted for such scams.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Police seized more than $190,000 from bank accounts linked to concert ticket scams reported between January and October 2025. Some of the monies in these bank accounts could have originated from sources other than the concert ticket scams.
We do not actively track the number of offenders prosecuted specifically for concert ticket scams.
13 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether updates can be provided on the wait time for booking of Class 3 practical driving lessons and deterring of unfair use of bots to secure slots; (b) whether additional measures are planned to address these issues and if so, what are they; and (c) whether reissuing private driving instructor licences will be considered to improve access to lessons.
Mr K Shanmugam: The driving schools are actively hiring more driving instructors to meet the high demand for Class 3 licence lessons and to reduce wait times for lessons. The Traffic Police (TP) has allowed the driving schools to employ foreigners to alleviate the shortage of driving instructors.
The driving schools have put in place anti-bot measures. These include implementing CAPTCHA and one-time password verification. Driving schools have also implemented booking restrictions to ensure that all learners have a fair opportunity to book lessons. Learners who are caught using bots will have their user account suspended or even terminated.
TP has no plans to re-issue private driving instructor licences. TP stopped doing so in 1987 to create a more professional and standardised approach to driver education. This rationale remains valid today.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Compliance Inspection of Buildings with PWD Holding Points and Measures to Enforce Retrofitting of PWD Holding Points","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many buildings that are required to have Persons With Disabilities (PWDs) holding points under SCDF's Fire Code 2023 have been inspected for compliance; (b) how many were found non-compliant; (c) what enforcement actions have been taken; and (d) what percentage of buildings built prior to such PWD requirements have been retrofitted with PWD holding points.\n
Mr K Shanmugam: At the completion of building works, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) requires building owners to appoint a Registered Inspector to certify that all fire safety measures comply with the Fire Code before the building may be occupied. This certification includes verifying compliance with requirements in the Fire Code for persons with disabilities (PWD) holding points.
Thereafter, SCDF carries out routine enforcement checks to verify that the building owners adhere to fire safety requirements. This includes ensuring that escape routes, including access to PWD holding points, remain unobstructed. Based on its enforcement checks, SCDF did not detect any non-compliance related to PWD holding points in the last five years (2021 to 2025).
The SCDF does not track whether buildings built prior to the current PWD holding point requirements in the Fire Code have been retrofitted with PWD holding points.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Verification of PWD Holding Points and Accessibility Checks in Fire Certificate Inspections and Audits, and Complaints Received on Non-functional PWD Holding Points in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether Fire Certificate inspections include specific verification of PWD holding point functionality including communication systems and clear access; (b) how many complaints have been received in the past five years regarding non-functional PWD holding points; and (c) whether SCDF audits include accessibility checks.
Mr K Shanmugam: Under the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF’s) Fire Certificate Scheme, building owners are required to appoint external parties to conduct annual inspections, which include verifying the functionality of communication devices and visual alarm systems at persons with disabilities (PWD) holding points.
The SCDF conducts audits to ensure the integrity of these inspections. Additionally, SCDF carries out routine enforcement checks to verify that building owners adhere to fire safety requirements. This involves ensuring that escape routes, including access to PWD holding points, remain unobstructed.
The SCDF has not received any complaints regarding non-functional PWD holding points in the last five years (2021 – 2025).
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Food Wastage Generated by Meals Rejected from Senior Citizen Food Delivery Programmes and Efforts to Address Wastage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Coordinating Minister for Social Policies and Minister for Health (a) whether food delivery services for senior citizens track the amount of food waste created daily due to rejection of the taste or type of food by recipients; (b) if so, whether the Government has data on how many meals per day on average are rejected and thrown away since 2022; and (c) what have the service providers done to address this wastage.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Ministry of Health does not track food waste data for meal delivery services for senior citizens. Instead, meal delivery service providers funded by the Government minimise food waste by matching delivery times to clients' schedules and offering meals that cater to their dietary needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cross-Border Industrial Pollution Coordination and Transboundary Environmental and Air Quality Monitoring Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how frequently do Singapore and Malaysia agencies meet to coordinate industrial pollution monitoring; (b) whether joint sampling or validation exercises have been conducted in the last three years; and (c) what the key outcomes of these exchanges have been in mitigating cross-border pollution risks to Singapore.
18 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) beyond the six pollutants measured for the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI), what other hazardous air pollutants and volatile organic compounds are continuously monitored in Singapore's northern and north-eastern regions; (b) what are the (i) sampling frequencies (ii) analytical methods and (iii) minimum detection limits for each monitored pollutant.
19 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what specific ambient air quality standards or safe exposure limits has Singapore adopted for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants beyond the six Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) pollutants; and (b) how these standards compare with WHO Air Quality Guidelines, EU Ambient Air Quality Directives, and US Environmental Protection Agency National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The Members' queries have been addressed in the combined written reply to Parliamentary Question No 69 at the 13 January 2026 Parliament sitting. [Please refer to \"Detection of Toxic Air Pollutants Exceeding International Safety Limits in Jalan Kayu, Punggol or Seletar\", Official Report, 13 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 13, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment Framework for Selection of Water Treatment Technology Vis-à-vis Long-term Resource Efficiency and Sustainability","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what factors does the Government consider when deciding between building a NEWater plant and a desalination plant, particularly in light of the higher energy intensity and carbon footprint of the desalination process; and (b) how are sustainability and long-term resource efficiency weighed in such infrastructure planning decisions.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: A NEWater plant recycles used water while a desalination plant produces a new drop of water from seawater. As the amount of NEWater that can be produced is limited by the amount of used water generated, desalination plants are also needed to increase and diversify our water supply. We will continue to reduce the energy consumption of the NEWater and desalination processes through research and development on energy-efficient technologies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"NEA Response Protocol for Persistent Mosquito Complaints Despite Clean Inspections","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how are resident complaints on mosquito prevalence further assessed and addressed when NEA inspections find no active mosquito breeding in the area, even though residents continue to report experiencing mosquito nuisance.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: When the National Environment Agency (NEA) receives feedback on mosquito nuisance, inspections are carried out in the vicinity of the reported location to identify potential mosquito breeding habitats. NEA collaborates with relevant stakeholders, such as Town Councils and premises operators, to enhance mosquito prevention measures when necessary. To better identify areas with higher mosquito populations and potential breeding sources, NEA also cross references feedback with mosquito population surveillance data from Gravitraps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mitigation Measures for Private Preschools Serving Children with Special Needs and Support Frameworks to Encourage Viability of Such Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with the expanded Partner Operator scheme from January 2026 to December 2030 (a) how will the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) assess and mitigate any crowding out of private preschools that serve special needs children or that run ECDA-appointed early intervention programmes; and (b) what targeted partnership or funding options will be available to keep such specialised services viable.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Over the years, the Government has expanded funding to more preschools that meet the criteria of the Anchor Operator (AOP) and Partner Operator (POP) schemes to keep fees affordable for parents. To maintain high standards of quality in AOPs and POPs, a rigorous selection process has been put in place, which considers factors, such as the preschools' track record in providing quality childcare services, financial sustainability, accessibility and demand.
The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has been stepping up efforts to ensure that children with developmental needs have access to Early Intervention (EI) services regardless of which preschool they are enrolled in. This includes reaching out to more preschools, regardless of the centre type, to provide the Development Support and Learning Support (DS-LS) programmes to cover 80% of preschoolers aged five to six at steady state. Inclusion Coordinators are also appointed in all preschools to work with educators to identify children with potential developmental needs and refer parents to relevant resources. ECDA also recently published the Inclusive Preschool Practice Guide, a resource available to all operators sharing recommended best practices to enhance inclusive practices within their centre and to support children with diverse needs.
Additionally, ECDA funds providers of the DS-LS programmes and the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children, so that children requiring EI support receive the specialised services that they require.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Reported Cases of Challenges Faced by Non-guardian Caretakers in Accessing Child-related Services or Assistance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how many cases have been reported by non-parent caretakers who are not legal guardians of difficulty in granting authorisation or making applications on behalf of children under their care for school activities, medical treatment, passport applications and access to Government services or assistance.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has received such feedback from appointed caregivers, including foster parents and kin or kith carers.
Appointed caregivers can make day-to-day care decisions for children under Care and Protection Orders. They are also able to access relevant support and services for the children, such as financial subsidies for school and healthcare. For more substantive matters, such as overseas travel, education and medical treatment, the decision authority should reside with the birth parents as these may have long-term implications well beyond the time with the appointed caregivers. If such decisions have to be made, MSF and fostering agencies will contact the birth parents and seek their decisions. If the birth parents cannot be contacted despite reasonable efforts or are otherwise unable or unwilling to decide, the appointed caregivers will be empowered to decide, in consultation with MSF and qualified persons or the Director-General of Social Welfare.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Waitlist for Enrolment into Adult Disability Homes and Day Activity Centres, and Outcomes of Alternative Placements through SG Enable's Referral System","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"24 Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what are the current waitlist numbers and average waiting times for enrolment in (i) Adult Disability Homes and (ii) Day Activity Centres; (b) what is the maximum wait time experienced for those facilities with no vacancies; and (c) what is the success rate of SG Enable's referral system in placing applicants at alternative facilities.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Adult Disability Homes (ADHs) provide residential care for adults with disabilities who have no alternative accommodation. As of December 2025, over 1,000 persons with disabilities reside in 11 ADHs funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), most of which operate at utilisation rates of over 80%.
Admission into ADHs is considered as a last resort and only when it is in the individual's best interest. Placement depends on factors, such as the individual's readiness and the suitability of available spaces. As of December 2025, there are 100 individuals on the ADH waitlist, with an average waiting time of about nine months from referral to enrolment.
Day Activity Centres (DACs) provide day care and engagement for adults with disabilities living in the community. As of December 2025, there are 32 MSF-funded DACs with a total capacity of over 1,800 places and an overall utilisation rate of about 90%. There are 370 individuals on the waitlist, with an average waiting time of about eight months to enrolment. Over half of them are undergoing or pending screening and assessments. Some have declined available placements and remain on the waitlist for their preferred centre and may thus experience a longer waiting time.
For suitable individuals on the waitlist pending enrolment, SG Enable facilitates referral to other facilities with available capacity or supports continued engagement through activities at the Enabling Services Hub and the Supported Transition and Engagement Programme for graduates of special education schools in the interim.
MSF is progressively increasing DAC capacity by 500 places by 2030, and piloting additional community living options, such as the Enabled Living Programme, to better support persons with disabilities to live in the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Capacity and Utilisation Rates of Current Childcare Places in Bidadari Estate and Projected Demand for Next Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Mr Alex Yeo asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the current number and utilisation rate of infant and childcare places for the Bidadari estate within the Toa Payoh Planning Area; and (b) whether the current places are sufficient to meet the projected demand for young families in the Bidadari estate for the next three years.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: As of 2025, there were around 860 infant care and 8,700 childcare places licensed for operation in the Toa Payoh Planning Area, which includes the Bidadari estate. These places have not been fully utilised, with utilisation rates at 66% and 73% for infant care and childcare respectively, lower than the national utilisation rate of around 69% and 76%.
To cater to projected demand among families with young children, the Early Childhood Development Agency has been building infant care and childcare places in tandem with new Built-to-Order housing developments. New preschools, which will add another 125 infant care and 640 childcare places, will be starting operations in the coming months in the Toa Payoh Planning Area, with the majority in the Bidadari estate. These places will be mostly offered by Anchor Operators and do not include additional places that may be built by other preschool operators.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Strategies to Balance Implementation and Benefits of Central Kitchen for Schools against Potential Food Wastage","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Elysa Chen asked the Minister for Education in view of the challenges faced by some schools in securing canteen stallholders, how will the Ministry ensure that having a central kitchen does not inadvertently increase food waste while improving food safety and nutritional quality.
Mr Desmond Lee: Under the Central Kitchen Meal Model, meals are pre-ordered and prepared at a central kitchen before delivery to schools. This demand-driven approach aligns meal production with actual demand, thereby reducing over-preparation and hence, food wastage.
The central kitchen model ensures food safety through standardised food preparation processes. Nutritional quality of meals is also assured through professionally developed menus aligned with the Health Promotion Board's Healthy Meals in Schools Programme guidelines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Appeals Received for Secondary 1 Posting Exercise and Top Reasons Given for Appealing","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education in the recently concluded 2025 Secondary 1 Posting Exercise (a) whether the Ministry has data on appeals received by schools for a change in the posted secondary school; and (b) if so (i) how many appeals were there and (ii) what were the top reasons given by parents and students making the appeals.
Mr Desmond Lee: Each year, a small percentage of parents and students appeal to change schools after the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise. Most appeal directly to the school, whilst some write to the Ministry of Education (MOE). MOE does not have data on the number who appeal directly to the schools, as schools are not required to report them to MOE.
Following the 2025 \tSecondary 1 Posting Exercise, MOE received about 150 appeals. These appeals typically request for a school closer to home or which have certain offerings, such as specific co-curricular activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Feasibility of Opting Out of Using Retirement Account Top-up Contributions to Pay CPF LIFE Premiums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the CPF Board will consider allowing CPF LIFE members topping up their Retirement Accounts (RA) to opt out of using part or all of the top-up amount for paying CPF LIFE premiums, provided that the member has sufficient RA balance for a minimum annuity payout; and (b) if not, why not.
Dr Tan See Leng: Top-ups to the Retirement Account (RA) which earn the RA's higher long-term interest rate should be committed for the long-term retirement needs of members. CPF LIFE members who top up their RA will thus have their full top-ups streamed out as higher monthly payouts via CPF LIFE throughout their retirement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on NTUC's Proposal and Enhanced Measures towards Worker Protections against Retrenchment Exercises","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is an update on NTUC's proposal on mandating pre-retrenchment notifications; (b) whether the Ministry will amend the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 to prioritise employee salary claims alongside secured creditors during a retrenchment exercise; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider establishing a wage guarantee fund to cover unpaid salaries of those affected by a retrenchment exercise.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government recognises that retrenchment is a challenging period for workers as it affects their livelihoods and takes an emotional toll. We have therefore put in place measures to support employees and ensure responsible business practices.
We agree that employees' claims on salaries are important in the event of company liquidation. In the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, employees' claims are already ranked first and above all other unsecured debts, and are behind only the costs and expenses of winding up administration which are necessary for the winding up to proceed smoothly.
If employers cannot pay salary arrears due to business failure, the Short-Term Relief Fund is available to provide financial assistance to eligible local lower-income workers. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will also investigate and take action against employers who breach employment legislation when winding down, including those who wilfully do not pay salaries despite having the means to do so.
We will continue to review our measures to ensure that workers are supported during retrenchment, including in cases of company liquidation. MOM is currently reviewing NTUC's proposal on mandating pre-retrenchment notifications with the tripartite partners and will update on this in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statutory Fund to Financially Support Workers during Corporate Liquidations and Bankruptcies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will study the feasibility for a statutory fund to provide financial support without means testing to workers of all nationalities during periods of corporate liquidations and bankruptcies.
Dr Tan See Leng: The Government and tripartite partners have various schemes in place to provide financial support to workers who have lost their jobs, including as a result of their company winding up. These schemes are means-tested and subject to eligibility criteria to ensure accountability and to direct limited public resources to those who need them most.
Local workers who are involuntarily unemployed and actively looking for a job may obtain temporary financial assistance under the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme. Lower-income households who require financial assistance to meet basic needs may also approach their Social Service Office. Foreign workers may approach the Migrant Workers' Centre set up by the tripartite partners for financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Current Animal Management Contractor Protocols and Training Standards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for National Development in light of the death of a dog captured at Seletar West Farmway 8 (a) whether the Ministry will review the \"acceptable parameters\" of force, as outlined in the AVS statement of 16 November 2025, and training standards for animal management contractors; and (b) whether the Ministry will formalise collaboration with animal welfare groups to ensure humane handling while maintaining public safety.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Ms Lee Hui Ying on 12 January 2026. [Please refer to \"Animal Welfare Groups' Involvement in Trap-Neuter-Rehome/Release-Manage Programme\", Official Report, 12 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 12, 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":"Extending Wireless Alert Alarm System to Vulnerable Seniors Living Alone in Owner-occupied HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr David Hoe asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Government has considered extending the wireless Alert Alarm System, or an equivalent monitored emergency alert service to vulnerable seniors living alone in owner-occupied HDB flats; (b) if so, what are the constraints limiting such an expansion; and (c) if not feasible, what Government-supported alternatives with relevant home-based care and round-the-clock response services are available.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Housing and Development Board (HDB) is currently focused on rolling out the wireless Alert Alarm System (wAAS) to seniors staying in public rental housing.
The setup of the wAAS involves not only the installation of physical hardware like the alert buttons but also ensuring that operators who are providing the round-the-clock response service have adequate resources to do so.
As part of our ongoing efforts to promote ageing-in-place, HDB has partnered with commercial vendors who work with care service providers to offer fall detection and response packages that residents living in sold flats may subscribe to. In the event of a fall, the fall detector would detect and automatically alert the next-of-kin or trained care service providers. The care service providers will assess the situation and activate an ambulance where necessary.
Eligible seniors living in sold flats may also tap on the 24/7 technology-enabled monitoring and response element for fall detection offered under the Ministry of Health's Enhanced Home Personal Care service, which will be rolled out islandwide later this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Allowing Season Parking for Personal Mobility Devices in HDB Multi-Storey Car Parks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider allowing season parking for personal mobility devices in HDB multi-storey car parks.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: This question was addressed in the Ministry of National Development's reply to the question asked by Mr Kenneth Tiong on 12 January 2026. [Please refer to \"Piloting Installation of Fire-rated Outdoor Charging Cabinets within Communal Facilities for PMDs\", Official Report, 12 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 12, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on HDB Rental Vacancy over Last Three Years and Potential Policy Adjustments to Reduce Vacancies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number and percentage of HDB rental flat units that are currently vacant as of 31 December 2025; (b) how does this compare year-over-year over the last three years; (c) whether the Ministry has any plans to relax HDB rental requirements to reduce vacancies; and (d) if not, why not.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: As of 31 December 2025, there are about 2,000 (3.2%) vacant rental flats undergoing sprucing works after the previous tenants had moved out and about 1,600 (2.6%) vacant rental flats to be included in upcoming allocation exercises. The number and percentage of such vacant flats have reduced from about 4,800 (7.7%) in December 2023 and 4,000 (6.5%) in December 2024.
There are no plans to change the eligibility criteria for the Public Rental Scheme. The criteria are set to ensure fair and prudent use of public resources, which are funded by taxpayers, and it should not be conflated with rental flat vacancies. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) takes a needs-based approach and reviews all requests for rental housing holistically. For households that do not meet the eligibility criteria, HDB will look into their individual circumstances and assist them with rental housing if they are unable to buy a flat and have no other housing options and no family support.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Demographics of Executive Condominium Buyers and Breakdown of Loan-to-Value Distribution for Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development for new Executive Condominium (EC) purchases in each year over the last five years (a) what is the number and percentage of buyers who are first-timer versus non-first-timer purchasers respectively; and (b) what is the number and percentage of buyers with a loan-to-value ratio (i) of 75% (ii) between 50-75% and (iii) less than 50%, respectively.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: From 2021 to 2025, around four in 10 Executive Condominium (EC) purchasers were first timers.
The Housing and Development Board does not track loan-to-value ratios for EC purchases as these are financed by housing loans from financial institutions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Public Rental Flat Applications by Singles and Outcomes of Appeals by Under-35 Applicants in Last Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development in each of the last five years, what is the (i) number of public rental flat applications by singles, (ii) number of such applicants who are successful, (iii) number of unsuccessful applicants who meet eligibility requirements except for the minimum age of 35 and (iv) number of singles aged below 35 who have obtained a rental flat on appeal.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: On average, over the last five years, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) received requests for public rental from about 4,000 singles a year, with around 35% being successful.
Applications to HDB for a public rental flat that do not meet the eligibility criteria, including the minimum age requirement for singles, would be unsuccessful. This notwithstanding, each request is also assessed holistically and takes into account the applicant's individual circumstances and needs, housing options, level of family support and input from social workers. In the last five years, HDB has assisted about 150 singles aged below 35, including widowed and orphaned applicants, secure public rental flats considering their needs and exceptional circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of HIP Voting Framework and Alternative Upgrading Options for Ageing HDB Blocks","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will review the voting framework for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) in light of a recent case of two ageing HDB blocks that did not secure enough votes for HIP by a narrow margin; and (b) whether alternative upgrading options can be offered to provide residents with access to essential maintenance support.
Mr Chee Hong Tat: The Home Improvement Programme (HIP) aims to address safety and common maintenance issues that arise due to wear and tear in older flats. For HIP to proceed, majority consent of 75% of eligible Singaporean households in the block is required.
In the last 10 years, six residential Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks did not garner more than 75% of votes from eligible Singapore Citizen households for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). These include one block at Serangoon Ave 2 in 2017 and three blocks at Lengkong Tiga in 2023. More recently, two blocks in Tiong Bahru polled unsuccessfully in November 2025.
For the four blocks at Serangoon and Lengkong Tiga, HDB received appeals from the flat owners and Advisers for a re-poll. After careful review, HDB allowed these blocks to re-poll after about one year from the first poll. All four blocks re-polled successfully for the HIP.
We understand that under the current voting process, blocks with fewer eligible units may face greater risks of not reaching 75% of votes to proceed with HIP. We will review the voting process for such blocks to balance between helping older estates to benefit from the HIP, while respecting the decision of flat owners. One option we are studying is to group the blocks with fewer units to vote together as one cluster, so that there are sufficient number of households taking part in the voting process.
Outside of HIP, HDB supports flat owners who require assistance with ceiling leaks and spalling concrete issues through the Goodwill Repair Assistance scheme. Households with seniors who meet the eligibility criteria may also apply directly to HDB for the installation of senior-friendly fittings and accessibility solutions via the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme. For both assistance schemes, HDB will co-pay part of the repair or installation costs for eligible households.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Independent Testing to Verify Cybersecurity Capabilities of Electric Public Bus Manufacturer and Plans to Share Findings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Acting Minister for Transport (a) whether LTA has conducted independent testing to verify the claims by a manufacturer that its electric public buses used in Singapore cannot be remotely controlled or deactivated; and (b) if so, to commit to share the findings publicly.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has conducted technical reviews with the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), who have provided assurance that the existing electric buses do not possess remote-control capabilities. LTA is conducting additional independent technical assessments to further verify this.
The Government does not publicly share details of such cybersecurity findings, given the security implications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown of Existing COE Holder Bidding Patterns Based on Certificate Expiry Timeline","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport in respect of new COE registrations awarded to existing COE holders in the first three quarters of 2025, what is the breakdown in absolute numbers and percentages by the remaining validity of their previous COE at the point of bidding with a breakdown by (i) within one year (ii) one to three years (iii) three to five years and (iv) over five years.
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The breakdown of the new Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) awarded to existing COE holders for Categories A and B in the first three quarters of 2025, for each of the four validity periods the Member outlined, is provided in Table 1 below.
40 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Acting Minister for Transport given that Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) tracks only rail service delays exceeding five minutes (a) who determines whether each incident meets this threshold for inclusion; (b) what audit and verification processes apply to these determinations; and (c) whether LTA independently tracks delay durations or it relies on data reported by rail operators.\n\n
Mr Jeffrey Siow: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) determines whether an incident meets the threshold for being included in the calculation of Mean Kilometres Between Failure. LTA identifies delays exceeding five minutes by independently reviewing data on all train movement, which is automatically logged by the train control system of each line and provided in full to LTA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on SG Culture Pass Usage and Further Plans to Encourage Redemption Rates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Mr Ng Shi Xuan asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the redemption rates of the SG Culture Pass across different age groups to date; (b) which categories were most and least popular across Heritage, Visual Arts, Theatre, Music, Dance, Films and Literary Arts; (c) how many events recorded zero pass redemptions; and (d) how does the Ministry plan to increase redemption rates going forward.
Mr David Neo: As of 1 January 2026, over 1.1 million Singaporeans have registered for the scheme. Almost $10 millon credits have been utilised by more than 136,000 Singaporeans, with over 46,000 Singaporeans having spent their $100 credits. Youth participation is strong, with youths (18 to 35 years) accounting for half of the credit usage, whilst adults (36 to 54 yrs) represent 33% and seniors 17% of users. Encouragingly, nine in 10 credit users express willingness to engage with cultural offerings beyond the Culture Pass programme.
Credit utilisation varies across programme categories, with live events commanding the largest share at 42%, followed by workshops at 23%. Tours and talks account for 16% of usage, whilst festivals represent 11% and exhibitions 8%.
As of 1 January 2026, only 33 out of 742 events recorded zero pass redemptions.
To encourage Singapore Citizens to support Singapore's arts and heritage programmes, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) will continue add to the list of Culture Pass programmes. We have also broadened the scheme to support the purchase of SingLit books (1 March 2026) and local film screenings (7 November 2025), which would offer more choices to citizens and support our local authors and filmmakers. In addition, MCCY has been partnering National Youth Council, the People's Association, the Agency for Integrated Care and other community partners to outreach and raise awareness of the Culture Pass and promote participation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Minister of State for National Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made by the Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan) during Question Time at the Parliament Sitting of 14 January 2026: (proc text)]
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan): But where there are breaches to this code, they can be used to support prosecution under the ABA [Animals and Birds Act] and where unnecessary pain or suffering has been found to be inflicted on the animal, that is section 42 of the ABA, or failure of duty of care is found, section 41 of the ABA, NParks then can take an appropriate enforcement action under ABA. [Please refer to \"Review of Enforcement Measures Against Pet Groomers and Proposal for Mandatory CCTV Recordings in Pet Grooming Facilities\", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Mr Alvin Tan circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 14 January 2026. My statement should read as follows:
The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Alvin Tan): But where there are breaches to this code, they can be used to support prosecution under the ABA [Animals and Birds Act] and where unnecessary pain or suffering has been found to be inflicted on the animal, that is section 42 of the ABA, or failure of duty of care is found, section 41C of the ABA, NParks then can take an appropriate enforcement action under ABA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Clarification by Leader of the House","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WS","content":"[(proc text) The following statement was made in a reply the Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah) during the Motion, “Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of the Opposition” at the Sitting of 14 January 2026: (proc text)]
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): I think Ms Cassandra Lee had a question about the Legal Profession Act. I think the short answer to that is that under the Legal Profession Act, section 94 does provide that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, but that is a matter not for us but for the Law Society, for the AGC and for the Courts. So, that is with respect to section 94 of the Legal Profession Act. [Please refer to \"Expression of Regret at the Conduct of Mr Pritam Singh and Consideration of His Suitability to Continue as the Leader of The Opposition\", Official Report, 14 January 2026, Vol 96, Issue 14, Motions section.]
[(proc text) Written statement by Ms Indranee Rajah circulated with the leave of the Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order No. 29(5): (proc text)]
I wish to make the following factual correction to my reply given during the Sitting of 14 January 2026. My statement should read as follows:
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): I think Ms Cassandra Lee had a question about the Legal Profession Act. I think the short answer to that is that under the Legal Profession Act, section 94A does provide that legal practitioners who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty may have to be referred, but that is a matter not for us but for the Law Society, for the AGC and for the Courts. So, that is with respect to section 94A of the Legal Profession Act.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":6831,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lee Hong Chuang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260114/vernacular-Lee Hong Chuan Sports 14Jan2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Hong Chuan Sports 14Jan2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6832,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260114/vernacular-Joan Pereira Sports 14Jan2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira Sports 14Jan2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6833,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Tin Pei Ling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260114/vernacular-Tin Peiling LO Motion 14Jan2026-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Tin Peiling LO Motion 14Jan2026-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":6834,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20260114/vernacular-14 Jan 2026 - Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Motion on LO.pdf","fileName":"14 Jan 2026 - Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi - Motion on LO.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}